Muse board rule comments

[Niall]

I've been trying for the past 400 pages to direct your attention towards post #36.

 

http://board.muse.mu/showpost.php?p=9772093&postcount=36 ?

[Buxomflirter Queef]

I have nothing to do with this

[Ross]

Nice to see you've jumped on the bandwagon SQ. You were given a warning because, I think, you quoted or replied to a spambot instead of reporting it and thus further contributed to the spam in the thread, so I asked that you please instead report spam in future to help us keep ad bots and the like off the forum (because it's a complete pain in the neck when the company that employed them comes begging that we delete all the spam off the forum because they've gotten themselves in trouble with Google). If it's a big deal I'll gladly reverse it.

Doesn't that seem a tad excessive, or had there been an explicit request to not reply to spambots?

[Anxyous]

I think he means post #35.

 

Indeed. I've been trying so long that the post numbers have changed.

[Seaking]

"Do not knowingly post false information about the band"

 

Why not remove the word knowingly?

 

I have arguments to back this up but I don't want to type them.

[Anxyous]

"Do not knowingly post false information about the band"

 

Why not remove the word knowingly?

 

I have arguments to back this up but I don't want to type them.

 

"Knowingly" in this case is the safety word for people who believe Fabrizio's posts.

[Seaking]

You are just going to have people saying "I didn't know" every time they post something that is clearly not true.

[Niall]

Ross, maybe it was, if SQ really thought he was in danger of us some how following it up with limiting his use of the board or taking some action that would actually effect him, and maybe a PM would have done the same job as a warning, but it was really just a request to help us out with a problematic situation than adding OT posts to a thread instead, and I've said to SQ if he wants it reversed then I'll gladly do it.

 

For points to ban it's 3. You have to do either something bad enough to get three points outright or do two or three separate bad things (usually it's more like 5 or 6 as we have a policy of warning first unless we know the users already knows better). Points remain active for longer than bans to stop people just carrying on as soon as the ban is done, and the ban length scales with the number of active points. At any one time there's usually only 4 or 5 people on temp bans.

[Niall]

"Knowingly" in this case is the safety word for people who believe Fabrizio's posts.

 

It's mainly to stop people posting malicious rumours and the like, that rule is driven from respect for the band members.

[Seaking]

For points to ban it's 3. You have to do either something bad enough to get three points outright or do two or three separate bad things (usually it's more like 5 or 6 as we have a policy of warning first unless we know the users already knows better). Points remain active for longer than bans to stop people just carrying on as soon as the ban is done, and the ban length scales with the number of active points. At any one time there's usually only 4 or 5 people on temp bans.

 

Out of curiosity, how many people are permanently banned? I remember reading that you guys don't do that anymore though.

[Anxyous]

Ross, maybe it was, if SQ really thought he was in danger of us some how following it up with limiting his use of the board or taking some action that would actually effect him, and maybe a PM would have done the same job as a warning, but it was really just a request to help us out with a problematic situation than adding OT posts to a thread instead, and I've said to SQ if he wants it reverse then I'll gladly do it.

 

For points to ban it's 3. You have to do either something bad enough to get three points outright or do two or three separate bad things (usually it's more like 5 or 6 as we have a policy of warning first unless we know the users already knows better). Points remain active for longer than bans to stop people just carrying on as soon as the ban is done, and the ban length scales with the number of active points. At any one time there's usually only 4 or 5 people on temp bans.

 

Any firm guidelines on number of points for certain things, or is it arbitrary?

 

And I still think that "sincerely mislead" is gigglish.

[Niall]

Out of curiosity, how many people are permanently banned? I remember reading that you guys don't do that anymore though.

 

I don't know where you read that, but at the moment there's just under 5000 permanently banned account. As for the number of banned people, I do not know.

[Seaking]

I don't know where you read that, but at the moment there's just under 5000 permanently banned account. As for the number of banned people, I do not know.

 

 

 

How do you determine if someone get's perma'd? I remember reading it in one of the banter threads. Could be mistaken though.

 

Also,

 

http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?p=9776568#post9776568

 

You might want to close this.

[Niall]

Any firm guidelines on number of points for certain things, or is it arbitrary?

 

And I still think that "sincerely mislead" is gigglish.

