Dreadging up minus necropost: The Controversy of the AUP

[CaptainRobin]

I've harped on this before and so have others, but I think it really, really needs a firm address from a mod. I know it won't fly, but I want a firm answer from the mod team, and only the mod team. User-based input is always good, but that will inevitably throw the thread off-topic.

I have one simple question for the mods and I want an answer before I progress into the second part of the thread's topic, opening it to discussion:

Can or will the AUP ever see a reform with user-based input, or will it simply remain to the moderating team's discretion? Is there someone else (SSS perhaps) who controls it who will not allow it to be changed?

[Mikail]

Actually, the last time it had changed was with user-input. A panel of users were included in an extended discussion about each clause, and it lasted several months. This was before I was a mod, and I was among the users. To better establish that it wasn't just a group of synchophants or yes-men in place, this panel also included, among others, Sideus (before he was banned, obviously) and Ball'o'Cheese. I'm sure there are more people that were involved, but they spring to mind first as 'definitely visibly critical of the staff in general,' and are a decent example of 'this isn't just people smiling and nodding.'

That said, the document is a living document, and when it can be bettered, we'd like to do so. If you have proposed amendments, we're very open to discussing them and possibly placing user polls on them to see what the people in general think; if you feel we're out of touch on something, please inform us!

If I've failed to address anything, please let me know.

[CaptainRobin]

Fully addressed! Thank you, Mikail.

On the note, then, of Sideus, I think the AUP needs a revision that addresses the rule of circumventing /ignore under any circumstances. Whether they use /ignore to get the last word or not, directly working around it by logging in under a different handle seems to render the point of the command rather moot, and I find myself hard-pressed to conclude otherwise. Unless I've missed finer print in the AUP, there is nary a reference to the glorious use of /ignore and its various surrounding implements and implications.

Simply put, I think that it needs be firmly stated: Using /ignore is the user's responsibility to deal with trolls, flaming, jerks, asses, whatever else they feel they need to ignore, for the first time. If they have not /ignored a troll, it should not be the mod's problem. This much will serve to at least give the moderating staff credibility not to take orders and reports from every single complaint in every single room. After that, however, if the perpetrator in question has circumvented the /ignore-- and I repeat under any circumstances, because wanting the last word should not justify trolling someone vigorously all for the sake of feeling like they won the flame war, as one side evidently sought to end it before it continued-- even just once, they should be administered a temporary ban under this pretense.

Granted, the operation of the rule could be different. However, people have been banned for using workarounds of /ignore, and I think it's high time that it gets stated in the AUP.

On a side note, revoking posting privileges of banned users might help cut a lot of troll-fights that break out in threads. Of course, they're highly entertaining most of the time, so... that might be completely unnecessary.

At this point, I'd love to see user input! One standpoint saying that a rule needs to be implemented is not nearly enough. I'd like to see more opinions reinforcing or countering this suggestion!

[Robo]

I agree with Captain Robin, on both points, actually.

The /ignore evasion rule is one of those "understood" things that a lot of people seem to dislike, thus it should be made obvious.

And I too believe that banned users from tK, should have at least limited access to the tK forums, if at all possible. ( Mostly the politika, for obvious reasons. The random threads, not really a big deal.)

But that's just me.

[Vivi]

While that rules seems like common sense to me...stating it quite plainly is not a bad idea. I disagree with the forums idea though, to some extent. Obviously if they repeat the offense here they'd be likewise banned, perhaps instead give perma'd users a window of opportunity of lets say...three months to post here before killing off their forum name? Gives it time for things to cool down a bit and perhaps open rational discussion from all sides before a complete decision is made in cases where any sort of discussion is even slightly warranted, though I do understand quite a bit of discussion takes place between mods anyways.

[CaptainRobin]

Thanks for the input, guys.

I guess the forum rule's a bit unnecessary. While I'm not going to pull names, it seems that when banned users post in threads that are trying to bring up rational discussion, it gets derailed.

While I guess the OOC chatter is something they can have free reign to, keeping them OUT of the Politika would be a really good idea, as Robo said. They were banned because they made an infraction on the rules; I won't say every case will be the same, but erring on the side of safety and keeping their opinion far away from the goings-on of The Keep's rules would not be a bad idea.

[Web Janitor]

CaptainRobin:

One of the other really big consideration is there is more than one type of harassment. Another kind is where a user starts making up lies and rumors and gossip about another one. If you ignore this person, you won't be able to counter the garbage they are spewing about you. Even worse, a lot of this harassment will occur through whispers and conversations behind your back.

Would you guys like a mini-group to discuss specifically harassment and come up with a harassment rule?

[Inquisitor]

Prior to my banning, we did have an actual harassment clause in the AUP specifically said that harassment was getting around names and etc. When I was banned it had been taken out. I'm not arguing for or against my ban, just saying that we used to have an old rule, and that's where the "/ignore, if you go around /ignore that's harassment" mantra comes from. I still have no idea where that rule went

[Inquisitor]

CaptainRobin:

One of the other really big consideration is there is more than one type of harassment. Another kind is where a user starts making up lies and rumors and gossip about another one. If you ignore this person, you won't be able to counter the garbage they are spewing about you. Even worse, a lot of this harassment will occur through whispers and conversations behind your back.

