Update to rule 1.

[IkeTG]

Bottom post of the previous page:

If bans are going to be handed out for shitty OOC conduct, why wouldn't you want this to be clarified or outlined in the rules? If it's merely a clarification of already-existing precedence, it wouldn't change how the rule is enforced, right?

Here's the thing you dumb pup, and everyone else with the same sentence worded in many different flavors.

This

We're all here to have a good time supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

Was like this because OOC and Deadchat can be ignored via the OOC -> Ignore option. You can ignore both OOC messages, and deadchat messages (as they actually are OOC communication) via this method. Any player being harassed IC without prior provocation over a multitude of rounds usually is punished by the rule stated above too, but the precedent of it regarding metagrudging.

We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules, this also includes harassing a player OOC (Out of character). Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules.

All this allows is effectively allowing targeted bans towards people you dislike the opinion of, or inconvenienced you in some way because you can now label it as "harassment". I don't even think Morto put a single shred of thought into this at all and didn't think to gauge the community feedback on the suggested changes, and that's completely odd coming from one of the most player friendly admins that investigates instances of grief regardless of round if reported to her.

In short, it's a redundant ruling that has a high potential to be misused in the same way the word filter has a high chance of being misused by a sensitive individual (though luckily there's no player control over that, so the select people that can abuse it can be addressed).

This is a complete non-response to what I said. This doesn't allow anything if bans were already being handed out for OOC conduct, it just clarifies that you can be banned for being an ass too much in OOC. I'm not seeing how this opens up some can of worms to enable abusive admins if they could've banned you for acting awful too much in OOC already.

[Darkgenerallord]

We could in fact always ban you for being a shit in OOC.

[Kingtrin]

Hey do you guys remember all of the bitching that was done when rule 1 was too vague? I do.

If your argument boils down to "but I don't trust the admins judgement" then congratu-fucking-lations you have made a case for things to be even less vague, not more. People already abuse the vagueness of rules to their advantage, and thats not something you can fix by complaining about each and every change. This one in particular is supposed to be a clarification and not even a new precedent which makes the complaints even more flippant. The fundamental enforcement of the rules shouldn't even change. I cannot see how leaving new players more informed and admin appeals easier to process is not worth pursuing. Actually even if a headmin or admin went and abused their powers following this clarification that should not reflect poorly on the new wording, it should reflect on the shitter who abused their power. Even in the case of a corrupt admin I still fail to see how the wording is to blame.

You want to see what a lack of rule enforcement in dchat causes? go observe in CM midway through a round and tell me thats the kind of bullshit you want to allow to fester. It does happen on TG but the general playerbase assumption has been that it is not actionable if its dchat salt, hence the lack of widespread complaints.

[Farquaar]

No strong feelings towards the change one way or the other, but I'm wary of the slippery slope that communities can fall down once they start putting premium value on hurt feelings.

A poll might be interesting. I'd like to see what non-forumites think.

[Grazyn]

I think admins should use the "mute ooc for dead players" button more. It really goes a long way

[oranges]

I think admins should use the "mute ooc for dead players" button more. It really goes a long way

i've never heard of this one before

[Grazyn]

It's called Toggle dead OOC and it's the fastest way (out of selectively muting shitters) to stop flame, harassment and shitposting dead in its tracks. It also doesn't give an announcement unlike regular OOC mute so normal, living players would just see OOC suddenly become a calm and friendly place where they can still ask questions and have civil dicourse while salty ghosts choke on their own salt.

[Togopal]

[Nabski]

Okay Togopal I guess you could call that a post. Typically good posts are fun and engaging for the reader and add something of value to the thread. If you keep up this habit of posts I'll have no choice but to bring up your behavior with a forum moderator.

[Nervere]

Blessed togopost.

[bandit]

It's called Toggle dead OOC and it's the fastest way (out of selectively muting shitters) to stop flame, harassment and shitposting dead in its tracks. It also doesn't give an announcement unlike regular OOC mute so normal, living players would just see OOC suddenly become a calm and friendly place where they can still ask questions and have civil dicourse while salty ghosts choke on their own salt.

unfortunately it also tends to lead to players immediately flooding ahelps/prayer/IC say/literally any other venue they have with salt and/or shitposting

[Istoprocent1]

I do have mixed feelings about the update as it can be weaponized against people you personally dislike, then again it saved me some money by not having to buy a SteelSeries headset and get professionals to take down the bullies in SS13.

