Redwall: Warlords

 In Kilkenne's "RWL NEWS UPDATE", he makes a valid and interesting point. If forum members don't want to follow our rules, why don't you make them up? Perhaps this will strengthen the community.

What are your views on gagging, leaving, complaining, etc?

What should the acceptable rules be?

Put down your ideas, and maybe we can get rid some things and make some ammendments.

(Note that you may still not use profanity to show what is and what is not acceptable. Until new rules are created (if ever), we will continue to enforce the current rules with the iron fist of wrath).

 Boze, I find it quite unsettling and very disturbing that your avatar keeps changing. ;)

As for the rules, I have no problems there. I've never complained about the admins. Except I miss Stormy being one :(

 Aye... it's a nifty little PHP script. I mean... I sit here all the time and constantly change my avatar.

Back on topic...

 Let's ditch the over-zealous "Profanity" rules.  I mean, Ad was trying to ban words like "lovely" & "Dang" for a while, simply because they resembled the word "(I am so stupid it" (which is itself so far off being "profane" it's not even funny).  I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.

At the very least, people should stop talking about it being "profanity", as most of the words that are barred aren't even covered by the definition of the word "profane", which irks me.

Trying to mediate any & all disputes, getting all teary when people disagree with each other & continually posting "We're all friends here, can't we just get along?" kind've posts should stop, & leaving topics that have the "Well, not that anyone gives a flying crumpet, or anything, but I'm leaving! Not that any of your care, so I'm going..." tone to them should be deleted as a matter of course. Such blatant fishishing for compliments is just embarassing, & watching people fall for it degrades my faith in humanity.

Excessive whinging & bandying around the term "flaming" ("Well, my good man/woman/transgendered individual, I'm afraid you may be just a teensy bit in the wrong, no offence-"  "FLAAAMES!  Argh, why must you FLAME me so?  Moderators, this is a flagrant violation of some rule, if you twist it in an insane manner!"  "This arguing is getting us no-where! *Sob* Let's all just bury the hatchet & have a group hug like civilised human beings blah blah blah...") should just stop as a matter of courtesy.  I mean, God, on any other board flaming would be needless cursing of someone & making references to their mother's sexual appetite, whilst here it equates with little more than constructive criticism.  It just seems so overkill when people claim to have been "flamed" (which, remember, in the literal sense would be having a blow torch taken to you or something...) to tell someone that they're envious of another Warlord's skills, or whatever.

Basically, people should stop being so over-sensitive. Butch up.  & get it into your head that arguments needn't always be stamped out- they're perfectly healthy.  Even should they degenerate into mild insults of someone else or a disrespect of their opinion, offline this is something should have to deal with. Unless things really do get ridiculous, then let it run.  You cannot MAKE everyone like each other, get on, & if they can't say anything nice not say anything at all.  In fact, the attempts of admins & moderators to create such an atmosphere just makes a lot of people feel tense, frustrated & inwardly seething.

We shouldn't even have set rules, in my opinion.  Forum-goers should be left to their own devices, & use their own common sense & courtesy to stick to what is reasonably appropriate.  If something is patently not appropriate, then an intelligent administrator or board moderator &, indeed, fellow board members, will be able to see that it is not, & punish accordingly.

All the problems on this board, more or less, would never have arisen in the first place had not some over-zealous rule covered them in an obscure way.  That farce over Peace's "Wolf Envy" banner, for example.  How ludicrous.  I fail to see what was offensive about it, & even if one could consider it offensive, Jesus, learn to take it a little better.  I am frankly appaled that a man in his forties could be so CHILDISH over what was basically an ironic statement & a denial of the accusation that someone was envious of them as to go complaining to the Administration about it.  Had the people running the board not been so afraid of the most mild offence being cuased to anyone as a result of their own ignorance of what was being said to them & all these absurd rules been put in place, Wolf would never have complained & the whole sorry morass of bad feeling & bitterness would have been avoided.

Anyway, I see that my train of thought has derailed & rambled in random directions, & I appear to be becoming steadily less coherent, so I'll cut off now.

*Does*

 

QuoteHere is an interesting article on the use of Complex Systems to Moderate message boards:

http://ai-depot.com/Essay/Moderation-Emergence.html

I think such a system based upon a user and admin made charter would work quite well, the problem comes with how you would implement such a system (there are some examples given that I find satisfactory), and if an admin would be willing to write one or even accept it. Basically, after writing such a system, one could then filter out low rated users so that difficult problem users could be avoided until an admin/mod can take the required actions.

Another problem that would arise, would be the policing of multiple accounts. You would obviously not want someone with 26 accounts to affect someone's "karma" or "rating" in the specific fields, but multiple accounts can be fun to have for other purposes. So perhaps a one rating of a certain user PER ip address. I realize that some people share IPs and blah blah and there are proxies, but that's not really crucial, and an admin could look into such occurances.

Overall I think this would be a very effective system, if an admin is willing to implement it, I'd be glad to help with any aspect.

