A consistent debate (pun intended) (in Debates)

We all know how I like to make matters known when things get out of hand and are unfair. So now I'd like a little discussion on the consistent or lack there of for the CB rules as a whole. You'll notice I didn't provide details of what started this particular discussion but I will say it'd be nice if those running CB would be held to the same set of rules. All I ever see is how people are trying to keep things like fines and rules consistent, yet I keep seeing such things slip through the cracks. How does that happen you ask? That's one of the many things I'd like to see if I can't get an answer to in this discussion thread! :D

agreed, like this "calm the F down" , "calm the hell down" both the F word and Hell are being use negatively, degroatory. neither should be allowed. but no, hell is allowed.. but not if i tell someone to go to hell... makes no sense. negativity is negativity. context matters.

That's an awful lot of vague for one post.

How about this, instead of a public forum with little to no possibility of positive results, how about you and I have a chatmail exchange where you explain your perspective?

wow another admin trying to keep this in CM/PM

The unofficial rule I've followed is that the "lesser" naughty words (e.g., damn) are fine as long as they aren't used in a vituperative manner (e.g., damn you). Obviously, F-bombs and the like aren't allowed in any form.

The F.O.R.S. incident that happened recently was rather odd, but I never liked that Jon supported that word anyway. I'm usually not one to support P.C. terminology, but that one's been offensive for a couple of decades.

yes i get that demi, but being told to calm down and being told to clam the hell down, are too TOTALLY different things.

and whats F.O.R.S?

another?

I missed the first.

I've have pleasant conversations with this user in the past, and she's obviously troubled, I don't think asking to have her explain in detail the issue is the same thing as a mass conspiratorial cover up...

Your issue is a whole other story, you broke a rule and responded to a slap on the wrist badly, requesting you calm down (hell or not) was useless and foolish, and I'm sorry.

nov said it in your fining PR, right now its first post.

I appreciate the apology. Yes, I admit I may have over reacted to the fine. But my point is sound. Using words in a negative manner is just as bad as using the "bad" words and it shouldn't be allowed, by ANYONE, even admins.

pretty sure it was F.O.S.S they used.. because FOSS is now listed in the faq.

oh and FOSS ... stupid instead of redundant.. that's so much better..

for giggles i will point out that saying this new R word is just as bad as saying stupid. so maybe we need to fix that.

saying your R'd, your stupid. its the same thing. so calling changing our F.O.R.S to F.O.S.S is actually kinda insulting.

Sent a CM explaining the old "r."

No, that is not true.

got it, and you proved my point, my R words were "admin edited" but it was in the faq...

now it says FOSS which is instead of R word is stupid.. which is just as bad. go back to redundant. its not insulting.

how isn't it titan, are you stupid? thats a question not a statement.. does that make you feel good? no just like saying your r'd is insulting, just like saying your stupid is insulting.

It's not just as bad. One obviously belittles handicapped people.

You're ugly

You're a <racial slur>

See, both offense, but we're allow the use of "ugly"; but we're not going to allow the use of racial slurs? I hope you see why.

Can't we all just agree that an insult is insulting and convenient rules are just that until they are found to be inconvenient at which point they are conveniently changed to be convenient all over again?

Also, please from now on, can we keep the thread on topic? This is about consistency in rules and rule application. I know this is something we strive for; so feedback is fine. However, I asked that you keep the discussion level headed and calm.

Elf: Make sure we do not go into specifics about your situation, or anything that has happened. You were told to drop it on many occasions. The admin that handled it has be very patient and gave the exact explanation that I did. He was very level headed and I was surprised he didn't kick you from chat, as I have been on your end and that's what happened to me, with multiple admins, and chat OPs.

Insults are insulting yes, they were never intended to be allowed. There are words; however, we do not allow, simply b/c the words are offensive to specific groups of people. This is where the r word falls. No matter how you use it, there are people who will be offended.

Seems like we are getting off point already. I think the point is for the rules of CB chat and forums to be consistent on all levels. Some rules and easy because they are black and white. It's the rules that are based on an admins opinion that have a problem because from it can vary from one admin to another. Other problems arise from this like trying to convey sarcasm over type format is often mistaken. Language barriers, and different uses of words even in English in different parts of the world mean different things. It's not always easy, but some of these things would be easier for all party's if they were more clearly defined.

I honestly think for the most part the admins are doing great, but there are some grey areas that need improvement.

titan you don't get it. For one being called anything can hurt and it shouldn't be allowed. using ANY word in a negative context towards someone can hurt and shouldn't be allowed. calling me stupid, ugly, R'd, brain dead, etc. all can hurt and shouldn't be allowed.

calling my ideas, redundant or not, stupid, R'd or anything is insulting and shouldn't be allowed. consistency. context.

