Rules?

[littlelolligagged]

Alright, the mafia has been talking, and we think there needs to be some sort of rules enforced in D&D at the very least.


Suggestions for what these rules should be?





I personally think that people w what are essentially +1 posts or carrying on random back-and-forth conversations about trivial things (such as Nessie's lack of people-skills - not the only example, just the most recent I can think of) should move them to general chat on their own, or be prodded to do so. Attempt to keep those threads somewhat on topic - of course thread drift happens, but it doesn't need to turn into "my cousin's niece's best friend's brother's girlfriend had X happen, so it applies to everyone."

The other big thing I see there is that there is no enforcement of moving threads that don't particularly belong there out.

[Steely Glint]

There definitely needs to be a higher standard maintained for D&D, it's so full of shit right now. I also suggest that those who constantly make spammy, content free +1 posts in GC should be temporarily locked out of that forum until some semblance of a worthwhile signal to noise ratio is obtained.

[LittleFuzzy]

I personally think that people w what are essentially +1 posts or carrying on random back-and-forth conversations about trivial things (such as Nessie's lack of people-skills - not the only example, just the most recent I can think of) should move them to general chat on their own, or be prodded to do so. Attempt to keep those threads somewhat on topic - of course thread drift happens, but it doesn't need to turn into "my cousin's niece's best friend's brother's girlfriend had X happen, so it applies to everyone."

The other big thing I see there is that there is no enforcement of moving threads that don't particularly belong there out.

I agree that threads can be placed in the wrong forum and they should be moved when that happens. I can't really agree to content-policing on any larger scale though, at least on the forums *the blog is naturally a seperate matter* Drift happens. Conversations can devolve into these "trivial things" but we've also all seen such trivia end up sparking new and interesting substantive discussion. And threads are conversations, albeit slow ones. Trying to "transplant" them doesn't work too well, it's just a tacit way of killing off the particular discussion. There's always going to be overlap between the subforums, and we shouldn't get too concerned about everything being in its proper place.

And even +1 posts, affirmations effectively, have their place. It's possible to go to far with them and end up spamming, and the mods should feel welcome to control spam, but +1s aren't inherently spam and should not be banned as such.

[Loki]

+1

[Dreadnaught]

Agreed on what Fuzzy is saying...but I have trouble defining the difference between "+1" and legitimate thread drift.

Does anyone have the old CC FAQ by chance? We have a few basic rules set up in the default warning system...but not sure how to edit those categories. Shouldn't be hard once I figure it out.

[Wraith]

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...p/7-Old-CC-FAQ

In before the Nessus attack.

[RandBlade]

One thing though, if you're thinking that posts are wrong then please make sure you report them. Since we started here we've had very few reported posts.

[wiggin]

To be honest, I don't think most of the cringe-worthy posts in Discussion have actually be report-worthy. They're just some weird combination of unimportant, unrelated, bland, and batshit crazy. None of those are really reasons to delete a post IMO, they just decrease the SNR of the thread and the forum as a whole. I kinda hoped that putting the 'General Chat' stuff in a different forum would help things, but instead you have a limited number of people left in Discussion with substantive contributions to make.

That being said, I'm not particularly whining - I think it'll get better with time.

[Nessus]

New rule: If you want a thread to be closed, you have to say so (as has been done here) and then beg someone else to post some kind of insane, funny or dysfunction image that is safe for work.

Ogre did it this time , so thread closed.

[Dreadnaught]

Policy modifications/amendments to this urgent rule are appreciated.

[Wraith]

Bump. Maybe we could have less bickering over the rules if we settled on some?

[littlelolligagged]

Apparently a stated no textspeak rule is actually needed.

[Illusions]

Bump. Maybe we could have less bickering over the rules if we settled on some?

I thought this measuring stick was rather apparent but:

Question # 1: Would your topic and original post content be seen in a professional and well regarded journal, newspaper, magazine, television show, website or other form of media?

If yes, see Question #2.

If no, thread goes in General Chat.

Question #2: Do you wish to foster an open and intelligent debate or discussion about this topic, or is your goal more to foster idle banter, amusement, etc.?

If open and intelligent debate and discussion, Debate and Discussion. If idle banter, amusement, etc. General Chat.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, no philosophical threads in D&D?

[Illusions]

So, no philosophical threads in D&D?

