Warnings related to Lantz's Threads

[Seika]

Make it football please

It is football.

[Mcjon01]

I think that it refers to the behavior in which one attacks the other person in a discussion rather than discussing or following the argument itself.

EDIT: And sniped by Seika.

I figured that was it, it just threw me for a loop because that expression doesn't exist here.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

Make it football please

It's no good to be caught with pass interference. Be Richard Sherman or Darrelle Revis instead and intercept the ball.

[Siriel]

Speaking of, I'm going to underline to everyone the point in mAc's post about the severity of future punishments. These lot all came very very close to getting strikes (which I note would put Christemo on his last chance). In future, similar incidents will immediately elevate to strikes, absent any mitigating circumstances. Playing the person instead of the ball has become too prevalent, and posters need to unlearn that habit. Quickly.

Could you clarify the reach of this statement?

If it's universal, then please rewrite the rules. If you mean Lantz's threads, please specify it.

[Elf]

Could you clarify the reach of this statement?

If it's universal, then please rewrite the rules. If you mean Lantz's threads, please specify it.

Okay, basically with the escalation of the event we were considering giving both the instigators and Lantz a ban, therefore a Strike to the Three Strikes and You're Perma Banned. However we came up with a compromise and just decided to give out a Public Warning, which if they act out again before the cool down period is over they would get a ban and therefore a strike.

All of this boils down to something very simple: Don't Be a Dick, which means don't bully, don't flame, and for the love of everything, don't troll.

[Christemo]

Okay, basically with the escalation of the event we were considering giving both the instigators and Lantz a ban, therefore a Strike to the Three Strikes and You're Perma Banned. However we came up with a compromise and just decided to give out a Public Warning, which if they act out again before the cool down period is over they would get a ban and therefore a strike.

All of this boils down to something very simple: Don't Be a Dick.

That didn't actually answer the question. The question was: Will all "personal attacks", whether the truth or perceived as such, go straight to strikes from now on, or is it exclusive to lantz?

[Siriel]

Thank you for the clarification.

- - - Updated - - -

That didn't actually answer the question. The question was: Will all "personal attacks", whether the truth or perceived as such, go straight to strikes from now.

This:

However we came up with a compromise and just decided to give out a Public Warning, which if they act out again before the cool down period is over they would get a ban and therefore a strike.

Makes it pretty clear it was regarding people warned in the OP.

[Paitouch]

All of this just makes me sorta curious what Lantz writes about nanodesupoi.

[Seika]

It's basically a warning that the staff are particularly ready to exercise the right to kick up punishment levels when it comes to flaming.

So not every instance, but where we perceive it to be comparatively as serious or as sustained as we saw in this case, don't complain if you get struck.

[francobull3]

Make it soccer please

ftfy

[Kirby]

All of this just makes me sorta curious what Lantz writes about nanodesupoi.

Don't give in. Retain your purity

[Siriel]

It's basically a warning that the staff are particularly ready to exercise the right to kick up punishment levels when it comes to flaming.

So not every instance, but where we perceive it to be comparatively as serious or as sustained as we saw in this case, don't complain if you get struck.

If it's such a big deal why not just say that personal attacks result in a strike instead of leaving it to arbitrary judgment that will vary from mod to mod?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean let's say poster X posts a personal attack. Mod Y sees it, judges it to be not too bad, gives a warning.

Poster Z by complete coincidence posts the same thing toward a different poster in another thread, Mod A judges it to be bad and gives a strike.

Poster Z would be totally right if, noticing the treament of Poster X after coming back from his strike, he said it was unfair.

[Nihilm]

I think it is generally a good thing this happened, even if there are specifics you could argue about.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

It can be somewhat difficult to read some as personal attacks or not because some of us get along well enough to be friendly-insulting to each other. I mean, say I tell Bloble "fuck you, goddamn canadian!" I'm pretty sure he knows I'm joking with him, but if someone were to randomly throw out profanities and insults towards one's motherland it might actually be a flame. I sorta imagine they can't ban all comments like that or else I'd have to be nice to the people I like and it's n-not like I want to or anything.

[SeiKeo]

Mac and Seika are pretty in tune with how the forum and its personal relationships run so I'm comfortable with trusting them on that.

[mAc Chaos]

If it's such a big deal why not just say that personal attacks result in a strike instead of leaving it to arbitrary judgment that will vary from mod to mod?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean let's say poster X posts a personal attack. Mod Y sees it, judges it to be not too bad, gives a warning.

Poster Z by complete coincidence posts the same thing toward a different poster in another thread, Mod A judges it to be bad and gives a strike.

Poster Z would be totally right if, noticing the treament of Poster X after coming back from his strike, he said it was unfair.

It's good to seek clarification; I want to just point out though that for judging what makes a "personal attack," you still require someone to interpret what exactly makes it an attack and the context.

For instance, imagine if someone wrote a review of a fic and it was profanity laden and very passionate. Or maybe another one that calls somebody's work "fucking garbage." It is not insulting the person themselves, but their work. But the person would probably get offended.

[Siriel]

It's good to seek clarification; I want to just point out though that for judging what makes a "personal attack," you still require someone to interpret what exactly makes it an attack and the context.

For instance, imagine if someone wrote a review of a fic and it was profanity laden and very passionate. Or maybe another one that calls somebody's work "fucking garbage." It is not insulting the person themselves, but their work. But the person would probably get offended.

Sure, but the punishment at least has to be consistent otherwise it just causes confusion.

It's much easier to separate things between "Insults worth punishment" and "Not that" than between "Insults worth a strike", "Insults worth a warning", "Neither".

The clearer the line the more people can stop themselves from crossing it.

[Christemo]

If it's flame towards a specific person, the solution is pretty simple. If the specific person is offended, he reports it, and moderation is therefor applied. If he's not, then he doesn't care or isn't offended, and then it is unnecessary to punish the flamer unless he's a serious repeat offender that holds that attitude towards everyone.

[I3uster]

finally

[Seika]

We do also hope that we won't have to follow through too often on striking for flames. Lantz has often been an exception in this forum, and between that and our notification that the staff are getting really fed up of personal attacks, we would like to imagine that situations of similar nastiness won't appear often and force us to go that far.

We are trying to be fair by putting everyone on notice that we're going to be examining flames particularly closely, and by reminding the forum that we don't just have a list of misdeeds and the punishments that fit them, to be robotically adhered to: the staff has always reserved the right to use their considered judgement to adjust to a given situation.

- - - Updated - - -

If the specific person is offended, he reports it, and moderation is therefor applied.

This still requires an exercise of our own judgement. If we punished everyone who got reported every time they got reported, most of the forum would be banned.

(That said, we still prefer reports over nothing: the users have to help us keep an eye on a forum as busy and varied as this).