Hmm, it's like I almost think the same thing.

so why are they being allowed.

someone changed the FORS (redundant) to FOSS (stupid) shouldn't be allowed.

but it's still there, and everyone had a big laugh at it but me.

how can you call that consistent.

PS i don't care that it was R'd before and changed to redundant. that's a good thing. changing it to stupid was uncalled for.

That chair is stupid.

Does that insult you? Does calling something stupid insult you?

From: AdminTitan (3:45 PM EST)
It was never "redundant" it used to be "(admin edit)"

That's not what I was told.

From: Demigod Sent: 3:20 PM EST Delivered: 3:21 PM EST
FORS used to be Frequently Offered Retarded Suggestions. It's now "Redundant" thanks to that recent thread. FOSS never really existed.

So my R words were admin edited and it was IN THE FAQ... that's not consistent. Now which was it.. because I'm confused.

either way it says stupid now, and it shouldn't my ideas aren't stupid and don't like being told they are its INSULTING.

does calling the Exbow R'd insult you? because i was told i wasn't allowed to use that word.. although its in the faq.

It doesn't insult me, know. I am not mentally handicapped, I am not close to someone who is, but there *are* people who are in that situation.

P.S.: There was a reason I cm'd you that word. It must have been "redundant" in FORS for a very very short period of time. B/c when Bee changed it I checked afterwards and it was already "stupid"

well being told my ideas are stupid is just as bad as calling me stupid and it insults me. I am not stupid, and it should not say stupid. Its just as bad a R'd...

a mentally handicapped person would take both words in a derogatory way. so why is stupid allowed.

No, this isn't true. Unless you mean they would take offense to being called stupid, as would anyone else.

But, wow, my fault again... Let's stay on topic.

Rules, and rule consistency is what we're talking about here.

EXACTLY!!!! if i call you stupid you are hurt just as bad as being called R'd..

they are both words to demean a person down to a handicapped state, a brain dead state.

calling my ideas is the same thing. it shouldn't be allowed period. I have no idea how stupid you have to be to get the point that being called stupid is the same as being called R'd.

and calling one's ideas stupid is the same as R'd. your demeaning them. period. that is not consistency.

all im saying is stupid is beyond that point of being nice.. just like R'd.

No, it's not.

That is a stupid idea. You are being stupid. That's a stupid grin you have on your face.

As for consistency, that's been a long standing bugbear with CB. I'd like to point all the old players back to the Mrs Di incident of CB1.

Intent is subjective, and *very* hard to determine.

Words with only 'vulgar' uses isn't subjective and can be easily monitored.

Should we give up on moderating the subjective stuff becuase it's hard? Obviously not.

But, it's hard. And gaining consistency doing so is hard.

Novice is a paperweight. Johnny is a bad dancer. G Beee smells of old socks.

What's my intent here? Are any of the users going to be offended by what I've typed? Should I be fined?

There are two issues of consistency here, that I see.

1: A consistent method and weight of punishment
2: All CBers being held to the rules equally and consistently

We should tackle these seperately.

For 1, I'm sure there are rules (or at the least guidelines) that the admins have to follow. I'm not privy to them, so can't comment on them.

For 2, this is something, like the old Multi Hunting (which I *still* approve of), that we, as a community, can help the Admins maintain.

If you think they've missed something, or been inconsistent, then let's *tell them*.

that's a silly grin, nice. that's a stupid grin, not nice.

if mentally handicapped people are offended by being called R'd.

if dumb people are offended by being called stupid.

If I am offended by being called stupid or my ideas stupid.

then why are we allowed to be called stupid or our ideas stupid.

if races are offended by being called racial slurs.

I'm done trying to prove the point that stupid is a word that shouldn't be used. And if you can't see that and are not going to change it, then you are all stupid, just like my ideas I mean FOSS. Am I getting a ban or a fine for using a word you have all just said is not going to be removed?

Don't presume to police my vocabulary. You're assuming my intent, but you don't know it.

Stupid, Stupor, Stupefied. Apathy.


Really?

I'm offended by the word Bycicle. And Tire. And moss. Can we ban all those as well? Oh and Toast.

If you're offended by the word stupid, I'd offer you the advice to grow a little thicker skin.

POLICE vocabulary what do you think this entire thread is about our free speech being policed. swear words or not.

you can't use these words, but these words are alright.. it can be used in this context but not that one...


THAT'S POLICING!

