Okay heres another thread about sprays

Needy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:23 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Just going to leave this here: viewtopic.php?f=162&t=30216.

This ban appeal was about 4 months ago. The spray rule hasn't changed much since then. That was a spray that people had no issue with, but an admin certain did. No doubt, under the rules even back then, the individual should have been asked to change their spray. The admin did just that and got reprimanded despite doing what they were supposed to under the rules.

Now, I know, the circumstances might be seen as different, because people felt that the admin in question was just being homophobic (or even racist). But even if he was, the way that it is being explained here, regardless of the reason someone has for being uncomfortable with a spray, it must be changed.

So why isn't this always the case? I see disagreements now on how the spray rule should be enforced, and I saw disagreements back then. This always happens when rules are left ambiguous. It's the same reason why rules stated on the forums and not in !rules are not to be enforced (as it's always been). You cannot expect all admins to have the same interpretation of a rule, even with admin meetings in place. What about the newer admins who haven't been to the admin meeting? Or, what about the admin that hasn't seen the way it's "supposed" to be interpreted on the forums? Do you expect them to somehow figure it out on their own?

What about the case of that link? That admin followed the procedure for that rule correctly, but got reprimanded because a higher ranking admin (who was not there at the time), decided that the spray was not disturbing. So how far should the rule be taken?

I don't mind seeing the rule left open, but it needs to be worded in a way that people understand it. It needs to be worded so people know that if anyone finds their spray disturbing, it needs to be changed. Hell, you can word it like that if you need to. "A spray that anyone deems to be disturbing must be changed." That clearly states the rule, and the way it needs to be handled.

No more of this !rules versus forums bullshit. If you have to explain your rule in great detail on the forums in order for people to understand it, it needs to be changed. If you want an admin to enforce rules a certain way, there's a section in !rules just for admins. Use it. If you can't find a way to word the rule in !rules so that way people understand it, it's probably too complicated of a rule to begin with. However, if you expect to have an admin follow a certain procedure for doing things, but can't even put in the effort to put it in the !rules or even the FAQ at least, then perhaps someone else should be staff+ instead.

Just my $0.02.

i like the way you put two cents

BriBee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:25 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Just going to leave this here: viewtopic.php?f=162&t=30216.

This ban appeal was about 4 months ago. The spray rule hasn't changed much since then. That was a spray that people had no issue with, but an admin certain did. No doubt, under the rules even back then, the individual should have been asked to change their spray. The admin did just that and got reprimanded despite doing what they were supposed to under the rules.

Now, I know, the circumstances might be seen as different, because people felt that the admin in question was just being homophobic (or even racist). But even if he was, the way that it is being explained here, regardless of the reason someone has for being uncomfortable with a spray, it must be changed.

So why isn't this always the case? I see disagreements now on how the spray rule should be enforced, and I saw disagreements back then. This always happens when rules are left ambiguous. It's the same reason why rules stated on the forums and not in !rules are not to be enforced (as it's always been). You cannot expect all admins to have the same interpretation of a rule, even with admin meetings in place. What about the newer admins who haven't been to the admin meeting? Or, what about the admin that hasn't seen the way it's "supposed" to be interpreted on the forums? Do you expect them to somehow figure it out on their own?

What about the case of that link? That admin followed the procedure for that rule correctly, but got reprimanded because a higher ranking admin (who was not there at the time), decided that the spray was not disturbing. So how far should the rule be taken?

I don't mind seeing the rule left open, but it needs to be worded in a way that people understand it. It needs to be worded so people know that if anyone finds their spray disturbing, it needs to be changed. Hell, you can word it like that if you need to. "A spray that anyone deems to be disturbing must be changed." That clearly states the rule, and the way it needs to be handled.

No more of this !rules versus forums bullshit. If you have to explain your rule in great detail on the forums in order for people to understand it, it needs to be changed. If you want an admin to enforce rules a certain way, there's a section in !rules just for admins. Use it. If you can't find a way to word the rule in !rules so that way people understand it, it's probably too complicated of a rule to begin with. However, if you expect to have an admin follow a certain procedure for doing things, but can't even put in the effort to put it in the !rules or even the FAQ at least, then perhaps someone else should be staff+ instead.

Just my $0.02.

Before you quote a different situation I'd suggest getting the full story about it before using it as an example because several things:

1) You're right I personally said the spray was fine originally as I was the ONLY other admin on at the time until later in the day. (I've already talked to staff+ when it happened)
2) The admin in question didn't follow procedure actually. He banned the person without warning because in his own words "i found it disgusting I didnt wanna see it"
3) The quoted situation was discussed and has been discussed in a monthly meeting, with Kharn, and countless other times.
4) The rule gets explained in great detail because people want to try and abuse it.
5) Mattie has stated how the rule is to be followed. Its not hard to read, understand, or follow.

Spoiler: Show

mattlikespie wrote:

It's getting tiring explaining this damn rule...everyone complains yet no one wants to even suggest trying to change it at the admin meetings...

Quote:
7 No disturbing Sprays allowed.

I don't care how vague the rule is or what you think it should mean, we're looking at the rule right now. And right now, yes, disturbing is a many sided word. It varies person to person. What's disturbing to you may not be disturbing to me, and vice versa. So yes, this is 100% admin discretion. There is no clear set "THIS IS DISTURBING" handbook you can pick up with pretty pictures and examples. Disrupting gameplay, same damn thing. If a spray is bad enough where somebody has to say something about it in the chat and it derails the entirety of the round, yea, then it's disturbing. Only takes 1 person to find a spray offensive/disturbing for it to need to be changed. I don't care about your opinion of it, just have the player change the damn spray. If 1 admin finds it disturbing, change the damn spray, I don't give a flying flip what rank you are or how strong of an opinion you have.

On the other hand, I will not tolerate admins who cannot work together to administrate the server. I've had to explain this countless times and all of you have cited, mind you, correct, quotations from Staff+ elaborating the rule. Just think for once...just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else. Why do you ban people for saying the n word? 95% of the people who play JB don't have a problem with the use of the word. But there are the other 5% who do get offended by it. There's nothing lost by banning the word other than the waste of a slot by the troll who came online to use foul language in the first place. But we gain more by providing a gaming environment EVERYONE can be comfortable in. People do not come to Jailbreak to be insulted or disrespected, they come to play Jailbreak.

A simple rule of thumb? If a player literally has to ask you, "Is my spray okay?" or "Does my spray break the rules?" or better yet, "Is my spray disturbing?" Then the answer is yes to all three. "Discretion" does NOT mean voicing your opinion on a manner and bending rules to match your way of thinking. Discretion means you have the freedom to enforce the rules for the betterment of the server. If there is room to question that a spray can be disturbing, then your opinion is irrelevant - the spray can be interpreted as disturbing, and if you are truly as an admin looking out for the betterment of the server, you will make the player change that spray. Back to the questions. If a player asks you "Is my spray disturbing?" Then the only reason they are asking is because they know it can be disturbing. And I am almost certain these "multiple" admins did not simply out of their own will message Steezy and said "Hey man, nice spray, it's not disturbing btw lol just in case anyone asks." as soon as he joined. So Steezy either asked "Is my spray okay?" - which we just determined then no, it's not okay - or, someone found it disturbing (on multiple occasions) and the admins chose to do nothing because they "disagreed," until Birthstone had the balls to actually follow the rules and ban him for not changing it when asked, because Birthstone was looking out for the server, for the 5%. People do not come to Jailbreak to watch child porn, or female genitalia, or naked dudes, they come to play Jailbreak.

In regards to the appeal - the ban is past, so we'll leave it at that.

If you anyone cares to question, debate, comment, etc. on my reply, then make a new thread or find me separately. This is locked. In the future, please don't post or argue this shit on a ban appeal...

I'm honestly done though. Next admin meeting bring it up ya know?

Cooper · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:49 pm

If the rule is changed to have specific boundaries people are going to try to get as close to those boundaries as possible and then just create a whole nother issue where instead of being able to just ask them to change it if someone has a problem with it, admins are going to have to use their discretion even more than before to decide whether the spray is allowd or not based on the rules. Every single time an admin is unsure whether a spray or not breaks the specific guidelines they are going to have to take it to Staff+ and admins are going to have diffferent interpretations whether or not something should be considered porn, gore, etc.

If you really think about it people don’t NEED to come on the server with a porn spray and obviously have some sort of underlying intention by doing so, they also agreed to the server rules and should change it if an admin says, regardless if they agree or not. In this case I think it was pretty clear that the player was giving Birthstone trouble and causing issues with more than just his spray.

The rule may not be worded the best but I don’t think it can get much more simple than “If someone has a problem with it, they have to change it”. If you make the rule “more specific” then you are just adding in the possiblity for people to get as close as they can without breaking the rule or differences in interpretation on the admins’ side of things (What is considered porn? Someone half naked? Genitals? Sex? etc).

It also leads me to believe that the admins who don’t understand this rule didn't attend the last admin meeting or the (June or July?) monthly meeting because the rule was explained in pretty good detail similar to Matt’s post at both.

Personally I think changing it in terms of specificity would be a bad idea because it would probably lead to even more inconsistencies from admin to admin and the opportunity for people to try to play with the rule or loophole it. Maybe keep the rule the same but worded differently to make it a little more clear what it means.

Uchies · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:52 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Just going to leave this here: viewtopic.php?f=162&t=30216.

This ban appeal was about 4 months ago. The spray rule hasn't changed much since then. That was a spray that people had no issue with, but an admin certain did. No doubt, under the rules even back then, the individual should have been asked to change their spray. The admin did just that and got reprimanded despite doing what they were supposed to under the rules.

Now, I know, the circumstances might be seen as different, because people felt that the admin in question was just being homophobic (or even racist). But even if he was, the way that it is being explained here, regardless of the reason someone has for being uncomfortable with a spray, it must be changed.

So why isn't this always the case? I see disagreements now on how the spray rule should be enforced, and I saw disagreements back then. This always happens when rules are left ambiguous. It's the same reason why rules stated on the forums and not in !rules are not to be enforced (as it's always been). You cannot expect all admins to have the same interpretation of a rule, even with admin meetings in place. What about the newer admins who haven't been to the admin meeting? Or, what about the admin that hasn't seen the way it's "supposed" to be interpreted on the forums? Do you expect them to somehow figure it out on their own?

What about the case of that link? That admin followed the procedure for that rule correctly, but got reprimanded because a higher ranking admin (who was not there at the time), decided that the spray was not disturbing. So how far should the rule be taken?

I don't mind seeing the rule left open, but it needs to be worded in a way that people understand it. It needs to be worded so people know that if anyone finds their spray disturbing, it needs to be changed. Hell, you can word it like that if you need to. "A spray that anyone deems to be disturbing must be changed." That clearly states the rule, and the way it needs to be handled.

No more of this !rules versus forums bullshit. If you have to explain your rule in great detail on the forums in order for people to understand it, it needs to be changed. If you want an admin to enforce rules a certain way, there's a section in !rules just for admins. Use it. If you can't find a way to word the rule in !rules so that way people understand it, it's probably too complicated of a rule to begin with. However, if you expect to have an admin follow a certain procedure for doing things, but can't even put in the effort to put it in the !rules or even the FAQ at least, then perhaps someone else should be staff+ instead.

Just my $0.02.

if you read into that situation deeper, you would find that the admin was reprimanded because he specifically said he had to change the spray because of its homosexual nature

Xanderian · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Uchies wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

-snip-

if you read into that situation deeper, you would find that the admin was reprimanded because he specifically said he had to change the spray because of its homosexual nature

Doesn't matter. Re-read my post and you'd find that I said this:
"Now, I know, the circumstances might be seen as different, because people felt that the admin in question was just being homophobic (or even racist). But even if he was, the way that it is being explained here, regardless of the reason someone has for being uncomfortable with a spray, it must be changed."

Personally, I think not allowing that spray just because it's homosexual is fucked up, but it's the rules. I can also respect that people wouldn't want to see it because homosexuals make them uncomfortable. Not everyone is gay or wants to see guys kissing. Just as not everyone wants to see girl titties on CS:S.

BriBee wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

-snip-

Before you quote a different situation I'd suggest getting the full story about it before using it as an example because several things:

1) You're right I personally said the spray was fine originally as I was the ONLY other admin on at the time until later in the day. (I've already talked to staff+ when it happened)
2) The admin in question didn't follow procedure actually. He banned the person without warning because in his own words "i found it disgusting I didnt wanna see it"
3) The quoted situation was discussed and has been discussed in a monthly meeting, with Kharn, and countless other times.
4) The rule gets explained in great detail because people want to try and abuse it.
5) Mattie has stated how the rule is to be followed. Its not hard to read, understand, or follow.

Spoiler: Show

mattlikespie wrote:

It's getting tiring explaining this damn rule...everyone complains yet no one wants to even suggest trying to change it at the admin meetings...

Quote:
7 No disturbing Sprays allowed.

I don't care how vague the rule is or what you think it should mean, we're looking at the rule right now. And right now, yes, disturbing is a many sided word. It varies person to person. What's disturbing to you may not be disturbing to me, and vice versa. So yes, this is 100% admin discretion. There is no clear set "THIS IS DISTURBING" handbook you can pick up with pretty pictures and examples. Disrupting gameplay, same damn thing. If a spray is bad enough where somebody has to say something about it in the chat and it derails the entirety of the round, yea, then it's disturbing. Only takes 1 person to find a spray offensive/disturbing for it to need to be changed. I don't care about your opinion of it, just have the player change the damn spray. If 1 admin finds it disturbing, change the damn spray, I don't give a flying flip what rank you are or how strong of an opinion you have.

On the other hand, I will not tolerate admins who cannot work together to administrate the server. I've had to explain this countless times and all of you have cited, mind you, correct, quotations from Staff+ elaborating the rule. Just think for once...just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else. Why do you ban people for saying the n word? 95% of the people who play JB don't have a problem with the use of the word. But there are the other 5% who do get offended by it. There's nothing lost by banning the word other than the waste of a slot by the troll who came online to use foul language in the first place. But we gain more by providing a gaming environment EVERYONE can be comfortable in. People do not come to Jailbreak to be insulted or disrespected, they come to play Jailbreak.

A simple rule of thumb? If a player literally has to ask you, "Is my spray okay?" or "Does my spray break the rules?" or better yet, "Is my spray disturbing?" Then the answer is yes to all three. "Discretion" does NOT mean voicing your opinion on a manner and bending rules to match your way of thinking. Discretion means you have the freedom to enforce the rules for the betterment of the server. If there is room to question that a spray can be disturbing, then your opinion is irrelevant - the spray can be interpreted as disturbing, and if you are truly as an admin looking out for the betterment of the server, you will make the player change that spray. Back to the questions. If a player asks you "Is my spray disturbing?" Then the only reason they are asking is because they know it can be disturbing. And I am almost certain these "multiple" admins did not simply out of their own will message Steezy and said "Hey man, nice spray, it's not disturbing btw lol just in case anyone asks." as soon as he joined. So Steezy either asked "Is my spray okay?" - which we just determined then no, it's not okay - or, someone found it disturbing (on multiple occasions) and the admins chose to do nothing because they "disagreed," until Birthstone had the balls to actually follow the rules and ban him for not changing it when asked, because Birthstone was looking out for the server, for the 5%. People do not come to Jailbreak to watch child porn, or female genitalia, or naked dudes, they come to play Jailbreak.

In regards to the appeal - the ban is past, so we'll leave it at that.

If you anyone cares to question, debate, comment, etc. on my reply, then make a new thread or find me separately. This is locked. In the future, please don't post or argue this shit on a ban appeal...

I'm honestly done though. Next admin meeting bring it up ya know?

The rule hasn't changed from then and now, and neither has its interpretation.

As far as I can tell from that post no mention was made of artemis not following proper procedure. If he didn't, that's certainly not what he was getting reprimanded for.

Spoiler: Show

As you can see, Doldol is more concerned with the spray than whether artemis followed proper procedure, which is honestly neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is, there is clear disagreement between what Doldol and other admins thought was disturbing or not. Artemis was disturbed by the spray and thus wanted it removed. Doldol didn't like that Artemis was disturbed by the spray and asked him to change it.

So even though Artemis was doing what was correct, according to what matt said now (which is the same interpretation that was being used 4 months ago), he got reprimanded because he forced that person to change the spray. At least according to the rules, Artemis was in the right.

If you don't like that, fine. Make sure the rule is specific about that. Or, put in the admin rules somewhere that only sprays that offend players (and not admins) should be changed. (Or hell, maybe even put it in the main rule) The whole point I'm trying to make here is that there shouldn't be such disagreements in the way it's interpreted. Matt says one thing, Yiggles says another, and Doldol says something completely different? What the fuck are we as players supposed to believe then? This is exactly why admins aren't supposed to administrate based on what's on the forums, but instead based on what's in !rules and the admin FAQ section. Just having it on a thread somewhere does us no good, especially when even the staff+ can't exactly remember or agree on what was said on what posts.

I can appreciate the whole, "change it next admin meeting" thing, except that we're not admins. We don't get a say in the matter. Only admins do (... which is a complaint for another day). Quit trying to brush us off for wanting to debate about it outside of something we're not allowed to go to. It's not like we have anywhere else to do it.

Terminator · **Posted:** Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 pm

BriBee wrote:

I'm honestly done though. Next admin meeting bring it up ya know?

Link wrote:

Your allowed to discuss all you want on what you think should be different. But at the end of the day it really isn’t up to you, it’s up to the admins and members of the community. I suggest you stop trying to challenge everything and actually discuss the topic at hand like you wanted to do.

Take this thread off topic and I will shut it down again. Leave the past out of it.

Higher ranks already said it's allowed to be discussed. Don't think it matters if you are done with it or not. Just don't read this anymore then. This is regulars and members discussing a rule that they think should or shouldn't be changed.
Majority doesn't have admin or can't make it to admin meetings. I don't believe u have the right to say " I'm done with it, bring it to admin meeting"
So just don't read this if you are done with it but don't tell people to go to admin meeting when not allowed.
This actually gets cared about by some people

Yiggles Moto · **Posted:** Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:25 am

Terminator wrote:

BriBee wrote:

I'm honestly done though. Next admin meeting bring it up ya know?

Link wrote:

Your allowed to discuss all you want on what you think should be different. But at the end of the day it really isn’t up to you, it’s up to the admins and members of the community. I suggest you stop trying to challenge everything and actually discuss the topic at hand like you wanted to do.

Take this thread off topic and I will shut it down again. Leave the past out of it.

Higher ranks already said it's allowed to be discussed. Don't think it matters if you are done with it or not. Just don't read this anymore then. This is regulars and members discussing a rule that they think should or shouldn't be changed.
Majority doesn't have admin or can't make it to admin meetings. I don't believe u have the right to say " I'm done with it, bring it to admin meeting"
So just don't read this if you are done with it but don't tell people to go to admin meeting when not allowed.
This actually gets cared about by some people

I don't think Bri meant to say "thread is over because I'm done" but rather she no longer wants to participate in the thread.
Anyone(?) can basically attend the admin meetings, as the meeting posts typically say "All prospective admins need to attend this as well - meaning those who intend to become admins/have donated are strongly encouraged to attend as it is fundamental to becoming an admin." You don't need to have admin to come in and listen/voice your opinion. But I believe it is up to only the admins to cast the votes.
I sense some hostility and would prefer you stay on topic. If there's no hostility, apologies for interpreting it that way.

BriBee · **Posted:** Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:43 am

Yiggles Moto wrote:

Terminator wrote:

BriBee wrote:

I'm honestly done though. Next admin meeting bring it up ya know?

Link wrote:

Your allowed to discuss all you want on what you think should be different. But at the end of the day it really isn’t up to you, it’s up to the admins and members of the community. I suggest you stop trying to challenge everything and actually discuss the topic at hand like you wanted to do.

Take this thread off topic and I will shut it down again. Leave the past out of it.

Higher ranks already said it's allowed to be discussed. Don't think it matters if you are done with it or not. Just don't read this anymore then. This is regulars and members discussing a rule that they think should or shouldn't be changed.
Majority doesn't have admin or can't make it to admin meetings. I don't believe u have the right to say " I'm done with it, bring it to admin meeting"
So just don't read this if you are done with it but don't tell people to go to admin meeting when not allowed.
This actually gets cared about by some people

I don't think Bri meant to say "thread is over because I'm done" but rather she no longer wants to participate in the thread.
Anyone(?) can basically attend the admin meetings, as the meeting posts typically say "All prospective admins need to attend this as well - meaning those who intend to become admins/have donated are strongly encouraged to attend as it is fundamental to becoming an admin." You don't need to have admin to come in and listen/voice your opinion. But I believe it is up to only the admins to cast the votes.
I sense some hostility and would prefer you stay on topic. If there's no hostility, apologies for interpreting it that way.

Thats exactly what I meant Yiggles.
I can see how it can be misread and I apologize for that.
I care about EgN...a lot.
My only point is Matt made a statement and thats how it should be followed even if you dont agree with it.

Terminator · **Posted:** Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:27 am

Yiggles Moto wrote:

I don't think Bri meant to say "thread is over because I'm done" but rather she no longer wants to participate in the thread.
Anyone(?) can basically attend the admin meetings, as the meeting posts typically say "All prospective admins need to attend this as well - meaning those who intend to become admins/have donated are strongly encouraged to attend as it is fundamental to becoming an admin." You don't need to have admin to come in and listen/voice your opinion. But I believe it is up to only the admins to cast the votes.
I sense some hostility and would prefer you stay on topic. If there's no hostility, apologies for interpreting it that way.

Didn't mean it in hostile way. Just sounded like she said " this is stupid, go to admin meeting or stop discussing"
Ah well guess I was wrong. Sorry,my bad

Mootinie · **Posted:** Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:33 pm

Xanderian wrote:

If you don't like that, fine. Make sure the rule is specific about that. Or, put in the admin rules somewhere that only sprays that offend players (and not admins) should be changed. (Or hell, maybe even put it in the main rule) The whole point I'm trying to make here is that there shouldn't be such disagreements in the way it's interpreted. Matt says one thing, Yiggles says another, and Doldol says something completely different? What the fuck are we as players supposed to believe then?

That admins and Staff+ are human beings and will handle something subjective with differing levels of tact, depending on their personality and their emotional responses to words, images and other people's actions. You're asking for us to remove the room for interpretation, therefore limiting freedom of expression, perhaps one of EgN's biggest strengths. I agree that we should follow the !rules, I don't agree that admins should robotically control the server and administrate with a level of consistency that sees one admin as no different to another.

In my estimation, the rule should stay as it is. Everybody's emotional response is valid. If we define the rule more clearly, we open a can of worms and create an entirely new problem of having to define clearly what is allowed and what isn't (as Cooper said) - what is racist and what isn't, what is sexual and what isn't, what is homophobic and what isn't, what is transphobic and what isn't... you get the picture. All we then do is ignore people's negative experience because what they feel is disturbing doesn't fit into the vision we will have firmly established (something Matt mentioned too was that admins don't really make a judgement on whether a spray is disturbing). You cannot create this rule as a half measure. You can't say "No disturbing sprays (no racist sprays, no sexual sprays...)" because then you have to work out how disturbing fits into racist, sexual, et cetera. The two have to compute otherwise the amendments are without purpose.

Who is to say a spray is sexual enough to then be considered "disturbing"? In one audience, it is. In another audience, it isn't. It's the first audience that we take action for. We're not all-seeing or all-knowing - in fact most of us know very little about anything. But what we do know is when we have a negative emotional response to something because it stems from a thought that we can catch ourselves thinking and it leads to a feeling that our mind and body experiences. And it's that feeling that should act as the compass on how admins deal with visual imagery.

Register

Login

Okay heres another thread about sprays

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online