Site Chat Behavior Expectations-General Discussion Standard

[McMenno]

zor tester 4 pagetop

[MafiaSSK]

I was. I've heard, in the vaguest of details, what the catalyst for this choice was and I now disagree more strongly than before I knew. I again don't know the details, but this rules change wont stop such an event from happening again, it will at best move where it happens. Nuke the fuck out of someone if they are being intentionally inappropriate with minors. Don't punish everyone else for it.

Out of curiosity, do you think FL should have been banned back in the day when I had this discussion with her? Keeping in mind that I was 14 at the time.

Let's just say a girlfriend was a little too fast as in she went to there at around 10 months of dating. Then after that things started to get really weird. And a week later, I broke up with her.

Ok...well then...

yeah...

Ah, what the hell, I'm damned anyway. Were you doing the tying or being tied up?

Tied up

[Cheery Dog]

but this time it didn't. jeez. no idea. at the very least, now users should be able to edit their posts without having to access it a different way.

I can't see an edit button on my post, and the new posts still probably does the same thing, which i think has usually been where it has been posted from in one of those unread posts or something, even though that's a rough guess of nothing.

[N]

On an unrelated note, I've moved things around so that global announcements are no longer put into a mafia forum where editing, etc. isn't allowed (this was only really a problem if you used ego post to get to it. If you accessed it through another forum, it'd use those permissions).

The biggest benefit (to my eyes) is that clicking the "go to first unread post" should now work, but we'll see.

this wasn't part of our "merge new york and little italy" deal. give me back my product placement!

[Espeonage]

Just going to point out that Sitechat has at times had mature discussions about sex when minors either weren't present or not making themselves known. Which is partially negligent, but I think also an indicator that a speakeasy only chat is good ideas.

On that note, can't we just take it upon ourselves to make a SE chat room?

[zoraster]

Just going to point out that Sitechat has at times had mature discussions about sex when minors either weren't present or not making themselves known. Which is partially negligent, but I think also an indicator that a speakeasy only chat is good ideas.

On that note, can't we just take it upon ourselves to make a SE chat room?

No.

[Majiffy]

Oh well then just ignore that SE chat room I made then

[mykonian]

Just going to point out that Sitechat has at times had mature discussions about sex when minors either weren't present or not making themselves known.

Or coincidentally left right as that discussion began, which happened enough that you could have noticed as well.

[Xkfyu]

People use site chat? The popup box at the bottom of the screen? All I've ever seen in that box is "Online Users (0)". What have I been missing?

[Randomnamechange]

Are you in the lobby? if no click join room next to lobby.

[CooLDoG]

if I say sex in site chat will I get banned?

[Oman]

There are more than 1 on 1 conversations and the lobby. You can make public rooms and private rooms. I think it's reasonable to request such topics be moved out of the lobby, I think saying they can't be talked about at all is ridiculous.

I was. I've heard, in the vaguest of details, what the catalyst for this choice was and I now disagree more strongly than before I knew. I again don't know the details, but this rules change wont stop such an event from happening again, it will at best move where it happens. Nuke the fuck out of someone if they are being intentionally inappropriate with minors. Don't punish everyone else for it.

I don't have time to respond to this thread before work but let's just say I'm with chamber. Making soft-handed policy changes instead of nuking people is what allowed NS to go as far as he did.

This is probably the most eyerolling limitation that has been placed on this site. I don't particularly want to talk about sex all the time in sitechat (in fact I think I've had one "mature" conversation in there regarding the night I got invited to a kink thing? And I did kind of want sounding boards in real-time). I have other outlets for that conversation, and 80% of the time I'm talking about netrunner in sitechat.

BUT! What are you trying to achieve? what is your desired outcome? If you have someone who is sexualising children (not talking about sex with children, not educating or providing support, which are drastically different things) but SEXUALISING CHILDREN, the solution is not to change the rules about SITECHAT.

Whatever, this change has happened, and it's going to continue happening. it isn't really going to impact me at all, and my frustration isn't going to achieve shit. Let me just say that, Mods, if you've got a problem with sex and children, do something real and effectual about it.

[Oman]

Oman (16:24)
What is the "GD Standard"
Oman (16:24)
literally
hiplop (16:24)
im not really surehiplop (16:25)
fwict its pre much the same but no sex /drugs
Oman (16:25)
Hiplop, the mod, enforcing the standard: "I'm not really sure what the standard is"
Firebringer (16:25)
hiplop have site mods even been enforcing any rules?
Oman (16:26)
#fireemoji #onehundred #Fireemoji
hiplop (16:26)
well
hiplop (16:26)
to be clear i know to be MORE ON THE LOOKOUT
hiplop (16:26)
basically we just have the power to interpret situations more

fireemoji

[zakk]

^ i endorse whatever argument he's making

[chamber]

I was. I've heard, in the vaguest of details, what the catalyst for this choice was and I now disagree more strongly than before I knew. I again don't know the details, but this rules change wont stop such an event from happening again, it will at best move where it happens. Nuke the fuck out of someone if they are being intentionally inappropriate with minors. Don't punish everyone else for it.

