# Re: The new rules



## Furthlingam (Jul 23, 2008)

Mindful of the fact that _nobody here aside from moderators and site owner have opinions of_ *direct consequence,* seeing as the rules have recently been updated, I wanted to offer my _not-directly-consequential_ views re: them and good forum rules generally. 

(The following may be a tl;dr post for many. I plan to offer concrete suggestions at the end, though. Again, my suggestions are only made for what they're worth. Obviously I don't have to take responsibility for what goes on on FAF, and _I don't presume to have any authority in the matter_.)

(EDIT: ) *Synopsis of philosophy: Fewer, more precise rules for greater user confidence, less mod headache. *

While "common sense" is usually a good guide and is always a necessary *part *of how everyone governs their own conduct, OTOH as my dad used to say, "Common sense is what says the world is flat." (He also used to quote Paul Simon a lot, e.g., "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor.")

Folks sometimes write rules that sound good on paper, without realizing what a headache they will be to apply. That's not to say that moderation can ever be completely hassle-free. The ideal is to get the most benefit to a civil, coherent community out of whatever hassle you DO plan to get involved in.

For example, I think that standards that require mind-reading are probably going to create a lot of hassle. Take "malicious behavior." If moderators were deities, "malicious behavior" would almost perfectly define what they should strike down in their omniscient omnipotence.

But users will read a rule and try and see how it applies to themselves. It's not hard to imagine a user saying "Hmm... am I trying to be malicious? Of course not!" and somebody else reading the resulting post and saying, "That was clearly malicious!"

Using "malicious" then, isn't a very good visible public standard, in my opinion. Neither is using "trolling," as a yardstick. Most people understand the term trolling to simply mean "being a jerk," which can be a wildly subjective matter. It seems to me, that if there're things you think make a post jerk-ish, it would be better to make _those_ things the yardstick, not an ambiguous term like trolling.

Why bother? Do moderators always know trolling when they see it? Probably they mostly do. Mostly. But what role do rules really serve?


To clarify for users what's acceptable.
To give a clear point of reference for moderator action and for disputes over moderator action legitimacy.
People really disagree over what constitutes jerk-dom. I think negatively characterizing somebody who's on hand, is the quintessential obnoxious thing you can do online. Others probably think it's more like: using swear words or posting pornography, which I consider legitimate but secondary concerns.

*One of the risks of vague rules is that they inherently attract people who want to test their bounds. *Another is that, people who have something very much *in good faith, to say, may be intimidated out of saying it, *by rules that MIGHT be overly broad. And ultimately, quality of forum discourse depends on user ability to be confident that they're contributing appropriately. *Rules are NOT just a matter of serving notice to true trolls.*

And while it's easy to say "We don't care if people dispute moderator actions, cuz what we say is final, biotch!" *moderators are human beings, not machines*, and I just don't believe it. The drama created over disputes of vague rules is bad for them, and eats up "burnout points" that are a finite and precious resource for a community that has to rely in part on good moderation.

I think there could be rules that make life easier on users and moderators alike, and result in a community that's at least as civil, without resorting to vague or uncheckable terms like "malice" and "trolling." Obviously I'm a proponent of greater precision in community forum rules generally. The biggest objection to this is: "People will always find loopholes."

My response is this: there are some things rules and moderators shouldn't try and micromanage, and where there're real loopholes, they can be patched.

A clear and minimal (limited 'laissez-faire') approach to moderation has IMO clear benefits for moderators and users alike-- *ultimately, the quality of a community cannot depend solely on its moderators. It HAS to come from a sense of civility out of its membership*.

Re: Destructive Thread Derailment vs Constructive topic drift, this is an inevitable problem of moderator action that there are few good solutions for. The only useful thing to do about this is to make forum areas clear, possibly reduce or eliminate explicitly off-topic areas (e.g., get rid of the black hole-- very logical move), and to have a laissez-faire approach to it otherwise.




The two problems with managing topic drift/thread derailment are

that legitimate, important questions sub some question may arise, which may require a lot of discussion, and
the problem of uneven enforcement
What I mean by the former is I think fairly obvious. Moderators and even other readers of a thread may not be able to really know whether certain posts are on-topic by implication without knowing the context-- which sometimes can be a many-paged thread. Which is a PITA.

There's a principle in commonsense and the law that says, for good reason: if you're not enforcing a rule, don't make exceptions to enforce it. This is because it undermines the whole sense of fairness.

If X makes some off-the-wall remark, and Y responds to it in a way that's as on-topic as it reasonably can be (Perhaps Y just says "That was completely off-topic, X!") who should take the modslap?

To my way of thinking, unless X is very consistently and swiftly dealt with, Y has *some* kind of right to respond. Y perhaps bears the blame for "feeding the troll" (a more technical use of the word "troll" that I wish everyone clearly understood), still.

But if Y and subsequent posters are punished by having a lot of relatively good faith discussion nixed, or are banned, etc, based on an error that was really X's (no matter how flip or ironic X's remark was supposed to have been), then again, the quality of the discourse in the community is affected.

Perhaps the best thing would be to explicitly harp on: "Don't make off-topic remarks! Don't RESPOND to off topic remarks!"

Finally, I'm not sure I know what spam means. I mean, I think I know what it means, but is this rule trying to say "stay on topic?" Or is it trying to say "do not advertise things for profit, here?" Or what?

I trust the rest of the rules in the new ruleset make good sense. The above are the issues I wanted to point out. My concrete suggestion re: forum rules is this:


*Do not personally attack* forum members (describe any forum member, themselves, negatively). Ideas and actions are not forum members.
*Do not threaten* any forum members directly, do not post anything, including use of obscenity and derogatory terms, that may create a threatening environment for individuals ("swearing at" a person) or members of a _nonvolutnary_ minority group (e.g., racist, sexist, anti-gay).
*Stay on topic*. Do not post off the stated/titular topic of a thread or the forum it's in. Do not respond to off-topic posts-- at most, clarify on-topic issues such posts may obscure, and report the post.
... and above, the rest of the current forum rules aside from the first three bullet points.
My motives for posting re: this are simply that I fall into the category of people whom the current rules intimidate, rather than reassuring me that I know how to conduct myself according to the expected standard.

And that's not because I have a low opinion of FAF or it's moderators. Much the contrary, all snide self-loathing side, this comm is better than most I've seen, and I've been around a few for extended periods of time. Moreover, the one moderator run-in I've had here was settled in a way that was, in the end, satisfactory to me, but I think caused undue pain. Which I don't like.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Jul 23, 2008)

I agree, rules are tricky to write and while vagueness works on small boards it does not hold up on larger ones. Even a board with only about 100 members will find some way to weasel away from vague rules if you aren't being a "Nazi" and using the old "my way or the highway" standpoint. 

The more clear, concise, and to the point rules are, the more likely they are to be followed without anyone saying "well, *I* don't think such and such was offensive, so it isn't."

You may also want to add guidelines, which are not really rules - and therefore never punished outright for not being followed - but are encouraged; such as grammar and spelling, and doing a search to find old topics on a subject before starting a new one.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 23, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> You may also want to add guidelines, which are not really rules - and therefore never punished outright for not being followed - but are encouraged; such as grammar and spelling, and doing a search to find old topics on a subject before starting a new one.


 

True. Guidelines and a Vision are also nice.

"This Comm is for people to civilly discuss the furry fandom, artwork on FA, and why leopards have spots. We'd like you to enjoy discussion here and make the best contributions you can. Grammar, spelling, and coherent ideas are all nice. We also have mandatory rules: [yadda]"

I guess "vision" and "rules" are the way I just like to divide it up. One *de*scribes an ideal. One *pre*scribes a minimum standard.


----------



## cesarin (Jul 23, 2008)

just wondering furthlingam.. are you an admin? or moderator?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 23, 2008)

Actually did it the other way around and people still want to test their boundaries. Most places don't really have extensive rules and they're bigger than this site.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Actually did it the other way around and people still want to test their boundaries. Most places don't really have extensive rules and they're bigger than this site.


 
Well, I hope that I don't come across as in favor of extensive rules. I hoped to have argued in favor of minimal, precise rules. What the FAF has currently are broad, expansive, vague rules stated briefly. 

I think vague rules create nothing but drama, and for no better reason than that someone imagines only unbounded discretion (via referencing a catch-all like "troll" or an unknowable like "malice") is the only way a mod can decisively take action-- wheras lack of a real standard that can be mutually understood is far worse.




cesarin said:


> just wondering furthlingam.. are you an admin? or moderator?


 
Pardon me, but I've never known anyone to "just" wonder something. Why do you ask?


----------



## dmfalk (Jul 24, 2008)

Well, clearly you're not an admin, simply because... well... When you were discussing rules, this being the forum for discussing the FurAffinity site itself (why it's called "Site Discussion"), I thought you meant FA's rules, themselves. Not the forum's rules- that would have been in the "Forum Discussion" forum. However, that appears to be exactly what you're discussing- FA Forum's rules.

d.m.f.


----------



## cesarin (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Pardon me, but I've never known anyone to "just" wonder something. Why do you ask?



wow, I cant just wonder!, and even worse.. I have to show why I wanted to ask?


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

dmfalk said:


> Well, clearly you're not an admin, simply because... well... When you were discussing rules, this being the forum for discussing the FurAffinity site itself (why it's called "Site Discussion"), I thought you meant FA's rules, themselves. Not the forum's rules- that would have been in the "Forum Discussion" forum. However, that appears to be exactly what you're discussing- FA Forum's rules.
> 
> d.m.f.


 
Weird. I would have thought the site covered the entire site, forum and all. Didn't notice the forum section; this should probably be moved.




cesarin said:


> wow, I cant just wonder!, and even worse.. I have to show why I wanted to ask?


 
Oh, no, you don't have to. But why are you so hesitant? Just wondering.


----------



## cesarin (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Weird. I would have thought the site covered the entire site, forum and all. Didn't notice the forum section; this should probably be moved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok Im confused, why you say Im hesitant when Im asking you if you were a moderator or an admin?


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

cesarin said:


> ok Im confused, why you say Im hesitant when Im asking you if you were a moderator or an admin?


 
Because you're hesitating to say why you're asking?


----------



## Eevee (Jul 24, 2008)

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/forum-rules/forum-rules.php


----------



## cesarin (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Because you're hesitating to say why you're asking?



I now wonder if you're trying to troll me and avoiding the question that was placed first..


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

Eevee said:


> http://www.somethingawful.com/d/forum-rules/forum-rules.php


 

Ouch. What a miasma of awful vagueness. Is that their effort to live up to their topic matter?

EDIT: Though, they do have some points worth mentioning there, e.g., low-content and "worthless" posts, which aren't the most obvious application of "off topic."


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

cesarin said:


> I now wonder if you're trying to troll me and avoiding the question that was placed first..


 
This is why I generally don't use terms like trolling; I'm not sure what would make you think that. Would you say asking a completely irrelevant question, or asking a question for no apparent reason, is "trolling?"

What about asking it when the answer to it is plain in the 2nd para. of the original post?


----------



## Firehazard (Jul 24, 2008)

OH FOR CRIPES SAKE PEOPLE.

Furthlingham: Cesarin asked you a simple question; just freakin' answer it already.

Cesarin: Unless my sarcasm meter is seriously borked, Furthlingham suspects your question was meant in a "Because if you're not, STFU" way.  Just freakin' tell him it wasn't and we can get on with our lives.  Unless it was.  In which case fess up and we can move on with our lives, albeit with a little more tension between the two of you BUT LESS THAN IF YOU KEEP EVADING EACH OTHER'S QUESTIONS LIKE THIS.

*facepalm* In a thread about maintaining civility on the forums, no less.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 24, 2008)

Topic seems to have lost its point now.


----------



## Eevee (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Ouch. What a miasma of awful vagueness. Is that their effort to live up to their topic matter?
> 
> EDIT: Though, they do have some points worth mentioning there, e.g., low-content and "worthless" posts, which aren't the most obvious application of "off topic."


And yet they work, and they work well.  On the twelfth-biggest forums in the world, no less -- ones that are massively more interesting and contentful than these, even taken proportionally.

I despise long nitpicky lists of legalese rules.  They are always written by people with no clue what they're doing, so they're little more than a list of examples off the top of the author's head with dashes of big fancy-sounding words thrown in.  They're full of loopholes, so the administration is forced to retroactively amend them on the fly, making them no better than vague guidelines in the first place -- except that vague guidelines don't get increasingly hard to read for each new user.

If you desperately need an extremely strong clear boundary line, you are probably too close to it.


----------



## cesarin (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> This is why I generally don't use terms like trolling; I'm not sure what would make you think that. Would you say asking a completely irrelevant question, or asking a question for no apparent reason, is "trolling?"
> 
> What about asking it when the answer to it is plain in the 2nd para. of the original post?



nice try to cover yourself, you edited the post
lol


_"last edited by"_


----------



## cesarin (Jul 24, 2008)

Firehazard said:


> OH FOR CRIPES SAKE PEOPLE.
> 
> Furthlingham: Cesarin asked you a simple question; just freakin' answer it already.
> 
> ...



I was wondering why the hell he refused to reply to my question.
there as been many people "recomending" or try to "modify " the rules to appeal their choices personal choices.. FA is too big to accept such kind of "rules"
also, considering the way he kept answering and dodging my question, made me wonder if he actually was just trying to troll the forum.
but ohh well, let's see what happens.


*edit*
sorry for posting 2 posts in a row, but dont know why the "editing" just doesnt seem to work for Firefox3 ( it just freezes with the loading animated gif after you press SAVE )


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 24, 2008)

Well, if you want to go extreme on the 'over-describing' the rules, this is the worst I've seen.

http://forums.xgenstudios.com/showthread.php?t=125435


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 24, 2008)

cesarin said:


> nice try to cover yourself, you edited the post
> lol
> 
> 
> _"last edited by"_



If you're referring to http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=513654&postcount=14

This has an edited by, and I compared versions, the second version notes he added an edit...ie "EDIT" There are only two revisions to the post, and the sentence starting with "EDIT" was the only revision.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

cesarin said:


> nice try to cover yourself, you edited the post


The second para. of the OP hasn't been edited. I edited to add the synopsis-of-philosophy. I imagine you withdraw the question since the answer was there all along. But... why did you ask?



> And yet they work, and they work well. On the twelfth-biggest forums in the world, no less -- ones that are massively more interesting and contentful than these, even taken proportionally.


 
Eeesh. Content proportional to active members? Really?

If so I guess I would take that as evidence that rules don't matter at all. I just don't see how a set of rules that don't say anything coherent is better than saying: "_Guess how we want you to behave, and get modsmacked when you guess wrong._"

Honestly. I wasn't trying to be a prick. But I seriously wouldn't even think about joining a forum with rules like that. I'd rather be involved in a freeforall or a lockdown-by-schoolmarms environment.



> I despise long nitpicky lists of legalese rules. They are always written by people with no clue what they're doing, so they're little more than a list of examples off the top of the author's head with dashes of big fancy-sounding words thrown in.


 
Couldn't agree more, which is why I advocate and write[1] short, precise rules in commonsense english, as you can see.



> They're full of loopholes, so the administration is forced to retroactively amend them on the fly, making them no better than vague guidelines in the first place -- except that vague guidelines don't get increasingly hard to read for each new user.


 
Well, they'd still have something over wholly vague guidelines. Here we get at part of my point, maybe I wasn't real clear: write a few clear rules and establish that you will not try and micro-manage content, and no amendments ever need be made. Precise and minimal.



> If you desperately need an extremely strong clear boundary line, you are probably too close to it.


 
I don't need it; I hold myself to fairly precise standards of civility that generally speaking exceed forums I've participated in (I admit: sometimes I'm seduced my the teen angstiness of dropping the f-bomb more often in some places than others. That's my own tacky little problem.)

But there really ARE strong, clear, commonsense bounds between good and bad conduct online. And terms like "troll" and "flame" are just bad ways to describe them.

Expecting people to be mind-readers when there're huge, legitimate differences of opinion over words that vague is silly. Clear, minimal rules tame borderline trolls and cultivate shy posters into valuable contributors. Vague rules scare off the timid and lead to confrontations with the obnoxious.

[1] Maybe falls short of ideal in this case. It was a draft.

Anyway. *I'm getting the impression I'm generally not agreed with. I'll just console myself with the supposition that I was too boring to read (it happens)-- I'm sure I've pretty thoroughly explained my thoughts.*


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 24, 2008)

Makes me glad Furthlingam is not staff...


