You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- « next
Why isn't the clearest rule on Flamebate ever enforced? | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
we can encougar discussino while being on one side of trolling the mods
the mods can be incosnistent with bans and be completely trolling the player base
which one is worse |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 6:49PM | View Leechbait's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Leechbait Posted:
Your post saying
Leechbait Posted:
was intended to start an intelligent debate of the rules and how they were applied, and not to allow you and other players to vent about being angry with the mods and/or make a Point about how unfair whatever action you’re actually mad about might be?
Pull the other one – it’s got bells on. |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 7:07PM | View Samildanach's Profile | # | ||||||
|
actually i was wondering why more people WEREN’T banned and not why certain people WERE
hobo is a cool poster but he doesnt care about him being banned and honestly i dpnt give a **** either |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 7:12PM | View Leechbait's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Leechbait Posted:
If you’re really serious, your method of phrasing the question is seriously lacking. I cannot possibly take that first post seriously as a question, given the hyperbole and call for mod-banning. |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 7:42PM | View Samildanach's Profile | # | ||||||
Samildanach Posted:
So instead of having a defined line, that people may work around, we’re not going to have any line at all. What brilliant logic. |
|||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 7:45PM | View -MLF-'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
MeatLoafFan Posted:
There’s a line. Most people know when they’ve crossed it – they just pretend otherwise for CYA and to rile up support.
It’s defined by common sense, unfortunately, which is lost on a lot of people (and I’m not excluding moderators here). All rules require adjudication, and the wasted effort on defining every boundary case will just turn out to be useless as people press new boundary cases.
CASE A) Mods spend many meetings coming up with an exhaustive list of defining characteristics for a “shock image.” For lulz, ITROLLU4202010 posts an image that is clearly a shock pic, but evades those characteristics. Mods get yelled at for banning ITROLLU4202010, are accused of partisan modding, get internet lawyers up their bumholes pointing out how it “broke no rules” and have to update the list.
CASE B) Mods say “Don’t ****ing post shock images.” For lulz, ITROLLU4202010 posts an image that is clearly a shock pic. Mods get yelled at for banning ITROLLU4202010, are accused of partisan modding, get internet lawyers up their bumholes pointing out how there is no clear definition of a “shock pic”, mods sigh and move on.
One of these requires a mbumive investment of time and effort in a distasteful activity, and both yield roughly the same result in practice. Is it any surprise that the latter is preferable? |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 7:52PM | View Samildanach's Profile | # | ||||||
Samildanach Posted:
Fine. How about, examples of what a shock picture would consist of? How about there’s a clause such as “Regardless of the above definitions, if you have posted an obvious shock picture, we will ban you”. That’s not creating a solid line, it’s creating a very foggy one, people have a sense of when they’re pushing it, and it’s still the moderators complete choice. |
|||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 8:15PM | View -MLF-'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
MeatLoafFan Posted:
You’ve never seen a shock picture? Seriously? This term is somehow unknown to you?
MeatLoafFan Posted:
Then people would **** that the rule isn’t creating a solid line, but instead defining a very foggy one, and pretend they don’t have a sense of when they’re pushing it, blaming it all on a moderator’s (always incorrect) decision. Having “examples of rulebreaking” followed by “And we’ll ban you even if these examples don’t apply” is functionally equivalent to not having the examples.
MeatLoafFan Posted:
The reason people are calling for more exact rules is to make it less “the moderator’s complete choice.” That is, generally, the purpose of written law – to remove the chance for abuses of power from those who adjudicate and enforce the law. In normal society, when we’re talking about people’s actual lives and rights, I’m generally in favor of limitation on executive power. In an online game’s |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 8:24PM | View Samildanach's Profile | # | ||||||
Samildanach Posted:
In normal society, we also have “Obstruction of Justice”. |
|||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 8:27PM | View -MLF-'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
An important thing to remember is, that even when the new rules are posted, they are not in any way going to be considered limitations on what the Mods can police. They will simply be guidelines so that the average player gets a better understanding of what is and isn’t allowed. Granted, if it’s not perceived to be an intentional offense, I expect there will be leniency. But actively looking for loopholes to exploit them won’t be tolerated. |
||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 8:30PM | View Sergeant Cid's Profile | # | ||||||
Sergeant Cid Posted:
Imo, this is a perfect example how the rules should look, instead of “Don’t post shock”.
Also, I’ve begun to implement a glossary, here. Maybe something similar will be useful for terms like “shock”, and “trolling”. |
|||||||
Posted On: 04/21/2009 8:37PM | View -MLF-'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
Sergeant Cid Posted:
what about starting threads designed to trol lspecific players ion a non-rp forum even though they produce actual discuson which could have been the interent |
||||||
Posted On: 04/22/2009 12:05AM | View Leechbait's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Leechbait Posted:
You’d have to show me an example of this before I made my decision. Log in to see images! |
||||||
Posted On: 04/22/2009 9:11AM | View Sergeant Cid's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Fran Posted:
Indeed, I concur, etc. |
||||||
Posted On: 04/22/2009 9:17AM | View Inertia's Profile | # | ||||||
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- « next