Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: So... Is It Okay to Talk About Now?
  • Subject: So... Is It Okay to Talk About Now?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: So... Is It Okay to Talk About Now?

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: edableshoe
I'm on the same side.
You're not on my side if you post a paragraphs that imply that you disagree with me. Sorry.

  • 11.08.2012 12:27 PM PDT

The Forerunner, the Great Journey, and Heaven Theory

[Announcement Trailer] Halo: Forerunner

Posted by: Agustus
I lol'd at the absurd miscommunication that occurs whenever dibbs post something. Perhaps his brain is so highly evolved that he can no longer clearly communicate with lesser life forms, even among his own species.

Posted by: Heliossoileh1
According to the much vaunted "Rules", I cannot talk about jaywalking. That, after all, is "illegal activity", though not in my country.
That would be according to your interpretation of the rules (unless of course you've had punitive measures taken against you for creating such a topic - then that would be according to the specific moderator's interpretation of them).
Posted by: True Underdog
Allow me to reply then (speaking only for myself, of course), without having to rationalize my way out of contradictions: if you discuss anything that I determine to be a violation of the set of rules Bungie has set in place, I will handle it how I see fit until Bungie tells me otherwise.
But that's a tautology. I'd hazard a guess and say most users know that you have the authority to take punitive action against anyone (here) for anything and that you are using your own judgement to inform those decisions. I would agree that this is the standard response you should be giving to people who question why you took action against them.

However, for this specific rule, the main problem is that people (either through serious inquiry or deliberate misinterpretation) are going to question what you mean by "illegal" since the definition varies by town, state, and country. Don't get me wrong, I realize many people don't see this as a problem and feel the discussion can end there with the response you stated above. However, I feel that that is going to be viewed as a hollow answer and we could elaborate on the rule to make it more sensible for both the average user to understand and the moderation team to explain.

The moderation team is not comprised of legal scholars, nor are you expected to be, so the intent of the rule cannot simply be "do not discuss illegal things" (notwithstanding the question of "illegal where?"). I remember Achronos explaining this rule in some degree and saying that he did not want to have to deal with authorities (on any level) because of content that was put onto this website. I imagine there are more reasons for the inclusion of this rule that I'm not privy to, but I'd like to hazard a guess at another (which other users have discussed in this thread and elsewhere) and say that this rule is also in place to prevent inflammatory discussion and flaming from taking place (an aside: I never really understood this preventative mentality of locking a thread because it has the potential to get out of hand. Why not simply let it run it's course and if any users cannot abide by the place nice rule ,remove them on a case by case basis as opposed to stiffing discussion? But that's a topic for another day...). In this case I want to point to the Kobe beef example I gave before. Discussing that was illegal but unlikely to provoke a response from authorities, unlikely to be designated as "illegal" by the moderation team, and unlikely to elicit an emotional response. Would that topic have been locked simply on the basis that it was illegal, or is there some other reasoning behind locking a thread like that? If there is some other reasoning, why not put that in place of the "do not discuss illegal activities" rule?

All in all, this isn't some sort of admonition of the web and moderation team, just my opinion that it would be better to include in the rules the reasoning behind why the "do not discuss illegal activities" rule was put in place. I think it would allow for less skirting the line by those who deliberately misinterpret, a better understanding of the rule by those who legitimately don't understand it's boundaries, and a more satisfactory response the moderation team could use as opposed to "it's up to our discretion and we said so". Again, I'm aware that many view the current situation as something that does not present a problem or need to be rectified. I agree, but I do think we can make things better.

  • 11.08.2012 12:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: dibbs089
I'm sorry but your premise is wrong, making the rest of your argument invalid. I have locked threads and warned/banned their creators for discussing any number of illegal activities, including underage drinking, transporting fireworks into states where they're illegal, and "scamming" vending machines, and those are just the first three that I could think of off the top of my head. If you can think of a way to discuss some obscure thing that nobody knows is illegal, well congratulations, you've accomplished the exact same thing as a troll who waits until 4AM to flame and troll other users. The fact that somebody can break the rules in a particular post or thread unbeknownst to the moderators doesn't necessitate a change in the rules. This should be obvious.

"Do not discuss illegal activities" is an unambiguous, bright-line rule. It has worked just fine on this site for nearly 10 years, and you are the first person I've ever seen to act like the rule causes confusion. It needs no further clarification, and you attempting to complicate it by coming up with outrageous hypothetical scenarios does not change that.

