The adminstrata need a clue.

[lolcox]

I spent a week under a ban, and mulled things over.

There are things that bothered me.

Namely, the used definition of trolling.

What, exactly, defines trolling?
Were my posts truly trolling?

And, of course, the best question:
Does explosive language that questions the collective intelligence of the administata, as well as other things, not count as trolling?

Just something that bothered me a bit.

But at least I got my Hard Gay episodes in. :)

[TeeGee]

And? =|

[Ruiner]

Trolling is just amazing, thats all.

[Arshes Nei]

I dunno, I think there should be *some* consistency. I don't understand why bans are uneven, I mean one person was banned for over a week and used less harsh language than a person that came in and said the admins had their heads up their @$$es ...I don't get that.

I mean someone keeps making posts and called the admins ignorant, selfish, stupid etc, and then that only gets deleted. Why weren't they banned?

It seems like a game of favorites :/

[lolcox]

I dunno, I think there should be *some* consistency. I don't understand why bans are uneven, I mean one person was banned for over a week and used less harsh language than a person that came in and said the admins had their heads up their @$$es ...I don't get that.

I mean someone keeps making posts and called the admins ignorant, selfish, stupid etc, and then that only gets deleted. Why weren't they banned?

It seems like a game of favorites :/

QFFT.


However, I won't lay down any judgement or point any fingers right now.
I'd like an admin, however, to come in, and give a well thought answer to my initial questions, as well as this subquestion:

Why did the other guy go unbanned that quickly for what I, and perhaps others, feel was far worse behaviour?

[Hanazawa]

Aside from this topic, you lack the perceived drama backlash that said [other user(s)] would cause.

[WolfeByte]

I mean someone keeps making posts and called the admins ignorant, selfish, stupid etc, and then that only gets deleted. Why weren't they banned?


Ah, that thread was deleted... I feel like I've missed a healthy dose of drama, now. :(

[Arshes Nei]

I mean someone keeps making posts and called the admins ignorant, selfish, stupid etc, and then that only gets deleted. Why weren't they banned?


Ah, that thread was deleted... I feel like I've missed a healthy dose of drama, now. :(


that user has had 3 threads deleted now so...ummm?

[InvaderPichu]

Ditto, and I think they ought to define "harassment", too. Because on two different occasions, once in the forums and once on the site, I was warned for harassment when I wasn't even harassing anyone. :

[Duckage]

you got owned. you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.

[InvaderPichu]

you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.

:roll:

5 posts eh?

[Hanazawa]

you got owned. you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.


You're an idiot.

[InvaderPichu]

you got owned. you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.


You're an idiot.


Shhh, he's a troll. Omgwtfbbq.

[Silverdragon00]

wow, he joined yesterday and has already been found to be an idiot and a troll. impressive

[InvaderPichu]

wow, he joined yesterday and has already been found to be an idiot and a troll. impressive


In his very first post he said he was a troll. :P

[lolcox]

you got owned. you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.

And you're a dripping, disease filled pustule on the fat fucking furry ass of the internet. ^_^
Also, your penis is smaller than a baby carrot. ^_^


note: apparently, using language like this does not net someone a ban, because it is apparently not trolling. or, at least, this is the message that I have surmised over the past week. do correct me if I am wrong, however.
admin. admin. admin. admin.

[Duckage]

/yawn, post count is definitely serious business. do you people really enjoy listening to people whine and complain about how admins run their forums?

[Silverdragon00]

you got owned. you did something the admins found unsuitable and they took action. by joining this forum you subject yourself to their rule, so why you even think you have the grounds to complain is beyond me.

And you're a dripping, disease filled pustule on the fat fucking furry ass of the internet. ^_^
Also, your penis is smaller than a baby carrot. ^_^


note: apparently, using language like this does not net someone a ban, because it is apparently not trolling. or, at least, this is the message that I have surmised over the past week. do correct me if I am wrong, however.
admin. admin. admin. admin.


jesus christ you are so banned
(but i havent laughede that hard in a long time, so its all good)

[Silverdragon00]

/yawn, post count is definitely serious business. do you people really enjoy listening to people whine and complain about how admins run their forums?


no, but im already tired of your shit

[lolcox]

I'd like to thank you all for not derailing my topic. I really want a serious internets answer from a serious internets administrator on this serious internets furry forum, in regards to my question stated at the beginning !!!

[InvaderPichu]

/yawn, post count is definitely serious business. do you people really enjoy listening to people whine and complain about how admins run their forums?


No

[Hanazawa]

So I get banned for not trolling, and a self-proclaimed troll gets to pull this shit? Thanks for proving lolcox's point, I guess.

[Guildmaster Van]

EL MACRO! (Pic not related)
http://www.whitehydra.com/stuff/lols/biblefight.jpg

[kitetsu]

/yawn, post count is definitely serious business.


http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3917/nodifferencevh5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


do you people really enjoy listening to people whine and complain about how admins run their forums?

