Officer Charter & Chat

I wake up to news that my retard half-brother is out of prison after 6 monthes of a 18 year sentence. I will kill him if he returns. Dad will kill him if he sees him first. Their system just keeps failing me..

~I've got much to do today...I'm hungry, tired and pissed off. Grabbing a bite to eat should resolve at least one of those things. Perhaps later I'll feel like going around finding/posting links

He served 6 months of an 18 year sentence?

Wow, I thought our sentencing system was ****** up, thats something else.

On to business, I liked what IP started to do with the Bestiary, it was much more accessible, it is a pity such a format could not be employed here.

I think it would be nice to have all the "important" i.e gameplay related stuff on the first page, y'know Tactics Tips, Stats etc.

O.T should remain high up in the listings, it is perhaps the most popular thread.

Then ancillary ******** like forum games, which we have too many of at present IMO, should take a backseat.

Speaking of Forum Games we should have a bare minimum, TWS WCC(is that allowed? I see it on neither the banned nor the allowed lists) and perhaps Wish Corruption. I would be happy to keep a watchful eye on any or all of them, with a slightrevision to the regularity of the WCC, if it were to be revived.

Gent: It's likely they just repeated history by having him serve one sentence (charge) then let the idiot go before the other charges caught/got served..how they could be this stupid..I do not know. They didn't even tell us when they rescheduled the court date let alone what he got (we had to look it up). The FAIL is strong with these clowns.

===HERE WE GO===

The SPOILER tag 'code issues' here are tough to work around. I no longer recall how to even do the basic 'tricks' with it though I could figure them out given time. Obviously we cannot create a sub-board about just that with a topic per beast.

At the very least there should be a page specifically to have links to all the truely 'important' things. The Rules thread typically has such links but they're outdated like most threads.

I don't care about union games at all, so whatever.

WCC has to be run by the mods still. (should be fine) I suppose I could get around to doing that personally but I have a lot to do tonight still. (unusual) TWS is fine though it clearly is bording on the inappropriate so a 'reboot' could be in order.

ToS UPDATES Thread (has link to ToS itself as well). *as already in the Rules thread*

ToS (just to cover it again)

NOTE: There could be parts of this we would want to post directly for the lazy readers. Maybe.

Customer Support ("Ask a Question" section) *also has "Topics")

Moderation History (Just Your Own *ONLY*)

NOTE: I give this since navigation is difficult at GS right now. Certain buttons are missing so you just need to know the URLs.

Ask the Mods (board)

NOTE: READ their FAQ before asking anything there.

Post History (Anyones): http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/post_history.php?user=INSERT NAME HERE

NOTE: Again due to missing buttons.

THIS THREAD covers a large deal of info. I won't even try to summarize it right now. It covers A LOT and should be at least glanced over.

NOTE: Best viewed with 10 posts per page as preference!

NOTE2: LOTS of links inside.

GS Union Recruitment Board (perhaps to be used in the future..perhaps not)

"Recruiting & Feedback
The best way to recruit or ask for feedback in the forums is to start with helpful subject topics. These type of acronyms listed below will help many forum users know exactly what you are requesting, and are more likely to get the most attention.

LFCM: [Your Union]
Definition: It stands for Looking for Charter Members.
Example: LFCM: GameSpotting

LFF: [Preferred Union Name]
Definition: It stands for Looking for Feedback.
Example: LFF: Nintendo Anime Union"

Union Compendium (lots of info/links/rules) includes:

-Gamespot Unions FAQ

-GameSpot Union Directory

-Transferring Union Leadership / Banned Leader

-other things

Site Enhancements Compendium

Archived Enhancements

NOTE: Lots of very interesting links in there I suggest people go over

IMPORTANT: Union Guidelines (includes current list of allowed union games)

NOTE: When uncertain about a union game we should PMSoulreavercross about it (with a link). I've just finished sending one about Witty Captaion Contest being added to the list or just plain okayed

~That should give you guys plenty to look over before we address the rules thread. Links should do the talking for us...mostly. Then the defiance can be directly pointed their way for ignoring GS's own rules. Get it?

I like it. Can't say as I read all the links, I took to scanning through them after a while, much as I love tl;dr I have my limits.

It seems to be what is required, linking people to the ToS should cover our backs. After all GS rules are final, anything we suggest or implement will merely be a guideline.

Now, to delete the old Three Word Story and begin anew

Gent: A few of those are quite interesting. Fun when they don't way your head down with rules..

They even explain a lot of the current features..while showing off possible future features. Plus you get the chance to give suggestions, vote, etc.

Just what I was thinking. One of those links spells out why a Leader HAS to be in power as priority. No refuting it. We can just use the old reasons as back-up. (create/change officers, update board, close topics, etc.) The rules cannot be challenged..at least we cannot be addressed about them and thus it has to be taken up at the proper board. Deflecting the responsibility/trouble. Guidelines indeed..we'll have to consider guidelines (our own) to go with those links that provide the concrete rules.

So we have TWS and WCC. I feel that's plenty in the way of 'games' as is. Those, Off-Topic and possibly redoing the GoW centered threads will provide all the entertainmet needed for now. The latter will take quite a bit of time. WCC will require upkeep and strict handling I feel.

Alucard: Thanks. I should get to it soon. Today I babysit in about 1 hour and play either "SW:FU" (Pacifist+) or "Dead Space". "I'm ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of gum." - DOUK NOUK KEM

I do however like the titles above section and would like to still sort thing around to use those..but if it gets too bothersome, I'll cut it out. Having such a thing livens the place a bit don't you think? Gives it that touch of home if you will.

NOTE: I've got to try and clean out/organize my Photobucket account in the future..but won't likely touch it for a long while. I'd like to get AKheon and satvara posting here as well. If only to discuss the FAQ(s) and speedruns. I (and other vets) can create new runners for Specialty Runs. (Ex; NUR+) Not too hard at all. I can't focus on TUGOWU tomorrow (Dad's birthday party) but perhaps Sunday can be dedicated to it.

So, would fortnightly updates of the WCC be alright with the powers that be, (us)?

Weekly would, I imagine, be too much of a strain on my time.

I intend to start a new thread, don't want to delete the old as I feel it would be disrespectful to those that put the spadework in when it was first created.

Unsure of the exact` details of deciding winners as yet.

Does each voter make one choice, (probably the ideal situation with low activity?) or have a secondary vote, in the event of a tie?

I think we should go with one me member one vote. No sock puppets.

In the event of a tie we should do the gentlemanly thing and let the two tied competitors choose between themselves who should win. Should prove amusing, or failing that, entertaining

I wasn't given anything specific about WCC. Just that it was well received/added to their list. With nothing to go on, we'll just have to assume whatever changes that are made are within reason...therefor okay.

Would it? *basics*:

-(week starts) New picture, round number, etc.

-(4 days pass) Entries listed, voting begins, etc.

-(3 days pass) Winner listed, new picture, round number, points added to original list, etc.

-repeat

Perhaps you would prefer a longer entry cycle with a slightly longer voting cycle? (10 days to enter, 4 days to vote?) 2 weeks seems less demanding while not stretching a round rediculously long. Your thoughts?

Understandable.

Oh?

One vote for now. In the event of a tie, another vote is held just between the people who tied. Things could get tied up too long if the revote process isn't handled quickly. (2 days tops)

...Obviously.

Wouldn't work. Consider that a tie can be more then two-ways.

---

Now to have a look around the board

My thoughts? The two week time table would be preferable, so double up on your numbers.

Post a picture, 7 days for entries to be made.

Entries listed, 6 days for voting.

Winner announced.

This should allow time for revoting. If such a thing is required

LRR.

Would seem agreeable, gentlemen?

I like the idea of the deadlocked combatants deciding the winner *more out of devilment than anything else* Gentlemanly conduct and all that. Even in a three way tie those involved know if they have been bested.

Re voting is the more practical solution, even this may not give a definite outcome. If a winner is not declared that way then perhaps the fine upstanding individual running the competetion sholud decide a winner. Rest assured all entries will be judged on merit and i would not routinely favour myself. Failing that I see no dishonour in declaring a draw. After all nothing is actually going to be won, other than the chance to dazzle your fellow posters with your shining wit (and isn't that reward enough?).

Gent: I still prefer the 10/4 thing. I'm okay with 7/6 only because it allows for a day of revoting. Leaving a day off feels..odd.

I don't count on the good sense of others.

Draw is an option reserved when we don't feel like revoting (again). Only one 'overtime' if you will.

~We have nothing further to offer (rewards) right now as we lack a certain kind of user. For now, victory is its own reward really

Bearing all this in mind I shall create a new Witty Caption Contest on Friday.

10 days for entries, List them, open voting, If a clear winner is not evident on the third day of voting I shall either call for a revote between the tied entries or run away and cry.

Doing it on a 2 week cycle will allow me a free friday/weekend to source new images. Or forget and cobble something together at the last minute *ahem*.

I shall shoulder the burden without any major hardship Mr Alucards.

It would seem that men less able than I have run the thread in the past with a marginal degree of success.

You seem to be in possession of quite a rapier wit, I shall look forward to locking horns with you in the next incarnation of the Witty Caption Contest.

I can post here now, yes?

Eksellent.

It certainly looks that way chap.

Congratulations on attaining the rank of officer.

None that I can perceive. Perhaps there is no "officerly" topics to discuss at this monent in time.

Silence is golden, old bean.

Ssssh. No one had noticed.

EDIT

Kuro, why so serious?

DOUBLE POSTING but with, I hope just cause.

As mentioned elsewhere, what of union punishments for transgressions of our rules/code of conduct?

I would like us to be self sufficient, not depending upon flagging posts and calling in the moderators.

Do we have the tools at our disposal to disipline incorrect behaviour within the "walls" of TUGOWU?

We all know a few tricks but this must all be kept official and above board.

Speaking "hypotheticaly" but what would our course of action be if an officer maliciously altered someones post?

Even that example requires more detail. It's conditional. Obviously one shouldn't abuse the power to essentially troll a GS user/TUGOWU member. But there are reasons to EDIT posts. It can be little things too...but often I won't bother to EDIT a person's post to fix obvious spelling errors or anything like that. Not my job and it is often LESS than appreciated.

Even editting out content that could get them flagged otherwised..and they'll still whine at you..tell them to address it themselves and that should be the end of it but you'll still hear back talk a lot of the time. Sounding familiar?

"Tough Cases" (those that are sure to be kicked in the future) are what they are...and will continue to behave as such no matter how politely an authority figure handles the situation. No amount of tact is enough.

Set UNION rules would just be to warn users that JOIN us that they do so knowingly accepting our own ToS (so to speak) which works alongside the real one. They want to be part of TUGOWU, fine. They have to follow the rules we set as well. It isn't their right to do whatever they want within the rules of the GS ToS just because they can in other boards..and if it happens to be against the rules in the first place, our "kinder" way of dealing with it shouldn't be treated with such disrespect to be sure..they should be so fortunate that they don't just get a flag for every little thing they do wrong that we can note while also getting posts at the union taken away if we don't like them or whatever.

The rules are alread clear enough as is that if anybody created a new Game, I could just show up and close it. If the Leader himself were to create 2 new games I'd contact Alucard with the news that ONLY 3 are allowed at once so he would be forced to chose what gets to in the current roster and what gets "benched". A user gets the okay from Alucard or even a mod for their new 'contest' idea..they still have to go through us to put it up here as it is our call what goes up in the union that happens to already be okay by GS (rules within rules if you will).

No whining AT ALL would be acceptable in such cases. We have a Union Suggestions thread for a reason..if you most address any such thing..do it in the proper place. As lenient as we are with Off-Topic asides/banter/notes..there are certain things that really should be saved for their own proper topic as they require much focus/attention and detract from other points of interest.

Obviously "ATTN" topics are to be closed. (Ex: ATTN Gents - a thread about going camping BRB) Send PMs, tell us in off-topic, etc. There are plenty of other ways that are within regulation.

Our powers are relatively in-check as the Leader hands them out. Recruits are limited to just being able to post and create topics/polls. *Obviously they can EDIT their own posts* We (Officers) can close/delete/edit topics/polls/posts. Anyone can invite new users. Officers can accept Applications here (If I recall right). The Leader can do it all and then some.

Perhaps we should go over scenarios with each other at length...see what either of us would do using the powers afforded.

NOTE: The sad truth is that JUST flagging serious offenses on sight would save us the trouble of having to deal with the offender. We could explain to them that it is not allowed but cannot outright say they're getting flagged for it or who is doing it (GS would punish us for either case typically). You aren't even suppossed to call people "trolls" even if they are... though saying what they are doing is "trolling", "flaming", etc. is just fine.

Working back to your question, again more details are needed. Is the user still a part of the union? Are they still a GS user? Why did they EDIT the post exactly? What was the change? What did the initial post say?

Valuable info being taken out "just becuase" wouldn't be okay to begin with (articles, original posts, etc.) but a trashy post of a banned/union banished user...could be another story though questionable behavior on the part of the one doing the editting (basically the person who did it would be showing how little they think of that post/user while not entirely respecting the power even if "for the lulz").

If on a 'totally innocent' post just to entertain said Officer..then obviously that's "not okay". Typically, said Officer could be suggested for demotion here (by others) or at Union Suggestsions..they could simply get a firm talking to as the post is RETURNED to its previous state as well. A variety of things really.