And by the way, I am, in fact, a legal scholar.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 1:04 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 1:00 PM PDT

@Vinyl_Hb

What you all aren't stopping to realize is that in Washington state it was not really the goal to legalize marijuana. If you all read the fine print, the real goal was to be able to test your blood, and if you have the slightest inkling of THC in your blood (If you've smoked in the last month) you will be charged with a DUI if you were driving.

Many of you know how detrimental a DUI can be on your record.

In my opinion this was just a way for the police to check your blood, and charge you.

What I'm saying is that all these people went and voted for it thinking "Oh yeah legalize -blam!-! Woohoo!" Without reading the downsides that go with it.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 1:02 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 1:01 PM PDT

Perpetual Ninja in training.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

DMH

Los Paranoias


Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: edableshoe
I'm on the same side.
You're not on my side if you post a paragraphs that imply that you disagree with me. Sorry.
I'm sure you've heard about something called "politics."

You see, in politics, there is one goal, and the disagreement comes from how we achieve that common goal.

What you and I have here is a disagreement on a singular goal. If you live in America, you are not on different teams if you are for different parties, you just disagree on the means to a common goal.

So, in turn, you and I are not on different teams, so to speak. I would love to talk about this stuff here, but why the hell would I rush it? No need to push, I can wait, and it isn't all that big of a deal, because I know that there are probably only a handful of users on here worth talking to about this topic.

You seem to want something, and want it now, using argumentative fallacies to criticize a system you don't quite understand. I tell you of your argument's flaw, a more correct method of approach, and a resolution that would produce the common goal. You take that personally, and return ad hominem. And here we are, a couple post later, you claiming we are on different sides.

  • 11.08.2012 1:01 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: x Foman123 x

And by the way, I am, in fact, a legal scholar.
Beat me to it.

©

  • 11.08.2012 1:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: YodasCurd
This thread is about rule enforcement. Do not try to use this as an excuse to discuss politics or marijuana usage, please.

  • 11.08.2012 1:05 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

oops, never mind.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 1:18 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 1:18 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: edableshoe

Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: edableshoe
I'm on the same side.
You're not on my side if you post a paragraphs that imply that you disagree with me. Sorry.
I'm sure you've heard about something called "politics."

You see, in politics, there is one goal, and the disagreement comes from how we achieve that common goal.

What you and I have here is a disagreement on a singular goal. If you live in America, you are not on different teams if you are for different parties, you just disagree on the means to a common goal.

So, in turn, you and I are not on different teams, so to speak. I would love to talk about this stuff here, but why the hell would I rush it? No need to push, I can wait, and it isn't all that big of a deal, because I know that there are probably only a handful of users on here worth talking to about this topic.

You seem to want something, and want it now, using argumentative fallacies to criticize a system you don't quite understand. I tell you of your argument's flaw, a more correct method of approach, and a resolution that would produce the common goal. You take that personally, and return ad hominem. And here we are, a couple post later, you claiming we are on different sides.
I don't think you understand. I have severe ADD. It's very difficult for me to interpret what you are trying to say when you post a terribly formatted post when you say you disagree with me, then agree with me, then disagree with me. That already makes it difficult for me to read and I completely lose interest in what you have to say. Then when the first thing I see in that post is "You have absolutely no knowledge of politics". You give the impression that the rest of your post is full of false accusations about me, so I lose interest in what you have to say and I just skim down through the rest of your post. I think I saw something about you trying to explain to me what an Argumentum Ad Hominem Fallacy was. I know exactly what a fallacy is. I'm familiar with Ad Hominems, Populams, Consequentums, sequiturs, and all the others. But I don't know because I didn't read your post. All I got from skimming through your post is that you think I'm 12. Stop it.

I'm sorry, but you need to either change the ways you organize the information in your posts, or either stop replying to me. It's super inconvenient for me, and it's annoying. If I am annoyed, there's a good chance I'll just use subtle Ad Hominems until you actually post something that's not annoying me.

EDIT: Now I look like a hypocrite, My post is terrible. Here's the short version of the post: "I'm mentally retarded."

Now I'm feeling depressed. I hate you.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 1:32 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 1:25 PM PDT

What a load of tosh. It isn't legal here (UK) so I kind of find this stuff.. offensive. I wouldn't want to talk about this at any place, let alone on a game website!

  • 11.08.2012 1:30 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: ARBITOR 5
What a load of tosh. It isn't legal here (UK) so I kind of find this stuff.. offensive. I wouldn't want to talk about this at any place, let alone on a game website!
LOL. Offensive? Are you kidding me? Over this? That's ridiculous.

