Difference between revisions of "YTMND talk:Proposed Rules"
m (→Creating to or linking sites or comments glorifying generally illegal actions) |
m (→Obscenity, Racism, Harassment, and shock value) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Define ''unnecessary amount''. --[[User:RySenkari|RySenkari]]<br> | Define ''unnecessary amount''. --[[User:RySenkari|RySenkari]]<br> | ||
− | This one is up to a moderator's judgment, unless a consensus can be reached on a boundary. [[User:BTape|BTape]] 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST) | + | This one is up to a moderator's judgment, unless a consensus can be reached on a boundary. [[User:BTape|BTape]] 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST) |
+ | I think the average user of the site is smart enough to understand what kinds of sites are only being made for shock value and can easily filter out offenders to this. I wouldn't see this as a problem, that rogue moderaters are hurting the site or the user base, the worst offenders tend to float to the top anyways.--[[User:Laundry|Laundry]] 23:26, January 16, 2008 (CST) | ||
=General use of pornography= | =General use of pornography= |
Revision as of 23:26, January 16, 2008
Discuss the rules or suggest your own.
Contents
- 1 Spamming
- 2 Obscenity, Racism, Harassment, and shock value
- 3 General use of pornography
- 4 Creating to or linking sites or comments glorifying generally illegal actions
- 5 Voting Trends
- 6 Grouping up to push an agenda
- 7 User Moderation Abuse
- 8 Use of alternate accounts
- 9 Meta Data
- 10 Just generally being a dumb idiot
- 11 Trying not to get caught
- 12 Miscellaneous
Spamming
Define real effort. --RySenkari
I think it means "not sticking random images with random sounds." Classic style sites get a little bit of a pass in that way, because the image and sound often go together in an important way to make a joke. Taking images/sounds from the internet and uploading them to YTMND without reasonable modification would break that rule. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
Obscenity, Racism, Harassment, and shock value
Define unnecessary amount. --RySenkari
This one is up to a moderator's judgment, unless a consensus can be reached on a boundary. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
I think the average user of the site is smart enough to understand what kinds of sites are only being made for shock value and can easily filter out offenders to this. I wouldn't see this as a problem, that rogue moderaters are hurting the site or the user base, the worst offenders tend to float to the top anyways.--Laundry 23:26, January 16, 2008 (CST)
General use of pornography
Creating to or linking sites or comments glorifying generally illegal actions
What about sites that are soley created to try and drive traffic to other sites, like that my mini city thing that was going on, or if I remember from before trying to get people to help out on drawball.com? Those weren't really attacks, just trying to generate web traffic. I do say they are annoying to look at, and generally aren't "good". maybe this type of thing would fall under just being a general idiot.--Laundry 23:17, January 16, 2008 (CST)
Voting Trends
Telling people how to vote is retarded, but whatever. --RySenkari
While some of the rules that fall under voting trends may be difficult to enforce, such as "revenge voting," I think there do need to be limits on the abusive voting habits that plague the site. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
So upvoting is banned? Even if there's a good reason? I only click on a site if I'm pretty sure I'm gonna like it, that's why most of my votes are 5s. You want me to deliberately try to view shitty sites? --RySenkari
- I'd have to agree that there are some users that for whatever reason just seem to like almost everything, for example YourTheCoconutman. Ochobobo 19:17, January 15, 2008 (CST)
I think this is one of those up in the air kind of things on the borderline of impossible to enforce. People have the right to choose how they want to vote. On the other hand, you can sometimes clearly see the worst offenders doing it for no other reason than for the attention, and also the revenge 1's in a row on a different users top rated sites. That's going to take some watchful moderators to enforce that.--Laundry 23:13, January 16, 2008 (CST)
Grouping up to push an agenda
User Moderation Abuse
Does incorrectly mean blatantly labeling an NSFW site of yours SFW, or does it also extend to being wrong about a borderline site? --RySenkari
The punishments outlined currently are probably too harsh, but that can be changed. Yes, incorrectly marking a "borderline site" would fall under this rule. The planned moderation system may or may not have the same NSFW strictness it has now, though. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
Forcing people to make difficult judgment calls at the risk of being banned = bad. It makes YTMND less fun. --RySenkari
Use of alternate accounts
Meta Data
Oh God I'm fucked. --Kassius 06:46, January 14, 2008 (CST)
All kinds of crazy, stupid shit here. This will kill a lot of good sites if you do this. --RySenkari
The punishments for improper citation might be lowered, but the emphasis is still put on crediting your sources. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
Well that just blows. If I take from 20 different sources, do I have to credit all of them? This is YTMND, not shitty fucking Wikipedia. --RySenkari
Oh god, will you shut up? This is ytmnd, not the threat of nuclear war. --Kassius 17:03, January 15, 2008 (CST)
We should probably add "with complete lack of humor" to this or something. Sometimes just saying "uncited" or "Kill Bill" can be kinda funny, especially when everyone already knows what it's from. Ochobobo 19:24, January 15, 2008 (CST)