Tilted Video Chat rules
 

The Tilted Forum Project has a dedicated video chat room open to folks with a minimal number of posts. Once you have access to the address, you'll find that it's a more fast-paced version of the board. We have modified the rules of the IRC channel to fit the platform we are using for video chat. This thread is going to stay open to allow airing of any concerns. Feel free to ask questions here, and please be sure to visit the room when you can.

A. While rules are generally more lenient in the chat room, which is a much more dynamic environment where messages are conveyed off the cuff, you're expected to act responsibly nonetheless.

B. You may be banned from the TFP for devious/boorish actions performed in chat.

C. 'Stealing' another user's nickname will result in a ban from TFP for a week. Alternatively, deliberately using a misleading or anonymous nickname is also forbidden. The second offense may result in a permanent ban from the site.

D. The chat room address may change without warning, so your best bet is to use the link on the front page to access it.

E. If someone other than a TFP moderator or admin has ops in the room, they MUST give ops to a moderator or admin when they enter the room. (If you have a star next to your name in the user list, you've been entrusted with ops. Please use it wisely.)

F. If you are being harrassed despite having said "stop it" and no moderator is currently in the room, cut and paste the conversation into a PM to whatever staff members you feel comfortable contacting with your complaint. Remember: more is better, both in terms of text copied and staffers contacted. Context can be everything, and the more staffers you contact the better your chances of swift resolution.

G. Moderators and admins will use their best judgement to make decisions and will act accordingly.

Please note that signing in with your Twitter account can open up the address of our room with anyone with access to your feed. That means that spammers can potentially find us, and it's the usual culprit when we have to change the address.

...I don't suppose you could pass a "Eden + Shirt" rule?

Unfortunately, we're not in the business of creating member-specific rules. If we did impose a rule that he had to wear a shirt, we'd also have to create one to eliminate his glow, and that would get silly quickly. You'll have to learn to deal with moobs.

In regards to point C, and in other words, people who sign in as guest and dont bother to change to their usernaehere should get a week ban?

sometimes I wonder why some people wonder why this site becomes more insular all the time...

SF - if they're idle, that's one thing. But if they're engaging anonymously AND being obnoxious, then that's obviously something different. Please note the "AND" as well as Point G.

The wording there is a direct result of something that's already happened in vidchat that was a concern for the staff.

As a pedant, may I just point out that half of the "Rules" are not rules, but statements of advice?

That bullet point by A. is bothering me.

:o

fixed the formatting wooÐs ;)

We have been having a discussion in chat, and I would like to point out that I think these rules are severe, hastily constructed in response to a lamentable situation.

I am also concerned that the final rule (G) is clearly intended (based on the way it was explained in chat) to allow the mod in place in the room to ignore the rules, or impose their own.

For example, I was told that the rules prevent spamming, when for humerous effect I made the same statement three (or was it four) times; but I cannot see that in the rules myself.

Don't get me wrong, I think we may need a "be polite, don't pretend to be someone else, and don't beg for nudity" agreement, but these rules are not elegant, and I think we could do better if we put our collective minds to it.

Daniel: Rule G is in no way an outlet for mods/admins to abuse power or to make up rules if they don't like someone. All it merely states is that a mod or admin will use their best judgement on whether a rule infraction did occur and if it deems a point (based on the point system here). Like all other infractions and incurred points, the infractions are reviewed and if necessary retracted. Point G is merely a way of saying that we will do our best to not give knee jerk reactions and really try to find the context and the meaning behind things.

saying something 3 or 4 times for humorous effect is not spamming.. posting obnoxious links and flooding the room is.

Can we implement a sausage fest rule? For every topless male on webcam, there needs to be a topless female.

Bear Cub for president.

And Eden's nipples are therapeutic.



(No one ever harasses me; I feel left out :( )

NOW I can relax!

*sits back and puts feet up*

:p

Daniel_, if you think that the staff lacks common sense, then there's a much larger problem than Point G. That's the sole reason it exists.

As for "hastily constructed", they are derived directly from the IRC rules and were discussed for several weeks. They are no more or less severe than the IRC rules.

And I'm pretty certain that we've never even put rules to a vote. If you don't like them, sorry.

In chat yesterday it was clearly stated that rule G allows the mod in presence to ignore, amend, and unevenly apply any rule as they see fit.

In escence, the rule was given as an enabling principle that gives the mod the right to not stop things that are clearly stated to be "forbidden", and ban things that are not within the rules.

The comparison to Animal Farm was raised by Strange Famous (and I concur) that "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others".

@Jazz: I am not cross with the rules, I think we need some, I just am not certain that these are the best we can have.

I really don't see an issue with these rules. I mean, don't pretend to be someone else, report anyone who is harassing, give mod ops aren't really controversial. And if rule G is being used by any mods to overwrite existing rules, then that is an issue with that mod, not with the rules.

I particularly don't understand the desire to be able to chat anonymously. I mean, it is tfp chat, and you do have to register to even read TFP, so what is the point of anonymous chat? It detracts from the feeling of community, as people feel uneasy with regards to who they are talking to, inhibits conversations, and detracts from the intent of being a TFP chat, as opposed to any other random chat. It's not like we are signing in with our full name and address. I sign in every night with my log in here and I am just as anonymous as Ive ever been.

The chat rules exist to create a very general understanding of what kind of behavior is expected. They do not exist to create a rigid set of laws that we must follow against our better judgment. This actually provides a great opportunity to explain what is meant by letter G.

To use an example from today, there was a user named "x" lurking in chat. The person was not causing a problem, didn't respond to anything, and nothing was going on in chat that could in any way be considered sensitive. So, I decided to let "x" remain and wait it out, figuring it's probably a TFP user who was away from the computer and unable to fix their username. It was apparently extremely distressing that I was not immediately and without question banning user "x" because of rule C. Despite repeated explanations that "x" was not causing any problems and I wanted to take a wait and see approach, I was accused of showing "favoritism"... toward a silent user who I did not even know the identity of. After growing weary of debating the issue, I relented and banned "x" against my better judgment, immediately removing the ban so that the person who I suspected was an innocent and genuine TFP user could rejoin the room when they returned. That user did return not much later and revealed himself to be xerxys. He accidentally typed x when he entered and was away from the computer since then. When he returned to the computer, he was met with a message that he had been banned from the chat room, which I'm sure confused him quite a bit. If I had applied the rules as rigidly as suggested, he would still be banned from the chat room for no reason whatsoever, other than a typo.

This is a far different situation from the incident that occurred a week ago and inspired the rule. That time, there was someone who deliberately (note, this word is in the rule) chose the name "anonymoususer" and was responding to messages. I asked for him to change to his TFP username or provide me with a good explanation as to why he needed an anonymous name, and he refused to identify himself. He claimed he wanted to see what kind of discussion goes on in the chat room, to which I responded by asking him why he needed to be anonymous if he's just observing. Again, he refused to change his name, or even tell me in private what his TFP identity is. After being challenged by me and, well, every single other person who was active in chat at the time, he logged out. If he hadn't, I was about ready to ban him.

Zero tolerance is no way to enforce rules. Letter G exists simply to spell out that fact, and that is exactly the context in which it was explained. Not even by me, but by another fellow user. This should not be difficult to grasp.

As for the rules in general, there's pretty much nothing here that does not also apply to the site as a whole. They're quite uncontroversial rules.

My issue is a minor one. The rules AS WRITTEN state that misleading names are forbidden. They state that there is a permanent ban for the second offense.

I asked why such strongly worded rules were not being enforced, and was told that rule G meant no rule was binding TO A MODERATOR.

This troubles me.

Either rules are flexible and discussion is welcomed, or rules are absolute.

In this case I was told that all the rules were only open to discussion to the heirachs with access.

I believe that this site has strength in the ability for us to engage in adult discourse. I welcome polite structure and a discussion of good behaviour.

I find uncomfortable the implication that my opinion is unimportant and compliance is mandatory, whereas moderator compliance is at their own unchallenged discretion.

I can state my case no clearer than to say politeness is good, but draconian rules are no way to foster politeness. A system that brooks no compromise, and where discretion lies in the hands of a sole official who is judge, jury and executioner is open to misuse.

I want to be clear that I have not seen such misuse and that as I stated in the room yesterday (as several people can attest) my very contrary position was taken as Devil's Advocate.

it figures, the one night I go looking for the chatroom, it's not there...or am i missing something?

if you're in insignia theme it's not listed on teh top for some reason. I hope to fix it this weekend.

I forgot to come back and thank you. It worked - thanks, cyn. :)

No worries. Thanks for the reminder, I got up saw your email and decided I had to fix it today otherwise it would still be on the list. It's now fixed and you should see the chat notification window on the INSIGNIA style.

I agree with the title of this thread. It does rule.

I have never even heard of a video chat room.
It sounds pretty NEATO!!!

Note to Daniel:
In my experience all the rules are nonsensical lies. Theoretical guidelines.
When it all comes down it's the will of the owner and the staff and crew.
All message boards have the same strict rules- #1. Be cool. #2. Don't be uncool.
The most common held opinions of the majority of the group defines what is cool and uncool.

Note to Ratbastid:
That was funny what you said.
I bet it does rule.
I wonder what they do in there.

really cool...thanks for the informations...