Announcement Regarding Rule 1.2

[St.Denis]

You never know but the bans could all be done on the toss of the coin, but I am sure that they have thought this through and maybe use a Medium instead.

But there again I do believe that Sanctions are decided on by more than 1 Admin at a time. If this is the case then the System has already got some checks built within it.

There is never ever going to be a perfect system able to be put in place whilst humans are involved. I am sure that the Admins, who are only Human, will try to be as fair and honest as possible.

So until somebody can suggest a set of Rules that doesn't involve 100 Lawyers writing it, so that it is as airtight as possible leaving no ambiguities, we have the Admins and their conscience to do what is right.

.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[7AlphaOne1]

if wrongly sanctioned(correct me on this) you can always explain and demand your toys back.

Let me know how "demanding" goes.

umm, sorry. should be "requesting"

---

Need some software for FL?looking of a whole database? click here!

Jay's Quotes

TO FLOOD OR NOT TO FLOOD, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Well, I've managed to piss off Snak3, Ageira, LH~, Furries, Wisp, but at least Beast is happy.

[Trogdor]

[Thread]^

---

[Jihadjoe]

If there is any other options to intentionally trolling people within the rules and consequences being a worry, then this statement is false. Oh wait, let me think, the supposed dirty word bias comes up. That may be discredited, but it is still an option. It was brought up before. It has happened before. Thus, the logic does not hold.

If such a basic logical fallacy was committed, was it done so intentionally, and was it done so to troll anyone that voices concern into silence, over the rule changes?

You can of course pick up on a final comment intended to be taken with a degree of lightness and amusement and turn it into a serious point for discussion... But we've been there before, Richard. Do we really need emotes these days? I would have thought "hmm..." was enough.

However, I'll just roll on with your line, because it's vaguely more amusing than the comment I made.

If we bring the word bias into things, then we start to get into the realms of asking questions such as; "is any authority legitimate?", "what right does X have to run this place?".

Given we are in an internet community which is privately run and owned (yes, maintaining the servers does give the administrators ownership), the right to rule, if you wish to call it that, is rather clearly in the hands of the owners. Bias in an elected and representative system, would be absolutely devastating to it's integrity. Bias in an oligarchal system where people choose to come, then choose to stay to be ruled by those oligarchs, is a bit of a non issue... It is also far less prevailent than your phrasing would present it, but we could debate exactly how widespread the bias, how strong it is and against/towards whom people are actually biased back and forth forever, without making any progress whatsoever. We see different things, and nobody has the keys to the absolute truth.

The long and short of it is this... You chose to play here, therefore you chose to be subject to the whims of the owners.

That said, a great deal (but not all) of the bias which is talked about around here is largely based in the complainer's own rather paranoid confirmation bias. They believe they are being persecuted, and therefore will see that everywhere, and will reject anything qhich could bring that already existing perception into question.
Following on from that, a great many people respond violently to a perceived but nonexistant bias against them, and in the process of reacting, create it...

Given I responded politely, I feel I should probably make some mention of the fact I find the smartass tone you took with your reply to be mildly annoying. That is nothing terribly new though. This almost feels like the old days.

Edited for typos and clarity.

---

[Highland Laddie]

The long and short of it is this... You chose to play here, therefore you chose to be subject to the whims of the owners.

Exactly! Anyone thinking otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

[Curios]

For now the situation looks like that:

1. A group of people who were keeping grudges over someone on the server are happy - there was no way to push the avenge within the old rules and now here is an ability to report people who made you 'feel bad'. Great, they are happy (still we don't know how exactly the rule application will work in real cases)

2. A group of people who see this as a huge flaw in the rule wording were you can get a problems up your ass for not doing anything wrong - this is a game where throwing a challenge on another player or a group of players that they might not like is a regular thing, mind that. Keeping that in mind one must be cautious not to get over the completely invisible line of 'making someone feel very bad and q_q' which is close to impossible.

This comes to mind:



In short - another trouble which everyone have to do with and no one want to have since we're here to have fun, not worry about some shady matters.

3. Actual trolls that are not here and just busy inventing another method of going around the rules yet again so this is all a pop into the water.

---

[Papa Oomaumau]

As usual, Joe has hit the nail on the head.
This is not a democracy where you get to vote on whether or not a rule exists, gets enforced, or is fair or correct.
Everything about this server is private.
The admin staff is not obligated to listen to a single argument - they have always had the power, and the right, to ban anyone they want - for any reason.