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

Firehazard said:


> OH FOR CRIPES SAKE PEOPLE.
> 
> Furthlingham: Cesarin asked you a simple question; just freakin' answer it already.
> ...
> *facepalm* In a thread about maintaining civility on the forums, no less.


 
Well, more good examples of people having honest disagreements about civility anyway. I didn't think I was *that* bad. I wasn't getting a vibe that I'd hurt anybody's feelings. >_< Sorry if yer bugged, but the answer's not only obvious, but is in my first post. :: shrug ::


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 24, 2008)

Firehazard said:


> Furthlingham: Cesarin asked you a simple question; just freakin' answer it already.



One thing about Furthlingham, he NEVER actually answers any questions. He avoids them, and cleverly turns it back on the person asking.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> One thing about Furthlingham, he NEVER actually answers any questions. He avoids them, and cleverly turns it back on the person asking.


 

Here's a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. In my own perfect online forum, people would avoid making this kind of remark. Because it's not about the topic, it's about me, personally.

It's a negative description of me. Without those, Ty could go on all day about how bad the ideas I presented were (and I might disagree on some points, and see the light on others), and when we were done, it would be obvious, nobody was trying to make anybody feel bad personally about having put forward some ideas.

Instead, it's perfectly permissible for ty to disparage me personally as he's done here, in a pretty obvious attempt to just, you know, make me feel bad. I have the impression this sort of things is generally tolerated on FA, so I put up with it as a matter of course.

But in most real intarwebz discussion between average people of average self control, you get an escalating series of "no u r!" here.

Which is lame. And requires precious moderator time. And so on.

My rules would warn people off of it; talking about what a bad guy *I* am because of what I *always* do *isn't on topic*, and *is a personal attack. *


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Here's a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. In my own perfect online forum, people would avoid making this kind of remark. Because it's not about the topic, it's about me, personally.



Quite honestly, Furthlingam, I doubt anyone would join the forum, because of all the double-standards you use, and everyone would be banned eventually.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 24, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Quite honestly, Furthlingam, I doubt anyone would join the forum, because of all the double-standards you use, and everyone would be banned eventually.


 
Hm. Is this based on the standards I stated? Or are you just trash-talking my objectivity? 

At least, after all, I'm willing to give a clear standard. Do you think "*No trolling, flaming, spam*," is more or less ambiguous/vulnerable to subjective double standards, than "*No personal attacks, off-topic, threats*?"

Anyway, my own prediction of how my rules would fare under fire differs. Any set of rules chases somebody away-- different people really want different experiences. 

There're those for whom making friends, gaining cred, and therefore being able to get away with what others can't, is the whole appeal. My methods wouldn't be too popular with them. And there's an overlapping group that thinks that being able to protest having good intentions excuses everything. They might be at least temporarily frustrated too.

Worst off would be the folks that think some ideas need to be kept free from criticism-- that because we claim to have an idea, that criticism of that idea is mean, wrong, unethical, or whatever. Those folks, my rules would definitely drive away.

The others though, would adapt IMO probably even better than I adapt to this environment. *There are real differences in values among people who communicate online*, though.

You're probably the person on these forums I have the most clashes with. I've not seen you do anything I would consider ban-worthy in some ideal online community of my own. Least not yet. Among other things, when you do personally attack me, it's usually pretty mild, and I don't think you'd be incapable of learning better.

"One man's ceiling is another man's floor
(I tell ya) One man's ceiling is anoooother man's floooor."
-Paul Simon


----------



## Hippotaur2 (Jul 25, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> People really disagree over what constitutes jerk-dom.
> 
> <snips for awhile...>
> 
> ...



 (Empasis mine)
Feeple certainly do disagree about what consitutes jerk-dom. This thread is becoming a very good example of it.



TyVulpine said:


> One thing about Furthlingham, he NEVER actually answers any questions. He avoids them, and cleverly turns it back on the person asking.


 
Now how can Ty's comment above be a "personal attack"? Ty is commenting about actions - "never actually answers", "avoids", & "cleverly turns it back". So by Furthlingam's own rules it is a valid post, yet he is offended by it and considers it a personal attack.



Furthlingam said:


> Here's a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. In my own perfect online forum, people would avoid making this kind of remark. Because it's not about the topic, it's about me, personally.
> 
> It's a negative description of me.


 
True, it is a ''negative'' description of Furthlingam...but it also is Ty's opinion of his actions. So even this attempt at clear rules has already failed.

So perhaps it's best if these sorts of rules are left to those in charge because they seem to have a better handle on it than we do. Or...go make your own forum and see how it turns out. Good or bad, I'm sure it will be a learning process!


----------



## dmfalk (Jul 25, 2008)

I have been a moderator/admin of various forums over the last 17 years- I keep my rules short and simple, usually just boiling down to being civil, stay on topic, and mind the charter/stated purpose of the forum. (My enforcement is usually where I've landed in trouble with others- I tend to be strict, in the German sense- I'm of German ancestry- even though I prefer keeping to a laid-back feel, that is, anything goes as long as one doesn't hurt anyone, with preference to staying on theme/topic.

I personally think FA's forums are managed fine as it is, for now. If I have any issues, I'll take them up later.

I do agree with others, here, about Furthlingham's behaviour, but insofar as the rules, that's between him and the moderators/admins here. I have no intention or desire to become one of the mods, as I don't have the time or patience, anymore.

d.m.f.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 25, 2008)

Hippotaur2 said:


> Now how can Ty's comment above be a "personal attack"? Ty is commenting about actions - "never actually answers", "avoids", & "cleverly turns it back". So by Furthlingam's own rules it is a valid post, yet he is offended by it and considers it a personal attack.


 
Except that, as you can see, clearly: he's talking about me. Not about any specific or any finite set of my actions, but about what I do, generally.

Consider the remark: "All your ideas are stupid." I suppose you'd have it that my rule allows this kind of remark because ideas aren't people? But that's definitely not what the rule says. A remark like "All your ideas are stupid," isn't talking about any specific ideas. It's clearly talking about the person.



> So perhaps it's best if these sorts of rules are left to those in charge because they seem to have a better handle on it than we do. Or...go make your own forum and see how it turns out. Good or bad, I'm sure it will be a learning process!


 
Well, actually, I thought I'd discuss it here. If that offends the powers that be, I'm sure they can ask me to stop, or close the thread. Or even better, if they are the gurus you make them out to be, they can say something that will enlighten me-- which would be cool.

The thrust of your argument about why my rule "fails" is that you don't think it's perfect. I guess my response is, I didn't make claims to *perfect* clarity-- that kind of thing is a mirage anyway. There's always a possibility of ambiguity, and *anything could fail the test you give*. (And of course "Flaming and trolling" do rather dramatically fail that test.)

Rather, the goal is *greater *clarity, so the question isn't "Could somebody still misunderstand it?" The right question is: which is more abiguous: "Flaming, trolling, spam" or "Personal attack, threatening, off-topic?"



dmfalk said:


> I have been a moderator/admin of various forums over the last 17 years- I keep my rules short and simple, usually just boiling down to being civil, stay on topic, and mind the charter/stated purpose of the forum.


 
Minding the purpose of a forum's just a kind of staying on topic, would you agree? Perhaps as applied to starting, rather than responding, to threads? Wouldn't want to make any unecessarily long rules. 

I guess my thought is "being civil" sounds good but is still pretty ambiguous. People have real values differences that make "civil" different to different people. There are, in all seriousness, many people who regard it as uncivil to disagree over anything. You really are setting both them and the people who think civil means something more like "No personal attacks, swearing, or direct threats," up for disappointment, if you use an in-between standard without being more precise. 



> I personally think FA's forums are managed fine as it is, for now. If I have any issues, I'll take them up later.


 
Good management probably being more important than good rules, I trust nobody thinks I've expressed dissatisfaction with the management here on FA. I think I've pretty clearly said the opposite, which I hope came across.


----------



## kayko (Jul 25, 2008)

what the hell is trolling??


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 25, 2008)

kayko said:


> what the hell is trolling??


 
Literally, it's a technique used in the fishing, that attracts fish to lures that are thrown out and left dangling, dragged over an area.

Figuratively and in online use, it refers to throwing out remarks on a forum with the *intention of creating disruption,* as when people respond because they disagree, find the remark offensive, personally attacking, off-topic, or simply because they don't have any self-control in the first place.

Now, this is the interwebz. It's practically guaranteed that somebody can bring themselves to be "offended" by anything, no matter how inoccuous, and no matter how good or bad their reason for being offended is. Also, while it's sometimes obvious that somebody is posting with the intent to create controversy, it usually is not.

For example, even your question could be seen as trolling-- if we imagined that you were trying to be disruptive, or if anybody came along and was offended by the question. The same is true of my post of this thread.


----------



## Eevee (Jul 25, 2008)

kayko said:


> what the hell is trolling??


http://purplekecleon.deviantart.com/art/Eevee-fishin-81299878


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 25, 2008)

Eevee said:


> http://purplekecleon.deviantart.com/art/Eevee-fishin-81299878



Awww, cute pic :3


----------



## cesarin (Jul 27, 2008)

what I still find interesting is, you're still aboividing most questions, but reading further, its clear you're NO ADMIN and NO MODERATOR, and sort of kinda glad you arent considering your behavior.

I cant imagine what would happen when there was a hacking or something similar and you have to answer for that...
but I suppose going hiding and doing the "tralalala I dont hear all of you"


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 27, 2008)

cesarin said:


> what I still find interesting is, you're still avoiding most questions, but reading further, its clear you're NO ADMIN and NO MODERATOR, and sort of kinda glad you arent considering your behavior.
> 
> I cant imagine what would happen when there was a hacking or something similar and you have to answer for that...
> but I suppose going hiding and doing the "tralalala I dont hear all of you"



Who are you talking to?


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 27, 2008)

cesarin said:


> what I still find interesting is, you're still aboividing most questions, but reading further, its clear you're NO ADMIN and NO MODERATOR,


 
As we say on the intarwebz: lol. Reading the second paragraph of the first post, you mean?




> and sort of kinda glad you arent considering your behavior.


 
We're not really talking about my fitness as a moderator, in any way, here. Folks love to talk about me-- I figure, because I'm so sexy-- but this's off-topic. 

Feel free to open a thread if you wanna talk about my awful behavior. Except you won't, because you can't make any reasonable objections to any behavior of mine, can you?



> I cant imagine what would happen when there was a hacking or something similar and you have to answer for that...
> but I suppose going hiding and doing the "tralalala I dont hear all of you"


 
I don't understand what you're criticizing here. Obviously not my behavior. Obviously not my rules. What're you talking about?


----------



## cesarin (Jul 27, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Who are you talking to?



of Furthlingam obviously..


anyway.. furtghlingam: you keep editting your posts. its easy to just say "lol I already said it before!"


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 27, 2008)

cesarin said:


> of Furthlingam obviously..
> 
> 
> anyway.. furtghlingam: you keep editting your posts. its easy to just say "lol I already said it before!"



Yeah, he ducks questions and if you ask him to provide evidence to back up his statements, he declines, yet bashes you if don't believe him.


----------



## Damaratus (Jul 27, 2008)

Ty, Cesarin, if you're not actually going to stay on topic you're both going to get infractions.  This thread is not about Furthlingam's behavior on the forums, it's about his interpretations on how rules ought to be.  If you can't add to the topic, take it to PMs or find another thread.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

cesarin said:


> anyway.. furtghlingam: you keep editting your posts. its easy to just say "lol I already said it before!"


 
Covered that-- the info you asked about has been there from the start, unedited. 

So, seriously. Were you framing the latter half of your previous post as a criticism of my ideas re: forum rules? Do you see some kind of special loophole re: hackers my ideas create?

Did you want to argue in favor of perpetual moderator intervention, opposed to some "tralala I don't hear all of you" stance you seem to see in what I said?

I'd love to see somebody intelligent go to bat for the idea of boundless, pervasive, perpetual moderator intervention re: anything and everything that might piss off at least one droplet in the ocean of emo furries out there.

A moderator's in sort of the same dilemma a doctor dispensing antibiotics is in. "Doctor! My muscles hurt! (I got exercise today!) I think I need an antibiotic!" People don't like to be told: "You need to rest and try and get exercise more regularly." They want to be given a pill. And meanwhile, the antibiotic resistance treadmill is steadily gaining speed.

Far-flung analogies: a personal vice.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 28, 2008)

A few of my replies were labeled as trolling when they certainly were not (when does excessive cussing count when it's also a legit reply to the topic?)? Excuse me from that but everyone does it from time to time.

I made a bolded, size 5 response for the "What do you hate about America", when being  American myself, yet it was edited by Arshes Nei with the threat of moderation (red name) if I did it again. Heavy handed, perhaps.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 28, 2008)

mrchris said:


> A few of my replies were labeled as trolling when they certainly were not (when does excessive cussing count when it's also a legit reply to the topic?)? Excuse me from that but everyone does it from time to time.
> 
> I made a bolded, size 5 response for the "What do you hate about America", when being  American myself, yet it was edited by Arshes Nei with the threat of moderation (red name) if I did it again. Heavy handed, perhaps.



You were using obnoxious font sizes and excessive swearing which was highly unnecessary. Your posts were complained about. Get over it.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

mrchris said:


> A few of my replies were labeled as trolling when they certainly were not (when does excessive cussing count when it's also a legit reply to the topic?)? Excuse me from that but everyone does it from time to time.
> 
> I made a bolded, size 5 response for the "What do you hate about America", when being American myself, yet it was edited by Arshes Nei with the threat of moderation (red name) if I did it again. Heavy handed, perhaps.


 
Excessive cussing is one of those borderline, "community standards" things, sometimes-- that is, when it really doesn't create a threatening environment for anybody. In my personal ideal message board setting, I wouldn't moderate or threaten moderation re: cussing except when they're used in a threatening manner or are derogatory terms for minorities (e.g., crass racist, sexist, and anti-gay epithets). Unless of course I was setting out to create forum comm around topic matter that was inherently of interest primarily to children and/or prudes.

But I mean. The guidelines are up there, and I think they mentioned excessive swearing both then and now
[*]. Excessive swearing is at least a CLEAR rule, so I don't see how you could argue with that. 

I could be _reasonably_ happy with any set of rules that are arbitrarily bizarro ("NEVER use the words 'watercress' or 'apogee.'"), if they were clear. I mean, you know beforehand, so there's absolutely NO bitching about your own decision to either stick around and post anyway, or take your wonderful post contributions elsewhere.


[*] I thought such was always in FA's rules, but I could be wrong. It's happened to me before: I was wrong once in 1985, and again in 2002.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 28, 2008)

PG-13 rating, so means, some words like "damn" are allowed, but not the "Seven Words"...


----------



## Aurali (Jul 28, 2008)

Furthling. what we have is vagueness vs precision.

and I think I can help interpret this, using another forum's reason as an example.

One uses vague rules to trample on things we shall lable. Loopholes.

Let's define loopholes before we go on: A loophole is a way around a rule.

I'm gonna use the definition of trolling: an Attempt to cause disruption.

I'll use two examples for this: 
A user comes into a thread about PS3 lovers.. and says he don't like the PS3. (This is Trolling)

A user harasses single users (not trolling. no disruption is attempted)


Now my point. 
You can be vague. but you get interpretation issues.
Then you can be strict. and you find people looking for loopholes..

My proposal is a combination of the two (Have specific rules overshadowing the vague ones to cover certain scenarios, and to keep loopholes from forming)


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

Eli said:


> My proposal is a combination of the two (Have specific rules overshadowing the vague ones to cover certain scenarios, and to keep loopholes from forming)


 
What may not be clear is that part of my philosophy (or proposal, if you like) is that: I want gap-ier rules. The big broad rules are catching a LOT of things that at least one person, somewhere, doesn't like, true. But they don't need to catch most of that stuff. There're a few key infractions that cause 99% of the indigestion on a forum. 

To me, that's the key-- finding the few, critical problems and defining them well. Needless to say, I think I have: threats, personal attacks, and off-topic posts.

Basically, those things you call loopholes, I want to see left to people to self-govern. I'm saying: things can't get so bad no matter how much people push it, so long as personal attacks, threats, and off-topic are out.

Feel free to tell me I'm crazy wrong about that.

What you propose makes some sense-- it's the opposite side of the coin to something that I can easily imagine happening on FA:

Suppose somebody thought I had some modicum of a point saying "trolling or flaming" is a little vauge, and went ahead and put a footnote in the rules:

* In English:
Trolling means:
1. Posting controversial topics
2. Posting off-topic
3. Posting in a way that can be reasonably expected to cause massive disruption or unecessarily rude responses.
4. [some other stuff, prob'ly]

Flaming means:
1. Personally attacking someone.
2. Displaying excessive anger with a notable lack of clarity.
3. [some other stuff, prob'ly]

*However, on FAF, by "trolling or flaming" we mean only: off-topic posting and personal attacks.* Because every topic is controversial to someone, we can't imagine holding individual posters responsible for what other posters post, and some people are just angry and fuzzy-headed.

That would result in the same thing as your tandem overshadowing + specific rules.

My thing is just, like.... wouldn't it be easier to say "no personal attacks or off-topic posting?" I tried to say before, I think "off-topic" is a pretty broad definition anyway.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 28, 2008)

Bad Ty. Bad. 

and to Furthling. Yes. and No. Very vague rules lead to issues, as. Like you said everything is controversial.

Yet. By overly defining the rules, We do lead to problems as well.

I agree with the original statement. That the rules need better definition. But not to the point where there is a list of 300 rules to cover all scenarios.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 28, 2008)

Eli said:


> Bad Ty. Bad.



What? What did I do? All I did was say that fewer or more vague rules are bad, because then people can get away with more, since the violations would fall into "gray areas".


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 28, 2008)

Eli said:


> Accusations against people who don't deserve accusations is bad.



That wasn't an accusation. He himself ADMITTED he wanted fewer/"gap-ier" rules, thus creating greater "gray areas" for rules violations.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> You are crazy.


 
Hey, could you stop talking about me plz? I think you've been asked not to do that already. Thanks.



> You want to get away with as much as you want, but not have to face penalties, that's why you want "gapier rules".


 
It's not about me. Obviously a ruleset would provide the same freedoms to everyone. And enforce the same restrictions. Actually, there's a lot of personal attacks and off topic remarks that people get away with all the time aroud here, that in my opinion are counter-productive and we'd be better off without.

With my rules, instead of making remarks like "You are crazy," maybe you'd get on with discussing why you think a given sets of rules is bad a little bit faster. I'm sure you'd still make it about me, but at least the chance of hopeless derailment with remarks like "You are crazy." would be reduced.

Most people spaz out and start what's often called a "flame war," when you make gratuitous remarks about them personally, like "You are crazy."

And, yes you're also right. There're certain things I don't want to face penalties for-- because I don't think anybody should, not even you. I don't want to face penalties, for example, for expressing an idea that happens to disagree with somebody else's idea. Trolling can simply mean to hurt somebody's feelings, or to disagree, or both. When I run across somebody I know believes 2+2 = 5, and they claim to be very emotional about that belief, I should still be able to present re: 2+2=4, and why 2+2=5 is nonsensical. Under vague rules, I suspect moderators feel like they're compelled to keep anybody's feelings from being hurt by any disagreement at all-- and that's just not how a forum runs well, as notes in FAF's current rules reflect.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 28, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Hey, could you stop talking about me plz? I think you've been asked not to do that already. Thanks.


Actually, no. I was asked to stop going off-topic.





			
				Furthlingam said:
			
		

> It's not about me. Obviously a ruleset would provide the same freedoms to everyone. And enforce the same restrictions. Actually, there's a lot of personal attacks and off topic remarks that people get away with all the time aroud here, that in my opinion are counter-productive and we'd be better off without.
> 
> With my rules, instead of making remarks like "You are crazy," maybe you'd get on with discussing why you think a given sets of rules is bad a little bit faster. I'm sure you'd still make it about me, but at least the chance of hopeless derailment with remarks like "You are crazy." would be reduced.



A more "rigid" set of rules (more detailed) is better, as it explains what can/can't be said/done, and less "gray areas" for rules violations.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 28, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> Ty, Cesarin, if you're not actually going to stay on topic you're both going to get infractions.  This thread is not about Furthlingam's behavior on the forums, it's about his interpretations on how rules ought to be.  If you can't add to the topic, take it to PMs or find another thread.



Here is the post Damaratus posted, and he asks to take it to PM if we're not going to stay on-topic.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 28, 2008)

Again keep it on topic.


----------



## Houshou (Jul 28, 2008)

Has any one suggested using the 'agreed upon definition' for some terms, that in themselves leave the rule open to speculation?

_________________________________________________________________________

Example Rules:

1: No Trolling
2: No Flaming
3: Do Not Promote Malicious Content
4: Do Not Spam Threads

Example Definitions:

*Trolling = Replying to a post, in an sub-intelligent manner, designed to create hostility within the thread.
*Flaming = Directly attacking a single person within a thread. Using any means necessary to humiliate, intimidate, or otherwise demean the intended target.
*Malicious Content = Any link, image, or written post that is designed to mislead users to an outside website where they will be subjected to spy-ware, ad-ware, and/or computer viruses, and may comprehend the users own personal computer security system. This rule will also be used against users who try to promote other websites, not supported by the Forums Staff. Even if these other sites do not contain any harmful programs. *Link: leading to another thread containing supported websites.*
*Spam = Replying to a post in a manner that has no benefits to the current topic discussion. Or repeatedly posting the same reply multiple times. Just because your thread hasn't had any repliers to it in the 10 minutes it was created, does not give you the right to "Bump Up My Post" (BUMP) so that it consistently stays at the top of the thread. People will respond to your post in time. A little patience goes a long way. If you have none, we suggest that you go on a fishing trip.

Example Punishments:
1)Trolling = 2 Marks
2)Flaming = 3 Marks
3)Malicious Content = Banned
4)Spam = 1 Mark(s)

1 Mark(s) = Posting privileges removed for 30 minutes
2 Marks = Posting privileges removed for 1 hour
3 Marks = Posting privileges removed for 24 hours
4 Marks = Account banned for 3 days
5 Marks = Account banned for 1 week
6 Marks = IP Address Permanently Banned

Note: It takes 1 month of following our rules for your account to lose 1 Mark against it. And although you may lose all 'visible' marks against your account. A file will be created for administrative purposes to keep track of your past wrongs. And should a trend start to appear, depending on the severity of the trend, your account/IP Address may be banned.

_______________________________________________________________________

In my above examples. The 4 rules are stated quite simply and easy for the users to remember. So they aren't reading over or getting bored with a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo. Most users understand the terms in one form or another. But further in the post, you have defined those terms, and therefore have something to fall on, if they try to wriggle their way out of the punishment because of its "vagueness". Furthermore, the rules also list what happens on each incident.

_Leaves 2 pennies on the floor_


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> A more "rigid" set of rules (more detailed) is better, as it explains what can/can't be said/done, and less "gray areas" for rules violations.


 
If your ideal is rigid/detailed with explanations, then already you agree by half with me, on principles.

The question's then: do you want a looooooong list?

I don't. Eli, most recently, and several others including some of the folks here who obviously do and/or claim to have experience modding, also sound like they don't want a very long list of rules.

I guess my take on it is: if you have to use that many rules to describe what's wrong with certain behavior, you're probably just not explaining yourself very well.

Rules of the "Don't" variety, by nature, exclude. If you wanted to be certain to exclude all bad behavior, you could write a rule "Don't post ANYTHING." The reason you don't do that is that a forum doesn't thrive because of what's NOT posted. It thrives because of what people do post. The broader your exclusions, the more risk of excluding good, valuable posts that make a community great.

The other extreme would of course be "It's OK to post ANYTHING." And nobody wants that, because there're some kinds of posts that drive people away. The only real option is to hone and perfect your definition of what kinds of posts are actually bad.

While honing those definitions, people will still tend to lean one way or the other: "Don't Post Anything," or "Anything Goes." The majority of people in my opinion lean toward the "Don't Post Anything" approach, and quite strongly.

I mean, it's a natural reaction: People aren't posting right, so, crack down on all posting! The problem isn't even so much that indivudal moderator judgement is usually bad about making choices about cracking down (e.g., the recent deletions of posts to the "I can't believe it's going to be another 10 days for the server" thread, including yours and mine, on the absurd tangent about "OMG.") 

But cracking down is more or less effective based on how clearly people understand why something's being cracked down on, and whether they knew it was a bad idea in the first place, and whether having to do the cracking down and get into disputs with people over the cracking down (or just listen to posters bitching about how all the mods are sooo unfair) burns out the people doing the cracking down.

