The Rules
Jakkal
wanted to go ahead and post about the two that are confusing the users
the most right now: Porn and Idling.
Of course, the rules were always posted on the CR website, and the
motd's/logonnews used to display the URL there. It was only removed
when Therianthropy.Org switched hosts (I didn't realize Uath didn't
upload the CR site, but he only uploaded the Forums). But we're going
to redo the whole set of rules, so that's moot now.
The following information is for the Network as a whole, but certain
channels will be mentioned specifically:
-Rule about Sex and Porn stuff:
Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay,
as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes
visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to
arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or
'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with
sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made
to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and
text descriptions.
The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the
following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good
judgement here.
Users who violate this rule may be subject to administrative action as
deemed appropriate by the administrators.
-Rules about Idling:
Our definition of Idling: People who are either AFK, or are not
actively paying attention to IRC. People who are paying attention to
IRC but not talking do not fall under the definition of "Idling".
However, in order to prove that you're not AFK or Idle, you may be
asked to respond in a timely manner. Failure to do so may get you
kicked.
Users who have on auto-rejoin may be temporarily banned just to keep
clients from immediately reconnecting when kicked.
#therianthropy - 1 hour. You need to be paying attention to this
channel. Active participation is requested.
#crossroads - 3 hours. If you need to run to town or something, you're
okay. But don't make it excessive. We want people who join the channel
to know that people who are there are generally active.
Serverside Idling: 6 hours. We know some people stay connected as like
an IM thing, but you can use Memoserv for that as well. Don't make it
excessive or leave your irc client up just because.
To Ops:You do not need to constantly watch idle times. If you see
someone idling excessively, you're authorized to kick if they do not
respond. If you kick a user for being idle, please include the idle
time in the kick message.
-Channel Creation: There has never been a limit on user created
channels. You can create a channel simply by joining it. It does not
need to exist before you can join it. The rule confused with this is
Channel Registration (On Chanserv). You need to talk to an Admin
before you're allowed to register a channel. (We will have more
information for this later). Again, we're trusting you to use your
judgement on this. Joining a billion channels just because you can
will get you /killed.
--
I hope this clears some stuff up.
Chris Robinson
> Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are okay,
> as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes
> visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to
> arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or
> 'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with
> sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made
> to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and
> text descriptions.
What about things that aren't explicit in showing/describing "bits", but still
arouse? What may arouse me may not arouse someone else, etc. What may be
tasteful nudity to one person may be porn to another. If you take an image
like this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/404598/
..one could argue it is designed to arouse, with the expressions and implied
activity.. but the subjects are fully clothed and there's no "naughty" things
going on. Or what if you have a very well drawn image of a naked female
spread out on a grassy field. I even asked an admin once about such a picture
and though they'd have erred on the side of caution and said its not allowed,
they admitted they weren't really sure if it was tasteful nude or porn. Then
there's the phenomenon of taking a tasteful nude of a female, replacing the
subject with a male, and its all of a sudden seen as porn even though nothing
else has changed.
When it comes to art, there's a very large gray area between tasteful and
porn. If there's even a distinction at all.. why can't porn be tasteful?
What about euphemisms in chat? It's practically a tradition in #crossroads to
take comments out of context and put them into the topic because they sound
sexual, what about that?
> The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the
> following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
> Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good
> judgement here.
Some would consider discussions about sex being not safe for work. Same as
heavy cussing, or tasteful nudity. IMO, violence and heavy swearing is more
NSFW than explicit nudity, but someone else may not think so. Of course it
also depends on where you work.
Believing Wolf
Bearcat
way they are written as well. When it comes to rules i want things to
be written as clearly as possible. I love the first part of the rule
dealing with explicit material. I think Jakkal did an excellent job on
that one. They are fair and not too restrictive (to me anyway).
The second part about the NSFW i don't like. It contradicts the first
part. I don't know of *any* non-erotica oriented work places where
nudes would be OK to display. Even in a mechanics office the line is
drawn at bikinis. I think this paragraph just adds to the confusion of
things. To someone that was not familiar with the network, this
second paragraph just adds needless confusion.
MoonWind
Jakkal
Chris and BC tell me is that our rules aren't restrictive /enough/ and
I thought you guys wanted us NOT to make uber restrictive rules.
We CANNOT make rules for EVERY LITTLE TINY SITUATION that comes up.
That's why we said we're trusting YOU to use YOUR BEST JUDGEMENT. If
you are incapable of that much, then somehow I doubt you'll be able to
participate on the Crossroads Network.
