Community moderation discussion!

[Shanti]

Have you guys gotten slapped for mentioning karma before now? I'm just curious, because to me this is a brand new violation I didn't know about until today. Gods know I've mentioned it enough times in the past.Ditto!! I have too and read many post that mentioned it.
I have seen somewhere something to the effect...'I cant believe I got red karma for that!'
And I have said I have gotten red karma too.

All new to me!!

Hey we even have a red karma train!!!!

[Zibblsnrt]

Have you guys gotten slapped for mentioning karma before now? I'm just curious, because to me this is a brand new violation I didn't know about until today. Gods know I've mentioned it enough times in the past.

I don't pay too much attention to it myself - usually when a thread gets to the point where people are bitching about their karma, the s/n ratio is down the tubes anyway - but people seem to be more hostile about it there. That might have something to do with it, or maybe people have simply complained about it more recently; obviously I'm just a user here.

[Deranged Hermit]

I don't pay too much attention to it myself - usually when a thread gets to the point where people are bitching about their karma, the s/n ratio is down the tubes anyway - but people seem to be more hostile about it there. That might have something to do with it, or maybe people have simply complained about it more recently; obviously I'm just a user here.

I know you're just a lowly member like the rest of us ;) but thanks for answering my questions to the best of your ability. Karma to you for that! :gagged:

[Kaylara]

I am confused because I am getting mixed signals. Now friggin and frickin and such are ok but the message doesn't seem clear.

Using f---, friggin and such are going around sensors so what does this mean?


This sounds like you cant use substitutes:


And this sounds like no friggin, fricked or others:


And finally a probably? I don't fee to good on a probably.


So I will ask it simply.

If I say friggin, or fricken and such and its reported, because some people like doing that, especially if they disagree, will I get an infraction?
Examples:
1. 'That new law is friggen reduculus.'
2. 'That politician is f***n twisting that report.'
3. 'I cant believe that person f---- did that to that puppy!'
4. 'WTF?'

If reported, will I get or not get an infraction for going around the sensors? (As clearly exampled here.)

I am just trying to be positive on what may happen. I don't want surprises later.

You're not going around the sensors, thus you won't get an infraction. I think that Mol was trying to say, this is not carte blanche to curse every other word.

[Kaylara]

Have you guys gotten slapped for mentioning karma before now? I'm just curious, because to me this is a brand new violation I didn't know about until today. Gods know I've mentioned it enough times in the past.

If it's reported to us, we would have moderated it in the past. This is not a new thing.

[Shanti]

You're not going around the sensors, thus you won't get an infraction. I think that Mol was trying to say, this is not carte blanche to curse every other word.
I am not trying to be a problem. I just still am confused. I still don't understand whats not an infraction and what is.

I quoted mol from several post. He seems to say we cant substitute.
I gave exact examples and want to know if I was reported for something like I set examples for, if I would get an infraction.

What exactly is meant by going around sensors?
My examples, I thought, were examples of passing sensors.

If one of my examples is used in a post and I get reported, will I get an infraction? I don't know this answer.

[LacyRoze]

Would you get into an experimental aircraft before all the kinks had been worked out?


No I wouldn't as that would putting my life at risk. Testing out a system on a forum is not a life or death situation for me...

To me trying out the system for a trial period, seeing if it's going to work the way Mol thinks it is, seeing what problems it actually causes makes sense. Shoot, make it so that the infractions in that trial period don't actually count against people. You're never going to know how it's truly going to work until you try it...

[CheshireEyes]

No I wouldn't as that would putting my life at risk. Testing out a system on a forum is not a life or death situation for me...

To me trying out the system for a trial period, seeing if it's going to work the way Mol thinks it is, seeing what problems it actually causes makes sense. Shoot, make it so that the infractions in that trial period don't actually count against people. You're never going to know how it's truly going to work until you try it...


Its an analogy....

[LacyRoze]

Its an analogy....

:lol: Yes, I realize that, thank you. I just happen to think it was comparing apples to oranges...

[CheshireEyes]

:lol: Yes, I realize that, thank you. I just happen to think it was comparing apples to oranges...

Only in scope....

[Deranged Hermit]

Its an analogy....

Since LS isn't around to say it, I'll stand in for him just this once...

Poor CE, no-one appreciates your analogies, do they?

_wedgie_

:hugz:

[CheshireEyes]

Since LS isn't around to say it, I'll stand in for him just this once...

Poor CE, no-one appreciates your analogies, do they?

_wedgie_

:hugz:

no....:wah: :goodgrief :wah2:

[AuntBooPeaceFrog]

I am not trying to be a problem. I just still am confused. I still don't understand whats not an infraction and what is.

I quoted mol from several post. He seems to say we cant substitute.
I gave exact examples and want to know if I was reported for something like I set examples for, if I would get an infraction.

What exactly is meant by going around sensors?
My examples, I thought, were examples of passing sensors.

If one of my examples is used in a post and I get reported, will I get an infraction? I don't know this answer.

