Chat Box Rules

Chatbox rules

1. Don't spam. Spamming in this case is considered to be posting multiple sets of the same thing, such as saying a word or phrase (or image) over and over. Over and over would be defined as more than three times in a row -OR- posting the same image or word(s) several times throughout a chat session...an example would be posting said thing once or more times every 2 minutes etc..there is no set time for such, it is simply if they post such a thing repeatedly in any given session.

2. Don't cause a disturbance of the peace. Disturbing the peace is defined as (in this case) causing trouble, irritating someone, fighting, etc...it is up to the moderator and or the chatbox users to determine if a particular action is considered disturbing the peace. This rule is more of a situational, judge at the time it happens thing.

3. Don't argue with the moderator(s) judgement. If you have a problem, confront the moderator(s) formally. If the problem is still not solved, speak to an administrator.

4. If you constantly break one or more rules, you may be banned (moderator(s) would judge whether or not a person is to be banned.). A warning will be given.

5. Don't pick on people. This will be judged by the moderator and/or the other people in the chatbox. Again, this is a situational rule.

6. If there is a group vote of 3 or more plus conscent of moderator(s) on kicking someone who has not broken one of these rules, they will be kicked (assuming they did something to deserve it)

What about no rape?

that falls into rules 2 and 5

Just add it for precaution. *Eyes nokie asleep in background*

no.
it automatically falls into 2 rules, I'm not adding another JUST for rape.

Moving to Rules.

no Colin, I'm not.
there are already 2 rules making rape a no-no

OHSHI-

also add in best's roleplaying rules apply in the chatbox

TSDZ_President wrote:

Chatbox rules

1. Don't spam...minor spam is ok, but repeat or excess spam gets you kicked
2. Don't cause a disturbance of the peace...as in, fighting, causing trouble...etc...this is up to the moderator(s) to judge whether it merits a kick or not
3. Respect the moderator, this will ONLY merit a kick if it is repetatively broken, or broken offensively
4. Repeat kicks merit a ban, the time will be chosen in accordance to the action that provoked it
5. Do not put down, harass, insult, etc...other members repeatedly or cruely...again, moderator(s) judgement, this merits a kick
6. If there is a group vote of 3 or more plus conscent of moderator(s) on kicking someone who has not broken one of these rules, they will be kicked (assuming they did something to deserve it)
7. If someone requested that they want to be kicked, it is up to the moderator(s) to judge whether or not they will be kicked (meaning that someone wants to have themselves kicked for whatever reason)

these have been approved, and are now the set rules

Heh? Dude you need to be more professional. Number 1 is automatically void because of your wording 'excess spam' since you have not defined excess, kicking for violation of rule 1 can legally never happen. This would be like saying 'If one party breaches this contract a lot, he will owe the other party a great deal of money'

'Respect' is another term that you should never put in a rule set, neither is 'repetatively' or its true spelling 'repetitively'. 'Broken offensively' makes no sense, voiding rule 3 in theory as well.

Number 4 is way too loose in all respects.

'Repeatedly or Cruelly?' da fuck?

#6 makes no sense whatsoever, since these rules cover almost every way someone could be disruptive in the chatbox, and therefore doing something to deserve it could be limited to naming yourself 'Worthbeads', and the admins and mods seem to universally agree that worthbeads should not be banned because he is named worthbeads, but rather flamed.

#7 also makes no sense, because it's given. It's not as bad as some of the others, but also completely unnecessary.

Please don't take offense to this, I'm not saying they're bad rules, or that rules are bad (Mods without rules = Power abuse), but please reword them. If someone was excessively harassing, you in theory wouldn't be able to kick them because you haven't defined excessively, etc.

But I still love you.

I love you more than anything, Tarsonis. Again. Twice. A million times.

I think me and you need to talk about these rules TS we are both mods over the same thing so i believe i have a say over these rules.

