Tyroki's AnimeB Code of Conduct

[Flashman]

Pepe you forget that this triviality defense has been used already by the mods under the other name of common sense. All that I am doing is ensuring that it will enshrined in the rules so that in the unlikely event of a memeber of the staff losing this common sense they shall be unable to go on an infraction rampage.

Further more if you give me some specific examples in which you think such maybe situation may occur, I might be able to better answer your question

[☼Pepe☼]

Example?

Like Selo constantly saying stuff like "Pepe Sucks"...
I personally don't really mind it, but he keeps constantly doing it...

How will you know if it's part of his "insidious plan" or if he's just having fun with me?

[.]

Yeh, you say it too pepe, and i dont mind it either. We're cool like that

[☼Pepe☼]

But we might be setting a "Bad Example" for the other members...


As everyone knows, me and selo are exceptions since we don't mind it and all...
But what if it happens to someone else? Then the mods are going to have to find out, and debate on whether it is punishable or not...

Even then it wouldn't be consistent... <_<

[Betong Åsna]

Then the involved parties notify us and all is reversed and happy.

Less arguments from Pepe. They = fail.

[☼Pepe☼]

Okay then, let's say that does happen..
And then another member starts doing it to others who do mind.
Then he'd complain as to why he's getting punished, whereas the former pair wasn't...

:/

[.]

Eh, just keep it simple, if someone offends you and you do happen to mind, report, if not, dont bothter and carry on

[Tyroki]

Or if someone says, for example, "Lockx" sucks, and Lockx doesn't like it, whats to stop Lockx saying "Could you please stop that? I don't like it"

Then any continuation from the person saying "Lockx sucks" would be classed under the rules. Is that what you're getting at Pepe?

[☼Pepe☼]

How should I say this...

Say Member A insults Member B, but Member B does not mind. It goes on fine and dandy

But then, a Member C insults Member D, whereas Member D does mind. Member D reports and Member C gets punished.


Member C then sees Member A insulting Member B, and he starts complaining "Why is it that I was punished for doing the same thing that Member A is doing, whereas Member A isn't?"

He'd start complaining about it, and another forum rebel would be born...

And that's what I'm trying to avoid.... :/

[Flashman]

I Believe that we may all be on different pages in regards to its application, as I am seeing it more from the point of view of when criticism turns into bashing, than that of people insulting each other for no reason.

[Betong Åsna]

Either way, we've come full circle back into the realms of common sense once again.

If member C can't understand the difference between a joke and an insult, that's not our problem.

[Tyroki]

The new members need to understand that alot of us older memeber have our jokes with each other. We've been here long enough to know we each don't mean it. A rookie coming in and doing it should be WARNED about it first ANYWAY. The verbal warning is optional. The infract warning afterwards is compulsary. I mean, if you don't want to give that verbal warning, you do not have to. But in the case of a newbie coming in and causing trouble, a verbal may be worth giving as an act of kindness to quickly show a newbie the ropes of how things work.

I too do not want another flaming rebel -.-

[Betong Åsna]

Fair point there, Ty. People shouldn't be able to come in and start mouthing off straight away.

[Tyroki]

Which is why my rules give people a chance via an optional verbal warning, and a compulsary infraction warning. Either way they get at least ONE warning before being infracted. Verbal warnings, especially in the shoutbox, can be missed. Thats why its no compulsary. INFRACTION warnings can only be missed if someone ignores their PM's, if I recall correctly. At that point its the fault of whoever has been warned for not bothering to check.

I am, however, tempted to alter the compulsary warning to be only optional when it comes to people who consistantly repeat the offense. At that point theres really no point warning them, and its more effective to just infract rather than be tied down to having to warn first, giving them a chance to wait until the warnings gone.

What do you think?

[☼Pepe☼]

It would be simpler if they are warned, then if they do it again, that's when they get infracted...

No need to wait for them to commit it repetitively... :/