Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Mr. Bambu

vsbattles.com

Mr Bambu gave permission to make this thread regarding what we discussed in his profile wall and in the VSBW RVR thread... so here it is.

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Editing Rules

The VS Battles Wiki presently consists of 35,511 pages, most of them listing the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. However, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in maintaining the accuracy of statistics and upholding a high quality for the profiles. In...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Versus Thread Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is mainly a site that attempts to index the statistics of characters across many different fictional franchises. However, as the site name implies, we also allow our members to pit fictional characters against each other in hypothetical matchups for entertainment purposes...

vsbattles.fandom.com

For each rule, could we specify what the expected punishments are for each rule breach, at least for the ones that have not already had explicitly stated punishments?
For example, in Site Rules:

This is supposed to be a nice community where all of our members try to be considerate and respectful to each other, to collaborate, have fun together, and be free to pay positive attention to themselves in a safe environment. Do not be toxic, mean, or abusive to other members.

Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, et cetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, et cetera offensive language. We do not tolerate any form of bigotry in any direction whatsoever. Furthermore, do not instigate drama or toxicity...

do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors.

Discussions regarding hypothetical tier placements of figures from current religions are also not allowed, as the community wishes to avoid heated arguments. Avoid VS debating with deities featured in modern religions unless it is a comics, games, tv, etc version of that deity. It is both controversial and impractical to bring up the contents of religious scriptures.

Death threats of any form, even obscure ones, will absolutely not be tolerated.

Please don't show severe irrational bias. For example, saying things such as Archie Sonic is Omnipotent, that Naruto Uzumaki can solo Marvel, or that Giorno Giovanna can solo all of fiction.

Impersonating other members is not allowed.

Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:

• Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
• Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.
• Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.
• Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).

We need to explicitly state what perpetrators are likely to face if they attempt/commit these acts as a further clear deterrence against rule-breaking.

Additionally, pertaining to clarification...

Regarding the languages, could we edit this part of Site Rules to this (adding in the bracketed portion)? I feel like this should at least allow more people to join us by avoiding potentially discriminating against other cultures and/or ways of life while still being able to reconcile with the letter and/or spirit of the rules in a way.

The VS Battle Wiki is an English-language platform, and all users are required to communicate in English.
This policy applies to all members of this wiki and our forum, including within discussion threads, as well as any other areas of this platform where communication occurs.
Exceptions are made for scans or other visual materials for which translations must be provided in English.
(Members who are not fluent in English but are fluent in other languages may utilise off-site translators to translate and then send/write the English translations of the text they intend to send/write.)

As for one other part, can we edit it from this:

Finally, take note that we do not enforce some of these regulations because we are censorship-happy and do not believe in the freedom of speech. The wiki is simply hard enough to manage as it is for the staff, and the rules are necessary to ensure that the task is not impossible.

to this? (for sake of reducing ambiguity)

Finally, take note that the enforcement of these regulations is not because we are censorship-happy or do not believe in the freedom of speech. The wiki is simply hard enough to manage as it is for the staff, and the rules are necessary to ensure that the task is not impossible.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

My opinion: I don't think it is necessary to give explicit punishments, for two reasons.

The first is the limited cast of punishments actually available to us. We can warn people, which is less of a punishment and more of a deterrent in the hopes of avoiding real, actual punishment, and we can ban people; thread ban, topic ban, or a real actual ban (with or without the ability to post on their own walls). This is the full array of options we have available to us.

The second is that very simply the breach of a rule cannot lead to a single guaranteed outcome because each breach has a different context behind it, and that is why we rely on the sensibilities of the staff to judge each one singularly, with the context gained from past experience to weigh it properly.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Not sure what new things are being proposed here; aside from repeats of things we have been doing already. But I have similar views as Bambu.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Regarding the languages, could we edit this part of Site Rules to this (adding in the bracketed portion)? I feel like this should at least allow more people to join us by avoiding potentially discriminating against other cultures and/or ways of life while still being able to reconcile with the letter and/or spirit of the rules in a way.

Also, on this end: we need these roles to guarantee the ability to moderate our site. Our staff do not speak Turkish, and cannot reliably moderate it. So, it is unreasonable from an administrative viewpoint to have chats in these languages. These rules were implemented after many reports over a long period of time regarding people avoiding being caught being toxic by just typing it in a different language. So, we require English.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Also, on this end: we need these roles to guarantee the ability to moderate our site. Our staff do not speak Turkish, and cannot reliably moderate it. So, it is unreasonable from an administrative viewpoint to have chats in these languages. These rules were implemented after many reports over a long period of time regarding people avoiding being caught being toxic by just typing it in a different language. So, we require English.