Spoiler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSQn-IlTOkE

[Togopal]

Okay Togopal I guess you could call that a post. Typically good posts are fun and engaging for the reader and add something of value to the thread. If you keep up this habit of posts I'll have no choice but to bring up your behavior with a forum moderator.

Blessed togopost.

[FloranOtten]

When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

I'd quite like a poll

[CreationPro]

Do a poll fren

[Cobby]

this does literally nothing but i'm going to post about it vehemently doing nothing to the point where it becomes 3 pages of me saying the same thing.

oh btw this does nothing

[TheMythicGhost]

I'd like a poll.

[Malkraz]

[terranaut]

When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.

I'd quite like a poll

[Lazengann]

voting AGAINST the poll

[deedubya]

voting AGAINST the poll

Why aren't you an admin on goon? You'd be a better fit there.

[High Impact Dolphin]

We now have 13 players that have requested the fabled poll

Now Morto will surely follow through, and definitely word the poll question neutrally

[Gratian]

Poll it up

[Xeroxemnas]

Remember, democracy bad when it goes against the interests of the ruling class (just like brexit )

[4dplanner]

as a centrist I demand there is a poll as to whether we should have a poll

[John_Oxford]

imagine being upset about things on the internet.

lol

[Nabski]

Things have gotten so bad Oxford is back.

[oranges]

I want a poll on if we should be using a poll at all

[D&B]

Si tienes que cambiar las reglas porque una sola persona causa suficiente drama, por ende tu consideras que cambiar las reglas es necesario, el problema no son los jugadores, sino la persona que con actos de hyper sensibilidad y un acto de victima mueve su propia agenda para poder darse poderes para seguir con sus goles politicos y censoradores abusando de tu buena voluntad y conciencia.

De aqui a unos cuantos meses, cuando todo sea peor, vas a lamentar no haber removido a esta manzana podrida, a este ser toxico que con su sola presencia, y acciones a causado tanto drama y malestar en tan poco tiempo.

El que traduzca esto chupa pollas btw

[Sandshark808]

Si tienes que cambiar las reglas porque una sola persona causa suficiente drama, por ende tu consideras que cambiar las reglas es necesario, el problema no son los jugadores, sino la persona que con actos de hyper sensibilidad y un acto de victima mueve su propia agenda para poder darse poderes para seguir con sus goles politicos y censoradores abusando de tu buena voluntad y conciencia.

De aqui a unos cuantos meses, cuando todo sea peor, vas a lamentar no haber removido a esta manzana podrida, a este ser toxico que con su sola presencia, y acciones a causado tanto drama y malestar en tan poco tiempo.

El que traduzca esto chupa pollas btw

If you have to change the rules because a single person causes enough drama, you should consider why changing the rules is necessary. The problem is not the players, but the person who, in their hypersensitivity and perceived victimhood, pushes their own agenda to be able to give himself the power to continue with his political goals and censor people, abusing your good will and conscience(?).

In a few months, when everything is worse, you will regret not having removed this rotten apple, this toxic being that with its presence alone, and with its actions, has caused so much drama and discomfort in such a short time.

Translator's note: I suck dicks.

[oranges]

you're right repukan, we should have banned you fucking ages ago

[Snuffleupagus]

Why’s someone posting a statistic about transsexuals bannable? Was it just the intent of it?

If I were to just give the opinion in ooc chat that transsexualism is a psychiatric mental illness as classified in the DSM and Cynic is in the game by pure coincidence is that going to get me bwoink’d?

I mean it just sounds to me like you’re overcomplicating things and further your answer to it being enforced is up to “headmin.” discretion. A headmin was quite hasty to alter rule 1. How do we know they’ll be truly subjective? What if it’s a friend of theirs?

I vote poll.