I am a bit more confused now, if that's what is meant... I thought it meant more like, don't use spaces and actually spell it out, or don't spell the f word with 2 u 's or an fu with a "que", etc... except I guess if you're talking about that movie, "Meet the Fockers", and then I suppose it would be permissable, because, well, it's been on billboards across the nations, so it must be PG13 permissable! lol

[CheshireEyes]

I'll just curse in Klingon. Problem solved!!!!:lol: _inabox_

[Faeawyn]

I'll just curse in Klingon. Problem solved!!!!:lol: _inabox_

Ka bloch (make sure to say the ch like you're coughing up a fur ball)

[ap Dafydd]

Let me give you some examples to start you off:

Let's assume a ban goes into effect at 50 points.

Signature violations - 1 point - 7 days
Go around our PG-13 censor (F-Bomb, etc) - 5 points - 14 days
Name-calling - 5 point - 7 days
Proselytizing - 25 points (Never expires)
Adult content posting - 50 points - (Never expires - basically automatic ban)
Trolling & Spamming - 50 points (Never expires - basically automatic ban)
Publicly displaying PM's and Karma pokes - 10 points - 10 days

So, there ya go. Discuss. Give us input.

Any rules, laws, whatever, always have fuzzy places in the middle where it's hard to determine whether someone is really guilty and I think it's very easy to come up with examples for each of these which would clearly be technical offences but with which none of us would be likely to take offence.

"Thanks for the green karma, I tried to give you some back but the system wouldn't let me."

(Publicly displaying Karma pokes)

I suppose that like others, I feel that sometimes I come close to the edge of what would be considered to be more blameworthy offences by some but not by all. So that it wouldn't just be

"I've organised a Pagan conference this weekend with ___ as guest speakers, I hope some of you will be interested in coming"

(Spamming)

Instead there could be examples where I take a political position (and I did get some red karma (oops, I shouldn't mention getting karma!) after some very mild posts about Israel's war in Lebanon) which were felt to be unacceptable. Or where I take a position on people who exploit and trivialise my culture in a manner which some find acceptable and others do not. Or where I take a strong position as to why Christianity and Paganism are irreconcilable and why I consider that Christianity is a hostile force to the Earth.

At the end of the day, I'm happy to see this one run and perhaps look at it again after 6 months to see if it's worked.

I do agree with those posters who are surprised at g-d*mn being considered a worse word than the one that sometimes gets Scunthorpe censored out by rudeness filters. Personally I blaspheme foully if I get exasperated "Goddess in a bastard tree" is one of my favourites, but then She's _my_ Goddess and I take full responsibility for taking Her name in vain (if She cares!).

Incidentally, am I the only person who knows that "frig" is not a synonym for the love-word?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Deranged Hermit]

Basically:

The respect rule is still in effect. If you all do not feel we are making progress in this thread then I can put up a poll and feel out the community that way? In regards to publicly displaying the infraction threads, etc and allowing folks to speak publicly about their moderations.

Give me a yay or nay.

Well poll or no poll, here's my opinion on making the infractions public. The people who were "outed; put on the block; publically humiliated" (call it what you will) today did not have a choice in the matter, therefore, imo, it's too late to turn back now. It would be truly disrespetful to them if tomorrow or some point later, it was optional or not public at all.

I also think that the person who reported the post needs to be named in the thread. Lay it all out on the table. I think it will do away with a lot of the ill will that comes from hiding anything or protecting anyone. I also think it will cut down on the number of reports in the first place.

[Athena-Nadine]

Well poll or no poll, here's my opinion on making the infractions public. The people who were "outed; put on the block; publically humiliated" (call it what you will) today did not have a choice in the matter, therefore, imo, it's too late to turn back now. It would be truly disrespetful to them if tomorrow or some point later, it was optional or not public at all.

Agreed.

I also think that the person who reported the post needs to be named in the thread. Lay it all out on the table. I think it will do away with a lot of the ill will that comes from hiding anything or protecting anyone. I also think it will cut down on the number of reports in the first place.

Well, I can see why the names of the people reporting the posts are withheld, and I don't disagree with the practice. I do think, though, that it would help if an more elaborate explanation were given instead of the sometimes cryptic, brief mentions of a rule being violated. I think that would cut down on the amount of confusion.

[Lunacie]

Ditto!! I have too and read many post that mentioned it.
I have seen somewhere something to the effect...'I cant believe I got red karma for that!'
And I have said I have gotten red karma too.

All new to me!!

Hey we even have a red karma train!!!!

I'm not speaking for Mol or the other admins here, but I can see a world of difference between saying, "I can't believe I got red karma for that" and saying, "I can't believe PosterZYX gave me red karma for that".

[Zibblsnrt]

I'm not speaking for Mol or the other admins here, but I can see a world of difference between saying, "I can't believe I got red karma for that" and saying, "I can't believe PosterZYX gave me red karma for that".

I'll agree on that one myself - the first of those two is annoying at worst if the person's whiny enough about it. The second's far more hostile, and is more explicitly meant to take a private comment and derail a thread with it.

