JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Duck duck DEATH

Duck duck DEATH

12/3/2012 2:42:18 AM
Related: [url]http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=76127831[/url] After the locking of the above thread, Foman encouraged us to make a new thread that called to question the specifics on what we should and should not consider objectionable content under NSFW. While such matters will always have a gray area, the rules are largely useless in aiding those who are confused as to what content would be considered obscene in the workplace. Obscenity itself can mean many things, it is a matter of ethics and is often backed by law, and in certain countries it can related to speech, adult films, or even the dress of certain people (ie: Burqas). It is too much to ask for every single objectionable content to be listed; however, a guideline on another side or perhaps the laws and court rulings of a specific state or region may be helpful. Much is questionable, because in certain areas adult films may be obscene, and in others they are perfectly legal. Recently, the rules and even the Code of Conduct have been heavily simplified in a move to make them more readable. However, this move ultimately made it much more difficult for users who wish to post questionable material and are unsure whether it would be in accordance with the rules. While adult pictures and films are specified by the moderation team as unfit, I am confused as to what standard, or perhaps what workplace in NSFW, this stems from. I conclude this a layover question for Atomic Tea, sorry to waste space, but the previous thread was locked.[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Atomic Tea 2: Nudity (exposed skin, since you want me to be ultra-specific) falls under the "What is safe, and not safe for work" category. It doesn't matter what your place of employment is. Bungie.net has members that are under the age of 18, and thus you cannot post that kind of material, even if it is considered "safe" in your line of work. Why? Because it violates U.S. law and thus the Bungie Code of Conduct.[/quote] We're talking about adult materials, not nudity in the workplace, right? I am unfamiliar with a law that prohibits viewing adult film in the workplace, or the viewing of adult films by someone under the age of 18 (not to be confused with adult films depicting someone under the age of 18). Could you tell me which federal laws these are? I would like to know. [Edited on 12.02.2012 6:43 PM PST]

Edit Preview Cancel

  • Dutchy

    Dutchy

    12/5/2012 9:28:47 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy I'm just really bored and I made a half-assed attempt at dry humor in a thread where people are taking things WAY too seriously. *sigh*[/quote]I just got trolled. *facepalm* :-P[/quote]My intention was to be more silly rather than trollish, but whatever. I sorry.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • RighteousTyrant

    RighteousTyrant

    12/5/2012 9:21:41 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy I'm just really bored and I made a half-assed attempt at dry humor in a thread where people are taking things WAY too seriously. *sigh*[/quote]I just got trolled. *facepalm* :-P
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Dutchy

    Dutchy

    12/5/2012 9:09:29 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment. How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . . [/quote]What if I lived in Africa and wished to show the culture of my people?[/quote]Describe it, or select pictures that don't depict nudity, or ones wherein the nudity is appropriately censored. Pretty simple, really. Alternatively, you're SOL, just like a Rastafarian who might want to show off his use of religious sacramental herbs. [/quote]To be fair, he's just presenting a ridiculous example to poke holes in your logic. Or try to, anyway. ©[/quote]I'm just really bored and I made a half-assed attempt at dry humor in a thread where people are taking things WAY too seriously. *sigh* [Edited on 12.05.2012 1:11 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • RighteousTyrant

    RighteousTyrant

    12/5/2012 9:06:05 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] spartain ken 15 Should we not be allowed to post pics of animals like dogs also, they don't have clothes. [/quote]You can do better than this, Ken. I know you have it in you.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • CrazzySnipe55

    CrazzySnipe55

    12/5/2012 9:05:56 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] spartain ken 15 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] spartain ken 15 Should we not be allowed to post pics of animals like dogs also, they don't have clothes. [/quote]Don't be a smartass, ken. ©[/quote] [url=http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/02/medium_hlzrcxvgiwe.jpg] If we get pictures of them with clothes is it okay?[/url] [/quote]Lol'd. ©
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Spartan Ken 15

    Spartan Ken 15

    12/5/2012 9:05:30 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] spartain ken 15 Should we not be allowed to post pics of animals like dogs also, they don't have clothes. [/quote]Don't be a smartass, ken. ©[/quote] [url=http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/02/medium_hlzrcxvgiwe.jpg] If we get pictures of them with clothes is it okay?[/url]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • CrazzySnipe55

    CrazzySnipe55

    12/5/2012 9:01:33 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] spartain ken 15 Should we not be allowed to post pics of animals like dogs also, they don't have clothes. [/quote]Don't be a smartass, ken. ©
  • CrazzySnipe55