[Grazyn]

Si tienes que cambiar las reglas porque una sola persona causa suficiente drama, por ende tu consideras que cambiar las reglas es necesario, el problema no son los jugadores, sino la persona que con actos de hyper sensibilidad y un acto de victima mueve su propia agenda para poder darse poderes para seguir con sus goles politicos y censoradores abusando de tu buena voluntad y conciencia.

De aqui a unos cuantos meses, cuando todo sea peor, vas a lamentar no haber removido a esta manzana podrida, a este ser toxico que con su sola presencia, y acciones a causado tanto drama y malestar en tan poco tiempo.

El que traduzca esto chupa pollas btw

If you have to change the rules because a single person causes enough drama, you should consider why changing the rules is necessary. The problem is not the players, but the person who, in their hypersensitivity and perceived victimhood, pushes their own agenda to be able to give himself the power to continue with his political goals and censor people, abusing your good will and conscience(?).

In a few months, when everything is worse, you will regret not having removed this rotten apple, this toxic being that with its presence alone, and with its actions, has caused so much drama and discomfort in such a short time.

Translator's note: I suck dicks.

Long-standing game features have been removed because of a single person so I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to rules.

[Sandshark808]

Long-standing game features have been removed because of a single person so I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to rules.

My spanish isn't super great, but the way I translated it he was saying that if the rules are changed in haste to appease one person's sore ass, it will lead to a lot worse in the future because a bad actor is being given a big impact on the community.

And in case it wasn't obvious my post was a translation of the spanish post. The last sentence he had was "whoever translates this sucks dick."

[Grazyn]

Yeah it's a translation. My point still stands. You can have a single person who's being an obnoxious bully but you can't ban him because there is no rule for it, so you make one. Would you think this prompts more shitters in the future to have a shitty behaviour in the attempt to change the rules?

At the end of the day it's the headmin's decision only. They can decide case by case with common sense and if they think new rules are needed, so be it. What I don't like is this hostile climate that shifts the blame on those who complain. Nobody should feel pressured to not complain for the fear of being labelled a "bad actor" who just wants to push unwarranted change with his whining.

[Snuffleupagus]

Yeah it's a translation. My point still stands. You can have a single person who's being an obnoxious bully but you can't ban him because there is no rule for it, so you make one. Would you think this prompts more shitters in the future to have a shitty behaviour in the attempt to change the rules?

At the end of the day it's the headmin's decision only. They can decide case by case with common sense and if they think new rules are needed, so be it. What I don't like is this hostile climate that shifts the blame on those who complain. Nobody should feel pressured to not complain for the fear of being labelled a "bad actor" who just wants to push unwarranted change with his whining.

What I don’t get is how the fuck do people know he’s a tranny and why would they put that out there?

You might fuck goats. I don’t know. I don’t care. You don’t need to proclaim it either, but if you did, expect some taunting for it. This transsexual dude is just as much at fault for exposing they’re transgender. No one gives a fuck. It’s not pertinent to the game. There should be a rule about not sharing innate details about your life to other users, if you do realize you’re opening yourself up for ridicule. It’s the fucking Internet. Not a “safe space.”

[Sandshark808]

What I don’t get is how the fuck do people know he’s a tranny and why would they put that out there?

You might fuck goats. I don’t know. I don’t care. You don’t need to proclaim it either, but if you did, expect some taunting for it. This transsexual dude is just as much at fault for exposing they’re transgender. No one gives a fuck. It’s not pertinent to the game. There should be a rule about not sharing innate details about your life to other users, if you do realize you’re opening yourself up for ridicule. It’s the fucking Internet. Not a “safe space.”

We know it because he says it any chance he gets. And he has, in the past, blown up and used admin powers to mess with people for needling him about it.

If it wasn't so clearly a sore spot in an unstable person's self-image it wouldn't get picked at by people.

[Grazyn]

Yeah it's a translation. My point still stands. You can have a single person who's being an obnoxious bully but you can't ban him because there is no rule for it, so you make one. Would you think this prompts more shitters in the future to have a shitty behaviour in the attempt to change the rules?

At the end of the day it's the headmin's decision only. They can decide case by case with common sense and if they think new rules are needed, so be it. What I don't like is this hostile climate that shifts the blame on those who complain. Nobody should feel pressured to not complain for the fear of being labelled a "bad actor" who just wants to push unwarranted change with his whining.