Anyone who cries "unfair" clearly hasn't had to make their own way in the world, or survive by threading around and through the arbitrary rules of modern society.
Please, when you've hit, Oh... I dunno, say 30 years old, come tell me what 'fair' means, and where you're finding it in the world.
I'd like to know so I can move there.

And whinge all you want, 'cause you will anyway, it's a human nature thing.
And when you get the monthly server bill deducted from your credit card, you can change it any way you feel like.
Private server is private.
Just be glad you didn't have to apply to be allowed to play, like some other mods!

---

[Curios]

Papa Oomaumau is activating <old_man> mode I see.

It's not about 'fair\unfair' stuff - it's about understanding of how admins are running the place. If rules are unclear then it's also unclear for everyone else on how to follow the said rules. The lines like 'don't troll or ban' or 'we'll ban you if we feel like' just breaks the wish to invest any effort since you can't know for sure if it's allowed or not.

Rules must be simple and clear. Special cases are allowed anyway as you said - but RULES must be clear for those 99.9% who are not 'special case'.

---

[n00bl3t]

If there is any other options to intentionally trolling people within the rules and consequences being a worry, then this statement is false. Oh wait, let me think, the supposed dirty word bias comes up. That may be discredited, but it is still an option. It was brought up before. It has happened before. Thus, the logic does not hold.

If such a basic logical fallacy was committed, was it done so intentionally, and was it done so to troll anyone that voices concern into silence, over the rule changes?

You can of course pick up on a final comment intended to be taken with a degree of lightness and amusement and turn it into a serious point for discussion... But we've been there before, Richard. Do we really need emotes these days? I would have thought "hmm..." was enough.

However, I'll just roll on with your line, because it's vaguely more amusing than the comment I made.

If we bring the word bias into things, then we start to get into the realms of asking questions such as; "is any authority legitimate?", "what right does X have to run this place?".

Given we are in an internet community which is privately run and owned (yes, maintaining the servers does give the administrators ownership), the right to rule, if you wish to call it that, is rather clearly in the hands of the owners. Bias in an elected and representative system, would be absolutely devastating to it's integrity. Bias in an oligarchal system where people choose to come, then choose to stay to be ruled by those oligarchs, is a bit of a non issue... It is also far less prevailent than your phrasing would present it, but we could debate exactly how widespread the bias, how strong it is and against/towards whom people are actually biased back and forth forever, without making any progress whatsoever. We see different things, and nobody has the keys to the absolute truth.

The long and short of it is this... You chose to play here, therefore you chose to be subject to the whims of the owners.

That said, a great deal (but not all) of the bias which is talked about around here is largely based in the complainer's own rather paranoid confirmation bias. They believe they are being persecuted, and therefore will see that everywhere, and will reject anything qhich could bring that already existing perception into question.
Following on from that, a great many people respond violently to a perceived but nonexistant bias against them, and in the process of reacting, create it...

Given I responded politely, I feel I should probably make some mention of the fact I find the smartass tone you took with your reply to be mildly annoying. That is nothing terribly new though. This almost feels like the old days.

Edited for typos and clarity.

It is a shame you read it that way. I tried to avoid anything condescending in that because 1.2, and to be sanctioned for posting words which constitute a 1.2 violation in a thread about 1.2 violations would be rather ironic, if that is the right word. I deliberately went through it step-by-step so I would not make an error.

If it was not intended as a serious point, and not intended as a troll to silence people voicing genuine concerns, then I'll take your word for it and not bother with the comment you made.

In response to your paragraphs about oligarchies:
1) I do not see the point of the paragraphs upon paragraphs of rules, if 1.2 simply covers everything.
2) I do not see the point of the paragraphs upon paragraphs of rules, if this an oligarchy which can do whatever it wants.
3) If there are rules, then there must be self-imposed limits on the oligarchy.
4) If there is a rule which allows all rules to be ignored, then there are no rules.

Take the 4 points as you will Joe. Like you said, perhaps we see things differently. I was just voicing my concern for abuse in the system. I doubt there's a conspiracy against me, perhaps localised bias by some people, but that's human. (One day I'm sure I'll be painted as paranoid because enough people chant it loud enough. )

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[nOmnomnOm]

Kids, play nice.

---