EDIT: A quick summary of the article for people who don't want to read it all:

Basically, every user would have a rating in specific fields, which would be the traits of a user. (EX: In our case perhaps: On Topicness, Personality (or some variant to represent how much the person flames), and Depth of Knowledge (or something akin to, do they just spam, or do they make meaningful posts)

Then users could rate another user if perhaps, they see a good/bad post made by the user. Users with a low rating may have a limited amount of posts they can make a day, until after a certain time they learn to stop spamming, and really say what they want in a long thoughtout post. Or some other form of punishment (reporting to admins for a possible gag/ban, or something). Also, the charter would include a community standard for rating, and perhaps the rater's standard (as we all have ideas about what is acceptable).

Thus filtering could be applied (such as on slashdot, and at user's choice), for users that have an average rating below a threshhold ( to be set by the user)

Though, that site is great for anyone interested in emergant systems and artificial intelligence... so I'd recommend you to just read the article and some of the affiliate's articles.

That's my post from the other locked topic, and I figure it's worth re-stating, because the topic was locked like 10 posts after that.

Also...

Here is the ToS from a fairly popular site (Gamefaqs.com)

EDIT: It's too big to post here, so here's the link:

http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/tos.asp

Perhaps something along those lines would be effective. Also, something done on GFaqs that is very useful, is the Members mark posts they find offensive, and catagorize why. The mods view these messages, and then take the appropriate action. If the user marks things that are clearly not offensive, their "marked message accuracy" goes down, and their marks will not even be viewed. I think this would be a great system alone, or with a combination of the system detailed above. I'm pretty sure there is a "report user" button built into Invision Board, so it would not be too difficult to implement.

 I agree with the profainty things Vengerak. Dang and lovely were overboard. Obviosuly there are kids who are around ages like 12 here and their parents wont like swearing. But the dar with a n isnt bad. It was made so you didnt have to say the curse word. If we are subsituting words that were made for a subsituting words, well that aint right.  

But I disagree about flame. Flaming gets you off topic, and it kills the topic. Some people will stop posting in that topic because of the flame. It just screws up the forum. You can have arguments with out "making references to their mother's sexual appetite" If people could have reasonable debates and arguments then it would make it better. I do agree that some things are taken overboard, like for instance Peace's banner, or the topic Kilk made "RWL NEWS UPDATE"

I also think Spam is meant for the spam room. Most of the generel discussion is spam. Spam like Julies or Ashyra's is fine. It stays on topic while making you laugh. And it isnt something like "yea it is" for a post. Spam needs to stop. Maybe the admins and mods should make sure some one who spams gets the warning that it isnt tolerated, instead of letting it fill the forum.

Besides that the rules are pretty good. This is a game for all ages, so you must have a few rules for the older people so that the younger people's parents dont take away the computer from them. Arguments happen, you CAN NOT ignore them and get ride of them. Not all the forum goers agree with each other. But there is a line between an argument and flaming.  

 All valid points... but the fact of the matter is that if you give someone something, they are going to take a little more.
A good example would be me.... with tardies to homeroom. I thought "Bah, 7:30. It doesn't matter if I'm there at 7:31." "7:31... I can leave the house five minutes later, get in the extra sleep.... hit the lights just right... I'll be there by 7:32." Well, obviously, this simply continued until I almost got suspended. And then I realized that they do have to be strict in their enforcement. Otherwise, I'm going to take just a little bit more. Part of being a mature adult is realizing, accepting, and following the rules. So next time you ask "Can't we just say this demi-curse? It's not so bad!"... just think for a second.

 The only problem I have with the demi-curse rule is, if we're not allowed to list less-offensive words or meanings for certain words, how far can you take it? Suppose the banned word was Gris, and then the later demi-curse word that was banned is Grey, can I say , a color with a hexadecimal values (whatever it is for grey), and if that's not allowed, can I describe it, like "Half-way between black and white in grayscale settings," that's my only problem with that rule, it's not very specific, and thus, it causes certain debates. I have no problem following the rules, as long as I know what the rules are.

EDIT: And I better stop doing what you said you did in your post, and get off the forums so I can do my homework...

 Flaming:
I think that flaming should not be tolerated beyond a certain point. We all need to let out some steam at times, and really, who can blame us? However, there is a limit. Also, there should be no difference between stated and implied flames. Oh, and no "but everyone else is doing it, too". Maybe Retto was a bit strict with Peace, but really, I see no alternative.

Gagging:
Well, I like the gag policy. It gives a bit of a cool down period. However, gagged members should be able to start a post stating their side of the story. By the time they are ungagged, forum opinion is usually too biased against them and will remain so for a while.

Banning:
Never ban anyone. Remove all current bans. We need all the members we can get. Of course, we need to encourage good behavior, but I personally don't think permbans help.

Leaving:
There should not be a rule about this. I am personally annoyed by the recent flood of "I am leaving. Say you'll miss me." and such, but the fact is, the point of forums are free speech. As much as it is spam, it is also a right. If it annoys you, just ignore it.

Suggestions:
We need a suggestions box. This thread will soon disappear, but our rants and raves will be forever. We need a way to address our concerns as well as to potentially improve RWL as a whole.

Amendments/Voting:
To improve the "RWL Constitution" (and yes, we should call it that) there should be a system set up for official voting to amend the constitution. To pass, an amendment needs the approval of at least two admins and a certain percentage of active members. There must be a way to prevent inactive members who just "return" fo a second, multiple accounts, etc. from voting. Of course, the definition of "active" is the key here.