Out of curiosity, do you think FL should have been banned back in the day when I had this discussion with her? Keeping in mind that I was 14 at the time.

Let's just say a girlfriend was a little too fast as in she went to there at around 10 months of dating. Then after that things started to get really weird. And a week later, I broke up with her.

Ok...well then...

yeah...

Ah, what the hell, I'm damned anyway. Were you doing the tying or being tied up?

Tied up

I don't know? It seems reasonably borderline to me, and although I haven't kept in touch with her, I would have considered her a friend at one point, so I'm not the most unbiased source.

[Nexus]

I was. I've heard, in the vaguest of details, what the catalyst for this choice was and I now disagree more strongly than before I knew. I again don't know the details, but this rules change wont stop such an event from happening again, it will at best move where it happens. Nuke the fuck out of someone if they are being intentionally inappropriate with minors. Don't punish everyone else for it.

Since nothings been done about this, I'll kick off about it here.

Do you have proof this has happened? If you do not, then you should not be bringing it up because it could lead, and has sort of led to, a witch hunt.

People disseminating and spreading misinformation doesn't help things like this.

[Psyche]

People use site chat? The popup box at the bottom of the screen? All I've ever seen in that box is "Online Users (0)". What have I been missing?

that's something else

[chamber]

I was. I've heard, in the vaguest of details, what the catalyst for this choice was and I now disagree more strongly than before I knew. I again don't know the details, but this rules change wont stop such an event from happening again, it will at best move where it happens. Nuke the fuck out of someone if they are being intentionally inappropriate with minors. Don't punish everyone else for it.

Since nothings been done about this, I'll kick off about it here.

Do you have proof this has happened? If you do not, then you should not be bringing it up because it could lead, and has sort of led to, a witch hunt.

People disseminating and spreading misinformation doesn't help things like this.

You misinterpreted what I was saying before, and still are. I don't know details, so no, I have no proof. But I also wasn't making the accusation that it did happen. It was one possible case that I was addressing. I addressed it because it was the only one that actually needs to be addressed. If that wasn't what happened, there is no issue.

[Nexus]

I mean, you are making an accusation by virtue of bringing it up. You are implying that it has happened.

I've made my feelings clear to you, and the mod team. I'll shut up about it now.

[mykonian]

Ok, I haven't said my thing here yet, so my pov here.

I think the actual case that pushed this change through isn't the sole reason. I feel it's a change that was coming. I can't be so bothered with people being immature, am bothered by creepiness, but otherwise some conversations are better held in relative privacy. Previously there was the awkward situation where a good, but sexually related, discussion was driving people out of sitechat. On the one hand, the discussion is good and the freedom to get to talk about that can be really nice, on the other hand you want everybody to feel the same freedom. Most you heard about it were silent complaints or jokes how they didn't want to be around then. You don't want people to shut up, because you know they enjoy the topic and there's good discussion for them to be had, on the other hand some people may not enjoy detailed descriptions of last night.

I think with the situation being clear now, we can make the lobby an accepting place, and have simple arguments why some discussions should be redirected to private chats.

[hiplop]

Oman (16:24)
What is the "GD Standard"
Oman (16:24)
literally
hiplop (16:24)
im not really surehiplop (16:25)
fwict its pre much the same but no sex /drugs
Oman (16:25)
Hiplop, the mod, enforcing the standard: "I'm not really sure what the standard is"
Firebringer (16:25)
hiplop have site mods even been enforcing any rules?
Oman (16:26)
#fireemoji #onehundred #Fireemoji
hiplop (16:26)
well
hiplop (16:26)
to be clear i know to be MORE ON THE LOOKOUT
hiplop (16:26)
basically we just have the power to interpret situations more

fireemoji

Im not sure why you chose to cherry pick lines from me here?

[Oman]

I have spoken to hiplop and I misunderstood a few of those responses. I didn't mean to imply that he was a shitty mod, I meant to imply that the system doesn't have clear guidelines and that the mods haven't been given clear orders. I think I was wrong there. I'm going to leave it up as my crow to eat, but yeah, it looks like I inadvertently lost some stuff in translation there.

My love and respect to hiplop, sorry mate.

[kuribo]

It's like the legal definition of pornography.

"I know it when I see it."

[Xkfyu]

Are you in the lobby? if no click join room next to lobby.

There aren't any rooms listed for me on the Rooms tab.

[Kublai Khan]

Are you in the lobby? if no click join room next to lobby.

There aren't any rooms listed for me on the Rooms tab.

Could depend where you access it from? Site Chat works for me at home, but it doesn't when I'm at work.