[OOC] Myriad Reality

[Extra]

whizzball1 said
Click "classic version" up top. You're on a phone.

Not there, and nnope.

[Legend]

whizzball1 said
Click "classic version" up top. You're on a phone.

His phone doesn't have Internet capabilities.

[whizzball1]

Legend said
His phone doesn't have Internet capabilities.

Oh. Never mind then.

[Legend]

Extra said
Not there, and nnope.

I bet I know why it doesn't work. The top isn't rooted to the page, so zoom out a bit with control minus and then look in the top right for the button.

whizzball1 said
Oh. Never mind then.

It's cool.

[Extra]

Legend said
I bet I know why it doesn't work. The top isn't rooted to the page, so zoom out a bit with control minus and then look in the top right for the button. It's cool.

Not on a computer. I'm using my school iPad that was given to me.

[Revolutionary]

Hmm...

[Revolutionary]

David, if you register I'll give you the permissions to access the admin panel (if I can) so you can take a look at the script and do whatever, if necessary.

[Extra]

Hmmm...SV may have changed how they do some stuff because of what happened....I think...

[Legend]

Extra said
Hmmm...SV may have changed how they do some stuff because of what happened....I think...

How so?

Extra said
Not on a computer. I'm using my school iPad that was given to me.

It should have a drop down menu on the right then.

Revolutionary said
David, if you register I'll give you the permissions to access the admin panel (if I can) so you can take a look at the script and do whatever, if necessary.

Thanks. Does it use HTML, or is it more user friendly?

[Dynamics]

Dum de dum dum.

[Extra]

I was wrong. I'm able to see it, but not interact. Well...darn.

[Extra]

Legend said
How so?It should have a drop down menu on the right then. Thanks. Does it use HTML, or is it more user friendly?

Good morning, afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

After some discussion within the Staff and with Community Councillors, we are rolling out a new prototype rule to handle certain issues that have cropped up in the past couple of weeks: bad faith debating.

Let me be blunt: 'bad faith debating' is hard to define. It's not only hard for users to define- and we see this all the time in our reports- but it's also hard for the staff to define when they're following the rules. It often turns on a matter of intent, and we often are left scratching our heads as we have to choose between "Malicious, or just stupid?".

As a result, when a report is made for bad-faith debating, Staff will have four general responses available instead of three.

These three were already available:
Reject the report.
Issue a warning in thread.
Issue an infraction.
The new tool is to issue a show cause order. This is an official request, from a staff member to a user, to clarify why their post should not be infracted for being in bad faith. With the benefit of this response, both the staff member considering the report and the other users in the thread can better respond to the post that might be at issue. Failure to comply with this order within the time limit given will result in a thread-ban from the affected thread and may be used as evidence in issuing an infraction.

There are three major reasons why I think this procedure will help handle bad-faith debating.

First, a lot of users who are reported for posting in bad faith are trying, successfully or not, to make a rhetorical point. Often they do this badly. With this procedure they will have an opportunity to explain their post before they're infracted- and do it for everyone in the thread.

Second, I think our appeals record has demonstrated that people who aren't posting in bad faith are willing to explain and clarify their points and those who are tend to double-down on what was bad in their original post. This, too, will come out before they're infracted- and also clarify matters, one way or another, for everyone in the thread.

Third, I think that arguments which tend to get reported as bad-faith tend to lead to a huge amount of piling on. Hopefully we can short-circuit this process by making the request for a response official.

Let me be clear. This is not an attempt to make moderators judges in arguments. It is, at most, a method to attempt to force a clear point, if necessary, where vagueness and ambiguity is causing issues in a thread.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask (as I'm sure some of you will do, at length).

[Dynamics]

Extra said
I was wrong. I'm able to see it, but not interact. Well...darn.

Huh? They shouldn't have the capability to do that.

Extra said
Good morning, afternoon, good evening and goodnight!After some discussion within the Staff and with Community Councillors, we are rolling out a new prototype rule to handle certain issues that have cropped up in the past couple of weeks: bad faith debating.Let me be blunt: 'bad faith debating' is hard to define. It's not only hard for users to define- and we see this all the time in our reports- but it's also hard for the staff to define when they're following the rules. It often turns on a matter of intent, and we often are left scratching our heads as we have to choose between "Malicious, or just stupid?".As a result, when a report is made for bad-faith debating, Staff will have four general responses available instead of three.These three were already available:Reject the report.Issue a warning in thread.Issue an infraction.The new tool is to issue a show cause order. This is an official request, from a staff member to a user, to clarify why their post should not be infracted for being in bad faith. With the benefit of this response, both the staff member considering the report and the other users in the thread can better respond to the post that might be at issue. Failure to comply with this order within the time limit given will result in a thread-ban from the affected thread and may be used as evidence in issuing an infraction.There are three major reasons why I think this procedure will help handle bad-faith debating.First, a lot of users who are reported for posting in bad faith are trying, successfully or not, to make a rhetorical point. Often they do this badly. With this procedure they will have an opportunity to explain their post before they're infracted- and do it for everyone in the thread.Second, I think our appeals record has demonstrated that people who aren't posting in bad faith are willing to explain and clarify their points and those who are tend to double-down on what was bad in their original post. This, too, will come out before they're infracted- and also clarify matters, one way or another, for everyone in the thread.Third, I think that arguments which tend to get reported as bad-faith tend to lead to a huge amount of piling on. Hopefully we can short-circuit this process by making the request for a response official.Let me be clear. This is not an attempt to make moderators judges in arguments. It is, at most, a method to attempt to force a clear point, if necessary, where vagueness and ambiguity is causing issues in a thread.If you have any questions, feel free to ask (as I'm sure some of you will do, at length).

Huh.

[Revolutionary]

Legend said
How so?It should have a drop down menu on the right then. Thanks. Does it use HTML, or is it more user friendly?

Uhh... Not a stinking clue. That's why I was gonna give you the ability to do stuff. I know -5 things about scripts and coding and stuff.

[Dynamics]

Revolutionary said
Uhh... Not a stinking clue. That's why I was gonna give you the ability to do stuff. I know -5 things about scripts and coding and stuff.

I studied HTML, so I'll help you. By the way, does it submit my password to you, or is that confidential?

[Revolutionary]

Dynamics said
I studied HTML, so I'll help you. By the way, does it submit my password to you, or is that confidential?

It doesn't give me your password, but I can change your password. By the way, refresh and go to the very bottom of the page now. If I'm right, you should be able to access the Admin Panel.

[Dynamics]

Revolutionary said
It doesn't give me your password, but I can change your password. By the way, refresh and go to the very bottom of the page now. If I'm right, you should be able to access the Admin Panel.

Yeayea baby.

[Revolutionary]

Dynamics said
Yeayea baby.

Yayyy.
I think we should move there the moment we see Tox again, in case the guild goes through another spell.

[Dynamics]

Revolutionary said
Yayyy.I think we should move there the moment we see Tox again, in case the guild goes through another spell.

I can text him. Though, it does feel a little lonely with no users but us.

[Revolutionary]

Dynamics said
I can text him. Though, it does feel a little lonely with no users but us.

The others have to register too. There's also the issue of getting Blitz the ability to interact... Maybe trying a different template or something.