Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Question about "render unto caesar"
  • Subject: Question about "render unto caesar"
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Question about "render unto caesar"


Posted by: American Recoil
Posted by: Yax
Read the goddamn thread, Ken. He is suggesting a slight change in the rule's wording so that it accurately reflects what is already common practise.
I just laid it all out for him in my post above you, at least hoping it coincides with what the OP is describing.


Yep. You're right.

  • 01.06.2012 12:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

O-3 US Army Reserves AMEDD APMC
"To conserve the fighting strength!"

Posted by: Jay120171
Bobcast: the only ninja to operate an ER out of his mom's basement


Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:

Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.


Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).

It's a slight change, but a big difference.


Nope.

The rule is perfect the way it is.

The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.

  • 01.06.2012 12:23 AM PDT


Posted by: bobcast

Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:

Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.


Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).

It's a slight change, but a big difference.


Nope.

The rule is perfect the way it is.

The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.


If the rule specified "advocating or instructing" illegal activities, you would still have to use your judgement to determine where the line is between simply posting about and advocating. If it was changed, you wouldn't lose anything, it would be writing out what you already do anyway.

  • 01.06.2012 12:27 AM PDT

Gamers Anon

Achronos: And what's this about a "design team" I've been hearing? Apparently stosh is so awesome he's now considered a "team".

That it does, however that also goes the other way in that people can interpret the rule differently also exercising judgement.
Posted by: bobcast

Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:

Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.


Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).

It's a slight change, but a big difference.


Nope.

The rule is perfect the way it is.

The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.

  • 01.06.2012 12:28 AM PDT

"We live in a special time; the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time" - Lawrence Krauss.

I was a finalist :P


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: Zealot Tony

Posted by: spartain ken 15
I think ir can be interpreted in different ways.

Which could be seen as a problem with users who read the particular section from the CoC.

[Edited on 01.06.2012 1:44 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 1:43 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble. As long as the user's post has good intentions and makes a positive impact in the community, I don't think there will be a problem.
Posted by: Muzza777
People can interpret the rule differently also exercising judgement.

  • 01.06.2012 2:35 AM PDT

Not necessarily. DeeJ always has the final say with Terms of Use / Code of Conduct violations and ban appeals.
Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble.

EDIT: Whoops, it used to be urk. Guess it's DeeJ now.

[Edited on 01.06.2012 2:46 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 2:45 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

DeeJ fits into the general category of moderator, in this context. Either way, I think I've made my point.
Posted by: ctjl96
Not necessarily. DeeJ always has the final say with Terms of Use / Code of Conduct violations and ban appeals.
Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble.

  • 01.06.2012 2:52 AM PDT

Key

...Pretty sure that's Achronos, actually...

(I could be wrong but it makes a helluva lot more sense than DeeJ.)
Posted by: ctjl96
Not necessarily. DeeJ always has the final say with Terms of Use / Code of Conduct violations and ban appeals.
Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble.

EDIT: Whoops, it used to be urk. Guess it's DeeJ now.


[Edited on 01.06.2012 3:00 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 3:00 AM PDT

You'd think so, right? I don't know, maybe it's because he's busy. He's not really concerned so much with our mortal affairs, I don't think, unless it comes down to actual law violations. Then I believe he would come into the equation.If the Master Forum Ninja denies your appeal or directs you to contact DeeJ, you may appeal this decision to DeeJ. DeeJ is the final word on forum bans.
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
...Pretty sure that's Achronos, actually...

(I could be wrong but it makes a helluva lot more sense than DeeJ.)
Posted by: ctjl96
Not necessarily. DeeJ always has the final say with Terms of Use / Code of Conduct violations and ban appeals.
Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble.

EDIT: Whoops, it used to be urk. Guess it's DeeJ now.

  • 01.06.2012 3:08 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

You'd think that... but: Bungie.net: HFCS: Article: So you want to appeal a forum ban?
Posted by: x Foman123 x
If the Master Forum Ninja denies your appeal or directs you to contact DeeJ, you may appeal this decision to DeeJ. DeeJ is the final word on forum bans.