NOTE: Establishing a system of our own for offenses at/against the union would be needed with punishments as well. Obviously these are a few options:

-No Posting allowed (Suspension)

-No Posting allowed (Suspended and Removed from union; Ban)

-No Posting allowed (Removed from union; Permanent Ban)

But how to enforce any of these beyond the obvious ramping up of the penalty? How to keep the user from just rejoining when the union has the gates wide open. How to treat users who go around their punishment...Do we report this behavior to a Mod? How would they even look at that? Best not to wait until the case turns up. Our UNION RULES need GS backing of some sort. They need an "okay" or they simply won't be helping us any as they can keep being ignored without an obvious case being possible to make for the user to get a true moderation/true suspension/true ban. I'd prefer the punishment be kept local..to the board. A union/board ban. Why is that so difficult for us to enforce? The current range of powers EVEN for Leader are too weak. At best he could remove a user and delete all their posts at the union (without using flags)..but they could just rejoin or otherwise find a way to return. We don't have IP detection or 'ban dodging' recognition *a user that does that cannot be truely banned for a union offense that I know of...get it?*

Obviously sock puppets are an issue too. Any user could use those without any sort of way for us to know for sure what's going down..especially in regards to polls.

Here at GS, there is no system telling us WHO did the EDIT (deletion, flagging, etc.) of the post in the first place so again the honor issue returns. This leaves plenty of room for conspiracy bull**** to become an issue.

Ex: User wants to stir up trouble so they go back to an older post of theirs and EDITs the content then claims an Officer did it. What proof is there either way? None.

At the other board it tells who created the last EDIT to a post though it doesn't archive changes that I know of (Edit History). So the original post and who did it is technically lost entirely. Here there is a long history (unknown just how far it reaches) possible for each post...that one could revert back to.

~Let us continue when you are ready

tl;dr.

Could we get a summary kind sir? 

Kuro: Request denied. DEW ET NAO

Gent: That was the main issue of course. We can't have that can we?

Alucard: Just hearing that you put yourself through the read (despite repetition) is good to hear. However, I will need proper responses to at least qualify as soundboards..preferably in the near future.

It was the main issue for me. If Kuro is unable or unwilling to read the post then I am not going to summarise it for him.

Having our own rules and punishments would, from what I understand be largely unenforceable. It would however be a useful extra "weapon" to be used against any possible miscreants.

Anyone behaving in a manner to earn themselves  a "voluntary ban" would be unlikely to accept the unofficial punishment.

Then again that is kind of the point, isn't it?

All this does sound familar  *Snaps fingers* by jove, all of the synapses fired at once

So what local rules, further to the ToS would we be looking to implement?

I thought about doing a summary but then I wised up. Kuro needs to tough this one out. It's effort enough I bothered to type that in the first place when I don't even care for rules.

As things are, that is correct. I wouldn't say they would be useful just as an extra. I wish to speak with GS mods on that little issue. I'll first have to organize the questions of course.

Correct. Such a user respects no one and nothing. Not TUGOWU, not GS and obviously none of us to be certain. Again, it is of the highest importance we get a pass (recognition) on our approach and backing by GS itself since they will not just assign us the power needed.

NOTE: It may also be in our interest to start topics about increasing the power of Union Leaders/Officers so that we truely CAN self-moderate without relying so heavily on flags...but logic says they would only insist flagging be used anyway.

So when we have to STOP being board users and start being mods, we have to treat it as they would. Another trouble is that we cannot easily keep up Anon status in doing so (just think on that). The offender would just get louder. (confrontational too)

NOTE: The shortcut (as I see it) is to just immediately remove any such user as they will NEVER behave/settled down/learn there lesson.

I suppose that means it should be pretty tough to get 'moderated' (beyond an edit/warning) by us but any outbursts/repeats/backlash would be harshly punished then and there. The mere act of backtalk would be enough proof that the user is more trouble then they are worth.

And sound familiar it should.

Not so much our own rules (for users)..rather just having the basics extended to US. We should be treated no less seriously then the real Mods. What we need is an agreed upon system for punishing acts. So when a user is out of line, we don't have to just 'feel out' what should be done about it. It's all 'black and white'. The hard part is making the higher level punishments effective. The user who would get such a sentence to begin with obviously isn't going to serve it out.

It's nearly pointless to even have high level punishments OTHER then outright removal from TUGOWU. I'd say that's the only sensible conclusion. If it gets serious enough for posting rights to be taken to begin with, they shouldn't be here at all. So then we just need a way to have THAT enforced by GS. The lesser offenders really aren't a pressing matter to us.

If anything deserves immediate attention...it would be our 'greatest weapon' don't you think? We can still discuss ways to address low and mid level crap...but first...we have to decide on what each act qualifies as.

So we do that. Decide what qualifies for each level. Sort out the appropriate action/punishment. Speak with mods about the singular high level punishment and what to do about those that defy it.

Personally I'd rather address a mod (experienced) directly via PM rather then carry on an "Ask the Mods" topic. Perhaps both would be best. It wouldn't hurt if each of us did the former with a different mod. (or even Admin)

~Shall we try our hand with creating the 'tiers'? (low, medium and high)

Do you  mean of offenses and resulting punishments? 

~I had a sudden bout of un-laziness earlier afternoon and I went back and read your previous post.  Just so you know I'm in the loop as far what you're talking about now. 

NOTE: From your previous post about editing for grammatical purposes-

The gist of your message was that it is not against the rules, but generally it would be better not to do it? Most of the time I won't be bothered with such things, but if a post is particularly atrocious I may feel the need to tidy it up a bit.  

That is one thing, yes. Would certainly take awhile and considering every possible offense is difficult..so we'll have to fall back on general coverage..and the good ol' ToS. I mostly want to create a low, medium and high punishmet 'cast'. Let's say an offense is listed as "High". You just get taken out of the union for good. For that category, there is no point to any other (lesser) punishment. *that's the conclusion the rant came to*

As for low..that's probably just a 'head's up' sort of thing. Perhaps an EDIT. Medium could be a warning with a post deletion or something. We just have to consider possible offenses and punishments (if any) for each level. "Low" probably won't have any..just actions taken by us to address the case. We don't have the ability to take away posting rights (directly), reduce post count, cause point loss, suspend, ban, etc. Pity isn't it?

There isn't even a point to telling a user they can't do specific things for a short while (just another suspension case) *Ex: Create Polls/Threads, Post in a Union Game, etc.*..if they keep pulling crap after a warning they just need to be taken out. As creative/fitting as it would be to say they are restricted for their 'crime' they could just defy us to infuriate/disrespect us *defiance*.

---

It's not against our policies (non-written) to EDIT a post purely to be 'helpful'. It just typically is avoided to play things safe since users are touchy about posts being altered even if it is for their own benefit. (Ex; spelling errors, censor bypass, broken link, etc.) They could even report the action of helping them cover up a ToS violation if I recall right. Wouldn't that be fun?

