New rule vote.

I am calling a new rule vote that shall apply to the chatbox and posts, as well as PM's if a screenshot can be presented as evidence.

I propose thus:



The following shall be outlawed, and shall be dealt with as any other rulebreak according to severity:


1) Purposefully making someone angry or trying to provoke an angry or otherwise hostile response from them.

2) Exploiting loopholes or finding ways around the rules. They are there for a reason.
---As a sub-thing, this shall include bending the rules in the same way.


I ask that everyone vote on these. Keep in mind that they are two different rules, I am simply calling them in one vote for the sake of convenience.

So does that mean the incident that happened the other day that we discussed on Steam would be actually dealt with?

Or are we still selective admining?

You realize how hard it would be to police loopholes, right? I can get behind the rule against deliberately making people angry and such, but instead of trying to ban use of loopholes, maybe try and remove the holes instead?

(Difficult task I know, but worth exploring)

I don't have an opinion on the second. But I don't think the first one should be enforced. Yes people do this, but you can't be sure if someone is really trying to annoy you, or just comes off as annoying.

Replies everywhere.

Rantonhnaké'ton wrote:

So does that mean the incident that happened the other day that we discussed on Steam would be actually dealt with?

Or are we still selective admining?

First off, I dont appreciate your insults. And if you are referring to the thing we groupchatted over, none of the site rules have any jurisdiction over that. However, I will talk to you on steam shortly on that topic.

Razgriz wrote:

You realize how hard it would be to police loopholes, right? I can get behind the rule against deliberately making people angry and such, but instead of trying to ban use of loopholes, maybe try and remove the holes instead?

(Difficult task I know, but worth exploring)

Trust me, I know. And I can agree with that, to a degree.

Janitor wrote:

I don't have an opinion on the second. But I don't think the first one should be enforced. Yes people do this, but you can't be sure if someone is really trying to annoy you, or just comes off as annoying.

I would define it the same way we used to define the Insults rule (when that even came into play), as if it happens, and it is reported, both parties will be sat down and talked to and have it sorted out.

There's a simple solution to rule one.

Be mature and don't get pissed off.

Just saying.

Veil wrote:

There's a simple solution to rule one.

Be mature and don't get pissed off.

Just saying.

He says when the entire website is teenagers on hormones.

Veil wrote:

There's a simple solution to rule one.

Be mature and don't get pissed off.

Just saying.

Yeah, but there's also a counter to that one: when someone asks you to stop (we can even make it a requirement for them to say please if you like) then maybe you can switch topics, or stop annoying them? Yes, it can be hard to tell if what you're going to say will annoy, upset, or anger someone, and that will always be a risk we can never make a rule for. But the least we can do, I think, is make it so that if someone politely asks you to stop, then you have the courtesy to stop.

Let us stay calm, and hold a discussion for this rule vote.

Spoiler:

Okay, so Rule 1 passes. Rule 2 however, I dont know. It has four votes yes and no, but the Yes vote has 1% more. I dont think this has ever happened before. For the sake of fairness, I'll wait for a tiebreaker vote on rule 2.

Alright, rule one passes, rule 2 does not.