Feedback on FF rules
 

I guess most of you have probably read/post about the All the Rage rule.

We realise that members have discomfort with some certain rules, but not many speak up. We would like to take this opportunity and say - do NOT hesitate to do that. Do it in an acceptable manner and we will look at your feedback. We are ready for a makeover for FF anytime. Just post what you think, and we'll look into it.

I will hope that FiestaFan members will post their discomforts, dislikes, or suggestions for this forum (specifically forum rules) here in this thread. If anyone wanted to create a thread like this before but was hesitant to - here you go. We cannot guarantee an instant reply on the feedback - as some things may take longer to discuss than others - but we will try.

Currently, we have these rules in discussion:
- All the Rage: naming or no naming? Discussed.

Will add to the list if more suggestions come up.

Thank you.

I had'nt said anything about this rule because I didn't no there was one till now*doesn't follow rules so well but yea. I just think this rule is a little too constrictive on whats posted there. I believe that even if names being posted there is allowed there will be no massive flames there because the moderators will continue to do a great job of keeping them down. I mean if someone is truly guilty of doing something that any member of the community can fall prey to and a person wants to stop that from happening then they should be allowed to post it here.

If this rule is admended just make it clear that there is to be no foul languaged used or intentional flamebaiting when make these kind of posts. I think the majority of the FF community will abide by those rules and those who don't are easily handled :D.

Umm, I can comply with the no swearing or bad words rule, as I simply replace one of the letters in it with an asterisk.

Such as, sh*t, b*tch, f*ck, *ss, and so on...

And there is this one thing I really haven't understood since the time I set foot here in FF, but what the f*ck is "flaming"??? Or any words being used meant in the same way as how I see that word is used...

And about the naming thing, I never knew that was restricted... Why so? IMO it would be better to take that restriction out :D

I think the problem is what some of us define as "flamebait" is not a "flamebait" for others.

The comment that got this started was "Dont get me started on HER!" (Her being a person that was previously named).

Is that a flamebait?


Although the rules said no naming, I personally think that our FF mod only jumped in when they decided that is a flamebait, and they reminded them by using the "no naming rule".


I believe if you want to warn other players, you can post in General Discussion? (xxx said he's selling Uruga scrolls for 5s, but in fact it's Elderine Scrolls, beware!)

Maybe the no naming rules should be refined, but I really hope that it won't be taken out altogether, because that'll make All the Rage a no-restriction area, where ppl can easily start flames without any rules and restrictions.

But at the end of the day, I think we have to leave the judgements to the Mods. Rules are guidelines of how we should behave in this community, but even with rules, you have a lot of gray areas, which I believe should be left to the Mods.


EDIT: and i've always PMed the person, and ask them for names so i can look out for "suspicious people"... just a side thought...

Rule: All the rage- names or no names.

I think this rule should be abolished, as it is a half-half rule.

Yes, it could open the door to flaming, or fights, etc. However, keep in mind, pretty much anything can. It is the internet, after all.

Now, with this rule, there are touchy edges. If it were to be okayed, it should be followed by the sub-rules of no flaming, no derogatory remarks directed at said person, and screenshot proof.

The screenshot proof is so that there is evidence, and not just some person going around trying to fabricate things about people just because they don't happen to like them, to try and rally support to make the person miserable.

Naturally, like everything, there are pros and cons about this.

Pros:

• You will know who to avoid. (Helps with scamming, getting gw-harassed, etc.)
• With people knowing how said person acts, said person may be inclined to stop their foul play.
• Since staff visit FF, they may see something worthy of intervention, which may result in a solution.
• People will not feel censored to a place they come to get away from dictation.

Cons:

• Could open the door to potential flames. (Can't everything? :P)
• Will 'single out' said person
• Could make a small amount more work for the mods

Now lets discuss the cons.

For the flames, really, anything could provoke them. Anybody could start them. No matter how much you try to sugar-coat things, just remember that sugar is a flammable substance, and even through this, you will instigate flames.

Singling out: Yes, the perosn doing the bad will get singled out. However, I will repeat myself- If they don't want to feel guilty or have people frown upon them for what they do, they should not do it.

Work for mods: To deal with the inevitable immature people who WILL insult and be derogative. However, a few button clicks isn't too hard to do.

--

I truly don't think having this rule abolished will open the floodgates to people flaming. Other game forums, both fansite and official, do not have this rule, and while of course the occasional problem arises, its never anything so extreme that the community declines.

Not saying everything in all the rage will be directed at a person in particular, and most people who have issues with people will prolly not even include their name, just whatt hey did, but there are cases that can become severe enough that you SHOULD mention their name, to warn others, and make them stop.

You should trust the people within your community to be mature of the subject. If they can't, then they shouldn't be posting.

Its understandable to have such a rule on the official forums, but like I said, most people come to fansites to get away from the dictative rules of the officials, so they can more openly express their opinions, and get more accurate and in-depth knowledge.

You can't really force such ideals on the community and expect all of them to be happy about it, that's kind of like..fascism right there. We all have different ideals, and ideas and opinions of how to do things, but restricting freedom of choice in such a manner is well.... nawt dat gud 2 do aktully. =P

Oh yeah kt, you should add a poll maybe?

I'm a bit iffy with the idea of letting people name name's. It has its benefits but it also has a downside to it. I can kind of see why it was initially like that, but I think it does have room to evolve. In the case of people scamming, yeah I GUESS it's okay to point out who's scamming what. But to me I think it would do very little to benefit FiestaFan as a community. If we endorse ourselves as the community that will talk about people freely and openly, and specifically in a derogative way (come on, we have a forum just for ranting about people, but none for thanking?), I don't think it'd be alright. Even if it opens up freedom for people in terms of speech, it opens up a whole other can of beans (flaming, public humiliation, wrongful accusations, this sites' reputation) for very little benefit (naming names).

I think the main issue is freedom of speech. People don't like not being able to fully voice their thoughts and feelings, and removing the ability of naming someone to a crime or an issue touches on this.

What we need to consider is how significant it is to name names when you're really just ranting. Would it benefit this community much to know the names of people who do bad in Fiesta? A huge part of me says not really.

The population in Fiesta is quite large, not to mention hugely dynamic. There are a lot of people who do bad in game, and pinning names just won’t justice in terms of awareness. I always thought All the Rage was a forum that gave you freedom to rant about a person’s actions, not about a person. You might be able to say that someone did this, and you might be able to open our eyes to them a little, but what really gives perspective is knowing their crime and becoming familiar with it. For example, prevention of scams isn’t about knowing who does it, because as the community grows names and such will become redundant information. The only way to prevent scams is for the individual to understand how they work, and to think before buying. I’m sure this same rule could apply for much more. I think it best to raise awareness of bad people another way than just naming names, because in an online community that kind of information becomes irrelevant very quickly.

I also believe that when you’re ranting, naming a name won’t benefit you much at all, unless it truly makes you feel better to see the world dislike that person. If this is the case then I don’t see any real benefit in terms of solving the issue. If you want to feel better about yourself, or more confident that another person did wrong, talking to your friends is the better solution. Why would opening a public thread to bring someone else down benefit you any more than talking to your friends about it? In a thread you risk not hearing what you want to hear, with your friends you’ll hear what you want no problem. If you’re going to argue that you’re helping bringing awareness to the community about the person, I really can’t believe you there. As I argued earlier, I think it’d be insignificant because the community is too large and dynamic.

I think most people would want to name names' to publicly and openly humiliate a person. I don't think it's ethical to do that. Maybe not when the person truly and factually is a bad person, but will giving them this reputation make them feel like they should change? Not really. They'd probably be a little hurt inside, and retaliate quite angrily. They'd feel singled out and this kind of feeling will only propel the justice of their actions in their mind.

If we were to implement a system that gives you the right to pin crimes and such against people, then we would have to implement a way for people to appeal for themselves too. In effect, by naming people in all the rage, a hypothetical list will be created in people's minds. The allowance of naming people in All the Rage may not be something as obvious as actually creating a "bad people list," but it's driving towards that. If we think of it in this way, I don't think the number of people with bad names would be substantial enough. Such information could also be unreliable. People are subjective when posting, particularly in a forum made for blowing off steam. Screenshots as evidence can't be enough sometimes. Any screenshot can be taken out of context, can’t it?

This whole thing is a bit more complicated than just giving people their freedom of speech. If things were black and white in game about who did right and who did wrong, then I’d be all for allowing people to express their concern about other individuals. The problem is understanding when someone is truly and factually guilty. If people misunderstand this, then it could lead to some seriously wrong accusations for seemingly little benefit.


Edit: Just another point, it might be irrelevant, might not be.

Allowing this might change the idea of this community site as well. What if we become the fansite that people turn to get the lowdown on who's supposedly bad in the community and who isn't? It's a doubtful outcome, but a valid one too. I mean, we're fiestafan not fiestaban.

what I'd like to know here is, what makes these forums such a sacred place as compared to talking ingame for example? both are publicly available. people "name names" all the time ingame (and on the officials, btw.) and to me it seems to cause no problems.

people seem to like "flaming" (god I hate that word how it's used now.) no problem ingame, or behind the flamed person's back, but they're terrified when everyone can see their real opinion?

afraid of the site's reputation? how does that work? if someone comes on to a forum and sees some person making a post about them, are they going to think "oh, damn that forum"? they are most likely going to look at the poster. as it should be. you say something, you take responsibility for it. not some mod, let alone a whole site.

to me, the whole idea of a forum is to have the convenience of passing along info or otherwise conversing with people when you cannot do it in realtime. the job of moderators in this is to keep things in order. in order means things like moving threads, closing them when requested by thread starter, and so on... not bossing the posters around.

also, I find it rather questionable that you bring up the validity of this "rule" after a person has already been banned for it. nice one.

yeah, my bad.

said 16 reposts were caused by the order to remove the name from the thread though, and moreso, the editing of the thread by a moderator.

My point with the site isn't a strong one, and I just added it in for the dumb one liner LOL. But yeah back to the discussion.

I believe that naming name's isn't constructive with public ranting. Doing it on a personal level is a little more acceptable then doing it on a public scale, because it's personal. People talk to their friends to either gain perspective or to just feel better about themselves. It's not right to talk behind someone's back, it isn't right to be dishonest to them, but it happens. Yeah, people are afraid to confront at times, and for their own reason. Confrontations can stir a lot of emotions. People naturally avoid that kind of thing, even if it might not always be for the best.

We can't control what happens in-game or on the officials, but we do get a say in what happens on this fansite. Whilst in-game and on the officials stating names might seem to have no effect in terms of how both function, I personally cringe whenever I see someone publicly mentioning a name. If someone in-game or on the officials shouts "so and so" is a bad person for scamming or anything, I genuinely ask to myself "what do you gain out of doing that?"

I still think the rule of not naming name's is overall okay. It might be too strict here and there, particularly with obvious scammers and such - and I suppose that's the key here, finding that compromise between when it's okay to mention names' and when it isn't. I personally reckon it's better not to name people when all you're looking for is to rant, which is essentially what All the Rage is for.

If a good medium can be found between the two then all the better.

Naming names just opens up too much potential for threads full of name calling & anger.

And "said 16 reposts were caused by the request to remove the name from the thread".

And the spamming of threads was a direct and blatant disrespect for mod actions taken in response to her failing to abide by a forum rule that, whether anyone agrees with it being fair or applicable or not, is a forum rule. She can't break the rule just because she doesn't agree with it

So, the said 16 reposts were caused by her immature reaction to having a rule she could not disrespect & disobey. It was not caused by any "order" or any editing of the thread.

yes indeed, but the point remains the same. she did not spam for fun. it was caused by this rule. that's why there's now a thread, THIS thread, that is about changing the rule. mincing my words will not change anything. :P

direct and blatant disrespect... you'd think this is a police state now, not an internet forum.

EDIT: btw, well put on your last post, Mike. Agreed with most all of that.

But the point also remains - whether you agree with the rule or not you have to abide by the rule. And direct & blatant disrespect is unbecoming under any state. The US is not a police state but if you get stopped for driving 50 in a zone posted 35 and the police officer tells you he is gonna let you off with a warning but to keep your speed to 35 and your response is "I disagree with the speed posted. I think 50 is acceptable so I will not comply" I can guaran-dam-tee you he will write you a ticket for exceeding the posted speed. And take that to court and the judge will uphold the ticket and you will pay a fine.

Again, whether you agree with the rule or not you have to abide by the rule. And there has always been a no-spam rule so she tried to continue breaking the first rule by breaking another. Take this back to the police officer and when he tickets you and you disagree with that and refuse to appear in court you will then find an arrest warrant out for you, because you can't choose to ignore the ticket just because you disagree with the posted speed.

You don't justify breaking a rule by breaking another.

May I remind you all that this is not a thread to discuss about the temp-banning of the spammed threads.

However, if you are against the idea of leaving 16 duplicate threads open for replies to get a point across - then please give your valid reason for us and we will look into it.

Like I said before: Talk with the Mods and Site Suggestions and Feedbacks are here for a reason. Give us your suggestions in a proper way and you won't be banned. The last banning was not based on the fact she broke the All the Rage rule - but the fact that 16 unnecessary duplicate threads were made. Sure, it caught our attention alright - which is probably a good thing, but our attention could have be caught without the need to do that.

---

Now, on with the feedback, thank you.

Yeah but what I'm worried about is drawing the line where fact is fact. It's like Ralath said in that other post, it's a difficult decision. I suppose that's why 100% censorship was implemented instead, because it saves the trouble of sorting out the grey areas where things aren't black and white.

Edit: BTW I KNEW YOU TALKED ABOUT IT IN YOUR FIRST POST, IT'S WHAT INSPIRED ME

V

I dont think its about "more work for Mods" as such, it's more about where the Mods should be standing in gray areas between "fact" and "friction".

If a mod allows "this" and didnt allow "that", when "this" and "that" are very similar, how should mods decide wat is fine? We can say leave it to the Mods judgement, but, some people doesnt seem to like the Mod's judgement of "what is OK", so here we are.

If i really want to find out a name I PM the person, but I believe most of the time it does not need to made public.

I'll just talk a little about why we came up with the rule in the first place.

Note: This is not a post telling you that what I'm gonna say is the "final say", but just to give you all a little more perspective on why we decided that in more detail - because I believe all we've said so far on the public forums was "to prevent flaming". And I repeat, it is NOT the final say or anything, just a post to bring up the Pros of having the rule in a bit more detail (since the Cons are listed and talked about a lot more so far).

The main reason has actually been stated already - it is hard to distinguish which "truth" is the "real truth". During high school English class, we had a whole term on the subject "Truth". I used to think it was really crazy, I mean, having to spend 10 weeks learning about "Truth", but I can see why they did that now.

It is not so much too much work for the mods - but more of what is the "truth", the "real" perspective, the "fact", and what is not? The people on one side of the story sees a certain "truth" while the people on the other side sees something else as "truth" - hence it is difficult for us to draw a line because things like this are really subjective to each individual's perspective. Is it "fair" to bring out screenshots of one person, when the other have no idea they are being posted and thus are not given the opportunity to defend themselves? Cases like scammers and hackers, of course, are probably an exception, but we are mainly worried about rants relating to in game behaviours.

Take an example.

Me and Yosei are training a spot. Rightclaw and Fullback comes along and decides to try and take our spots and start ksing. Yosei and I tells them to go away, but it doesn't work. Hence we proceed to ks them back in attempt to try and make them shoo. Rightclaw screens us ksing them, goes to a forum which Yosei and I have no knowledge of, and posts about it there. "Yosei and Blaaaahs are KSers! Proven in this screenshot. Watch out for these ksers". Now it is wrong that Yosei and I ksed back - yes I see that. But hey, the people reading on the thread are only getting ONE side of the story.

I am against people getting one side of the story. It is often the thing that makes people dislike each other for the wrong reasons.

Like a previous member had mentioned, what do we gain from naming names? The Rant forum was originally created for people give out rants, not trying to single a particular person out of the community because they did something wrong. Yes, they may have done something wrong, but as the community grows, there shall be countless of "bad" people appearing, how many can we single out? And how many can we say for sure that the names have been named for a justified reason?

Now, this is the internet where all types of people appear. Mature people, immature people, old people, young people, intelligent people, the not-so-intelligent people, the open minded ones, the close minded ones - the list is endless. We had placed the rule out there in the first place because we cannot assume that only mature and intelligent people come to this forum. We have to take in mind there are young people, those who are inexperienced to the internet, those who are the ones that easily catch on the "flame". Hence we put the rule out there to prevent these type of people to come here, get upset themselves, and then respond aggressively and upset others.

We, the mods, were (and at the moment, are) not agreeing to the method of wait-till-a-"flame"-breaks-out-before-addressing-the-problem. Why must we wait for our members to get upset? Why must we wait till our members yell and verbally abuse each other before we step in?

As for site's reputation - we care about that. How can we not? Why do we mod this forum? We mod this forum for the members. We want this forum to grow for our members. And for this forum to grow, it must maintain a good reputation. Now, I am addressing the issue about people coming here to hate the site rather than the poster him/herself when they are being named on the forum. Yes, the person being named should just hold it against the thread started, but when more members reply to it (and probably in most cases, agree to it), then they will take it against the forum. Also, like I said before, it is the internet - all types of people come here. Whether they are or are not supposed to look at things like that - we can't stop how they feel and they will post their feelings and probably upset others as well as themselves.

Now, what will they do? They will turn their back on us, go to another forum, and speak about this fansite in a degrading way. While we, on the other hand, have no idea they are speaking bad about us - and we are not given the opportunity to defend ourselves - which is very much similar to what would happen if names are named on the forum. See how that happens? I am not saying it is the same, but, it is similar to a certain extent.

I think that is almost everything I had wanted to say. I can't really remember much because I am really tired atm, but I want to repeat: this post is NOT made to be read as a "final say" thing, but just to give everyone an insight on what has been said in the mod forums from before. I guess my main point was that we had not thrown the rule out just like "that", but we did discuss and think it through - though we are up for more changes if it is needed.

It really shouldn't be that hard to discern between the multiple different ways a person can be mentioned.

As an example, let's assume that the text inside the quotes (") is a thread posted by a member.

Ex. A: "I was in the pvp battlegrounds yesterday and was grinding, good exp, all that, but then all of a sudden this person called <insertname> invaded my room and started cussing me when I politely asked him to find another spot..."

Ex. B: "I was scammed yesterday when <insertname> took my weapon which was supposed to be enhanced, but he never gave it back. I heard he has done it to other people as well..."

Ex. C: "<insertname> is a *****!! I hope he dies! <insertname> and everybody in his guild is ghey, and if I see them or any of their idiot friends again, I'll r*pe their pets. (continue with derogatory words or alternate ways of abuse)"

Is there seriously no difference between Examples A & B as opposed to Example C? In all of these cases the people who read the thread can make up their own mind whether to believe the poster or not. Yes, even in example A and B. The poster can also provide proof if such is available, but the point is, why erase out these things entirely?

Example C is an obvious case of where action needs to be taken, whereas I see examples A and B as perfectly valid threads.

I think the problem is that it's still subjective in nature, no matter how detailed, well written, or formal it may be. While C may be easy to discern as a post that needs action against it, A and B are still iffy. Perhaps not to you, but to me I think they are.

In example A, the person in question could've had a bad day. Who knows.
In example B, the person in question is guilty for scamming, but so is the self proclaimed victim for being scammed.

And that's the problem, there's gonna be different views on what's right and what's wrong. I would think you're likely to disagree with how I think about example A and B, and I know it would be simple to change them to better adjust to what you're trying to say but in the end we're likely to run into these situations.

In regards to the rule, I still standby the idea that it should either be carefully evolved or remain as it is.

yeah, I see what you're saying. There's always as many views to a story as there are sides. Still, I guess just the idea of censoring doesn't sit well with me.

Haha, I was mostly just talking out of interest as to what the reasons are behind this rule. The rule itself does not really affect me because I'm not one to make threads about events ingame, whatever they may be. Hence I don't really care in the end if it stays as is or changes. Well I do CARE, otherwise I wouldn't be interested, but you know what I mean. My life doesn't depend on it. xD

And now I gotta go. o: at least there was something interesting enough today to post about!! *win dance*

Edit in response to post below: rofl, yeah KT, fair enough!! xD

Like I said before - we are getting one side of the story. On a personal note, I refuse to take sides or decide what is the real "truth" before I see BOTH sides of the story - therefore I find it difficult to decide what is the "real truth". But, I personally believe there are no "real truths" out there - be it on the internet, or be it in real life. Everything I take in, everything I believe, everything I see or hear, are taken in my own perspective, the way I see it, the way I want to see it.

One thing I must note - in the examples you used, you had clearly made a difference in the way someone expressed their post. Had the person in Ex. A say "zomgg <insertname> cam into da room and KSED mee!!!!!!!!!11", and had the person say in Ex. C "<insertname> is not nice. I don't think his guild is very nice either, I have seen them being inconsiderate to others. If I see those people again, I surely wouldn't want to be nice to them either." - then it would seem different, yes?

This is one thing I always have to keep in mind for myself - it is the internet. Lots of miscommunication happen. And it is often this miscommunication of causes a lot of misunderstandings between, and upsetting themselves and others. I won't go too much into detail about this since it'd be off topic, but miscommunication is easy when someone is ranting on the internet, especially in places like All the Rage, hence we want to try our best to prevent this from happening.

I know the world is not a fairytale, we cannot also be happy - especially on the Internet, but I think it would be worth the try and make everyone as happy as possible, rather than leaving loopholes for people to be upset about?

Edit: And yeap - pretty much what Dynamics wrote.

Edit2: I gtg too - shush Lil and let us continue the debate tomorrow, shall we? Because I will be tempted to reply if you post now!!!

Well, I don't find anything wrong with any of the rules in the forums. I've seen the number of chances you get before you get an infraction, and then you need to get 3 of them, and that's only going to get you a temp ban...
Great work mods, I hope these forums remain just as nice they were when I joined. Good luck.

Theres many ways to look at this rule as long as a person has concrete evidence of what a person has done then it should be fine. If the person has screenies of the person in the act or just screenies of a chat long then everything he or she says is corroborated and leaves no room for speculation.

If the rule is set that when you wish to name a name just include evidence-screenies etc etc- in your thread then how does that open to the door to anything? I think that kind of evidence only stands to strengthen the post more

@Dynamics even though it maybe that most people are against this rule because of free speech its still worth a look simply because most people come to FF to get out from under the thumb of the CL's. Its not really a good thing to give them another rule that controls too much of what they say and do. It's a moderators job to end flames and arguments but not to control what the community members want to say. This is simply a matter of trust between the Mods and the Community. The Mods trust us to be mature in what we do and we trust them to not censor everything we do.

I hate to single out one person's post, but you seem to either be confused or you have not received the whole story and I want to clarify for anyone else that might be confused.

I Asked her to change it. She was not Ordered to do anything. Also, She did not know I was in the process of editing her thread/screenshots to allow it the thread to stay open. I was actually uploading the images to my photobucket to edit. The current thread I was editing was still open. I checked back on the forum posts and saw where she was spamming threads. As her current thread was still open, there was no point in this. This is what resulted in her getting banned. Her repeated attempts to create new accounts and continued posting after her ban is what got it extended.

And while this situation led to the mods discussing possibly changing some of the rules, it does not mean that the actions taken against her were wrong or will be undone or that this rule will even be changed. We are getting feedback from the community to see what everyone thinks about the rule, because of several comments made in threads relating to this situation. Everyone needs to step back and reevaluate themselves once in a while and it is time for this forum to do the same. It is not the first time we have done this and will not be the last.

more directly related to the topic on hand:

Rules are made to protect.
Rules are not liked by all.
Rules can at any point be changed/modified as needed.
And sometimes it is not the rule that people have a problem with, it is the person handing out the rule.

Believe it or not, the mods on this forum discuss matters, we discuss rules before they are made, we discuss rules after they are made. We also have different opinions and we discuss those different views before making a decision.

Naming names for scammers is different. When someone has scammed, they are not going to came into a thread made about them and say, “wth, Booyah told me I could have his godly hammer, enhancement stones, and the 3 g’s.” Warning people about scammers is good and if you look at any thread created about a scammer/hacker, the threads have been left open and they have been left alone by the mods. AND the names have been left in there. So, using this as part of the argument is moot. We already allow that.

However, All The Rage was opened so that we would have a place to vent. Not rant about a certain individual and bad-mouth them, whether it is true or not. Sometimes it helps people to get rid of their anger by putting it down in words. All The Rage was created for This. That was why we made the rule, no naming names. Because you CAN go in there and say, “I am so sick of one person purposely failing KQs for their own pleasure.” And get your point across and release some of your anger. You do not have to name names. It is not a courtroom for people to present evidence and say well this is a fact and now this person should be found guilty, yada yada yada.

And just because someone has screenshots to back up their “accusations” does not make it a fact. We do not know all of the circumstances leading up to the “event” and the screenshots are more than likely taken by the person ranting; meaning they are one-sided. A good example of this was something that was recently discussed in this forum. A subject that was quickly squelched on the officials. The situation behind Falco’s banning. The other side had screenshots, that must make it a fact. Falco did not have screenshots; therefore his is a lie? No. The screenshots that were submitted were one-sided and did not show the whole subject. Yes, the things represented in those screenshots were facts, but they were not ALL the facts.

She seemed to understand them just fine. She's saying that the 16 repeated threads would not have been made had this person not been trying to make their opinion stated, which happened to include the name of a person. So initially, the name rule is what caused them to do what they did, and recieve their ban, because they felt truly that they should be able to say what they wanted to say.

Also, how are screenshots not proof? =P You see a screenie of guy B saying "Hey u fking b!tch, ur in my spot, if u dont leave I'm going to get my guild to kill you" And follow up with his guild appearing and killing the person.

How is that not valid proof? Even if the complaining side did something like say....level near them, or even told them after to gtfo, or even before, it doesn't change the fact of what the person DID, and that person is more than able and welcome to take screens of the other person too, should they have done something bad as well.

That's why I think its important to have those screens if you're going to list a name. Its too easy for somebody to come along, write a paragraph about somebody and have everybody believe it, even if its not true, just because that person might be "popular". Screens show fact.

While its pretty open to say you and I do not see eye to eye, I didn't say a word of this to approach you. Like everybody else who spoke up about this, I do not agree with this rule. It wouldn't have mattered if kt banned her, or fullback or rightclaw or yosei. I'd have still said what I said.

And I'd also have to say that what Angellic did, even though she had to sacrifice punishment for herself, well..it worked. =P People are going against this rule, for valid reasons. Some did not know about it before, others did not care before. But what she did was obviously her way of trying to change things, and even if this rule is not abolished, it still brought it to a lot of people's attention.

With the whole bossing around thing, I would have to say..yeah, some mods are getting quite bossy. I mean, ToS rules are one thing - don't insult people with intent on hurting them, (since I know my posts are usually picked apart and misread, but this I'm referring to people teasing each other as friends, but you can usually tell the difference pretty easy.) Don't degrade them, don't make racist or sexist remarks or attempt to defraud them, etc. But other fansites don't use this no-name rule, and they don't have problems with people abusing it.

Maybe you should trust your community a little more. >_> And with people who think "The mods should make the rules" sorry but...the mods are not the community. This whole thing screams fascism, to be honest, lmao. I hope I don't get the rod!

Just got one thing to say. Add Spoiler Tags. I asked for them a long time ago Righty thought it was a good idea, but nobody ever moved on it.
---
Edit: Just read Omies post and ive noticed something.Spirit takes things too personal sometimes even when their not about her. Just wanted to point that out, not to make anyone mad.

This is a public forum, a place for EVERYBODY, you can't just act the what you like just because "you truly felt its OK". Some gold spammer could come in here and spam the forum and "they truly felt its OK, because this is the only way they can put food on the table". Why do the REST of the forum think is not OK? Because it interrupts our forum experience. What do we do to deal with spammers? We have a rule that says "No spamming allowed." A rule is there for a reason, and if you can't follow a rule then actions are taken. If you're not happy with a rule, breaking MORE rule doesn't make your reason valid.

What DOES screenshot proof? It only provides a picture of someone saying/doing something at one point in time. (Sorry Falco I'll pull you out for a sec). Take Falco's incident. The other side had two screenshots and it got Falco banned. A poll here on FiestaFan with the rest of the story (no screenshots) shows that a lot of us thinks that he SHOULDN'T be banned. Screenshot doesn't mean anything, just because you have a screenshot doesn't mean you have the whole "truth", so I believe just because you have a screenshot, doesn't mean you can start naming people.

This fansite ONLY has this rule for All the Rage Section. It's not a rule across the board. Does the fansite you have in mind have a place for people to vent?!

Really hessah - Do I REALLY have to piece apart and explain to you the difference between using a person's name and spam bots?

We're talking about opinions here, and facts that include names. Nobody is saying, hey, let us flame people!