 Flaming:
Until it reaches a certain point, let it go. Disputes and debates are going to lead to misunderstandings. Coincidentally, people aren't going to like each other. If the member can't handle it, then they're more than welcome to stay out of it. Generally, if someones beings flamed, then they've done something to anger another individual. Whether the person's reaction is justified or not doesn't really matter.

If you don't want to be flamed, then stay out of heated discussions. I've never, if ever, seen someone flamed when they're not participating in the topic. I agree whole heartedly with Vengerak on this issue.

Leaving:
Let the people keep posting these topics all they want. I could care less. If you want to leave the forums, leave. However I don't understand the point of making a topic there if you're not planning on coming back to read it... Just looking for attention.

Gagging:
Never really justified. Should be limited to curse words or extreme offenses.  

 Thanks for taking me seriously, guys.

(Ty for the template, Riverpaw)

Flaming: It's my belief that flaming is okay, so long as it is not horrible, laced with cursing, etc. A prime example was the debate between myself and Deathclaw a while ago that raged for almost a month...That was a series of flames that was tolerated on both sides and worked itself out. Un-acceptable flames are the ones that happen when people come here to intentionally anger people/flame/annoy...You know who I'm thinking of.


Gagging: Good. As long as you tell the person that they are being gagged on somewhere other than the forums...I was enfuriated when I went on after my trip and I was "gagged" for reasons beyond my control, because I wasn't here to talk it out with Ad. (He has apologized, and I've calmed down, I'm fine with that now, I understand there WAS no chance to tell me)

Banning: Go for it. If they come to intentionally cause problems/chaos, off with them. Delete their account, and send them back to the firey pit of stupid from whence they came.


Leaving: If you're leaving, don't make a post. Just go. Leaving posts should be deleted. I made one once, and it was stupid of me to, because when you do, all people do is get all mopey and say "Don't go". If you want to tell someone you're leaving, use an alternate messenger or something.


Suggestions: Elect members to make the charter for the rest of everyone, make it like a republic, not a full out democracy, like the Americans did when they were first forming their government. The charter would be a lot easier to make if people that we elect and the admins just made it.



That's about all. I will have more later when I'm not feeling so tired...I hope you take my suggestions again.

 Here's the thing: A substitute for [edit: Iron fist] is "I am so stupid". Isn't that Ad flaming us? By twisting our words? Couldnt he change it to lovely?

 Well, lemme see:

First of all, words like dang, shoot, and "Curses upon thee, ye cur!" should be allowed. Things like the word that rhymes with "pit" and starts with sh- shouldn't be allowed, but people who say What the He- (you know the ending) should be warned, but people who say the F-word should be suspended. If they say the F-word, they're probably a crazy person who plays hockey. (That's me...)


Then, for spam, I heartily disagree with Dead Eye on the spam issue. Julie and Ashyra should not be acceptances to that rule. However; it takes 15 seconds to move a topic to the Spa Room or to edit a post. I know I've had posts in the Spa room which said "Don't eat :) (I'm a little brat)" and it was edited, just for FUN, to say "I'm a little brat". Admins and mods should be able to edit posts that are actually spam that AREN'T in the Spa Room.


Admins also should have limits. As I mentioned up there, I had a post that wasn't profane edited to say that. That is abusing your abilities as an admin, Retto. Flaming should have three levels, and they should be labeled by an admin in the post. For instance; Level one spam. "Peace, your post count will be reduced by 10" Level two, lower the count by twenty and give a harsh warning. Level three, (like the topic where Mercenary and Peace and I were all calling each other many nasty names) gag the person.

 Flameing- Flameing should only be concidered personal insults. Nothing more, nothing less. This would not count personal attacks (such as accuseing someone of being a hypracrate). Basicly, the Terrougian policy of "If you can/are willing and able to defend it, Then It's not a flame".

Leaving- Just leave these topics alone. They cause no harm, and sometimes have a lidigt purpace.

Bannings- If nessary, use them. Otherwise, don't. The only case for an immadate banning is porno-spamming, or violateing the law (Software piracy, planning terroist attacks, drug trafficing, threats, etc.). Also, keep in-game actions seprate from in-forums actions. If someone cheats in game, they shouldn't be banned on forums, and vice versa.

Advertiseing- I say make another forum for advertiseing, and advertiseing alone. The point about stopping GPL violateing clones is a bit pointless concidering DAX's policy on the matter.

Gaggings- See Riverpaw's post. I do agree, except that that treatment should only be reserved for those who are willing to follow their gags volentarially.

Post Count- Just get rid of the post count. It promotes too much spamming out of the spam room. Yes, it will de-value your fancy custem title, but I think it's worth it.

Suggestions- I second Killenne on this point. In addation you should still be able to suggest stuff directly to the Admins.

Demi-Curseing- We are re-makeing the rules anyway. You can allow demi-curseing without allowing full curseing, and you can enforce that. I personally don't care either way.

 Heh, no sooner said than done. ^_^ How's that? Actually, there's some words on this word filter that I almost wish someone would use, because the replacements are amusing.

I think this member-made charter is a good idea though. It seems whenever the admins try to fix things, something goes wrong. We've had problems in the past that were solved without staff members. This forum is to the benefit of the members, and so I see no reason why the members shouldn't have a say in what they're allowed and not allowed to do.

(too lazy to put the categories in pretty bold type like everyone else did)

Flaming: I don't want to say too much on this topic. I pretty much agree with what Kilk said here. Sometimes people get upset, and come running to me, "He just flamed me! Do something about it!" so to satisfy them I offer a gentle reprimand to the opposite side. I've never done anything more than that though.

Gagging: Here I agree with Riverpaw. People aren't gagged without a reason. They need time to think about what they did. Most of the time, I think people know when they're doing something against the forum rules. I don't like it when people say, "I didn't know, I didn't know, you didn't even tell me." like it was a formal invitation to a party. That's just my opinion. It'll probably change. I try to give people second chances. I tried to settle the Peace/Wolf Bite dispute by letting the forum hear both sides of the story.

Banning: I think this is very harsh. I'm not saying to get rid of it entirely, but to be banned, you must've been an abomination. There's only two people ever in the history of the forum that I wanted banned. That's the infamous Badbranch, and Kenny Boy. Man, they gave me headaches. Kenny Boy especially, because I was a mod then, and I must've given him 15 warnings. And he's still not banned. Argh, I tell him not to post something in a specific forum, and he goes off and does it in the next 15 minutes.

Leaving: Heh, I wrote one of these posts a long time ago. Back when I was young, foolish, and oblivious to the dangers of RWL addiction. I like this idea of deleting leaving posts on the spot, because, no one really cares. "Um, well, yeah. We'll miss you. Don't leave. Really. Don't. Okay, fine, if you really want to, go ahead. No, I insist, go on and leave." Of course, on the other hand, it would be nice to know if the person is leaving, to prevent another Raine's-near-assumed-death-experience from happening. But still, seeing /so many/ leaving posts only confirms a diminishing RWL population, and that's something I don't want to see.

Suggestions: I'll leave the suggestions to you guys. I suggest you guys give suggestions. Ha. There we go. My suggestion. Sorry, it's late...

 Swareing-I think it wise to ban swareing on these forums. However, For purpaces of example, in-charcter action, quotation and paraquotation we should be alowed to blank out sware words to a cencored, but still recoginizable form. For example, Sware would become s****e, or s___e, etc.

 

Quote from: nevadacowSwareing-I think it wise to ban swareing on these forums. However, For purpaces of example, in-charcter action, quotation and paraquotation we should be alowed to blank out sware words to a cencored, but still recoginizable form. For example, Sware would become s****e, or s___e, etc.

A no no, if you allow some, then someone will push it and show a bit more. Then later in life someone will push it a bit more and get away with it. Even later the full word comes out and if and when we try to go back on it, we look the bad guys.

Words like that shouldn't even be allowed in any form.

Quote from: Menatus

Here's the thing: A substitute for [edit] "I am so stupid". Isn't that Ad flaming us? By twisting our words? Couldnt he change it to lovely?

Wasn't me, that was set before I became Admin. The ones that turn to "lovely" is the ones I set.


What about a guide to the rules and good conduct.

Something like,

"It is generally a good idea, to use the edit post and correct any mistakes you find. Correct Grammar and Spelling will make you better along the other users.

Double posting is a big no no if you have more to say and no post after your post edit the first post and add more to it."

 

Quote from: Ad The Rat"It is generally a good idea, to use the edit post and correct any mistakes you find. Corret Grammar and Spelling will make you better along the other users.

Double posting is a big no no, if you have more to say and no post after your post, edit the first post and add more to it."

Normally, I refrain from publicly spagging, but since that's a spag error while discussing the subject of spag...

SPAG: "Corret" --> "Correct" | Lowercase : "Grammar" and "Spelling" | Remove comma after "I"

More spag, but not on the subject of spag, so never mind.

----- ----- -----

Anyways, I say a republic is great, but never remove the power of impeaching. I personally preferred the democracy, but then again, it has been known to be chaotic. However, my proposal for "secure voting" still stands. Oh, wait, I have no proposal... yet. I just want to say that whatever proposal is put up for vote, whether to the public or to a comittee, should be done securely. No plain forum polls. Make it either a "reply with your vote" or "PM me your vote with ... in the subject". Have at least two sources count the votes. Only active members (definition of "active" left to admins) can vote. Oh, and upon request, someone may ask that only digitally signed (PGP/gnuPG/Crypto Kong) votes from them, be accepted.

 Swareing- You can enforce that. Just as you can enforce the no swareing rule in the first place. You can simply punish those who try to 'push' it, in the same way you would punish someone who brakes the rules. Also, note the very stict cirmstances that it is allowed under. Only where there is no other way to get your point acorss lidigmentally, such as in quotes where altering the quote could vastly change its meaning.  