Master Forum Ninjas will not reverse the decisions of DeeJ, other Master Forum Ninjas, or any Bungie employee.

It used to be Urk, but was soon changed when DeeJ showed up. I don't think it ever was Achronos, but I wouldn't know and any further discussion of this would be rather off-topic.
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
...Pretty sure that's Achronos, actually...

I'm pretty sure that Achronos is no lawyer and that he's just too busy doing whatever he does at Bungie and chillin' when work's over.
Posted by: ctjl96
Maybe it's because he's busy. He's not really concerned so much with our mortal affairs, unless it comes down to actual law violations.


[Edited on 01.06.2012 3:14 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 3:09 AM PDT

We're fine. Yes, it used to be Achronos, but it was changed to urk for a specific reason a while ago. I forget what the reason was, but I asked Foman and it was related to work, I believe. I'd have to find the PM, and I don't even remember what month I asked him in so it'd be impossible to find it. : |
Posted by: Izak609
It used to be Urk, but was soon changed when DeeJ showed up. I don't think it ever was Achronos, but I wouldn't know and any further discussion of this would be rather off-topic.

He's the webmaster; if someone breaks the law on his site he'll have to get involved.
Posted by: Izak609
I'm pretty sure that Achronos is no lawyer and that he's just too busy doing whatever he does at Bungie and chillin' when work's over.
Posted by: ctjl96
Maybe it's because he's busy. He's not really concerned so much with our mortal affairs, unless it comes down to actual law violations.


[Edited on 01.06.2012 3:19 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 3:16 AM PDT

My YouTube Channel
Bungiepedia Page

"Sometimes life gives you lemons, and then you have to say 'f**k the lemons' and bail."

If you're reading this, you need to stop stalking me. If you can't stop stalking me, you might as well go here.

Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: bobcast
Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:
Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.


Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).

It's a slight change, but a big difference.


Nope.

The rule is perfect the way it is.

The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.


If the rule specified "advocating or instructing" illegal activities, you would still have to use your judgement to determine where the line is between simply posting about and advocating. If it was changed, you wouldn't lose anything, it would be writing out what you already do anyway.
I'm going to have to agree with coolmike on this.

In a perfect world, yeah, the current rule would be fine. I don't know if it's a big issue that a lot of people run into, but I do know that plenty of people seem to need things spelled out for them.

You're giving us a little too much credit here, bobcast.

[Edited on 01.06.2012 3:50 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 3:43 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

He isn't a man wearing a gorilla suit. :D

Are you really talking about actual law? Like I said, I don't think he's a lawyer. Either way, he isn't the primary manager of Bungie.net, he has a boss. Remember that podcast?

If you're talking about forum rules, I don't think he has any primary roles in direct moderation anymore.
Posted by: ctjl96
He's the webmaster; if someone breaks the law on his site he'll have to get involved.

  • 01.06.2012 3:56 AM PDT

Yeah, I know; that's what I said. I don't think he gets involved in our affairs. Does he have a boss? I've never seen any of the podcasts. Tell moar.
Posted by: Izak609
He isn't a man wearing a gorilla suit. :D

Are you really talking about actual law? Like I said, I don't think he's a lawyer. Either way, he isn't the primary manager of Bungie.net, he has a boss. Remember that podcast?

If you're talking about forum rules, I don't think he has any primary roles in direct moderation anymore.
Posted by: ctjl96
He's the webmaster; if someone breaks the law on his site he'll have to get involved.

  • 01.06.2012 4:39 AM PDT


Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble. As long as the user's post has good intentions and makes a positive impact in the community, I don't think there will be a problem.
Posted by: Muzza777
People can interpret the rule differently also exercising judgement.


This is exactly what the change I'm suggestiong would say.

  • 01.06.2012 10:08 AM PDT

Tom Achronos
Bungie.net Overlord
twitter: http://twitter.com/Achronos

"I have no words that would do justice to the atrocities you commit to the English language, as well as your continued assaults on the concepts of basic literacy and logical reasoning."

We have a winner.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.

