AUP revamp

[Inquisitor]

Or how about we make strict rules and strict punishment guidelines? How about we don't have more incidents of "mod discretion" permabanning users who have done nothing wrong but the mods "just don't like them"? How about we don't have more incidents of users who have been nothing but shitheads constantly slipping through the cracks for YEARS (lol Sid) and never having a ban stick because "mod discretion" allows the blatant show of favoritism?

The loose rules and the "mod discretion" really just allows for the staff to do anything they please without justification. I won't say that every decision ever made is MOD KORRUPSHUN but it's plainly happened enough times that I don't think the staff as a whole can be trusted. Especially SSS.

And on top of the AUP being clarified there needs to be a checks and balances system in place. The fact that a select individual has final say on everything and can smugly go around informing users that he doesn't give a damn what the rest of the staff have to say about it is bull.

i wrote a bunch of stuff about this too.

[Dalton]

To a few of the previous users: Bear in mind SSS has told me numerous times that he's the god of the chat and has final say on everything. Which means SSS must have allowed Sid to repeatedly come back after all his trouble making, and SSS must have approved Sid becoming a mod, and SSS must support several of the bullshit bans that we've been complaining about over the past few months because if SSS didn't agree then SSS would have undone it. He's said so himself enough times.

Therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that SSS isn't fit to have absolute power. The checks and balances might make him less of a liability.

[LiteracyScaresMe]

To a few of the previous users: Bear in mind SSS has told me numerous times that he's the god of the chat and has final say on everything. Which means SSS must have allowed Sid to repeatedly come back after all his trouble making, and SSS must have approved Sid becoming a mod, and SSS must support several of the bullshit bans that we've been complaining about over the past few months because if SSS didn't agree then SSS would have undone it. He's said so himself enough times.

Therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that SSS isn't fit to have absolute power. The checks and balances might make him less of a liability.

That's nice and all, but this isn't about the mods or how they enforce themselves. This is about how the AUP needs to be re-written.
Stop trying to derail my thread and stay on topic. If you have a problem with the mods, then start your own thread about it.

[Lugh]

To a few of the previous users: Bear in mind SSS has told me numerous times that he's the god of the chat and has final say on everything. Which means SSS must have allowed Sid to repeatedly come back after all his trouble making, and SSS must have approved Sid becoming a mod, and SSS must support several of the bullshit bans that we've been complaining about over the past few months because if SSS didn't agree then SSS would have undone it. He's said so himself enough times.

Therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that SSS isn't fit to have absolute power. The checks and balances might make him less of a liability.

[Inquisitor]

To a few of the previous users: Bear in mind SSS has told me numerous times that he's the god of the chat and has final say on everything. Which means SSS must have allowed Sid to repeatedly come back after all his trouble making, and SSS must have approved Sid becoming a mod, and SSS must support several of the bullshit bans that we've been complaining about over the past few months because if SSS didn't agree then SSS would have undone it. He's said so himself enough times.

Therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that SSS isn't fit to have absolute power. The checks and balances might make him less of a liability.

DA NA
DA NA
DA NA

MOTHERFUCKAAAASSSSSSSSSS
UHN

[Mercy]

To a few of the previous users: Bear in mind SSS has told me numerous times that he's the god of the chat and has final say on everything. Which means SSS must have allowed Sid to repeatedly come back after all his trouble making, and SSS must have approved Sid becoming a mod, and SSS must support several of the bullshit bans that we've been complaining about over the past few months because if SSS didn't agree then SSS would have undone it. He's said so himself enough times.

Therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that SSS isn't fit to have absolute power. The checks and balances might make him less of a liability.

That's nice and all, but this isn't about the mods or how they enforce themselves. This is about how the AUP needs to be re-written.
Stop trying to derail my thread and stay on topic. If you have a problem with the mods, then start your own thread about it.

you used to be cool man
you used to be about the music

[Villager]

This is an exciting thread, for the simple reason that I was thinking that the users of the Keep saw that there were problems but would do nothing about them. Even someone like Inquisitor is showing that he has ideas worth looking at...

Fantastic. Top-notch. Here's looking at you guys.

[Inquisitor]

This is an exciting thread, for the simple reason that I was thinking that the users of the Keep saw that there were problems but would do nothing about them. Even someone like Inquisitor is showing that he has ideas worth looking at...

Fantastic. Top-notch. Here's looking at you guys.

"Even someone like Inquisitor"? Nigga I'm probably the most vocal person about changing this site's shit.

[LiteracyScaresMe]

This is an exciting thread, for the simple reason that I was thinking that the users of the Keep saw that there were problems but would do nothing about them. Even someone like Inquisitor is showing that he has ideas worth looking at...

