[DISCUSSION] Many of the rules are too strict

[Federated Kingdom]

Some posts have been removed to the evidence locker due to bad faith posting. Discussion threads are not a place to rehash specific rulings.

perhaps you could disappear all of the posts concerning the discussion then to make it precisely clear next time

[The united states of Saints]

Hell, even [violet] was warned once.

No one is ever gonna let me live that down.

And [violet] STILL growls at me.

When was this?

[Federated Kingdom]

No one is ever gonna let me live that down.

And [violet] STILL growls at me.

When was this?

tell me mods

are we going to disappear this for being off-topic

or is it only when we're pointing out that this thread is to discuss mod strictness we get disappeared

(edit: well, looks like we only get disappeared when we point out the obvious, and in the case of dalvius, apologise)

[The united states of Saints]

When was this?

tell me mods

are we going to disappear this for being off-topic

or is it only when we're pointing out that this thread to discuss mod strictness we get disappeared

If its off-topic and I get my first warning ever that's ok its not a big deal. I didn't contribute to the discussion, but I was only curious because I never heard of this before now.

Honestly I think the rules are fine as they are. I can see why political nicknaming can be trolling and why troll naming can be inflammatory so their not that absurd to me. As others have stated the rules basically boil down to "don't be a jerk". Ok, that's easy for me at least, but for others its hard.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's not fair to say all treads are created equal either. Different threads call for different measures. For instance the CDT just had a run of cat puns being posted. While in a fresh thread the Mods probably would have loomed instantly. But in a thread on its 8th iteration, some insanity is expected from time to time at this point. Situation will dictate the Mod's responses, is my point.

[Arridian Islands]

Yup, free speech seems to be a problem in here. Not to insult someone or anything, but you praise the left and you get commended, you praise the right and you get a three day ban. Just noticing.

*** DEAT for posting past ban ***

Your 3-day ban is still in effect. Additional puppets created to bypass this ban will also be DEAT should they post on the forums. If you wished to appeal your ban, you should have filed a GHR.

Sorry, but, what does DEAT stand for?

[Arridian Islands]

Ok guys stop being rude to the damn mods, I'm not mad at any mods so neither should you guys. This is supposed to be a CIVIL DISCUSSION on rules seeming too strict.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

*** DEAT for posting past ban ***

Your 3-day ban is still in effect. Additional puppets created to bypass this ban will also be DEAT should they post on the forums. If you wished to appeal your ban, you should have filed a GHR.

Sorry, but, what does DEAT stand for?

Essentially it's shorthand for deleated

[Philjia]

*** DEAT for posting past ban ***

Your 3-day ban is still in effect. Additional puppets created to bypass this ban will also be DEAT should they post on the forums. If you wished to appeal your ban, you should have filed a GHR.

Sorry, but, what does DEAT stand for?

It's a misprint of "DEAD".

[Phydios]

*** DEAT for posting past ban ***

Your 3-day ban is still in effect. Additional puppets created to bypass this ban will also be DEAT should they post on the forums. If you wished to appeal your ban, you should have filed a GHR.

Sorry, but, what does DEAT stand for?

As you can see, the exact origin is a bit fuzzy. Maybe it was a typo from "DEAD". Maybe a typo from "DEATH". Maybe something else. Regardless, the meaning is clear: deleted by a mod.

[Twilight Imperium]

Ok guys stop being rude to the damn mods, I'm not mad at any mods so neither should you guys. This is supposed to be a CIVIL DISCUSSION on rules seeming too strict.

By now you should probably see the trend, though. We've had these kinds of threads before, usually from people fresh off of a warning that they're stinging from and that most other people can see is completely deserved. If people aren't taking it seriously, it's only because it's like the monthly "why can't we use swastikas" thread - we've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and worn said t-shirt until it was all worn out. Then we made it into a potholder. If you have some new information or angle that hasn't been covered in the last ten years, we might progress the discussion. Otherwise, it'll most likely be a mix of "nope" and "waaah" for around ten pages before someone lights it on fire and the mods lock it.

And no, the rules here are incredibly lenient as far as these things go

[Thermodolia]

Ok guys stop being rude to the damn mods, I'm not mad at any mods so neither should you guys. This is supposed to be a CIVIL DISCUSSION on rules seeming too strict.

By now you should probably see the trend, though. We've had these kinds of threads before, usually from people fresh off of a warning that they're stinging from and that most other people can see is completely deserved. If people aren't taking it seriously, it's only because it's like the monthly "why can't we use swastikas" thread - we've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and worn said t-shirt until it was all worn out. Then we made it into a potholder. If you have some new information or angle that hasn't been covered in the last ten years, we might progress the discussion. Otherwise, it'll most likely be a mix of "nope" and "waaah" for around ten pages before someone lights it on fire and the mods lock it.

And no, the rules here are incredibly lenient as far as these things go

You just won a spot in the awesome quotes thread

[Chrinthanium]

If it is not an actual physical threat to their position, there is no reason to suppress it and it can be let free for a time if you like to make mockeries out of it.

There's a reason why people in China shittalk the CPC regularly on Baidu Tieba and there are no retaliations. It is not a physical threat.

Besides, one always agree with mods until they get banned or warned.

I still agree with the mods and I've been warned 4 times. Now I didn't agree with some of those warnings but I moved on and accepted the modly judgment

I went ballistic the first (and only) red box warning I got. In the end, they were right... not because this is Max's site. I was really, really evil in my flame and deserved it (yes, I said it).

And that's the point. Sometimes you deserve to get a warning if you break the rules and, generally, I believe they are applied equally enough across the board that I see no favoritism.

[USS Monitor]

When was this?

tell me mods

are we going to disappear this for being off-topic

or is it only when we're pointing out that this thread is to discuss mod strictness we get disappeared

(edit: well, looks like we only get disappeared when we point out the obvious, and in the case of dalvius, apologise)

Your post got removed because you flagrantly ignored my instructions to stop rehashing specific rulings, and Dalvius' post got removed because it quoted yours.

[Federated Kingdom]

tell me mods

are we going to disappear this for being off-topic

or is it only when we're pointing out that this thread is to discuss mod strictness we get disappeared

(edit: well, looks like we only get disappeared when we point out the obvious, and in the case of dalvius, apologise)

Your post got removed because you flagrantly ignored my instructions to stop rehashing specific rulings, and Dalvius' post got removed because it quoted yours.

so, you don't like me bringing up the fact you sometimes hand out punishments that are a bit too strict, eh?

[NERVUN]

No one is ever gonna let me live that down.

And [violet] STILL growls at me.

When was this?

Sometime back. [violet] made a post regarding Holocaust denial and the people holding it in regards to site policy. It was reported, I looked and had to conclude that... yeah, that was All X are Y and textbook trolling. Since no one, not even [v] is above the rules I warned her.

And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.

[NERVUN]

Your post got removed because you flagrantly ignored my instructions to stop rehashing specific rulings, and Dalvius' post got removed because it quoted yours.

so, you don't like me bringing up the fact you sometimes hand out punishments that are a bit too strict, eh?

You apparently have difficulty understanding.

This is a discussion thread. If you look at the rules for Moderation you will see that posts that attempt to re-argue rulings, appeal rulings, or are made in bad faith can and will be removed.

Enough.

[Dalvius]

When was this?

Sometime back. [violet] made a post regarding Holocaust denial and the people holding it in regards to site policy. It was reported, I looked and had to conclude that... yeah, that was All X are Y and textbook trolling. Since no one, not even [v] is above the rules I warned her.

And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.

One, can I have a link to this so I can fall asleep to the sight of [V] getting warned?

And two, it must not be a great feeling, knowing you warned the person here who's capable of going 1944 on this site.

[Phydios]

Sometime back. [violet] made a post regarding Holocaust denial and the people holding it in regards to site policy. It was reported, I looked and had to conclude that... yeah, that was All X are Y and textbook trolling. Since no one, not even [v] is above the rules I warned her.

And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.

One, can I have a link to this so I can fall asleep to the sight of [V] getting warned?

And two, it must not be a great feeling, knowing you warned the person here who's capable of going 1944 on this site.

Here you go.

[Tinhampton]

If you want further examples of rules applying to mods, try and cast your mind back to the time when Kryo was defrocked for a week after abusing her mod powers to suppress two RMB posts (I forgot the link to the thread about it). However, that ain't the point of this thread...

...this is. By and large, the rules are OK as they are.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't think there should be a rule against Grave digging, so long as it's reasonable

Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long unused thread. Adding legitimate new material is permitted, but the acceptable age varies from forum to forum. Check the stickies in each forum to determine the standard for what constitutes gravedigging.

Emphasis added.

No, I meant so long as it's relevant, it should be 2 years

[Outer Sparta]

Well, it's Max's site. He decides the rules. Currently, there's no free speech, but that's the site creator's decision.

[Australian rePublic]

Well, it's Max's site. He decides the rules. Currently, there's no free speech, but that's the site creator's decision.

I am aware of that. I find it ironic that there is no free speech on a political website

[Phydios]

Well, it's Max's site. He decides the rules. Currently, there's no free speech, but that's the site creator's decision.

There is quite a bit of free speech. Max has said that he wants even fringe views to be welcomed and debated so that if they're stupid, they get shouted down instead of lingering in the shadows. Users are more than welcome to entertain conspiracy theories of mod corruption and bias. To ensure a civil environment, we do not have total free speech, but we have quite enough to debate just about anything civilly.

[Australian rePublic]

Well, it's Max's site. He decides the rules. Currently, there's no free speech, but that's the site creator's decision.

There is quite a bit of free speech. Max has said that he wants even fringe views to be welcomed and debated so that if they're stupid, they get shouted down instead of lingering in the shadows. Users are more than welcome to entertain conspiracy theories of mod corruption and bias. To ensure a civil environment, we do not have total free speech, but we have quite enough to debate just about anything civilly.

Fair enough