State of the Union: March 9th 2016

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Clove Darkwave said:

I can't make any promises guys, but I can bring it up for the next SotU. Sound fair? Maybe we can run a forum poll or something.

I'd say a poll. 

Let forum users vote on a private vs. transparent process. 

If they vote for it they can't complain about the results. 

I'd say fairness is exactly what most forum users are looking for. 

I predict a huge vote in favour of transparency. 

[Clove Darkwave]

Like I said guys, no promises so please don't be upset if it doesn't result in exactly what you were hoping for. But I'll propose it.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Like I said guys, no promises so please don't be upset if it doesn't result in exactly what you were hoping for. But I'll propose it.

Thanks. No system is perfect. If it proves to be flawed it can be fixed or changed. 

Nobody is expecting utopia. 

However, everyone is concerned about the way things used to be. 

[Zaraphayx]

3 hours ago, willow said:

very few people here were probably around when Ben and Cerberus were mods on FAF. we're the most chill group ever compared to them. at least with those two you had reasons to complain. they were really the 'no fun allowed' mods

I was around for both and I still have good reason to distrust the ability of the staff to utilize sound judgment and communicate with users before jumping to obnoxious conclusions and taking action prematurely.

P.S. I still have 9 of the infraction points Cuckmor and Mentova gave me for being right and making them look buffoonish, one of you make yourself useful and rectify this most heinous error. TIA.

[Spot]

Good to see that RP is finally being accepted here, provided it stays within the designated areas.

And people complaining about the "Black Hole"?

Fuck get over yourself it's the drama that makes this community thrive.

[willow]

7 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

I was around for both and I still have good reason to distrust the ability of the staff to utilize sound judgment and communicate with users before jumping to obnoxious conclusions and taking action prematurely.

P.S. I still have 9 of the infraction points Cuckmor and Mentova gave me for being right and making them look buffoonish, one of you make yourself useful and rectify this most heinous error. TIA.

to err is human. anyway, I'll take a look at the infractions

feel free to PM about it though 

[Mentova]

9 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

I was around for both and I still have good reason to distrust the ability of the staff to utilize sound judgment and communicate with users before jumping to obnoxious conclusions and taking action prematurely.

P.S. I still have 9 of the infraction points Cuckmor and Mentova gave me for being right and making them look buffoonish, one of you make yourself useful and rectify this most heinous error. TIA.

I mean, you did spam like 30+ reports. That's still infraction worthy man.

However I will actually apologize for yelling at you about the infraction notification thing because I figured, like any normal forum, when you get an infraction on your account it sends you a message about it. Well apparently here it does not and I literally did not know that until I tested it

So yes, I apologize for yelling at you to listen to warnings in infractions because this forums software was dumb and did not actually send those warnings.

[Zeke]

Okay: 

I went ahead and streamlined the infractions on the back end so that it doesn't bork and makes them permanent, or preventing people from checking the "Indefinitely" button. Points can stack. If a person has 1 point already set to expire in a day and they receive 2 points before they expire, it goes into moderate content mode. Same goes for the 6. 9 points stacking goes into an automatic ban. 

I can edit these if anyone wants to weigh in.

These are the current edits for the points and the actions. ^^

 

Just for further measure, went ahead and un-cliked the indefinitely buttons to prevent further borking when a mod give points. The punishments can be overridden as well so a person with 3 points already doesn't go into auto-moderate status, or auto-restrict. 

[Endless/Nameless]

Do infracs earn me street cred?

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

Could you possibly edit my points? Lemon decided to tack on 2 points right before she left, and I don't want them to add up and fuck me over later.

[jcstinks]

17 hours ago, 6tails said:

Because historically speaking, polite appeals go unheeded ANYWAYS, especially when they are done in a private manner where NOBODY can be held publicly accountable. What, have you NOT been to any *chan in your life? And that's just the most public example.

I don't know, Alex, I've had a really easy time with the moderators here so far. Everyone's been polite and quick to respond. Maybe we just have a good set of people here on this forum. Overall, we haven't had many problems, and the ones we've had have been minor.

