First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply NOV 2017 - CHANGES RELATED TO THE GENERAL DISCUSSION (NOW MISCELLANEOUS) FORUM - Latest Site Rules / Forum Guidelines
36928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:
The good news is a political discussions section will hopefully appear soonish.


I second that I really think that the political threads should have their own section, that's not shown on the main page of the site, so that people who don't want to see them don't have to. It was absolutely ridiculous during the elections to see that almost every current thread in General Discussion was about them.

I also think that the site should have a block button on profiles, so that if you don't want to have interactions with that person, see their profile, or see their forum posts, you don't have to. I got sick of seeing the trolling, negative or harassing posts over and over from certain users.
36928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/9/17

TheAngryLittleAlchemist wrote:

Na i was lalughing because i basically said the same thing but was too awkward to keep it so i just edited out.

When he said "I think a lot more courtesy should be shown for women regarding invitations to do so"

I basically said that the beginning of the post was confusing because it made it sound like the modds were going through our pms without permission, and that after i read the bulleted part it was just common sense. Obviously if a user is sending sexual pms against the other users will then they should be banned, that is literally just common sense. and if two people were sexually pming each other there'd be no reason for one to report the other, so the first change doesn't really do anything at all because the mods don't actually look at the pms.

But I agree that that should probably be banned in general, although nobody is going to report another user if they're doing it consensually so the whole point about how it's banned in general doesn't really make sense to me since they don't go through pms without permission


Ah, I see. That makes sense now. I was just confused by you saying that because from what I've seen of your posts before, you seem like you're more respectful than that.
12018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/10/17

BlackRose0607

Ah, I see. That makes sense now. I was just confused by you saying that because from what I've seen of your posts before, you seem like you're more respectful than that.


Ahhh thanks I try to be a little respectful haha
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/10/17
I like the ideas of change i hope Cr includes troll threads in this clean up it's not just in general
but under crunchy connection where just a thread based on bait and troll exist.
8320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/9/17 , edited 2/9/17

qwueri wrote:

People were seriously soliciting for cybering? I guess I should be thankful to be ignorant of it.


Yes sir, I've even called specific people out on my own profile as to who these perverted bastards were/are.
121528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 2/9/17 , edited 2/10/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Cybersex invitations. I was considering the "allowance" of such lewd activities, alongside measures of a more obvious report or block button, but considering the age of several users here, and the intention to promote a non tinder like environment, I suppose the best option would be an outright ban. Sorry for the confusion.

I do not see any reason to actually cybersex here, we already have several apps that can be used for such purpose without the promotion of Crunchyroll as a Mos Eisley like hive of sexual conduct (Or rather misconduct). Thus I agree that Cybersex should be banned.


TheAngryLittleAlchemist wrote:

When he said "I think a lot more courtesy should be shown for women regarding invitations to do so"

I basically said that the beginning of the post was confusing because it made it sound like the modds were going through our pms without permission, and that after i read the bulleted part it was just common sense. Obviously if a user is sending sexual pms against the other users will then they should be banned, that is literally just common sense. and if two people were sexually pming each other there'd be no reason for one to report the other, so the first change doesn't really do anything at all because the mods don't actually look at the pms.

But I agree that that should probably be banned in general, although nobody is going to report another user if they're doing it consensually so the whole point about how it's banned in general doesn't really make sense to me since they don't go through pms without permission


Yeah. Personally, I'm a very sex-positive person, but CR just isn't the right place for it. Obviously if there's truly discreet and consensual PM sexual activity happening, mods will simply never hear of it, so no problem. A main concern has been that though cybersex on CR is not as rampant as some have suggested, it does happen and mods do hear about it. Sometimes it seems to be aggressive predatory behavior that is not okay, but it's not always clear. I've run into situations where it seemed to be miscommunication or poor judgment (one person thinks it's consensual, the other person doesn't or changes their mind), or deliberate drama-making, or just... complicated. It can be a mess, with no easy way for mods to determine what the full situation is. Most of us felt that cybersex activity was something there was no reason to tolerate on the site at all, and that it was therefore important to have a simple written rule saying so and to state up front how to handle unwanted PM attention, since a lot of users don't know about the block feature. More obvious report or block buttons would be nice, but I honestly don't think CR is going to put efforts into such things.


thanto_ wrote:
Once you establish a pattern, what do you do?