*The struggle to cover all grey areas at any cost, is *a *futile* struggle. It's a waste of energy, and even counter-productive, as it can have a chilling effect. As I said before, past SOME point, the quality of a community's posts HAS to depend on the character of the posters.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 28, 2008)

Yeah. It's all in interpretation of the rules. 
We got an example in this thread really..

my post was deleted for thread derailment (which I'm not disagreeing with)

yet

http://forums.furaffinity.net/member.php?u=3470
half that post (arshes has reprimanded me on partly offtopic posts as well >.>)
http://forums.furaffinity.net/member.php?u=3470
and that post are something I would consider going off topic as well.

We are left with human error. PEople have different opinions of what is right and what is not. people have different interpretations of the rules. and misunderstandings do occur..

And then. I'm sort of afraid to post this post as I can see someone taking it as Furthlingham's definition of trolling. which also points up to my previous statement


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

Houshou said:


> *Trolling = Replying to a post, in an sub-intelligent manner, designed to create hostility within the thread.


This requires a moderator to judge intent and intelligence. Moderators are selected for, and have, good judgement, but this makes their judgement bear the ENTIRE load.

I make dumb responses to posts sometimes-- forget what I'm doing, whatever. Punish me for trolling when I'm occasionally stupid, and you're either picking on me or punishing a LOT of people on FAF.

I think trolling's best definition is: an off-topic post that ultimately creates strife. Even that definition requires a poster to predict the future, though. Why not just nip the whole thing in the bud and say: "Posting off-topic," without using "Troll" at all.



> *Flaming = Directly attacking a single person within a thread. Using any means necessary to humiliate, intimidate, or otherwise demean the intended target.


 
I agree with a useful definition of flaming being: "Directly attacking (negatively characterizing) a specific person."

Humiliate, intimidate, demean, etc, though, bring all sorts of other things back in. Some people are humiliated to discover, for example, that not everybody agrees with them that the Eurythmics are the BEST BAND EVAR. I think you just introduce ambiguity saying some of that stuff.

Why not nip it in the bud and just say something like "Don't personally attack," or "Don't negatively characterize specific persons," or "The difference between legitimate discussion and personal attack lies in whether what's being discussed is the person (in general) or behaviors, ideas, etc."

Again, that leaves the possibility that if Ty doesn't like the purported fact that I never give direct answers to questions, he could quote me back from dozens of threads giving evasive answers. (commonly called a "quotewar") A lot of people even think that's mean (my prejudice is: they think it's mean particularly if they don't want to be responsible for what they say). But if the conversation is materially concerned with whether I'm really evading a question, IMO it's fair to bring up my previous behavior. (Note, Ty was wrong to suggest that I avoid meaningful questions, but this is a good example.)



> *Malicious Content =


 
Actually, this one probably does require a fairly long explanation. I can't think of any good way to shorten the list of all the obnoxious things you could do that are problems because they subject users to content not controlled from this site, because they may expose users to virus hazards, things that are illegal, etc. What you're getting at here requires longish explanation.



> *Spam = Replying to a post in a manner that has no benefits to the current topic discussion. Or repeatedly posting the same reply multiple times. Just because your thread hasn't had any repliers to it in the 10 minutes it was created, does not give you the right to "Bump Up My Post" (BUMP) so that it consistently stays at the top of the thread. People will respond to your post in time. A little patience goes a long way. If you have none, we suggest that you go on a fishing trip.


 
I see this as all related to being off-topic. Maybe there's a better term to use, but content-free posts are obviously off-topic, and bumps don't add anything that's on the topic, either. 

Maybe included under the long list of malicious content should be "gaming the forum," e.g., bumping threads, posting items that extend the forum horizontally or vertically in a way that's a PITA, and all that kind of thing, and leave the rest to "Don't post off topic."


----------



## Houshou (Jul 28, 2008)

Furtherling,
I agree that there has to be some way for two people of opposite opinions to 'debate' or otherwise discuss the topic. And from what I gather, in lamen's terms of what you're saying is that, some people just need to toughen up. There is always someone out there who has an opinion that is going to offend you, and even make you emotionally upset. But just because their opinion about something offends you, they should not be punished for it.
Thus you are voting for 'gap-ier' rules to allow for discussion of those topics from both sides of the topic, without causing someone within the thread any worry on whether or not their post is going to get them in trouble.

But on the other hand, you also would like the nonsensical posts pertaining to the threads topic of discussion dealt with. Even though sometimes these "off-topic" comments can spark an interesting discussion which may go on for several posts/pages.

What is your suggestion for combining such a "gray-area", while yet enforcing a Black & White standard? I've read over your first post ans several posts since, but I have yet to see an idea on how to combine these 3 extremes.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

Houshou said:


> Thus you are voting for 'gap-ier' rules to allow for discussion of those topics from both sides of the topic, without causing someone within the thread any worry on whether or not their post is going to get them in trouble.
> 
> But on the other hand, you also would like the nonsensical posts [not?]pertaining to the threads topic of discussion dealt with. Even though sometimes these "off-topic" comments can spark an interesting discussion which may go on for several posts/pages.
> 
> What is your suggestion for combining such a "gray-area", while yet enforcing a Black & White standard? I've read over your first post ans several posts since, but I have yet to see an idea on how to combine these 3 extremes.


 

Topic drift's the trickiest of questions, at least in my world. There're some things that are pretty clear to me: responses to the actual content of a post that's on-topic, are by definition, on-topic.

When, in some fairly flaky (but not illegitimate-- sometimes flaky conversation is among the best conversation) conversations, when somebody posts about a particular thing, and you respond with something like: "That reminds me of the time when I... [something almost totally off-topic]," obviously a strict "No Off-Topic" rule would crush what might be an interesting conversation.

I guess my thinking is: some threads are already so vague in topic (like, stories about your own life, to which people respond "that reminds me of the time when I...") that far fewer responses are really off-topic in them.

IMO, threads like "Things you haet!" or forums like "Things you Hate!" or "Anything goes!" (e.g., Black Hole, Rants & Raves) are themselves trolling-- that is, they're meaningless topic areas or threads areas because they solicit meaningless threads or posts.

Which is not to say there isn't a reason for something like that. You could always create an "Adult Swim" area, and say "Posts belong in this area if they might otherwise belong in some legitimate on-topic area of the forum, but in the opinion of the poster, require epic swearing or graphic discussion of adult matters. All other rules still apply."

Another partial solution to topic drift is moderator forced thread splits-- which I've seen done on some forums, and seems like a good, harmless idea to me. You know, assuming the new topic area is genuinely distinct and has some merit. (Ty quizzing me about my usage of "OMG" for example would not worth bothering to split.)

So, I guess my answer is: 1) tolerate the fact that some threads are broadly defined, and 2) enforce on-topic in other areas with thread-splitting and possibly an "Adult Only" area. (Adult only areas are flaky, though, IMO.) With a liberal dose of: 3) don't enforce rules to cover grey areas. Posters have to be responsible for SOMEthing.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 28, 2008)

Well in reply to your topic drift. There are times people will drift to tangents, but in the case where the person was panicking over not reading about the entire situation with the Sun server in which prompted a nitpick over the use of God, that became more of an agenda ridden conversation to pick on you, Furthlingam. I think it's one thing to drift about server discussions and how they work or small off topic replies about "trolls" but it was another to use it to bring back another debate that belonged elsewhere.

And yes, I've split and merged posts before on this very forum. Sometimes however, it's become a train wreck by the time we can come back to a particular thread and by then any action would upset someone.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 28, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well in reply to your topic drift. There are times people will drift to tangents, but in the case where the person was panicking over not reading about the entire situation with the Sun server in which prompted a nitpick over the use of God, that became more of an agenda ridden conversation to pick on you, Furthlingam. I think it's one thing to drift about server discussions and how they work or small off topic replies about "trolls" but it was another to use it to bring back another debate that belonged elsewhere.
> 
> And yes, I've split and merged posts before on this very forum. Sometimes however, it's become a train wreck by the time we can come back to a particular thread and by then any action would upset someone.