 Flaming: Flaming should be allowed, unless it's breaks rules concerning swearing or refers to someone other then the addressee, it should not be allowed. Insults directed to a person intelligence should be allowed simply because no other insult is so easily refuted. If someone does not wish to be flamed they should stay out of heated discussions, that's just common sense; but, if you don't mind being flamed while arguing or debating there is no problem. To people outside the argument that aren't being flamed shouldn't be concerned unless there is major rule breaking. It doesn't concern you.

Swearing: I also believe that this should be allowed, to a point. Swearing for the sake of swearing should not be allowed. Swearing for emphasis should be allowed because it is a common part of everyday speach. I suspect many people here do it.

Banning: Keeping in-game bannings seperate from in-forum bannings is a great idea. Because someone cheats in the game doesn't not automatically mean the should be banned from the forums. Of course, every case is different, but I believe this holds true for most.

Perma-bans should be used only in the case of porn and law breaking (not rule breaking). Or, if someone has been gagged multiple times, with little time between gaggings, it should be put to forums vote, whether or not that person should be perma-banned.

Gagging: Should be used in case of repeated rule breaking. Otherwise, warn them.

Leaving: I see nothing wrong with someone doing this.

Suggestions: I think a seperate board should be created for suggestions. People are more likely to post in a board than a pinned topic.

Advertising: Here also, I think a seperate board should be created and the no advertising rule should be altered to say no advertising outside the advertising forum.

Post Count: Let the people keep their post count, but remove the reward for reaching 1000 posts. I believe that it is the reward and not the number that drive people to SPAM (if not just because they feel like it). Custom titles should be awarded based on actions that deserve such a reward or other criteria that can be established later.

UltraMod Discussion: There should be a seperate, stricter set of rules for this board alone.

Constitution and Voting: The constitution commitee should be a set of 7 elected board members, the admins, and the mods. They will write and approve the constitution among themselves and then post it in a pinned topic in the General Discussion with a link to a locked poll. Discussion would be carried out in this topic. The entire committee and 75% of the active members should agree on the wording of and the constition itself. If the above requierments cannot be met, the constitution should go back for revision and the process repeated until and agreement is reached.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize now for any spelling or grammatical mistakes now, for I do not have time to check for them.

[Took out an overstatment]

 I like Aqualis' ideas for the Constitution and the post count. The advertising and suggestions idea aren't bad either, except that, if we carry those out, we'll have an awful lot of forums. Already I think we have too much. And some, like the Strategies and Help forums, are severely under-used. They're great ideas, don't get me wrong there. I'd like to see these two areas fixed up a bit. But too many forums can be overwhelming.

 Too many forums- Simple, combind the Stragity, Help and Clans forums into a game general discussion forum. Also, put this, the turbo forums, and bug reporting forum into a seprate game discussion catagory. Then have the Spam room, General Discussion, Advertiseing, and Role Playing forums in a sepate General Discussion Catagory.

 Advertising... I suppose we need someplace for that. Every other ROC site has one, and quite frankly, they're more or less essential for the advancement of new sites in the ROC. I should know. I tried to start a site a few months ago. Without TSR's advertising forum, I'd be nowhere. I'm still nowhere, but at least I had three members besides myself. I plan to start again, thanks to Beatles and his hosting. Well, somehow, I think that I'm not the only one. I just can't be. I bet that many people have such an idea. It would just be doing the ROC such a great favor. Also, there's also another thing. RWL itself can benefit from this. Again, I quote TSR. They have an "affiliate program". It's slightly messed up but nevertheless a great example. Simply put a "you advertise here and we advertise at your site" clause in. Although this seems to not benefit RWL much, remember that other sites get one ad, but RWL gets so many ads in all these places. If not for that, just do it as a favor to the ROC...

 

Quote from: Aqualis
Flaming: Flaming should be allowed, unless it's breaks rules concerning swearing or refers to someone other then the addressee, it should not be allowed. Insults directed to a person intelligence should be allowed simply because no other insult is so easily refuted. If someone does not wish to be flamed they should stay out of heated discussions, that's just common sense; but, if you don't mind being flamed while arguing or debating there is no problem. To people outside the argument that aren't being flamed shouldn't be concerned unless there is major rule breaking. It doesn't concern you.

Can I say, are you kidding? Being flamed or flaming others, even in a debate is what cause bad feelings in each other. I can easily debate with Holby without even ever having to flame. We even had a good few laughs and still carred on debating. If flames happens, then you will not laugh or have fun.

Quote from: Aqualis
Post Count: Let the people keep their post count, but remove the reward for reaching 1000 posts. I believe that it is the reward and not the number that drive people to SPAM (if not just because they feel like it). Custom titles should be awarded based on actions that deserve such a reward or other criteria that can be established later.

OK, I agree with you fully here, Post counts shouldn't mean so much. I but I like knowing how much I've posted for all the time I've been here.

Quote from: Aqualis
Constitution and Voting: The constitution commitee should be a set of 7 elected board members, the admins, and the mods. They will write and approve the constitution among themselves and then post it in a pinned topic in the General Discussion with a link to a locked poll. Discussion would be carried out in this topic. The entire committee and 75% of the active members should agree on the wording of and the constition itself. If the above requierments cannot be met, the constitution should go back for revision and the process repeated until and agreement is reached.

mrf? I'm not sure what to say, just, currently and most likely always Admins have the final say, we just like to be kind to our members and this is why we are allowing you to change the rules and ways things are run. So maybe this is a rare semi-democracy forum. (I mean, I never even seen a democracy forum before or even remotely like this, not even Terrouge does this.) So.. maybe but it takes a lot of effort and it could fail before it ever got off the ground.

