New AUP Approval Poll

[Xachariah]

So, after a few months of work, we finally hammered out this document. It started with the Ombudsmen, and then went to the staff (and some freelancers we asked to help). It's finally made its way to you guys - and you guys will be able to decide whether it'll be ratified or not.

If you don't think it should be ratified, or have reservations, please, explain why/what they are - we'll go into research and rewrite mode if it doesn't pass, and it'd really be great to have an idea of why it didn't.

1. As no AUP can cover every possible scenario that may come up, individuals will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Transgressions out of step with the spirit of our rules—but not specifically referred to in the AUP—are subject to the discretion of the staff. Abuse of this discretion may be reported to the Ombudsmen. Any effort to defeat or sidestep the rules, as well as any effort to falsify a report in an attempt to manipulate them against another user, constitutes a violation of this document.


2. Users of the Keep are to keep profanity to a minimum, or between characters and not players.
Casual swearing is acceptable in this chat room. Harsher language is also acceptable to a point where it is not excessive, at the staff's discretion. Flooding the chat with swearing for the sake of it is a breach of this rule.
Room and character names may not contain swears, curses, slurs, or sexually explicit words or phrases.

These standards also apply to all links posted within the chat.


3. Profiles may not contain or contain links to pornography, obscenity, extreme graphic violence and gore, or otherwise explicit materials that would constitute a violation of any of the other clauses of this document. Obscenity here constitutes crude, lewd or tasteless images meant to shock or disgust.

Full or visually implicit exposure (as with a wet t-shirt or sheer fabric) of any sexually intimate part of a humanoid body, whether photographed, illustrated, or though another means such as ASCII art, is considered inappropriate for this site. Any photograph or image depicting gore or brutal death in a fashion that robs the deceased of its dignity is considered inappropriate for this site. Illustrations and works of art depicting any of the above are subject to moderator discretion. No image of any medium that depicts sexual acts, graphic or implied, is allowed.


4. Real Life - Respect each other's privacy Out Of Character (OOC). Users are prohibited from engaging in behavior that could jeopardize the safety of, violate the privacy of, cause harm, or threaten other users in real life. It is also forbidden for a user to spread personal, private information about (either true, or libellous), or make Real Life (RL) threats against another user. Repeatedly seeking personal, private information about another user that they don't want known will be considered harassment and treated as such.

Advocating real-life hate campaigns is strictly prohibited.
Punishment for these transgressions will be given according to the severity of the perceived threat, the number of offenses the aggressor(s) has made before, and whether or not the affected party wishes to make a complaint.


5. Cyber sex or 'cybering' is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN in all public rooms. Reposting or dropping whispers containing sexually explicit content in a public room will be considered cybering in a non-private room. It is assumed that players who engage in adult-themed exchanges are of consenting age in their country, province or state. Deliberate sexual contact with any person considered underage, or where sexual interactions are prohibited in any pertinent jurisdiction,  is strictly prohibited in all rooms, both public and private. Transgressions may be reported to the appropriate authorities.


6. Public room tags will not contain any information of an inappropriate or solicitous nature. This includes, but is in no way limited to, tags that state or imply the user is soliciting for sex, sexual roleplay, or other sexual content. It is at the discretion of the staff as to what may be considered soliciting.

Any room visible on the userlist is still subject to the rules of the AUP, and is not afforded the rights of a private room. Please use the /private command to make a private room. Unsuitably named rooms will be removed at the staff's discretion.  


7. Attempted port scans, probes, uses of known network security tools or otherwise seeking of security flaws in The Keep or any of the infrastructure supporting it without express permission from the System Operator will make that user subject to permanent banning at the discretion of the System Operator. ISP and Federal officials may also be notified.
Likewise user/s who attempt what may be construed as a Denial of Service attack on the network, or any attempt to disrupt the service through any security flaw or otherwise will be subject to permanent banning. ISP and Federal officials may also be notified.

Threats of hacking or other threats to the security and/or daily operation of The Keep, whether in-chat, on forums, or in messengers, will be dealt with as stated above.


8. Users shall not harass other users. Harassment in this chatroom constitutes any unwanted or bothersome attention, particularly when the harassed has asked the harasser to leave him or her alone. If harassing behavior persists to the point where the /ignore function is no longer helpful, the harasser is in violation of this rule and may be dealt with by the staff.

Out of Character harassment—and especially sexual harassment—is not tolerated and will be punished accordingly.


9. Any user who uses The Keep for the purposes of spamming will be subject to kicking or any other punishment deemed appropriate by the administrative staff.