 
Yeah, I don't have any idea how hard or easy it is to manually pick over a thread to split it in twain-- but I can't imagine that it's real easy. Hey. Even I think moderators should step in at some point and say: "You retards have made a complete train-wreck of this thread. I'm splitting it. Suffer." I mean, except again that it's a PITA.

The essential problem with Ty and my conversation about "OMG" was it was off-topic. I'm happy to have you delete posts of my own of that sort-- in an ideal world, I wouldn't make that kind of post at all. I don't like to think you have to comb over every damn thread Ty or I post in, of course. Whatta waste of time.

I guess my solution to that would be: beat people over the head with "Don't post off topic, don't respond to posts that're off-topic!" In my defense: I try to be minimalist and humorous in defending myself from public haranguement like that, rather than creating a situation where I'd have to spend all day PMing a mod re: somebody's latest remark about me, personally.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 28, 2008)

One thing my boss reminded me when we were in meetings. We were given a set of guidelines to follow and we'd often look for ways to get around them when a problem arose...people looking for holes to avoid blame. It wasn't until there were actual repercussions for our actions, such as being written up, did we actually rethink our actions and stop looking for loopholes. If things looked questionable, we'd ask our supervisor instead of looking for an out. We'd actually *think* about our actions because of consequences. The workplace is actually rather lax, and things I don't think you'd be able to get away with elsewhere.

I thought I'd drop it in as how I see the forum, a lot of people were able to look for loopholes, get upset over grey areas, or lack of them, but when there were actual consequences coming down, now do people actually think of what they post. Unfortunately it won't make me "friends" with a lot of users because I've come down and punished users that I actually don't mind like Takumi, Azure Snowmizer for the excessive use of ugly fonts etc...


----------



## tesfox (Jul 28, 2008)

Umm... I'm going to sound terribly awkward and stupid, but _where exactly_ are the new rules?  I've been pouring over the site to try to find them and have been thusfar fruitless and would love to add to the discussion.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jul 29, 2008)

tesfox said:


> Umm... I'm going to sound terribly awkward and stupid, but _where exactly_ are the new rules?  I've been pouring over the site to try to find them and have been thusfar fruitless and would love to add to the discussion.



This. I've been wondering this since this thread started, just never asked.


----------



## Houshou (Jul 29, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> This requires a moderator to judge intent and intelligence. Moderators are selected for, and have, good judgement, but this makes their judgement bear the ENTIRE load.
> 
> I make dumb responses to posts sometimes-- forget what I'm doing, whatever. Punish me for trolling when I'm occasionally stupid, and you're either picking on me or punishing a LOT of people on FAF.
> 
> I think trolling's best definition is: *an off-topic post that ultimately creates strife.* Even that definition requires a poster to predict the future, though. Why not just nip the whole thing in the bud and say: "Posting off-topic," without using "Troll" at all.



Because I believe that some "Off-Topic" replies can lead to other interesting topics of discussion. That's why I included as part of that definition for 'Trolling' - _designed to create hostility within the thread_.

Using your own example of being in a thread for PS3 lovers, and someone blatantly replies to the thread, PS3 can suck a (insert your choice of words). That in itself wa a reply designed to create hostility and disrupt the discussions going on between users who enjoy and love the PS3. You even agree with me on this, somewhat (bold-text above in your quote).



			
				Trolling Definitions said:
			
		

> *Houshou:* Replying to a post, in an sub-intelligent manner, designed to create hostility within the thread.
> *Furthlingam:* an off-topic post that ultimately creates strife.



Personally, looking at your definition side-by-side to mine on Trolling. I think my definition is the better choice. Based on the fact that yours says that it has to be "Off-Topic". I don't know why, but that in itself just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Whereas I've simplified by stating that its "Replying to a post". Yes, this would require judgment on a Mod's half to decide whether or not it should be considered a Trolling Post. They merely need to "feel" the thread before and after that post, and see if the poster who made that post has replied in the same manner further down the thread.
But usually the users who frequently post inside the thread would recognize a trolling thread. This is where, the users can help the mods by identifying these threads and 'Report The Post' to a Mod over that Forums directory. This way every user can enjoy the forums, and the mods can go straight to the problems reported by the users. But I'm not saying the Mods can't or shouldn't lurk through threads to find Trolls on their own.



Furthlingam said:


> I agree with a useful definition of flaming being: "Directly attacking (negatively characterizing) a specific person."
> 
> Humiliate, intimidate, demean, etc, though, bring all sorts of other things back in. Some people are humiliated to discover, for example, that not everybody agrees with them that the Eurythmics are the BEST BAND EVAR. I think you just introduce ambiguity saying some of that stuff...



The problem with your example on humiliation that I see, I'm not saying your example is wrong. Is that its taken out of context with the rest of the terms used in the definition.



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> *DEMEAN*
> â€“verb (used with object)
> to lower in dignity, honor, or standing; debase:
> _He demeaned himself by accepting the bribe._
> ...



When you put the terms I used in context with each other, they work very well. Separately they may mean different things to some people, but together they guide people to the same conclusion of the correct definition being used for that term.




Furthlingam said:


> Actually, this one probably does require a fairly long explanation. I can't think of any good way to shorten the list of all the obnoxious things you could do that are problems because they subject users to content not controlled from this site, because they may expose users to virus hazards, things that are illegal, etc. What you're getting at here requires longish explanation.



I agree, Malicious Content is a very broad term and requires a very lengthy description. One that will cover all bases of this broad term, and restrict it very harshly all at the same time.



Furthlingam said:


> I see this as all related to being off-topic. Maybe there's a better term to use, but content-free posts are obviously off-topic, and bumps don't add anything that's on the topic, either.
> 
> Maybe included under the long list of malicious content should be "gaming the forum," e.g., bumping threads, posting items that extend the forum horizontally or vertically in a way that's a PITA, and all that kind of thing, and leave the rest to "Don't post off topic."



I agree that extending a threads width/height should probably be considered as part of Malicious Content. But bumping a thread, shouldn't. You're not really being malicious when you do that. The intent is that you're trying to get your thread noticed and get replies to your topic of discussion. Bumping your thread every 5 minutes would be defined as Spamming. Its needless and no one will truly take your thread seriously. However, if the directory in which you made your post is more active than other directories, and you've received no replies, one Bump every 24 hours, isn't that ridiculous now is it?

I gotta go to work, TTFN


----------



## QT Melon (Jul 29, 2008)

TakeWalker said:


> This. I've been wondering this since this thread started, just never asked.



They are an announcement that is on every forum.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jul 29, 2008)

QT Melon said:


> They are an announcement that is on every forum.



Oh, that. I don't see what the big deal is. Freakin' rules laywers.


----------



## Houshou (Jul 29, 2008)

Furtherling, 

Quick question.
Which of the 'new' rules do you seem to have a problem with?

I enjoy the discussion we have going on about rules, but what exactly spurred your initial post? Just, curious...


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 29, 2008)

Houshou said:


> Which of the 'new' rules do you seem to have a problem with?
> 
> I enjoy the discussion we have going on about rules, but what exactly spurred your initial post? Just, curious...


 
Use of the terms "flame" "troll" and "spam," definitionally. Contrary to popular belief, it's at least as much to do with me disliking misbehavior (that some would casually call trolling and flaming) that leads me to raise the question, as it is the desire to make sure either I know how to conduct myself, or can make an informed decision about whether I want to post here. More momentarily.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 29, 2008)

> We were given a set of guidelines to follow and we'd often look for ways to get around them when a problem arose...people looking for holes to avoid blame. It wasn't until there were actual repercussions for our actions, such as being written up, did we actually rethink our actions and stop looking for loopholes. If things looked questionable, we'd ask our supervisor instead of looking for an out. We'd actually *think* about our actions because of consequences.


 
Repercussions for "looking for loopholes?" Or repercussions for actually breaking rules? I'm sure I agree real repercussions in any system like this are necessary.

In fact, that's one of the things I like most about FAF -- that post deletions and bans are visible, including the reason for it. PUBLIC punishment is an extremely valuable tool for making expectations clear, and making sure everybody trusts that moderation is fair. And a lot of forums don't get that.

On the other hand, I think "ask if it's questionable" has real drawbacks. In the first place, many will choose to just not post-- and that itself is a real drawback. And if everybody DID do it, I think it would bog a lot of conversations down and burn a lot of precious moderator attention. Either way, the chilling effect of vague rules and punishment unless one asks first is one of the hidden costs of "ask if questionable." (Your remarks are certainly true about a work environment, but I would suggest there's a real difference between work, where positive contribution is a baseline requirement, and a forum.) 

In the second, it's very fair and normal to assume rules have clearly expressed whatever's expected. Like it or not, and regardless of whether you call it loophole-finding or rules-lawyering, when somebody goes to the trouble to read what the forum admin has written about expected behavior, and then conforms to it, but is punished anyway, they have a right to be pissed off.

I *am* in that situation, BTW. I'd like it if folks would leave off pretending a good-faith poster would have no trouble understanding the current rules. Troll, flame, and spam, are hopelessly vague, and I do not at all trust that I have the right to honestly, civilly disagree with people, because often, accurately, definitely, "troll" and "flame" can describe honest, civil disagreements.

I'm the one in zillion posters who is boring and willful enough to try and methodically, constructively address this problem, but I'm not the only one with a problem with vague rules.

Finally, 80% of all strife on forums comes from the 20% of people who refuse, or would refuse, to follow even a simple, minimal ruleset like "No personal attacks, threats, or off-topic posts." If just these 20% were consistently being whack-a-moled into submission, so much grief would be eliminated and so much user confidence gained, that the other 20% of the strife would be very visible, look very bad, and get steadily winnowed out by peer pressure and an increasing consciousness of how-not-to-feed-trolls.



> I thought I'd drop it in as how I see the forum, a lot of people were able to look for loopholes, get upset over gray areas, or lack of them, but when there were actual consequences coming down, now do people actually think of what they post. Unfortunately it won't make me "friends" with a lot of users because I've come down and punished users that I actually don't mind like Takumi, Azure Snowmizer for the excessive use of ugly fonts etc...


 
Frankly, if people dislike you personally for trying to make the community better, *they're nuts*.

I guess my thing is, if there're grew areas, they're still not all gray. Give people discretion in the gray areas, focus on the black. If you can't make the assumption "If I cover black, the people will manage the gray," then your alternative is to try and cover everything but the shiniest white. Is that even possible? Besides-- dark can be beautiful. (You 'member that one Star Trek episode where Kirk is split into Good and Evil Kirk?  )


I agree, consequences = great. Game play theory has shown time and again that in a cooperative environment, reaction to misbehavior is the key, and the three essentials are: 

*Be clear* (about the behavior/punishment),
*be immediate* (don't wait around to punish), and
*be proportionate* (try to make the punishment roughly as painful as the misbehavior.)



Houshou said:


> I think my definition is the better choice. Based on the fact that yours says that it has to be "Off-Topic". I don't know why, but that in itself just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Whereas I've simplified by stating that its "Replying to a post". Yes, this would require judgment on a Mod's half to decide whether or not it should be considered a Trolling Post. They merely need to "feel" the thread before and after that post, and see if the poster who made that post has replied in the same manner further down the thread.
> 
> But usually the users who frequently post inside the thread would recognize a trolling thread. This is where, the users can help the mods by identifying these threads and 'Report The Post' to a Mod over that Forums directory. This way every user can enjoy the forums, and the mods can go straight to the problems reported by the users.


 
For starters: you've almost certainly defined "trolling" better than I have. But my goal was never to define trolling, but to find a clearer way to express what kinds of posts moderators and users don't want. It's been my point that "troll" is NOT a useful measure of whether a post is bad. With that in mind:

I'm not sure I follow your "sore thumb" criticism of off-topic as a criterion for what's bad about a post. The thing about "off-topic" is that it can to a great degree be objectively judged.

Compare your criteria: "sub-intelligent" and "designed to create hostility." I reject the idea that rules ought to try and manage the intelligence of posts or posters. Frankly that's both mean and unrealistic. 

Meanwhile, as I said, "designed to create hostility" is a pretty subjective standard. Strictly speaking, it would be impossible to judge posts by intent, since the only person who knows a poster's intent is the poster. I agree in some cases with some posts, you can certainly tell that somebody's intent was to create hostility. But that just doesn't work for MOST posts.



> The problem with your example on humiliation that I see, ... _s that its taken out of context with the rest of the terms used in the definition._


_

If you use the word "flame" to write a rule, including with a definition like yours: "Directly attacking a single person within a thread. sing any means necessary to humiliate, intimidate, or otherwise demean the intended target," you will create a lot of ambiguity.* If* *your rule was that this kind of flaming was forbidden,* *I would seriously question whether disagreement was allowed in any way.* SOME people find ANY disagreement humiliating and would even say they're being directly attacked by stated differences in taste.




			When you put the terms I used in context with each other, they work very well. Separately they may mean different things to some people, but together they guide people to the same conclusion of the correct definition being used for that term.
		
Click to expand...

 
I disagree. Those terms are not at all mutually narrowed by being used together. Much the contrary, they become so broad that I read your rule and have serious doubts it I dare post anything at all, for fear that somebody might "feel" that my post caused them to lose dignity, honor, pride, standing, or confidence. Inevitably, somebody's going to "feel" demeaned if I say: "Have a nice day!" to them.

Rules that focus on subjective feelings of individual users, about posts, are bad rules. Because such things are wildly subjective and not reliably knowable. Much more objective and consistently knowable are: 


Is the post on the topic stated in the OP and the subject title?
Does the post contain a negative description or generalization about another poster (negative descriptions of specific ideas and behavior don't count)?
Again, you probably have a better definition of "flame" than I do. I was trying to suggest that "flame" isn't a very useful term, and that even the best definition of it is way too subjective.




			But bumping a thread, shouldn't. You're not really being malicious when you do that. The intent is that you're trying to get your thread noticed and get replies to your topic of discussion.
		
Click to expand...

 
I can see your point of view, and some places it's very normal, I admit. Still, I can't agree. To me, thread bumping has always seemed like a very clear abuse of the mechanics of a forum to arbitrarily gain personal attention. It's simultaneously off-topic (the post doesn't add anything new) and malicious (abuses forum functionality).



TakeWalker said:



			Oh, that. I don't see what the big deal is. Freakin' rules laywers.
		
Click to expand...

 
Uh... sorry if I've offended, TakeWalker. I don't know what to tell you. I guess in part it's something to do with careful use of language. I would have thought you could appreciate that.

That said, only anarchists think you can have a group of more than 5 people, in the long run, w/o explicit rules. (And you'll note there're no functioning anarchist societies in existence.) Rules lawyers are the people who do the boring work of trying to make the rules as fair as possible for everyone. Never have understood the animosity toward them. I can understand not liking bad rules, but disliking rules lawyers is just shooting the messenger._


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 29, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> On the other hand, I think "ask if it's questionable" has real drawbacks. In the first place, many will choose to just not post-- and that itself is a real drawback. And if everybody DID do it, I think it would bog a lot of conversations down and burn a lot of precious moderator attention. Either way, the chilling effect of vague rules and punishment unless one asks first is one of the hidden costs of "ask if questionable." (Your remarks are certainly true about a work environment, but I would suggest there's a real difference between work, where positive contribution is a baseline requirement, and a forum.)



I disagree. I know people here are going to disagree, but I think asking another person about whether to post something would be a good idea. Getting another viewpoint never hurts, and you may see something you wouldn't have otherwise.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 29, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I disagree. I know people here are going to disagree, but I think asking another person about whether to post something would be a good idea. Getting another viewpoint never hurts, and you may see something you wouldn't have otherwise.


 

So, if another viewpoint never hurts, do you think it would be a good idea to keep the cops on speed-dial and run your daily activities past them as you do them? 

"Oh, hai, yeah. Officer? Officer, I just started to cross the street at a busy intersection, and had a signal to walk, but now it's turned to 'Don't Walk,' so should I stay... WaAHOlfff.... ~click~"


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 29, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> So, if another viewpoint never hurts, do you think it would be a good idea to keep the cops on speed-dial and run your daily activities past them as you do them?
> 
> "Oh, hai, yeah. Officer? Officer, I just started to cross the street at a busy intersection, and had a signal to walk, but now it's turned to 'Don't Walk,' so should I stay... WaAHOlfff.... ~click~"



That was totally unnecessary, Furthlingam. You KNOW what I mean, so quit being a smartass.


----------



## Damaratus (Jul 29, 2008)

Furthlingam, that wasn't really called for.  Ty, you've been warned before about that kind of behavior.  Thread locked.


----------

