ToS 'Amendments Discussion

[LDC]

Firstly, i accept, agree and hope that this will begin to occur:

"This means that guides, artists, staff members and/or long standing members of the community can expect the same consequences for an offense as someone who has just joined the server."

However, as a former moderator; personally i find some of these changes absurd. In a modern culture it is quite tremendous to see a Terms of Service defined as if it were a government during the 1960s, which would stand people on trial for forms of obscenity or just for being homosexual.

Teamspeak:

"These rules will also apply to channels that were started privately, without intent to discuss one of these subjects or allow for swearing, but have become a public channel simply due to the amount of people in it."

What counts as an amount of people to make a channel public? There have been numerous occasions where a private channel is created, for a large number of people to discuss religious, political or offensive topics in the past. They chose to enter that channel at the acceptation that conversations will occur which others that are outside that channel may not agree with.

"If one does want to swear, use slurs or debate subjects that can lead to heated arguments, he or she is to make a specific channel for this purpose, with it’s name preceded by the tag i.e [18+] or [Debate]."

This is one of the most questionable sections of this amendment. People in general swear, the majority of people encounter swearing in day to day life; so it is difficult to understand why it is possible to be punished for doing it publicly online. It would be more understandable if it was kept or adapted to fit as such:

"swearing in public where it is seen to cause harassment or distress may constitute an offence"

 

[muteberlin]

Wouldn't it just be easier to flip-flop the channel swearing rule? 90% of the people on TS swear, so shouldn't it be that if someone wants a channel with no swearing, they have to make one? Rather than having to make a channel for swearing? It's just kinda weird making a rule that only a ridiculously small amount of people will appreciate. It's also going to literally be impossible to keep up with swearing in public channels. Everyone swears. I can count on my fingers the amount of people that don't. Even staff swear in public channels. The amount of reports will be ridiculous.

Also, in regards to sound clips in channels, I do agree that no sound clips should be played in public channels. They do get annoying, and as a person who frequently uses them, I can respect this rule. BUT, if I personally make my own channel, no matter how big it gets, it's still my channel. I should be able to play sound clips and swear in my own channel, even if it has many people in it. It's my channel, I made it for my own use, and it has my rules.

 

[TheREALsnipars]

+1

 

[MaDIIReD]

In a modern culture it is quite tremendous to see a Terms of Service defined as if it were a government during the 1960s, which would stand people on trial for forms of obscenity or just for being homosexual.

wat

"These rules will also apply to channels that were started privately, without intent to discuss one of these subjects or allow for swearing, but have become a public channel simply due to the amount of people in it."

What counts as an amount of people to make a channel public? There have been numerous occasions where a private channel is created, for a large number of people to discuss religious, political or offensive topics in the past. They chose to enter that channel at the acceptation that conversations will occur which others that are outside that channel may not agree with.

A public channel is roughly defined as a substansial amount of people that aren't from one social group or all doing the same thing (GTA, watching a movie etc.). You should realise though that you seem to have misunderstood the sentence. It clearly states that if someone makes a private channel without specifying it as a channel for religious debate or as 18+ and the channel has become public, the creator of the channel can not simply tell someone to get out if they don't like people swearing because it's 'their' channel.
If however the channel was made with such a tag, and a whole lot of people join, it doesn't simply mean that now you can no longer swear or discuss what you were discussing.

"If one does want to swear, use slurs or debate subjects that can lead to heated arguments, he or she is to make a specific channel for this purpose, with it’s name preceded by the tag i.e [18+] or [Debate]."

This is one of the most questionable sections of this amendment. People in general swear, the majority of people encounter swearing in day to day life; so it is difficult to understand why it is possible to be punished for doing it publicly online. It would be more understandable if it was kept or adapted to fit as such:

"swearing in public where it is seen to cause harassment or distress may constitute an offence"

Then add a tag to your channel and swear away...

 

[TheREALsnipars]

seam

*seem

 

[TheREALsnipars]

This post brought to you by the ebin meme crowd™ of MCME

such innapropriate picture, many wow

 

[Ghundra]

We have no issue with you if you're in your own channel and playing soundclips, swearing or talking about offensive material as long as it is labelled with something like 18+ or along those lines. If someone joins your channel and starts complaining about those things and you ask them to leave, but they don't, just get a hold of an enforcer. In most cases the person will leave and make another channel but, in that situation even if they were to report you for doing that kind of stuff you shouldn't worry because you already labelled your channel and asked the person to leave if they don't like what you're doing. Labeling your channel can consist of naming your channel and adding an 18+ so that other members understand that the conversation might not be one they should join.

TL;DR: If you make your own channel and label it you can swear, and talk about what you want with your friends within reason. If someone joins and gets mad about it they should just leave and join another more appropriate channel.

 

[Fireinferno13]

However, as a former moderator; personally i find some of these changes absurd. Service defined as if it were a government during the 1960s, which would stand people on trial for forms of obscenity or just for being homosexual.

Off topic on.

If you are gonna start a "discussion" thread about the new ToS. I would suggest that in the future that you don't make absolutely absurd and ignorant claims such as this. We are not sentencing you to death because you are gay since we are not a 1960s government. This is a minecraft server and such comparisons are ridiculous. We are trying to make the application of the rules equal across all ranks as well as reduce the swearing. It makes it really really difficult to take anything after your first point seriously when you begin with such a claim. As a former moderator, you should know that a lot of time went into this decision and it was not just made on a whim but rather as a movement towards bettering the community at large.

Off topic off.

 

[LDC]

-oh snap-

It's always funny to read comments by you, as you chuck in what you can to insult or perpetrate someone in a manner to put yourself on top; even on someone's resignation post which someone else advised you to delete.

1. I don't know how they do it wherever you are, but a trial is a fair democratic process which doesn't go straight in with a death sentence.

Trial: a formal examination of evidence by a judge, typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings.

2. The point of making such a comparison is to display the ridiculousness of preventing swearing, and other factors similar which were common under the laws of the Obscenity Publications Act.

3. I can make claims in any such manner as i deem necessary, and that goes with everyone. Unless everyone's own opinions and claims are going to suppressed and censored; even when it is fairly stated and compared, i'm not changing my right to think and express my beliefs.

You might as well lock this now @Ghundra , seeming no one can have an opinion in the eyes of our lord and savior, the almighty memster, frickity fricky frickster, Fireinferno.