Per Rule 7, it's already against the rules to create alt accounts, especially to get around bans, but the rules only mention that the accounts may be banned on site. What do you do if someone keeps creating new accounts to harass someone? How do you deal with this?


Warnings, bans, and deletion of accounts. In some cases we might need to get customer service involved, and how they handle things is up to them.


MysteryMiss wrote:

I like the ideas of change i hope Cr includes troll threads in this clean up it's not just in general
but under crunchy connection where just a thread based on bait and troll exist.


This isn't so much a "clean up" as a policy going forward. The Crunchy Connections forums are intended to be more personal and in Chit Chat especially it's okay to be quirky and random conversational, so threads there do get assessed a bit differently from the main Discussion forums. However, it's still going to be required that some effort be put into starting a conversation. For example, a thread titled "Hubba hubba" with an opening post that consists of just an image or an unidentified link and nothing more would be subject to being closed, and wouldn't be exempt just because it's in Chit Chat.


DevinKuska wrote:

In regards to rule #2, I would hope the mods would take each thread on a case by case basis. Otherwise I would think the forum would be pretty devoid of content. For instance if Someone wanted to have a thread to talk about show X, and just labeled it as such. Looking at rule #2 it would be crushed by the mods. However looking through the forums that's 99% of what these threads are...


It won't be so much a "thread by thread" case by case situation -- too much of that can look like bias, though we do still act using our own discretion within reason. It's more likely to be a "type by type" basis. In the Anime forum I will be encouraging Show Discussion thread starters to add something more than what seems to be the current common boilerplate, but we do understand that not a lot is needed for these standard threads to generate appropriate on-topic activity with minimal opening post content. As long as the title is "[Name of Show] Discussion" and there is some information about the show in the opening post, they should be fine. However, announcement and anticipation threads should definitely include contributions from the OP that go beyond just links and pictures. What this may mean is that when folks want to post anime news without sharing their own thoughts or asking brief discussion-invoking questions, they'll start using some of the existing reference/informational threads -- like the Greenlit/TBA thread, or the individual season threads-- for sharing new information. A few years back that actually was more common, and those threads were more collaborative with a number of people bringing info into them. I wouldn't mind seeing that happen again.
12018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 2/9/17 , edited 2/10/17

lorreen

Yeah. Personally, I'm a very sex-positive person, but CR just isn't the right place for it. Obviously if there's truly discreet and consensual PM sexual activity happening, mods will simply never hear of it, so no problem. A main concern has been that though cybersex on CR is not as rampant as some have suggested, it does happen and mods do hear about it. Sometimes it seems to be aggressive predatory behavior that is not okay, but it's not always clear. I've run into situations where it seemed to be miscommunication or poor judgment (one person thinks it's consensual, the other person doesn't or changes their mind), or deliberate drama-making, or just... complicated. It can be a mess, with no easy way for mods to determine what the full situation is. Most of us felt that cybersex activity was something there was no reason to tolerate on the site at all, and that it was therefore important to have a simple written rule saying so and to state up front how to handle unwanted PM attention, since a lot of users don't know about the block feature. More obvious report or block buttons would be nice, but I honestly don't think CR is going to put efforts into such things.


Thank you for the lengthy, detailed, and respectful response lorreen/One Punch Mod!! You are awesome

P.S. I just realized my previous status and profile pic make my questions look more devious but that is just a coincidence
2433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
633.0
Offline
Posted 2/9/17 , edited 2/10/17
I may have neither questions nor concerns, but I want to voice my support for these new changes. I feel like positive reinforcement is a good thing, and both of these changes are most appreciated from my perspective as just an average user.

Number 2, along with some interesting methods for containing certain topics created by other users, might just be enough to get me to look at GD again. Right now at least, it seems much better than I remember it being last time I checked in here (however many months ago that was)

7859 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

lorreen wrote:

It won't be so much a "thread by thread" case by case situation -- too much of that can look like bias, though we do still act using our own discretion within reason. It's more likely to be a "type by type" basis. In the Anime forum I will be encouraging Show Discussion thread starters to add something more than what seems to be the current common boilerplate, but we do understand that not a lot is needed for these standard threads to generate appropriate on-topic activity with minimal opening post content. As long as the title is "[Name of Show] Discussion" and there is some information about the show in the opening post, they should be fine. However, announcement and anticipation threads should definitely include contributions from the OP that go beyond just links and pictures. What this may mean is that when folks want to post anime news without sharing their own thoughts or asking brief discussion-invoking questions, they'll start using some of the existing reference/informational threads -- like the Greenlit/TBA thread, or the individual season threads-- for sharing new information. A few years back that actually was more common, and those threads were more collaborative with a number of people bringing info into them. I wouldn't mind seeing that happen again.


I appreciate your response and it certainly makes sense. My concern was simply the rule as was posted was rather generalized and broad in scope and width.However upon you expounding a bit more the rule seems much more appropriate. I appreciate threads like this as I should not have to have a legal degree to be able to decipher new rules implemented, neither would it be reasonable to expect mods/CR to write out every rule to weed out every concern. I appreciate your time and considerations responding to my concerns..
17983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Two Steps From Hell
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

DevinKuska wrote:

I appreciate your response and it certainly makes sense. My concern was simply the rule as was posted was rather generalized and broad in scope and width.However upon you expounding a bit more the rule seems much more appropriate. I appreciate threads like this as I should not have to have a legal degree to be able to decipher new rules implemented, neither would it be reasonable to expect mods/CR to write out every rule to weed out every concern. I appreciate your time and considerations responding to my concerns..


I believe the rule is meant to stop "one-liners" which is a case that's been rampant in the forums for many years. Many people come and go posting single lines of "I enjoyed this show," return the next episode and repeat the same line. Not that it's necessarily bad to say things like that but the concept of the "encourage discussion" rule is to provide contribution in a way that allows for people to debate the good or bad points of a show. It adds more to those lines by encouraging users to explain their enjoyment. I don't think this will hurt regular thread commentators though since most of the ones I've witnessed tend to elaborate their reasons of enjoyment/dislike.

Additionally, many users have resorted to posting their blog links for views or what not, and simply leave their links at that. Personally, prior to this rule implementation, I felt that they, the link posters, removed conversation away from the thread itself. The ruling makes those incidents have more contribution by posting a general synopsis of the thoughts rather than "click-baiting."
Ejanss 
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/15/17 , edited 2/16/17

uncletim wrote:

Number 2 is crack down on Rick rolling?


It's a crackdown on drunk/hipster drive-by posts by teenage "random" fans:

"Concrete is cool. Just wanted to say. (drops mic)"

(Not that those ever get Mod-bashed: "Please elucidate, for the better of our conversation--What has been your experience with concrete, so we can have a more active discussion?"
Whether such posts get official bans or not, comes down to that central issue we've been hashing out with Lorreen over the past year, Ie. "How inhumanly gullible can you BE??? ")
2558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M
Online
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/27/17
ack. Posting political tirades in a place where otaku go to meet makes about as much sense as putting up an ad for a satellite launch company.
3873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Gahmann wrote:

ack. Posting political tirades in a place where otaku go to meet makes about as much sense as putting up an ad for a satellite launch company.


it's coming... a separate political section in 2030 ?


also, what is the rule regarding quoting in this forums ?

what's the limit ? some users will not bother using spoiler tag or cut the original message down.. so it will be less scrolling just to read 1 short sentence at the end
121528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

dulun18 wrote:

it's coming... a separate political section in 2030 ?

I've heard no news on that front.


also, what is the rule regarding quoting in this forums ?

what's the limit ? some users will not bother using spoiler tag or cut the original message down.. so it will be less scrolling just to read 1 short sentence at the end


We'll generally leave things alone as long as there's not more than three levels of posts being quoted.

When I trim posts by others that exceed three quote levels, I generally trim down to leave just one quote level.

It is always appreciated and sensible to cut the parts of a long single post to include only the parts most relevant to the reply, but we don't have a rule about it. If I see someone has quoted an enormous post, I'll sometimes add a spoiler tag to it, but I don't make a big fuss about it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.