What I don’t get is how the fuck do people know he’s a tranny and why would they put that out there?

You might fuck goats. I don’t know. I don’t care. You don’t need to proclaim it either, but if you did, expect some taunting for it. This transsexual dude is just as much at fault for exposing they’re transgender. No one gives a fuck. It’s not pertinent to the game. There should be a rule about not sharing innate details about your life to other users, if you do realize you’re opening yourself up for ridicule. It’s the fucking Internet. Not a “safe space.”

OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him. But OOC not being a safe place doesn't mean that it's mandatory to dogpile on anyone saying anything. Again, admins should be able to tell the difference between trolling/baiting and random stuff. This isn't junior high, I think players should have the reasonable expectation to not being jumped upon and harassed to death for saying stuff like "I'm trans/gay".

[deedubya]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

[Snuffleupagus]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

I believe MSO should step in here. Personally.

[tinodrima7020]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

Soon(TM)

[Snuffleupagus]

Yeah it's a translation. My point still stands. You can have a single person who's being an obnoxious bully but you can't ban him because there is no rule for it, so you make one. Would you think this prompts more shitters in the future to have a shitty behaviour in the attempt to change the rules?

At the end of the day it's the headmin's decision only. They can decide case by case with common sense and if they think new rules are needed, so be it. What I don't like is this hostile climate that shifts the blame on those who complain. Nobody should feel pressured to not complain for the fear of being labelled a "bad actor" who just wants to push unwarranted change with his whining.

What I don’t get is how the fuck do people know he’s a tranny and why would they put that out there?

You might fuck goats. I don’t know. I don’t care. You don’t need to proclaim it either, but if you did, expect some taunting for it. This transsexual dude is just as much at fault for exposing they’re transgender. No one gives a fuck. It’s not pertinent to the game. There should be a rule about not sharing innate details about your life to other users, if you do realize you’re opening yourself up for ridicule. It’s the fucking Internet. Not a “safe space.”

OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him. But OOC not being a safe place doesn't mean that it's mandatory to dogpile on anyone saying anything. Again, admins should be able to tell the difference between trolling/baiting and random stuff. This isn't junior high, I think players should have the reasonable expectation to not being jumped upon and harassed to death for saying stuff like "I'm trans/gay".

I’m not disagreeing with you. My point is why are you telling people you’re trans and or gay in the first place. How is that relevant? At all? It’s kind of a random thing to just bring up in a video game in ooc chat with random fucking people you don’t know. Unless you’re telling people it’s a weakness. I’ve got news for you. Humans exploit weakness in real life and do it doubly so on the Internet. So if you’re dumb enough to expose a weakness or sore spot expect double the ridicule. No one fucking cares if you take HrT or dress in high heels. No one knows unless you tell them.

My point is that it has no relevance. Personal shit doesn’t belong in round. If you’re openly talking about life choices to some random fuckheads who you’re only going to see occasionally expect to get ridiculed. This rule sounds specifically like it came about because a friend who happens to be a headmin is standing up for a friend who happens to be an admin.

I’m the last person who wants to agree with scuwwa bawdus but for fucks sake there IS an ignore feature. If someone goes as far as creating a new account to circumvent that ignore THAT’S targeted harassment.

[terranaut]

OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

[Grazyn]

OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

[MortoSasye]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.

[BeeSting12]

Isnt the point of having three headmins to avoid the possibility of stalemates?

[PKPenguin321]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.

You what? You realize you only need 2/3rds majority to decide on things, not a unanimous vote?

[Sandshark808]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.

If it wasn't something that could happen without majority approval, why did you promise it in the first place?

[PKPenguin321]

15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.

We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.

If it wasn't something that could happen without majority approval, why did you promise it in the first place?

Literally all headmin actions and promises work that way. I promised ban appeals and got blocked by the other two headmins. You can promise that you'll propose it to the other two headmins and support it; you cannot promise that you'll force it through, because the only person that can do that is the host.

[High Impact Dolphin]

You would think that the headmin confident in this ruling would be fine with a vote. After all, why would anyone disagree with the right choice?

[D&B]

>Stalemate with 3 headmins