And while this rule is "limited" to all the rage, I've seen people chastised for naming people before, in say, general or something.

And honestly if I have to explain to you what screenshots prove, just...>_> *shakes head* Why do you think GMs ask for screenshot proof with incidents? =P Surely it must be more than to gawk at the pretty shinies they see in them.

Maybe you should take a break and stop attacking my posts and re-evaluate the situation. :3 This isn't "attack each other thread" its disussing the rule, why it should be here, or why not. ;o

Let’s look at the potential here:



Yes, that IS an extreme. But the point is: You don't justify breaking a rule by breaking another. She is NOT justified in breaking the second rule (spamming) because she disagrees with the first rule (naming).


Everybody else who spoke up about this has NOT said they do not agree with this rule. Some has spoken out in favor and some against.

Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

This matter has been put out to open discussion, not exactly fascist way of doing it. And the mods were also nominated by the community and there was a lot of discussion about who the community wanted in those positions.

You may not recall all that since that was probably during you DOMA hiatus. But I don't think the majority of the people in this forum have any serious issues with any of our mods and the actions they have taken or may have to take, save a very very small handful with personal issues or a really stubborn streak.

Flyffworld, to my knowledge, does not have a rule like this. (Rightclaw can correct me if I'm mistaken) They rant in their spam central thread. I looked at the rules, and saw nothing against naming people.

That forum is much bigger than this, has been around longer, has a more diverse array of community, and when I was there, I never saw anything bad happen from this lack of a rule. Why is that I wonder? Hm. . .

Also why are you comparing the internet to drunk driving? Lol.

...since we're all going merrily overboard here, and I'm pretty sure KT is gonna rearrange this thread after seeing it next time...

FINALLY we agree on something! it would probably not be too bold of an assumption to say that we disagree on the individuals though. hahah!

Oh, sorry I couldn't quite retain all your expertly crafted pretty colors and fonts in that quote...

I guess it would be practical to assume that a person (note, it could be ANY person!! I'm not naming any names!) will be a bit confused and easily provoked when their previous internet background consists of ToonTown online. xD

Make way for the New (?) generation!!

I'm not attacking your post. I'm just putting forward my opinions on what you happen to have said. And it was easier to write and hopefully easier to read by quoting you and chopping it into paragraphs.

I am too, trying to pass on the idea that "naming names" isn't actually going to improve anything, except for some members that believe they should be able to name names. Well, at the same time, there's also a few of us that don't believe names should be put forward. So where can we find an equilibrium? I don't know. Hopefully by passing on what I think, compared to what YOU think.

We all complain about the way Outspark deals with issues. All they want is a screenshot and BANHAMMER you have no say. We've already seen many times that this community doesn't agree with the way Outspark of using that method, why would we want to follow suit on something that doesn't work? (or something that most of this community doesn't agree on?)

In general, as far as I have seen, I've never seen the mod say "don't name people". At max, they only warned when it really turned into flame.

OK maybe go back a little bit to help me understand this.

So AD wanted to post a picture of some girl doing something inappropriate in KKP KQ. She wants to leave the name of the girl in the screenshot.

How will that benefit the community that we know her name?

(Prepare for a comeback, as I have my own thoughts on this obviously.)




EDIT: I may not reply for a few hrs as i wont be online :D

I had my one say on the matter. It is my opinion as a use of the forum (not as a mod) that the rule is there for a good reason. I could also take several of the posts posted after my response and comment on them, but then that would be turning this into a personal battle, which some people who have already stated their opinion on the rule (the actual purpose of this thread) seem to want to do, but I do not. With that being said. I will ASK people (meaning everyone) posting to please stay on topic. This is discussing the pros and cons of the rules.
If anyone has personal problems, please take them to PMs or elsewhere. Please lets stay on topic. This is not about the banning, but about the rule. Please keep that in mind.

In response to Hessah -

I don't know if its the same person but there is a person notorious for going into KQ and killing people in it to make it fail, and these are the high level KQ.

Wouldn't you wanna know the person's name so if you were in said KQ, you could keep an eye on them and stop them if necessary? Because that's a good 30 minutes right there they can easily waste by being jerks. You could either just save yourself wasting 30 minutes or more if that person is there, cause you know what they're notorious for.