[CongressJon]

To what Bigbro said: If it's said playfully, like in fun way or whatever, then it might be okay. However, if it's done while flaming or something like that, it's definite action.

[SlainThrax-]

Just a death threat? pfft i got kicked outa school for 5 days when i threatend someone

[Raktor]

Our school hardly suspends at all... But even in flaming, it should just be concidered flaming, I can think of much harsher things than death threats, which would warrent a one day ban for flaming, but three days for a tiny death threat.

@Silver: Is Silverspy Industries registered with www.copyright.gov ? Because you need to PAY to make the images copyright

[Cspace]

I have changed it again from suggestions:

A Real Life Death Threat: If a member posts a direct real-life death threat a SMod can suspend for two days.  A GMod can extend this.  This includes anything along the lines of "Go kill yourself" in the implementation of flaming.

I can think of much harsher things than death threats, which would warrent a one day ban for flaming, but three days for a tiny death threat.

The one day that SMods can use is to stop someone from continuous flaming, it is not intended as a punishment because such a wide range applies. The "one day" is really "one day provided to GMods to make further decisions". The one day is not saying that, if someone flames, they will be banned for one day. The one day is saying that if someone continuously flames he/she can be "silenced" for a day to allow appropriate action to be taken. That is what the one day is. According to the severity it could really range from just a day to permanent, but that is not in the SMods' control.

The reason that specific aspect is so low (just one day) is because a SMod could make a mistake and suspend for an unfair amount of time given the situation. Unless we want a 30-page constitution we would require the one day to only be one day because every possible scenario will not be covered. Instead we use the one day to give GMods abscent at the time the ability to handle the situation.

***********************************************

As for "just a death threat", one doesn't just accidentally tell someone "go kill yourself so the Earth would be free of your stupidity" or "if I knew you I would kill you." One can flame without thinking but saying something like that is another level. It's beyond the elaboration of "you're stupid" comments. Some feel that these should not be allowed, and since it includes a narrow range of actions we can give SMods the ability to handle them to a certain level.

Two days is really not that much... And in a way it's funny that some of those saying how it's not fair were complaining that two days for a sarcastic remark were not enough. We need to think realistically. If you would just suddenly blurt out death threats you need professional help.

... Not to mention the fact that if someone threatened you in real life, in some countries it does potentially warrant intervention by the law. I don't know about Australia, but the U.S. has such laws and so do some other countries.

[Cspace]

New rule to be in effect as of this post:

A Member Breaking A Suspension Or Ban: If a member is suspended and posts with a different account to get around it (must be positive of this, please verify IP), that account can be suspended as well.  If the member continues to break a suspension, his/her suspension could be extended by a GMod.  This rule can be enforced on anyone in the given situation unless an exception is created by a GMod (such as if allowed in one thread if a subject there).

[Raktor]

*Hugs Cspace*

[Cspace]

Addition to the rules:

In The Case Of Pornography Being Posted: If anyone posts an explicit image anywhere for any reason, any SMod can suspend the individual for any great length of time.  Please delete the post (it can be recovered for proof, do not D.A. it) and report the incident to an admin.

[Neraphym]

I honestly think the punishments are too light. The explicit images should be more clearly defined. I can recall a time we got into a debate over whether or not a certain image was explicit or not. I did not seem to think so, however, others did. This should be clearly defined as showing any private parts, having inuendos, or anything directly implying sex. Pictures of appealing girls and such don't have to fall under "explicit," provided they are clothed and not doing anything wrong. And does that pornography clause apply to those who post links to such sites? I'm guessing it should.

[Cspace]

I honestly think the punishments are too light.  The explicit images should be more clearly defined.  I can recall a time we got into a debate over whether or not a certain image was explicit or not.  I did not seem to think so, however, others did.  This should be clearly defined as showing any private parts, having inuendos, or anything directly implying sex.  Pictures of appealing girls and such don't have to fall under "explicit," provided they are clothed and not doing anything wrong. And does that pornography clause apply to those who post links to such sites?  I'm guessing it should.

"This should be clearly defined as showing any private parts, having inuendos, or anything directly implying sex."

That is to what this is referring. Links should also be handled in the same way by SMods though will have a higher chance of allowing the person back in after enough time if he/she does not cause any further problems.

Posting an image with a... part... showing or implying sex is a ban. While SMods can only suspend for certain intervals of time, I (or any admin at the time) would follow through and IP ban the person.

The thing is though, "anything directly implying sex" would be up to judgement as well and cannot really be clearly defined. I would say that it would have to be obvious, anything else should be handled as it was previously. As an example, a girl in a swimsuit would be fine I guess (if the text is not implying anything), touching or whatnot would not be allowed.

[Baseballl]

Sorry for DA'ing those topics and not deleting them, I didn't think you could recover them. I'm just glad I was on at the time to get them out of public site, very sick...

[Cspace]

Sorry for DA'ing those topics and not deleting them, I didn't think you could recover them. I'm just glad I was on at the time to get them out of public site, very sick...

No worries, very few knew that they could be recovered. You did the right thing given the circumstances with which you were provided. I'm glad that you were on when you were as well, wouldn't want a younger mod having to handle that...

[Baseballl]

I don't think any mod should have seen that

[Raktor]

AAwww.... I always miss the action

I think pictures like the contravirtial ones ( Remember those ones from FF8, girls with clothes, but still revealing) shouldn't be banned though. Only ones that are clearly explicit should be (Not ones with a bit of a boob showing through, etc.)

[Cspace]

I don't think any mod should have seen that

Agreed, no one should. That's why the rule exists, hopefully we won't need to deal with it anymore.

[skenasis]

yeah, not all of us appreciate 'revealing' images (ie me), we should practice this thing we like to call comment courtesy, though where i live its an oymoron (meaning it aint common). and bravo on getting some written rules up cspizzle, it should help lowering confusion with regards to bannings

wheeeeeeee!

This post has been edited by DarkDream: 10 December 2004 - 04:12 AM