Ex: The guy foolishly posts a (false) link that 'takes over your browser' and they didn't realize they could get banned for it...and let's say you're trying to be nice by taking it out yourself...they report your edit (poor logic at best) and a Mod punishes the original poster and you (perhaps with a lesser charge). I suppose we should ask about that sort of thing with a Mod as well....don't you agree?

So, yes. You can EDIT to fix their mistakes (being helpful) but it is considered invasive. It's nice when they're grateful but few people wouldn't get bent out of shape about it. (myself being an exception who would be pleased at having a screwed up word fixed without it having to be brought up to me). Of course if you're GUESSING at a fix, best leave it be. It can be a risk not worth taking.

Even this tiny issue could be necessary to discuss with an 'official'. Just to see what they think of WHEN it's cool for us to EDIT posts of others. Obviously updating old posts for a thread to progress should be a-okay.

NOTE: I believe the rule on foreign languages is that they aren't to be used in a union unless that union specifically okays the languange (Ex: 'Japanese Anime Union'). I can't be sure about a single word or phrase but abusing a language (or anything else) to get around the system in a way *hide info* isn't allowed. A whole post is an obvious case. If it is used, an honest translation is practically required (outside such a union board) or it has to go.

As is expected,Mr SK says jump. Kuro asks for permission to land.

First up lests get to the bottom of this post EDITing. I have altered most of Alucards pst in the TWS. It is my right and my responsibility to do so. I want the thread to maintain a certain look. He kept using quotes when no one else was. I want the TWS to flow as if it were a piece of text writtenm by one individual (however disjointed or deranged this "indiuvidual" may appear is of no consequence). In short, my domain, my game, done for the right reasons, end of. Savvy?

Kuro, the post altering reprobate that he is did the following.... No sorry I considered providing the link but I am a little classier than that. He knows what he did and the shame of transgressing our code of conduct should remain with him. So long as the shenanigans end there. 

I'm not against helpful editing, no one in there right mind should be.

Editing merely for the amusement of the EDITor (yes you Kuro) is a different matter. Such shenanigans may float your boat elsewhere but not here. 

What are the rules about language, MrSK?

Edit: Actually, I believe that your edits were a little much, MrCC. Rather than go ahead and edit each of his posts I think it would have been better if you had simply informed him that you would prefer the posts without quotes, which he could keep in mind in the future and remove the ones in his current posts if he so chose.

-A minor point, I just think it would have been a bit more proper.  

"Good sir" the EDITS were calld for and in order. You of all people have no grounds to talk of needless editing.

Doing so is akin to the kettle deriding the pot on account of its colouration

Bloody Hell, well, I'll try to address what needs to be addressed.

MrSK:As you say, low level would just be a warning, for little things such as a joke that goes a little too far, or a banned word, or such.  Also, if need mod. the post.  For Medium, I'm not quite sure what to do there, maybe try for an honor system suspension, which flawed and unenforceable as it may be, seems the only answer I can come up with at this moment.  For High, obviously remove them from the union.  For each of these offenses I believe the user should be given a PM by the Officer who found/observed/received the act of misconduct.  This of course should all be ok'ed by a GS Admin., to back everything up.  Have any rules we come up with, along with a link to the ToS, as you've said before.

MrCC,KS:I use Firefox, and on this site it won't let me copy/paste, which is why I use quotes.  If I post there in the future, I am simply unable(usually) to copy/paste.  Therefore I will not be mad in the future about any editing of my posts in that thread for that reason.  And while I don't really have a problem with the editing that was already done, I would still have liked some kind of heads up.

That all seems about right.

Mr Alucard, if my ations offended you then I apologise.

I also use Mozilla Firefox and have had no trouble with copy pasting since I added the relevant buttons by customising my toolbar.

I merely removed the "quotes" for tidiness, I assumed that it would not concern you. I thought I mentioned it at the time, I could be mistaken.

Anyhoo, no hard feelings old bean?

Indeed the HTML is problematic of late.

I find clicking submit again or preview then submit remedies the problem.

Sorry to hear of your Copy Paste woes. 

Gent: "As is expected, Name 1 says jump, Name 2 asks permission to land." That's very good. I like that.

Post editting in TWS? I'd not seen it. I stop tracking the thread but I recall Alucard using quotes...I assume that is who you speak of. Just to let you know, in passing I even considered just fixing it while giving notice rather then creating a PM, off-topic post, aside/note, etc.

Post editting has the potential to grow serious/personal. If the rules are made clear, the edit (or exclusion) should be fine but in a case where the rule wasn't stated (or even obvious), it's difficult to okay an outright action even if totally in favor of the thread/user in question. Just because it's so personal to people to be worked around even if you're being helpful with 'best interests' in mid.

NOTE: Indeed the point of a TWS is to sound like a single person is telling a tale of sorts and really should be a bit "disjointed". Sort of a 'non sequitar at length'. The quotes were akward.

I don't fully recall what post of yours he editted, what was put in or why exactly. It wasn't followed closely by myself. I tend to worry less at other boards about how people get along but seeing as that board can reflect on this one..I'll need to extend that concern it seems.

We both know someone in recent history who was against that very thing. No editting of a person's post. No exceptions. That was their policy to authority figures and they weren't a fit for board life. Thinking everyone with power (however small) would abuse it and did so. Unreasonable and unwilling to be corrected or put in check. Unfit for TUGOWU.

So I suppose your point stands, '...no one in their right mind should be.'

EDITs for entertainment here is certainly questionable. Circumstances dictate the severity of the discipline but in the end, it just isn't possible to give a full pass. A penalty (however small) needs to take place.

Kuro: The rules on language are perhaps better explained in one of the links I give in the updated Rules/Intro Thread. I advise you look into it. ToS is where it's covered I believe. I can't honestly say exactly where you need to look for it though. I'd have to browse over it all again to pull up quotes.

True. In hindsight, it probably would have been best to contact Alucard, telll him what needs doing (and why), ask him to do so WHILE offering to handle it (Gent) himself to save him the effort (kindest possible offer IMO) and wait for a response. *not urgent really* Even I had the exact same thoughts as our friend did. I had the same plan of action but lacked the motivation to bother..though even then I knew what would be the tactful approach versus direct/quick (but inconsiderate to some). We like things to be handled quickly..especially eyesores. What can I say. Even when I know the right thing to do, the nearly correct solution that happens to be need far less effort gets the nod.

Alucard: Low level could be considered grounds for a 'heads up' rather then a true "warning". The offense would be relatively small. Like just creating a game without permission because they hadn't read and understood our (GameSpot's as well actually) rules. *typical of the average user I'd say* We say "Don't do that. Thread's closed for now. Read the rules. Ask the Leader." In a nicer way of course but I've never been very good at faking kindness. I'd leave THAT part to a more sociable officer that's competant at getting the message across/translated without hurting any feelings. (tall order)

Mid level would be like...that poster sees there thread closed and suddenly an officer says they have to do all these things so they hold a grudge, start flaming and the like. They get warned to cut it out and quick. (though again they have to be given the full story in a way that would possibly have a calming effect that reaches an understanding...they have to get why the action was taken and that it was nothing personal) It would be worse if they kept it up but tried to be slick about it. (GrandmaSteps) Can't be civil, don't speak with that suer. Don't be a child and say you're ignoring them while giving offhand insults to try and bait them or get a sort of 'one-up'. These (first) offenses would be mid-level. Or to be less complicated..if the low level act is repeated by that user knowingly/again (or any other), it is likely to be given a "warning"

High level would be repeated offenses of low or mid-level conduct. Disregard for the authorities, rules and union can't be tolerated or shown shelter. After the warning, they just have to go. We'll have to avoid "threats" (even if nicely worded) by referring to the rules *when clearly listed*. Falling back on that is wiser then directly saying (in the warning), "Do it again and we'll ban you." I trust that makes sense.

NOTE: Obviously that hardly covers all examples ut I was trying to stick fairly close to one type of case and working it up into all 'tiers' for the defining process.

We do have the power to Moderate but what does that even mean with us really? I've never used that feature and it isn't covered/explained anywhere. We can delete, flag, edit, view history or "Moderate" a single post. Could be our way of warning a user but I'd need to test that power on a user that really doesn't mind (or has no say). A banned user's post perhaps since they can't complain.

NOTE: An honor system is far too limp wristed in the end. It sounds nice but we shouldn't fall back on that unless we lack alternatives within reason. We have other options to explore here and should do so. 'Honor' and 'Good Faith' had there chance as the primaries here.

I could just create a post of my own to self-Moderate if only to see what it does..IF it deletes the post as well as doing something else..it's like a real Moderation (showing up in their history) but without the real possibility of any point loss, suspensions or bans.

Be that the case, that sould be our 'go to' for mid-tier by default don't you think? What better (impersonal) warning can you give really? No arguing with it. When they ask about it (only allowed privately or in the proper thread) *as they are very likely to be curious or even willing to argue it out to cause further trouble* we can explain the case as kindly as possible.

We need a GS official for certain (Mod or otherwise) to okay our plans of action while answering our questions/concerns with how to deal with particularly tough cases. Offer real punishmet somehow. It would be nice if such extremes as openly defying a union ban AT LEAST landed you a high level moderation (if not a short supsension) for the first account found to be their fault. Not like we can ask for a "Ban dodging" case against them due to a 'board/union ban' (local affairs aren't their concern) though it would certainly make our threats VERY real. Serious though. High level penalties being enforced/backed...it is a must in addressing.

I don't think it would be too wise to have the Officer (or any) directly give a personal/private message about any one moderation even despite our having far less 'work' to do in that field. It has potential to backfire heavily.

As for copypasta failure with your Firefox and this site....how bizzare. Now we know.

HTML issues turn up now and then. I almost ever hit "Submit" without first copying the entire post. This is also in case an issue like sudden connection failure doesn't suddenly mea I have to retype everything. As CC said, just powering through works when there isn't really anything wrong. If there is...dependig on the error, it could be a minor fix or a huge issue. Using SPOILER tags is like asking for trouble.

~Sorry about the disappearance. I'm ready to resume talk

Gent: "As is expected, Name 1 says jump, Name 2 asks permission to land." That's very good. I like that.

Did I say that? How very like me

Post editting in TWS? I'd not seen it. I stop tracking the thread but I recall Alucard using quotes...I assume that is who you speak of. Just to let you know, in passing I even considered just fixing it while giving notice rather then creating a PM, off-topic post, aside/note, etc.

Post editting has the potential to grow serious/personal. If the rules are made clear, the edit (or exclusion) should be fine but in a case where the rule wasn't stated (or even obvious), it's difficult to okay an outright action even if totally in favor of the thread/user in question. Just because it's so personal to people to be worked around even if you're being helpful with 'best interests' in mid.

But it will not, we are all gentlemen here. I knew in the long run that Mr Alucards would not mind, I could have PM'd Mr Alucards about but the quickest easiest fix was to EDIT out the erroneous quotes myself. I was posting in the threrad at the time so it was less hassle to delete the "quotes" than to make a statement or send a PM. I do not see it as a major concern. I believe at the start of the thread I said to copy and paste the previous posts. I did not say not to use quotes, nor did I okay the use of them.  If anyhthing the fault lies with me for not being explicit. As the blame laid with me I saw it as my responsibility to correct the "eyesore"

NOTE: Indeed the point of a TWS is to sound like a single person is telling a tale of sorts and really should be a bit "disjointed". Sort of a 'non sequitar at length'. The quotes were akward.

I don't fully recall what post of yours he editted,

Kuro was the unjustified EDITor but I wish no further action to be taken, he knows the faux pass that he commited and will no doubt think twice before transgressing the rules again

what was put in or why exactly. It wasn't followed closely by myself. I tend to worry less at other boards about how people get along but seeing as that board can reflect on this one..I'll need to extend that concern it seems.

No need for that good sir. The natures of the two boards that we frequent are, IMO, entirely different. I can set aside any petty differences encountered there. I only hope that Mr. Kuro can do the same.

We both know someone in recent history who was against that very thing. No editting of a person's post. No exceptions. That was their policy to authority figures and they weren't a fit for board life. Thinking everyone with power (however small) would abuse it and did so. Unreasonable and unwilling to be corrected or put in check. Unfit for TUGOWU.

So I suppose your point stands, '...no one in their right mind should be.'

Quite right. Hopefull the actions of such undesirable types are in the past. We dealt with it. Now is the time to move on

EDITs for entertainment here is certainly questionable. Circumstances dictate the severity of the discipline but in the end, it just isn't possible to give a full pass. A penalty (however small) needs to take place.

If you insist. what do you have in mind?

 

~Sorry about the disappearance. I'm ready to resume talk

¬I barely noticed you had gone. Toot Toot.

MrStarkiller

I'll start by warning that the responses in QUOTES thing should only be done once (bold level) before starting the process over. Even as is, it could be flagged. (depends on the level of p-p-p-page stretch)

Gent: You did. Congratulations.

You basically handled it like me when not in the mood to bother with pleasentries..which is to say you did what needed doing but in a presumptive/inconsiderate way. No harm done. Even if he was grossly offended by it (which would be questionable behavior in of itself), it wouldn't have been a bad call.

It's just that prior contact is the nicer thing to do. Give them the heads up...with our small list of unque posters at any point, it wouldn't be a heavy burden..just a bother to not handle there and then (personally)...rather then have to wait for a response of whether they'll do it or you can just address it instead (they don't really get a choice beyond those unless it's for a VERY minor thing like a spell mistake or somethig).

It would be very annoying to be told they'll do it but they don't. We could require a policy on auto-correction after a certain amout of time goes by AFTER sending the PM (if by post, they would have said countdown begin after they reply to the post).

As for not saying NO to quote usage...it's clear how the thread works. Alucard just has a weird error in his set-up where it isn't easily avoided. I don't think it's entirely your fault that the rules needed expansion just to be clear about that.

What stays at the other board, stays there then. It's our personal Vegas I suppose.

Right, right, right. The spirits between the two are entirely different.

Hopefully that's last we see of a persistant bother. This place has seen at least one other such case. (lesser) We're bound to run into another individual that butts heads with authority...and they will likely do so just because they like conflict rather then anything else. We can't fully move on. Even with that case resolved (apparently). There is no reason to believe that's the last obstacle we'll have in taking care of TUGOWU. Be certain of that. For now, I'll but that history to rest. Until I feel like messig with you at the other board (HA! HA! YESH!) or sighting past issues for the sake of bettering this board of course.

Just for one's entertainment? Let's say it's done to a useless post of a banned user. They aren't around to care and the post hold little to no value. "Dead Space" if you will. Taking away Officer position for a few days to a week could be a decent minimum penalty (which equates to a slap on the wrist but still it's better then nothing for such a non-serious act).. possibly with an thread/article created just to bring it up (just seems like having your demotion anounced to others and why would be a punishment of sorts even if it gives you attention and you rike dat). The post would be reverted to before the EDIT(s) and the basic handling of "Low tier" punishment will have been dealt.

That same EDIT done to an active user (again for entertainment) would require at least 2-4 weeks out of the position (depends on what the changed/put in for extra charges) and possible considered "Middle tier". Thus a "warning" that they are quite close to being sent out of the union and possibly reported (by the person they editted if they felt like it). Obviously it's possible to be a first time offender (at this point) and get a "High tier" punishmet straight away...we COULD have no choice (considering our current status) other then reporting/flagging such behavior right away as it would be risky to sweep it under the rug and just take themout of the union by itself and revert the post without ever reporting that act for moderation...truely hard to say.

A repeat of the lesser would warrant a "warning". A repeat of the other would most probably leave no choice but to kick that user out for such behavior ever being repeated..especially with a warning being defied in the process by one who is to respect the union and uphold TUGOWU standards.

I guess that sounds like an Officer gets hit slightly harder by rules then recruits which is probably a good way to do things in all honesty. What say you?

As if. You pine on my every word.

~Nothing (serious) gets done without me active. Save perhaps AKheon's Glitch FAQ which satvara can help with when ever he graces us with his presence. Though I have stake all over that situation as well.

It seems that the somewhat distasteful but entirely essential issue of rule and punishments will not resolve itself so it is time for me to return to the matter.

We want to keep this Union safe, that means our behaviour here should be beyond reproach. We aspire to welcome newcomers to GoW and egg them on to the higher eschelons of speciality runs. We also wish to post with a certain amount of freedom, whilst remaining within the GS ToS. If we wish to act the fool and niggle at each other then we can do it elsewhere. Are we in agreement on this Gentlemen? GSTUGOWU should remain a pure and unsullied statistical resource/helpdesk/offical facade. The soft underbelly/innersanctum/NSFW aspect can be found elsewhere.

Any opposed?

None.

Good.

MrSK wants us to have the same level of "respect" and authority as genuine moderators. I am not disagreeing with that ideal. It seems agreeable if somewhat unworkable. 

I have read through old threads at this Union, the most recent troublemaker went by the name of "neuro". How about we run through a truncated version of events and see how it would be dealt with according to MrSK's rercent propsals? See this as sort of a feasability study. I want to know to what degree our rules (within rules) would work. Indulge me in a little role play, my friends. I see little point in thrashing out hypotheticals if the end result will not be to our benefit. So please, anyone with any insight feel free to interject at any point.

So, a new member arrives. Contributing frequently but always seeking conflict.

This is tolerated for a while *perhaps for longer than it should have been*

Censor bypassing become prevalent

The misbehaving member is advised as to the error of their ways. 

They respond with a "**** you and **** your rules"

A "flagging war" ensues.

Could any of you kindly gentlemen advise me as to how we would handle this scenario under the new regime. 

I am not against the forging of new rules, not by any stretch of the imagination. I just need to be sure that going to such lengths would be to the long term benefit of TUGOWU. If someone can show me how new protocols could be used to better the handle the "case study" then I shall invest efforts into doing so. 

Whilst I am in a tl;dr frame of mind, can I be as bold as to broach the subject of censor bypassing? No doubt we all know how to do it. We are all gentlemen of the world and have broad vocabularies. Offensive language is not tolerated by GS. We do not want any "outside attention" or cause for "outside involvement". I think we should employ the total obscuration school of thought.

**** it.

We officers are familiar with each others postings and mannerisms *from other boards*. IF we must profane then I am quite sure that we can guess with a fair degree of accuracy what the obscured word would be, merely from the number of ********'*

Anything other than total obscuration is IMO too risky.

Your thoughts, gentlemen

Too true. One would like to think it'll all be decided by another (me in a 'fair', 'clever', 'thoughtful',etc. sort of way) but it's asking too much to go it all alone. Especially when one lacks drive to care without any sort of motivation. Care is a good source...a simple 'soundboard' would suffice.

Not sure it could be considered the 'soft' underbelly but I get your drift and concur. We can save that sort of fun for elsewhere. We do well enough with our 'teasing' under veils (however thin) here. Though even that should be checked with newcomers if not for the ToS (even if within the alotted boundaries), for the sake of relations. It would be absurd to propose we totally castrate our way of doing things for a purely polite approach..just that we keep it 'within reason' (abstract enough for you?).

It's just a stated desire. A dream. Not any sort of 'goal' we can even try to meet/work towards within reason.

"Truncated version of events"? I'll have to leave such a task to you. Hypotheticals, I can (perhaps) work with. Seeing as we've yet to full decide what qualifies as what..this could be a bit premature. Especially since none of it has been overseen by a 'true offiicaial'. ESPECIALLY the 'High tier' punishment.

Newbie with an attitude yet a good contributer. Unlikely but I'll go with this.

Tolerated? Why exactly? Or is this an unnecessary part to pluck at?

Clear disregard for the ToS should be obvious. It isn't like a misuderstanding. That's a warning by our own system. As for whether or not they get reported..that sort of thing hasn't been decided though I favor the avoidance of said action..it could be the only 'good' option. They joined GS and should have read the ToS. They joined us and had to refer back to it along with extra rules. We provide plenty of links. A sensible person would already know better then to try and bypass the system. IF we get to the point where flagging is called for in a case WE deem as a ToS breaker..WE could just handle the "Moderation" ourself. It's not the same exact effect but it gets the idea across. Post editting and deletion would be lesser versions but to be realistic..the bad feelings generated are going to be about the same across the board even with things clearly spelled out with the guilty knowing what they did. At which point their defiance lands but one tier...

