A New Precedent

For community consensus.

The purpose of this thread is to build a working set of rules to be followed for RPGateway via community involvement. No one person can create a working set of rules - it takes a community to do so. Neither can the administration or moderation staff, although they can try. I want YOU to work together and modify, create, or remove rules to create something that WORKS.

So let's see what Hamilton's "great beast" can do.

Here are some topics;

Vulgarity,
Sexual Role Play,
Insolence,
Writing Quality,
Spamming,
Harassment,
Parody,
and really anything that should be clarified and streamlined into something workable by the community.

Ok, I'm just going to post my opinion on the topics, nothing fancy:

Vulgarity: Rules on swearing depend on the context entirely, for example if someone swears because they've dropped something on their foot, or forgotten something important, there is no offense to be found there and thus it should be allowed. On the other hand if you start shouting obscenities AT someone it becomes offensive and unpleasant and thus should not be allowed.

Sexual Roleplay: Hugging, kissing. Thats it. No further. Or bam, kick in the arse. Saying 'smexes so and so' in offtopic does not count as sexual, it isn't exactly a graphic description is it, so let's not pretend it is.

Insolence: Defining this is difficult, because if someone is talking back to a moderator in a none rule regarding situation, it shouldn't be any different than mouthing off at anyone else, but if someone is kicking up a storm over a moderators ruling on a roleplay, conversation or likewise issue, it shouldn't be allowed - mods can't do their job if anyone can decide they don't like what the mods are doing and make themselves a nuisance.

Writing Quality: Ahhh, the big one. There is really nothing to be done here unless we have rooms for various skill levels, otherwise everyone has to be able to roleplay even if they aren't very good. In a scenario where people are in a room that is specifically labeled 'advanced ' or 'high quality' the moderators would have the power to say that you aren't good enough and send you to a lower level room.

Spamming: Uhhh... clear line here, spam = bad. As long as you understand that short posts aren't instantly spam. So saying 'lol' in offtopic isn't spam, but saying 'lol' 'lol' 'lol' 'lol' in several posts is.

Harassment: If the person being harassed doesn't want to be harassed, then the person harassing ceases their harassment, or else. I reckon that trolling comes under this as well, intentionally insulting people is no good. But if someone overreacts to a comment made in jest then it isn't the jester in the wrong... if you get what I mean.

Parody: What on earth is wrong with fun characters? It's fun! FUN! Isn't that the idea?

A good thing to note here is that vulgarity can also involve topics that like outside a realm of indecency, like rape and molestation, as well as words that may not be considered outright swear words but are still offensive, like "retard" or some racial slurs. Keep that in mind when you weigh in on that concept.

Codified for easy consumption.

Modifications

- Regarding swearing. Cussing should allow entirely in a victimless context. Therefore, swearing openly or insulting non-player entities should be allowed, but cussing someone should be allowed. In-character swearing should be acceptable.

- Sexual content and vulgarity should not be allowed it anyone takes offense to it. It's harsh, but it works. Tasteful and non-explicit sexual content, consensual joking around, and other non-harmful material should be allowed unless someone objects. Religious and prudish objections should be taken with a grain of salt, if the party objecting is not directly involved with said content.

- Spamming. The line between spamming and tasteful inanity is a fine line. This should be left up the mods, as hardcore spamming is easily distinguishable from inanity.

- Criticism of Administration. If someone finds fault with a moderator's practices, he/she should have the right to confront him/her without any threat of retribution. Openly assaulting a moderator's persona should NOT be allowed, as it brings nothing. This is a fine line, and one where the moderator's decision, assuming the user in questions brings the issue up, should be held under scrutiny.

Additions

- UNCERTAIN. The tiered system for forums. Three tiers moderated by specialist members who take the time to validate applications to them. Basically, the Moderators/Admins would appoint these people, and they would evaluate anyone wanting to advance tiers. They can suggest that someone be kicked, but can't actually restrict the access of a user to a tier - that can only be done by moderators or admins. Now this would be a technical problem in itself. It's just an idea at this state.

- The ability to ostracize players from tiers. If someone finds their fellow member to be lacking, and say, four other people agree, they can do the equivalent of a "kick-from-server" vote in FPS. This would have to be approved by a moderator.

- Regarding Quality Verses Quantity. This is touchy and should have no bearing on things.

- More and more specialized moderation staff. A small set of global moderates assisted by cadres of duty-specific moderators.

Combine this with Shining's post and my case for change is complete.