The "First Part" is the rule. Period. That's the way we've set it and
that's what we're sticking to. We knew people, such as Chris has
demonstrated, would either not be able to figure it out, or would try
to nitpick the fine details and such ignore the rule in the process
because it's apparently not specific enough.
The "Rule of Thumb" is not /the rule/, it's a /rule of thumb/. I
thought that was a clear expressive term at this point, and I thought
all the people of Crossroads would be able to understand that without
me whipping out the super undiabably specific Lawyereese (Which I know
you wouldn't understand).
A "Rule of Thumb" is not the definitive rule, it's a general
guideline on how to proceed with something if you're unsure about it.
For most of what Chris posted, his entire post could have been avoided
if he used the Rule Of Thumb method of determination. "Well I'm
unsure about this picture, how should I go about posting it? Is it
safe for work? Yes? Okay I'll post it." "Is it safe for work? No? I
guess I shouldn't post it."
Now I know I've told you guys in the past that one thing that really
drives me up the wall is stupid, nonsensitical, pointless nitpickery.
Don't do that here.
Bearcat
"What Chris and BC tell me is that our rules aren't restrictive /
enough/ and
I thought you guys wanted us NOT to make uber restrictive rules. "
No. What i'm expressing is that NSFW does *not* generally mean that
you can display nudity, curse, and talk about things like
therianthropy around the water cooler. I suppose i am taking NSFW to
mean literally innapropreate for most work environments.
Again, the rule is fine. I loved it when i first saw it. I will follow
it. I will help others follow it. Let it stay the way it is. Yay!
However, I feel the second part does not encompass it and will be
confusing to some people whom are not familiar with the network. Big
deal. That's all i was saying. I am willing to explain it to anyone
who is confused.
(As a side note, i would understand lawyereese and would prefer it,
but i do not expect others to use it or do the work to get our rules
to that state).
<-----I am now done with the above, but if you wanna discuss it
further that's cool.----------->
As far as not making a rule for every little situation i do understand
why people want that. Chris *is* being nitpicky here. Perhaps a little
bit too much, but i do understand where he is coming from. The porn
rule was not enforced at all for years and then *WHAM* the hammer
comes down and people don't even know what happened, just that a bomb
went off. Then it posted that total bans would be INSTANT and without
question. This networks is very important to some people, including
myself and a permanent ban would be a huge loss. *That* is what
created this need for nitpickery. When faced with that threat, of
course some people are going to want to know *exactly* what they
should and should not do and some people are gonna be to scared to
touch it at all.
"Now I know I've told you guys in the past that one thing that really
drives me up the wall is stupid, nonsensitical, pointless nitpickery.
Don't do that here."
I don't understand why you feel the need to be insulting here, but
then again you and I have gone 'round about that before. This time
though it is directed at me. If you ask me for me opinion i'm going to
give it to you regardless how "stupid" or "pointless" you think it may
be. The idea that it is "stupid" or "pointless" is *your* opinion, be
that as it may and i will not second guess what you may think is an
intelligent comment at any given moment to save your eyes from it. I
don't what the point would be of asking for opinions and then being
unwilling to go into the details.
I'd be glad to talk about all this here, in chat or one on one. I
don't have internet access at my house right now (i am staying late
and typing this up at work) but i should have access later if the snow
lets up and the lines get repaired.
I do respect your opinion and i look forward to working this out with
you.
Bearcat
calming down?), but i can understand your frustration at trying to get
the rules worked out Jakkal. This must be like herding cats (and i
know how difficult i'd be to herd). Thank you for doing so and
including us in the process. I realize that you wouldn't have to.
Also, please remember folks that if people have a question on what is
apporpreate they can ask an admin an know that their ass is covered
provided that they follow the admins ruling. The rules don't have to
be exact if people know they can ask for clarifications and feel safe
doing so.
MoonWind
Rish
be.
You were born with a brain, use it before posting links. C'mon.
Bearcat
explained by an admin when an unsure user asks said amin may i post
such-and-such-link. If there isn't an admin around and you are
unsure, don't post it on the network.
MoonWind
Bearcat
Bearcat
editing of course. (and i think my last attempt at posting this
failed)
I read over all of these posts again. Reading over the second
paragraph of the rules again i realized that i'm getting hung up on
the words "Rule of thumb." I'm not sure if they are being used
correctly here or not, as the definitions i can find pertain to
estimation of measurements in inches. I was reading it as "In
summary of the above paragraph do not post links that are not safe for
work." Obviously (to me anyway), not safe for work is not a summary
of the above rules and why would a summary be warranted anyway?
If i ignore that phrase and how i was interpreting it, i take you to
mean that "If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed
inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to
instruct you (or won't look at possibly icky stuff :P ) do not post
the link if you would not be comfortable publicly displaying it's
contents in your average place of business." If that's what it means
then awesome. Great. I love the new rules.
MoonWind
Jakkal
> If i ignore that phrase and how i was interpreting it, i take you to
> mean that "If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed
> inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to
> instruct you (or won't look at possibly icky stuff :P ) do not post
> the link if you would not be comfortable publicly displaying it's
> contents in your average place of business." If that's what it means
> then awesome. Great. I love the new rules.
Yes, that's what it means. But since it took people to get to this
point, we need to take out "We're trusting you to use your best
judgement." If anything I've learned that I cannot trust anyone's
"best judgement".
Tria...@gmail.com
author is email only. I am also taking the liberty of putting down
Jakkals reply.
1."Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are
okay,
as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that includes
visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant to
arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or
'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with
sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or made
to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and
text descriptions. "
2a."The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the
following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good
judgement here."
Tasteful nudity is generally not safe for work , therefore, as a rule
of thumb, "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The Crossroads
Network." is not really applicable and should either be removed or
edited. 2b, if used, would exclude all nudity, profanity, and even
downright educational discussions about taboo topics. It's a poor
rule of thumb, period, I cannot stress that more. The sentiment that
one is expected to use ones own judgement is probably good enough.
Although as an example of nitpicking, I would say that I think it is
really a meaningless statement, as you are essentially asking them to
use your own judgement, and not theirs. Good and judgement have
relative, egoist values.
Part of Chris' argument directly relates to this. It is *very
difficult* to create a rule of thumb on this topic because the words
pornography, tasteful, and arousing are value laden and subject to the
individuals interpretation. Rule 34 of the internet "If it
exists, there is porn of it" is a perfect example. Expectoration
fetishes, people who "get off" to sneezing, etc, etc. But honestly,
I'm not sure why we need a rule of thumb, because 1. is *very* clear
about what is acceptable (except for the "meant to arouse" part, see
Rule 34. I might suggest removing it as well. It is superfluous and
stated twice, redundant.)
Call it what you may Jakkal, but our "nitpicking" may just be in your
best interests. And in the end, the proposed solution won't break
your back.
-------------------------------------------
Jakkals response
Tasteful nudity is generally not safe for work , therefore, as a
rule
of thumb, "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
Crossroads
Network." is not really applicable and should either be removed or
edited.
The rule of thumb is nothing more than a way to figure out if you
should post something or not, because we knew people wouldn't have
different interpretations of the rule, no matter how we word it. Why?
Because we're trying to be open with it, we're TRYING to make it open
to interpretation so people don't have to worry about every little
thing. If you're afraid a picture might be crossing the line, you use
the rule of thumb. That's why we said, "tasteful nudity is okay" but
as others have pointed out, they might think an erect penis is
'tasteful'. So use the rule of thumb if you really can't figure it
out. That's why it's there.
2b, if used, would exclude all nudity, profanity, and even
downright educational discussions about taboo topics. It's a poor
rule of thumb, period, I cannot stress that more.
I disagree. There's no other way to word it to make people understand
without showing us every single picture for fear that they might be
banned. That's why I said we're leaving it up to their best judgement.
You're missing the forest for the trees for a "rule of thumb" that
would help people figure out if they should post something or not.
The sentiment that
one is expected to use ones own judgement is probably good
enough.
But as others have said, they think porn is "tasteful". They think
"any anthro is arousing". They simple /do not know/ where the line is.
That's why the rule of thumb exists as a simple catch-all if people
can't understand the rule (which they obviously do not).
Although as an example of nitpicking, I would say that I think it
is
really a meaningless statement, as you are essentially asking them
to
use your own judgement, and not theirs. Good and judgement have
relative, egoist values.
And that is *exactly* what the rule of thumb is for. Thank you for
making my point crystal clear.
Part of Chris' argument directly relates to this. It is *very
difficult* to create a rule of thumb on this topic because the
words
pornography, tasteful, and arousing are value laden and subject to
the
individuals interpretation.
But the rule of thumb covers that. If you can't figure it out, then if
it's not safe for work, you probably shouldn't post it. I don't see
how that's anything but clear. True, that covers "tasteful nudity"
like Michaelangelo's David. So then the solution is simple, don't post
a picture of Michaelangelo's David.
Rule 34 of the internet "If it exists,
there is porn of it" is a perfect example. Expectoration
fetishes,
people who "get off" to sneezing, etc, etc. But honestly, I'm
not
sure why we need a rule of thumb, because 1. is *very* clear about
what is acceptable (except for the "meant to arouse" part, see
Rule
34. I might suggest removing it as well. It is superfluous and
stated twice, redundant.)
Nitpickery.
Call it what you may Jakkal, but our "nitpicking" may just be in
your
best interests. And in the end, the proposed solution won't break
your back.
No, what's in our best interests are solutions to the problems, not
nitpicking the rules because one doesn't like them. If you'd like to
take a stab at rewording it so people will stop missing the forest for
the trees, then feel free. That would be helpful. Right now, no one is
doing anything other than telling us they can't figure out the rule.
Tria...@gmail.com
if
it's not safe for work, you probably shouldn't post it. "
See now when you add "If you can't figure it out" that puts the whole
thing together. It makes sense. That's not what's going on in the
statement you provided. And I think a lot of silly bickering could
have been prevented if that phrase (or a softer variant) had been
used.
"If you'd like to take a stab at rewording it so people will stop
missing the forest for
the trees, then feel free."
Actually, that's what I was trying to suggest. In fact:
If text or content you want to share does not apply to the above
rules, then use the more cautious rule: "If it's not safe for work,
it's not safe for The Crossroads Network." If it would get you fired,
don't send it. You can share questionable material in plenty other
places.
is my suggestion to replace:
"The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the
following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good
judgement here. "
My version adds the "if" telling users that the rule of thumb follows
after the previous rule fails. it turns the "rule of thumb" into a
rule, because it has a stronger meaning, and I added a suggestion for
alternative behavior to seeking to post that content here.
"Right now, no one is doing anything other than telling us they can't
figure out the rule."
Really there is no reason to be rude here. So far you've dismissed
*everyone* in this thread that has asked you to clarify the rules, as
being nitpicky. But it seems like you haven't been paying attention
to their complaints. The two "rules" (which I previously attributed
numbers to) contradict. You couldn't see that because you were
inferring extra information that the rest of us did not have. Your
rule of thumb is merely a substitute, but that's not explicitly clear
in the rules you've shared with us. Even after you explained to
Bearcat that the rule of thumb is a cover-all replacement, you still
don't seem to understand that when reading it, the rest uf us aren't
seeing that being made clear.
Bearcat
*everyone* in this thread that has asked you to clarify the rules, as
being nitpicky."
I think i can clear up some of this, at least as pertains to myself.
I may be wrong, but i think i figured out what happened here. Part of
the problem is that Jakkal's response to me is based on a post which i
sent to the Admin list which the rest of you don't see and is
outdated. Here's the time line:
1) On the 1/8/2007 Bowtie posted the following as the MOTD:
"ATTENTION ALL USERS. It has come to the attention of some admin
that smut and other conversations or actions of a graphic sexual
nature have been discussed or posted on this network, both in public
and in private. THIS IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, FORBIDDEN. VIOLATORS
WILL BE BANNED WITHOUT WARNING. If you want to talk smut, go to a
network suitable for it."
2) On 2/7/2007 i posted my comments about the rule as it was written
at that time in the MOTD on the Crossroads admin list.
3) On 2/9/2007 Jakkal, Bow, Rish and myself talked about the rules.
Jakkal suggested a wording and we all liked it.
4) On 2/12/2007 i posted a comment based on the second paragraph of
the sex-posting rules posted at the top of *this* thread not anything
in the MOTD or anything previous to the discussion the admins had on
2/9/2007.
Jakkal, you came down on me as though i wanted more clarification on
the rules as written above. You and Bow seem to be confusing Chris and
my posts together or something. In the post on 2/7/2007 on the other
list, i did ask for more clarifications, however that has no bearing
on my post from 2/12/2007 and no bearing on how i see things now
because things were *completely* different when i wrote the post on
2/12/2007.
In that post i was trying to think of all of the permeations of the
rules as they stood *then*, which is not the way things stand now. I
made this post on the 7th which is days ago and old news. In my post
of the 12th i was *not* attempting to say that i thought the rules
weren't good, just that i was uncomfortable with the words "rule of
thumb" given the previous paragraph. I wanted that paragraph stricken
or re-written. I have rewritten it and so far no-one has has said
anything on that.
Bow, Jakkal Rish and others:
I am going to be "nitpicky" about the rules of this place. I care
enough about this place to do that. I care enough about this place to
spend the time working out the wording. When rules are posted they
have to be clear, concise and easy to understand by all. That is not
an easy thing to accomplish. No, Rish we can not just "Use the brains
we were born with" as new people will not have your/our understanding
and experience with the network.
For instance, if i and another person found the words "rule of thumb"
unclear, it's not that we are stupid its that the wording is unclear
to some people.
Also, PLEASE stop assuming that people just want to barge in to your
house and cover the walls with Hustler magazine. When these rules
were not enforced i wasn't seeing that happen, and i don't see any
reason why this network would become irc.furnet.net (which from what
i have seen isn't as bad as people say it is anyway). We have people
like the four of us and others to make sure that would not happen. We
tend to attract the personalties that would not allow that to happen,
and the rules will further ensure that will not happen. Again, i like
the rules.
We don't all pass the porn around to deliberatly arouse each other
while we think about what we might look like in a sexy pink nighty.
As far as i know noone does that. :) To be honest, when porn was
linked it was always drawings/digital work and not photos or what have
you. It was critqued: "What do you think of that pic?", Something is
wrong with the angle of the left leg", or "nice". It wasn't "ohh, i'm
gonna go paw off now, fap fap fap" or "that's hawt". Again, i'm not
making an argument for looser porn rules or trying to prove that porn
is ok on the network. I'm just saying that i think your imaginings of
"smut" flying everywhere and virtual floors sticky with semen are
overblown and frankly a bit insulting to the majority of us.
You asked for opinions and we are giving them. Again, thank you for
that. We don't have "stupid" and "pointless" opinions, we aren't all
drooling perverts who can't get laid. We have brains and we do use
them thank you. Please quit insulting us.
MoonWind
Bowtie
you seemed just fine and dandy what we came up with.
Now, suddenly, in here, you're not.
I'm sure Jakkal will have much, much more to say on this matter.
And .. again .. for the god-knows-how-many-th time...
We're asking for input. Not opinion.
But, given the opinions I've been seeing about, "just let it all in,"
what am I supposed to think about the users? Some seem real
interested in pushing this back as far as they can get it.
And for the record, I don't know what your experiences with Furnet
are. I went there for a couple of months off and on to talk to *one*
person. I never joined any other channels, but I did do a channels
list. Now, I don't know what goes on in said channels, but the list
is... well... interesting.
579 total channels, so forgive me if I don't list all but what are, in
my opinion, highlights. #maleyiff, #babyfurs, #raisedtailcafe,
#bondagefurs, #forcedyiff, #dragonyiff, #hermsyiff, #rotten (the
anything-that-goes fetish channel,) #zoo, #oralyiff, #rubberfurs,
#cumsalot, #bondage.de, #diaperlovers, #FurryVore, #horseyiff,
#oviposition, #hyperyiff, #group_yiff, #inflation, #MacroYiff,
#nymphofurs, #vore, #ageplay, #ageregression, #domination,
#OzFetishFurs, #analyiff, #germanyiff, #GingaYiff, #liveyiff,
#fatyiff, #gryphon-yiff, #hardvore, #openvore, #pregfurs, #uncut,
#furgasmicyiff, #scatz, #bondageplay, #dinoyiff, #muscleyiff,
#wolvesyiff...
I got 1/4 of the way down the list. Literally. I don't have the time
to pick through any more.
I did see one channel that might actually draw my interest. And just
one. #spiritual. I also know, several months ago, that somebody had
formed a #therianthropy channel. Don't know if it got popular or not,
but when I looked in there, there was one active user, who complained
that none of the furs seemed to understand therianthropy, or stuck
around long enough .. or did anything but idle. Kinda sad.
Could Crossroads turn like that? Well yeah, it's possible. If we
stopped ignoring it and let anything go. Will it? Fuck no.
Bowtie
I find #therians!
What is it, you ask?
According to the channel topic, it is...
Unleash your inner animal soulpartner within. Join other Therians in a
discussion of the many differences and similarities between the
subcultures of furredom. | Description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Therianthropy#Therianthropy_vs._furry_fandom
... Oh. Now that just makes me want to cry.
Bearcat
groups. I got it at 5:05 am and i think it was probably in responce to
one of mine. Here is his text.
---------------------------------------
First, please note of the difference between opinion and input.
There's a problem. We want help resolving this problem in order to
make everybody happy.
We're not getting solutions. We're getting complaints.
That .. is .. infuriating. And the more this goes around the more I
wish we hadn't worked so hard to draw everything back together again.
There aren't going to be any instabans. That threat is one of the
reasons Rish decided to split. And I made that threat in haste,
because I was pulled into a situation that quickly became a deep,
entangled mess, and then I find out that this beloved network... the
one that *I* care enough about to help administer to and run a server
on (you think you're fond of it...) is home to netsex and the trading
of porn pictures?
No.
Fucking.
Way.
So I was angry. Enraged, even. The rules have never changed; porn
has NEVER BEEN ALLOWED. And many of you have been on for years, and
you should know that. Situations that were apparently becoming
commonplace in the chat were in violation of the rules, and in
violation of the reason Crossroads was even started. I can't tell you
the depths of my disappointment in most of our users for committing
these acts, or for allowing them to go on so long.
So out of my anger came a threat. "Do it anymore, and you're
banned." I wanted an immediate stop to this behavior. And, like it
or not, or agree with my ways or not, it worked.
Will it remain that way? No. We'll deal with situations as they
arise, and try to take into account all the facts. Then, once we
determined what happened, we'll deal with the situation accordingly.
Will this result in a ban? Possibly, depending on exactly what
happened.
Ironically enough, people, guess what? The situation that spawned the
"instaban" threat? Y'know, the one everybody's throwing a fit about?
Guess how many people were banned for what they did to start this all
up?
ZERO. NOBODY was banned. So calm down already.
Bearcat
"What I don't understand about you, BC, is that this weekend, over
IRC,
you seemed just fine and dandy what we came up with.
Now, suddenly, in here, you're not."
I am fine and dandy with them. There is no suddenly about it. Here's
what i don't understand. I have said many many many times now i don't
have a problem with the rules. I like the rules. I love the rules. I
would make love to the rules, but that would violate said rules :).
How many times and how many ways can i say it? I was concerned about
the LANGUAGE of the second paragraph. I am not the only one who was
confused so there is a problem with the LANGUAGE, not the spirit, not
the rules.
"I'm sure Jakkal will have much, much more to say on this matter."
Great, i look forward to her opinon.
"And .. again .. for the god-knows-how-many-th time...
We're asking for input. Not opinion."
I gave you input. i said in the "Input" thead at 305 am this morning:
Again, i have no problem with the first paragraph. I would rather that
the second paragraph said:
"If you are unsure as to whether a link is deemed
inappropriate by the preceding rule and an admin is not there to
instruct you, do not post the link if you would not be comfortable
publicly displaying it's
contents in your average place of business."
If you don't like the "and an admin is not there to instruct you" then
drop it. However, what the hell are we there for? Op hopping? No,
Ops can't answer this question. Admins can. We have what 3 admins on
at any given time? That's not a lot of hoping and all we have to do is
talk to each other.
Bow said: "But, given the opinions I've been seeing about, "just let
it all in,"
what am I supposed to think about the users? Some seem real
interested in pushing this back as far as they can get it."
I don't know who's been saying "just let it all in." Of course some
people are gonna want to push this as far as they can get it. That's
to be expected. Human nature. We will write the rules and their
pushing will be contained.
Here's what i don't understand. I have said many many many times now
i don't have a problem with the rules. I like the rules. I love the
rules. I would make love to the rules, but that would violate said
rules :). How many times and how many ways can i say it? I was
concerned about the LANGUAGE of the second paragraph. I am not the
only one who was confused so there is a problem with the LANGUAGE, not
the spirit, not the rules.
I'm *not* flipping out about the instaban thing. I'm pointing out
that where my initial post came from and how the timing may have
gotten all fucked up between Jakkal's and my communication. I'm not
saying that what you did was nessesarily wrong, just this may be why
people are flipping out at you. I might have had a similar reaction.
I don't blame you.
Damn it! I'm on YOUR side in this. I'm sitting here arguing with you
and i AGREE with the rules and YOUR stance, yet my input has been
ignored and misread and i've been insulted and told not to give it
when asked for it.
This google thing isnt' making it any easier. Also the fact that we
have 3 threads open about this just adds to the confusion. I make a
post and then have to clarifiy it over the other theread and then post
another thread just to tie things up.
Bearcat
I think the idle rules are fair and clear. However, i am curious about
how long a temp ban should be for someone who has auto join active.
The channel creation rules are fair and easy to understand.
MoonWind
Istas
For what it's worth, I'm fine with "Don't post it if it's meant as
porn, and if you don't know, don't post it if you wouldn't want
someone seeing it over your shoulder in an office or library." I can
understand it, I agree with the reasoning behind it, and I'm getting
tired of users complaining about such a simple issue that, on the
whole, really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if they have to go
without.
I respect the wishes of the people who pay for and maintain this
server, and whether or not I did, I agree that having the situation as
it was was harmful to Crossroads functioning as a gathering place for
therians. It distracts the people who are here from why we come here,
and can easily turn away newcomers.
So yeah, that's my input. I'm happy with the rule as stated above, and
I think it does a fine job explaining the policy. If I misunderstood
the rule, well, please let me know.
Semi
Paragraph 1:
"Discussions about sex, even humorous, or vulgar discussions are
okay,
as long as acts, or depictions are not described, and that
includes
visually and verbally. Tasteful nudity is okay, anything meant
to
arouse is not. What we mean by "tasteful" is that the 'bits' or
'naughties' are shown/described but not the focus. Anything with
sexually aroused parts (erect penis, any juices, acts thereof) or
made
to arouse the viewer is not okay. This also includes pictures and
text descriptions. "
Ok well thought out very concise. This should be where it ends. If
you want to be truly nitpicky this paragraph is Not Safe for Work. In
a professional environment there is no Sex talk period. So this leads
me to paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2:
"The general rule of thumb that users are expected to go by is the
following: "If it's not safe for work, it's not safe for The
Crossroads Network." We are trusting you to use your own good
judgment here. "
This paragraph is not needed. I think that is the point that the
confused masses are trying to get at, no offense. As I stated before
paragraph 1 does an awesome job of laying out the rules. Everyone is
in an uproar over what is defined as Not Safe for Work. So by logic
remove that term and whole paragraph and just use the first one for
the rules since it is clear.
So to summarize the rules as I understand them:
If you're here for your sexual jollies get the fuck out or we
will help you out.
Tria...@gmail.com
what you are, it won't get you anywhere. Even a rephrase is out of
the question, apparantly. Jakkal is pleased with what she has, and
doesn't really give a shit about our imput, we're just nitpickers and
troublemakers on the topic.
Bowtie
And the purpose of this post was to... what? Make trouble? Thus
kinda proving the point?
We're listening. We're just reacting very slowly. Especially me,
as this has completely burned me out already.
Now, just who we listen to will depend largely on the behavior of that
person.
Semi
give a shit about input otherwise she would say fuck you get out of my
channel, without even trying to compromise with people. Though I
don't personally understand why everyone who loves Crossroads is
getting so pissed off over sex. I guess a society raised to idolize
sex and can find that to be the only grounds for a conversation would
really be pained over this topic, but that is an argument for another
time. Back to your post the owners of the channel would rather sex
not even be a topic, by my understanding, and yet they are trying to
hash out a way to please as many people as possible.
Tria...@gmail.com
as this has completely burned me out already. "
If I heard anything positive in her response to us in this topic, I
might change my stance. I don't call "Putting the foot down"
listening. I call that putting out fires and ignoring input. The
point of my previous comment was to tell Semi that his argument has
already been made and *ignored* as nitpickery bullshit. Making
trouble? Please use your head. Just because I don't use soft, fluffy
words doesn't mean I'm out to get her. I think I have a right to
point out *her* behavior on the matter. Just the same as you seek to
tell me I'm out of line.
As for your second paragraph, I don't see why you should be hasty on
this, I respect the need to take time here. And while in a bigger
picture I can see that you two are paying attention, on the matter of
phrasing the only feedback I've seen from either of you is that a) we
are trying to have free reign on porn, or b) you don't think our input
has any merit and is simply (silly) opinion.
And just to clarify the definition of input, via
dictionary.reference.com:
6. contribution of information, ideas, opinions, or the like: Before
making a decision we need your input.
11. to contribute (ideas, information, or suggestions) to a project,
discussion, etc.
Part of the reason I'm arguing about the wording here is that I think
this is something that should be taken carefully. Especially since
you are writing something that could have legal consequences. I'm no
lawyer, but I do have a degree and a specialization in Rhetoric, so I
think I know a little about what I'm talking about on the subject. I
hope you can understand why I feel a bit peeved to be dismissed so
easily and thoughtlessly as a nitpicker. You've said before in
matters of my delinquency that you "just don't care", but despite that
you've taken action in my favor. You have been harsh, but you've
showed that you *do* care. I know I haven't done either of us any
favors when confronting you, so I just want to let you know that I do
at least appreciate that.
Bowtie
might change my stance."
Ahh, the irony. Ditto!
"The point of my previous comment was to tell Semi that his argument
has
already been made and *ignored* as nitpickery bullshit."
And I for one was far more apt to listen to Semi than you. Why?
"Why not?"
That's why.
"Making trouble? Please use your head. Just because I don't use
soft, fluffy
words doesn't mean I'm out to get her. I think I have a right to
point out *her* behavior on the matter. Just the same as you seek to
tell me I'm out of line. "
It's already .. obviously .. a sensitive subject, and the people
responsible for doing this are already sick of even *trying* to get
anything done about it. We're trying to take steps forward, and
everybody is SO CONCERNED over how we treat the subject of SEX that
nobody can get past that and speak about anything else we've tried to
establish! Semi's absolutely correct on this. It doesn't shock me
that people are so hung up on sex. It disgusts and depresses me.