Sounds too nice as is to even bother explaining a ToS rule of that level. There is nothing confusing about it. It's not like the other 'newer' rules or 'tricky' definitiions unique to GS. They should know and get no pardon. I still say 'Mid tier' on that. A warning (TUGOWU Moderation) at least.

Open defiance where many charges can be brought against them. Emotional baggage is no excuse..I'll say that now. I don't want to ever see an "I'm sorry" (serious offense) followed by any "It's cool" type responses. This is 'High tier'.

It should not get to that point. They should have already been kicked and had their posts 'removed'. Without the backing of the 'officials' though, we could face other issues. We can watch such users easily enough but there are limits.

I believe the above about covers the 'idea'. However, it falls back on enforcing the 'High tier'..the "end user" option.

It's to our benefit that they are removed from activity here if not GS as a whole.

Please do.

Oh this? I believe it was already once decided upon that it was the only way to go. Though ing's, ed's and the like were ruled as fine by GS. Even still, the usage of the stars (when understood) can STILL be troublesome if anyone's delicate sensiblilities happen to be offended.

~Let us continue to discuss this

As requested, I continue. Some input from the other officers would be pleasant. 

Not really in full tl'dr mood right now. the whole subject of rules leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, no doubt it doesn't sit well with you either? 

Not sure it could be considered the 'soft' underbelly but I get your drift and concur. We can save that sort of fun for elsewhere. We do well enough with our 'teasing' under veils (however thin) here. Though even that should be checked with newcomers if not for the ToS (even if within the alotted boundaries), for the sake of relations. It would be absurd to propose we totally castrate our way of doing things for a purely polite approach..just that we keep it 'within reason' (abstract enough for you?).

MrStarkiller

Agreed. I just had the urge to use the phrase "soft underbelly". It makes me think of hedgehogs and they amuse me greatly. TUGOWU without the "edge" just wouldn't be the same.  We should aspire towards being "new user friendly"  but with some aspects of our caustic personalities there for those that are "useful to it".Yes that was just the right amount of abstractivity for me thanks.

Newbie with an attitude yet a good contributer. Unlikely but I'll go with this.

Tolerated? Why exactly? Or is this an unnecessary part to pluck at?

MrStarkiller

Tolerated because of selective flattery and amusement value

You know plucking is unnecessary, haven't we done that to death already? Lets not turn this healthy exchange into something else.

Clear disregard for the ToS should be obvious. It isn't like a misuderstanding. That's a warning by our own system. As for whether or not they get reported..that sort of thing hasn't been decided though I favor the avoidance of said action..it could be the only 'good' option.

MrStarkiller

Quite right. Flagging is to be avoided if at all possible. We want to keep things "in house" as much as possible. This would mean we would have to know the ToS fairly well and check for breeches of it.  That shouldn't be too difficult. It is not as though this place is as busy as spaghetti junction at rush hour, is it? 

While the thought is still in my mind, isn't the birthdays thread a violation of the ToS? Something to do with posting personal information?

 So lets say that someone is continually violating the ToS with censor bypassing and generally being a **** or even a ****.

What do we do? Tell them to stop it, for their own and our sake and ask them to EDIT it themselves? Great if it works.

What if they reply with a "**** you". What is our next move?

At what point do we weild our officerly powers and EDIT/DELETE the post?

So long as we stay squeaky clean and only do what is right *weird concept eh?* and only EDIT or DELETE to protect the Union and to a lesser extent the person that commited the offence then we should not be in fear of them running crying to the mods.

If they do no doubt we will emerge from the resulting fracas smelling of WIN and covered in glory. Or is that the other way around?

This all seems doable. Have you had words with the mods as to their views on "self moderation"? What are their views on officers of a Union upholding the ToS with voluntary suspensions post deletion etc.?

As requested, I continue. Some input from the other officers would be pleasant. 

Not really in full tl'dr mood right now. the whole subject of rules leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, no doubt it doesn't sit well with you either? 

[QUOTE="MrStarkiller"] Not sure it could be considered the 'soft' underbelly but I get your drift and concur. We can save that sort of fun for elsewhere. We do well enough with our 'teasing' under veils (however thin) here. Though even that should be checked with newcomers if not for the ToS (even if within the alotted boundaries), for the sake of relations. It would be absurd to propose we totally castrate our way of doing things for a purely polite approach..just that we keep it 'within reason' (abstract enough for you?).

MrCycleCancel

Agreed. I just had the urge to use the phrase "soft underbelly". It makes me think of hedgehogs and they amuse me greatly. TUGOWU without the "edge" just wouldn't be the same.  We should aspire towards being "new user friendly"  but with some aspects of our caustic personalities there for those that are "useful to it".Yes that was just the right amount of abstractivity for me thanks.

Newbie with an attitude yet a good contributer. Unlikely but I'll go with this.

Tolerated? Why exactly? Or is this an unnecessary part to pluck at?

MrStarkiller

Tolerated because of selective flattery and amusement value

You know plucking is unnecessary, haven't we done that to death already? Lets not turn this healthy exchange into something else.

Clear disregard for the ToS should be obvious. It isn't like a misuderstanding. That's a warning by our own system. As for whether or not they get reported..that sort of thing hasn't been decided though I favor the avoidance of said action..it could be the only 'good' option.

MrStarkiller

Quite right. Flagging is to be avoided if at all possible. We want to keep things "in house" as much as possible. This would mean we would have to know the ToS fairly well and check for breeches of it.  That shouldn't be too difficult. It is not as though this place is as busy as spaghetti junction at rush hour, is it? 

While the thought is still in my mind, isn't the birthdays thread a violation of the ToS? Something to do with posting personal information?

 So lets say that someone is continually violating the ToS with censor bypassing and generally being a **** or even a ****.

What do we do? Tell them to stop it, for their own and our sake and ask them to EDIT it themselves? Great if it works.

What if they reply with a "**** you". What is our next move?

At what point do we weild our officerly powers and EDIT/DELETE the post?

I think we'll have to work upon a case to case basis at first, until we get a good feel for what is crossing the line.  In our own rules we'll put a good general guidline and warning that we are always watching, and that based upon our discretion an action is deemed unacceptable, and so we will be forced to EDIT/DELETE the offending message for the good of the union.

So long as we stay squeaky clean and only do what is right *weird concept eh?* and only EDIT or DELETE to protect the Union and to a lesser extent the person that commited the offence then we should not be in fear of them running crying to the mods.

If they do no doubt we will emerge from the resulting fracas smelling of WIN and covered in glory. Or is that the other way around?