Me too! >:[

What would you consider a positive result at this point L3G0?

ALSO, why don't all those mentally handicapped people grow thicker skin, and all other races should just be able to take a joke eh?

I'd like to remind everyone of the topic of this thread. :) Let's not give people a reason to close it. :D Fair warning those that don't stay on topic I'll hunt you down and you'll see WHAT or ELSE means :P

Nov, Can I PM you in a bit, I have to run out.

Fair point, what I'm interested in seeing is a level of appreciation and recognition for the Admins and Users of this game, we have an amazing community and it couldn't be that without everyone.

Consistency isn't something we can just have like a candy bar, it's a never reached goal to strive for with each and every action. Fair judgement and a light touch are what the admins here are working for, having users react with a disproportionately angry tone to the simplest of corrections is frustrating and makes us question why the hell we volunteered in the first place. If you feel slighted by the rules and their application, just remember you're in good company, many of us handing out punishments have previously been on the receiving end. NightStrike himself went from being forum banned (rather unfairly I'm sure from his perspective) to being an owner!

If you see something slip and wonder why, I suggest you respond by finding something you can help with, be it documentation or assisting a new person. The more hands helping the more time the administration will have to make and enforce rules that work for everyone.

I believe I got forum banned once too. ;D

no bans/kicks here yet! :) not even clan chatroom kick i believe!
im a good kid :)

You don'y have free speech. Not in CB. You've never had.

And outside CB, your right to insult me stops at my right to not being insulted.


Yes, by the owners of the game, and the folk that help run it.


That they should. The world would be a far safer place when folk don't flip out and try to kill each other when they deem thier God/Race/Sexuality/Honour/Whatever has been besmirched.

The world would also be a much better place if those people who tried to besmirch someones God/Race/Sexuality/Honour/Whatever had the contrl to just, not do so.

The original fine was fine. The removal of retard was also fine (I'd be concerned if it was removed when used in a stamte like "I am trying to retard the aging process" or "I've retarded the aging process!"). The change of FORS, well if it hurts no one, why not.

The use of 'hell' was fine. As I've said, I've shouted at my girl to reboot a tantrum, sometimes you have to be coarser than you otherwise would.

Yes, consistency can be improved. That's not a bad thing.

/shrug

yes, yes you are :)

dont' send me any more CM/PM about this crap im done with it. me and novice had a talk..

<Guntzalcoatl> cough "But my point is sound." Nope. Not even with double/triple postings. I'll tell you the reason FORS could and you couldn't. Jon owners the game. Bonk. Stupid is not even on par with retard in terms of hurt within the general public. Am amazed this needs to be clarified. If being told your ideas are stupid brings on the water works then I strongly suggest getting new ideas and a sack of xanax before cruising the internet again. Also I'm offended GL is offended by toast.


GUN, i dont' care what you have to say, don't cm me, don't pm me i don't care what anyone else has to say about this. you purposely just sent me this After being asked to stop provoking me by Ranger, you talking me down, well you act like a child.

oh and your point of jon can say it because he owns the game.. yea the owner should be setting an example. and you call this consistency, i call its abuse. admins can break rules, owners can break rules, but members can't.

stop messaging me i dont' care.

Actually I had that in the window before Ranger had his openly unfair view of me so I sent it via PM to not spark a flame war. You really are terrible if I'm a better person than you. =/

shut your face. im not a terrible person and you have no right to say that. you provoked me... everyone had cooled down, but NO gun needs to be a troll and start it all over again.

No. My view of you is very fair based upon your past actions and words.

Telling you TABS is a key on the keyboard then saying "find it, I'll wait" is more par for the course for my racist wit than provoking. Excuse me for the night while I facepalm at your absurd practices of assumption and misdirection.

The first thing one has to do to become a better person is admit ones faults. You have just taken the first step. Only 11 more and you may become a member of the human race.

Till then, stop the darn trolling of threads.

I'll tell you what I told Zen. You first. ;)

*shrug* gun has always been a troll :) i mean like he kept accusing my brother of being a multi of me until he quit lol...

i think the simple answer is that some of us are humans and some are trolls ^^ and lets leave it at that

You were trading between accounts still after two weeks of warnings and talking about it in open chat before dead silence when I gave those warnings. Your account was the fight account and his was the forger don't play innocent. Hounding you after that first month wasn't right I will admit, but you really did some dumb with him and considering I never turned you in for doing so deserves some respect.
You should have PM'd me that so I could post it.

*shrug* point and case

Ever notice Gun that all the disagreements people have with you are due to you starting things.

