Quote:
Originally posted by orange
Oh and I only mentioned avatars before because if a member does not LIKE their own avatar being used by another person, they have every right to ask to have it removed out of common courtesy.
|
Unless it's their own photo or video they've captured, members don't own the rights to the videos and images they use as avatars, thus cannot have another member remove an avatar they have made, regardless of the "common courtesy."
Quote:
Originally posted by orange
You are saying simplify but when you look at the reports, it's not easy.
Maybe it'd be easier to simplify if everyone didn't throw a fit with everything.
You can't say mods shouldn't do something when reports still come in.
|
I understand, but to combat that, the rules should be simplified, and moreover,
straightforward. For instance, the first rule in NHB and SYG is an example and an immediate
red flag.
Quote:
You are NOT allowed to:
– Post shockingly offensive comments. Moderators will determine severity.
|
This rule is
not straightforward whatsoever and will, without a doubt, end up with moderators being notified by members to warn posts that
they feel are "shockingly offensive" -- what ever that means -- and will result in members complaining in HQ about their "shockingly offensive" post that received a warning. NHB and SYG needs to be straightforward and simple. That first rule is not simple -- not to the members, and not to the moderators who have to determine what is "shockingly offensive." Thus, the rule should to be removed from SYG and NHB to maintain simplicity. For instance, this is an example of what the rules of SYG shoud read:
Quote:
You are NOT allowed to:
– Post racist, sexist, or homophobic comments.
– Embed NSFW images and videos. It must be a link within a tag.
– Insult other members. That belongs in No Holds Barred.
|
VERY straightforward. VERY simple. The same principle applies to NHB.
Quote:
Originally posted by orange
Also, I still stand by the idea that if they were stated as warnings before, they are not new rules. |
Again, simplicity. Reasons like "Annoying," Stanning," and "Nonsense" arguably hold no purpose and should be removed (not to mention, "Nonsense" and "Annoying" are essentially one in the same). If you stop giving members reasons to report, reports will decrease. It's a very simple logic.
Furthermore, I know this suggestion has been said numerous times, but again, I strongly believe that the reports will decrease if moderators will start warning members for posts they have reported that do no not contain flamebait, insults, etc. I simply do not see why this rule can not be given, at the very least, a trial run for 6 months.
The first offense.
ATRL-o-matic: You are receiving this reminder because the following post you reported follows the guidelines of the forum.
Subsequent offenses.
ATRL-o-matic: You are receiving this warning because the following post you reported follows the guidelines of the forum.
...Vin
) I would point out that the fine text:
