The CFC Criminal Code

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
It seems as if my "Mods: be more specific" thread is being spammed up. spammed? yes, cause spam is, in part, posts that dont reference into the topic of the thread, and these posts are now off-topic. so here, I will start a new thread, and this time, I'll be more specific

what we need is a very clear statement of all rules, what is acceptable and what isent. some banworthy offences are un-knowen to anyone. for instance, this all started with a post count thread. my understanding, and that understanding from what I knew in the past, was that no one could start up a post about how many posts that they do or do not have. I did NOT know that talking about the postcount system, AKA, weather or not to have, instead of total posts, a number that represents something else relating to post, was also illigal under CFC rules. Another more recent event, being rules of a closed thread. can you re-open a closed thread that was NOT closed because of the topic of the thread itself? all these questions are rule questions, and the rules should be findable. if your going to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, then you must, in turn, provide a place where all rules are stated. the rules page we have is MUCH to short to do this. we need a constitution. or more like a Criminal Code I guess, that outlines all offences, and punishments.

I understand that repeat-offenders or extreme offenders would get more of a punishment then others, but you could write that into the Criminal Code/CC as well. the CC could state, that if you do anything to the extreme, or repeadley, that the punishment will be more, but the SUGGEST punishment is listed here. then a list of offences, a discription, and a punishment. for example

No threads on postcount or annerverserys. this means you cant post anything on, or realatiing to how long you have/have no been here, or anyhting realating to postcount, or the system it represents. the punishment for this is a 3 day ban

of course the CC is Thundy's job to check, so this passage probably wont be in it at all, or atleast modified. also, I do understand that Mods need the freedom to use thier judgement, but it should be written in that any time a Mod DOES use his judgement, for a rule not written in the CC, that Thundy will get a PM about it.
I really think we need a CC. some things here that people get banned for our crazy, and some things they dont get banned for are equally crazy. and when banned, the Punishment often dosent fit the crime. I'm not whining about any mod actions, but simpaly making a point for argument that we need a more standard CC. we have, at this moment 18,748 members. thats more then the city I live in. its about time we started to think of ourselvs are more then a simple site. nations have CC's why shouldent we?
 
I call for the ban of Pellaken.
Offense: Spamming and completely going overboard with this whinning.

Am I completely serious? No, but I am tired of this crap Pellaken, you are going to make TF disallow complaint threads.
 
"Mods: be more specific" thread is being spammed up. spammed? yes, cause spam is, in part, posts that dont reference into the topic of the thread, and these posts are now off-topic. so here, I will start a new thread, and this time, I'll be more specific

Pellekan, if you go back and read carefully, you will find that the issue in the " Mods: be more specific!!" thread is exactly right. That whole entire mess has snowballed because a Mod has not been specific enough about some things. All those posts now coming into it may eventually help some issues to be more uniform and specific. It is pretty much up to Thunderfall, since his is the Owner.

You might want to read into the history that generated that issue. I don't want to post any specifics here, so it will just stay in one place :).

In your other thread, you said:
what we need here is a good dose of being more specific. if the rules arent clear, how are we to know? AoA threathened to ban me, for a rule that I dident know was in place despite my best efforts to know... is that right, I ask you?
That whole issue now flowing into your thread is about unclear rules, how we know stuff, bans, and threats of being banned, etc. You really might want to see what is generating it... it's very similar to your complaint.

:)
 
There are a few problems with having a "clear cut" set of rules, the first being, it is not possible.

For starters, there is no way you can "anticipate" all the different ways creative posters can think of to abuse the forums/site.

Which leads to the second problem. A clear exact set of rules leads to the SINCE IT ISN'T SPECIFICALLY IN THE RULES problem.
People can do some really nasty things, and rightly complain that since you were not smart enough to specifically put it in the rules, it's ok to do. And they would be right. On another site, we add the "use common sense" rule to cover these types of things... but then you are back to the what good is a set of rules that leaves such gapping holes in the rules.

This also leads to the "step over the white line" game... Where people try to pust the envelope of the rules.

Also, intent is a big issue. A person that doesn't know the rules and does something minor should be treated differently (IMHO) then somebody you know KNOWS the rules and is intentionally breaking them.

So overall... It's really good if you have a general set of rules.. and that they get updated on a regular basis as is needed.

However, to try to set a VERY SPECIFIC set of rules is just plain silly, and asking for problems. It can't be done, and isn't in the sites best interest to do so.
 
As Ming says, you can't forsee everything, and nobody here bans people for things they are unaware of, I know who has been here and who hasn't.

As for all this "explaining", it simply isn't needed unless something excessive happens, or something is terribly unclear.

All of this is what we call a "tempest in a teapot", in other words, no big deal.

As always, common sense is your surest guide, follow it and you can never fail.
 
I was told that I was almost banned for doing something I had NO clue was against the rules. are you telling me its right to ban someone for commiting an offence they dident know was an offence, and HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING?

Ming says that people that dony know the rules, and break them, should be treated differentley then those that break them on purpose. well I've had bans before, yet the PC incident I dident know I as violating rules. your saying that I should now get more of a punishment just cause some mod thinks that I did it on purpose?

and we dont need a very specific set of rules, but rather, have everyone know and understnad them. I could have been banned in that PC thread. is that right?
you all say its no big issue, but I say that a ban is a big issue.
 
Were you banned Pellakan?

No, you were not, but considering all this fuss, you would think I banned you all the time, I don't think I EVER have, TF has, as did Corn and PH, but I don't recall ever banning you.
 
I banned him? Damn, I forgot such a glorious momemnt!?!!?
 
"but if I start attacking Floppa, who else will join me? "

If you start attacking floppa, AoA might join the group of MODs that have banned you ;)
 
i just got my first ban and i'm wanting to ban more people.....
oh and Pellaken, quit whining...
 
Originally posted by SunTzu
i just got my first ban and i'm wanting to ban more people.....
oh and Pellaken, quit whining...

Nailed one eh?! Yee-haaawwwww!! Ya'll is gonna put that on the hood a yer car aint'cha?? Hell yeah go show it ta Hoss at the bait shop!!!

By the way, I think it's great that mods actually go around looking for people to ban. That's super.
 
Yep it is, and your dumb a** assumption that people that live in Arkansas are hick's is well very idiotic of you.
I'm from Washington, D.C. move to West Memphis, i'm not a hick. I do however believe that your an imbred f***.
Of course we go around looking for people to ban, thats what moderators do....duh
I mean really, learn something why don't ya
 
Originally posted by SunTzu
Yep it is, and your dumb a** assumption that people that live in Arkansas are hick's is well very idiotic of you.

I operate under the assumption that people from there are hics until proven otherwise.

I'm from Washington, D.C. move to West Memphis, i'm not a hick.

See above.

I do however believe that your an imbred f***.

That cut. To the bone. :rolleyes:

Of course we go around looking for people to ban, thats what moderators do....duh
I mean really, learn something why don't ya

I'm not even going to go into the usual discussion about how banning should be treated as a last option, using post deletions and warning, etc, instead. I'll just let your post stand as is.
 
Pellaken your even beginning to annoy me with this topic and that's quite difficult to do
 
....whats a LART?
 
Originally posted by SunTzu
....whats a LART?

That's Usenet slang. It's "Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool." When someone is acting stupidly, you hit them with a LART.

PS: "Luser" is not misspelled. It's more slang, for a loser computer user. Luser stands in for clueless, idiot, computer illiterate, etc.
 
I believe that it stands for: Loser Attitude Readjustment Tool and is basically a metaphorical whack in the face to whoever it is issued. It is meant to stand as a sort of final warning that you've crossed the county line and should you continue riding in the same direction then you'll get an arrow in the back sooner or later. Sorry about the cowboy metaphor everyone, but I thought "It's like a warning" was a bit dull :).

[edit]: Hmmm... who looks like the dummy now. I'll leave the above there though in case someone really enjoys cowboy imagery, but for the real answer look above. :(

Pellaken, please stop whining at everything. Don't expect to be treated fairly here and you'll never be disappointed. You will even be pleasantly surprised on many occasions. I think that the mods should be given the choice on how and when to act in each case: whether a warning will be enough and why the person has transgressed. A reason for the action taken is always nice, but shouldn't be expected straightaway. As starlifter and slowthinker have shown, if anyone has a problem with the rules then they should take their case to TF but please try to ensure that it is well-argued and intelligent like theirs, not just a whinge as some others seem to be fond of.
 
Originally posted by duke o' york
[edit]: Hmmm... who looks like the dummy now. I'll leave the above there though in case someone really enjoys cowboy imagery, but for the real answer look above. :(

Not really. Though you got the acronym slightly wrong, your explanation of it's use is better than mine. So, let's consider the right answer to be the best of both posts, eh?
 
Back
Top Bottom