©

  • 11.08.2012 1:50 PM PDT

Graphic Design in Seattle.Not Pro.
All around nice guy.
Step 7=In Progress
My piece featured in the Mail Sack

Why you would want to talk about it anyway on this site is beyond me.

  • 11.08.2012 1:52 PM PDT

The Risk Is Worth The Reward.
Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War.

No not here OP, this is not a site that should have that type of talk. There are forums set up for this exact thing, you can always visit one of those and talk about it if you really want to.

  • 11.08.2012 1:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Gray socks are best socks. White is second, black third. Every other sock color is simply horrible.


Posted by: ARBITOR 5
What a load of tosh. It isn't legal here (UK) so I kind of find this stuff.. offensive. I wouldn't want to talk about this at any place, let alone on a game website!
You find this offensive? How have you managed to stay on this site for so long?

  • 11.08.2012 2:08 PM PDT


Posted by: Graysoxrule

Posted by: ARBITOR 5
What a load of tosh. It isn't legal here (UK) so I kind of find this stuff.. offensive. I wouldn't want to talk about this at any place, let alone on a game website!
You find this offensive? How have you managed to stay on this site for so long?
Drugs are offensive to me. I know what they do to people, how they change them. It's.. not nice. So yeah, you got a problem with that? That is MY opinion on this topic after all.

  • 11.08.2012 2:11 PM PDT

δόξει τις ἀμαθεῖ σοφὰ λέγων οὐκ εὖ φρονεῖν.

Euripides, Bacchae. 480.


Posted by: dibbs089
Posted by: Heliossoileh1
According to the much vaunted "Rules", I cannot talk about jaywalking. That, after all, is "illegal activity", though not in my country.
That would be according to your interpretation of the rules (unless of course you've had punitive measures taken against you for creating such a topic - then that would be according to the specific moderator's interpretation of them).


It has nothing to do with interpretation. The way the rule is written, jaywalking is a forbidden topic. If moderators do not lock topics on jaywalking-or else ban people for posting about it- then they are in fact ignoring what the rule says, not "interpreting" it.

The fact is that "Do not post about any illegal substances or activities" is hopelessly vague. No one seriously enforces it, nor could they. Not all illegal activities are such that discussion of them would be considered by any moderator here as unacceptable, as my jaywalking example demonstrates. Moreover, laws differ between countries, and even between US states.

This isn't trivial. A good example is that of mephedrone, a formerly very popular recreational drug, especially in the UK. Since mid 2010, it has been a prohibited substance in the UK, Australia and most of mainland Europe. Yet for well over a year since that time it was not generally restricted in the US, and remains only temporarily so even now. Would the discussion of the effects of mephedrone on oneself or the legal status of this drug have been permitted here or not?

There are other examples. Whilst trolling isn't permitted here, the discussion of it, as a phenomenon, is. Yet, according to the above rule, it should not be, since some trolling is in fact illegal under the Malicious Communications Act, in which case even discussing trolling, in any sense, breaks the rule-though not for non-British people not bound by comparable acts.

So, one can pretend that this rule is

Posted by: x Foman123 x
"an unambiguous, bright-line rule"


or one which really needs to be set aside in favour of some common sense. The solution isn't to write a set of provisions which tries to do the impossible and clarify something so obscure. Perhaps it is better to simply say that one cannot use this place to commit, arrange to commit, or incite others to commit, criminal offences, insofar as the acts being committed, arranged or incited are criminal offences in the countries in which the conversational partners are resident. That's really all that is required.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 2:23 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 2:21 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: Logan7798
Why you would want to talk about it anyway on this site is beyond me.
I don't see why people want to talk about halo 4 on this website. (I'm disregarding the federal ban because I'm assuming you are too)

  • 11.08.2012 2:22 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

Posted by: ARBITOR 5
Posted by: Graysoxrule
Posted by: ARBITOR 5
What a load of tosh. It isn't legal here (UK) so I kind of find this stuff.. offensive. I wouldn't want to talk about this at any place, let alone on a game website!
You find this offensive? How have you managed to stay on this site for so long?
Drugs are offensive to me. I know what they do to people, how they change them. It's.. not nice. So yeah, you got a problem with that? That is MY opinion on this topic after all.
I respect your opinion. I have seen the negative effects of drugs more than I would like to admit, and that includes legal and illegal drugs. The question that the OP was asking was if we should be able to talk about marijuana here as there is now more effort in several states to legalize it for recreational and medicinal use.

I feel that your comment sparked such a surprised response from some because you seem to have said that because something was illegal in your country that discussion about it was offensive. You have clarified that and I feel we can move on.