This all seems doable. Have you had words with the mods as to their views on "self moderation"? What are their views on officers of a Union upholding the ToS with voluntary suspensions post deletion etc.?  Yes, have you taken the time to do that yet?  If not, we should get that done soon.

If anyone else has ideas, now is the time for it.  For our American members, now is likely a good time for getting stuff done, what with Thanksgiving vacation.

Mr Alucards, Gamespot chose wisely when they elected you leader. With all the quagmire that was the post prior to yours you remain aloof. Tiptoeing almost daintily through the unpleasantness and picking the correct spot to interject your opinion.

You are the very epitome of a "safe pair of hands". Kudos to you good sir.

Praise aside I must differ with your opinion. Dealing with cases on an ad hoc basis smacks of "flying by the seat of our pants"

Doing so is all well and good for the likes of Gordon Bennet but to head down the "self rule" path we need to have at the very least "roughed  out" some guidelines. Rules carved into tablets of stone would be better...

If we wish *as apparently we do* to self moderate then we need to have protocols in place.

Gent: Indeed.

Depends on the mode I'm in and where. It's just the 'work' that is a put off for me right now.

Reasonable enough. The "edge" is indeed a distinguishing factor of board interaction here. We'll have to try and individually work towards what is 'sensible' with regards to newbies...I don't know if I can just storm up any thoughtprovoking suggestions for such a course of action. I'd be better suited to responding to another who gets that ball rolling..otherwise we'll just have to use trial-and-error. Abstractions...oh so fun.

Selective Flattery is it? Why did an Officer not just act despite this then? Consider the position of whomever was flattered to be somewhat corrupted, then act on their own. With reflection on that case, it would probably be better for an Officer to act on his own rather then ask for any council should they truely see (clear) fault. It's too troublesome for any sort of organized discussion over any one case to be carried out. Or so we know now with the power of hindsight. As for "amusement value". how so? What's to enjoy? Things like absurd conflicts, verbal sparring, interesting pictures/videos/links, DRAMA in general, upsetting the establishment/authorities, etc.? Perhaps a sort of enjoyment on one or both sides in abusing each other? Though I suppose somethig has to give and eventually the more offended/desperate side is likely to turn to outside 'tools' to retaliate. Sounds foolish.

Of course I know. But I like it. Don't you? Agreed, onward.

The question remains if we should even be trying as hard as we are/have been to avoid flagging. Letting things carry on too far/too long. That area too should get a Moderator's opinion. Knowing the ToS would be to the advantage of all..but especially to us who unofficially enforce it. It's practically expected of the position. We could have other casts of Officers but it would certainly make the promotion less of a joy to know one is expected to know their union/GS rules rather then just have a bunch of extra abilities/elevated status. I too would prefer "in house" keeping but I just don't know if it is a reasonable desire to work at...perhaps we could give a very light go at avoiding flags..hard to say. The current state works in our favor. It's practically a hiatus from bothersome activity. Come time where GoWIII info starts to flow freely, things could get considerably more active as by then (to be reasonable) we'll have opened the 'flood gates' on those able to join TUGOWU.

NOTE: Even if we have an established system for how WE the authorities punish (flags included), what's to stop a Recruit or even a lurker from just flagging however they see fit? We can't tell recruits that all such issues have to be handled by us and at TUGOWU they forfeit that ability to the Officers and Leader...totally intrusting us with the responsbility. I'd imagie relatively few would ever do so but even still..it is perhaps wise to consider these things..as much as one truely can anway.

I can no longer recall. Old OT threads like that have always been a bother. I'll have to reread up on the ToS. If it gets a bit "gray", we'll obviously have to consult a Moderator on that too. (startig to sound familiar?) One has to wonder how much one is ALLOWED to say about oneself here..which is quite curious IMO. There are activities we enjoy that we strangely cannot even bring up..sites too if I recall right.

Obviously they would get a "warning". IF we feel it possible they may not have noticed their direct contact/Moderation, we could try a PM or anything to that effect but if they try to ignore us or appear to just be defying us in general, they right away get a 'High tier' goodbye. Such a poster would not be worth the trouble.

It's like I said before. In THAT particularly case they should CERTAINLY already know that censor bypassing isn't cool by TUGOWU or GS. The ToS coverage on that is fairly easy to read/understand. Depends even on the sort of bypassing. Clever uses could require Moderator attention ('vertical techniques' and the like). It's hard to grant that a user was unable to process how that works and just give a 'Low tier' "hit". (which would boil down to asking they edit it themselves while offering to do it ourselves, explain they charge, etc.). One has to wonder if that is okay by GS though as they don't want offenses covered up which is essetially what that would be wouldn't it? So I suppose 'Low' and 'High' are both tough while 'Mid' is simple....

Obviously they're gone. For THAT alone. It's not so much the offense, it's more the reveal of their intentions/disposition. They aren't a "fit" for union activity or even board activity if that's their way to address others let alone those being kind enough to point out their error and give an option other then instant flagging. It's "High tier". No doubt about it.

EDIT/DELETE is a lesser ability of ours. That's at best 'Mid' level action and I don't even know if there is a point to that...so THAT too needs to be run across a Moderator. I know what you're thinking..what's the point of these powers then if we aren't supposed to use them against other people? (which is the new ability in the first place as an official) It's better to get things straight. As said before, it could be against GS policy for us to self-Moderate in such a way as to cover up the actions of others. Let's say a false link is put up and WE catch it first and thus first (to prevent others from running into it) EDIT it out (rather then delete because said post happens to otherwise checkout as worth keeping around), then warn the user that said action could easily net a BAN in of itself though it isn't an offense against us to the point of landing a "High" level action. Should anything less then understanding (and perhaps appreciation) be shown and they repeat said action, whine at us, etc... they should be on grounds for removal. BUT is the action of covering up their serious offense to do things "in house" in of itself a ToS violation I wonder...hard to say.

They can cry to the mods however they like but so long as we weren't in violation at any point, they don't have ground to stand on and will be told as such. So there is no need to pull our punches besides catering to the kindness of our hearts and fondness for a warm, welcoming TUGOWU *LOL WUT?*.

Who knows. This is uncharted territory for this union to be certain.

Not yet. I will probably have to go over the discussions we've had thus far and list things to ask for a proper thread to be created..and perhaps a Private PM or two...

Voluntary Suspensions are a joke and I won't even consider it further at this point. Voluntary Bans are less so..but they have to be addressed.

Alucard: Case-to-Case could be difficult to brainstorm in all honesty. We can go through the list of charges via ToS and just do our best I suppose...

We're working towards questions for the Mods slowly but surely I assure you.

Quite right. The vacation won't last long. For non-officers following along, feel free to weigh in at 'Off-Topic' or better yet, 'Union Suggestions'.

~Such fun..