A Set of More-Concrete Rules for wiz_chat
As proved by experience, "no evilness" is just too vague. Therefore, I'm making better rules. So far, I've come up with this:
http://members.byond.com/Wizkidd0123/files/ wiz_chat%20rules.txt
What do you think should be added/removed/changed/improved? Please comment.
http://members.byond.com/Wizkidd0123/files/ wiz_chat%20rules.txt
What do you think should be added/removed/changed/improved? Please comment.
Posted by Wizkidd0123 on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 08:41PM
- 28 comments
(link)
/
Login to post a comment.
#28 ZephyrBoy:
Hey wizkidd, I wonder if you remember me, shit it's been years since we talked I haven't talked to you since GM Icon Chatterz, just saying what's up.
Either way, the rules, you can should put more up.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 07:28AM
(Edited on Saturday, March 17, 2007 07:33AM)
#27 Elation:
this is a mess
Friday, January 12, 2007 10:47PM
#26 Hiead:
Airjoe wrote:
> However, I wasn't attacking Crashed, but his example.
I don't know what this "example" is, (nor YMI's, for that matter), but insulting Canadians is somewhat of an attack on Canadians, doubly so when directed towards Canadians.
> (At least until the "Canadians Suck" thing, but that's been a joke since the old Chatters days and everyone knows it.).
Jokes are considered rule violations:
> - Basically, I want to allow as much freedom of discussion as possible, but I don't want
the full extent of that (eg, racist jokes).
> - I don't want racism/homophobia/anti-semitism/sexism. That includes jokes.
-------------
> If I should be muted for what I said, Crashed should be muted as well for insulting YMIhere's example originally.
> Funny how Unknown Person, a canadian, only mutes me when I "break" the "rules", but not Crashed, a fellow canadian, hmm?
I was on the verge of muting you when I came in, per the reports of your rule violation, but I hesitated for not having witnessed it first hand (I entered, and people started spouting out about it), and UP (who would've had the chat log on-screen) took care of it.
The good news of this is that now I have some backing if I feel the need to mute someone that goes all anti-American (different if they are anti-America, as that is more based at the country than its people). Other nationalities too, but it seems to me like America is one of the largest targets of this kind (even from some Americans...).
Friday, January 12, 2007 09:49PM
#25 Airjoe:
My point is that the only rule I could've possibly violated is "...feel free to debate whatever he's saying that you disagree with, but don't attack the person himself.". However, I wasn't attacking Crashed, but his example. (At least until the "Canadians Suck" thing, but that's been a joke since the old Chatters days and everyone knows it.). If I should be muted for what I said, Crashed should be muted as well for insulting YMIhere's example originally.
Funny how Unknown Person, a canadian, only mutes me when I "break" the "rules", but not Crashed, a fellow canadian, hmm?
How does Crashed respond to my comments, which he knows are obvious jokes? Screams GM and says he's "tired of [my] shit". Really, wizkidd, I ask, why the hell can't he ignore me? It would be much easier to type in "/ignore "airjoe" than to type "Wizkidd has new rules! BAN AIRJOE I'M TIRED OF HIS SHIT!"
Honestly though, I couldn't care less.
I've said what I have to say, and won't be responding here or in wiz_chat again.
Friday, January 12, 2007 01:15PM
(Edited on Friday, January 12, 2007 01:22PM)
#24 Wizkidd0123:
I have finals next week and then I'm leaving the next week during a break to visit colleges, but the weekend after, I do plan on looking carefully over these comments and changing the rules according to the ones I agree with. Then, I'll implement the rules as part of the program (perhaps by adding a feature enabling founders of any channel to write rules for that channel).
> You know, wizkidd, you need to make these rules stricter. Your OPs are still interpreting them however they want.
Could you please be more specific? If you're talking about the instance Hiead's referring to, I disagree. Making rules as to what is and isn't acceptable seems to me the only reasonable thing to do, but making rules on punishment severity isn't practical, as every case is too different. For example, you'd probably agree that a fifth offense should be treated more harshly than a first offense, but it's more complicated than that. Shouldn't the degree of increased harshness depend on the nature of the offenses and on prior warnings as well? It isn't very easily codified, and ultimately, I think that choosing OPs whose judgment I trust is the best approach there.
Friday, January 12, 2007 12:49PM
#23 Hiead:
Airjoe wrote:
> You know, wizkidd, you need to make these rules stricter. Your OPs are still interpreting them however they want.
You would've preferred being banned by Unknown Person for:
[Jan 11 22:30] Airjoe: Example of Canadian rubbish.
[Jan 11 22:31] Airjoe: Canadians suck.
...rather than being muted?
Thursday, January 11, 2007 01:38PM
(Edited on Thursday, January 11, 2007 01:44PM)
#22 Airjoe:
You know, wizkidd, you need to make these rules stricter. Your OPs are still interpreting them however they want.
