New Rule
- Thread starter SuF
- Start date
- Status
Hero
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
What about Richard Holland? Everyone fucking knows his name.
Agree with SuF. I can understand insulting/flaming staff, but why should staff be treated any different from a normal user in this instance??
Users will be banned for 1 month for the following: Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: posting information such as private emails / MSNs, private Skype accounts, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in up to a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.
Users will be banned for 6 months for the following: Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban with a single admin veto on behalf of or for the affected party.
Users will be banned for 1 month for the following: Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: posting information such as private emails / MSNs, private Skype accounts, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in up to a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.
vs
Users will be banned for 6 months for the following: Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban with a single admin veto on behalf of or for the affected party.
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 131
- Age
- 111
If this were simply the case, then the original 1-month-ban rule saying "don't post personal information" would be enough. But this is clearly because a certain user needs extra protection because (s)he can't handle the flack users get her. Therefore, this new rule with a beefed punishment is made to deter people from targeting this user in multiple ways, including personal information, flaming, etc
Hero
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
That's what the other rule is for...
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
And no one told him it's fucking retarded?
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 131
- Age
- 111
Like suf said, it's already a rule, and it's blatant favoritism and borderline socialism to let mods be selective about who they want to punish harder for a rule that already exists with a predetermined punishment.
The ambiguous wording is probably the most egregious part of this change. "Close personal friends", I could say Farcast is my most endearing and most personal friend, and I may have never even seen his face. Does that mean, given I was a mod, I could choose to ban people for 6 times as many months because farcast is a bro?
Hero
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
I know how it works.
Oh fuck off. I'm here because I wrote the fucking personal information rule and it just gets changed willy nilly because an admin is a fucking cry baby.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Sythe Gold
- 11
- Messages
- 1,168
Agree with this, then just make it the same for EVERYBODY and then there isn't this huge reaction.
And you didn't mention this in the "long discussion in the staff lounge"?
Everyone on this site is a human being and has the right to be treated and treat others with respect regardless of their rank or whatnot. Obviously this doesn't happen most of the time but in your ideal world, everyone would get on with each other and there would be no "special favoured people".
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1,234
- Messages
- 14,211
No. That is fucking retarded. That is why the current rule says UP TO ONE MONTH. Who cares if you change it to up to six. I think that's too steep but whatever. I don't get everything I want. Requiring a six month ban is the height of fucking stupidity. Look at Justin's ban. Six months for reposting a fucking picture????????????????????
The point of saying up to was to give staff discretion in their bans so that they could give people what was appropriate for the action. Why? Because people would always get banned for super long times for no reason at all and would have to be pardoned. Same exact reason we finally changed the ban evasion rule to not be a perm if the first ban was a temp.
Jesus Christ guys. Use your fucking heads. The rules are written the way they are for a reason and all of your obviously have no idea. Or you just don't care.
- Status