  • 01.06.2012 10:15 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

(Fixed)To have something like my post in the rules or code of conduct? Sure, although, I don't think it's very necessary, or at least it shouldn't be.
Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: Izak609
Yeah, but moderators get the final and decisive say, users should understand this and accept that the grey area could cause trouble. As long as the user's post has good intentions and makes a positive impact in the community, I don't think there will be a problem.
This is exactly what the change [that] I'm suggesting would say.


[Edited on 01.06.2012 12:29 PM PST]

  • 01.06.2012 12:29 PM PDT

Key

I see no reason to make it intentionally vague. You could ban me for using the word "bubble" in the same sentence as "international". You could ban me for PMing you. You could ban me for "suspicion of wearing a green hat". You could ban me for anything and not have to justify it. It's in the forum rules.

If anything, why wouldn't you make it specific, (to an extent), in the rules to help us, the forumgoers, understand its (implied) meaning more? I understand your point in theory, I just don't understand why you're choosing it over the alternative.
Posted by: Achronos
We have a winner.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.

  • 01.06.2012 12:37 PM PDT


Posted by: Achronos
We have a winner.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.


Yeah, it's a legal contract, obviously all-encompassing vagueness is the point. I'm saying that the rules should be changed to reflect what you already do.

  • 01.06.2012 8:10 PM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.

Posted by: coolmike699

Posted by: Achronos
We have a winner.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.


Yeah, it's a legal contract, obviously all-encompassing vagueness is the point. I'm saying that the rules should be changed to reflect what you already do.
It's difficult to put every single thread, or possible thread, into such black and white groups. With your amend to the rule discussion on illegal activities where advocation or instruction is not present and the subject clearly should not be discussed no action can be taken.

You should put more faith into a person's ability to interpret the purpose of a rule. Obviously there is some discussion about illegal things that would be acceptable to post and the burden is on you to know where the line is.

  • 01.06.2012 10:41 PM PDT

yoo•zel- ('yoo-zhul): slang: vb.

Officium quod Fidelitas.

No they shouldn't, this is the same circumstance that resulted from the moderators attempting to provide guidelines as to which rules you could break. Moderators are not here to hold each circumstance to the iron clad rule set of yesterday but are here to exercise our judgment. Nothing is perfect and no individual post will ever fall into good or bad when dealing with a rule set.

Posted by: coolmike699

Yeah, it's a legal contract, obviously all-encompassing vagueness is the point. I'm saying that the rules should be changed to reflect what you already do.

  • 01.06.2012 11:07 PM PDT

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I think they have pretty much summed it up nicely in previous statements, one phrase comes to mind.

"Play nice".


Seeing as this is an internet forum, we should all realize that we can be banned for anything, as this is someone elses property. As long as you mind your posts, and be somewhat tasteful, you should not have a problem.

  • 01.06.2012 11:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

O-3 US Army Reserves AMEDD APMC
"To conserve the fighting strength!"

Posted by: Jay120171
Bobcast: the only ninja to operate an ER out of his mom's basement


Posted by: Primo84
I'm going to have to agree with coolmike on this.

In a perfect world, yeah, the current rule would be fine. I don't know if it's a big issue that a lot of people run into, but I do know that plenty of people seem to need things spelled out for them.

You're giving us a little too much credit here, bobcast.


Posted by: bobcast

Posted by: coolmike699
The rules say:

Do not post about any illegal substances or activities.


Shouldn't the rules say "Do not advocate or instruct about any illegal activities"? This is obviously what the rule means, because if we were banned simply for posting about an illegal activity, we would all be banned by now. It's also what the "render unto caesar" clause means (it dosen't prohibit discussion of the past, like yesterday's shooting in Ohio).

It's a slight change, but a big difference.


Nope.

The rule is perfect the way it is.

The lack of specificity allows the moderation staff to exercise this little thing called judgment.


Posted by: Achronos
We have a winner.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
I imagine that the clause is intentionally vague, so they can use it in any circumstance without somebody trying to nitpick their way out of trouble. Obviously a news story is allowed, but they don't want to start adding explicit exceptions that people could try to use to appeal a well deserved permanent ban.




  • 01.06.2012 11:44 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2