...you know...before I did this, people were harrassing me about abusing my power and all that bs, saying that I'm a hypocrite and yada yada whine whine...and how I'm enforcing invisible rules etc...
...so I made a LIST OF RULES, and had them approved. Just so there was SOME set of rules so there was at least SOME order in the box. idk wtf is up with you people, I made these so you'd all be happy and not complain to me if I kicked someone for w/e reason...but here it is, I made some rules that I felt were reasonable, but NO, apparently this isn't wanted too.

At Liz: apparently what you said is not true, because both you and Colin have called me out on my judgement. Either let me judge how I see fit without throwing your ideal rules in my face, or just let the rules be.

At Sam: you said you weren't going to be on hardly ever. so don't whine about it. I made these rules with the best interest towards everyone, and Hina was ok with it, so stfu.

At Tar: go to hell. I tried my best.

I can't quote you because it was in the chatbox.
...and what got under my skin was that people kept threatening to report me if I messed up even slightly (despite the fact that I hadn't kicked yet, other than a couple spammers.)...I mean come on, I try my best, alright? I'm not just going to abuse my power...and by people I mean Colin.



it all comes down to this...

I'll be a fair moderator...
I'll try to please people...

so can we stop?
there's no point to a feud over this, I was just trying to do my job and please people by making finite rules so someone didn't think I was kicking unfairly or...idk.

...I don't see the point of the feud though...
you people complained, so I made rules...
...then you all complain about the rules...


gtf off my back.

Ta]R[SoNiS wrote:

TSDZ_President wrote:

Chatbox rules

1. Don't spam...minor spam is ok, but repeat or excess spam gets you kicked
2. Don't cause a disturbance of the peace...as in, fighting, causing trouble...etc...this is up to the moderator(s) to judge whether it merits a kick or not
3. Respect the moderator, this will ONLY merit a kick if it is repetatively broken, or broken offensively
4. Repeat kicks merit a ban, the time will be chosen in accordance to the action that provoked it
5. Do not put down, harass, insult, etc...other members repeatedly or cruely...again, moderator(s) judgement, this merits a kick
6. If there is a group vote of 3 or more plus conscent of moderator(s) on kicking someone who has not broken one of these rules, they will be kicked (assuming they did something to deserve it)
7. If someone requested that they want to be kicked, it is up to the moderator(s) to judge whether or not they will be kicked (meaning that someone wants to have themselves kicked for whatever reason)

these have been approved, and are now the set rules

Heh? Dude you need to be more professional. Number 1 is automatically void because of your wording 'excess spam' since you have not defined excess, kicking for violation of rule 1 can legally never happen. This would be like saying 'If one party breaches this contract a lot, he will owe the other party a great deal of money'

'Respect' is another term that you should never put in a rule set, neither is 'repetatively' or its true spelling 'repetitively'. 'Broken offensively' makes no sense, voiding rule 3 in theory as well.

Number 4 is way too loose in all respects.

'Repeatedly or Cruelly?' da fuck?

#6 makes no sense whatsoever, since these rules cover almost every way someone could be disruptive in the chatbox, and therefore doing something to deserve it could be limited to naming yourself 'Worthbeads', and the admins and mods seem to universally agree that worthbeads should not be banned because he is named worthbeads, but rather flamed.

#7 also makes no sense, because it's given. It's not as bad as some of the others, but also completely unnecessary.

Please don't take offense to this, I'm not saying they're bad rules, or that rules are bad (Mods without rules = Power abuse), but please reword them. If someone was excessively harassing, you in theory wouldn't be able to kick them because you haven't defined excessively, etc.

But I still love you.

Why is it so hard to understand?
It looks pretty simple to me.

This looks more like an act of trolling, so I can't take you seriously.

I think Tar's got a point. But we should all chillax and just use our common sense.

...fine.
I'll make a new set.

Write it in 1337, also, so all the 4-chan nubbies that join can understand.

BUT THE TEQNIKALLITEE!!!!