Clearing up this rule

Spam forum rule -

Gore

• What is classed as gore is at staff discretion, do not post anything which you think might be classed as gore, a good indicator is that it's not child-friendly.

that is vague AF. a whole lot of whats on spam forum isnt child-friendly.
how about we clarify the rule on gore with specifics.

 

What do you propose it says? It's up to staff discretion what they determine as gore. It's easy to not post something that could conflict with this rule if you know the definition.

Gore
noun
noun: gore; plural noun: gores

1. blood that has been shed, especially as a result of violence.
   "the film omitted the blood and gore in order to avoid controversy"
   synonyms: blood, bloodiness; More

 

If we go off that definition any talk of blood as a result of violence is reportable? you cant have a vague rule that is up to staff discretion without allowing an imbalance of power.


edit*
by the rule as it sits, a mod can claim telling someone to choke on a bag of dicks is gore.
penalize an individual they personally do not like, and continue to allow the same conduct to occur by others.

this rule is inherently imbalanced.

 

That is why people can ask for a second opinion, from other staff members.
Staff are really relaxed in the Spam Forum anyways.

 

This rule is purposely laid out for staff discretion. Odds are, if you think it is gore, it is and staff will handle it as such.

Gore is broad and it is meant to be, but if something is clearly very gorey and nsfw, then it will be removed and the individual will be appropriately infracted.

Use common sense in your posting of spam forum content. There is a difference between not-child friendly language and posting an image of something with blood and innards spewing all over the place.

So yeah, no support.

 

it doesnt matter if they are generally relaxed. when a person in power has a broken rule to infract others with there is a clear balancing issue with the rule. it wouldnt take very long for @Sythe or other administrators to come up with a specific definition for this rule that eliminates the ability for staff to abuse it.

funny, the rule doesnt state anything about images, but here you are making a distinction between images and words. sounds like it could be fixed slightly already.

 

Can you showcase when this has happened? Has this ever happened? With regards to this rule and apparent power abuse from staff?

 

it doesnt need to have happened to logically conclude it is an inherently flawed rule.
the fact that it COULD happen at ANY given time by any admin with a PERSONAL QUARREL is an issue.

 

You realize gore is in reference to images, not me typing "IM GOING TO CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF" in the spam forum. One is a little bit more.. gruesome then the other.

 

One of the problems with providing guidelines for otherwise ambiguous phrases is that rules become long, complicated, and people tend not to read them. Look at the Statutes/Acts/regulations for your relevant country. They go on and on and on. Even then, they often leave ambiguous phrases for the Courts to decide. The Courts go on and on and on. Some phrases have no definition even after 400 years (not kidding).

There is always a balance between elaboration and concision. If your argument is that the lack of elaboration here leads to the potential for abuse of staff, it would be helpful to provide scenarios where that abuse has eventuated. Can you provide such examples? Assuming you can, what do you propose the rule be changed to? Merely saying the rule is vague so fix it isn't very helpful. How should we rephrase it? It is actually exceedingly difficult to write rules which catch all the conduct you want without trapping conduct you don't want. It is even more difficult to do it concisely.

 

No support, there hasn't been any incidences where staff have used there "discretion" of the rule punish some one unfairly. So why fix it if it isn't broke? By all means prove me wrong and find a case where this has happened. I think we need to stop wasting staff time with petty/pointless suggestions tbh.

 

it doesnt matter if no mod has abused this rule, the fact they can is not right.
@Tmoe nowhere does it say gore refers to images. i could very graphically type about the mutilated innards of a victim, im sure that would constitute.

the major problem here, besides the inherent balancing flaw, is lack of understanding by the users. how can you infract someone for a rule if they dont understand why what they said was against the rules, when other things said (perhaps perceived to be much worse by this individual), are not against the rules?

this is a forum on the internet where the guest cannot 100% say they understand the rules that they may be banned for violating.


edit* shit, even in real life if you dont understand that you broke the law, the judge will either fine you, ACOD you (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) or in very serious cases, you wont receive jailing, youll receive mental care.

so how can anyone sit there and logically, with an undamaged mind, think its okay to have rules the users cant logically comprehend because logically, this rule sais a majority of the shit on spam forum is against the rules. how can a new member look at the rules, then read 2 posts and understand this rule?

 

You're blowing a rule, that more than likely barely ever gets infracted, out of proportion. It's come as you go, in a sense. Use common knowledge and post things that don't relate to this. If you do happen to get infracted for it, and it's something that you don't define as gore, send them a message and clear it up. You're making a fool of yourself over something so small.

 

This is not a "gore" site, so how about this: do not post anything even remotely related to gore and you will not have issues related to clarity of the rule. Denied.