Spam being defined as the repetitious posting of relatively nonsensical or meaningless letters, numbers, text or URLS. URL spam can consist of advertising other roleplay sites not on the Nexxushost network, or repeatedly dropping links, especially if you roomhop to do it. Please also refrain from randomly capitalizing letters in your posts, using font colours (like white text on a white background or bright green) that are difficult to read.


10. Default IC rooms are not meant for OOC discussions. OOC for the purpose of clarification regarding an ongoing roleplay (such as asking about or responding to an inquiry about an IC action currently in the room) is acceptable, when done sparingly. For any more extensive discussions Out Of Character, please use the whisper function.

The Default IC rooms are as follows:
Arena
Cafe
Desert
EastTower
Forest
Garden
Pub
WestTower

[Rook]

Oh, yes. Voting fraudulently will be dealt with harshly. Very, very harshly.

So don't say you weren't warned.

[Jurito]

There ain't nothin' wrong with the current AUP. What's basically a reiteration of the same rules, except with a clause that lets mods ban for rules that aren't stated isn't going to improve anything. It's just going to increase the amount of complaints to the Ombudsmen who (in my opinion) aren't going to do shit about them, and in turn cause more of a shit-storm than the current AUP does. A problem with the original AUP was loose interpretation. That little clause in the beginning exacerbates that.

[Kade]

There ain't nothin' wrong with the current AUP. A reiteration with a clause that lets mods ban for rules that aren't stated isn't going to improve anything.

Yeah, the arguments will just take on a new tone.

[Vivi]

It'll lessen the amount of "well it doesn't explicitly state that I can't do this exact thing even though its pretty much against such and such a rule, though not exactly as that rule states it." arguments.

Or, at the very least, it'll give us a portion of the AUP to point at in response to that so we can move on.

Yeah, the arguments will just take on a new tone.

Though, there is this. Either way its not like it can actually hurt either.

[Soja]

Except that that clause also holds the mods responsible for their behavior. :v

[jesus]

Those rules are the same as always. Took you months to think of it? could've taken me 5 minutes to do that. Also, you are missing vital things in the new AUP. So basically this new AUP just changed "under discretion of the moderators" giving A. the moderators all power to whatever decisions are done and without a shadow of a doubt. Meaning the user doesn't have a single say in defense. Let's say I talk about whatever, and the moderator decides to ban me for 10 days? for no reason but instead makes up a reason for it, using AUP to justify the decision then points out that it is under their discretion? i think it's totally flawed. Every rule in there had that small clause on it, i guess it's to keep the moderators safe from ridicule. Good job sir but this was a waste of your time, if you spent that long doing nothing but insert those clauses.

[Kade]

8. Users shall not harass other users. Harassment in this chatroom constitutes any unwanted or bothersome attention, particularly when the harassed has asked the harasser to leave him or her alone. If harassing behavior persists to the point where the /ignore function is no longer helpful, the harasser is in violation of this rule and may be dealt with by the staff.

Also, is it only when the behavior persists to the point where the /ignore function is no longer helpful? Or can someone get in trouble for harrassment before it gets to that point? And if so, how much trouble?

I ask because I've had this sort of rule used against me / I've used it against others. It's pretty helpful. Just want to double-check though.

[Kade]

I like this part about rule 1:

Any effort to defeat or sidestep the rules, as well as any effort to falsify a report in an attempt to manipulate them against another user, constitutes a violation of this document.

The rest of it just sort of seems like it was made to prevent the staff from ever being found in the wrong.

Edit: But it's not like the staff doesn't already use the "spirit of the rule" thing already anyway, so it won't change much. It'll just end the usual pre-arguments mods face more quickly, I guess. I just don't see anything in this AUP to protect the user in cases where the staff might be in the wrong, other than the existence of the Ombudsmen-- which to me seems like too little.

[Soja]

Those rules are the same as always. Took you months to think of it? could've taken me 5 minutes to do that. Also, you are missing vital things in the new AUP. So basically this new AUP just changed "under discretion of the moderators" giving A. the moderators all power to whatever decisions are done and without a shadow of a doubt. Meaning the user doesn't have a single say in defense. Let's say I talk about whatever, and the moderator decides to ban me for 10 days? for no reason but instead makes up a reason for it, using AUP to justify the decision then points out that it is under their discretion? i think it's totally flawed. Every rule in there had that small clause on it, i guess it's to keep the moderators safe from ridicule. Good job sir but this was a waste of your time, if you spent that long doing nothing but insert those clauses.

Except that that clause also holds the mods responsible for their behavior. :v

And yes, it does contain the same things, but in clearer language; and further some rules were expanded or made more comprehensive for the times. The current AUP is from 2006. Things change in half a decade.