[Lunacie]

Well poll or no poll, here's my opinion on making the infractions public. The people who were "outed; put on the block; publically humiliated" (call it what you will) today did not have a choice in the matter, therefore, imo, it's too late to turn back now. It would be truly disrespetful to them if tomorrow or some point later, it was optional or not public at all.

I also think that the person who reported the post needs to be named in the thread. Lay it all out on the table. I think it will do away with a lot of the ill will that comes from hiding anything or protecting anyone. I also think it will cut down on the number of reports in the first place.

I don't care for the idea of posting the name of the poster who reports an infraction. I can't think of anyone who is able to be online 24/7 and it would be very easy for people to start saying someone is a coward for reporting an infraction but then not being around to explain why they thought it needed to be checked out.

The only reason we have the report button is that the mods cannot read every single post that is made around here and they depend on us to watch for posts that break The Rule. If they decide The Rule has been broken, they will take care of it. If they decide The Rule has not been broken then nothing else will be posted.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who tends to keep looking for infractions by another poster or a group of posters and makes a whole lot of reports is going to be told off by the admins to stop being a nuisance.

[LostSheep]

You don't like a rule against making private comments public without mutual consent? For heaven's sake, why?

Oh no no, i agree with that. My argument (and I don't know whether it's been addressed yet, there's a lot of pages here to get through) is why personal messages from admins regarding "infractions" are made public in a forum specially created for that purpose. that seems to completely contravene all rules of privacy, and wasn't what i was expecting when this system was announced.

[Deranged Hermit]

I don't care for the idea of posting the name of the poster who reports an infraction. I can't think of anyone who is able to be online 24/7 and it would be very easy for people to start saying someone is a coward for reporting an infraction but then not being around to explain why they thought it needed to be checked out.

The only reason we have the report button is that the mods cannot read every single post that is made around here and they depend on us to watch for posts that break The Rule. If they decide The Rule has been broken, they will take care of it. If they decide The Rule has not been broken then nothing else will be posted.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who tends to keep looking for infractions by another poster or a group of posters and makes a whole lot of reports is going to be told off by the admins to stop being a nuisance.


The same could be said for the person guilty of the infraction. They might be offline for a week before they find out they've been discipilined, Nope. I think bare it all or nothing. No shadows. No secrecy. No protection. This isn't the mafia, last I checked.
I apologize to any mafioso I may have just offended, by the way. I probably grew up with your kids/parents/friends...

[LostSheep]

Oh no no, i agree with that. My argument (and I don't know whether it's been addressed yet, there's a lot of pages here to get through) is why personal messages from admins regarding "infractions" are made public in a forum specially created for that purpose. that seems to completely contravene all rules of privacy, and wasn't what i was expecting when this system was announced.

I've just read through the last 12 pages and it seems not, no one has explained why this is made public and why personal messages from admins are publicised for all to see.

Could I have an answer please why this is?

Because I don't think I'm going to stay here much longer. i don't like what's happening.

[Lorrie]

I kinda like this new public view and discussion, it helps us see what IS a no-no, or may be OK in this case, but maybe not for that one. Kind of like a lawyer looking at other case files to see how it was judged! If we don't quite understand the reasoning for a slap on the hand, we can ask or maybe someone else asked already. No matter how many rules you make, and how careful you are at wording them, there is gonna be confusion just like the old game of telephone.

[LostSheep]

I wonder how long it will be before someone gives me an explanation as to why these double standards are allowed.

[CheshireEyes]

I wonder how long it will be before someone gives me an explanation as to why these double standards are allowed.
which one?

oh, and---->_wedgie_ _inabox_

[Gwenhwyfar]

The same could be said for the person guilty of the infraction. They might be offline for a week before they find out they've been discipilined, Nope. I think bare it all or nothing. No shadows. No secrecy. No protection. This isn't the mafia, last I checked.
I apologize to any mafioso I may have just offended, by the way. I probably grew up with your kids/parents/friends...


I agree, make it all public. Including the one who reported the post.

[Ptah]

Signature violations - 1 point - 7 days
Go around our PG-13 censor (F-Bomb, etc) - 5 points - 14 days

Is the PG-13 sensor a profanity filter?

Trolling & Spamming - 50 points (Never expires - basically automatic ban)

Spamming I know, but "trolling" needs to be clearly defined.

Publicly displaying PM's and Karma pokes - 10 points - 10 days

Private should remain private.

I honestly don't see the point of publically posting infractions. The point system is fine but no one else in the community need see it. I take it your trying to create calm in the forum. Wouldn't holding infractions up for public scrutiny and discussion be even more disruptive? My suggestion is, warn the offending party of the infraction privately and, if need be, sanction the offending message.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Is the PG-13 sensor a profanity filter?



Spamming I know, but "trolling" needs to be clearly defined.



Private should remain private.

I honestly don't see the point of publically posting infractions. The point system is fine but no one else in the community need see it. I take it your trying to create calm in the forum. Wouldn't holding infractions up for public scrutiny and discussion be even more disruptive? Warn the offending party of the infraction privately and, if need be, sanction the offending message.

