[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.

[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][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]

[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.

[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. ©

[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][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][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][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.

[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]

On second thought, never mind. [Edited on 12.05.2012 12:59 PM PST]

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][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.

[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.

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]

[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][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.

[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.

[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.

I hope we are able to still produce the 2013 mythics calendar

[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!

[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.

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.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] dibbs089 Why not try having an actual dialog instead of resorting to the same infantile talking points which inhabit every thread questioning the rule?[/quote] 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. I'm a janitor, not a greeter. DeeJ holds your hand and guides you across the street; I clean up the mess when you get run over.[/quote]The beauty of the internet is that you can pretty much be whatever you choose to be. The two roles you posted aren't mutually exclusive and, for better or worse there are going to be those that look to you as a standard for proper behavior. With that being said I'd like to address your "suffer no fools" comment. Why is it that asking for clarification of the rules earns users the label "fool", "troll", "troublemaker" or any of the other titles with negative connotations? When did legitimate curiosity become tacitly discouraged? You're the one labeling the OP a fool and addressing him with the assumption that this is all some sort of joke at the moderation team's expense designed to make them look stupid. I've made similar posts and threads and have gotten the same response. It's extremely frustrating especially when the only thing being asked for is further clarification (which, if you're punishing people for breaking these rules, should be very easy for you to put into words - it's simply your thoughts on the matter). But you are right - you don't have to suffer nor humor fools. You also don't have to post content that disparages individuals on the assumption that they must be a troll. I'd say that doing that violates the "don't be a jerk" rule, but as this thread and many other have established, all users don't see eye to eye on the rules. Maybe we just have different interpretations on how large a breadth that rule has.