That's not what Crossroads is about. It never, never was. Users who
conveniently "forgot" the rules, because they were not enforced, led
us *DIRECTLY* to this point. And now, I know *I* am, at least, burned
out and furious. This is the kinda thing that makes the effort feel
unappreciated, used, and tossed away like tissue paper after a
masturbating session. Especially considering the issue at hand. Do I
want praise, approval, and appreciation? NO. In a lot of ways that's
worse for a person like me, ESPECIALLY if it were to come *after* I
said something like that.
"And just to clarify the definition of input, via
dictionary.reference.com:
6. contribution of information, ideas, opinions, or the like:
Before
making a decision we need your input.
11. to contribute (ideas, information, or suggestions) to a
project,
discussion, etc. "
Okay, wonderful. Two out of at least 11 definitions. I'll leave that
there, except to ask, where does "why not" fit into that definition?
How does it contribute? How does anybody who stands up and says, "I
don't like that" contribute to something like this? Fine, you don't
like it. You let your feelings be known, but you didn't contribute
jack shit. We were asking for solutions to the apparent problem to be
included. And "why not" isn't a solution, and you fucking know it.
" I'm no lawyer, but I do have a degree and a specialization in
Rhetoric, so I
think I know a little about what I'm talking about on the subject."
"Why not?"
I hope you can understand why I feel a bit peeved to be dismissed so
easily and thoughtlessly as a nitpicker."
"Why not?
"I know I haven't done either of us any
favors when confronting you, so I just want to let you know that I do
at least appreciate that."
"Why not?"
Rish
this one on anyone specific.
Tria...@gmail.com
I'm sorry for taking an interest in your reasons, I think you are
putting far to much assumption in such a simple question. But since
you seem to think I'm just a sex crazed maniac who needs to get my
jollies everywhere I go I'll, explain to you that I've been in IRC
channels that have allowed open sexual content, and I didn't
appreciate it. Why the hell would I go to a music IRC channel and be
spammed with a few people lusting over one another. Same goes for
here, and IRL. I don't want to have to put up with people having sex
in front of me, period. Like you've said countless times, there are
other places for that.
All the same, I think it's best to be *clear* about the issue.
Because obviously it has been a problem, and chances are nobody wants
it to continue to be a problem. There should be no excuse to bring
that conduct in chat, as long as people don't go "well, I thought it
said this here, so I figured it was okay." I'm not going to get it
through to you guys that I'm trying to be helpful here. So consider
this my last word on the subject.
As for definitions, if you really want me to spam the place with
irrelevant definitions of computer-based meanings for the term, I can
do that. I provided my source so that people could see that I was not
omitting anything important, but since you don't seem to know how to
open your browser and see that for yourself, I'll pull out the whole
list just for you.
1. something that is put in.
2. the act or process of putting in.
3. the power or energy supplied to a machine.
4. the current or voltage applied to an electric or electronic circuit
or device. Compare output (def. 4).
5. Computers.
a. data to be entered into a computer for processing.
b. the process of introducing data into the internal storage of a
computer.
6. contribution of information, ideas, opinions, or the like: Before
making a decision we need your input.
7. the available data for solving a technical problem.
8. Scot. a monetary contribution, as to charity.
–adjective
9. of or pertaining to data or equipment used for input: The keyboard
is my computer's main input device.
–verb (used with object)
10. Computers. to enter (data) into a computer for processing.
11. to contribute (ideas, information, or suggestions) to a project,
discussion, etc.
in·put (ĭn'pŏŏt') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Something put into a system or expended in its operation to
achieve output or a result, especially:
1. Energy, work, or power used to drive a machine.
2. Current, electromotive force, or power supplied to an
electric circuit, network, or device.
3. Computer Science Information put into a communications
system for transmission or into a computer system for processing.
4. Computer Science A position, terminal, or station at which
input enters a system.
5. Any of the items, including materials, equipment, and
funds, required for production.
6. The act of putting in; infusion: a steady input of fuel.
7. An amount put in.
8. Contribution of information or a comment or viewpoint: a
discussion with input from all members of the group.
9. Information in general.
2.
1. The act of putting in; infusion: a steady input of fuel.
2. An amount put in.
3. Contribution of information or a comment or viewpoint: a
discussion with input from all members of the group.
4. Information in general.
3. Usage Problem
1. Contribution of information or a comment or viewpoint: a
discussion with input from all members of the group.
2. Information in general.
input
noun
1. signal going into an electronic system [syn: input signal]
2. any stimulating information or event; acts to arouse action [syn:
stimulation]
3. a component of production; something that goes into the production
of output
verb
1. enter (data or a program) into a computer
And theres actually more, hopefully though you get the point.
peirrin
'smut/sex/porn'
but what about some other things? For instance, are we allowed to
talk candidly about drugs and whatnot still?