Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision

[DarkGrath]

I will bump this. The consensus has been clear thus far, but I don't consider it sufficient for such a major change.

 

[Catzlaflame]

It is imperative that we reach a conclusion here since this topic keeps coming up again and again. We simply can’t avoid it. If we don’t establish a standard we risk appearing inconsistent with our rulings.

As such, I ask the following:

@LordGriffin1000
You inputted in the most recent report regarding off-site behavior, which implies you will likely have an opinion on this thread. Input would very much be appreciated.

@Damage3245 @Crabwhale
Your replies were a bit ambiguous. A solid agree or disagree would be appreciated.

@Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 you both occasionally involve yourselves in the RVR, so input would be appreciated.

Moreover, the other tally had exclusions, so I’ll make a new one.

Agree (9): Antvasima, DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, Mr. Bambu, Elizaa, Maverick, Damage, LordGriffin, Firestorm

Disagree (1): Agnaa

Neutral (1): DonttalkDT

 

[Deagonx]

For those tagged above, this is the current conception of the rule change:

• 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).

 

[Damage3245]

I don't have a problem with those proposed rules changes.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

For those tagged above, this is the current conception of the rule change:

I think the proposals in that post are fine. I haven't had the time to go over the whole thread though.

 

[Crabwhale]

@Damage3245 @Crabwhale
Your replies were a bit ambiguous. A solid agree or disagree would be appreciated.

I really don't get how you got "ambiguous" from my post. I expressed pretty squarely exactly where I stand on the matter.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I really don't get how you got "ambiguous" from my post. I expressed pretty squarely exactly where I stand on the matter.

I think the more important question to ask is: Do you feel that Grath’s current draft accommodates your concerns about this?

 

[Catzlaflame]

I really don't get how you got "ambiguous" from my post. I expressed pretty squarely exactly where I stand on the matter.

You said that you think off-site behavior should only be enforced in the absolute worst case scenarios. That doesn't tell us if you think grath's proposed draft encapsulates that. It'd be nice if you could clarify.

 

[Firestorm808]

The rules seem okay to me.

 

[Agnaa]

Just apply them already. There's way more support than detraction.

 

[Crabwhale]

So long as my concerns are kept in mind, yes, I am fine with Grath's draft.

Just apply them already. There's way more support than detraction.

But also even without that this is very valid. Just get on with it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Agreed. I believe there’s more than enough support to apply this

 

[DarkGrath]

Very well. I will apply the revisions.

Thank you all for your evaluations.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.