    CrazzySnipe55

    12/5/2012 9:01:00 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment. How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . . [/quote]What if I lived in Africa and wished to show the culture of my people?[/quote]Describe it, or select pictures that don't depict nudity, or ones wherein the nudity is appropriately censored. Pretty simple, really. Alternatively, you're SOL, just like a Rastafarian who might want to show off his use of religious sacramental herbs. [/quote]To be fair, he's just presenting a ridiculous example to poke holes in your logic. Or try to, anyway. ©
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Spartan Ken 15

    Spartan Ken 15

    12/5/2012 9:00:40 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment. How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . . [/quote]What if I lived in Africa and wished to show the culture of my people?[/quote]Describe it, or select pictures that don't depict nudity, or ones wherein the nudity is appropriately censored. Pretty simple, really.[/quote] Should we not be allowed to post pics of animals like dogs also, they don't have clothes.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • RighteousTyrant

    RighteousTyrant

    12/5/2012 8:59:19 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] King Dutchy [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RighteousTyrant ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment. How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . . [/quote]What if I lived in Africa and wished to show the culture of my people?[/quote]Describe it, or select pictures that don't depict nudity, or ones wherein the nudity is appropriately censored. Pretty simple, really. Alternatively, you're SOL, just like a Rastafarian who might want to show off his use of religious sacramental herbs. [Edited on 12.05.2012 1:00 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Dutchy
  • RighteousTyrant

    RighteousTyrant

    12/5/2012 8:50:56 PM Permalink
    ITT: people who either cannot or are unwilling to exercise good judgment. How difficult is it just to not post nudity here? It's not as if B.net is your only outlet for that kind of thing . . .
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • FoMan123

    FoMan123

    12/5/2012 8:30:28 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Duck duck DEATH [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x If you want a guideline as to what the gray areas are for the NSFW rule, use the same one that we've stated before in this forum: if you could see it in a PG-13 movie, it's okay. If you could only see it in an R movie, it's in the gray area. If you could only see it in an NC-17 movie, it's prohibited.[/quote]I looked up the MPAA rating rules ([url=http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/downloads/pdf/ratings/cara_rating_rules.pdf]link[/url]), and I think you might disagree with your own system. For PG-13, which you deem acceptable, it states: [quote][b][i]A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be -blam!-ly oriented.[/b][/i][/quote] There's a lot of problems justifying some rule enforcement here, because it permits nudity in the condition that it is not -blam!-ly oriented. In the previous thread, nude images were deleted despite users such as elmicker claiming they were art. Considering the levels of subjectivity, perhaps you wish to adopt a different system of judgment.[/quote] I was not trying to get into the weeds here, but rather to give you and others something helpful to go on. OP, this is why you need to be careful when talking about things in the abstract. It's easy to get carried away. My guideline holds accurate despite the out-of-context citation of the MPAA rules. "Art" does not equate to being "not -blam!-ly oriented." Many pieces of beautiful art are -blam!- in nature, so your example of art containing nudity being deleted is not a valid argument. On the other hand, all PG-13 movies that also contain a "nudity" label are so labeled because they show someone's nude butt or have a very brief glimpse of partial nudity in a non--blam!- situation. The bar is extremely high for the MPAA, and out of the hundreds and hundreds of movies that have received PG-13 ratings, only a few have managed to attain it with nudity in the film. And when it appears, it is very brief (no more than a few seconds), usually from behind, and non--blam!-. Here on the forums, the bar is analogously high and the guideline remains accurate. There have been instances where nudity has been shown on these forums without receiving a ban, but like a PG-13 movie, these instances are few and far between. You should use your best judgment, avoid the gray areas, and feel free to message a moderator if you have particular questions in a particular instance. We can't "pre-approve" your post, but we're happy to give you a general risk assessment. You are not going to get advice any more helpful than this, and if you feel it's inadequate, you should stay well away from potentially NSFW content (like you currently do already, OP). I am not going to post any further in this thread, as I don't think I could possibly have anything else to add to what I've already said. But, as I noted before, feel free to PM me with any post- or thread-specific questions. [Edited on 12.05.2012 12:57 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • ToastyWaffles

    ToastyWaffles

    12/5/2012 6:49:57 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Duck duck DEATH We're talking about adult materials, not nudity in the workplace, right? [b]I am unfamiliar with a law that prohibits viewing adult film in the workplace, or the viewing of adult films by someone under the age of 18 (not to be confused with adult films depicting someone under the age of 18).[/b] Could you tell me which federal laws these are? I would like to know.[/quote]With regards to NSFW, I'm not aware neither of a law directly prohibiting adult content being viewed at work. However I know that with my work-place the viewing of "adult material" is considered gross misconduct according to the staff-file, and is punishable by immediate dismissal. Most other workplaces may not be as harsh on the matter, but either way "adult-content" is considered at the very least socially and morally questionable, and the organisation would rather not be associated with such practices because of their employees.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Old Papa Rich

    Old Papa Rich

    12/5/2012 5:50:20 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Duck duck DEATH[/quote] [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699[/quote]Both of you are complaining about ambiguity without offering any details yourselves. It is not productive. If you guys want an all encompassing definition that is more specific than the rules we have, you are just going to have to get used to disappointment. Without the context of specific situations, there will be no concrete answers. I have no problem with answering questions about any of the decisions I've made. I will explain every detail of why I took what I felt was appropriate action based on the specific post, thread, rule, and history of the member. I will even admit when I'm wrong. As for the inconsitencies, moderators are human. We will make mistakes. And while we tend to be on the same page, we will not always view things identically. If you have a problem with the actions of a ninja, take it up with the individual. If that conversation isn't enough, bring it up with a master ninja. Then to DeeJ if you feel it is necessary.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • coolmike699

    coolmike699

    12/5/2012 4:29:13 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x (which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)[/quote] Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.[/quote] This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible. You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering. [/quote]How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you? [/quote] I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions. No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings. [/quote]You weren't talking to me, and therefore my feelings are irrelevant so your tough guy "hardy har har I'm cool cause I don't care about your opinions" attitude is unneeded and superfluous. Also, I'm not upset or annoyed at reading the posts, I'm saying that you should stop -blam!-ing about something that is not a big deal. If you really cannot fathom what constitutes common sense you're either being a dick about the situation or you have the rational thinking skills of a child. [/quote] I can call anything "not a big deal" with the right wording. I can make cancer seem like "just a bump or something" if i want to. "It's not a big deal" is bad logic. If it's such a small issue, why are you responding to me? The problem isn't that I can't "fathom" what I'm not supposed to do. The problem is that we try, and get in trouble anyway. It's not a matter of not understanding the rules, it's a matter of the rules being so vague that anything can be against them. Now, you can continue to use ad hom attacks, or you can discuss the rules and why they are/ aren't problematic. This isn't about you or me, this isn't about your or my thinking or reasoning abilities. Those are irrelevant. This is about the rules.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Cpl Crosseyes

    Cpl Crosseyes

    12/5/2012 5:33:58 AM Permalink
    Everyone knows the rules need to cover a middle ground of not too vague but not too specific. I think they're pretty good as is. It's clear OP disagrees but the answer to him is "too bad". There is no unfairness to them so OP will have to adjust his own standards and act correctly. If you try to toe the line you risk crossing it, maybe even on accident and facing consequences. If you claim you can't see the line then you best get some better glasses because you're a fringe opinion thinking too far to the "specific" side for the community as a whole to change to you. You'll have to change to adapt to the rules. [Edited on 12.04.2012 9:36 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • CrazzySnipe55

    CrazzySnipe55

    12/5/2012 5:02:45 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x (which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)[/quote] Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.[/quote] This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible. You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering. [/quote]How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you? [/quote] I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions. No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings. [/quote]You weren't talking to me, and therefore my feelings are irrelevant so your tough guy "hardy har har I'm cool cause I don't care about your opinions" attitude is unneeded and superfluous. Also, I'm not upset or annoyed at reading the posts, I'm saying that you should stop -blam!-ing about something that is not a big deal. If you really cannot fathom what constitutes common sense you're either being a dick about the situation or you have the rational thinking skills of a child. ©
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • Duck duck DEATH

