A prominent point in the TK of today

[CaptainRobin]

It's come to my attention that there is much debate (read: mods are getting pestered) over the topic of "trolling" as of late.

I think, in order to properly attempt to create a half-successful filter against all this, we need to create an amendment to the AUP that will draw the line between simple trolls and outright harassment.

As it stands, it seems odd to enforce a rule that isn't in the AUP; it will help both the offender and the offended to know that logging under different names will incur bans/kicks/whatever, but that one person should simply be ignored.

Not to mention it'll reduce debate on the end of the banned when the AUP clearly states that logging on different names is indeed an offense of the rules, but that clearly ignoring the function of /ignore (what?) is not worthy of a report. If nothing else, it will give them no stance to act righteous from when the AUP itself, the site's rules, clearly state the site's guidelines.

[Ytts]

Do you want

1) Harassment is against the rules. It is at the discretion of the staff of what is and is not harassment.

Because unless the community is willing to give the staff discretion, the harassment clause will need to be a couple dozen pages long describing what is and is not okay in every circumstance.

[Ruindil]

...Just Use /ignore

/ignore Thread

Watch how good that works.

AUP's come and go. /ignore is forever, or until you log out...

CELTICS ARE EASTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS

BEAT L.A. BEAT L.A. BEAT L.A.

[Jason Baane]

If I get complaints about someone's behavior in Silvermoon, I send them a tell asking them to tone it down. If they don't, I /kick. If they come in and repeatedly do it, I /ban and just lift it the next day in case they want to try playing nice again.

Granted I've yet to run into someone repeatedly switching their names to piss me off on TK.

[Moondog]

If I get complaints about someone's behavior in Silvermoon, I send them a tell asking them to tone it down. If they don't, I /kick. If they come in and repeatedly do it, I /ban and just lift it the next day in case they want to try playing nice again.

Granted I've yet to run into someone repeatedly switching their names to piss me off on TK.

Didn't know users could unban people from their rooms.  Far as I know, they just have to wait a day for the room-ban to wear off.

[Soja]

When I ban, I /ban *

NEVAR FORGIVE, NEVAR FORGET

[Jason Baane]

If I get complaints about someone's behavior in Silvermoon, I send them a tell asking them to tone it down. If they don't, I /kick. If they come in and repeatedly do it, I /ban and just lift it the next day in case they want to try playing nice again.

Granted I've yet to run into someone repeatedly switching their names to piss me off on TK.

Didn't know users could unban people from their rooms.  Far as I know, they just have to wait a day for the room-ban to wear off.

Probably an error on my part then. It's been a long time since I've had to use the /ban command. I'm a pussy when it comes to that, and Rosery usually brings down the hammer for me.

[CaptainRobin]

All good points. (except the people who refuse to contribute anything useful; please refrain from non-contribution. Thank you.)

Ytts: I'm not looking for a mile-long-list of why things should and shouldn't be considered anything. I'm looking for the rule about circumventing /ignore (a'la logging in via different names) to classify as harassment after the first incident of relogging under a different name. The point of /ignore isn't to constantly spam it ad nauseum; it's to give a message. If they circumvent it once, it should be worthy of a ban-- so long as it gets stated in the AUP as such.

To the contrary, it would help a lot for that very clause to state that, likewise, failing to use /ignore on the first incident will only result in your report being ignored.

Ruindil: /ignore, as I'm sure many people can tell you, is until they keep circumventing by relogging under different names. Room bans will not prevent them from external harassment. I'm afraid it's really not "forever" as you have said.

I'm not saying there's a rash of harassment (not that I'd know, but there's been a few incidents in the recent past) but I am saying there's a rash of confusion between people with light tolerances failing to use /ignore and likewise, the offenders wondering why logging in under 2+ names constitutes a bannable offense.

This isn't about some vendetta against trolls; contrarily, this is trying to defend offenders (?) from violating rules while blissfully ignorant of them because-- well-- they haven't been stated. It gets two birds with one stone; offenders will now be held accountable for their own idiocy and the AUP will quickly staunch any arguments as it has done a good job of doing so in the past, and the people who complain at the drop of a penny will be held accountable in the same way, where their reports are subject to being ignored if they have failed to use the implements at their disposal.

Is this wholly unreasonable?

I am aware non-contributers will not stop because I asked them to. It's more of an impulse than anything.