Nope.

[WolfeByte]

I mean someone keeps making posts and called the admins ignorant, selfish, stupid etc, and then that only gets deleted. Why weren't they banned?


Ah, that thread was deleted... I feel like I've missed a healthy dose of drama, now. :(


that user has had 3 threads deleted now so...ummm?


I don't pay enough attention to the net these days, I gather. Still, no day seems complete without checking out the 'lol furry drama' on the net. Better than TV. :)

[furryskibum]

Still, no day seems complete without checking out the 'lol furry drama' on the net. Better than TV. :)



QFT. XD

[Dragoneer]

Ah, that thread was deleted... I feel like I've missed a healthy dose of drama, now. :(

We do not delete threads. We deport them to a forum in the admin section where we can review them and restore them if need be.

[WolfeByte]

We do not delete threads. We deport them to a forum in the admin section where we can review them and restore them if need be.


So who do I blo-, um, bribe, to get access to the 'dead threads' forum? ;)

If it's anything like the VCL one, I bet it'd be a sweet read for a nice slow afternoon at work. :)

[wut]

Deleted, "deported", to the user there's no real difference at the end of the day.

Unless the thread is restored of course, but that rarely happens anyway.

[Arshes Nei]

Ah, that thread was deleted... I feel like I've missed a healthy dose of drama, now. :(

We do not delete threads. We deport them to a forum in the admin section where we can review them and restore them if need be.


I see... since this user also bragged about having "protection with Myr" he can essientally post stuff that would have normal users banned, but his posts would only be "deported"....ok thanks for clearing that up.

[Hanazawa]

I see... since this user also bragged about having "protection with Myr" he can essientally post stuff that would have normal users banned, but his posts would only be "deported"....ok thanks for clearing that up.


Common Arshes, arent u glad tihs threed keps pruving tiself???

[wut]

The Common Arshes thrives in various habitats, though prefers regions with a lower density of foliage drama.

[dave hyena]

I found this fingerprint on my chest of drawers.

[uncia2000]

(for ref.)
If it's anything like the VCL one, I bet it'd be a sweet read for a nice slow afternoon at work. :)
Heya! I trust you don't read too quickly, WB. :)

There are currently a single-digit number of threads in "holding", the majority of which are noitaroproc going;
thread subject: wfdasfasddddd
thread content:



qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq discuss racism by the forum mods
or similar "quality" monologues.

Yes, threads do return from "holding".
I must've used that approach around five times over the months, when a serious time-out was required and it was not possible to PM everyone quickly enough to ask them to ease back a bit (whether they'd agree to do so, or not, being another matter entirely).

[uncia2000]

(thoughts only, since I wasn't around here at the time/in the context of lolcox's ban)
Ditto, and I think they ought to define "harassment", too. Because on two different occasions, once in the forums and once on the site, I was warned for harassment when I wasn't even harassing anyone. :
Depends on your definition, I guess.

The dictionary definition for "harassment" slants as much towards frequency as it does intensity.
e.g. "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute".
Which falls into line with "trolling"; i.e. repeated low-level hassles with refusal or inability to self-moderate may be judged to fall under the same heading as a few major outbursts.

The key should be self-moderation and, if in doubt, it cannot hurt to ask "do you think I'm pushing things a bit".
(Community members ARE free to act pre-emptively and it sure beats having admins having to act in a reactive manner all the time, IMO).

At the the end of the day, levels of tolerance are inevitably going to vary with the current situation and, to a degree, with admin thoughts on given individuals. Hopefully those bumps in judgment can be leveled somewhat, but again it should be a two-way process. ("Imperfect" admin decisions in this context usually follow from poor user etiquette in the first instance).

[WolfeByte]

...or similar "quality" monologues.


Oh, well... That's not that amusing at all. How disappointing. :(

But at least there's always /dis/ on Fchan to get my 'inane internet convos' fix. ;)

[Hanazawa]

I meant to mention this before, but Duckage kind of threw me off.

InvaderPichu got multiple warnings for harrassment and hasn't been banned yet, but myself and others have been banned without warning for the same thing? What's up with that?

[uncia2000]

Oh, well... That's not that amusing at all. How disappointing. :(
Hidden promises are often better than cold, hard realities.

But at least there's always /dis/ on Fchan to get my 'inane internet convos' fix. ;)
Heh. But it's a pity there's a 1,000 post "limit" to those, don't ya think? ;)

[uncia2000]

InvaderPichu got multiple warnings for harrassment and hasn't been banned yet, but myself and others have been banned without warning for the same thing? What's up with that?
Unless you typed exactly the same words in the same context at the same time, there is no "same thing".