 

It's not arbitrary, it's scaled on the severity.

 

Sincerely was in there because we didn't want to give the impression that if you joked about the new Muse single being called "Creep" to a noob you'd get in trouble etc.

[Anxyous]

It's not arbitrary, it's scaled on the severity.

 

How's severity scaled, then?

[JessicaSarahS]

Not arbitrary. There are a set number of points per item and they're assorted by point number depending on severity. So an off topic posting is listed at the lighter end of of the scale with one point, while severe personal attacks is at the opposite end with 5points. We click the button and go from there. If the person hasn't done it before, we give a warning if it's on the light end of the spectrum.

[Niall]

How do you determine if someone get's perma'd? I remember reading it in one of the banter threads. Could be mistaken though.

 

Also,

 

http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?p=9776568#post9776568

 

You might want to close this.

 

If they continually refuse to listen to all staff members for a very long time. We don't make such decisions lightly at all.

 

99% of the banned accounts are spambots, pure trolls (like everyone's favourites totoro and anorexiatroll) and duplicate accounts going all the way back to 2003.

 

Thanks, this one just missed out of being banned account #5000.

[Niall]

How's severity scaled, then?

 

It was decided before I was a mod that we weren't going to disclose all the workings as the points are basically to keep mod actions consistent rather than for users to decide that some rules should be taken more seriously than others etc. But Jess explained it well, most are just 1 pointer stuff.

[Seaking]

If they continually refuse to listen to all staff members for a very long time. We don't make such decisions lightly at all.

 

99% of the banned accounts are spambots, pure trolls (like everyone's favourites totoro and anorexiatroll) and duplicate accounts going all the way back to 2003.

 

Thanks, this one just missed out of being banned account #5000.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Ohh a landmark. Someone should get working on that.

[Anxyous]

It was decided before I was a mod that we weren't going to disclose all the workings as the points are basically to keep mod actions consistent rather than for users to decide that some rules should be taken more seriously than others etc. But Jess explained it well, most are just 1 pointer stuff.

 

That ought to be discussed again. Openness is better.

[Seaking]

That ought to be discussed again. Openness is better.

 

Spoiler alert: It won't.

 

Anyways,

 

I forgot what I wanted to say. Someone help.

[Ross]

It was decided before I was a mod that we weren't going to disclose all the workings as the points are basically to keep mod actions consistent rather than for users to decide that some rules should be taken more seriously than others etc. But Jess explained it well, most are just 1 pointer stuff.

Would it maybe be an idea to disclose the offences but not the points associated? gives openness but doesn't result in the scenario you outlined?

[Anxyous]

I don't see it happening that people will go for the lighter offenses in any case. They'll still get infracted, and if they keep doing it, it'll result in a ban anyway.

[Niall]

Would it maybe be an idea to disclose the offences but not the points associated? gives openness but doesn't result in the scenario you outlined?

 

We did this earlier this year actually. I noticed that there were discrepancies between in infraction list and the public rules and I fixed that when I became an admin. The infractions are all in the rules basically, there's no infraction that isn't covered in the rules and no rule that isn't covered in the infractions.

 

I don't mind giving a brief outline of how it's scaled so you get the idea, but I better check with the others first as I don't want to act unilaterally. But really, most stuff is just 1 or 2 points, there are a couple of severe ones for doing stuff like making racist attacks on people and the like, things that would get you in trouble with the police if you did it to a celebrity on twitter.

[Ross]

We did this earlier this year actually. I noticed that there were discrepancies between in infraction list and the public rules and I fixed that when I became an admin. The infractions are all in the rules basically, there's no infraction that isn't covered in the rules and no rule that isn't covered in the infractions.

 

I don't mind giving a brief outline of how it's scaled so you get the idea, but I better check with the others first as I don't want to act unilaterally. But really, most stuff is just 1 or 2 points, there are a couple of severe ones for doing stuff like making racist attacks on people and the like, things that would get you in trouble with the police if you did it to a celebrity on twitter.

 

Could be worthwhile having the list in short form in the "public domain" for want of a better term? having them in a simple list form would totally remove the excuse of "not seeing them" in my book. it's not difficult to misread the rules as they are (see my hunting for the contact link), but it's nigh on impossible to miss them if they're bitesized.