[Inquisitor]

Ytts: I'm not looking for a mile-long-list of why things should and shouldn't be considered anything. I'm looking for the rule about circumventing /ignore (a'la logging in via different names) to classify as harassment after the first incident of relogging under a different name. The point of /ignore isn't to constantly spam it ad nauseum; it's to give a message. If they circumvent it once, it should be worthy of a ban-- so long as it gets stated in the AUP as such.

To the contrary, it would help a lot for that very clause to state that, likewise, failing to use /ignore on the first incident will only result in your report being ignored.


I am aware non-contributers will not stop because I asked them to. It's more of an impulse than anything.

This point has been made a lot in the past and it never seems to gain any foot hold. I don't understand how it is unreasonable to have a clause that simply defines harassment as the victim must ignore them first, and then the aggressor must circumvent the ignore to have it qualify as harassment. It really does need it's separate, well-worded clause in the AUP.

[CaptainRobin]

Well, it really isn't a difficult concept-- and even here on the forums there have been examples of both ends of the rule being bastardized. Why isn't this in the AUP? It refers to an offense more frequent than anything like IP probes, I'm sure, and even that made it into the AUP (which just goes to say that, in Canada, IP probes are illegal).

It's simple: Flaming is to be treated with /ignore. If a /ignored user uses a different username to bypass the effects of /ignore, it should fall upon the mods to teach them their appropriate lesson. It causes a headache for all when this isn't clearly stated in the AUP.

[Jason Baane]

Captain Robin, let me pose a question to you.

When you ignore people, how exactly do they know? Do they just take a shot in the dark and guess, or do you actively tell them through some sort of public announcement? If the later is the case, then that's the problem and doesn't exactly make the /ignorer much better than the /ignoree on the eMaturity scale.

[CaptainRobin]

I exercise my own /ignore with discretion. If this were about my personal vendettas, I assure you I'd probably pick something a little less logical, or something.

Why is it unreasonable for this to get put into the AUP? All I'm asking is that the clause gets fitted into the AUP to reduce confusion on behalf of those who have violated/do violate this rule and meet consequences. That's all I want to know-- what's so unreasonable about a clause in the AUP covering this rule when it has come into play many times within the recent past?

(also; I don't know about you, it's pretty hard not to notice someone magically disregarding your presence... /ignore isn't exactly subtle in the fact that you don't see their messages, making it rather difficult to respond to them-- they're going to clue in sooner rather than later)

[Jason Baane]

I fully agree that the AUP should have something about harassment, and I do believe that the complaints brought forth by you are justified. I was attempting to offer a patchwork solution, because in the event that someone publicly announces the use of /ignore (it happens so ridiculously often) that would very much potentially render the command useless.

It's one of my personal beefs when two people are in an argument, for whatever reason, and one decides to /ignore. That's good and fine, but when they go off in this triad of "Hey, everyone, look! I ignored him! Look at me, look at me! I'm the mature one!" it makes me want to kick them in the teeth.

[Lugh]

I have a personal problem.


Therefore, the WHOLE SYSTEM MUCH CHANGE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ME! VIVA LA REVOLUTIONE!

[MadMusician]

Than again, a lot of people who are being harassed have usually done something questionable, or doing something questionable, ethically, morally, or blatantly against the rules. While it doesn't mean they should be harassed about it, and instead reported, it would help if people stopped painting giant cross hairs on their heads, screaming, running around while naked, and doing everything else they can to attract attention. If you cater to this crowd, you'll attract them by the droves...trust me.

But still, ironically, the community itself has been somewhat able to weed out the mega-mooks from the rest of the population. As it turns out on the internet, if you don't get rid of the people that absolutely, positively everyone hates, everyone else will leave.

[Xachariah]

But still, ironically, the community itself has been somewhat able to weed out the mega-mooks from the rest of the population.

This makes me imagine the really bad trolls as boss fights for the mods in a video game. A tactical RPG, of course, because it's kinda back-and-forth until it's all done.

[Kill Boy]

When I ban, I /ban *

NEVAR FORGIVE, NEVAR FORGET

When I ban I ban too.

[MadMusician]

But still, ironically, the community itself has been somewhat able to weed out the mega-mooks from the rest of the population.

This makes me imagine the really bad trolls as boss fights for the mods in a video game. A tactical RPG, of course, because it's kinda back-and-forth until it's all done.

www.forumwarz.com

[Jason Baane]

I never got that far past the quiz on that site. The image of the man who supposedly sends you a tell is just gross. Is there any more to that game?

[MadMusician]

Much, much, much more actually.

And for the most part, the game only spirals downhill.

Really, it's a comedic RPG obviously based off of the internet.