Quote from: Riverpaw
Advertising... I suppose we need someplace for that. Every other ROC site has one, and quite frankly, they're more or less essential for the advancement of new sites in the ROC. I should know. I tried to start a site a few months ago. Without TSR's advertising forum, I'd be nowhere. I'm still nowhere, but at least I had three members besides myself. I plan to start again, thanks to Beatles and his hosting. Well, somehow, I think that I'm not the only one. I just can't be. I bet that many people have such an idea. It would just be doing the ROC such a great favor. Also, there's also another thing. RWL itself can benefit from this. Again, I quote TSR. They have an "affiliate program". It's slightly messed up but nevertheless a great example. Simply put a "you advertise here and we advertise at your site" clause in. Although this seems to not benefit RWL much, remember that other sites get one ad, but RWL gets so many ads in all these places. If not for that, just do it as a favor to the ROC...

So maybe not a, forum but a webring or affiliate programs. Theses are not hard to make, but it does take up space and takes some designing to fit into the website. Maybe a different place, but I dunno yet.

(Oh, and Riverpaw I'm always bad at Grammar because of my deafness, but I guess I shouldn't of incorrectly spelt correct, goes back and edits.)

Quote from: nevadacow
Suggestions- I second Killenne on this point. In addation you should still be able to suggest stuff directly to the Admins.

Everyone have been saying something about suggestion. It's great. So I wonder what we could do to make it directly to us Admins, don't forget, we don't always have time to act on the suggestion, good or bad.

Ok, now my 2 cent.
Spa Room 101- I say get rid of it. I created it, sort of, and now I'm saying get rid of it.

Quote from: Boze (Admin)All valid points... but the fact of the matter is that if you give someone something, they are going to take a little more.
A good example would be me.... with tardies to homeroom. I thought "Bah, 7:30. It doesn't matter if I'm there at 7:31." "7:31... I can leave the house five minutes later, get in the extra sleep.... hit the lights just right... I'll be there by 7:32." Well, obviously, this simply continued until I almost got suspended. And then I realized that they do have to be strict in their enforcement. Otherwise, I'm going to take just a little bit more. Part of being a mature adult is realizing, accepting, and following the rules. So next time you ask "Can't we just say this demi-curse? It's not so bad!"... just think for a second.

Well, I have just thought for a second, & I've come to the conclusion that you're argument makes no sense.

I can see where you're coming from with regard to the "You give 'em an inch, they take a mile." thing, but, come on.  A "demi-curse" (HA!) isn't offensive to anyone with sense.  I find their ludicrous smothering of people & the erosion of free speech offensive, corny though it may sound.

& how far do you wind it back? If a "demi-curse" is just a short step towards inoffensive & socially acceptable curses, & inoffensive & socially-acceptable curses are just a short step towards proper curses, well, then words that rhyme with "demi-curses" & thus have the potential to call them to mind are a step further back, & must be banned.  Similarly, any sentence that, if looked at in a certain way could be said to be innuendo should be banned.  & so on & so forth, until we get into a situation where you actually have banned nouns.  Adjectives, verbs & God knows what else are likely down the crapper, as well.

For this reason, I feel that your logic is flawed.  & you've got to respect your forum-goers intelligence, up to a point.  Maybe some people would take a little more, but maybe they would have brains enough not to overstep the boundaries that common sense tells them must exist.

I would certainly hope so.

 Well, we could go for a thing where we have the admins share the "presidential house". They are in control. But we have some of the more mature and respectable for a place on a council which decides things that won't really affect the forums, and helps the admins with important decisions. As well, these council members can answer the questions of the forum-members that the admins would normally have to trouble with. As for the Spa Room, it lets people like Blackeyes vent out their true natures and save normal stuff for the normal forums. Plus, half of the hilarious topics that are posted in there would immediately be labeled "spam" if they were in GD. Demi-curses should be allowed. Look them up on www.merriam-webster.com and if they aren't marked "VULGAR" they shouldn't be banned.

 Polls, SPA room, and General discussion- I say keep the spam room, but merge the current polls forum into it. Then allow serious polls in the General discussion area again.

My thoughts:

Swearing: Regulations, I think, should be kept as they are on this; not allowed.  It serves no real purpose other than to express anger/frustration that can be expressed without swearing.

Spa Room 101: I'm all for getting rid of it.  I imagine some people like it, but I feel that a forum for spam isn't something we need.

"Demi-Curses:" Meh.  Each way has its merits.  Might edit this later, but my brain doesn't want to process anything.

Flaming: I don't think it should be allowed in any form.  The only thing flaming accomplishes is bad feelings, erosion of general courtesy if generally allowed, and grudges.

Ultra-Moderated Discussion: I'd rather the admins just select more moderators (for this forum alone, if they don't feel like making that many global admins) that they consider responsible and up to the job than distributing mod powers to all in that forum.

