Forum Rules

[Azrael]

Before we really get moving, we're going to need some forum rules. Also an EULA and a DMCA safe harbor policy.

In terms of forum rules, we'll be wanting some community input, and someone(s) to take charge of creating each of those three documents (borrowing and editting from others' templates should be fine.)

[( G_R )]

This is a list of the offenses from the site we all are used to:

Normal Offenses
Spam
Flaming and Trolling
Inappropriate Language
Evading the Censor
Mod Text
Editing a Moderated Post
Repeated Bad Spelling and/or Grammar
Image Leeching
Signature and Avatar Offenses

Immediate Suspension Offenses:
Soliciting
Aiding & Abetting Evasion of Limited Site Privileges
Inappropriate Material
Plagiarism and Artwork
Illegal Activity
Disregarding a Moderator Request
Bad Trading Practices and/or Suspected Ripping
Abuse of the Report System

Immediate Banning Offenses:
Proxies (ie Counterfeiting)
Malicious Links (lol lemonparty)
Snuff or Child Pornography
Scams or Ripping
Evading a Limitation of Site Privileges
Threats

In the end, some of these rules made that privately owned website about Magical cards bearable to read. We should
tap on that. We should scrap what makes it suck.

[( G_R )]

Bannings should be only considered under extreme circumstances, IMO. Even suspensions should be seldom considered. I see moderation as a behind-the-curtains thing that should not reach the political levels it did in MTGS.

[ein]

Bannings should be only considered under extreme circumstances, IMO. Even suspensions should be seldom considered. I see moderation as a behind-the-curtains thing that should not reach the political levels it did in Ugly Sally.

Mmm, agree. One thing I like about hockey is that the refs usually let two people duke it out a bit before stepping in. They realize that while it's their job to keep the peace that sometimes you gotta let people take a swing, release their frustration, and then settle it down. Maybe that's not the right analogy for a forum, but I wonder if a little more freedom (and less of a feeling that someone is looking over your shoulder :ceilingcat:) might produce a better environment. Would certainly cut down on the stupid us
v. them mentality at MTGS.

[Yannaria]

imo a Laissez Faire approach to moderation would be nice. I proposed the idea on MTGS where the community of a given subforum self moderates and deems what is considered okay in the long run.
This obviously might not work for lthe MTG parts of the site, but for other forums some more relaxed rules on issues would be nice.

If people are under 13, can you make it so the censor is always on, but when they turn 13, they can turn it off? This could be raised to 18. That way people can decide if they want to read swears or not.

[admin]

I think GG is a good example of laid back moderation. We could take a cue from them.

[ein]

I think GG is a good example of laid back moderation. We could take a cue from them.

Totally agree here. There are ocassionally loose cannons, but in general the forums keep themselves in check. Also, the admins are all well liked and fully trusted.

[Thrillho]

self policing but for extreme circumstances is what keeps good forums of quality and going.

also keep it interesting.

aka somethingawful.

[Thrillho]

like we shouldn't need infractions generally. i liked to use warnings when i was doing MSC and after extended was a forum anyone ever visited even after people had been previously warned because people seldom broke the same rule twice unless they were just going out there and calling people [derogatory term for homosexual]s or whatever in a string of being internet mad, and the same reason i didn't ban poor posters from the gutter unless it was just... too much or they trolled themselves into oblivion.

basically i only ever really tried to sort people out via forum capabilities when they were internet mad. and while i don't think you can effectively have a rule that says "don't be internet mad" i do think that setting a groundwork in and around that affect would be worthwhile.

[Azrael]

If we're eventually aiming to become a site that takes in a lot of outside traffic, self-policing a la GG isn't going to be a very great idea. It works in small-scale communities with intelligent people - it doesn't work well when you have to deal with the masses.

For that reason, we probably need to codify the rules, but keep them laidback, and have moderators intervene primarily with verbals/reminders except as necessary. Enforcing a higher standard for posting quality than you see on say, the WOTC boards is probably a very good idea, but we can certainly go about that in a much less dickish/authoritarian style.

Finding some way to keep at least certain areas of the site as sandboxes free from stupidity is going to be important, too. The problem with MTG forums as forums for the purpose of talking about MTG has always been the fact that smart people don't like mixing with people dumber than them when it comes to
talking cards. To some extent there's not much we can (or should) try to do about that, but it's something to keep in mind.

One of the ways to approach the problem may be through a social networking angle. I have a few ideas on that. Nothing specific on how to go about implementation, but if the end result is that folks can put together their own private "gutters" amongst like-minded individuals, they're likely to stick around and form new sandboxes, adding considerable value.

[Thrillho]

somethingawful forums. boom, roasted.

[Azrael]

somethingawful forums. boom, roasted.

Somehow I doubt a group comprised largely of adolescent MTG players is going to work out as well as SA.

[( G_R )]

No mod-text. Just explain in "reason for editing".

[Yannaria]

No mod-text. Just explain in "reason for editing".

but how will everyone know if we're not wearing a red badge of same ala The Scarlet Letter?

[Manders]

[quote="[url=viewtopic.php?p=1828#p1828:2k4jpd0y]Yanni » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:59 pm[/url:2k4jpd0y]":2k4jpd0y][quote="[url=viewtopic.php?p=1827#p1827:2k4jpd0y]( G_R ) » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:58 pm[/url:2k4jpd0y]":2k4jpd0y]No mod-text. Just explain in "reason for editing". [/quote:2k4jpd0y]

but how will everyone know if we're not wearing a red badge of same ala The Scarlet Letter?[/quote:2k4jpd0y]
Yanni, be productive.

What is the significance of in the rules?

[( G_R )]

What is the significance of in the rules?

Those are rules I find boring.

But they are not entirely so I just zzzz'd them.