Fantastic. Top-notch. Here's looking at you guys.

"Even someone like Inquisitor"? Nigga I'm probably the most vocal person about changing this site's shit.

He's right. Sid abuses the fuck out of the rules, but he's also been one of the people who's been trying to get them changed for a while now.

Though none of it really means anything unless the staff get to weigh in on it. :/ I'd rather see people on the GM team as well as regular users responding to the thread. So things can actually get done. I've been told that the staff have been discussing an AUP rewrite among themselves, though.

[Dalton]

I hope so.

[Vivi]

Uh...I'm not a GM but a room mod if that counts, Lit...I'm in favor of a bit of a rewrite for better guidelines just to have the precedents that most mods operate on anyways written out...but in the end there's still going to be some leeway that's going to be up to mod judgment.

Might I make a suggestion however? Make up a free site/forum and link it in the RP ads section where you note precedents and such that seem to get kicks or bans from mods that aren't listed in the AUP.

Not just this thread, but a little separate page or something of the sort. Sure it wouldn't be official, but maybe it'd be good source material for whoever might someday rewrite an official one and a good guideline for newer users who just don't know. I might suggest one of the people who are a bit more impartial to this all do it as well, lest you get someone exaggerating what happened.

[Kade]

That's a good idea, Vivi.

I was just talking last night with Kunkka about how a Supreme Courtish sort of listing of previous bans/kicks along with a short reason for each of them could help keep things consistent.

If the mods had access to something like this, they could kick/ban based on precedent, and consequently have less memory-lawyering from users who complain about how a kick or ban conflicts with one made in the past. -- Sometimes years in the past.

If the users had access to something like this, the unwritten rules of conduct would be a little easier to understand, and there might be less conflicts as a result.

I think it sounds good all around, but I haven't even been here for a year. This is all just a stab in the dark. I bet you guys have thought up something like this a million times in the past -- in which case I'm merely throwing my support behind it, whatever my support is worth. [Not much.]

[Dalton]

Optimally I'd say for a stricter AUP as well as the list of precedents. The idea here is to make things as cut and dry as possible so neither side is left wondering if the right decision is made.

[Vivi]

Understandable Dalton. I'm just saying, the list of precedents is something users can actually take into their own hands if they wish. Making a board like this is free after all and requires minimal knowledge of anything web related. Hell if I wasn't so lazy I'd almost do it myself.

My biggest concern is getting someone that can be impartial to moderate the "master list" on such a site, as some submitted bans would obviously be from people with some emotional investment into them, and the ones listed for precedent would need to be as unbiased as possible.

[Villager]

Understandable Dalton. I'm just saying, the list of precedents is something users can actually take into their own hands if they wish. Making a board like this is free after all and requires minimal knowledge of anything web related. Hell if I wasn't so lazy I'd almost do it myself.

My biggest concern is getting someone that can be impartial to moderate the "master list" on such a site, as some submitted bans would obviously be from people with some emotional investment into them, and the ones listed for precedent would need to be as unbiased as possible.

Get someone from offsite. Simple enough, I think.

[Id]

Get someone from offsite. Simple enough, I think.

Get Id. Id is benevolent.

[ExitSpace]

Yay, more or less. I agree that certain rules need to be more extensively defined. Harassment in particular, due to recent issues concerning- whether users were abusing the rule by means of calling it when unneeded, or users deeming it unneeded when it was. Ooc, however, is a trickier matter. In my personal opinion, it doesn't need to be revamped so much as it needs to be better defined and controlled properly according to the AUP. There's definitely a terribly fine line, but the real problem is not the ooc itself, but the abuse of it. It's all about the common sense of when and when not to use it. Here's my take on it:
If the room is literally dead, no one is IC and no one has asked for it- I don't see how it's a problem if it's not an interference, considering that there's nothing to interfere.
Now, if asked to go IC? Then can it. As the rule says. OR. If you see an IC post pop up in the room, also~...can it. It's as simple as that. And the users following these methods are not really a problem.
Now, the users that continue and continue and continue to ooc AFTER being asked (or even insult the asker for daring to), that's another story...
And if one doesn't have the common sense to stop right off the bat when an IC post appears, EVEN if they haven't been asked- well, shame on them, it would've prevented any problems in the first place. Which I would hope is pretty obvious (sadly, sometimes, it's NOT apparently...)
Not saying that a single line of ooc now and then, as long as it isn't excessive, is really all that much of an issue during IC. I've seen plenty of simple hellos, goodbyes, brbs, and so on without problems. Two or three isolated ooc posts never bothered me, personally. Everyone slips up now and then. Now, if the post I'm reading or responding to is off the screen by the time I'm half way through...yeahno.

Just a thought in passing.