UMEC Forum Index UMEC
United Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Warning; read these posting rules

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:15 am    Post subject: Warning; read these posting rules Reply with quote

half-baked ad hominem flames aren't welcome even in this flame war forum
in order to clarify the "art of moderating muffy style" i've taken some time to create something that approximates my attitude towards what one can get away with and what one cannot.
  1. You may state an opinion if you have no facts. that's perfectly acceptable. (you may even use nasty language if you're venting; there are exceptions of course...see #6/7)
  2. You may attack a pure opinion with another opinion (hell, you can merrily flame away for all i care...just don't get OTT or you'll have people yelling "get a room!")
  3. You may state an argument if you do have facts that shed new light on someone elses, or your own context, though you're not under any obligation to make any sense. *g* (you may even add a flame or two to your post as long as you don't base anything on the flame(s)...see #6/7...one actually has THE most leeway with using harsh language using this option)
  4. You may reply to an argument (3) with an opinion (1) if you want (Just remember you get less "flame" leeway than any other option between 1-5, inclusive)
  5. You may reply to an argument (3) with an argument (3). (usually considered a debate even if both parties don't have a clear proposition stated...or are trying to reach an understanding of the other person's context...one has the 2nd highest "flame" leeway when using this option)
  6. But, you may not merely state an opinion and base it on some stupid "Troll" (may or may not contain "Flames"; Hypocrisy = Propaganda; Semantic drivel; it can't be considered an argument - see here)
  7. Do NOT equate a lack of experience with a lack of understanding -- "wisdom of babes" -- AND assume you can transmogrify an opinion into a fact to use as a basis for an argument on that principle. (even n00bs aren't that stupid)
  8. you may NEVER use merely #6 option to reply to options 1 through 5 because i'll ALWAYS reply with a form complaint
  9. using #7 option to reply to options 1 through 5 is grounds for immediate deletion with no silly replies, comments, warnings or whatever. (just ask Savant &/or Arch0n)
  10. incestuous hissy fits between options 6-9 is known as SCCC ("Semantic counter-counter clarification") and usually get parodied. example
  11. Spam bad (one flirts with the ban threshold at this level)
  12. ghey-assed flames that constitute something a worse than spam get deleted out of hand...while hiding behind the "i was only joking" or "i was *IC*" or "it's only a game so you shouldn't take that personal email to the cops" (warning. this sorta thing breaches the ban threshold; see below)
  13. being a deliberate pain in the ass just to piss moderators off is like swerving into oncoming traffic (it's counter-productive; also legally defined as harrassment. something no ISP likes to see on a complaint form from ANOTHER ISP)
BTW, don't think just because i quit JumpGate that means the rules don't apply when dealing with ND or TG.
    FYI, don't forget the often black humour that exists on the internet. (muffy's primary rule of thumb: self-effacing humour; warning: see rule #12)

Good news: i doubt i'll ever need to ban someone (and MadCat is your court of appeal if that does happen; plus i doubt MC would be happy about bannage in the first place.) There's only two scenarios where i think bannage is appropriate
  • if spam occurs (analogy would be your junk mail filter being needed...stuff that's literally SPAM in the internet sense; see rule #11)
  • really personal flames that go beyond venting into griefing. (you'll note this includes stupid squad warfare chatter) We've all seen this behavior by such colourful individuals such as RangerW, Rix/Incursus/etc, Frogman/etc, Berzerker...so i don't believe i need to use fucking crayons to explain the obvious; see rule #12

    I doubt i'll be able to enforce a ban on someone who's determined to be a total and complete asshole...though i'm sure MadCat would get in touch with our OESM representative. Even anonymizer sites are surprisingly understanding when they look at something legal; see rule #13
As for rules about flaming elsewhere? well, by all means do so, just remember i'll move the thread (if appropriate) to this forum...though the rules aren't as relaxed as they are here, i won't ban/delete someone just because they use a choice word.
rant
    Muffy's pet peeves (auto delete):
  1. one cannot act like some prima donna martyr. If someone's misunderstanding you don't complain they're deliberately misunderstanding you and provide an "alternative" opinion so hypocritical it reeks. (see rule #9; commonly called the "anti-strawman strawman" tactic, or less commonly, "elitist prick know-it-all" syndrome)
  2. one thing that drives me NUTS is seeing someone pick apart another person's post by
    Quote:
    something...
    rant rant out of context
    Quote:
    ...like...
    rant even more out of context
    Quote:
    ...this
    so out of context rant it reaches orbital velocity
Bad news: if you post something so fundamentally stupid as to be considered humorous, i'll lock the thread and we can all laff at your pathetic display for our own amusement.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dyntheos wrote:
I think ultimately in a busier climate that such "rules" would just lead to chaos. But then again reading the rules it looks like that is exactly what you're looking for.
Harmanoff wrote:
sorry don't honestly think those rules will work. It only takes 10 idiots to ruin it for 100 decent people.
UberJumper wrote:
I think you just tried to be witty when you simply need to be direct and to the point.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson.
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group