Yes but my suggestion here is that we maintain English as a cross-platform lingua franca, while informing both new and old members not fluent in English to find ways (in this case using translators) to translate their native languages into English to make it more convenient for everyone.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

My opinion: I don't think it is necessary to give explicit punishments, for two reasons.

The first is the limited cast of punishments actually available to us. We can warn people, which is less of a punishment and more of a deterrent in the hopes of avoiding real, actual punishment, and we can ban people; thread ban, topic ban, or a real actual ban (with or without the ability to post on their own walls). This is the full array of options we have available to us.

The second is that very simply the breach of a rule cannot lead to a single guaranteed outcome because each breach has a different context behind it, and that is why we rely on the sensibilities of the staff to judge each one singularly, with the context gained from past experience to weigh it properly.

I understand this, but could there be a range of proposed likely punishments/deterrents for each type of rule breach depending on severity (as in what is the least severe punishment and what is the most severe punishment that can be expected for each type of rule breach)? Or do we just assume that all rule breaches can be punished with anything from warnings to full bans? (The latter seems unlikely since of course different rule breaches have different effects and severities and should be treated differently, hence the former makes more sense in a way.)

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu here.

Should we close this thread?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Mr. Bambu

vsbattles.com

Mr Bambu gave permission to make this thread regarding what we discussed in his profile wall and in the VSBW RVR thread... so here it is.

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Editing Rules

The VS Battles Wiki presently consists of 35,511 pages, most of them listing the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. However, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in maintaining the accuracy of statistics and upholding a high quality for the profiles. In...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Versus Thread Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is mainly a site that attempts to index the statistics of characters across many different fictional franchises. However, as the site name implies, we also allow our members to pit fictional characters against each other in hypothetical matchups for entertainment purposes...

vsbattles.fandom.com

For each rule, could we specify what the expected punishments are for each rule breach, at least for the ones that have not already had explicitly stated punishments?
For example, in Site Rules:

We need to explicitly state what perpetrators are likely to face if they attempt/commit these acts as a further clear deterrence against rule-breaking.

Additionally, pertaining to clarification...

Regarding the languages, could we edit this part of Site Rules to this (adding in the bracketed portion)? I feel like this should at least allow more people to join us by avoiding potentially discriminating against other cultures and/or ways of life while still being able to reconcile with the letter and/or spirit of the rules in a way.


As for one other part, can we edit it from this:

to this? (for sake of reducing ambiguity)

I agree with Bambu here.

Should we close this thread?

Sorry Ant, please just give me a bit more time. I wish to elaborate on the proposal and then I want to know if the opinions would change after that.

Let me try to sum up what I intend to propose (and I apologise if this has indeed been mentioned or covered before, but I do think it's worth revisiting).
1: Can we at least propose a range of punishments based on the type and severity of rule breaches (at least stating the least severe likely punishment and most severe likely punishment to be dealt for each type of rule breach so that perpetrators know what to expect and thus be more deterred from committing or attemping them) while also emphasising that a case-by-case means of evaluating and deciding on a punishment for each individual rule breaching occasion is how the staff handles such breaches (in other words, perpetrators of rule breaches of the same type but on different occasions should not expect to be dealt with in similar ways)?

2: Can we maintain English as a lingua franca for this site and all related platforms, but enable visitors and members old and new who are not fluent in English to find ways to contribute to discussions via translating their native languages to English?

Also, on this end: we need these roles to guarantee the ability to moderate our site. Our staff do not speak Turkish, and cannot reliably moderate it. So, it is unreasonable from an administrative viewpoint to have chats in these languages. These rules were implemented after many reports over a long period of time regarding people avoiding being caught being toxic by just typing it in a different language. So, we require English.

(Not sure why Turkish was used as an example specifically... unless there's been a case involving that)

The VS Battle Wiki is an English-language platform, and all users are required to communicate in English.
This policy applies to all members of this wiki and our forum, including within discussion threads, as well as any other areas of this platform where communication occurs.
Exceptions are made for scans or other visual materials for which translations must be provided in English.
(Members who are not fluent in English but are fluent in other languages may utilise off-site translators to translate and then send/write the English translations of the text they intend to send/write.)

(This suggestion, as in the added bracketed portion, is mostly because I feel like emphasising that English is the ONLY language allowed on the site can be unappealing to non-native-English-speaking members or visitors (due to it sounding exclusive of such people), who could potentially contribute useful points to the discussion aside from merely translating fictional content, though I understand the reasoning behind why we enforce English as the lingua franca due to Bambu's explanation)

3: Can we improve on parts of the rules pages where the phrasing is possibly ambiguous so as to reduce ambiguity and enhance clarity?
For example, this:

Finally, take note that we do not enforce some of these regulations because we are censorship-happy and do not believe in the freedom of speech. The wiki is simply hard enough to manage as it is for the staff, and the rules are necessary to ensure that the task is not impossible.

to this:

Finally, take note that the enforcement of these regulations is not because we are censorship-happy or do not believe in the freedom of speech. The wiki is simply hard enough to manage as it is for the staff, and the rules are necessary to ensure that the task is not impossible.

 

[Antvasima]

We already have an ongoing staff discussion thread regarding more set types of punishments, and I do not want us to lose our flexibility for handling different types of situations based on the musings of an inexperienced member here. My apologies.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I understand this, but could there be a range of proposed likely punishments/deterrents for each type of rule breach depending on severity (as in what is the least severe punishment and what is the most severe punishment that can be expected for each type of rule breach)? Or do we just assume that all rule breaches can be punished with anything from warnings to full bans? (The latter seems unlikely since of course different rule breaches have different effects and severities and should be treated differently, hence the former makes more sense in a way.)

I don't think so, no. Let me paint an example.

You want us to give a range of potential punishments per a given offense. Let's take a look at two.

First, doxxing. Strictly against the rules, widely regarded as a pretty heinous thing to do on the internet. Doxxing is the release of identifying information about an individual who was not consenting to the release of said information. So, you might say "gee, our reaction to this should be very strict, let's leave that as a warning first, and then a ban". But we have multiple potential severities of doxxing that would require entirely different approaches. An individual who has doxxed and harassed a specific person or group of persons over months of time, going so far as to release their home address and daily routine, is a far cry above someone who (maybe accidentally) released a photo of an individual's face. In the latter case, if it was in this example an accident, I'd hesitate to even give a warning, even though it is strictly against the letter of the rules.

In another example, rudeness. You may be inclined to say that rudeness is the least severe offense on our wiki, and it is objectively on the lower end, at least. Nevertheless, were we to apply a predetermined "range" of possible punishments, we only serve to restrict ourselves should something fall outside that range in terms of appropriate reactions: if a user is so inordinately toxic and horrible to his fellow user, with no sign of repentance, then if we set this range to not include permanent bans, we only harm ourselves by allowing this user to come back.

Realistically speaking, all of our rule violations come with a set range of possible punishments, depending on the severity, already. Warning, or no action, serves as the lowest end; a ban serves as the highest.

I don't think it is possible to satisfactorily classify severity of punishments; in attempting to do so we inevitably create blindspots in a complicated policy that we already play by ear fairly well. Therefore, it remains my position that it is better to simply maintain the list of actions we can currently pursue as it is, acknowledging the severity of each rule violation, rather than assign pre-ordained responses to each individual infraction.

(Not sure why Turkish was used as an example specifically... unless there's been a case involving that)

Entirely arbitrary, it was just a language I can recall having been spoken on here in the past.

(Members who are not fluent in English but are fluent in other languages may utilise off-site translators to translate and then send/write the English translations of the text they intend to send/write.)

This seems to go without saying, and I believe this is already frequently done, but I don't have any issue with adding this or something like this beneath the rules if it is strongly desired.

Can we improve on parts of the rules pages where the phrasing is possibly ambiguous so as to reduce ambiguity and enhance clarity?

I would need to see your other specific proposals; this particular one doesn't serve us much but similarly does not harm us, I just don't think it's terribly important.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I agree with Bambu here.

Should we close this thread?

I think it serves as a learning experience for a user who clearly wants to assist, and is an opportunity to share our insight on things we know by second nature after years of managing these issues. It may be better to pivot it from Staff Discussion if genuinely all of these matters are considered non-constructive, but I'd rather leave it open. I do think one of their small adjustments may be worth doing, for what it's worth.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

We already have an ongoing staff discussion thread regarding more set types of punishments, and I do not want us to lose our flexibility for handling different types of situations based on the musings of an inexperienced member here. My apologies.

... That explains the issue, sorry if I'm detracting from the staff's discussion
In that case though, may I at least be allowed to contribute my proposals to the existing thread...? (I'm not sure if you're referring to the off-site rule thread though, cause for my proposal it's regarding on-site issues more, though to be fair both on-site and off-site issues seem to be exacerbating each other.)
(I understand the necessity for flexibility but at the same time not clearly stating the possible repercussions for each and every type of rule breach could just lead to more instances of such rule breaches, as evidenced by the ongoing cases of toxicity in the RVR thread... so even despite my relative inexperience, I still wished to at least discuss these ideas (even if they have been discussed about in older conversations and thread) with staff to see if more could be done in these aspects.)

 

[Antvasima]

I think it serves as a learning experience for a user who clearly wants to assist, and is an opportunity to share our insight on things we know by second nature after years of managing these issues. It may be better to pivot it from Staff Discussion if genuinely all of these matters are considered non-constructive, but I'd rather leave it open. I do think one of their small adjustments may be worth doing, for what it's worth.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

As always, thank you very much for helping out, Bambu.

 

[Antvasima]

... That explains the issue, sorry if I'm detracting from the staff's discussion
In that case though, may I at least be allowed to contribute my proposals to the existing thread...? (I'm not sure if you're referring to the off-site rule thread though, cause for my proposal it's regarding on-site issues more, though to be fair both on-site and off-site issues seem to be exacerbating each other.)
(I understand the necessity for flexibility but at the same time not clearly stating the possible repercussions for each and every type of rule breach could just lead to more instances of such rule breaches, as evidenced by the ongoing cases of toxicity in the RVR thread... so even despite my relative inexperience, I still wished to at least discuss these ideas (even if they have been discussed about in older conversations and thread) with staff to see if more could be done in these aspects.)

That would likely derail too much from our current main topics there. My apologies.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

I don't think so, no. Let me paint an example.

You want us to give a range of potential punishments per a given offense. Let's take a look at two.

First, doxxing. Strictly against the rules, widely regarded as a pretty heinous thing to do on the internet. Doxxing is the release of identifying information about an individual who was not consenting to the release of said information. So, you might say "gee, our reaction to this should be very strict, let's leave that as a warning first, and then a ban". But we have multiple potential severities of doxxing that would require entirely different approaches. An individual who has doxxed and harassed a specific person or group of persons over months of time, going so far as to release their home address and daily routine, is a far cry above someone who (maybe accidentally) released a photo of an individual's face. In the latter case, if it was in this example an accident, I'd hesitate to even give a warning, even though it is strictly against the letter of the rules.

In another example, rudeness. You may be inclined to say that rudeness is the least severe offense on our wiki, and it is objectively on the lower end, at least. Nevertheless, were we to apply a predetermined "range" of possible punishments, we only serve to restrict ourselves should something fall outside that range in terms of appropriate reactions: if a user is so inordinately toxic and horrible to his fellow user, with no sign of repentance, then if we set this range to not include permanent bans, we only harm ourselves by allowing this user to come back.

Realistically speaking, all of our rule violations come with a set range of possible punishments, depending on the severity, already. Warning, or no action, serves as the lowest end; a ban serves as the highest.

I don't think it is possible to satisfactorily classify severity of punishments; in attempting to do so we inevitably create blindspots in a complicated policy that we already play by ear fairly well. Therefore, it remains my position that it is better to simply maintain the list of actions we can currently pursue as it is, acknowledging the severity of each rule violation, rather than assign pre-ordained responses to each individual infraction.

OK, so in this case we may as well settle with the view is essentially to assume that all rule breaches automatically can span from being punished with a warning to being punished with a permanent ban... I can agree with that, I just believe that this should be more emphasised regarding the examples of rule-breaking that do not state the outcome.
At the very least, maybe the point can just be made at the very beginning of each Rules Page Introduction section that each and every breach can range from being punished with a warning to being punished with a permanent ban and will be handled independently from each other via a case-by-case means of evaluation (as obvious and common-sense as this may sound, I still think it's worth reiterating/re-emphasising, ESPECIALLY due to the recent influx of toxicity reports, additionally because this could also tie in to informing both English-speaking visitors and members AND PARTICULARLY non-English-speaking visitors and members (the latter via translation of the rules pages to and from English and other languages) of the expected etiquette and consequences of breaking the rules, hence linking the proposals together even if in a rather arbitrary way).

This seems to go without saying, and I believe this is already frequently done, but I don't have any issue with adding this or something like this beneath the rules if it is strongly desired.

Yeah, I just feel that it's worth adding to the Rules page section as proposed (again, even if it seems to go without saying, it is still best to make it clear) so as to avoid the implication that we are inherently discriminatory or prejudiced against non-English-speaking visitors or members within the current stating of the rules:

The VS Battle Wiki is an English-language platform, and all users are required to communicate in English.
This policy applies to all members of this wiki and our forum, including within discussion threads, as well as any other areas of this platform where communication occurs.
Exceptions are made for scans or other visual materials for which translations must be provided in English.

as compared to:

The VS Battle Wiki is an English-language platform, and all users are required to communicate in English.
This policy applies to all members of this wiki and our forum, including within discussion threads, as well as any other areas of this platform where communication occurs.
Exceptions are made for scans or other visual materials for which translations must be provided in English.
(Members who are not fluent in English but are fluent in other languages may utilise off-site translators to translate and then send/write the English translations of the text they intend to send/write, whether conversing about fictional content or engaging in other discussions.)

I would need to see your other specific proposals; this particular one doesn't serve us much but similarly does not harm us, I just don't think it's terribly important.

Honestly, you may be right, that last part is relatively minor compared to the other points, so if reducing ambiguity is not that high on the priority list, it can be ignored for now.

I think it serves as a learning experience for a user who clearly wants to assist, and is an opportunity to share our insight on things we know by second nature after years of managing these issues. It may be better to pivot it from Staff Discussion if genuinely all of these matters are considered non-constructive, but I'd rather leave it open. I do think one of their small adjustments may be worth doing, for what it's worth.

I agree with this, but for more than the "learning experience" reason: it does allow both staff and regular members to understand the reasoning and logic behind the creation of such rules and communicate said reasoning and logic between each other and themselves, thus allowing for more transparency and perhaps more willingness from members to follow the rules based on the increased understanding of the rationale behind them (though I also hope no one uses this as an excuse to exploit possible loopholes/blindspots in the rules via the increased understanding and thus knowledge of possible gaps in said rules which are almost unavoidable regardless of flexibility or stringency, but that's just further incentive to cover said loopholes and blindspots in future).

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

That would likely derail too much from our current main topics there. My apologies.

Understandable, I apologise in return if I have taken too much of the time of everyone else here.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

So... ignoring the "ambiguity reduction" portion....

Are these valid and possible to implement?

Regarding the first part:

1: Can we at least propose a range of punishments based on the type and severity of rule breaches (at least stating the least severe likely punishment and most severe likely punishment to be dealt for each type of rule breach so that perpetrators know what to expect and thus be more deterred from committing or attemping them) while also emphasising that a case-by-case means of evaluating and deciding on a punishment for each individual rule breaching occasion is how the staff handles such breaches (in other words, perpetrators of rule breaches of the same type but on different occasions should not expect to be dealt with in similar ways)?

I don't think so, no. Let me paint an example.

You want us to give a range of potential punishments per a given offense. Let's take a look at two.

First, doxxing. Strictly against the rules, widely regarded as a pretty heinous thing to do on the internet. Doxxing is the release of identifying information about an individual who was not consenting to the release of said information. So, you might say "gee, our reaction to this should be very strict, let's leave that as a warning first, and then a ban". But we have multiple potential severities of doxxing that would require entirely different approaches. An individual who has doxxed and harassed a specific person or group of persons over months of time, going so far as to release their home address and daily routine, is a far cry above someone who (maybe accidentally) released a photo of an individual's face. In the latter case, if it was in this example an accident, I'd hesitate to even give a warning, even though it is strictly against the letter of the rules.

In another example, rudeness. You may be inclined to say that rudeness is the least severe offense on our wiki, and it is objectively on the lower end, at least. Nevertheless, were we to apply a predetermined "range" of possible punishments, we only serve to restrict ourselves should something fall outside that range in terms of appropriate reactions: if a user is so inordinately toxic and horrible to his fellow user, with no sign of repentance, then if we set this range to not include permanent bans, we only harm ourselves by allowing this user to come back.

Realistically speaking, all of our rule violations come with a set range of possible punishments, depending on the severity, already. Warning, or no action, serves as the lowest end; a ban serves as the highest.

I don't think it is possible to satisfactorily classify severity of punishments; in attempting to do so we inevitably create blindspots in a complicated policy that we already play by ear fairly well. Therefore, it remains my position that it is better to simply maintain the list of actions we can currently pursue as it is, acknowledging the severity of each rule violation, rather than assign pre-ordained responses to each individual infraction.

At the very least, maybe the point can just be made at the very beginning of each Rules Page Introduction section that each and every breach can range from being punished with a warning to being punished with a permanent ban and will be handled independently from each other via a case-by-case means of evaluation (as obvious and common-sense as this may sound, I still think it's worth reiterating/re-emphasising, ESPECIALLY due to the recent influx of toxicity reports, additionally because this could also tie in to informing both English-speaking visitors and members AND PARTICULARLY non-English-speaking visitors and members (the latter via translation of the rules pages to and from English and other languages) of the expected etiquette and consequences of breaking the rules, hence linking the proposals together even if in a rather arbitrary way).

Regarding the second part:

2: Can we maintain English as a lingua franca for this site and all related platforms, but enable visitors and members old and new who are not fluent in English to find ways to contribute to discussions via translating their native languages to English?
(Not sure why Turkish was used as an example specifically... unless there's been a case involving that)
(This suggestion, as in the added bracketed portion, is mostly because I feel like emphasising that English is the ONLY language allowed on the site can be unappealing to non-native-English-speaking members or visitors (due to it sounding exclusive of such people), who could potentially contribute useful points to the discussion aside from merely translating fictional content, though I understand the reasoning behind why we enforce English as the lingua franca due to Bambu's explanation)

This seems to go without saying, and I believe this is already frequently done, but I don't have any issue with adding this or something like this beneath the rules if it is strongly desired.

Yeah, I just feel that it's worth adding to the Rules page section as proposed (again, even if it seems to go without saying, it is still best to make it clear) so as to avoid the implication that we are inherently discriminatory or prejudiced against non-English-speaking visitors or members within the current stating of the rules

And finally, regarding why this thread is potentially useful:

I think it serves as a learning experience for a user who clearly wants to assist, and is an opportunity to share our insight on things we know by second nature after years of managing these issues. It may be better to pivot it from Staff Discussion if genuinely all of these matters are considered non-constructive, but I'd rather leave it open. I do think one of their small adjustments may be worth doing, for what it's worth.

I agree with this, but for more than the "learning experience" reason: it does allow both staff and regular members to understand the reasoning and logic behind the creation of such rules and communicate said reasoning and logic between each other and themselves, thus allowing for more transparency and perhaps more willingness from members to follow the rules based on the increased understanding of the rationale behind them (though I also hope no one uses this as an excuse to exploit possible loopholes/blindspots in the rules via the increased understanding and thus knowledge of possible gaps in said rules which are almost unavoidable regardless of flexibility or stringency, but that's just further incentive to cover said loopholes and blindspots in future).

 

[Antvasima]

@GarrixianXD

Is any of this information useful for your own revision thread regarding setting rules for punishments for vandalism in our wiki?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

I

@GarrixianXD

Is any of this information useful for your own revision thread regarding setting rules for punishments for vandalism in our wiki?

Still wondering if these are necessary:

So... ignoring the "ambiguity reduction" portion....

Are these valid and possible to implement?

Regarding the first part:




Regarding the second part:




And finally, regarding why this thread is potentially useful:

I'll send Garrixian the link in case the notif was not seen.

 

[GarrixianXD]

@GarrixianXD

Is any of this information useful for your own revision thread regarding setting rules for punishments for vandalism in our wiki?

Nothing new from what I see.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Thank you for your reply.

Should we close this thread then?

M

N

I

N

(Sorry welp, wish there was a better way to notify/inform you all other than this but yeah hope this is fine for everyone)

Yeah, I think since there's nothing more to discuss or cover or implement, closing the thread would be better.
Thanks again to all of the other peeps who were involved in this discussion.