I don't know whether you're privy to how many "warnings for harassment" any given individual has received or how many of those were actually "friendly requests" but, to repeat the advice above once again, the best action is to moderate your own actions (and enquire as to where you stand, if needs be).
*
Please do not make judgment guesses against a hypothetic "ban level", or consider that it's OK to try to work up to that point, since that is bad etiquette.

And, if after all that, there is a bad admin call, there's hopefully a better chance of an about-turn and an apology here than on many other communities/boards.
It's still an imperfect world, last time I checked.

[Hanazawa]

Because on two different occasions, once in the forums and once on the site, I was warned for harassment when I wasn't even harassing anyone. :

And aside from that, some people have practically gotten away with murder compared to what I was banned for.

Moreover, I never TRIED to "Work up to the hypothetic (sic) ban level". Meanwhile people who have outright stated an intent to troll, and do so regularly, get off scot-free.

I DID receive an apology from the admin involved in my case, BUT it doesn't change the fact that there is STILL not a well-defined set of rules that clarifies what counts as harrassment and what does not. Without a posted set of rules, any kind of administrative action is totally arbitrary.

How many more times can we point this out and still see nothing done about it?

[uncia2000]

<clip>
Moreover, I never TRIED to "Work up to the hypothetic (sic) ban level". Meanwhile people who have outright stated an intent to troll, and do so regularly, get off scot-free.

I DID receive an apology from the admin involved in my case, BUT it doesn't change the fact that there is STILL not a well-defined set of rules that clarifies what counts as harrassment and what does not. Without a posted set of rules, any kind of administrative action is totally arbitrary.

How many more times can we point this out and still see nothing done about it?
*g*. One typo in several thousand words and I get sic'd in preference to all other posts.
(That's not a challenge to find a second one, btw).

If you can come up with a totally clear, all-encompassing definition to suit all situations and users involved, that will lead to clear judgments in all cases, be my guest.
Without that degree of perfection in rule creation, I will still assert that it is possible to be better than "totally arbitrary".

[nobuyuki]

in your guys shoes, I wouldn't really have to come up with one, that's why there's laws on the books which narrowly define things such as harassment. Read em, they're pretty encompassing. Of course, I'm guessing they're far too liberal for the likes of some of the admins.

[Hanazawa]

Wow. Just... wow.

"Because we can't make the perfect rule, we won't have any set rules at all."

Thanks for making my head implode, dude.

[uncia2000]

in your guys shoes, I wouldn't really have to come up with one, that's why there's laws on the books which narrowly define things such as harassment. Read em, they're pretty encompassing. Of course, I'm guessing they're far too liberal for the likes of some of the admins.
Heh.

Do we really require a legal definition?
I thought we had enough lawyers already, without explicitly inviting them into FA.

=
@Hanazawa: Quotation marks normally refer to quoted text, but I can't see where you're getting that line from.

[InvaderPichu]

Do we really require a legal definition?

No, but it would be nice to have a set definition of what you, the admins, consider harassment.

[Hanazawa]

@Hanazawa: Quotation marks normally refer to quoted text, but I can't see where you're getting that line from.


I was summarizing what your post read as to me. If my interpretation is incorrect, please tell me what you meant to say.

[Wolfblade]

@Hanazawa: Quotation marks normally refer to quoted text, but I can't see where you're getting that line from.


I was summarizing what your post read as to me. If my interpretation is incorrect, please tell me what you meant to say.


Take it from me, people don't like when you do that. :P

Doesn't matter if you quote them directly, or paraphrase, either way, the typical response is 'that's not what I said/meant.' And asking someone to correct you when they accuse you of misinterpreting just means you're 'picking apart their posts' or 'taking them out of context.' Because it can't possibly mean that you read what they said correctly and they have no way of establishing otherwise.

But I agree with Hanzawa 100% on SOME sort of posted rules being better than no posted rules at all. As you said Uncia, it isn't a perfect world, and we're all aware of that. Of course there will be situations and instances that can't be covered by an all-encompassing set of rules, and sometimes decisions will be solely moderator judgement (thats what you guys are here for after all), but it really doesn't make sense to not have ANY rules just because nobody can be expected to come up with a PERFECT set of rules.

Uncia: Hanazawa suggested that there should be set stated rules and guidelines. Something for the users to go off of as what is acceptable and what is not other than finding out they crossed a line when they cross it. You seemed to be dismissing the idea as implausible unless a perfect set of rules could be created. The fact that there are, after how long now, still no real posted code of conduct seems to support the impression that the staff feels that the decision is binary between either perfect rules or no rules.

There's always another option, and something is better than nothing.

[uncia2000]

I was summarizing what your post read as to me. If my interpretation is incorrect, please tell me what you meant to say.
I can't see where you're getting that from, sorry.

