Rules Update

[RayneCloud]

As noted in the rules posting, the following was added..

Posting private conversations in public, either in the shoutbox, IRC, or KSP Forums with out the consent of both parties is prohibited and is a punishable offense.

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

Sounds good.

[Charzy]

Err, why is this? What if some guy sends abusive messages, and I get punished for telling people?

[Ascensiam]

Err, why is this? What if some guy sends abusive messages, and I get punished for telling people?

Then you inform a moderator of the offender and we will handle it from there.

[Charzy]

Also, with regards to the roleplaying forum, I believe we should be allowed to disclose IC PMs.

That would mean that if someone sends you a letter ICly saying that they think you should murder some guy, you could tell people ICly about that, like you would be able to IRL.

[softweir]

[mod]If any member of the forum receives an abusive P.M. then they should inform the Moderating team, forwarding the complete P.M. with their complaint. We will then deal with it. DO NOT post the P.M. on the forums![/mod]

To forward a P.M.: [list type=decimal]

[li]While reading the P.M., click on the 'Quote' button.[/li]

[li]in the 'To:' field fill in the forum name of moderator of your choice.[/li]

[li]just below the 'To:' field hit the little 'cross-in-a-box' by the name of the sender of the abusive post - this prevents your P.M. going to him/her.[/li]

[li]Add a nice little note in the main text box asking that something be done about this, but leave it to us to decide what![/li]

[li]Send.[/li]

[RayneCloud]

Also, with regards to the roleplaying forum, I believe we should be allowed to disclose IC PMs.

That would mean that if someone sends you a letter ICly saying that they think you should murder some guy, you could tell people ICly about that, like you would be able to IRL.

The rule is all encompassing, and non negotiable. You are NOT allowed to post private conversations in public without the consent of both parties. Should someone however, be abusive to you, forward that message to the mod team as stated by softweir.

[NovaSilisko]

It seems like, via this rule, I could be banned for copy/pasting a joke a friend told me...

[Tiberion]

Depends on if you\'re pasting just the joke, or their name or contact information or otherwise attributing to them without consent.

The difference is:

'My friend sent me this dirty limerick.... <paste limerick>'

and

'Tiberion sent me this really offensive joke <paste dirty joke, then Tiberion gets hatemail from offended people>'

Now, your friend might get mad at you for stealing his material, but that is another issue.

[RayneCloud]

Also, quit with the 'I could be banned for so and so' already, it\'s getting on my nerves. You people seem to think we ban at the drop of a hat for you just saying one wrong word and give us absolutely no credit what so ever. Grow up. There are many many stages and chances before we outright ban you.

[CAPFlyer]

Also, with regards to the roleplaying forum, I believe we should be allowed to disclose IC PMs.

That would mean that if someone sends you a letter ICly saying that they think you should murder some guy, you could tell people ICly about that, like you would be able to IRL.

If you read the rule, then you\'d realize that as long as within the RP forum you establish that all players agree for IC PM\'s to be subject to public release on that forum, then you\'re covered.

Guys, instead of telling the mods that their rules are stupid or saying that you might be banned for this or that rule, try actually reading them and UNDERSTANDING THEM. There\'s a reason they added 'with out the consent of both parties'. It means that you CAN repost something as long as the other guy\'s okay with it. It\'s not that hard to get their okay for it if it\'s something IC/a joke/etc.

[NovaSilisko]

Asking for clarification on a rule that felt vague isn\'t really anything to get mad over...

[RayneCloud]

Asking for clarification on a rule that felt vague isn\'t really anything to get mad over...

You didn\'t say, 'Can I have some clarification on this?' Nova, you went straight to the 'Seems like I can get banned for doing so and so with this...' That is not asking for clarification.

[bandit4910]

This rule is actually fair to me, considering on other forums you usually can\'t post personal conversations at all. (Unless the other persons name is changed to a random word or something.)

[wired2thenet]

This is standard practice in most forum mod positions, for privacy reasons (since many countries have varying laws, it protects everyone). Most moderators I\'ve run across in a variety of sites will 'look the other way' for the minor slips. Calling someone out from a private message, however, tends to bring the banhammer out.

Forum moderation is an exercise in dance and finesse. From what I\'ve seen thus far, KSP mods do a damn good job!

[Caleb1]

It seems fair to me. Why argue something like this? :

[noneyabidnis]

What if we put the conversation in a 'spoiler' and preface it with 'don\'t read this unless you\'re so and so.' (so and so being the person I was having a conversation with)? Or, if I get their permission to just share it with a handful of people on the board, then I could add a list of different names to the spoiler preface.

[vexx32]

The first is just plain rude and would probably only make them want to read it, in case you were flaming them or suchlike. The second is, again, placing too much trust in a community of humans, which by nature are rather curious. That would only make them want to read it. Unless we can have a BBCode spoiler that will only show for certain people (or, conversely, have a list of people NOT allowed to view it), as well as mods and admins, then it could be done.

I kind of like the idea of that tag, actually. As long as mods are able to see it, people cannot abuse it too much. (I hope).

[Tiberion]

What if we put the conversation in a 'spoiler' and preface it with 'don\'t read this unless you\'re so and so.' (so and so being the person I was having a conversation with)? Or, if I get their permission to just share it with a handful of people on the board, then I could add a list of different names to the spoiler preface.

Definitely not.

That is what PMs are for, you can specifiy more than one recipient in a PM, so send it to those you need to send it to.

Also, common sense says that sending a Private PM around to other people via PM without the original authors permission is also pretty shady, so take care in that situation too.

Basically, consider if you\'d want someone spreading around your private conversations, and then give everyone else the same courtesy.

[RayneCloud]

What if we put the conversation in a 'spoiler' and preface it with 'don\'t read this unless you\'re so and so.' (so and so being the person I was having a conversation with)? Or, if I get their permission to just share it with a handful of people on the board, then I could add a list of different names to the spoiler preface.

Now you\'re just being silly and plain difficult. Let me respond to this with a simple warning, 'Don\'t test us.' There\'s a reason for this rule and if you want to test if we\'re willing to enforce it or not? Well, just go ahead and see what happens.

[Blinkin]

I don\'t get the whole discussion. The rule is actually protecting both individuals.

Besides it\'s to the mods to decide the rules, why argue about it? Make your point and move on.

[noneyabidnis]

Hmmmmm...

:stirpot:

I think that if someone breaks the rule, they should get a fair trial heard by a jury consisting of their peers on this board. Can we have a new category called 'The Kerbal Court'? I volunteer my 15 years of legal experience to defending my fellow board members against unjust banning.

And does it have to be a ban? Can\'t you have a 'Kerbal Department of Corrections' section where all the offenders are kept for a period of time while they rehabilitate? Guest speakers could be hired to post on an array of topics concerning online etiquette and privacy issues. And then when they get out, and then re-offend, then the 'two strike' rule is applied and they are sent to the 'Purgatory' section for a few months. And then, if the come back to the normal board and are convicted of offending one last time, they get a perma-ban.

[semininja]

I read that as a commentary on the American system, an assumption I hope was correct.

I laughed.

[Tiberion]

Heh yes thats pretty accurate. Also resembles what it would be like if we actually had public appeals for moderation.

I expect we\'re pretty clear on this rule and how it affects you now. If you really have more questions about it, feel free to PM a moderator or community manager for further clarification (and this goes for all rules, of course)

Locking this.