8. Users shall not harass other users. Harassment in this chatroom constitutes any unwanted or bothersome attention, particularly when the harassed has asked the harasser to leave him or her alone. If harassing behavior persists to the point where the /ignore function is no longer helpful, the harasser is in violation of this rule and may be dealt with by the staff.

Also, is it only when the behavior persists to the point where the /ignore function is no longer helpful? Or can someone get in trouble for harrassment before it gets to that point? And if so, how much trouble?

I ask because I've had this sort of rule used against me / I've used it against others. It's pretty helpful. Just want to double-check though.

Harassment generally sorts itself, whether it's by a person leaving the room or the harasser leaving first. This rule would only really come into play when someone does things like evade a room ban or log out and back in under a new name to continue harassing someone that has ignored them. However, harassing anyone at all is still frowned upon and if a mod is called you probably will be told to stop being a ponce.

[Jurito]

Not really, if anything it makes them less liable as they can ultimately (as vivi already stated) fall back on that clause. Yeah, you can complain to an ombudsmen, but then they fall back on said clause. And then nothing is solved. I've yet to see an Ombudsman actually stand up to a mod myself. They seemed to be more a means to placate most of the people who feel unfairly treated by mods that was largely ineffective.

[Xachariah]

You'd be amazed how few complaints actually get brought to us, honestly. There's a reason I haven't bothered doing the Ombudsman report for the last three months (though I do intend to do a six-month report in November).

[Jurito]

Probably because people highly doubt you'd be willing/able to do anything about it. No offense to any of the current Ombudsmen but none of them seem the type to tell a player and a mod to both pull their head out of their asses and try to come to a reasonable solution. This is in turn proven by the AUP written up by said Ombudsmen.

[Kade]

Also, Rule 4, the no divulging personal information rule...

"It is also forbidden for a user to spread personal, private information about (either true, or libellous),"

From what I've seen, it happens sometimes that the party accused of divulging personal information will argue that the information "divulged" was already public knowledge anyway, and that in the context it was reiterated (like in the heat of an argument) the offended party decided to get a mod out of anger. Will the staff continue to deal with these instances as they have been [which in my opinion is pretty damn well, actually]? Should rule 4 be amended to include something about how information already disseminated in public, on TK, by the offended party cannot thereafter be considered personal information?

Also, uh... should the rule -- and maybe some other rules -- include mention of stuff that happens OUTSIDE of TK? Like on messengers?

Just things to think about. Other than these concerns and others I might come up with in the future, the new AUP looks pretty good.

[Soja]

That's because, Jurito, given evidence and the circumstances around those cases, there has been little reason to "stand up" to the mods ever since the inception of our office. Combativeness for the sake of combativeness isn't constructive to any cause.

One of the chief complaints levied against the staff is how they either act or don't act specifically and exactly to the letter of the AUP. They have been accused of both tyrannically enforcing the letter, not the spirit, of the law; and they have also been accused of making up their own rules when, extrapolating, it's easy to see how certain actions may fall under the jurisdiction of certain rules even if they are not specifically stated. Two rules in particular called for such a clause as this, specifically: the one on language, and the one on harassment.

Language and harassment are two cases in which the field and spectrum is so broad that it is impossible to list every single case and exception, and so a generalization must be had and the moderator must be required to make a judgment call. The check to this is, of course, us, and we will determine if a moderator was too heavy handed in certain rulings even if a complaint isn't filed.

[Kade]

Not really, if anything it makes them less liable as they can ultimately (as vivi already stated) fall back on that clause. Yeah, you can complain to an ombudsmen, but then they fall back on said clause. And then nothing is solved. I've yet to see an Ombudsman actually stand up to a mod myself. They seemed to be more a means to placate most of the people who feel unfairly treated by mods that was largely ineffective.

I've seen people use the term Ombudsyesmen...

Probably because people highly doubt you'd be willing/able to do anything about it. No offense to any of the current Ombudsmen but none of them seem the type to tell a player and a mod to both pull their head out of their asses and try to come to a reasonable solution. This is in turn proven by the AUP written up by said Ombudsmen.

This, too. A lot of people don't consider the Ombudsmen an option when seeking help.
Then again, I haven't seen many people get banned lately anyway.

[Familiar]

Shane calls 'em Ombuttsmen. They're terms of endearment.

[jesus]

Basically kade. I hate to say it but I'd make a better mod than most here. Though I rather not be i'm far too busy with personal jobs than look over an unpaid site. I mean I was a troll for many years, I think trolls make better moderators since they themselves bend the rules and if they are reformed they think like a criminal and thus can stop a criminal mind. I vote kade for mod!

[Jurito]

One of the chief complaints levied against the staff is how they either act or don't act specifically and exactly to the letter of the AUP. They have been accused of both tyrannically enforcing the letter, not the spirit, of the law; and they have also been accused of making up their own rules when, extrapolating

So the solution is to make the written law both obscure enough to make them right in every case. In turn making it so that they're not making a judgement call but sticking to the letter of the law. Making it so it's not the mod's fault, it's the AUP's fault for being too damn vague on restricting a mod's powers.  If anything it seems as if you're minimalizing (if not outright eliminating) a ombudsmen's role as anything other than a complaint box while giving mods the authority to enforce rules as they see fit.

[Kade]

Basically kade. I hate to say it but I'd make a better mod than most here. Though I rather not be i'm far too busy with personal jobs than look over an unpaid site. I mean I was a troll for many years, I think trolls make better moderators since they themselves bend the rules and if they are reformed they think like a criminal and thus can stop a criminal mind. I vote kade for mod!

LOL no. ._.

[Jurito]

Jurito for head admin! Chaos, Anarchy, KICKS FOR EVERYONE.

But no, seriously. I'd rather someone get away with skirting the rules rather than be banned for breaking a rule a mod implemented on the spot. In lieu of this, term limits on moderators.

[Kade]

term limits on moderators.

It will never happen.

[Jurito]

term limits on moderators.

It will never happen.

If not legit term-limits. Then have periodic votes on whether or not they keep their position. (Though in all honesty I can already see a whole slew of problems with that)

[Soja]

Also, Rule 4, the no divulging personal information rule...

"It is also forbidden for a user to spread personal, private information about (either true, or libellous),"

From what I've seen, it happens sometimes that the party accused of divulging personal information will argue that the information "divulged" was already public knowledge anyway, and that in the context it was reiterated (like in the heat of an argument) the offended party decided to get a mod out of anger. Will the staff continue to deal with these instances as they have been [which in my opinion is pretty damn well, actually]? Should rule 4 be amended to include something about how information already disseminated in public, on TK, by the offended party cannot thereafter be considered personal information?

Also, uh... should the rule -- and maybe some other rules -- include mention of stuff that happens OUTSIDE of TK? Like on messengers?

Just things to think about. Other than these concerns and others I might come up with in the future, the new AUP looks pretty good.

That has been taken into consideration, which also prompted the clause in our new Rule 1 warning against the falsification of reports of transgressions against other users. Perhaps there is a time when a person lets slip something personal (like a photo) or outright states it, but later changes his or her mind and wishes that not to be continually disseminated in the chat. We believe that if that is what one of our members wishes, then that is how it should be, even if such information was previously stated in public. Our users should respect those wishes.

We considered for a while including things like social network chats and instant messengers in regards to certain rules, but these are things that the staff has no way adjudicating on. Further, a user (at least in terms of social networking and instant messenger contacts) has complete power over whether or not a person can contact them, so it's largely out of the staff's hands.

So the solution is to make the written law both obscure enough to make them right in every case. In turn making it so that they're not making a judgement call but sticking to the letter of the law. Making it so it's not the mod's fault, it's the AUP's fault for being too damn vague on restricting a mod's powers.  If anything it seems as if you're minimalizing (if not outright eliminating) a ombudsmen's role as anything other than a complaint box while giving mods the authority to enforce rules as they see fit.

This might have merit, if in fact the new writing of the law was obscure or vague, and if the role of this office wasn't actually expanded by placing the responsibility of checking rulings on its shoulders. There was, before this version, a more black and white writing proposed. What this is is an elasticity clause that allows moderators to act on events that are not specifically stated in the rules (because every single transgression and exception that may arise would make for a horrifically obtuse document), not a free pass to give whomever they wish the boot.

[Vivi]

So the solution is to make the written law both obscure enough to make them right in every case. In turn making it so that they're not making a judgement call but sticking to the letter of the law. Making it so it's not the mod's fault, it's the AUP's fault for being too damn vague on restricting a mod's powers.  If anything it seems as if you're minimalizing (if not outright eliminating) a ombudsmen's role as anything other than a complaint box while giving mods the authority to enforce rules as they see fit.

The idea is more to enforce them as precedent dictates rather then what the rule exactly states. Yes it COULD be abused as you state, but if you honestly think none of the mods/ombudsmen would stand up if say, you got banned for asking what the setting is oocly in a room you'd be wrong. An extreme example? Yes, but I'd think its fair to say we have a fairly decent range of moderators from stricter to more lenient ones, and when cases are brought to our attention as a whole we tend to try to sort them out together, ombudsmen very much included.