    Duck duck DEATH

    12/5/2012 4:20:14 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x We're not going to start citing laws or ethics codes. The rules are intentionally vague, at the mandate of our hosts. This is how they want it, and our consistent advice is to stay out of the gray areas.[/quote]I was always informed it was for readability, is it really the case that they are deliberately vague? [quote](which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)[/quote]I might not avoid posting in the gray area forever! [quote]If you want a guideline as to what the gray areas are for the NSFW rule, use the same one that we've stated before in this forum: if you could see it in a PG-13 movie, it's okay. If you could only see it in an R movie, it's in the gray area. If you could only see it in an NC-17 movie, it's prohibited.[/quote]I looked up the MPAA rating rules ([url=http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/downloads/pdf/ratings/cara_rating_rules.pdf]link[/url]), and I think you might disagree with your own system. For PG-13, which you deem acceptable, it states: [quote][b][i]A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be -blam!-ly oriented.[/b][/i][/quote] There's a lot of problems justifying some rule enforcement here, because it permits nudity in the condition that it is not -blam!-ly oriented. In the previous thread, nude images were deleted despite users such as elmicker claiming they were art. Considering the levels of subjectivity, perhaps you wish to adopt a different system of judgment. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] edableshoe Alright, if you know that everyone has differing bosses, then let's go with the most stringent and tight-assed boss for this example, and call it a day.[/quote]This is a terrible idea. If we are to post by the most stingent of standards, it would make limiting us to pictures of women only in Burqas the most generous thing of all time. If anything, I would expect you to seek the most common point or perhaps a middleground instead of going to the extremely conservative point. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.[/quote]Bob, if you don't like a perfectly justifiable discussion, perhaps it would be better if you kept out of it rather than resorting to ad hominem. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] True Underdog I want to make sure that Bungie.net is a place where friendly, positive discussion can take place. It seems that most people can grasp the concept of common sense and what I mean by friendly, positive discussion. Those that get their jollies by skirting the line will either find themselves thrilled to be able to discuss their borderline naughty subjects, or they'll find themselves in time out.[/quote]While it seems correct to ban this 'naught' discussion within the confines of the rules, you seem the only person who concerns themselves with negative of those that have posted in this thread. While there are rules such as "Be nice" and "Don't be a jerk", I don't feel the subjectivity of positive ("the dress is fine, you don't look fat") and negativity ("your dog died") it worth debating because, to be fair, negativity and jerkishness doesn't seem to be enforced. If you wish to discuss the subjectivity of such rules, I am open to it; however, you seem to be the only person who cares about them, which is startling. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] About 9 Grunts If you wouldn't want your mother to know your looking at it then it's probably not okay. Heavily simplified but usually a pretty good rule to follow.[/quote]God forbid someone here is an orphan. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 Hey OP, can you please tell me why all you do whenever you make a thread on the Septagon is argue some minute detail about one thing or another and make a mountain out of a grain of dirt in a molehill? It's rather obnoxious.[/quote]Sorry, I just want to know. Why is everyone getting so upset by curiosity? [quote]The rules are specific enough that you should have a general idea of how to post and vague enough that "you have no rights" covers any area not explicitly covered in the rules that you may get banned for posting, posting about, and/or discussing.[/quote]But that means I could be banned for anything! How am I even expected to post then? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SonicJohn If it jingles your jangles and rustles your jimmies, chances are, it's not for the kiddies.[/quote]What does this even mean? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ Nowhere in my contract does it specify that I have to suffer fools gladly, nor that I have to humor them when they drag out a topic for the better part of three pages with nitpicking and goalpost moving.[/quote]Bob if you don't want to post then I have no desire to force you. Do not misunderstand! If this topic brings you such suffering then post no more! [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Old Papa Rich Here's the thing. You aren't involved in making the rules. So how they are made is not relevant. Bungie has a specific culture they are trying to create and maintain with these rules. It is their design, not a democratic process.[/quote]Papa Rich do not confuse the issue! How they are made is very relevant to us! The rules are given to us and very much affect us, so to us, they and their creation is very relevant. We may not desire a democratic involvement, but if something is expected of us, we should at least understand it. [quote]The rules are formatted the way they are for a few reasons. Simplicity is prefered. As Recon pointed out, we've been on the other side of his spectrum before. It was unpleasant for both sides. The community is not burdened with keeping track of all the minor subsets of rules, just a broad view of behavior. It is then up to each individual to use common sense and their own power of observation to comply. Will some people be slapped on be wrist because of this? Sure, but it's much easier on the community as a whole.[/quote]The rules were nothing compared to a modern legal code. You claim it's benefited the community, but really this is from the standpoint of enforcement. While you may play a double role, those excluded from enforcement, and the inner workings of hfcs and the rules are left in the dark and don't feel such benefit. The rules weren't daunting, and ultimately the coloring placemat children's menu that has replaced the regular menu for the rules and the Code of Conduct is dangerous if not demeaning. [quote]Moderators are chosen because they seem to have a grasp on the common sense Bungie is shooting for. The simplicity of the rules allows for some minor inconsistencies which are bound to arise. You cannot have total uniformity in judgement.[/quote]Just because things cannot be perfect does not permit us to dismiss a chance for improvement in user-moderator relations and communication. [quote]Please do not accuse anyone of making idiotic assumptions or whining. Neither is taking place.[/quote]See: Bob's posts. [quote]It is just being explained to you as clearly as possible.[/quote]hwat [quote]If this does not suffice, well then, there is always the trial and error method. That or make your own site.[/quote]Why can't you just explain some of the judgmental process behind your bans? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Coxx153 I hope we are able to still produce the 2013 mythics calendar[/quote]Tell me more.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • coolmike699