I don't see how this doesn't fit my criteria that I established. There are respected books and articles on philosophy. Being's isn't close. It has no content. It is a poll, with a self-admitted stupid question. If he wanted to write up something that addressed the dichotomy between the two or an analysis of both or whatever, he could have and it would have been fine...but he didn't...

Would you consider it appropriate to create a thread in D&D that was merely:

Thread Title: American President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Good or Bad?

Poll:
1. Yes?
2. No?
3. Maybe so?

Franklin D. Roosevelt. Good/Bad. Thoughts?

[RandBlade]

I wouldn't have an objection. Its a debate/discussion thread - that the OP is vague doesn't matter much, if the thread is stupid and gets replies and fall off the front screen. If it works and a discussion is generated then the correct place for the discussion would be D&D wouldn't it?

[Nessus]

I think a When You Die . . . or The Human Condition type thread might fare better in the chat section, to be honest. Or does someone want rigorous philosophical debate? We had those long, long ago in the other place, I think, but I don't know if people have the stamina for it anymore. It'd be interesting to read, certainly, but I think we all know each other's positions, roughly, on most philosophical hot buttons. Could we have a structured thread that stayed on topic that discussed, say, the nature of existence? I'm not sure.

At any rate, the philosophical discussions that do go into D&D should at least have the coherency and intelligence contained in pop-philosophy books like Hitchens, Dawkins, Russell etc. and their faithful counter-parts; even if the content is disagreeable, it should at least be debatable.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's precisely what I meant. I'd have no problem with designating that kind of thread to GC.

GC will be the engine part of the forum anyway, where the community will be formed. People need to stop treating it like a second-rate section where the below par threads end up. Oh noes, don't move my beloved thread to GC! There are Bears and Lions and Badgers!

[Nessus]

I don't think of it as a second-rate section at all.

I think it was Aoshi in IRC who talked about how we have many wanna-be writers and poets and artists on the forum, and I too would be interested in having some creative content like that on the forum, and at least right now it should most def be in Chat, even if the work itself is at least semi-serious.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not you dearest. But certain individuals seem to think so.

[Illusions]

Not you dearest. But certain individuals seem to think so.

I don't think its a second rate area either, hence why I'm not understanding Minx's complaining. Its just a section that is less formal than the other.

[Hazir]

That's precisely what I meant. I'd have no problem with designating that kind of thread to GC.

GC will be the engine part of the forum anyway, where the community will be formed. People need to stop treating it like a second-rate section where the below par threads end up. Oh noes, don't move my beloved thread to GC! There are Bears and Lions and Badgers!

I think that may be our legacy from the CC; technically it was the stuff that didn't really fit the reason why the Atari Forums exist at all. Sort of a dustbin. We have to leave that behind and start to learn that the more chatty section has a different function than the more serious forum.

[EyeKhan]

I personally think that people w what are essentially +1 posts or carrying on random back-and-forth conversations about trivial things (such as Nessie's lack of people-skills - not the only example, just the most recent I can think of) should move them to general chat on their own, or be prodded to do so. Attempt to keep those threads somewhat on topic - of course thread drift happens, but it doesn't need to turn into "my cousin's niece's best friend's brother's girlfriend had X happen, so it applies to everyone."

The other big thing I see there is that there is no enforcement of moving threads that don't particularly belong there out.

I agree on both counts. (heh, +1 )

There definitely needs to be a higher standard maintained for D&D, it's so full of shit right now. I also suggest that those who constantly make spammy, content free +1 posts in GC should be temporarily locked out of that forum until some semblance of a worthwhile signal to noise ratio is obtained.

Warned first, publicly, then locked.

One thing though, if you're thinking that posts are wrong then please make sure you report them. Since we started here we've had very few reported posts.

To be honest, I don't think most of the cringe-worthy posts in Discussion have actually be report-worthy. They're just some weird combination of unimportant, unrelated, bland, and batshit crazy. None of those are really reasons to delete a post IMO,

Wait, we're not talking about deleting posts, right? My expecation would be if you report someone for spamming up an otherwise serious thread, then that person gets a friendly, public warning to take it elsewhere. Sooner or later everyone will get used to the serious forum being serious and behave themselves out of habit.

So, no philosophical threads in D&D?

