No personal attacks here (in the forums). The chat doesn't have any rules, although people who start pissing people off will likely be kicked. The chat is a rather uncontrollable medium though, since people can just change their names and come right back in.
The use of insults as a joke did occur to me last night, and I added this to the current rule:
So if the "attacker" claims it was just a joke, and the person being attacked agrees that it was taken that way, it won't be seen as a personal attack, but as an attack made in jest. However, it would be a great help if you were to make attacks in jest with a distinguishing feature, such as the commonly used emoticon
or by adding </joke> or /joke afterwards. The "ban the moron above" thread is a obvious example of where personal attacks are made with the tacit understanding of everyone involved.
We aren't going to be a bunch of fascists about this. We are perfectly willing to have discussions with people if they want to defend what they said as a joke, or if they want to clear up offense caused privately with the other member(s). This rule is really a reminder to people that discussion is best had when you don't attack people for the opinions they have, but rather attack the opinions themselves.
On the fr0d0 comment; I believe that is the user theVOID, and at some point fr0d0 had a rebuke comment in his signature about theVOID, so it appears that both are fine with it being in jest. If one of them complains about the other, we will handle it otherwise.
Blanket statements are not allowed.
There will be no retrospective punishments handed out. What people posted in the past was allowed under the rules of the forum at that point. Only personal attacks made since 12th August 2010 will be covered by the new rule.
The use of insults as a joke did occur to me last night, and I added this to the current rule:
Quote:Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.
So if the "attacker" claims it was just a joke, and the person being attacked agrees that it was taken that way, it won't be seen as a personal attack, but as an attack made in jest. However, it would be a great help if you were to make attacks in jest with a distinguishing feature, such as the commonly used emoticon
or by adding </joke> or /joke afterwards. The "ban the moron above" thread is a obvious example of where personal attacks are made with the tacit understanding of everyone involved.We aren't going to be a bunch of fascists about this. We are perfectly willing to have discussions with people if they want to defend what they said as a joke, or if they want to clear up offense caused privately with the other member(s). This rule is really a reminder to people that discussion is best had when you don't attack people for the opinions they have, but rather attack the opinions themselves.
On the fr0d0 comment; I believe that is the user theVOID, and at some point fr0d0 had a rebuke comment in his signature about theVOID, so it appears that both are fine with it being in jest. If one of them complains about the other, we will handle it otherwise.
Blanket statements are not allowed.
There will be no retrospective punishments handed out. What people posted in the past was allowed under the rules of the forum at that point. Only personal attacks made since 12th August 2010 will be covered by the new rule.
