One More Block

YES YES THANKS EVERYONE I'M HERE ALL WEEK

'everyone who posts youtube videos are breaking this copyright rule' is always a bullshit argument.

it means don't post links to torrents or similar things. If it's on youtube and hasn't been taken down and wasn't put up there yourself it's really ok.
good points otherwise

papaya wrote:'everyone who posts youtube videos are breaking this copyright rule' is always a bullshit argument.

it means don't post links to torrents or similar things. If it's on youtube and hasn't been taken down and wasn't put up there yourself it's really ok.
good points otherwise

Then it should have said "Don't promote torrents or piracy". The "Everyone who posts youtube videos are breaking the copyright rule" is 100% correct, when taken at face value. It just comes down to a matter of interpretation.

First and foremost, stop stealing mah gifs Miniike. You're worse than computo.

Secondly, TLL whereas some of your points are valid, you appear to be picking at very small flaws.

For rule 1- Yes, we have had some attacking users in jest. If you want quotes I can get them tomorrow. Too tired to do so now.

Rule 2- Yes occasional can be different for some people, but I don't think inserting a swear in between every single word like some internet users do can be classified as occasional.

Rule 4- See papayas post

Rule 5- Do you really need a joke account called santa claus or britany spears? Yes we have our own santa claus, but we have made sure he only posts once a year as a christmas gift.

Rule 6- Evidently it is not retroactive, or you wouldn't be here.

Anyway, we did ask for your opinions and you have voiced them, and these are my opinions.

Edit: Streetlights Ninja'd me and generally says the same things I'm saying here, but here's my take if it helps. I already wrote it, so why not

Rule 1. "Do not attack other users, even if it's just in jest..."
As far as I know, this wasn't even a problem, and if we're saying that saying x is bad even if you're kidding, that extends to a whole lot more than "attacking other users in jest".

In other words, you can't call another user idiotic/racist/"gay"/etc. You may be joking, but especially with text on an internet where everything is permanent, you don't know how the other person is really interpreting it. It creates a bad environment, and, quite frankly, there are just so many more amusing forms of humor.

TheLastLink wrote:And then it links to a whole article about "how to disagree" (which is implied that everyone must read in the next sentence), when you could just say "Don't resort to ad hominem attacks and don't call people names".

In the past, we've deleted posts with content that we considered to be personal attacks. People have responded by saying that we're "not allowing criticism", and this isn't true. Our intention with the linked article is to clarify how people should be voicing their disagreement.

The article makes it pretty clear why it's better for disagreements to be phrased in this way, and DH2 is a pretty darn low bar. I personally would actually like it to be a higher. Criticizing an author's tone (DH3) isn't very effective or useful.

This doesn't really mean anything, seeing as how "occasional" probably means something different to everybody. And then this goes to the issue of what exactly the goal is.

We just don't want people swearing at literally every conceivable opportunity, just because they can.

Rule 4. Everybody on the forum is banned then? I guarantee that all the active users have posted "copyrighted materials" in the form of youtube videos. And furthermore, it makes no sense that users shouldn't post copyrighted material, and yet anything related to Atmosphir is given a pass. It doesn't make any sense at all. What is the point?

Youtube videos are fine, we just don't want posting links to copyrighted games, movies, etc. Y'know, stuff that could get the website in trouble. Pretty standard rule on most websites. Can you suggest a better way we could phrase it, that would make it clear that Youtube videos are allowed? We could say "Don't promote torrents or piracy", but torrents can be legal, and 'piracy' is just a word for "illegally obtaining copyrighted content".

Atmosphir is copyrighted, but it's not clear who owns the copyright, and it's not generating revenue for anyone anymore, so it's unlikely to get the website in trouble. A former version of the rules specified Minor Studios-created software as an exception, but I took it out because it made the rule seem overly-long. I figured that in near future, the Atmosphir download will probably be a link at the top of the website rather than a forum post. Should I add the exception back in?

Rule 5. Again, why? Why can't I have a joke account called Santa Claus or Britney Spears (You could say it's to prevent spamming, but spamming is already against the rules)?

It's a pretty standard rule. We don't want people creating multiple identities to manipulate polls, win arguments via nonexistent conesensus, etc.

What's wrong with browsing with a proxy? And there isn't even any point to using one unless you're banned, if you're banned, it's a moot point anyway (And it's not like you can know about it if someone is using a proxy).
Another unnecessary and nonsensical one.

It's actually pretty easy to figure out who is using a proxy. If we allow them, we can't effectively enforce bans or bar the creation of alternate accounts. They also happen to be a good way to figure out who is and is not a spambot.

Rule 6. I really hope that this isn't retroactive, because if it is, everyone who just came back is guilty.

None of these rules are retroactive.

I'd like to point out that most of these rules aren't TOO "problematic".
I guess I may have been nitpicking when I wasn't really intending to (It's a habit).

What I was trying to say that they were very unclear and not very well-written.

How could they be written better? As one of the main writers, I've already phrased them to the best of my ability and I do think they're well written, so I'd like to know what/how could be phrased better.

the thing is though these are rules that are mostly common sense and are only for a small community of people

they don't need to be 100% legally accurate and perfect rules since most of them are generic rules you'd find on any other forum.

Yeah, that is a fair point. I have appreciated hearing back from you guys and I am glad that the overall impression was a positive and supportive one

Important note!!

The rules have been applied, thank you so much for all of your input! This does not mean discussion on this topic needs to end, but rather I am always interested in hearing your feedback! PM me if necessary, keep me updated!

congrats omb

ya blew it and now it is all dry

no questions.

I know this issue was already resolved, but I just wanted to say that technically a lot of the work being done on the Atmosphir servers does involve a significant amount of reverse engineering.

Also:

Rule 1. Do not attack other users, even if it's just in jest

I have, on a few occasions, told StreetLights that I hated him. Both he and I were well aware that I of course didn't (and don't) hate him at all. Is that sort of thing banned now? I guess I don't necessarily have a problem with it being banned, but I was just wondering.

I assume this rule is trying to define the line between a friendly joking and randomly flinging insults and then claiming you didn't mean them, so I don't know, maybe that's something else we can discuss.

Great point, I am glad you brought that up. Exactly, it is a really hard line to walk. I think, in generally it will need to be handled on a case by case basis. We cannot turn the rules into a spider-web of situations and actions. So, while I would refrain from extensive, harsh or insensitive comments - minor little things will likely be handled a bit differently.

But yeah, great great concern. I am very curious as to what others think!

I think joking insults can be dismissed under two conditions:

1) They aren't overly filthy or slanderous. "I hate you" can be dismissed, but insults pertaining to...private parts can't.

2) They don't come off as insensitive for other reasons. What I mean when I say that is that it shouldn't pertain to the holocaust or anything like that.

there's no need to like put out a set of rules that define precisely what is and isn't harmless banter
if the mods really think it's a problem, they should pull the user aside and have them explain themselves

these are rules for 20 or so people on an internet forum, not laws for an entire city

That's true. My post was meant as more of a guideline (for lack of a better word) than anything.

Yeah, I think things will be dealt with as they come up. For the most part, all of you know if you are pushing the lines of what is allowed or not. So, in most cases, if you aren't disrupting or upsetting anyone - you'll be alright! Also, politeness - politeness is always appreciated

Of course nobody has accounted for the fact that someone could conceivably get upset (unreasonably so) over nothing.

What then?

You can't honestly side with that someone who gets upset/offended over something that shouldn't have upset/offended them in the first place, and then say it was reasonable.