YTMND talk:Proposed Rules

Discuss the rules or suggest your own.

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)

People who do this are easily filtered out, shouldn't be a problem to figure these offenders out.--Laundry 23:29, January 16, 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)

A consensus, yes. This should begin with the establishment of a YTMND Decency Standard.

For example - FCC indecency definition: “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Our ytmnd standard should be set so that and all sites such as these will be subject to removal.

All sites which are deemed to perpetuate forms of hate by the definition I am drafting here should also be subject to removal:

Those sites which express hate via overt language/messages/images in relation to one's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation or otherwise derogatory references expressed in an inflammatory fashion.

Harassment of users should not be tolerated. Sites made specifically to attack certain users should be subject to removal. There should be no grey area here. A criticism is one thing; an attack is quite clearly another.

Shock value: If there is no content inherently obscene, indecent or overtly offensive in any fashion previously mentioned above, a site should stand. NiteSky 01:54, January 17, 2008 (CST)

General use of pornography

These sites don't tend to do well anyways, and there shouldn't be a problem sifting out the problematic offenders.--Laundry 00:04, January 17, 2008 (CST)

In accordance to the terms of my drafted YTMND Decency Standard, pornography would be included under content worthy of removal. To be accurate, any form of imagery depicting human reproductive organs in a context blatantly intended to arouse sexual feelings or denote human sexuality. NiteSky 01:59, January 17, 2008 (CST)

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

This would kind of elminate inside jokes from differnt parts of the ytmnd community, which I don't think might be a good thing. Forced fads would technically fit under this category, but It would all be up to moderators discretion. I guess it would be easy to pick out which ones are harmful though.--Laundry 23:33, January 16, 2008 (CST)

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

People tend to learn quicker by harsher punishments. They tend to think more clearly on what they post. I can understand the accident cases where they just clicked wrong. Maybe create more steps of the punishment ladder. first time: verbal warning, second time: week suspension, third time: month suspension, fourth time: account deleted. that way you can sift out who are the repeat offenders who are doing it on purpose.--Laundry 23:50, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Use of alternate accounts

This makes sense, but also go after the offenders who have done this type of thing in the past to send a message of a level playing field for all ytmnd users.--Laundry 23:38, January 16, 2008 (CST)

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)

This would be a judgment call. I'm sure people would be intelligent enough to figure out who are really abusing the system. People are smart and functional enough to type "edited" or "+ edit".--Laundry 23:56, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Just generally being a dumb idiot

This is easily enforcable. Should be no problems here for questionable judgment calls.--Laundry 23:43, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Trying not to get caught

Wouldn't this fall under the Alt account Category? This section seems unneeded and should be grouped above.--Laundry 23:58, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Section 47. B. Miscellaneous

The site change thing after it is highlighted is sometimes annoying, but there have been fads created from such actions. Maybe have a roll back option for mods. Such if a site is sponsored and someone decides to change it, then have the mods roll it back and slap protection on it from being edited.--Laundry 00:03, January 17, 2008 (CST)