Bannings/Gaggings: Neither, of course, should be done unless reasons are present, fairly serious ones for the former.

Advertising: Certainly not in the main body of forums.  If an advertising forum's set up, fine, but advertising should stay there.

Basically, I don't have a problem with the current setup, nor do I have a problem with the mods/admins, but thought I'd interject what cents (Hah.  Homonyms are fun.) I had.

 Just bumping, with a part of an IM I had with Fenix... I qoute.

Quote(11:42:46) bjornredtail: A bit of an odd question:
(11:43:03) bjornredtail: Do you have any suggestions for how the forum should be run?
(11:43:08) bjornredtail: on RWL.
(11:43:14) Fenix2080: ROFL
(11:43:22) bjornredtail: I know...
(11:43:27) Fenix2080: "yes, the word democracy, comes to mind"
(11:43:52) bjornredtail: How would you set up this democracy?
(11:44:14) Fenix2080: with referendums
(11:44:23) Fenix2080: see, firsto f all
(11:44:32) Fenix2080: there is a codeo f conduct, that an elected few write up
(11:44:48) Fenix2080: with limits for every person's actions, even teh administrators
(11:45:01) Fenix2080: and consequences relative to the crime
(11:45:54) Fenix2080: any major decision should be made with a community-wide referendum, no single-soul decision
(11:46:56) bjornredtail: Would a democraticly elected officer be added?
(11:47:07) bjornredtail: What powers would he/she get?
(11:47:21) Fenix2080: whatever the elected council decides
(11:48:21) bjornredtail: What powers then would this council get?
(11:48:25) bjornredtail: What limitations?
(11:48:58) Fenix2080: the council is allowed to write the code of conduct for the game, and forums
(11:49:27) bjornredtail: What role would the server's owners play in the council?
(11:49:37) Fenix2080: but at the same time, they are allowed to be removed from the council, should the majority of people (70% and above ) Decide it
(11:50:06) Fenix2080: the serve'rs owner would regulate the server and make sure everything is running smoothely.  he should have an unbiased outlook on how things are run
(11:50:28) bjornredtail: Basicly, enforceing what the council descides?
(11:51:02) Fenix2080: yes
(11:51:30) bjornredtail: How large would this council be? How long would their term in office be?
(11:52:15) Fenix2080: depending on the population of the community, let's say, 2% of the population should be council members
(11:52:31) Fenix2080: their term would be decided in a community-wide referendum, my opinion would't be good enough
(11:53:36) bjornredtail: Right. Though it is assumed that the forum charter would be commented by everyone.
(11:53:47) Fenix2080: of course
(11:54:06) bjornredtail: Who would be alowed to vote in the various elections?
(11:54:22) bjornredtail: Would activity be used as a factor in voteing elebability>
(11:54:23) bjornredtail: ?
(11:55:20) Fenix2080: let's  say, loggin into the forusm at least once a week would allow forum citizenship, and you have to be an active member for at least a month
(11:56:01) bjornredtail: How would voteing be handled to avoid multi-accounts from casting many votes?
(11:58:58) Fenix2080: we would hope the activity rule would rule out most mutli accounts. and we would have a no proxie rule, too
(11:59:34) bjornredtail: Should Forum and Game punishments and or governance be seprated?
(11:59:47) Fenix2080: no , it's the same community
(12:00:31) bjornredtail: Do you have suggestions outside of governance for the forums?
(12:04:21) Fenix2080: not really
(12:04:24) Fenix2080: why are you asking all these question
(12:04:35) bjornredtail: I was going to re-post them on the forums
(12:04:42) Fenix2080: oh
(12:04:44) Fenix2080: ok go ahead

 Wow! When I saw this topic, I was just waiting to hit the mindless flamey argument I was sure was inside, but instead I'm pleasantly suprised to find intelligent discussion and polite disagreement. Yay!

My thoughts on the matter...

Flaming: Flaming, in my mind, is defined as insulting comments during an argument that are meant to be hurtful or otherwise of a personal nature. This should not be allowed-- it's uncalled for, and it also often spawns more flaming if a little is allowed. There's no reason why we can't have our arguments and fights and discussions without namecalling or insults.

Swearing: Swearing shouldn't be allowed. I include demi-curses in this. Why? It's not necessary to get your point across! You can express your displeasure at something without cursing/demi-cursing, and there might be someone on these forums who finds that word offensive. Yeah, I know that most of us don't, but what if some of us do? Most of you aren't offended by name-calling that includes homosexual references, but I very much am. Most of you aren't offended by references to rape when discussing attacking etc in the game, but I'm extremely bothered by it. The reasons are my own. All you all need to know is that I'm bothered by it. Others probably have similar things that they're bothered by. If it's not necessary, why risk offending someone who otherwise could have a perfectly fine time being a member of the forum community?

Banning:  Banning should only be used in cases where the member in question has repeatedly and intentionally flouted the rules of the forums, without any remorse, and, at the same time, has failed to give the forum any measurable benefit from his/her presence. Bans should be given lengths according to the severity of the rule-breaking. Permanent bans should only be given after time-limited bans have been shown to not be effective, or in the case of those who repeatedly try to get around their bans.

Gagging: Love it! Leave it like it is!