    coolmike699

    12/4/2012 5:22:50 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Old Papa Rich [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible. You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering. [/quote]Here's the thing. You aren't involved in making the rules. So how they are made is not relevant. Bungie has a specific culture they are trying to create and maintain with these rules. It is their design, not a democratic process. The rules are formatted the way they are for a few reasons. Simplicity is prefered. As Recon pointed out, we've been on the other side of his spectrum before. It was unpleasant for both sides. The community is not burdened with keeping track of all the minor subsets of rules, just a broad view of behavior. It is then up to each individual to use common sense and their own power of observation to comply. Will some people be slapped on be wrist because of this? Sure, but it's much easier on the community as a whole. Moderators are chosen because they seem to have a grasp on the common sense Bungie is shooting for. The simplicity of the rules allows for some minor inconsistencies which are bound to arise. You cannot have total uniformity in judgement. Please do not accuse anyone of making idiotic assumptions or whining. Neither is taking place. It is just being explained to you as clearly as possible. If this does not suffice, well then, there is always the trial and error method. That or make your own site.[/quote] I have never asked for perfection. As I have said (and you have ignored me saying) many times, there are inconsistencies even when dealing with laws where people's freedom or even their lives are on the line. So I don't expect perfect consistency here, either. But the mods here can be all over the place with their enforcement. People can get banned for posting things that mods themselves post. Just because I am not involved in making the rules doesn't mean that I can't question them. Bob was assuming that we are questioning the rules not because that is how rules have been treated since the dawn of time, but because we want to exploit them. It's the online version of saying "I didn't lose that race because I didn't train as hard as my opponent. The referee likes my opponent better/ my opponent cheated/ these officials are blind" without any evidence.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • coolmike699

    coolmike699

    12/4/2012 5:13:33 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x (which you already do anyway -- all you ever post is sarcastic comments in the Community Forum... why are you so interested in this?)[/quote] Seven bucks says the entire point of this thread is to sound for exploitable loopholes.[/quote] This is how rules work. You can't have rules (any rules, be it the law, corporate policy, school behavioral guidelines) without people discussing their limits. It's just not possible. You can make idiotic assumptions and whine all you want. I don't care about your feelings. Wah, wah, wah, you have to think. I'm going to ask all the questions I want, thanks. Because this is how rules are made, through people asking what they can or can't do and enforcers answering. [/quote]How about you stop -blam!-ing about the rules on an internet forum and just deal with the fact that they're vague for the benefit of the moderators? Is that okay with you? [/quote] I am "dealing" with them, by asking questions. No one is making you read those questions. No one is making you respond. If you don't like it, well, too bad. As I just said, I don't care about your feelings.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • James
  • Unanimate Objec

    Unanimate Objec

    12/4/2012 11:41:29 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x If you wouldn't want your 8-year-old sister to see it, don't post it. [/quote] That seems pretty reasonable to me. I demand more laws issued upon this basis!
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • BlackHeaven

    BlackHeaven

    12/4/2012 8:14:57 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Duck duck DEATH [quote]If this remains unclear, feel free to post a link to a questionable picture. If you receive a long ban, you'll know you're over the line.[/quote]I'm sure most users would prefer not to be banned. Shouldn't we have a clear standard to avoid such complications? Should bans really be the first line of clarity?[/quote] Sure. Most bans are 3 days. Nothing to severe, and then they will know.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • dmg04

    dmg04

    12/4/2012 7:29:36 AM Permalink
    This is one of those things where you can't really say 'If it would offend you, don't post it.' While you may not be offended, someone else could. Not to mention, there are quite a few individuals who visit this site under the age of 18, so obviously pornographic imagery is a BIG no-no. Language wise, the -blam!- filter says it all. If it's censored, obviously it's against the rules. Why? Bungie wants to keep it clean. No need for constant profanity. Outwit your opponents with sarcasm followed by a :-). I don't know what there is to discuss about this, really.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon
You are not allowed to view this content.