The only point of contention we have, strangely, is the disagreement over the rules, which are pretty darn lenient. One of our most treasured moderators left after constant threats and harassment, mostly over the subject of transparency. I wish people could just calm down about it. It's a furry forum, we're here to socialize and have a good time. The rules aren't really a big deal. The chat here really isn't a big deal. The worst possible outcome of this transparency issue is that someone doesn't get to post on a furry forum for awhile, and has to either use the chat or post on another forum.

On another note, I realize that you disagree about the tone of your posts so far; you've stated numerous times that your posts are never angry. They are, however, identical in tone to posts that are angry and insulting to others. Out of the same respect you ask the rest of the forums to have for your needs, may I ask that you respect the needs of others by being mindful of how you come across? I don't mean this as an insult, or an attack, but rather, it makes me genuinely sad to see people arguing in what should be a fun and social space.

[willow]

21 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

Could you possibly edit my points? Lemon decided to tack on 2 points right before she left, and I don't want them to add up and fuck me over later.

I've asked about it. the old ones will probably be revoked and the most recent one reissued with an expiration date, or they'll just all be revoked

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

5 minutes ago, willow said:

I've asked about it. the old ones will probably be revoked and the most recent one reissued with an expiration date, or they'll just all be revoked

Alright, thanks/

[Ieono]

I feel like the mods here are analogous to the mental health technicians in mental hospitals. You'd think a small, cozy forum like this would have few issues, since pretty much everyone knows each other, but I guess not. 

[Pignog]

22 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Yes because we are going to eat it at the Toronto meet up which will be at Pignog's new place on Sunday. 

 

 

20 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Oh I can't wait. 

just found out my roommate invited a friend to join us for bored gaymes. can't wait to see his face

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, willow said:

I've asked about it. the old ones will probably be revoked and the most recent one reissued with an expiration date, or they'll just all be revoked

Sounds good. I've got one last old one sitting there and the person who gave it has not responded to my PM. 

It'll be nice to have the last of them cleaned up. 

[willow]

3 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Sounds good. I've got one last old one sitting there and the person who gave it has not responded to my PM. 

It'll be nice to have the last of them cleaned up. 

they probably aren't active anymore

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, willow said:

they probably aren't active anymore

Thank goodness you are!

Cheers M8! 

[Kinare]

1 hour ago, Ieono said:

You'd think a small, cozy forum like this would have few issues, since pretty much everyone knows each other,

The more you know about someone, the more there is to hate and the easier it becomes to say it. :L

I find all of this rage directed at the mods quite funny, but I do feel badly for them. I think people are forgetting they're only human and aren't perfect, so expecting perfection is stupid. I sure didn't enjoy getting responses like "fuck you, ur rules are stupid and I hate you" in reply to a warnings I had sent out, which is basically what a lot of this is, but more public and they can't do jack shit about it or even more shit flings because "how dare the mods not take the shit flung at them when I disagree with them". No one is ever going to be totally pleased with the rules either, so it's basically never-ending. At least where I moderated I didn't have any control over the procedures/system, I just followed them, so I wasn't specifically targeted until I had to tell people to be good.

Rock | Mods | Hard Place

I do like the idea of public appeals, however, I feel it should be very restricted in who can and cannot respond to such threads. I feel that no one other than the person appealing, the mod who issued the ban and a neutral mod (who will also make the final confirmation on if the ban is sticking or can overturn it) should be allowed to respond. That should keep it from turning into a bigger shit flinging fest than it might be by default. It may also be worth it to have one mod (maybe not even a mod, just someone that is a designated "mediator") dedicated to doing only appeals so there's less chance for conflict of interest. I can hear someone shouting that it will be one-sided towards the mods regardless, but this seems like the best solution to avoid that.

[#00Buck]

I'd rather it was like an episode of Judge Mathis.

That would be more fun.

[willow]

I once saw an episode of Judge Mathis where someone got sued for dropping something on a woman's foot. and her boyfriend was mad because she couldn't enter in some foot fetish competition. it was weird

10 minutes ago, Kinare said:

I do like the idea of public appeals, however, I feel it should be very restricted in who can and cannot respond to such threads. I feel that no one other than the person appealing, the mod who issued the ban and a neutral mod (who will also make the final confirmation on if the ban is sticking or can overturn it) should be allowed to respond. That should keep it from turning into a bigger shit flinging fest than it might be by default. It may also be worth it to have one mod (maybe not even a mod, just someone that is a designated "mediator") dedicated to doing only appeals so there's less chance for conflict of interest. I can hear someone shouting that it will be one-sided towards the mods regardless, but this seems like the best solution to avoid that.

I'd be cool with that idea. Clove just made a thread/poll for this if you wanna repeat that in the thread.

[Toboe]

There are two processes i wonder about:

First:)

In the rule reaction thread i had a concern that was taken up by lemon and then nothing happened, any mod care to take up where Lemon left? (I'll just link to her post that was mangled by the forum software, you'll see it complete by following the link)

 

Second:)

What is the state of the naming process? Did I miss anything, or is it still at the stage of "first poll (categories of names) done, second (actual name) to be announced" ?

[Zaraphayx]

19 hours ago, Mentova said:

I mean, you did spam like 30+ reports. That's still infraction worthy man.

However I will actually apologize for yelling at you about the infraction notification thing because I figured, like any normal forum, when you get an infraction on your account it sends you a message about it. Well apparently here it does not and I literally did not know that until I tested it

So yes, I apologize for yelling at you to listen to warnings in infractions because this forums software was dumb and did not actually send those warnings.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for it to sink into your stubborn head but just because something occurred in a high quantity doesn't mean it's spamming.

At least you're closer to the correct number this time instead of "literally a million"

Every post I reported was a legitimate breach of the rules, I wasn't even reaching, and half of the time I skimmed over repeat offenses by the same person in the same thread. I admitted that I kept reporting posts after being set to read-only for "spamming" to make a point, but even then they weren't illegitimate reports, there wasn't a single post I reported that wasn't against the same rule Kalmor cited when he edited my posts.for "Insulting another user", or "derailment"

You forget that I was banned in the days when "sandbag Rassah" was the hip new trend as well as calling other members Nazis, bigots, or idiots unironically for having the wrong political opinion or for posting satirical content that wasn't at all intended to be taken seriously.

Kalmor even edited several posts that I reported for those exact things, so I want to ask you again now that you can't just shitpost back, ban be for using a sockpuppet, and dodge the question; why did he moderate posts I reported if the reports were illegitimate?

I know it's a meme for the unobservant to dismiss me as a malcontent agent of anarchy, but what I have agitated about from the very beginning is the lack of internal consistency within certain elements of the moderation team coupled with your willingness to drag out the swords and pitchforks before engaging with forum users diplomatically.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Zaraphayx

[DrGravitas]

29 minutes ago, 6tails said:

[...]it is this internal inconsistency and ignorance that makes things as they are.[...]

QFT, this has been one of the major conclusions I've come to in my time working in a gigantic corporation. Although it is not the only cause, it can be a big one. But, at the same time it can also be beneficial when faced with a broken process. Whether or not that side effect is true here is another matter.

[Mentova]

4 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for it to sink into your stubborn head but just because something occurred in a high quantity doesn't mean it's spamming.

At least you're closer to the correct number this time instead of "literally a million"

Every post I reported was a legitimate breach of the rules, I wasn't even reaching, and half of the time I skimmed over repeat offenses by the same person in the same thread. I admitted that I kept reporting posts after being set to read-only for "spamming" to make a point, but even then they weren't illegitimate reports, there wasn't a single post I reported that wasn't against the same rule Kalmor cited when he edited my posts.for "Insulting another user", or "derailment"

You forget that I was banned in the days when "sandbag Rassah" was the hip new trend as well as calling other members Nazis, bigots, or idiots unironically for having the wrong political opinion or for posting satirical content that wasn't at all intended to be taken seriously.

Kalmor even edited several posts that I reported for those exact things, so I want to ask you again now that you can't just shitpost back, ban be for using a sockpuppet, and dodge the question; why did he moderate posts I reported if the reports were illegitimate?

I know it's a meme for the unobservant to dismiss me as a malcontent agent of anarchy, but what I have agitated about from the very beginning is the lack of internal consistency within certain elements of the moderation team coupled with your willingness to drag out the swords and pitchforks before engaging with forum users diplomatically.

I'm pretty sure you filed all those reports because you were pissed off at kalmor's overly strict, heavy handed infraction and your response was "well if this was wrong then all of this is too!" to try and make a point about it, not because you legit thought those posts were breaking the rules. I'm not going to be discussing this with you any further however because its just going to continue with you cursing me out and isn't going to really go anywhere. I apologized for the thing I legit did wrong, so if you want to continue being angry about it, so be it.

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

And now that you've figured out one of the things that pissed me off so much, I'll apologize even further than in the prior thread. You've graduated a bit from just reacting when the reality is things are not working as you expect them to work, and I quite honestly expected you to not ever figure it out. I apologize profusely for that. I gave you less credit in my mind than you were actually worth, and I do feel rather ashamed for it.

Let's not get too into this. This is a typical case of moderators not knowing what the fuck their system operations entails. Honestly, it's not a surprise. People just want the power without understanding how it works or the implications behind it - look at global politics, you see where everyone gets their working example from.

T-thanks? I think telling someone "I'm sorry for being rude to you about how dumb you are but you're only a bit less dumb and have no clue what you're doing and you just want power" is the most polite way to insult someone I've seen.

[Zaraphayx]

1 hour ago, Mentova said:

I'm pretty sure you filed all those reports because you were pissed off at kalmor's overly strict, heavy handed infraction and your response was "well if this was wrong then all of this is too!" to try and make a point about it, not because you legit thought those posts were breaking the rules. I'm not going to be discussing this with you any further however because its just going to continue with you cursing me out and isn't going to really go anywhere. I apologized for the thing I legit did wrong, so if you want to continue being angry about it, so be it.

You are right that I was trying to make a point, but wrong about it being a knee-jerk emotional reaction to a particular event; that's more in line with how you and Kalmor have handled the situation than me, and history supports my position. Also a minor semantic distinction, but I didn't 'think' they were breaking the rules, I knew they were because insulting and harassing other users was/is against the rules as well as posting "off topic". I don't agree necessarily with punishing people for those things but I do think that if they're going to be punished they should be punished fairly and evenly. I truthfully don't really want anyone infracted or banned for anything save but the most obnoxious offenses like necroposting, spamming (the real kind and not your loose interpretation of it), and persistent harassment of other users.

The fact that you grant leniency to infractions of these rules when it suits you and punish them when it doesn't is what I was calling attention to, it apparently went right over your head because you're too wrapped up in the "Zara is a big mean TROLL who wants to sow mischief and discord!" narrative. I tried to be "reasonable" about these and other issues in Nerd Essay Effortpost form after Ayattar was banned for wrongthink and the only member of the staff who engaged me was Carenath, who quickly vanished into the aether and left the rest of you to your devises and the forum saw what happens when you are left accountable to no one.

My intentions were to start a conversation and enact change for a better posting environment and the results so far are satisfactory even if it took longer than I had initially hoped.

Also I'm not angry and I've never "cursed you out". The only swear word I even used in the last post was "shitpost" and that's more of a descriptive noun than an expletive. Stop deflecting.
 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Zaraphayx

[Mentova]

11 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

You are right that I was trying to make a point, but wrong about it being a knee-jerk emotional reaction to a particular event; that's more in line with how you and Kalmor have handled the situation than me, and history supports my position. Also a minor semantic distinction, but I didn't 'think' they were breaking the rules, I knew they were because insulting and harassing other users was/is against the rules as well as posting "off topic". I don't agree necessarily with punishing people for those things but I do think that if they're going to be punished they should be punished fairly and evenly. I truthfully don't really want anyone infracted or banned for anything save but the most obnoxious offenses like necroposting, spamming (the real kind and not your loose interpretation of it), and persistent harassment of other users.

The fact that you grant leniency to infractions of these rules when it suits you and punish them when it doesn't is what I was calling attention to, it apparently went right over your head because you're too wrapped up in the "Zara is a big mean TROLL who wants to sow mischief and discord!" narrative. I tried to be "reasonable" about these and other issues in Nerd Essay Effortpost form after Ayattar was banned for wrongthink and the only member of the staff who engaged me was Carenath, who quickly vanished into the aether and left the rest of you to your devises and the forum saw what happens when you are left accountable to no one.

My intentions were to start a conversation and enact change for a better posting environment and the results so far are satisfactory even if it took longer than I had initially hoped.

Also I'm not angry and I've never "cursed you out". The only swear word I even used in the last post was "shitpost" and that's more of a descriptive noun than an expletive. Stop deflecting.
 

Alright, replace "curse out" with "yell at" or "insult" then.

[Zaraphayx]

24 minutes ago, Mentova said:

Alright, replace "curse out" with "yell at" or "insult" then.

I cannot yell with typed words and any words interpreted as insulting were being used descriptively.

I call myself an idiot when I do idiotic things and I apply the same reasoning to others.

It's that whole "internal consistency" thing that I like talking about so much.

[Zaraphayx]

Retraction: the first post I made in this thread contained one deliberate insult in which I called Kalmor "Cuckmor",

My bad. :^)

[Zeke]

I like pie. 

[Vae]

Grav's post and the bit about NSFW work being tagged as such brings up a question with me.

Okay, so I was running under the assumption that NSFW content strictly had to be locked under links to sites that require logins to see that content, first.
A restricted access system, basically.

But the bit about simply tagging / warning / spoilering NSFW gives the impression that it runs under an honor system, instead.

Either one of these is fine, and I'm not trying to be pedantic about that.
I'm just a bit confused on what I would and wouldn't be allowed to post, myself. Because a lot of my stuff is hosted on Tumblr, which runs under the honor system. There's a huge black banner with red text at the top of my nsfw blog basically telling minors to gtfo, and stating that anyone who scrolls down to view my work on there is agreeing to being of legal age to do so,
but I'm still wondering where stuff like that lies on the scale of acceptability here.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Vae

[Endless/Nameless]

28 minutes ago, Vae said:

Grav's post and the bit about NSFW work being tagged as such brings up a question with me.

Okay, so I was running under the assumption that NSFW content strictly had to be locked under links to sites that require logins to see that content, first.
A restricted access system, basically.

But the bit about simply tagging / warning / spoilering NSFW gives the impression that it runs under an honor system, instead.

Either one of these is fine, and I'm not trying to be pedantic about that.
I'm just a bit confused on what I would and wouldn't be allowed to post, myself. Because a lot of my stuff is hosted on Tumblr, which runs under the honor system. There's a huge black banner with red text at the top of my nsfw blog basically telling minors to gtfo, and stating that anyone who scrolls down to view my work on there is agreeing to being of legal age to do so,
but I'm still wondering where stuff like that lies on the scale of acceptability here.

It sounds more confusing than it actually is. Here is my understanding of it, from my observations:

Anything truly NSFW (boobs, dicks, cunts, visible copulation) can't be hosted here, and it can only be linked to provided the linked site has an agelock. Anything else questionable should be marked as NSFW and placed behind a spoiler tag, and may be removed at a mods discretion. 

But I don't speak for the mods so....Mods, please confirm and clarify. 

As far as your tumblr, again I can't speak for the mods, but from the way you describe it I would say that linking to there is fine.

[Vae]

2 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

It sounds more confusing than it actually is. Here is my understanding of it, from my observations:

Anything truly NSFW (boobs, dicks, cunts, visible copulation) can't be hosted here, and it can only be linked to provided the linked site has an agelock. Anything else questionable should be marked as NSFW and placed behind a spoiler tag, and may be removed at a mods discretion. 

But I don't speak for the mods so....Mods, please confirm and clarify. 

As far as your tumblr, again I can't speak for the mods, but from the way you describe it I would say that linking to there is fine.

"NSFW", as far as I'm aware, only applies to "boobs, dicks, cunts, visible copulation" and things of that particularly explicit nature.

PG-13 / "mild R" ratings allow... quite a lot of stuff (especially nowadays), as long as there's not like legit fucking in it or something. In which case, that becomes NSFW.

This is just the perspective that I'm coming from on this, and why I'm confused.

[Endless/Nameless]

5 minutes ago, Vae said:

"NSFW", as far as I'm aware, only applies to "boobs, dicks, cunts, visible copulation" and things of that particularly explicit nature.

PG-13 / "mild R" ratings allow... quite a lot of stuff (especially nowadays), as long as there's not like legit fucking in it or something. In which case, that becomes NSFW.

This is just the perspective that I'm coming from on this, and why I'm confused.

To clarify my wording, there are two types of NSFW in my mind:

• True NSFW: B, D, C, VC. The hardcore kind of thing that's on sites that say "18+"
• Low-Level NSFW: anything kinda dirty that you wouldn't want to be caught peering at in social situations (literally not-safe-for-work). 

PG-13/R etc is for movies and I don't think it's a great way to describe this stuff

[Toboe]

6 hours ago, Zeke said:

I like pie. 

would you also like to answer this? ( @willow, @Mentova)

 

 

[willow]

1 minute ago, Toboe said:

would you also like to answer this? ( @willow, @Mentova)

 

 

You mean this rule? Do not post any content that is defamatory, racist, sexist, hate speech, or in any other way discriminatory against groups of people.

I think it was meant to be more of a general overview but if you want a more detailed definition then we can fix it. or did you have a different concern?

and I'm not really sure what naming process you're talking about unfortunately

 

[Clove Darkwave]

5 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

It sounds more confusing than it actually is. Here is my understanding of it, from my observations:

Anything truly NSFW (boobs, dicks, cunts, visible copulation) can't be hosted here, and it can only be linked to provided the linked site has an agelock. Anything else questionable should be marked as NSFW and placed behind a spoiler tag, and may be removed at a mods discretion. 

But I don't speak for the mods so....Mods, please confirm and clarify. 

As far as your tumblr, again I can't speak for the mods, but from the way you describe it I would say that linking to there is fine.

This is the best way to go about it that should keep you from having to worry.

When in doubt, spoiler/link it out.

[Toboe]

16 minutes ago, willow said:

You mean this rule? Do not post any content that is defamatory, racist, sexist, hate speech, or in any other way discriminatory against groups of people.

I think it was meant to be more of a general overview but if you want a more detailed definition then we can fix it. or did you have a different concern?

My concern is that it is, imho, badly worded. It's not that i want more details for the definition, just that definition and examples are separate.

defamatory/discriminatory/hate speech is the definition of what is banned.

racist/sexist are examples. (defamatory/discriminatory based on "race" and sex, respectively).

The rule shouldn't mix definition and example. If we want examples in the rule they should be clearly separate.

i.e. Do not post [definition]. This includes but is not limited to [example].

or Do not post [definition], like [examples].

There was also a thread where ArielMT posted the rules and asked us to discuss them before we take them. I can't find it anymore, but i discussed it with her there and we had a better wording, but it wasn't edited into the start post, which i guess is the reason for it being overlooked.

15 minutes ago, willow said:

and I'm not really sure what naming process you're talking about unfortunately

 

 

 

[willow]

Just now, Toboe said:

My concern is that it is, imho, badly worded. It's not that i want more details for the definition, just that definition and examples are separate.

defamatory/discriminatory/hate speech is the definition of what is banned.

racist/sexist are examples. (defamatory/discriminatory based on "race" and sex, respectively).

The rule shouldn't mix definition and example. If we want examples in the rule they should be clearly separate.

i.e. Do not post [definition]. This includes but is not limited to [example].

or Do not post [definition], like [examples].

There was also a thread where ArielMT posted the rules and asked us to discuss them before we take them. I can't find it anymore, but i discussed it with her there and we had a better wording, but it wasn't edited into the start post, which i guess is the reason for it being overlooked.

 

 

 

I get what you're saying but to be fair, I think the intent was that you can't use racist or sexist slurs here, which is slightly different from something being discriminatory or hate speech.

as far as the name is concerned, I think it was just kind of dropped because Phoenixed seemed to stick. but y'all decided that while I was gone

 

[ArielMT]

I dropped the ball on that one.  Sorry.

At the time, we kept a parallel mod discussion thread, and I brought it up there, but not with the detail that was in the public thread.  I didn't edit it into the original post because I wanted us to agree on what we were putting in, not sneaking anything in to the final rules inadvertently or otherwise.

[Toboe]

11 minutes ago, willow said:

I get what you're saying but to be fair, I think the intent was that you can't use racist or sexist slurs here, which is slightly different from something being discriminatory or hate speech.

Can't really imagine imagine slurs bypassing discriminatory/defamatory/hate speech. And if, that would open up the discussion "what about [insert group] slurs?" As I'd assume that transphobic slurs (iirc transphobic was brought up for that rule in the discussion by another user), for example, wouldn't be welcome either.

34 minutes ago, willow said:

as far as the name is concerned, I think it was just kind of dropped because Phoenixed seemed to stick. but y'all decided that while I was gone

Which is what  I'm wondering: Was it decided and i missed it, or was the follow up simply forgotten?

 

23 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

At the time, we kept a parallel mod discussion thread, and I brought it up there, but not with the detail that was in the public thread.  I didn't edit it into the original post because I wanted us to agree on what we were putting in, not sneaking anything in to the final rules inadvertently or otherwise.

Mh, is the info still salvageable? (by a mod)

[willow]

Just now, Toboe said:

Can't really imagine imagine slurs bypassing discriminatory/defamatory/hate speech. And if, that would open up the discussion "what about [insert group] slurs?" As I'd assume that transphobic slurs (iirc transphobic was brought up for that rule in the discussion by another user), for example, wouldn't be welcome either.

Which is what  I'm wondering: Was it decided and i missed it, or was the follow up simply forgotten?

 

they don't really bypass that but you can be racist and not discriminatory. but I'll propose some better wording in a little bit

can't really speak on the naming because I missed it too. I knew there was a thread on FAF about deciding a name before the move but by the time I came back the, name and the banner were already decided it seemed like.

[Toboe]

43 minutes ago, willow said:

they don't really bypass that but you can be racist and not discriminatory. but I'll propose some better wording in a little bit

can't really speak on the naming because I missed it too. I knew there was a thread on FAF about deciding a name before the move but by the time I came back the, name and the banner were already decided it seemed like.

Phoenixed is/was the temporary name.

In

 

The option: "A partly phoenix name: Exploding Crows (or Burning Crows, Phoenix Corvidae), Fafnix, Fenix, Peeko, Peenix, Phaf, Phoenixed Forums (make the temporary name permanent), or RePhoenixed"

had 25%, whereas "A phoenix name:[...]" had 31.25%.

 

So i think we are still using it as the temporary name.

[willow]

3 minutes ago, Toboe said:

Phoenixed is/was the temporary name.

In

 

The option: "A partly phoenix name: Exploding Crows (or Burning Crows, Phoenix Corvidae), Fafnix, Fenix, Peeko, Peenix, Phaf, Phoenixed Forums (make the temporary name permanent), or RePhoenixed"

had 25%, whereas "A phoenix name:[...]" had 31.25%.

 

So i think we are still using it as the temporary name.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to revive the topic. or at least make a new one to actually decide on an official name.

though I see more people just refer to it as Phoenix instead of Phoenixed.

[Endless/Nameless]

29 minutes ago, willow said:

though I see more people just refer to it as Phoenix instead of Phoenixed.

I tend to see this place as The Phoenix Forums, with Phoenixed being a sort of colloquial alternate name. Some of the older pet names in that thread fit pretty well too. It's kind of a cool ambiguity; makes the place seem versatile and a little larger-than-life. 

[willow]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I tend to see this place as The Phoenix Forums, with Phoenixed being a sort of colloquial alternate name. Some of the older pet names in that thread fit pretty well too. It's kind of a cool ambiguity; makes the place seem versatile and a little larger-than-life. 

 

it'd be nice to have a thread to legitimately discuss making it official to clear up any confusions but at the same time, but if people are content with making The Phoenix(ed) Forums the official name, then I won't bother with it unless a bunch of people wanna discuss it in detail

[Spot]

17 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I tend to see this place as The Phoenix Forums, with Phoenixed being a sort of colloquial alternate name. Some of the older pet names in that thread fit pretty well too. It's kind of a cool ambiguity; makes the place seem versatile and a little larger-than-life. 

So would it be too bald to say that instead of getting pwned you could always say "you just got Phoenixed"? Cause I think that'll be my new catchphrase.

[Clove Darkwave]

59 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

to say  getting pwned

People still do that?

[Pignog]

i still get owned on a daily basis, such is life

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Pignog said:

i still get owned on a daily basis, such is life

P-owned!