It is easy to get heated in topics that one feels strongly about, but let us try to not take out our anger and frustration on each other.

  • 11.08.2012 2:22 PM PDT

Perpetual Ninja in training.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

DMH

Los Paranoias


Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: Logan7798
Why you would want to talk about it anyway on this site is beyond me.
I don't see why people want to talk about halo 4 on this website. (I'm disregarding the federal ban because I'm assuming you are too)
wow.


Halo 4 is....a video game?


This is website...is a video game Dev's site?


I feel like you're trolling now, that was probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

  • 11.08.2012 2:24 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: edableshoe

Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: Logan7798
Why you would want to talk about it anyway on this site is beyond me.
I don't see why people want to talk about halo 4 on this website. (I'm disregarding the federal ban because I'm assuming you are too)
wow.


Halo 4 is....a video game?


This is website...is a video game Dev's site?


I feel like you're trolling now, that was probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
Fine, switch it with drag racing, scuba driving, bananas, whatever makes you happy. Halo 4 was the first thing that popped into my head.

  • 11.08.2012 2:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Heliossoileh1
Perhaps it is better to simply say that one cannot use this place to commit, arrange to commit, or incite others to commit, criminal offences, insofar as the acts being committed, arranged or incited are criminal offences in the countries in which the conversational partners are resident. That's really all that is required.

That's a lot of words in order to "simply say" something.

I think that it might be more words than is in all of the "things that suck" clause of the CoC.

  • 11.08.2012 2:31 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

So, there was a time when we found the rules confusing and asked for clarification. Then the powers-that-be decided to simplify the rules to make it easier to understand and so that their moderators could use discretion. So, we complained when there were discrepancies and we asked for clarification once more.

I do not want a huge legal document for the rules, even if that would provide closure for all these questions we keep asking. Perhaps we should have a group where we can ask moderators for clarification when we have questions...kind of like a Frequently Asked Questions kind of deal, but with more community involvement.

[Edited on 11.08.2012 2:35 PM PST]

  • 11.08.2012 2:35 PM PDT

Perpetual Ninja in training.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

DMH

Los Paranoias


Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: edableshoe

Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: Logan7798
Why you would want to talk about it anyway on this site is beyond me.
I don't see why people want to talk about halo 4 on this website. (I'm disregarding the federal ban because I'm assuming you are too)
wow.


Halo 4 is....a video game?


This is website...is a video game Dev's site?


I feel like you're trolling now, that was probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
Fine, switch it with drag racing, scuba driving, bananas, whatever makes you happy. Halo 4 was the first thing that popped into my head.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that, generally the topics found in The Flood are related to Gaming Popular Culture.

But there is one thing to keep in mind, those topics you listed follow the rules. I think that's probably what we need to really keep in mind here. Topics must follow the rules. The rules are set in place for us to follow, not break. As long as something is illegal, I guess we can't really talk about it. I mean, just today someone linked to scans of a magazine, and they were banned pretty quickly, because those scans are illegal.

  • 11.08.2012 2:35 PM PDT

δόξει τις ἀμαθεῖ σοφὰ λέγων οὐκ εὖ φρονεῖν.

Euripides, Bacchae. 480.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Heliossoileh1
Perhaps it is better to simply say that one cannot use this place to commit, arrange to commit, or incite others to commit, criminal offences, insofar as the acts being committed, arranged or incited are criminal offences in the countries in which the conversational partners are resident. That's really all that is required.

That's a lot of words in order to "simply say" something.

I think that it might be more words than is in all of the "things that suck" clause of the CoC.


It seems simple enough of an idea, irrespective of the number of words involved. Many children's books are quite long. Are you saying they're complex? I look forward to you actually responding to my post in a substantive way, anyway.

And it's four more words, if you're interested.

  • 11.08.2012 2:36 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: Kickimanjaro
So, there was a time when we found the rules confusing and asked for clarification. Then the powers-that-be decided to simplify the rules to make it easier to understand and so that their moderators could use discretion. So, we complained when there were discrepancies and we asked for clarification once more.

I do not want a huge legal document for the rules, even if that would provide closure for all these questions we keep asking. Perhaps we should have a group where we can ask moderators for clarification when we have questions...kind of like a Frequently Asked Questions kind of deal, but with more community involvement.
We need to find a happiness point. A perfect amount of clarification mixed with a perfect amount of simplicity. With that, you can find a perfect amount of complaining about how the mods misinterpreted the rules. A minimum if you will.

I'm not against Bungie experimenting with the rules more often to find out where this point is.

  • 11.08.2012 2:41 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4