I believe what SarcasmIsWit is trying to say is that the chatter rules should be updated and a little more clarified.
Now because something is not broken doesn't mean there is no point in improving it.
People that have been on the chatter for years know the rules due to the Mods telling them to stop or getting gagged. But someone that is new to the site is different from you and your friends on the chatter.
If we do upgrade the rules than it will raise more awareness of what you can and cannot do on the chatter. Of course since this is not important or needs to be done right away it can still be done.
P.s. anything to help make this site better and easier for everyone, including the new folks.
Re: Revision Of Chatter Rules By: Hollabaluru / Knowledgeable
Post # 7 Sep 24, 2012
I have witnessed many people being gagged over their interpretation of the rules, or maybe their personal opinion of the rules. I think the main beneficiary of these rule updates, if they do happen, is going to actually be the mods. It will not give them room to interprate the rules as they see fit, and really help them know what is and isn't acceptable, instead of what they believe is or isn't acceptable (based off their own interpretation of the rules).
This will also clarify many gray areas that are percieved by members. The no cussing rule is a good example. There are words in other cultures that are nowhere near cussing level of speaking, but in another culture, it may be a huge insult or cuss word. Things like this need to be clarified, as it can be highly counter-intuitive to an individual who uses a word in daily speach, but is being told that they are saying something bad.
I very much like the idea and I think the community would benefit as a whole from it.
Re: Revision Of Chatter Rules By: Darwish / Beginner
Post # 8 Sep 24, 2012
Many people are simply not reading rules and I guess for one reason, the reason is that they are not taking this site or magic field seriously and I am glad that Mods are taking care of ignorant people who are lazy to read and obey
Re: Revision Of Chatter Rules By: Personified / Knowledgeable
Post # 10 Sep 24, 2012
I think it could possibly be beneficial to review the rules, and perhaps expand on them to make sure the clarity is easy for newer members to understand. The issues will always remain that people are lazy or don't read the rules, however, there can't be any excuse or complaining about a gag if the rules are clearly defined and explained for the members, who must click through the chatter test before they are able to communicate. We have the rules, and then in the articles we have the SoM survival guide. We could combine the two, essentially.
Re: Revision Of Chatter Rules By: Darwish / Beginner
Post # 11 Sep 24, 2012
All what I wanted to say is that this system of rules are good enough for people who respect, seriouse about this field and can read those rules. Regards
Darwish, have you even read the thread?
We all witnessed that some rules have some misunderstandings and conceptual differences between different people, their concepts, opinions and understanding.
The idea here is to give more information about them deeply, and explain each one of them in an understandable way.
This might change a lot and let us avoid unwanted misunderstandings for the future.
The Mods and Pet will have to look at which side they want, to keep the rules as they are or work a little bit harder (on pets side) and remove the small percent that is breaking the rules out of confusion.
This is a great idea. Even though I do not use the chatter much, or pay attention to it very often, complaints about being gagged for something that was interpreted by a moderator, granted not all moderators interpret the rules as much as others. The interpretion, can become bad quickly especially with vauge things like no cussing. I could say the word at is a cuss word as a mod, and in turn could get away with it (in some since). Revising the rules could be done easily without having to work on a whole new feature. (compared to each other of course).