EF Rules Discussion

[Xen]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

The post was reported, guaranteeing that I saw it. It did indeed break both rule 13 and 23. As to the rest:

(i) Its inevitable some posts breaking rules get missed if they don't get reported.

And in the case of Rule 23 specifically, (ii) sometimes the chat log can be totally harmless, and (iii) sometimes all parties involved in the chat log clearly don't object to it being posted - in either of those situations the rule might not be invoked unless the post looks like it may cause other problems.

Tried to +rep you but have to spread some around first...

It wasn't personal against your moderating, I just have seen some posts with chat logs, for example the recent ones with the racist person, where that person may object to it (not that I care, he can go to hell). I guess I'm frustrated because this rule protects some people who deserve to be outed, but I suppose there are other instances where a private chat log shouldn't be posted.

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Xen

I guess I'm frustrated because this rule protects some people who deserve to be outed

I agree in principle, and I have no desire to protect cheats, thieves, or racists (I'll look into those logs that have been posted...). But we did once have a whole subforum dedicated to this kind of stuff and it caused more trouble than it was worth.

At the end of the day the rule protects everyone. That does unfortunately include some people who don't necessarily deserve that protection. The difficulty is without such a rule, someone would have the duty of deciding who deserves to be outed and who doesn't. Although occasionally that decision seems fairly obvious, in general its not as we don't have all the facts to hand, each side has a different story, screenshots can be faked, etc.

The only people who do have access to all the facts are MA, and such matters are best handled with them. I know in some situations there's not much they can do, in other situations some people feel they don't do as much as they could. But those are different matters, and I don't think they're solved by a vigilante approach on the forums, however well-intentioned its meant.

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Xen

I just have seen some posts with chat logs, for example the recent ones with the racist person,

Well, the whole thread may need a bit of a look-at, but the only chat logs I can see are from public chat so Rule 23 doesn't specifically apply.

With public chat logs, it tends to be Rule 13 or 14 if they get removed. In the thread here, I guess it would be Rule 16 which is a tricky one to judge when its a real world issue that has filtered its way into relevance in EU as well.

[burnsey]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

The only people who do have access to all the facts are MA, and such matters are best handled with them. I know in some situations there's not much they can do, in other situations some people feel they don't do as much as they could. But those are different matters, and I don't think they're solved by a vigilante approach on the forums, however well-intentioned its meant.

So basically, Crime pays.

[Joser]

Originally Posted by burnsey

So basically, Crime pays.

Here in the USA we have a saying (that's unfortunately not always held true): "It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned."

I like this because I feel innocent people wrongly punished is far more of an injustice than guilty men walking free.

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by burnsey

So basically, Crime pays.

Crime can make you money yes, until the law catches up to you. As in RL, same in EU.

When I see someone steal a car irl, I report them to the Police. I don't stand in the town square shouting "I saw Jack steal a car", because (a) such a statement is meaningless without verifiable evidence, and (b) maybe I was mistaken and Jack had locked his keys in the car which was in fact his own.

If the Police don't do anything about it then I contact my MP about the performance of the Police. If things don't improve, then I vote for a different government in the next elections.

Such matters, in EU and in RL, cannot be solved on a public forum. We don't have the skills and qualifications required, we don't have the proof of verifiable evidence, and we don't have the right. This is my last post on the matter, we've debated all this time and time again. You don't like it, I get it. But its how it is. If you want MA to deal with scammers differently than they do, speak to MA. If you want to run a vigilante crusade, do it somewhere else.

[Konve]

Is anyone for any reason (f.ex. Mod membership or whatever) allowed to have signature that exceeds the limitations of this rule:

Rule # 31
Signatures: Text used in your signature may not be too long and not use characters larger than “SIZE=3” and only contain 5 lines of text. Please limit graphical signatures to 500x120 pixels. One 500x120 pixel image and ONE line of text is acceptable, but not an image along with a large amount of text. Please keep your signature as small as possible, since large signatures clutter the forum and cause unnecessary amounts of scrolling. Signatures are only shown ONCE per page, per member.

?

[Jimmy B]

Not to my knowledge Konve. I don't go round counting pixels, but if I notice one that's clearly exceeding the size limits I edit it.

I dare say a few get away with it for a while, but basically they run the risk of having their entire signature taken removed in the end.

[Konve]

Might I suggest a new rule along the lines of "You may not knowingly cast contradicting votes in a poll to mess with the result"

There's at least one member (modifed, even) always voting for all options of multi-select polls. It can be "Yes, I think this is a good idea", "No, I don't like the idea", "I have no opinion in this matter" and the person will still mark and vote for all three of them. Annoying, as it's messing up the result on anonymous polls.

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Konve

Might I suggest a new rule along the lines of "You may not knowingly cast contradicting votes in a poll to mess with the result"

There's at least one member (modifed, even) always voting for all options of multi-select polls. It can be "Yes, I think this is a good idea", "No, I don't like the idea", "I have no opinion in this matter" and the person will still mark and vote for all three of them. Annoying, as it's messing up the result on anonymous polls.

Pretty hard one to enforce...it is a bit annoying for sure, but I guess its just a flaw with polls in general really. In the case of public polls mods can remove people's votes if its really necessary.