I could be wrong, but, I think publicly displaying them will stop the whining thats been going on...about oppressive mods and unjust persecution.

[CheshireEyes]

Spamming I know, but "trolling" needs to be clearly defined.



Trolling is when you go out and hunt trolls, like fishing._inabox_ :hahugh:

[Ptah]

I could be wrong, but, I think publicly displaying them will stop the whining thats been going on...about oppressive mods and unjust persecution.

It might but I see people choosing up sides. I hope I'm wrong.

[Zibblsnrt]

I've just read through the last 12 pages and it seems not, no one has explained why this is made public and why personal messages from admins are publicised for all to see.

I would assume the admins discussed and consented to this, since those PMs are meant as instruments of forum policy, particularly if Mol's decided the whole disciplinary process shold be public anyway. It's different in both degree and kind from publicising PMs by ordinary users. I don't really see why it's a problem.

[Anubis]

which one?

oh, and---->_wedgie_ _inabox_

ok.. that wedgie thing.. that would be offensive touching.. so that's gotta stop.. and if the little receiving smilie liked it.. well.. I think that is really pushing the PG-13 boundary.. so tell 'em to get a room!

[Zibblsnrt]

It might but I see people choosing up sides. I hope I'm wrong.

That, and I think we know fairly well that the infraction subforums are going to become a major hangout of the drama junkies, with all the problems that'd imply, unless they're really, really rigidly policed.

Actually, glancing at it, I'm pretty sure it's less "are going to" and more "already has." The thing's been up 24 hours and there's already four hundred posts there.

[LostSheep]

I would assume the admins discussed and consented to this, since those PMs are meant as instruments of forum policy, particularly if Mol's decided the whole disciplinary process shold be public anyway. It's different in both degree and kind from publicising PMs by ordinary users. I don't really see why it's a problem.

Because the disciplinary process is public; why? I repeat what I thought we were told when this was announced: All disciplinary action would be conducted by PM - i.e. would be private. These PMs are displayed publicly for all to see. That contravenes one of the rules we've been talking about here.

[Zibblsnrt]

Because the disciplinary process is public; why? I repeat what I thought we were told when this was announced: All disciplinary action would be conducted by PM - i.e. would be private. These PMs are displayed publicly for all to see. That contravenes one of the rules we've been talking about here.

Well, the point of this thread is that Mol's establishing a different set of rules to replace the old ones, and opened things up for comments. I happen to disagree very strongly with creating what Eldora aptly described as "the public square," but The Power Of Administrative Fiat(tm) means that if they switch it over to that, it doesn't contradict the old rules because it replaces them altogether.

[LostSheep]

which one?

oh, and---->_wedgie_ _inabox_

^ I've answered that one now, I hope.

_wedgie_ as long as that's still allowed.

[LostSheep]

Well, the point of this thread is that Mol's establishing a different set of rules to replace the old ones, and opened things up for comments. I happen to disagree very strongly with creating what Eldora aptly described as "the public square," but The Power Of Administrative Fiat(tm) means that if they switch it over to that, it doesn't contradict the old rules because it replaces them altogether.

Well, the rule about not revealing the contents of personal messages still stands, we've been arguing about that for pages, and that's my major beef with this new system.

[Zibblsnrt]

Well, the rule about not revealing the contents of personal messages still stands, we've been arguing about that for pages, and that's my major beef with this new system.

Which cycles back to my original comment, that administrators acting in an administrative capacity are (and should be) held to a different set of standards appropriate to their role on the site. Making a notice they give a user a matter of public record is, IMO, quite different from a user being offended by a PM and dragging it into an unrelated thread.

That said, revealing ordinary users' PMs without permission, on non-mod topics or otherwise, remains reprehensible at best to me.

[teishabee]

3 hrs later I get to the end.

But I think that the basic rule is respect.

Many questions aint being answered here like what words can we use.

Thats because it happens to be subjective. No-one who is here and has been a member for a long time is going to be banned. Context is everything.

Obviously you will get points is you disrepect someone and its obvious that this was done intentionally.

But if it was by accident, the new system helps you clear your name and have others defend you too.

But then it could just turn into a popularity contest with the most known members getting away with infrations just because everyone sticks up for them.

[Deranged Hermit]

That, and I think we know fairly well that the infraction subforums are going to become a major hangout of the drama junkies, with all the problems that'd imply, unless they're really, really rigidly policed.

Actually, glancing at it, I'm pretty sure it's less "are going to" and more "already has." The thing's been up 24 hours and there's already four hundred posts there.

I think you're confusing "drama junkies" with people who are willing to speak out when they think something is wrong, rather than brown-nosing their way through life.

[LostSheep]

3 hrs later I get to the end.

But I think that the basic rule is respect.
.
Yes, once upon a time it was. But now there's about 25.

[Lunacie]

I thought Mol made it quite clear (perhaps on another thread though)... there are only two forbidden words:

the actual F word
and G..damn

The rest are allowed as long as they aren't overused.

