Rule Revision for Wolfhome - UPDATED

This section is for updates or announcements made in regards to Wolfhome! Any announcements or updates to Wolfhome and the community will be posted here by an administrator.

Which of the following rules would you like to see removed?

Poll ended at Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:56 am

Spamming
7
6%
Space Invading
34
31%
Roleplaying in 'non-roleplaying rooms'
26
23%
Roleplay death threats
28
25%
Multi-accounting
16
14%
 
Total votes: 111
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:56 am

Hey everyone!

After the discussion we had in the Chatlands Community Meeting in the Chatlands Townhall discord, this topic has been made so you can vote on the removal of a few rules on Wolfhome, in which we feel needs to be revised.
As a short recap, the overseers spoke about the use of the ignore feature and using the report feature. It was felt that the ignore feature should be used to solve problem pertaining an 'annoyance' (that is, things like space invading), instead of requesting an administrator to come in and warn a user. We are asking the Wolfhome community if we should be more lenient.
This will be based on a 2/3rds ruling, and we are letting you guys decide which ones stay, and which ones can be removed. This means that a rule may be up for removal if it passes 2/3rd or more of the total voting.

The options are as follows:
-Spamming
-Multi-accounting (please note that, if removed, administrators will still kick users who are multi-accounting in fuller rooms, but will not be banning or warning people for this).
-Roleplaying
-Roleplay death threats
-Space invading

Please note that instances where someone is intentionally trying to disrupt a room (and causing multiple reports to be filed to the team), it will be treated under disturbing the peace.

Please vote in the poll above, or comment to specify and discuss.

Thanks guys! We'll keep this poll open for a week.

-The Wolfhome Admin Team.
2 x
User avatar
Fik
Relations Team
Relations Team
Posts: 20711
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:30 pm
Gender: whatever
Preferred Name: KT
Species: Stress Elemental
Location: Otego
Contact:

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:27 am

Awesome! I was, however, under the impression that space invading was already removed from the harassment section. I'd love to see the stigma of role play death threats removed. LET THEM ROLE PLAY IN PEACE
3 x
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:53 am

Fik wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:27 am
Awesome! I was, however, under the impression that space invading was already removed from the harassment section. I'd love to see the stigma of role play death threats removed. LET THEM ROLE PLAY IN PEACE
Nope, still there:
Spoiler! :
Irritating, annoying or tormenting members of this community persistently through means such as "flaming", "egging on", or "shaming". This can also mean using avatars/poses as a means of harassing users (such as directing the 'attack' and 'growl' poses from the default sets at other users) or not respecting the personal space of others.
0 x
User avatar
Mongrel
Pack Initiate
Pack Initiate
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:22 am
Pronouns: she/her
Preferred Name: auden
Location: north tx

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm

if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
1 x
Image

ALTER IDEM.
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm

Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
1 x
User avatar
Mongrel
Pack Initiate
Pack Initiate
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:22 am
Pronouns: she/her
Preferred Name: auden
Location: north tx

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:08 pm

Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm
Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
thank you for the clarification! that helps and is agreeable.

for multiple accounts in the same room, if that were removed, what about multiple accounts in a room where an event is being hosted or something?
0 x
Image

ALTER IDEM.
User avatar
Colo
Relations Team Leader
Relations Team Leader
Posts: 22057
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:12 am
Preferred Name: Colo or L
Location: England

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm

Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm
Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
I'm confused on this point of it being disturbing the peace and bannable when its being omitted from the rules. Like it can't be both ways? That isn't removing something from a list of offences, it's simply consolidating. If it still remains a bannable action if done to excess, nothing is changing so this vote seems completely invalid?

Sorry if I'm missing the point entirely but that's just how it seems.
3 x
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:34 pm

Colo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm
Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm
Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
I'm confused on this point of it being disturbing the peace and bannable when its being omitted from the rules. Like it can't be both ways? That isn't removing something from a list of offences, it's simply consolidating. If it still remains a bannable action if done to excess, nothing is changing so this vote seems completely invalid?