Thursday, January 11, 2007 01:35PM
#21 Justin B:
> No mention of multi-keying. :/
From what I hear it's a unwritten rule.
Even if it was only a one time instance, 4 months ago.
But OPs are allowed to do it.
Saturday, January 06, 2007 09:26AM
#20 Hiead:
No mention of multi-keying. :/
Saturday, January 06, 2007 08:50AM
#19 Crispy:
I like the rules you have there. I don't think they're too restrictive at all.
Use of "gay" as a derogative term is a bad meme, and as such I support any attempts to wage war against it. Just because "everyone else does it" doesn't make it acceptable.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:16PM
#18 OneFishDown:
make wiz_chat preface every chat message with this: "i am sorry if this message offends you in any way. i assure you that i mean no offense to any ethnic, religious, social, or political group or any other organization, association, or congregation that exists or not. i am merely a web surfer trying to communicate with my fellow surfers and this is what i have to say"
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 04:11PM
#17 Hiead:
A few more:
- Attacks on non-Jewish religions (and, as well, those without religion) should not be tolerated (Edit: I don't mean to say that it's OK to attack Jewish faith, but I was directly referring to your "anti-semitism" rule without regard to other religious beliefs)
- Verbal attacks at groups other than those being talked to should not be accepted (if I said that Germans were all retarded Nazi punks, to an American, that shouldn't be accepted, even though I wasn't insulting the American).
- Bug abusing (large fonts, smiley bugs from s_smileys, etc.) should be considered attacks on wiz_chat
- Should distinguish between wiz_chat's rules and The Lounge's rules
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 04:04PM
(Edited on Thursday, January 04, 2007 02:50PM)
#16 OneFishDown:
> But, what if someone floods or spams?
if its bad, it can be detected by the program. and if its not that bad then people can easily ignore the person before the spam ruins the conversation. and if its *that* bad then they'll be banned, but until they're banned everyone can ignore them and it isn't a problem.
> Mutes really shouldn't exist
agreed. when its known that a GM is around, how often do you hear "hey, mute so-and-so"? if there were no mutes, the same people demanding a mute would just have to ignore the person.
probably since chatters implemented the ignore command i've been asking for a command that lets you limit who receives your messages. since people have always been slow to use the ignore command, this is like a way to force someone to ignore you.
also, it allows you to talk semi-privately to several people without having to send tells to each person, which essentially creates your own channel within a channel. since "create your own channel" is the classic response to the question "what if we want to tell racist jokes?", by limiting who is receiving your messages you could tell questionable jokes to people who want to hear them without having to leave the main channel. that way you can say what you want to people who aren't offended by it, you don't offend people who wouldn't want to hear it, and you don't miss out on any conversation. its a win-win situation that will never be implemented =)
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:39AM
#15 Airjoe:
Pmac wrote:
> nix the roms part, you'd have to be kidding yourself if you really believed you were helping the situation by not allowing it.
People can always resort to /tells and joining another room. I've never seen that much of ROM stuff in the lounge anyway, so I'm sure it's not too big.
> BigBoiD wrote:
> but snes roms aren't illegal
Yep, they are, buddy.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:16AM
#14 Airjoe:
I agree with OFD, and I suggest more: Mutes really shouldn't exist. If people have a problem, they can ignore someone.
But, what if someone floods or spams? Well, that's an attack on the system, and they should probably be banned.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:14AM
#13 OneFishDown:
new rule: if someone offends you, ignore them. it avoids the problem of "how do i know what may or may not offend someone" by letting each person choose to ignore people that they'd rather not listen to. and, it allows people to tell jokes or talk without worrying that they might offend someone.
its great that you allow people to have discussions about the origin of the f-word, but some people may even find that offensive. no matter where you draw your line on what is or isn't offensive, each individual person may draw that same line elsewhere. encouraged use of the ignore command avoids this.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11AM
#12 Vexonater:
I agree completely with Tiberath. I mean, as long as you're not attempting to "offend" anyone, what's the real harm in one or two Polish Army jokes?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:58AM
#11 GoodDoggyTreat:
More cowbell.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:47AM
#10 Tiberath:
You have just killed pretty much every type of joke in existence.
Racial jokes and sexist jokes aren't really that offensive to anyone. Hell, you could make it easy by asking "Will anyone be insulted by a joke consisting of a racial slur against *specific race here*?"
Genetics says there is no difference between one race and another, thus, in theory, there isn't such thing as anything other than the Human Race. With that in mind, all jokes do is single out a minority of the human race, where difference really is almost non existent and reinforce a stereotype which can bring about humour.
You've given us, Blond, Bush and Bar Jokes. But you could throw Bar jokes to the racist bin because the average English, Irish and Australian jokes rip stereotypes. And in theory, Bush jokes can and often do mock the americans as a whole rather than just Bush himself.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 03:33AM
(Edited on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 03:38AM)
#9 Pmac:
nix the roms part, you'd have to be kidding yourself if you really believed you were helping the situation by not allowing it.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 03:32AM