Harassment is on the TOS "don't do" list and the dictionary definition on the previous page is adequate for use by the majority of people here.
- If things are getting close to the edge, warnings will be given where possible.
- If you are concerned that your behavior may be considered to be harassment, 1) self-moderate 2) stand yourself in other people's shoes to evaluate 3) ask a staff member. Exercise respect and trust for other community members.
- If an over-harsh judgment is made owing to a tense situation, misinterpretation, or other reasons, hopefully that will be reversed and an apology issued.

Is there anything else you need to know?

Just like no two individuals will agree on what the FA forums are for (and random one-liner posting on every thread, primarily for the entertainment/showing-off of a few people isn't a high priority), no two individuals will agree totally on the same definition, far less how that applies to a very specific context, how that should be acted upon or how the community member should be handled.

The previous offer is still open, however, since we can't afford a lawyer for every case of "harassment" that's taken forward.
If you can come up with a totally clear, all-encompassing definition to suit all situations and users involved, that will lead to clear judgments in all cases, be my guest.An etiquette guide (forum/mainsite/IRC) is a separate issue, which has been raised before.
IMO, would be a "good to have" in conjunction with the TOS, not just because it gives us something else to point people at when they haven't bothered to read it.

[uncia2000]

Thanks, Wolfblade.
But I agree with Hanzawa 100% on SOME sort of posted rules being better than no posted rules at all.
*nods*. But best to keep rules as "light" as possible, IMO.

We don't have "no rules" at present. The TOS (which everyone should have read) are already a little bit unwieldy, however, and have problematic areas /other than/ this.

Uncia: Hanazawa suggested that there should be set stated rules and guidelines. Something for the users to go off of as what is acceptable and what is not other than finding out they crossed a line when they cross it.
The requests were for totally clear-cut rules, not guidelines, as I read.
e.g. "STILL not a well-defined set of rules that clarifies what counts as harrassment and what does not. Without a posted set of rules, any kind of administrative action is totally arbitrary"

The fact that there are, after how long now, still no real posted code of conduct seems to support the impression that the staff feels that the decision is binary between either perfect rules or no rules.
Per above; for rules/code-of-conduct as things currently stand, see TOS.

General etiquette guidelines (+ TOS refinement) are still a separate issue, but not one that appeals to those who have an extremely strong preference for bipolar rules with clear-cut outcomes.
An outline code-of-conduct would be more heavily evident in those, of course.

Does that cover the ground you're looking at, WB? (And the same question to you, Hanazawa).

[Hanazawa]

I've been told elsewhere that the forums and the main site are not directly associated with one another, as the IRC channel and main site are similarly separate. Given this explanation, why should I assume that the forum has the same ToS as the main site?

The ToS states that: Submission of media, userpage overrides, comments, and journals for the intent of harming or annoying another individual, also known as "Spamming" or "Flaming" is not allowed.

INTENT. Again, I point to people who post saying "Hi, I'm here to troll and annoy you" who persist in such behaviors and face no administrative action, while other people have been banned for defending themselves.

Further, what "Harms or annoys" one person doesn't necessarily have the same effect on another user. Although this can be an argument against having clear rules, the lack of clear rules about it creates another problem, one I've been the receiving end of whining about;
Even if User A isn't personally "harrassed" by User B, they see User B's actions against User C as a reason not to use the site/forums. Just because User C doesn't go cry to the admins doesn't mean that User B's actions aren't harrassment.

If a gang member spraypaints my house, they're violating some kind of law about defacing other people's property. Even if I don't care and/or don't report it to the police, it's still a problem, and it will deter other people from moving into my neighborhood.

Here's the thing, though: graffitti-taggers KNOW that what they're doing isn't "okay". They know that they can get in trouble if they're caught, but if they're good, they'll be anonymous.
Here we have our "Taggers" out in the open where everyone can see them and know who they are, but they honestly don't know where the line is between artistic graffitti/public art and just plain property damage. Because text isn't as straightforward.

But since some "gangs" run on the "Right side" of the tracks, the cops go easy on them. Whatever "gang" the admins perceive other users to be in seems to be on the zero-tolerance wrong side, and that's just... really fucked up.

I'm not asking you to write a dissertation on every single possible way in which a user can be harrassing another user.

I'm saying that if you don't want us to "push the line", we need to know where the line is in the first place.

If the forum is held to the exact same rules as the mainsite, IT NEEDS TO SAY SO.
If the forum is held to a different set of rules, THEY NEED TO BE DEFINED.

I've been saying this almost since I became active here and there's still nothing been done about it.

[Dragoneer]

The forum and site run under the same TOS.

[Arshes Nei]

Well I'll say this, I don't understand when someone uses foul language against another person or admin during a disagreement like "admins having their heads up their asses" wouldn't constitute as harassment, while someone simply saying "you're wrong and your information is incorrect" is.

When I hear a user saying they have protection with an admin, and this is reinforced by only deleting posts and no bans, when other users have done far less, and were banned by the same admin, this does bother me and I have to question that admin's ability to not so much be perfect, but fair minded.

