Isn't the Alliance Politics forum supposed to be in character? If so, it doesn't seem like the rule is enforced at all judging from the posts. Some examples:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=45504

Some quotes:





I could go on because almost all the posts in this thread are similarly impertinent and inappropriate.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...45295&st=80

Quote:


Is that really necessary?

Then there are those long boring drawn out "funny" stories and IRC logs filled with garbage which I won't bother posting.

Actually, it was initially my plan to make a list of example topics and posts but it's just too hard because I might as well request administrative powers so that I can present to you a backup of the forum (no offense meant here). Alliance Politics is literally a cesspool.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=8

Basically, my argument for this is that it's supposed to be in-character Alliance Politics. Do world leaders discuss toilet humor and innuendo in the United Nations? It's inappropriate, it's tiresome to look at, and it's not in character. It wouldn't even bother me quite that much if the "jokes" were made with some subtlety, some tact, some taste!

I'd just like to suggest that the in-character nature of the Politics forum be emphasized to make for more of a nation simulation environment and I wish to hear input from moderators and from players on the matter.

You're wearing an avatar with a guy in an SS uniform and you're complaining about other people being distasteful?

Cybernations has always been rather lighthearted and the way people post in character in Alliance/Global Politics reflects that. Trying to make the forum too serious will just alienate the majority of the community.

i agree. this isnt a "kiddy" game and if they aren't posting nudety or links to it, i dont see the problem.

and another thing, it may not be "nessicary" but hey, OWF! it shouldn't have to be

Said what I was thinking in a more polite manner.

As far as I can tell, the majority of CN forum users do not find the adjective 'sexy' and its variations to be distracting or irritating. Besides, who reads treaty announcements for the commentary on the treaty? It's the inevitable thread-derailing arguments between Vox and the world that people read. Let's ban that instead.

I find it extremely odd that someone should mention a lighthearted treaty thread, one with a definite purpose in mind despite the humour, as breaking rules or being inappropriate.

As pointed out you have nazism as a theme in your avatar. You are clearly someone who expects to have his freedom of expression respected, despite the fact that many would like nothing better to ban its use in real life never mind this forum. You however obviously do not see the need to extend this freedom to others.

I also once anounced a treaty using the theme of goldilocks and the three bears. Inventive writing, themes and puns as well as all the various internet memes are a huge part of the character of Cybernations and the forums. Whether your railing at them or using them they are certainly a part of what CN is. I suspect I would get really bored of Alliance Politics in a short amount of time without the creative spirit that people show.

My thoughts exactly. Someone with that particular avatar complaining about the content of AP obviously isn't too familiar with how things work around here



...but might I add it was quite the sexy complaint at that

There was nothing sexy about the SS, so I don't see how it relates to him wanting AP to have a little less nonsense.

Anyway, I agree that AP is kind of a pain to read sometimes when I come across comments like the ones he has quoted. There's lighthearted, then there's just stupid.

I don't mind "sexy", but saying "oh this treaty makes me !@#$ in my pants" is incredibly stupid. I've never seen anyone talk like that anywhere but here.

-Bama

you dont get around much...
i have seen this other places on forums, but it never bothered me.

FYI....

QUOTE

The actual Moderation Forum in which this thread is placed is for player discussion with moderators regarding game policy only. This rule is strictly enforced and breaking it will result in an automatic warn level raise, so please read this post and the other pinned threads thoroughly before posting. When in doubt, PM a forum moderator.

I will leave the subject of the original post to the RP mods...

hope everyone is sitting down....the newb mod was incorrect...sorry about that folks...its was all cateaters fault , warn levels are being adjusted.

thank you... i posted a warn reduction, sorry if that doesn't matter now.

You may not like the way people choose to play their characters but that does not mean they are not posting IC. While these posts may be lighthearted and may not be the type of thing you particularly enjoy I do not see any viloations of the forum rules within them.

I also do not believe that a stricter moderation of these types of posts will have a benefit to the community as it will, in my opinion, most likely drive people away rather than create a more positive forum.

bingo... i like this mod.

Here's the problem: You'd be asking the mods to subjectively determine which posts they liked and thought were constructive, and which ones were stupid and not up to some arbitrary standard.

Right now, the rules on spam are picture only posts, 1 word posts, and QFT posts. Those are clear brightlines people can be expected to understand, while there is no brightline to how "good" a post is. Without a brightline, it is difficult to enforce and lends itself more to bais.

OMG people are having fun in a game. What will happen next?

For the record my earlier post was a misunderstanding of the non-discussion forums, not spam, in character issues or otherwise, which has since been clarified by senior staff.

Lets get the subject back on topic now please, and again I do apologize to those affected by this misunderstanding.

I agree with you on some parts. I hate things like "huggle treaty" and "epic win inside". It annoys me to no end and I will complain about it endlessly. I might even rage a bit.

But, honestly, I don't want that type of commentary to leave the game. What would I have to complain about then? This game wouldn't be as dynamic.

I agree some of the stuff definitely isn't necessary. To a point it's fine, but after awhile it's not necessary.

CN has a very lighthearted community although the



Is a little too far

That's what I was mainly referring to. Stuff like that takes it just too far.

See, I don't have too much of a problem with "treaty is sexy" or "omg i liek wanna huggle dis treatee lolol"... It's annoying, but not horribly inappropriate. But when people start talking about a pretend treaty between online video game clans making them do things in their pants that would be be best left private, a line has been crossed.

-Bama

I'm not even complaining so much about how "appropriate" things are or not as I am about the lack of any actual "in character" discussion in the Alliance Politics forum which is supposed to be in character.

And as for some people who have said things about this game not being for children: I wouldn't mind it if the word filters in-game and on the forums were removed, then.

For once I find myself agreeing with Tom Litler. I'm all about the lulz but AP is an In Character forum and no nation leader should really be using words like "sexy" in an official capacity.

That said, they theoretically could do, so I can't see Moderation stepping in on this one.

Furthermore, I don't see what's so sexy about CN being drowned in treaties, but that's a conversation for a different forum.

Nation rulers may use words like "sexy." It simply reflects on their maturity (in character).

If a nation ruler feels their nation is sexy, then why cant they express it? it has nothing to do with maturity, just point of view. And you cant say you have never used the word sexy before. Should i call you immature next time you do?

This response is totally out of character.

I usually try to stay out of these threads, but I personnally find the issue being discussed here to be a bit, well, ridiculous. I can understand the need to enforce the IC/ OOC line in the AP forum (frowning on mentions of "forums" and CN being a "game) and the reasoning for banning one word posts such as "QFT.". However, I believe that banning the use of the "This treaty is..." form would not only be a bit to restrictive, but would also mean more work for the moderators.

Overly Restrictive

What this suggestion, if it were enforced, would do is place restrictions on the type of adjectives an sllidnce leader could use to describe their treaty. I agree that a leader in real life but this is not a real life situation and we do not have real life demographics. The majority of layers of the game are late high school or early college students, making me, at the ripe old age of 23, middle aged. In real life, all but a few would be too young to lead a country, so why should the language we use be held to RL standards that some of us, due to age or maturity, or education are unable to meet? While an RL leader may not call a treaty "sexy," why can't a high schooler playing an online game?

If this policy is enforced, certain adjective sentences will be effectively banned. People posting on the AP boards will have to be mindful of which phrases are out of bounds. This may make it even more difficult to not be warned and will restrict even more that alliance members can express their opinions on a treaty.

Create More Work for Mods

Additionally, enforcing this rule will create more work for moderators because they will be required to decide which statements describing a treaty are acceptable and which are not. There are many many words in the English language and they will have decide which ones make a post OOC (Is "this treaty is awesome' okay? How about, "This treaty is groundbreaking?). The mod team could ban the construction "This treaty is..." totally, but that would be overly restrictive.

I've long been a proponent of higher standards for posting on this forum in general. I refer you to my July 2007 proposal to Ban the Stupid.

It is not only a good idea to enforce some sort of standard on the community for the sake of discourse, it helps those who speak English as a second language. Those people really struggle with some of the dreck that gets posted here.

I'm more than willing to take on this task myself. All I need is a forum mask.

And then Poland? And by Poland I mean free speech. You would be the sole decider on what is correct and proper in RPing. It scares me when anyone person does that, it scares me more when they are flying your avatar.

It all is in character...




You don't need to, when we have an already capable moderation staff.


We don't need to restrict light-heartedness in a person's role-play of a character. That would create a much too serious tone in a game that really doesn't need it. What we need to help enforce is the "spam post" rules by reporting one word posts, no substance posts, etc. Nothing new, just more people reporting posts that are spam in nature.

Yeah I don't think it would be a great idea to ban people solely for being stupid, tempting as it might be. The number of players in this game is already declining and it seems like half the game is made up of people who intentionally act stupid for laughs, but at least they're the ones who are doing anything interesting most of the time. The ones that really don't get it, get banned eventually for chronic rule breaking.

I don't know how it would be enforced fairly anyhow. Unless of course I did the enforcing, and then at least I'd think it was fair, but that would be entirely subjective.

This.

If you want me to go around warning everyone that I think is an idiot, I'd sure have fun, but it sure wouldn't be fair, unbiased, or anything else a mod is supposed to be.

I for one believe you'd do a bang-up job banning idiots. It's not supposed to be fair, just accurate.

You could always restrict your thread to a select group (see threads/rules on author's rights) and ignore the threads you see as "dumb"?

It was my understanding that author's rights don't extend to every section of the forum. Is this still the case? I can't find any rules on author's rights for some reason.

Here's the link.

Couldn't there be an OOC alliance politics forum for the day to day treaties, and then an IC one for people who want to be realistic and write a nice little story. Frankly, it seems to me that that would be the easiest for everyone. Mods just do what they always do, people do what they always do, and there is a separation between IC and OCC.

In response To Megabyte's comment above; I believe that all of my current warn is due to me being an idiot.

It is only for the IC areas which covers what the OP is talking about since his argument is against the OOC nature of the comments.
To your ban the stupid plan, well as much as I would love to see it I think that is just a pipe dream.

Not to be contrary, but doesnt this mean I could claim that trolling other posters/threads is part of my character's behavior, and thus be allowed to do it? There has to be some kind of limit on what you can claim as "just being in character", and I think if anything should come of this thread, it should be a definitive answer from moderation as to exactly how your character is allowed to act.

Honestly, if "&*&^ in my pants" is acceptable for this age group, why was I warned for saying "!@#$"?

That 'saying' is not acceptable here.

Think like a politician. They don't "troll". They just try to make the other guy look bad through word choice, not through blatant insults. Politicians also say extremely stupid comments almost on a daily basis. All I see here is people playing an extremely stupid politician/leader. Since this is a game where we all play a leader of a country, I see it perfectly acceptable that some people choose to play the "idiot/silly" leader.

You can play your character however you choose as long as it is within the forum rules which are clearly laid out. To answer your more specific question, no you could not claim that trolling is part of your characters behavior as trolling is clearly against the rules while saying "this treaty is sexy" is not. I think basically the way it is and should be is that we are allowed to play our characters how we choose as long as it is within the forum rules.

I think there's a difference between being silly and being intentionally disruptive, the latter of which trolling falls under.

Trying to improve the quality of posts in AP is a waste of bloody time. The moderators have been intervening to try to do just that since 2006 and every single time there has been a massive uprising of lazy posters objecting on grounds that they have the "right" to roleplay an imbecile. I have yet to see any moron politician in real life talk about the orgies he'd like to have with his fellow world leaders -- the closest we've come to that is George W. Bush rubbing Angela Merkel's shoulders at a G8 summit -- but apparently this is perfectly reasonable.

All semblance to genuine national and international politics is long lost. There is no style and no taste left in the way things are conducted in alliance politics and there is no one but the community that can change that. The community, however, will not give up its fart and ejaculation jokes and so the rest of us are left wondering where we can act like actual national/alliance leaders in peace. There are few answers, and fewer proposed remedies.

Amen to that. The way some people act, you wonder what role they are playing in the 'Role Play' forums.

Where's the fine line between a realistic RP and taking things too serious as to the point where it's no fun and players begin to become uncomfortable/nervous with simply posting things around here.

You could always issue temporary bans (or more lengthy bans) in an attempt to "cure the stupid."

It's ironic that the last post I read was something to do about "penis" and then happened to choose to read this thread.

I agree with the vast majority of Doitzel's post. I think it's beyond all hope of having a political simulator in more ways than just treaties/DoWs.

But where would we draw the line so that it would encourage more intelligent posting while not being overly restrictive to the community?