[teishabee]

Yes, once upon a time it was. But now there's about 25.

They all derived from that one tho.

If you see my meaning.

[Sequoia]

One thing that I've noticed is that people are claiming it's still just one rule - "respect", yet Mol and the admins have actually desginated several new rules, such as "don't talk about Karma in public".

Mol, remember that asinine list of rules you used to have? Remember the chaos, and how much it sucked? We're heading there again... care to turn this car around and go home?

MW was never supposed to be a PC preschool babysitting forum. Unless I missed a message somewhere along the way.

[Zibblsnrt]

I think you're confusing "drama junkies" with people who are willing to speak out when they think something is wrong, rather than brown-nosing their way through life.

Nah, I'm fairly familiar with both types. The cascade when you start seeing infractions for stuff that happened in the infraction room itself should be fascinating to some, I expect.

[teishabee]

MW was never supposed to be a PC preschool babysitting forum. Unless I missed a message somewhere along the way.


I guess I just always liked the fact that MW is proclaimed to be a family forum.
I can go to other forums for the same topics but not the same atmosphere.

[Faeawyn]

I guess I just always liked the fact that MW is proclaimed to be a family forum.
I can go to other forums for the same topics but not the same atmosphere.

I agree.

[_Banbha_]

I think you're confusing "drama junkies" with people who are willing to speak out when they think something is wrong, rather than brown-nosing their way through life.

Me too. And there is a big difference between the two.



One thing that I've noticed is that people are claiming it's still just one rule - "respect", yet Mol and the admins have actually desginated several new rules, such as "don't talk about Karma in public".

Mol, remember that asinine list of rules you used to have? Remember the chaos, and how much it sucked? We're heading there again... care to turn this car around and go home?

MW was never supposed to be a PC preschool babysitting forum. Unless I missed a message somewhere along the way.

I agree with the sentiments here. :cheers:

Those rules you mention must have been before I arrived and it does sound like we are headed to major confusion now. :( _inabox_

[AuntBooPeaceFrog]

:fofftopic sorta but not...
ok, I understand that the actual standards supposedly haven't changed. However, I think that the very act of talking about how the new system works has caused some of us to review some of the standards that, because we hadn't been really affected by them, we had either forgotten, or weren't really aware of to begin with (like the red karma discussion stuff being a no-no). And in the act of reviewing them, we are realizing that we don't agree with some of them...
so that being said, I am not saying this to cause trouble (not that I ever would or even need to clarify that, but sometimes I do have a habit of wording things so as to try and get a laugh from my fellow MWers :halohead: )

My point was this: Something just occurred to me. Actually, it occurred last week, but I forgot about it. But now all the new definitions of respect have gotten me remembering it and wondering again... and I'm sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere else and maybe I've missed it, but here goes:

I'm pretty sure I've run across several posts asking for, and I believe receiving, information on how to do curses. Asking for magic to do harm to anyone, be they a person on this board or not, should be counted as disrespectful, no?

Or, is it ok to talk about creating energy to "punish" someone else, just because it is an aspect of some people's religion/magic/etc? Because if it is, then so would trying to convert people be an aspect of Christianity... I'm just saying this because, well, it is true that all truth is subjective... and since I said "it is true..." I guess then it is subjective that it is true that all truth is subjective...
:2G:

[Faeawyn]

ubjective[/I]... and since I said "it is true..." I guess then it is subjective that it is true that all truth is subjective...
:2G:

In every case I've ever seen of this, the members of this community refuse to help and usually try to disuade the person from trying any type of curse/hex etc... At least, thats been my experience. :)

[Agaliha]

I have. As a non-US member, I hadn't come across TV PG-13 before. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_rating_system) gives a list of ratings in the US, which includes PG-14 but not PG-13, and just gives ticks for moderate violence, swearing, sexual references and so on.


That's because PG-13 is not for TV, but for Motion Pictures.

Motion picture rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system) <-- that explains what the rating are in tons of countries.

MPAA film rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuqxQt_REPTgByL9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2MHJxMzBxBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANQUkVWX zc2/SIG=128ir78uj/EXP=1156974800/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system) <-- explains the ratings, PG-13 included

MPAA Film Ratings website (http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp)
MPAA rating history and how it works (http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm)

Here's this:

PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents, particularly when deciding which movies are not suitable for younger children. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

[Theres]

:rolleyes:

i guess nearly 9 pages of desent is comment enough.

[Cassie]

Well I haven't had time to read this entire thread or all of the infraction threads but since my last visit (only about 12 hours ago) there have been nearly 1800 new posts and I would guess more than half of them have been connected with this...
Most of the posts I have read have been very negative and although I am quite sure it was not the intention of Mol or the Mods this new system seems to have stirred up a lot of ill feeling and discontent.
In fairness the fuss might die down once the novelty value has worn off.

I am curious about something. There already seem to be a lot of infractions. But could it be that the number of moderations today is the same average as ever and only the discussion of them makes it seem that there have been a lot? If this is the case I would guess that the discussions on the infraction threads may well deminish when people are used to the new system.

But it would be a real shame if endless discussions of infractions continude to dominate MW for long. It already seems to have left a sour taste in the mouth of some members here who I like and respect and I would be sad if they decided to leave because of this.

If the infraction system continues my points structure would be something like this;-

Signature violations - 1 point - 7 days
Go around our PG-13 censor (F-Bomb, etc) - 10- points - 14 days
Name-calling - 10-20 points - 7-14 days (Depending on severity of the insult)
Proselytizing - 25 points (Never expires)
Adult content posting - 50 points - (Never expires - basically automatic ban)
Trolling & Spamming - 50 points (Never expires - basically automatic ban)
Publicly Discussing Red Karma pokes - No penalty except looking childish in front of everybody.
Publicly Displaying PM's (25 points - 30 Days)

In the end I liked the 'respect rule' and had no complaints about the way the mods were inforcing it already.

[Theres]

I am curious about something. There already seem to be a lot of infractions. But could it be that the number of moderations today is the same average as ever and only the discussion of them makes it seem that there have been a lot? If this is the case I would guess that the discussions on the infraction threads may well deminish when people are used to the new system.
perhaps.
but i think the numbers speak for themselves... 16 of 18 infractions by one moderator seems to speak volumes (unless i'm misunderstanding something).

[SSanf]

I could be wrong, but, I think publicly displaying them will stop the whining thats been going on...about oppressive mods and unjust persecution.Should help with that.

[SSanf]

:fofftopic sorta but not...
ok, I understand that the actual standards supposedly haven't changed. However, I think that the very act of talking about how the new system works has caused some of us to review some of the standards that, because we hadn't been really affected by them, we had either forgotten, or weren't really aware of to begin with (like the red karma discussion stuff being a no-no). And in the act of reviewing them, we are realizing that we don't agree with some of them... Nail on the head!!!

BINGO!!

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[Shanti]

From the looks of the infractions the site has gone pg!! 'Bleeping' is an infraction? It doesnt even start with the letter F!!

So when is a pic of Barney going to be the main forum banner? Thats how I am feeling.

[Agaliha]

For serious?! The word: Bleeping?
It's a naughty?
No way.
:wtf:
Someone tell me this is wrong. This is just waaaaayyy too out there.

[SSanf]

perhaps.
but i think the numbers speak for themselves... 16 of 18 infractions by one moderator seems to speak volumes (unless i'm misunderstanding something).Yes, and after community input, several of the more unfair infractions were reversed.

I see this as a positive outcome. With warnings, there was no such input. In fact, you had no recourse to a warning at all.

With a warning, you were publicly scolded by the mod. You had to just shut up and take it even if it was unfair, even if you were being targeted.

Additionaly, with the warning system you never knew if you were teetering on the brink of banishment or not. With this you know where you stand and what to do to get your points down.

This is intrinsically more just.

[Shanti]

Turns out the real word was removed. 'Bleeping sure' explained that!!

Why not specify was the hell is not ok? Its all this general respect with no real explanation,
no going around sensors...what ever the hell that means!! I have asked a bunch of times and haven't gotten a clear answer! I thought as I quoted mol several pages ago that he said no friggin, fricked and no letters like F------------. Then I hear differently. My specific post never was answered clearly.

I have better things to do with my time as of late. Maybe when this mess is more clear, I'll spend more time.

Back to my real life where at least things make some sence!

[RavensEye]

I know I have already explained my views on the censor thing,but I have to ask as a forum guide for the Poetry & Lit forum what is suppose to be done if someone swears in there poem or short story? Am I to assume that if I see something like this am I to report it or what? I would much rather just pm them and explain to them the rule, actually better yet I wish I did not have to worry about this trivial stuff at all, but I am asking anyways.

Sorry to be a pain in the butt about it but I am not wanting to see people fried for something like this.

Oh and I guess this would also apply to the RPG forum as well.

[Agaliha]

I know I have already explained my views on the censor thing,but I have to ask as a forum guide for the Poetry & Lit forum what is suppose to be done if someone swears in there poem or short story? Am I to assume that if I see something like this am I to report it or what? i would much rather just pm them and explain to them the rule, actually better yet I wish I did not have to worry about this stuff at all, but I am asking anyways.
Sorry to be a pain in the butt about it but I am not wanting to see people fried for something like this.
Oh and I guess this would also apply to the RPG forum as well.


My 2 cents.
I think a short note in the title should be used.
Example: "SW inside" = swear words inside.
Or "MC" = mature content.
Or something like that.
That way those who are offended will know before hand.

I swear in some of my poems and often it is there for a reason. Stripping someone of that form of expression and release in a poem is not cool.

Also it's not directed at anyone, it's a creative piece.
Now if someone wrote an offensive poem about someone here or in RL than that's different and should be infracted, but using a swear word in general overkill.

So if someone has F*** in there, who cares?
Cheating the censor should not be allowed, but having them mentioned (in the **** way) in substitue forms and such should.

In high school there was an assignment to write from the POV of a slave. One girl actually wrote the N-word out. I just wrote it as "n-word/n*****".
She got an A.
She even read it in front of all the english classes.
It was understood in its context and she told everyone it was in there.
So when it comes to creative things, it all depends.

[Penthesilea]

There is a point that should be made and I don't think that it has been. If it has, I will reiterate.
For all that Mystic Wicks is a community, we -- the members -- do not own it. Mol does. His is the ultimate decision about what rules are enforced and how, who stays a member in good standing and who is banned. That is the cold reality.
So, if you do not like the rules, you are free to leave and find or make another place on the web to your liking. If you do not like the personalities here, go to a site where the company is more compatible. No one will force you to support a community in which you feel unwelcome, persecuted, ostracized or taken for granted. That is the ultimate freedom of the internet.

[RavensEye]

I swear in some of my poems and often it is there for a reason. Stripping someone of that form of expression and release in a poem is not cool I know Agaliha I feel that way to, and I also swear on the occasion in my stories especially if it is based on something that has actually happened to me. So where is the line drawn ? I know what I will be doing from now on but still I would like a clear answer so I know what to do in that forum.

[lightdragon]

There is a point that should be made and I don't think that it has been. If it has, I will reiterate.
For all the Mystic Wicks is a community, we -- the members -- do not own it. Mol does. His is the ultimate decision about what rules are enforced and how, who stays a member in good standing and who is banned. That is the cold reality.
So, if you do not like the rules, you are free to leave and find or make another place on the web to your liking. If you do not like the personalities here, go to a site where the company is more compatible. No one will force you to support a community in which you feel unwelcome, persecuted, ostracized or taken for granted. That is the ultimate freedom of the internet.I have to agree with statement. The only beef i have is with the penalty section of SOME infractions

[Philosophia]

The "cold reality" is that the community and Mol both need eash other. Without the community, it isn't MW. Without Mol, it isn't MW. That is why this thread was created, for us to actually have a shance in airing our grievances and concerns over the new "infractions". I have witnessed many communities fail because of the attitudes of the admins and owners regarding "laws" (i.e. changing rules without public consultation, etc.) and that isn't whats happening here.
I don't think anybody is denying the fact that Mol and the other admins are doing a brilliant job. However, most are unsure and even worried over the implication of the rules. I know I am.
What constitutes as a "rude" word? I know f--- and G-D was talked about but what about others? Like racial, sexual, gender, etc. slurs. Or what about harmless name calling? For example, I get called a "geek" (which doesn't bother me at all) but somebody might get offended.
Should we fluffy the words so it doesn't hurt the other member? Because what we think might be respectful may not be.
I'm simply concerned that members are going to start being scared of saying what they want respectfully because of these rules. I also understand that this probably was already in place before the infractions occured but I was concerned before and this has given me the chance to speak up without fear.
I am happy though that the people who report the messages don't get identified.
:hugz:

[Philosophia]

I have to add that I am concerned with the rules on sigs. Is there a certain limit on pictures or words?

MM, who loves her sig!

[Gypsy Queen 1313]

I realize that we have the freedom of speech. But we still need to remember what we might not find offending...someone else does. The admin group has a really big and difficult job to do. You can get your point out there and do it in a way that won't offend others. But, the rules really need to be spelled out for this to work. As a community, we need to be on the same page for this to work.

[CheshireEyes]

I have to add that I am concerned with the rules on sigs. Is there a certain limit on pictures or words?

MM, who loves her sig!
The system automatically forbids you if you go over a certain amount. It gives you some message that it exceeds guidelines or something. I found this out last night when I was trying to add something.
The "cold reality" is that the community and Mol both need eash other. Without the community, it isn't MW. Without Mol, it isn't MW. That is why this thread was created, for us to actually have a shance in airing our grievances and concerns over the new "infractions". I have witnessed many communities fail because of the attitudes of the admins and owners regarding "laws" (i.e. changing rules without public consultation, etc.) and that isn't whats happening here.
I don't think anybody is denying the fact that Mol and the other admins are doing a brilliant job. However, most are unsure and even worried over the implication of the rules. I know I am.
What constitutes as a "rude" word? I know f--- and G-D was talked about but what about others? Like racial, sexual, gender, etc. slurs. Or what about harmless name calling? For example, I get called a "geek" (which doesn't bother me at all) but somebody might get offended.
Should we fluffy the words so it doesn't hurt the other member? Because what we think might be respectful may not be.
I'm simply concerned that members are going to start being scared of saying what they want respectfully because of these rules. I also understand that this probably was already in place before the infractions occured but I was concerned before and this has given me the chance to speak up without fear.
I am happy though that the people who report the messages don't get identified.
:hugz:

I agree with this statement.

[Philosophia]

The system automatically forbids you if you go over a certain amount. It gives you some message that it exceeds guidelines or something. I found this out last night when I was trying to add something.

I know that and I've reached it many times :). However, there are ways to get around that by having large pictures and words in it. Is there a way or a rule that says how many pic's can be in the actual sig? For example, have a limit of three pic's and the size must be under 400x200? I've seen this occur in other forums but I don't if this can work or not.

[Agaliha]

Well, MM.
No one said anything about your sig before-- and you've had it like that for some time. So why would it be a problem now?

[RavensEye]

and you've had it like that for some time. So why would it be a problem now?
that reminds me whatever happened to the person who was suppose to be watching the signature sizes that sure did not seem to last long?

[Agaliha]

that reminds me whatever happened to the person who was suppose to be watching the signature sizes that sure did not seem to last long?

That would be Lilith Morgaine.

[Philosophia]

Well, MM.
No one said anything about your sig before-- and you've had it like that for some time. So why would it be a problem now?

Not this sig...but I have had others that have been too big. I just think it should be clarified for everybody...
Just my opinion _inabox_

[RavensEye]

I know it was her but I mean what happened with that? She seemed to dissappear after she was given that job and now this new stuff with the sigs ..

[Philosophia]

That would be Lilith Morgaine.

And I think she left...or I could be wrong?

[Agaliha]

*Is liking the multi-quote function*

Not this sig...but I have had others that have been too big. I just think it should be clarified for everybody...
Just my opinion _inabox_

Yes, it should be clarified.

I know it was her but I mean what happened with that? She seemed to dissappear after she was given that job and now this new stuff with the sigs ..

Yeah, 'tis weird.

[RavensEye]

And I think she left...or I could be wrong?

No she did not leave she has been back a few times since then.

[RavensEye]

And I think she left...or I could be wrong?

No she did not leave she has been back a few times since then. I was just wanted to know what was up that is all :)

[ApollaJade]

I'm really uncomfortable with all of this. They put a point system really similar to this in in my school district. It's nothing more than an easy fix to a moderate problem, and it only gets worse. I love mysticwicks. Mysticwicks is my escape from all of my real-life stress. But this... >.<. I don't like feeling like I don't have anywhere that's safe from an automated administration.

_inabox_

[Anubis]

well.. if they are going to be handing out infractions for too big/long/pics/etc in a siggy it would be nice to know before hand what is and isn't allowed... I've already asked and I still don't know for sure.. hope they decide to post it in it's own thread or email everyone so we know...

[Zibblsnrt]

I realize that we have the freedom of speech.

Actually, we don't, not on most online forums - they are, after all, the property of their owners. Legally speaking, MW is private property. That said, Mol does grant the users here significant freedom to say what they will, though he's equally within his rights to impose any regulations, justified or arbitrary, that he wants to, it being his site.

Of course, the existence of this thread implies that we're permitted, expected and desired to discuss and/or challenge the current proposals.

[Deranged Hermit]

I can't get any satisfactory answers to any of my questions today either ladies, you're not alone there.

I don't want to speak for her, but since her name was brought up and she's not here to defend herself, I believe Lilith makes herself scarce these days because she asked for help and support in the HHH and energy threads, and got disrespect from some membersfor her trouble. When she tried to get the mods to help, they just dismissed it, said it wasn't disrespect.

Telling someone to grow up and suck it up when they're looking for support=not disrespectful

talking about karma pokes=disrespectful

:shot:

[RavensEye]

I don't want to speak for her, but since her name was brought up and she's not here to defend herself, I believe Lilith makes herself scarce these days because she asked for help and support in the HHH and energy threads, and got disrespect from some membersfor her trouble. When she tried to get the mods to help, they just dismissed it, said it wasn't disrespect.

Like I said she has been here several times since that crap happened. And all I asked was since she was given the job to watch sig sizes and now with this new Sig mechanism thing, does that mean she is no longer looking after that.
There is no need to defend nothing from my point of view I was just curious. I just need to know more or less who do I go talk to about signature limits now :D



Actually, we don't, not on most online forums - they are, after all, the property of their owners
Well there are exceptions. There are alot that give thier members more freedom to speak then others.

[Agaliha]

I don't want to speak for her, but since her name was brought up and she's not here to defend herself, I believe Lilith makes herself scarce these days because...


Defend herself against what?
Nothing was said that she would need to defend herself from.
*is confused*
Saying a fact-- that it was her job to check sig lengths-- is not anything to defend.

[Deranged Hermit]

Sorry, I use that phrase "not here to defend him/her self" all the time. What I should have said is "not here to speak for herself". Just my odd mannerisms confusing the issue. :bigredblu

[Agaliha]

Sorry, I use that phrase "not here to defend him/her self" all the time. What I should have said is "not here to speak for herself". Just my odd mannerisms confusing the issue. :bigredblu

Gotcha.

[RavensEye]

Sorry, I use that phrase "not here to defend him/her self" all the time. What I should have said is "not here to speak for herself". Just my odd mannerisms confusing the issue. :bigredblu ok whew :)

[mol]

MOL MODE

Never mind. Back to the way it was. Admins will decide...you report. Forget it.