Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IRC rules
#16
So far they seem good. I'm on the go right now so I plan to re read them again at home but the most important thing I saw was "we will not ban you over opinions" thank you for that cause that was a real thin line that I felt was being abused by Admins on irc.

Also I suggested in the past that admins started keeping logs on people in IRC just to help with judgement calls

So after re-reading them at home I have to say I'm pretty happy. Though I feel I have to say this as it's been on my chest and you put it in the rules so it's a perfect time to bring this up.

Also I say this with the up most respect so please don't take this as a attack but it's a observation that I feel needs to be addressed


Quote:"Rule 7: Don't take things too seriously. Don't expect trigger warnings, don't assume every link is going to be safe for work / school / your immortal soul (though please don't post outright porn, and tagging NWS links is Strongly Encouraged), and we kick people all the time for shiggles. (You can rejoin immediately after.)"

Admins take this rule to heart please. There are certain Admin(s) who I don't want to name who I and others feel get offended at every little thing (AKA take things too seriously). Popecrunch I know there are a few admins we are going to complain that you put the word "trigger" in there so prepare for that.

Overall I am happy with this list you did a great job striking a balance for both Admins and normal users to follow and it's quite impressive for a first draft.
Reply
#17
That's one of the reasons that led me to believe that a ruleset was necessary. That said, it's not productive to view past events through the lens of the ruleset we're planning for the future, so I'd personally appreciate it if we could keep discussion of that nature out of this thread.
Reply
#18
I'm just gonna go ahead and paste this IRC log because it really captures how I feel about this entire situation.

<drsingh> the issue in general is that "problem" people aren't usually problems at all
<drsingh> they're just people and a vast majority of them will happily cease to be a problem if given a chance
<drsingh> the problem is admins immediately writing people off as second class citizens for crossing certain lines
<drsingh> and ceasing to treat them respectfully
<drsingh> if admins just treated everyone with respect regardless of the circumstance
<drsingh> the truly shit people would continue to bury themselves
<drsingh> and the regular people would be treated respectfully
<drsingh> thats the goal we're all striving toward, i think

Whatever we end up with as the final literal wording of the rules I would hope it's in line with this. Oh, and also

<drsingh> it wouldn't be a bad thing to write up a guide for new admins
<drsingh> we've all pretty much just been dumped in the deep end and worked it out but a guide couldn't hurt
<drsingh> or like a mission statement
<drsingh> "treat players with respect regardless of their history or actions and try to guide everyone to playing constructively"
Reply
#19
1. A good solid rule.
2. The rule against slurs and the rule against banning for opinions should be split.
3. The rule against exploit discussion and the warning to listen to @ symbols should be split. Also it should explicitly note that @ = admin.
4. This rule and #8 are basically the same rule, except this one has a list of examples. They should probably be merged.
5. A good rule which should have a link to Synirc's rules.
6. This could be rephrased as, "Claiming that you were trolling, being ironic or a devil's advocate is not an excuse for breaking these rules. When you're told to stop doing something, we mean it."
7. The rule against NSFW should be split from the explanation that kicks = jokes.
8. How firm are you all on the warning people to take it out of the channel before banning thing?

Other things you might want rules about:
A: No chat speak.
B: No non-english conversations.
C: How to appeal your ban.
D: This isn't a suggestion, I just wanted you to know that I think a grumpy bee calling Literal Jesus a cunt is hilarious.
Reply
#20
(06-19-2016, 08:38 PM)magic mountain Wrote: I'm just gonna go ahead and paste this IRC log because it really captures how I feel about this entire situation.

<drsingh> the issue in general is that "problem" people aren't usually problems at all
<drsingh> they're just people and a vast majority of them will happily cease to be a problem if given a chance
<drsingh> the problem is admins immediately writing people off as second class citizens for crossing certain lines
<drsingh> and ceasing to treat them respectfully
<drsingh> if admins just treated everyone with respect regardless of the circumstance
<drsingh> the truly shit people would continue to bury themselves
<drsingh> and the regular people would be treated respectfully
<drsingh> thats the goal we're all striving toward, i think

Whatever we end up with as the final literal wording of the rules I would hope it's in line with this. Oh, and also

<drsingh> it wouldn't be a bad thing to write up a guide for new admins
<drsingh> we've all pretty much just been dumped in the deep end and worked it out but a guide couldn't hurt
<drsingh> or like a mission statement
<drsingh> "treat players with respect regardless of their history or actions and try to guide everyone to playing constructively"

First chunk agreed 100%, second chunk being actively worked on
(06-19-2016, 08:46 PM)Grek Wrote: 1. A good solid rule.
2. The rule against slurs and the rule against banning for opinions should be split.
3. The rule against exploit discussion and the warning to listen to @ symbols should be split. Also it should explicitly note that @ = admin.
4. This rule and #8 are basically the same rule, except this one has a list of examples. They should probably be merged.
5. A good rule which should have a link to Synirc's rules.
6. This could be rephrased as, "Claiming that you were trolling, being ironic or a devil's advocate is not an excuse for breaking these rules. When you're told to stop doing something, we mean it."
7. The rule against NSFW should be split from the explanation that kicks = jokes.
8. How firm are you all on the warning people to take it out of the channel before banning thing?

Other things you might want rules about:
A: No chat speak.
B: No non-english conversations.
C: How to appeal your ban.
D: This isn't a suggestion, I just wanted you to know that I think a grumpy bee calling Literal Jesus a cunt is hilarious.

2 - not 100% sure I agree, since they're both variations on 'be respectful to other people' which is really the main body of the rule, the two clauses are just clarifications.
3 - Again, two clauses of the same rule. And yeah I'll sub out the strudel for 'admins, half-admins, owner, etc etc'
4 - 8 is more a 'mission statement' of the rules. It's a summary intended to express that the rules are intended not to limit discussion, but to allow it to happen in a way that most people can agree is useful and respectful. That said, I'll probably stick it as a header / preface to the rules.
5 - it does in the WIP form on the wiki, that didn't get captured when i copy/pasted it onto the forums.
6 - I don't like that. Look, most if not all of the channel population are an assortment of trolls, a certain amount of trolling is to be expected and often results in some hilarious discussions. I don't want to DISCOURAGE trolling, just make sure that people who do it do so with a slight amount of care.
7 - The 'no NWS stuff' isn't really a RULE because it's a verrrry fuzzy target. Rule 7 is more a 'here is the elevator speech on the channel's culture' thing.
8 - Honestly? Up to the admin reacting to it. I'm not going to codify that because it's such a nebulous idea that attempting to codify it will cause more problems (ruleslawyering) than it will solve.

A, B - Leaving this up to social pressure.
C - Working on that, probably a subforum of the regular ban appeal forum. I had actually thought of this!

CURRENT INCARNATION:

These rules are to set up a framework of basic human decency in the IRC channel and NOT to censor speech. Most of the time, if you cross the line you will simply be told to knock it off, and maybe kicked with a note to stop pushing it if you keep going. Bans will be reserved for only the worst cases.
1) NO IC IN OOC. Don't talk about the current round in IRC.
2) Be respectful of others. You will not be banned from the channel for expressing opinions, so long as you are able to express those opinions in a respectful fashion. Don't use slurs, racial or otherwise, even ironically. Don't attack people for their opinions.
3) Be respectful of the admins. An exhaustive list of every situation where an IRC channel operator, half-op, owner, founder, etc etc might be grumping at you is impossible and disingenuous, so if an admin is grumping at you and asking you to stop talking in a given fashion or about a given topic, knock it off. These rules are intended to be more of an overview than a complete list of statutes. Also, don't discuss exactly how to exploit game mechanics or get around our security systems - if you have a bug to report, there are other venues (link to bug reporting forum goes here). Basically don't teach people to cheat.
4) Be respectful of the channel. Some conversation topics (including but not limited to current politics, racial tensions, religious freedom) are extremely volatile and controversial by their very nature, so if an admin requests that a conversation not take place in the channel, take it elsewhere. You're always free to make a new channel or carry on the conversation in PM, we are neither interested nor able to police what goes on in PM or in other channels.
5) Be respectful of the IRC network. Basically don't break Synirc's rules (link to synirc's rules goes here). Come on.
6) Tread VERY CAREFULLY with trolling or 'devil's advocate' stuff. There's a fine line between 'making the conversation interesting or hilarious' and 'being a thundering butthead' and you generally only find out you've tripped over it when people are screaming at you.
7) Don't take things too seriously. Don't expect trigger warnings, don't assume every link is going to be safe for work / school / your immortal soul (though please don't post outright porn, and tagging NWS links is Strongly Encouraged), and we kick people all the time for shiggles. (You can rejoin immediately after.)
8) If you DO manage to get banned from IRC, (process and link to appropriate stuff goes here)
Reply
#21
I think that the rules (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8) should probably be split from the mission statement and guidelines (second to last sentence of 3; 6, 7)
Reply
#22
Only thing that gets me in a huff a perceived lack of style, please be stylish to each other.
Reply
#23
(06-20-2016, 04:40 AM)HukHukHuk Wrote: Only thing that gets me in a huff a perceived lack of style, please be stylish to each other.

I'm VERY stylish
Reply
#24
"Also I suggested in the past that admins started keeping logs on people in IRC just to help with judgement calls"
EdVenture is right about this. Nothing insane, like don't log every last kick with a paragraph explanation, but if there's something that happened that might happen again in the future, etc, take note. For example, I was banned for 5 mins because I made a poorly worded joke, so a note on my file might read

"Kicked and banned for 5 minutes to get his attention, took a but joke too far, asked to not do it again; agreed" so that if I'm ever caught taking jokes too far again, people can say "we've already talked to you about this" and so on.


That being said; let me actually read the proposal for the rules now.


EDITED TO ADD:
1 - fine (this rule seems fine, not bad, or offensive, or troublesome, or even good, or great. it's satisfactory)
2 - fine, though my grammar would have been different (that does not matter though)
3 - bold "be respectful of others" IMO
4 - fine (I'm being thorough to let you know I'm sharing ALL my thoughts, holding nothing back)
5 - fine. maybe move this to the final slot?
6 - maybe add "but I don't even believe that point of view" is not a valid defence
7 - I don't like the term NWS. NSFW is far more common and should be used. 
8 - good. (as in I like this one, and the way it's worded; it's better than fine)

overall - Great. I like it.


EDITED TO FURTHER ADD

I also think that, even more important than the rules, is the creation of this IRC Ban subforum. People have been told in previous IRC bans that the forum is not the place to appeal them. Making it clear that it, in fact, is, means that bans need to be handled responsibly, which is something I was concerned was not happening in recent days.
Reply
#25
The forum's already created. And yeah the ~*~final form~*~ will have the first sentence or otherwise 'important bit' bolded. And fuck's sake who cares enough about the NWS/NSFW difference, I prefer NWS and you clearly know what it means so d e a l w i t h i t
Reply
#26
Also, to prevent a future argument, perhaps a mention that the discord counts under these rules?
Reply
#27
I'm not sure it does, honestly.  Lemme check on this.

Edit to add: The Discord channel is beyond the scope of these rules, these rules cover ONLY the #goonstation channel on the SynIRC network.  Discord channels are not 'official communication channels' or w/e
Reply
#28
I too prefer the acronym NSFW since NWS also frequently stands for National Weather Service.

Maybe just replacing the acronym altogether would be the best course of action, though.
Reply
#29
i will die on this hill

NWS uber alles

(or for christ's sweet sake just wait until it's on the wiki and change it yourself if you care that much about it, this thread is meant to discuss changes and suggestions OF SUBSTANCE, not 'hm hm, this acronym that is 100% clear from context is perhaps not as optimal as this other acronym, because in a sentence where we are talking about pornography, I somehow believe that a reader might believe that links about meteorology might be verboten)

EDIT TO ADD: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW NSFW IS BETTER THAN NWS, HOLY CHRIST IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS FROM CONTEXT THAT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT METEOROLOGISTS. IF YOU LITERALLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT I AM OBVIOUSLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING NATIONAL FUCKING WEATHER FUCKING SERVICE, THEN YOU ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL HELP AND NO AMOUNT OF IRC RULES WILL ASSIST YOU. Good fucking GOD if one more person jumps up my dick about this i SWEAR. Just wait till it hits the fucking wiki and change it then if you give that much of a shit.

More to the point and with some of the bile drained out of it, this thread is for discussing SUBSTANTIAL AND MEANINGFUL changes to the proposed rules. 'could you clarify what this means' 'maybe these should be combined/seperated' 'what about x'

'maybe this one acronym that everybody understands should be switched for this other acronym that everybody understands' is neither substantial nor meaningful.
Reply
#30
yet another poast: here's how the current incarnation of the IRC rules looks, included in the general rulespage rewrite. Please note that the game rules rewrite is not YET at the public comment stage, so please use this thread only for discussion and debate of the IRC rules.

http://wiki.ss13.co/User:Popecrunch
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)