Sorry if I'm missing the point entirely but that's just how it seems.
It will fall under this:
3.) Disturbing the Peace (back to top)

In most cases disturbing the peace refers to behaving in ways that are upsetting or unsettling to people within the community, causing emotional grief, or trauma. This includes, but is not limited to:
Creating unnecessary drama to intentionally disturb another user. This includes misrepresenting administrative action and falsifying administrative statements.
0 x
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:36 pm

Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:08 pm
Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm
Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
thank you for the clarification! that helps and is agreeable.

for multiple accounts in the same room, if that were removed, what about multiple accounts in a room where an event is being hosted or something?
That's a different scenario in which we've always overlooked if it needed to happen, if its an EC event (though i cant remember from the top of my head where people needed to use more than 1 account in a room for this, but if it happens if happens).
0 x
User avatar
Colo
Relations Team Leader
Relations Team Leader
Posts: 22057
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:12 am
Preferred Name: Colo or L
Location: England

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:43 pm

Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:34 pm
Colo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm
Kikki wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:03 pm
Crunch wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm
if the space invading rule were to be removed and a member utilized space invading to harass another user, what would be the course of action at that point? would it fall under disturbing the peace or anything? or no action taken against a user doing this?
Ignore feature should be your first line of defence. If they go around the ignore feature, then it’s harassment.

If the administration get multiple reports on someone deliberately trying to cause a disturbance, then it’s disturbing the peace
I'm confused on this point of it being disturbing the peace and bannable when its being omitted from the rules. Like it can't be both ways? That isn't removing something from a list of offences, it's simply consolidating. If it still remains a bannable action if done to excess, nothing is changing so this vote seems completely invalid?

Sorry if I'm missing the point entirely but that's just how it seems.
It will fall under this:
3.) Disturbing the Peace (back to top)

In most cases disturbing the peace refers to behaving in ways that are upsetting or unsettling to people within the community, causing emotional grief, or trauma. This includes, but is not limited to:
Creating unnecessary drama to intentionally disturb another user. This includes misrepresenting administrative action and falsifying administrative statements.
But if it isn't in the rules specifically then it essentially clouds the policies of the site, especially for new users. It's like, say someone is vaping somewhere outdoors, perfectly legally and someone finds it annoying so they call the cops, and the cops arrest the person vaping for disturbing the peace? But there's no law or anything which says "don't vape when someone tells you not to".

IDK it just feels like removing this specific rule but it can still be considered disturbing the peace isn't removing the rule, it's just making it harder for new users and those banned to understand the actual rules of the site.
4 x
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:43 pm

Didn’t really think about it like that, so thank you for your insight.
I’ll add that on for when we’re finalising this and will probably be a thing we won’t be practicing.
1 x
User avatar
Colo
Relations Team Leader
Relations Team Leader
Posts: 22057
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:12 am
Preferred Name: Colo or L
Location: England

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:30 am

No problem, I hope I didn't seem too argumentitive <_> I just had a moment of confusion.
3 x
User avatar
Tolt
Shaman - Secret Keeper
Shaman - Secret Keeper
Posts: 2144
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:56 pm
Gender: Female
Contact:

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:05 pm

Posted my vote! So glad to see the community being involved in what happens on chat!
0 x
User avatar
Apostle
IT'S OVER 2 9000'S!
IT'S OVER 2 9000'S!
Posts: 18229
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:56 pm
Gender:
Preferred Name: Kelly
Location: Florida

Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:50 pm

i personally feel like the roleplay death threats is the only one to be reconsidered, because it's roleplay and everyone jokes about death anyway and it would save a lot of time and effort to not deal with those reports in my opinion

everything else can provoke negative confrontation (purposely hovering someone to make them mad, spamming to annoy/slow down the chat, filling up the chat with roleplay dialog and playful aggressive drama). i believe those have been great rules over the years (even though i've been on and off the chat)

and if i understand correctly, multi accounts are people using more than one account in a public room? if so that should always be against the rules
2 x
"Happiness is amazing. It's so amazing, it doesn't matter if it's yours or not."
User avatar
Akala
Alpha
Alpha
Posts: 23324
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
Gender: ♀️
Pronouns: She/her
Preferred Name: Cassie
Location: Australia

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:23 am

Voting closed and we'll be discussing the results
0 x
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic