Rules

See, there's the whole perspective thing. Now you know how we feel when members take our jokes the wrong way at times haha.

But I for one am okay with being a bit more careful with certain members (Which is what I've been working on since before you guys busted out the new edition of the fine print) as long as we can still have our fun.

 

Just so the staff's aware, Envy editted his post. If you read it before the edit, it now says he's chill with the compromise.

 

I agree.

With the exception of Vivi (sorry buddy, but you have been consistently unhelpful), most of us have been trying to help the newer members even though we clash with them. If they ask for someone to talk to or show signs of improvement, we back down from our assaults and give some serious advice.

It doesn't feel good to be treated like criminals, and the rules sound like they will only cause us to be treated more like them as they become normal policy.

As is, it will be the stronger personalities who are forced to compromise and not the staff or the newer members. To be more clear, the newer members will get told to toughen up, but the stronger personalities will get deletions and infractions, and public displays like this in reaction to such deletions and infractions will be shut down. That is not an even compromise.

Talking things over is always a better option than straight out enforcement, and we have seen a lot of that lately. Does anybody want that but one or two members, really?

 

Yes, it can, and I would agree to that (of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the whole staff, and you cannot on behalf of the whole site). But, I have two reservations:

People may not always come forward about bullying, and when they do, it may not be for the right reasons. We cannot approach people only when we have received complaints. If we feel things have gotten out of hand, we will contact those stepping over the line. Further, there are some things that are simply unacceptable.

and

When we have lightly warned people (in the form of general "watch it" posts by staff within threads or verbal warnings) and they have repeated their behavior, we must reserve the ability to escalate punishment.

 

However, the standards for punishment are not being compromised. In those cases, you are asking the member to compromise their actions. If they do not, you feel you have the right to punish them.

Your actions and standards are not compromised, they are merely delayed.

 

The problem is, you are forcing this "help" upon people who are not looking for your trials.

Our new policies may be more explicit--which, we feel, benefits the members and the staff--but our mode of punishment remains the same. You have ample warning that you are acting out of line.

 

You're welcome to stay on KHV and have fun. All it takes is perhaps a bit more consideration and mindfulness. This isn't about us all turning into boring prudes. It's about respecting others. It's not mutually exclusive.

And umm, the rules in the Spamzone have been the same since Repliku re-wrote them. I just added a few bits here and there. And the new Code of Conduct is more specific on bullying in general. Not just the incidents in the Spamzone.

If you feel the Code of Coduct is unreasonable then do tell where and what could be done to improve it. That IS the point of this thread.

 

From what we said in the team huddle (there's actually a lot more people talking to us than ya think Misty :P), you're being a tad tooooo vague. Can we get more clarification here. I know handling subjective matters is tough to be clear on, but try?

 

You mean things that are unacceptable? They were outlined in the rules.

• Insulting, harassing, or otherwise demeaning other users
• Targeting an individual or a group of users
• Creating hateful threads about other users
• Purposefully creating problems on the forums to make the job of the staff more difficult
• Beginning or participating in public arguments
• Publicly shaming or ridiculing other users

 

Elaborate .

Edit: Wow that was late, excuse me I was toasting in a completely separate roll bread.

 

See, the problem here is, we feel these are a bit too.... mod favorable. Or even favorable to people who don't get our fun. We'll back off those we're messing with, but these at any time if left there can be used to get rid of somebody for jesting and teasing.

 

The rules will always sound harsher than the practical application of them. There's a lot outlined as against our rules that will warrant certain punishments on that we are a bit lighter upon. We've agreed in this thread that we can be lighter on stopping what is teasing as long as you guys consider who you're doing it towards and respect when we say stop.

 

These are not unreasonable. Examples can be given, of course. But you seem to imply a person doesn't get a warning before getting punished. In which case, the person can say "I was joking! I thought it was acceptable!" and then things can be smoothed out from there, no?

Most of these are already in the rules in some shape or form too. Just sayin'

 

You act like the people in question go out of their way to force their "help" down these member's throats, when really they only give their criticism when these members show up where they are. We aren't some crusaders chasing these members throughout the forum.

And you may feel​ they are mutually beneficial but are they really? Just a thought for you.

 

I would like to quote myself as you seem to have missed my post.

To add to that, you have just clearly stated that you are not compromising your mode of punishment.

Are we making any progress here?

I disagree very strongly. More often than not, the practical application is far stricter, because the kinds of things that most people dare to post do not straight out break the rules. Because few people straight out break the rules, the enforcement that actually does take place is largely against borderline violations. The reason we asked for better examples was because we realize that the example you gave was unrealistic and that the actual enforcement that takes place will be against posts far milder than the made-up one you provided—because the post you provided is far rarer than the milder ones.

I think the general idea has been clearly expressed throughout the thread, if you would read it again.

 

But the thing is I'm not too sure WHO benefits from these rules.
There are a lot of members here who have absolutely no problem with me calling them a scagnant dumbasslifer.
And I've seen tons of threads where others do the same, new AND old members and everyone seems to be all honkey dorey, I've said this before but the problem lies when THAT ONE PERSON thinks that we're actually trying to offend eachother.
If you've learned the culture then by now you should realize that unless it's outside of the spam zone this is just the kh-vids way.
You don't have to partake in it but just realize that's how it is.
It's not bullying because bullying implies that we're trying to get joy from someone else crying about whatever. Believe it or not the only time we don't actually joke around is when we're ANGRY because of someone's overexaggeration, we don't LIKE people crying over our behaviour but it's an unfortunate side effect that may or may not happen.
And constantly we tell people "it's a joke, it's a joke, it's a joke" but people insist on getting angry over and over and over again. You would think by this point people would realize that VIVI IS GOING TO BE A DICK TO YOU AT SOME POINT AND THAT'S HOW IT IS, and that's why I encourage lurking the boards before becoming a member so that you can see if the place really is for you or not.

 

^^^^This.^^^^^

 

Compromise can be met on behalf of the staff with some conditions.
A few conditions it would be hopeful you would find reasonable though. I believe Wolfie or Misty will post them in a second, so please wait for a moment if you may.

 

Okay, because I'm legitimately tired of beating around the bush:

This is really all we want.

Look, cyberbullying IS a problem. It's a problem on facebook, and bullying itself is a major problem. It makes people NEED an escapist like KHV. People come here because they just can't get their real lives working. High-school's tough. People need a place to escape rope to when real life just isn't working. I get that. I used this place as my escapist for years to the point of even escaping real life relationships by dating a former member. Again, I get it.

I just want to ensure you can trust members like us who play rough that we'll know when to quit. It's truly been improving to the point these new rules don't need to be enforced. That's really it.

 

Staff has agreed to a compromise, but due to some concerns we have several conditions that we would like to see met in order for this to work.

First we would like to see an active effort to improve behavior/attitude/etc. towards other members for a significant period of time. If this happens, we are willing to give you a bit more freedom to joke around.

However, should you show us that we can trust you with this, you cannot revert to past behavior – i.e., targeting specific members repeatedly, purposefully doing things to make staffs’ jobs harder, etc. (basically what’s outlined in the rules). If we as staff collectively see and agree that one or more members are slipping back to the negative behavior, we reserve the right to be stricter again.

We’re willing to trust you guys – but you need to show us that we can first. Those are our conditions. Do that, and we can start working together to make this work for the majority.

We will be amending the rules with clearer examples of right and wrong (though you do have to give us some time, as it's growing late here, heh).