Whoa ther big fella. IMHO plenty of philosophy is fodder for serious and thoughtful discussion.

I think a When You Die . . . or The Human Condition type thread might fare better in the chat section, to be honest. Or does someone want rigorous philosophical debate? We had those long, long ago in the other place, I think, but I don't know if people have the stamina for it anymore. It'd be interesting to read, certainly, but I think we all know each other's positions, roughly, on most philosophical hot buttons. Could we have a structured thread that stayed on topic that discussed, say, the nature of existence? I'm not sure.

Early WYD and for the most part Human Condition, IMO, is fine for serious discussion. We don't have to be rigorous to be serious after all. If it devolves to later WYD, thats a different story. But if we police the threads a little bit and spamming gets warned, then thread devolution ought to be halted, no?

That's precisely what I meant. I'd have no problem with designating that kind of thread to GC.

GC will be the engine part of the forum anyway, where the community will be formed. People need to stop treating it like a second-rate section where the below par threads end up. Oh noes, don't move my beloved thread to GC! There are Bears and Lions and Badgers!

I don't think of it as a second-rate section at all.

I think it was Aoshi in IRC who talked about how we have many wanna-be writers and poets and artists on the forum, and I too would be interested in having some creative content like that on the forum, and at least right now it should most def be in Chat, even if the work itself is at least semi-serious.

Not you dearest. But certain individuals seem to think so.

TBH, I hadn't really thought about it until now, but I have had that underlying impression. After all, all those discussion neutering mega-threads are in there.... Huh. I'm going to have to make an effort to change that impression.

Just a quick question - does the front page draw soley on the debate and discussion forum? I thought that was the case and one qualitative argument for keeping the spammy and cat fight stuff out of DD. I think if there is thoughful philosophical discussion, that it would be something to showcase. Wouldn't it?

[Aimless]

As usual, I'm with Fuzzy and Wiggin. It's uncanny. Sometimes I want to call Fuzzy "Figgin", and sometimes I want to call Wiggin "Wuzzy"

Do all threads and comments posted in D&D appear on the blog? If not, then perhaps there is little need to take it very far beyond:

1. keep it civil; don't get too personal.

2. avoid spamming; don't sabotage discussions.

Leaving matters such as deciding what goes on the blog, and whether or not a thread may be better off moved to GC, to the discretion of the mods.

[Wraith]

Couldn't get anyone to really move on rules, so I let my inner tyrant go last week sometime and set up WLs.

Signature Rule Violation 1
Excessive Stupidity 1
Spammed Advertisements 3
Flaming 3
Trolling 5
Inappropriate Material 10
Misc. Insta-Ban 15

5 points gets you a 1 day ban, 10 points gets you a 3 day ban, 15 points gets you a lifetime ban.

Explanation:

Signature Rule Violation - Not sure how someone would get this exactly, but it was there when I started so I left it

Excessive Stupidity - Only a warning to see if Dreadblade would ever hand it out to anyone.

Spammed Advertisements - Different from being an adspammer; this is excessive and blatant self-promotion

Flaming - No explanation needed

Trolling - Not just flaming, and may not even involve something clearly identified as flaming, but posting in a manner intentionally designed to start a flame war. Despite previous notions to the contrary, posting your sincere opinions on a political/religious/scientific/etc. subject does not count as trolling, although it is possible that the method in which those sincere opinions are posted could push it into trolling territory.

Inappropriate Material - Unclear exactly what counts, but supposedly posting something very bad; readers-getting-fired-for-viewing bad or we-need-to-start-a-legal-defense-fund bad.

Misc. Insta-Ban - Ad-spammers and whatever else it's needed for.

Discussion encouraged. I trust you are all now properly motivated. Revisions possible.

[littlelolligagged]

I think there needs to be a 5-pointer for carrying arguments (read that as personal attacks) into multiple threads.

[Loki]

Can we have a warning for starting threads in the wrong forum? Any kind of warning system would need to have the warning points lapse at some point, or most old members will eventually get banned.

[Being]

Rule 12 violations should carry 10 WL points that get reduced with each successful step to recovery.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think there needs to be a 5-pointer for carrying arguments (read that as personal attacks) into multiple threads.

It's hard not to do, when you feel strongly.

[littlelolligagged]

Well, that's a stupid idea.

Being gets his first warning for excessive stupidity now, right?