Now there are going to be heated discussions and I can understand why to a degree it might vary, but I never see any legitimate reason when you're angry to use curse words and foul language against a user/mod/admin when you disagree with them or a policy..(key word being against, because posts that merely contain swear words isn't exactly harrassment but not exactly favorable either) so not seeing people banned for it tells me this behavior is ok, and/or that someone is playing favorites.

What also bothers me is that as Hana pointed out the site, forums, irc are different but I've seen cases where the admin extended a forum ban because someone was on IRC talking about their ban, then tried to use "past behavior" as an excuse even though the admin and user haven't exchanged words before the forum and IRC incident.

Don't take this as "I hate this admin" or something, but I do feel it's a legitimate complaint and worth looking into.

[nobuyuki]

- If an over-harsh judgment is made owing to a tense situation, misinterpretation, or other reasons, hopefully that will be reversed and an apology issued.


I love having to put my faith in the able hands of you guys. Banking on hope and hope alone for sensibilities to return after a bout of temporary insanity? Forgive me if I'm out of line for pointing out that even if a miracle happens and an admin descision is reversed (I've obviously seen it happen), there's almost never an apology issued for the really bad stuff. Or else that would be admitting some serious lack of foresight, and that is bad for image.

There's other kinds of stuff I wanna get off my chest right now, but I'm not sure how to express it, so I'll just say that despite all of us being "only human" as the phrase goes, it's still one human's descision at the expense of another's letting fly without some sort of logical narrow scoping. I reccomend decisive and objective rules. Even if it's not a popular set of rules with the public that you guys may all come to, an objective set will be easily understood by all and should leave no questions as to what's okay and what isn't.. As long as these rules are based on LOGIC instead of just feelings, and has a definable scope, I think I'll be cool. Pulling the "we're not lawyers" card makes me feel like everyone's on constant PMS patrol and must rely on their hearts for everything instead of their brains.

[Wolfblade]

The issue of separating the site/irc/forums has also come up before. Users do generally seem to be told that the three are separate, but in practice, they seem very much connected. A user can get in trouble on one, and have it affect their use of the others.


The forum and site run under the same TOS.


Maybe this could be added to the little individual rule boxes that are posted at the top of some parts of the forum. And this would further the impression that the forums are in fact a part of FA proper. Then the question would be; does the same tos also apply to the irc?

All in all, it really seems that in practice, the three are treated by the staff as three parts of a whole. The forums and irc are part of Furaffinity, staffed by the same people, and apparently subject to the same rules. What I'm missing is how this doesn't make more sense than trying to treat them as separate entities. What advantage is gained by saying they're separate when the natural assumption (furaffinity.net, furaffinityforums.net, #furaffinity, all linking to eachother) would be that they're not, and the staff's actions and responses clearly show they're not considered separate by the people running them?

A lot of people disagree on what sorts of rules you guys should have, but it seems most everyone would prefer more clearly stated rules being posted as opposed to the present atmosphere of just leaving it up to the judgement of whichever admin happens to be online.

One admin may under-react, another may over-react. Both are criticised by the users when ultimately, they did the only thing they could do; they used their personal judgement to handle a situation as best they saw fit. That's kindof the point of having staff. Users don't and shouldn't get to choose who is or isn't staff. If you make it a popularity contest, of course whoever hands out the most disciplinary action is going to be the least popular. The people running the community choose who they do or do not feel will help run their community the way they want it to be run. But given the obvious differences in one staffmember's opinions versus another's, it isn't fair to the strict or the lenient to be told "use your judgement" and then get criticised for it when they do just that.

Staff and users need to have clear and simple behavioral guidelines to be pointed to. Otherwise, it isn't fair to criticise anyone's judgement, staff or user, for not being psychic, or knowing the personal tolerance levels of whichever mod is online, or asking before each and every post whether or not they'll get in trouble for it.

Nobody expects you guys to be perfect. But apparently there's more than a few who think you could all easily manage to get a little bit closer to it. And of course we're all eager to help you get there any way we can :3

[Dragoneer]

The forum and site run under the same TOS.


Maybe this could be added to the little individual rule boxes that are posted at the top of some parts of the forum. And this would further the impression that the forums are in fact a part of FA proper. Then the question would be; does the same tos also apply to the irc?
[/quote]
It will. I am re-organizing the TOS and will have it sent to the admins in a few days for review. It will cover all of that.

And it does not apply to IRC because of IRC's general loose nature.

[nobuyuki]

Oh, by the way, to both wolfblade and the rest of the thread. I'd happen to be one of the people who believes that it seems kind of obvious to the point of an "unspoken rule" that IRC, forums, and main site are totally seperate entities with their own rules in em. For example, you wouldn't talk like you're on a forum in the IRC chat (it would be less formal and more casual there), so why enforce rules of ettiquite there as if it were a forum? Also, to ban someone from the forums for actions on IRC is equally absurd, if one were to consider what reasonable purpose there is for doing so. The only real purpose for being "sidebanned" is to tack on additional punishment, and that sort of subjectivity treads dangerously close to a perception of vindictiveness.