Post Count: I like the idea someone posted about removing a number of posts from the count as a result of spamming... Other than that, it's not a big deal, is it?

Constitution and Voting: There should be elected from the general forum population a group of members who represent all of the different types of members... a few should be very game-intensive, a few should be among the Spa Room crowd, a few should be from the more mature, rule-abiding crowd, etc. All of the elected members, though, should be those who are mature enough to be able to discuss something intelligently and with reasons behind their statements/feelings, and without getting angry or upset because someone has a different viewpoint. Then, they, with the forum admins/mods, should set up a private board (as was done for BAX) and straighten out all of the rule changes. Then, these should be presented to the forum at large as the new rules. Any issues that come up afterwards can then be settled by this committee.
I think that trying to have a forum-wide vote on the finished new rules wouldn't settle much-- those who weren't on the committee would feel as though their ideas weren't represented, and in general it could cause ill-will among the sides of the arguments that are sure to rise up. Also, many of us have more than one forum account, so the voting wouldn't be a one-for-one vote necessarily.

 

QuoteFlaming: Flaming, in my mind, is defined as insulting comments during an argument that are meant to be hurtful or otherwise of a personal nature. This should not be allowed-- it's uncalled for, and it also often spawns more flaming if a little is allowed. There's no reason why we can't have our arguments and fights and discussions without namecalling or insults.

By that defenation, accuseing someone of being a hypracrate would be flameing. Are you sure you want that!?!?

QuoteConstitution and Voting: There should be elected from the general forum population a group of members who represent all of the different types of members... a few should be very game-intensive, a few should be among the Spa Room crowd, a few should be from the more mature, rule-abiding crowd, etc. All of the elected members, though, should be those who are mature enough to be able to discuss something intelligently and with reasons behind their statements/feelings, and without getting angry or upset because someone has a different viewpoint. Then, they, with the forum admins/mods, should set up a private board (as was done for BAX) and straighten out all of the rule changes. Then, these should be presented to the forum at large as the new rules. Any issues that come up afterwards can then be settled by this committee.
I think that trying to have a forum-wide vote on the finished new rules wouldn't settle much-- those who weren't on the committee would feel as though their ideas weren't represented, and in general it could cause ill-will among the sides of the arguments that are sure to rise up. Also, many of us have more than one forum account, so the voting wouldn't be a one-for-one vote necessarily.

You already know what is going to happen. People are going to put their friends on the commity, as will the admins. This will lead to no changes whatsoever, a rubberstamp to everything, from abuse of powers to software piracy (all of which the RWL admins have been accused of, with verying degrees of truth).

 Nev, that's what I think on the issues. That's all I can say.

 I dosen't MATTER if something's absolutely necesarry to get a point across or not.

You want what, we should cut out everything that could be considered extraneous & adopt Newspeak? You shouldn't ban things simply on the grounds of their being unnecesarry.

 The forums should be run like any other, admins have power, and thats the end of it.

If people can't act mature, its their own problem, they can go ahed and make themselves look like idiots. If they cause problems for other people and hinder the original purpose of the message board system then the forum admins will deal with them accordingly.

 Ah Newspeak...
Caedo, the immortal defender of the status quo, eh?

 There's nothing particularly wrong with the status quo, really...
People are always going to find something to rattle on about and whine at...

 There will never be peace on earth, or this foruml; as I am sure many of you realize. So we might as well try to make as many people here happy as we can. This does not mean banning the word |)arn, or any other words.

On flaming, if you can't take it, stop arguing.

Quote from: calriaNev, that's what I think on the issues. That's all I can say.

Perhaps, you could defend your opinions? That's the only way this is going anywhere, if some form of consencess is made. The only way to that is through a forum wide discussion and debate.

Also, I'm still waiting for Ad to respond to this remark:

QuoteSwareing- You can enforce that. Just as you can enforce the no swareing rule in the first place. You can simply punish those who try to 'push' it, in the same way you would punish someone who brakes the rules. Also, note the very stict cirmstances that it is allowed under. Only where there is no other way to get your point acorss lidigmentally, such as in quotes where altering the quote could vastly change its meaning.

Quote from: nevadacowPerhaps, you could defend your opinions? That's the only way this is going anywhere, if some form of consencess is made. The only way to that is through a forum wide discussion and debate.

I feel like I've established what I think...
Anyway, I know myself, and I know that I get into arguments easily, so, having just said that I was pleasantly suprised by the lack of argument in this thread, I don't want to start one. I can hurl insults with the best of them, and I've been under stress in r/l lately, so I'm less likely to hold my temper...

 I'm sorry, but I belive an argument is just what this fourm needs. Not an insulting match, not a flame war, a well thourght out argument. That is the only way attention will be brought to these issues, it is the only way our diffrances will be resolved, it is the only way badly needed reform will happen.

Quote from: bob3Ah Newspeak...
Caedo, the immortal defender of the status quo, eh?

Simplest solution usually works, might as well stick to it.

 Question: Is this still in the works, or is it dead (user input on the change of rules)?

 Probably a bit of both... we did get new mods and a new admin, so perhaps they should be given a nice jolly chance before more things go wonky, eh wot?