You posting about someone else and then respond. Time and time again it is the same.

You have nothing unique to post except for attacks on others.

Just wondering if you noticed.

It is like you are the kid on the playground poking all the other kids waiting for them to punch you. Then going to the teacher saying they are the mean ones.

Like a 3 year old.

Ever notice that?

actually that is kinda fun

Fun until the guy you poke breaks out a knife and stabs you in the chest.

Then it is not so fun anymore.

well seriously that hardly ever happens on the internet does it :)

Who knows what the future of technology will bring :)

virtual knifes! and go to bed ranger its past your bedtime =x

In the spirit of fair and consistent, why is it only some are held to ''trolling'' rules? Was anything said to those that went off topic even after I nicely reminded people? Isn't one of the debate section rules to stay on topic? Isn't it the job of admins and such to enforce the rules?? Why can't we get consistency ??

I didn't think this was a 'debate' thread, but a 'discussion' thread, which is a lot looser in structure.

i think the trouble with any attempt at consistency in regard to admin actions can be summed up nicely by using trolling as an example. what we would likely do on the admin forums first is to define trolling. since we are doing this in the open, we can let everyone join us here.

so, the first step to consistency is coming to an agreement on the definition of trolling. why doesn't someone just cm me when this step has been accomplished here.

Well, we could start with;


But emotional response? Is humour, or happiness an emotional response that should be classified as 'trolling'?

so we have to prove intent then?

Yeah.

Well I suppose you could lump 'off topic' in there as well, and it would be u tot he admins to decide what's going off topic in a thread, possibly.

off topic would be the easier part in my mind. proving someone else's intent is much more difficult though. also, where one admin might see intent another might not. how do we get half a dozen or so admins to consistently recognize others intentions?

That's rather the rub, isn't it.

And to get the admin to do so consistently...

Unofficial FAQ -> Chat FAQ -> definition of trolling.
I was given permission by NS to edit that in a while ago.
There's already a definition.

and you would be the authoritative source Mr. Pot, now get the Kettle to agree

sorry, we can move on from the definition then but that definition also requires proving intent. how do we do that consistently and fairly across different individuals?

we can look at the happy holidays thread for a great example. it is pretty clear that ranger was trolling when he called lb an idiot. if we punished ranger he might claim that he was only trolling in response to lb's post and that lb trolled first.

an atheist and a christian might have vastly different ideas of whether or not lb's post was an attempt at trolling using the intent clause.

so do we only use admin action against obvious intent trolling cases or do we get into the gray area? how exactly should the intent issue be dealt with?

That is wrong.

It was not my intent to provoke LB into anything as he did in his post. I was calling him out on his lack of intelligence with response to my post which was nothing political but in response to the first post.

what did i get wrong exactly ranger?

Most of it as my post explains.

i don't understand your post, hence the question. you called him an idiot and yet you say that wasn't provoking or inflammatory.

not every childish incident of name calling is trolling

(but the line above is)

Again, I was responding to his lack of intelligence with respect to his post about my link.

I could have stated "LB your lack of intelligence is startling" or something along that line. However, his post was quite inflammatory and I took the idiot approach rather than other inflammatory words.

i don't see that at all which part was inflammatory exactly?

I will be more than happy to have this discussion with you in CM.

i am using this little exercise to show how hard it is to admin effectively when gray areas like intent are present. i was using your interaction with lb as an example. it isn't really useful unless it is public for the purposes of this discussion.

I personally do not believe the admins should get involved in trolling. The community needs to police its own. If a thread goes to a flame war, so be it, unless it goes to cursing etc...

Cursing, non-PG content, of course that needs to be addressed as it is in the rules from the first day you join CB.

i see my mistake now and apologize to ranger, he wasn't upset by lb's first post but the second one regarding ranger taking it political.

i think the example still holds though. someone stating that another person took a thread political is quite different from someone calling another an idiot.

i also understand your stance, which i tend to agree with by the way, on this ranger and wasn't trying to put you on the spot. i really just wanted to use a real world example of why it can be very problematic for us admins to enforce something like trolling and hopefully to get others to see the difficulty we can face.

I completely understand the difficulty admins have with these things.

That is why except for obvious violations of the rules, they should let things be.

Ranger, however trolling is still trolling and if one person is going to be singled out for it so should everyone else that does it. Or perhaps that one person should have just been left alone and this entire thing wouldn't have started... but hey what to I know...

I never said LB was trolling until I was accused of it.

All I stated was he was unintelligent not to realize my post was not political but in response to the OP of that thread.

I, again, believe the admins need to leave things alone except in cases of un-PGness.