Because there is an intrinsically clear and unspoken differentiation between the ettiquite on IRC vs the forums vs. the mainsite, it stands to reason that there should be an equally clear distinction between how and where rules are enforced and deterrants administered between the three. MOST of the admins' past history seems to reflect this -- Users who break the rules on the forums or IRC and have been banned from either of those two places have not been banned from the mainsite or respective sub portion. Getting banned from the mainsite may however be grounds for a global ban, since the forums and IRC are subsets of the main site (but not vice versa).

Without going into details or pointing the finger and singling anyone out, not all admins enforce the rules like this -- there's at least one, maybe two out there who are going out of their way to "sideban" people for creating an offense on one of the subsets of the community, presumably because they have been allowed to subjectively increase the punishment beyond the scope of the original ban due to a lack of rules stating that admins aren't supposed to do this.

[Wolfblade]

It will. I am re-organizing the TOS and will have it sent to the admins in a few days for review. It will cover all of that.

And it does not apply to IRC because of IRC's general loose nature.


Awesome! Thanks fo the response. ^_^

I think everyone agrees that irc is by nature going to need more leniency than the forums or the site, but since people do get in trouble there now and then, it obviously (thankfully) isn't a free-for-all. If the irc doesn't fall under the site's TOS, then it might benefit to have a TOS for the irc as well, hosted somewhere on the site, maybe a hidden page that is directly linked to in the irc channel's header.

Edit: The three parts of FA obviously have three different atmospheres and tones of conversation, and so of course it would only make sense that different levels of conduct would be acceptable between the three. Other than that difference though, they are still all very much part of "FurAffinity" as a whole. Trying to say one service is completely unrelated to another (or expecting people to somehow 'of course' know this) when both share the same name and are run by the same people is just more than a little absurd.

[Arshes Nei]

Well I have to agree about the punishments for forums, irc, and the site to be seperate. A person may not be doing anything on the site for example, but getting into a heated debate with one user in the forums which results in a ban on the forum, should not extend to their main site usage.

Now if the person was misbehaving on the forums and site and carrying over a grudge, I can understand a punishment on both parts.

This is different than saying the TOS should be different, but rather I do think of them as seperate entitites because quite honestly even the atmosphere isn't the same.

[lolcox]

You know what?

I just want a fucking apology.

Apparently, in this day and age, it's quite kosher to call the upper echelon "fucking stupid", question their collective intelligence, and be an all-around twat-wad, and in fact, only get a ban that lasts less than a day. However, to be the person who basically calls that person to task, asks them to deliver proof, and be generally civil means you get to take home a several hour read-only mode, followed by a week of not being able to follow the usually more interesting discussions on the forums.

I want an apology for the death of common sense.
I want an apology for the death of decency.
I want an apology for the death of logic.

I also want you to sit down, and actually, y'know... learn how to apply the rules in an sane, equal manner, free from the bias that seems to be quite present here.

I'm done with this conversation.

[furryskibum]

IMO, those complaining how admins act should first look at how they themselves act before even thinking about touching the keyboard.

I also don't see how universal, objective rules and TOS can be effectively applied to a subject matter that is purely subjective.

Imagine how the furry culture would change if a pill were invented to instill common sense and courtesy!

[nobuyuki]

You know what?

I just want a fucking apology.

Apparently, in this day and age, it's quite kosher to call the upper echelon "fucking stupid", question their collective intelligence, and be an all-around twat-wad, and in fact, only get a ban that lasts less than a day. However, to be the person who basically calls that person to task, asks them to deliver proof, and be generally civil means you get to take home a several hour read-only mode, followed by a week of not being able to follow the usually more interesting discussions on the forums.

I want an apology for the death of common sense.
I want an apology for the death of decency.
I want an apology for the death of logic.

I also want you to sit down, and actually, y'know... learn how to apply the rules in an sane, equal manner, free from the bias that seems to be quite present here.

I'm done with this conversation.


If you get an apology from the admins for anything other than having to lay down the law, I'll eat my hat. (no, seriously, I wanna know if you somehow actually get one)

[nrr]

IMO, those complaining how admins act should first look at how they themselves act before even thinking about touching the keyboard.

I also don't see how universal, objective rules and TOS can be effectively applied to a subject matter that is purely subjective.
You, sir, totally just had the fucking point fly about 30,000 feet (perhaps even in excess of that) above your head.

I would suggest scouring through the last twelve months of forum archives for a clearer picture of what's happening with regard to admin behavior and why everyone's speaking up about it. I will string you up by the testicles if you're too lazy or too apt to say, "oh, bobba that, tl;dr!"