Would you guys like a mini-group to discuss specifically harassment and come up with a harassment rule?

I don't understand how you could possibly hope to make "talking (objectively badly) in whispers" against the rules. I understand the point of what you're trying to get across, that this too is harassment because it defames character and what not, but I can't see how it's an enforceable rule.

[Robo]

CaptainRobin:

One of the other really big consideration is there is more than one type of harassment. Another kind is where a user starts making up lies and rumors and gossip about another one. If you ignore this person, you won't be able to counter the garbage they are spewing about you. Even worse, a lot of this harassment will occur through whispers and conversations behind your back.

Would you guys like a mini-group to discuss specifically harassment and come up with a harassment rule?

I'm for that, personally. I've come across a few situations that the AUP doesn't really address, but you know are wrong.
Such as the revelation of personal information, which has been spread and twisted, despite the direct request of the user that such things remain quiet, and other things like that.

(It's something I've spoken with the other mods about before, but I haven't yet seen any action, and as far as I can tell, it's been dropped entirely.)

[CaptainRobin]

Perhaps I'm being difficult to understand... mm.

As Inquisitor said, there was a rule, once, about avoiding /ignore classifying as 'harassment.' That's all I'm asking be put in; if people go around spewing garbage, then unless someone has screenshots of whispers and/or personal information being given out, it's nothing more than the childish drawl that always occurs, is it?

The biggest problem is that /ignore is a command that finalizes something, but the AUP does not reinforce as to what that is. All I'm asking is that the rule pertaining to workarounds of /ignore be treated as harassment and, ultimately, as a bannable offense.

It was brought up last night that perhaps /ignore should be re-coded to have text appear in the same way that /invite works; IE, "You are now ignoring ____." This will allow claims of /ignore to be substantiated, rather than someone blackmailing about it-- it also reinforces that screenshots should always be part of a proper report.

As for 'harassment' as pertaining to slandering, lying, etc., unless it involves personal information that the victim in question does not care to/do not give away themselves, I don't think there needs to be a rule. It happens, and /ignore will deal with 80% of it. 10% will go onto crazy OOC grudges, or something, and the last 10% will be those rare half-wits who start spewing out personal information (with basis, mind; addresses, e-mails, postal codes, full [real] names, what have you, not just random slander like, "You bone your mom lol") who, really, should be subject to a perma-ban.

In short, I want that rule that Inquisitor referenced back in. Everything else, I believe, can effectively be regarded as a different topic at this point, and should perhaps have its own thread-- though I've seldom seen complaints about 'harassment' that wasn't about working around /ignore, if ever.

[Icon]

To preface this, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I feel the ignore command, as a whole, is an incredible waste. If, for example, I ignore someone for any reason, I am the one at a disadvantage as I can no longer see what's being said and that makes me look a fool for not defending myself or my argument. What also happens far, far, too often with the ignore function is that other users will join in conversation with the one I have ignored and then I have to add to the list of people I don't want to bother with, which reaches a point where it seems more logical to just leave.

The problem as I see it with the ignore command, and this doesn't seem to be the case with the "regulars" here, is that the ignore function makes it seem as though each individual user has some kind of power in their dealings with the people here and they don't.

The ignore command as a whole, I feel, is flawed. There is a system in place for bans, be it by e-mail or IP address, that (more or less) ensures that someone who has been banned will stay banned. Why doesn't the ignore command function similarly?

(Yes, I know, it's not perfect and there have been, and will always be, those who can skirt a ban and rejoin our ranks for different lengths of time.)

Even if it has to be reset when the user logs out and back in if they wish for their ignore to be persistent, it's better than what we've got in place now. Why bother even allowing for it to be side-stepped, it negates the entire premise of the command in the first place.

What seems to be argued for here is another rule to bother moderators about. I know that, personally speaking, I don't want to ignore a person, have them evade it, take a screen shot, copy the log, post it in an e-mail and send it to a moderator so that either they can ban them for something they'll, likely, have no memory of doing or be told, "Well, that was an hour ago, so I can't do anything about it because they're not doing anything wrong now."

Let's face it, the "All-Seeing Eye" of the staff isn't, it never can be and never will be, and people just need to be able to do things on their own. A persistent or all encompassing ignore seems a much better idea than simply adding more rules that are going to be forced to be open to interpretation or misunderstanding.

[Rook]

The latter point is implemented in IronCity, but not in tK yet, no.

[Web Janitor]

In short, I want that rule that Inquisitor referenced back in. Everything else, I believe, can effectively be regarded as a different topic at this point, and should perhaps have its own thread-- though I've seldom seen complaints about 'harassment' that wasn't about working around /ignore, if ever.

The rule was never in. You guys are welcome to discuss adding it though.

[Vivi]

I think something specifically in there about evading /ignores and /bans would be good. I'm not even a full on mod yet and people have already given me greif over this and quite honestly, though I'd think it was common sense, it'd be nice to point out the part where it specifically states "don't do this" and cut any argument over it short.