To that, I say, "I've had enough of your antics, you furry fool. You're cast out, you're banished from here!" I'm not sure about you, but I've personally witnessed a number of these folks (folks who're successful and very well-liked IRL to boot!) behave in a perfectly civil and adult manner. And, no, I do not mean that they've stuck their respective penises (yes, even the females) into someone else's orifices or similar, either.

[Hanazawa]

What nrr said.

The level of pretension by people who think they know everything but in reality know very little is astounding around these parts.

[furryskibum]

Oh man, ignorance truly is bliss!

Please pardon me for attempting to be philosophical!

[nrr]

Please pardon me for attempting to be philosophical!
Excuse me, but I don't exactly see a BA(Phil) or a PhD after your name.

[furryskibum]

Excuse me, but I don't exactly see a BA(Phil) or a PhD after your name.


You strike me as a very serious person, nrr. Gotcha. Thank you for your observation.

[nrr]

You strike me as a very serious person, nrr. Gotcha. Thank you for your observation.
Hey, you struck me as a serious person^H^H^H^H^H^Hfurry first!

[furryskibum]

Well my bad then, nrr! I didn't mean to give that impression, but then maybe I just chose a touchy section to dive into in my first few days of frequenting the forums. :3

Please don't think I think I know everything, because I know I don't. I don't mean to sound like I do. I fully realize I probably know practically nothing next to y'all veterans, so forgive me if I sound pretentious. It just . . . going through all the past threads to discover what all the hubub is about is very daunting and time-consuming. Quite frankly, it's hard for me to care. I simply come here to have a good time, know what's going on with FA, and to perhaps share a teeny shard of what I know. :3

Hopefully this clears some up!

[Hanazawa]

Respectfully, if you don't really care, it's probably wise not to stick your nose in. :)

If you're just here to have a good time, stay clear of ANY topics with the word "Admin" in it, except those posted by the admins themselves ;p

[furryskibum]

But Hanazawa, some topics are just like a flame, and I'm the moth. :3 "It's soooooo pretty . . . " *pop!*

[whitedingo]

and the same crew as usual have to argue the point ,if its so bad and the admins are such dicks then why keep comming back its not like your being forced to come here
and ski dont let them get to you

[furryskibum]

and ski dont let them get to you


Worry not! I like to think there's a reason I've never been banned from anywhere. Except WTFux, but proxies are my friend. XD

[Wolfblade]

Everyone was a n00b at some point. Has everyone criticising him made it a habit to go back and read a year or more's worth of posts every time you join a new forum before you speak up? I doubt it.

However, since everyone is a hypocrite at some point or another, it's stupid to invalidate an opinion just because it might be hypocritical coming from the person who happened to say it. There is a good point to be made about trying to get a better idea of what's being discussed before joining a discussion.

The point could have been made with a great deal less unprovoked hostility though. Unless I'm missing something, I can't imagine what furryskibum could have done to warrant that kind of reaction :


and the same crew as usual have to argue the point ,if its so bad and the admins are such dicks then why keep comming back its not like your being forced to come here
and ski dont let them get to you


The simple answer is; where else is anyone supposed to go? It's not like there's an alternative that offers what this place offers.

[WolfeByte]

But Hanazawa, some topics are just like a flame, and I'm the moth. :3 "It's soooooo pretty . . . " *pop!*




As I said, better than TV. :D

[furryskibum]

As I said, better than TV. :D


I knew there was a reason I don't own one. XD

Thanks, WB! It's all good for me, though. I imagine feelings are naturally elevated in this section. :3

[Wolfie]

You, sir, totally just had the fucking point fly about 30,000 feet (perhaps even in excess of that) above your head.


Such language!

Anyone got any soap handy? :wink:

[whitedingo]

The simple answer is; where else is anyone supposed to go? It's not like there's an alternative that offers what this place offers.

So then you all should be happy that you have atleast one place to go to .I personally think the admin are to soft here go to other boards and most of the protagonist's here would have been perma banned a long time ago.This here is a reflection of todays society no respect for authority,freedom of speech is all well and good but does it give you the right to question every judgement made here.
ps I've been around these forums for a long time and most times I just shake my head in dismay and I know when enough is enough

[Wolfblade]

The simple answer is; where else is anyone supposed to go? It's not like there's an alternative that offers what this place offers.

So then you all should be happy that you have atleast one place to go to .I personally think the admin are to soft here go to other boards and most of the protagonist's here would have been perma banned a long time ago.This here is a reflection of todays society no respect for authority,freedom of speach is all well and good but does it give you the right to question every judgement made here.
ps I've been around these forums for a long time and most times I just shake my head in dismay and I know when enough is enough


Well, I don't argue with you on the admins being often too lenient or there being a lack of respect for authority. But there's also something to be said to their credit that they DO invite constructive criticism (and allow a great deal of unconstructive criticism), and they do ask for input from their users. Some people complain because they're just not happy with the site and likely never will be, but some genuinely are happy with the site, and only comment because given that nothing is ever perfect, there is always room for improvement.

[Hanazawa]

I personally think the admin are to soft here go to other boards and most of the protagonist's here would have been perma banned a long time ago.This here is a reflection of todays society no respect for authority,freedom of speech is all well and good but does it give you the right to question every judgement made here.


You mean antagonists, and in case you weren't paying attention, there are still people running around who deserve permabans a hell of a lot more than we do (except, uh, I guess we don't suck enough e-cock).

Being criticized is part of running a website. I admin a large, popular forum/site elsewhere - and I've gotten a lot more flak than the admins here have over the 5+ years I've been in charge. The difference? I actually listen to what my users have to say. And I sure as hell haven't banned anyone just for disagreeing with me. When I'm wrong, I apologize and correct the problem. The rules of my forum are well-delineated and it's impossible to dispute many of my administrative actions because the consequences are as plain as day.

I respect the admins of this site. I respect them enough to ask them to think about and change their site, make improvements to it, and so on, without making personal attacks against them, without trying to hack the site... I respect them enough to know that my opinion is the only thing I have the right to give them, even if I have to do so loudly.

I respect people who deserve respect. Being an administrator of a site as large as this one is no easy task. I probably give the admins here more respect than they deserve most of the time, to be perfectly honest.

People who run in and make generalizations about how five users on a furry forum reflect the whole of society? Not so deserving of my respect, but I'm giving it to you anyway.

Telling us to be happy because we have no other alternatives is like telling a little kid he should enjoy having only celery for lunch everyday because that's all mom will pack for him. Guess what? The little kid can and should ask his mom for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at least every once in a while, because it's not that freaking hard for mom to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

[whitedingo]

You all should be happy with what you got, after all if the people who run this site get sick of all the crap thay can just pull the plug you know
enough said I will post no more in this thread

[Hanazawa]

after all if the people who run this site get sick of all the crap thay can just pull the plug you know


And that would be the most stupid thing ever? Letting a handful of obnoxious users (yeah, I said it, I'm obnoxious) influence a decision to take away all of the time, money, and work they've put into the site to make thousands of other people happy would just be, for lack of a better word, retarded. Trust me, they're not gonna pull the plug like that.

[furryskibum]

Well, just to clarify, the point I was trying to get across with my post in this thread is that rules for ANYTHING are subject to interpretation from the persons in charge, and therefore can never be completely objective. Being clear and concise surely helps quite a bit, but it will always be up to the admins to do their best according to their interpretation of the rules. This in turn really shows the true personalities of the people behind the titles as well.

Even if no one reads 'em, it'll definitely be a good idea to have the rules in clear view for all to read. If for nothing else than for admins to have a solid foundation for their judgements, whether to apologize or enforce.

I hate typing while tired. It's all blurry. XD

[whitedingo]

You mean antagonists

No I think I mean protagonist ,any leading character in the support of a movement,cause,ect
said cause to change the adimin to how you want them to be
Now thats all folks

[lolcox]

However, since everyone is a hypocrite at some point or another,

Even you, TL;DR? :)


EVERYBODY OUT OF THE ONES AND ZEROES.
TOPIC IS CLOSED UNTIL AN ADMIN RESPONDS TO ME.

[nobuyuki]

No I think I mean protagonist ,any leading character in the support of a movement,cause,ect
said cause to change the adimin to how you want them to be
Now thats all folks

what? she didn't mean antagonist in the sense of a theater drama, she meant the definition of antagonist as one who provokes a response.

P.S. I said it on IRC, I'll say it here. The "be happy with what you have, would you rather have nothing?" mentality is the mentality of sheep. Parents say this to children because the children depend on the parent to provide whatever 'it' is to them. In an adult world, we as adults can easily make our own descisions on things. If people want change, they will make change. That's how real life works. It can either be done the easy way or the hard way -- demanding change to accomodate the greatest amount of people is one way change is promoted, and much easier than say, creating change through force (such as by creating a competing alternative).

[Arshes Nei]

You mean antagonists


Why do people say "I'm done with this thread" then come back to post on it?

[lolcox]

Why do people say "I'm done with this thread" then come back to post on it?

Because the piece of shit keeps emailing me, though the `email subscription` box is uncheck'd, and that makes me come back for more.

Now get out of the pool. It is full of AIDS and Fail.
I am closing it.

[Emerson]

I really want a serious internets answer from a serious internets administrator on this serious internets furry forum...!!!


That's like saying you want real magic from a real fairy in a real magical castle. :wink:

[kitetsu]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/417/ultimateboomsd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Wolfie]

*tosses an unwrapped Baby Ruth into the pool*

There. That should do the trick. :wink: