Suggested Forum Guidelines

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Bill Pratt a noob - hah.

Far as software development and corporate accountability, he's actually my go-to guy. Always will be. Very ethical, brilliant man.

I know exactly who he is.
Respect is not given, but earned; and if everything you say is going to be detrimental to progress, I've no particular desire to be on your good side.

[BillPratt]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Bill Pratt a noob - hah.

Far as software development and corporate accountability, he's actually my go-to guy. Always will be. Very ethical, brilliant man.

Thank ye, Rachel.

Vincent, I haven't read the threads in question, or if I did they left too little an impression for me to remember. However, I can assure you there are better ways to get your point across than using the iconography of a diseased and vile personality cult. I suggest you find one.

[OhZone]

I think this should have been more of a "suggested forum guidelines" thread. I know you're trying to do the best for the site, hun, but you're not the boss or a mod, and this is like an official site area, no? Maybe only the guv should be able to start threads here. But all could respond?

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by BillPratt

However, I can assure you there are better ways to get your point across than using the iconography of a diseased and vile personality cult. I suggest you find one.

I should paint a little Hitler-stache on Donald instead?

Mod: Perhaps this would be better titled "Forums Etiquette", "Forums Behavior Recommendations", or something similar. None of this, especially not the title, is meant to be concrete; they are simply "rules" that I - as well as others - have observed being enforced without any prior discussion. If you do not want members to form a single, coherent Code of Conduct, you must form one yourself.

[qzar9999]

BillPratt used Ad Hominem!

It's not very effective...

Look, Bill, I don't know who you are (apparently I'm the only one in this thread who doesn't) but surely you realize that "Your avatar is offensive and dumb, therefore your argument is invalid" doesn't actually make any sense, right? That's exactly as sensible as saying "You have a stupid haircut, so you're clearly unqualified to repair the air conditioner."

On topic: While it's true that vincent doesn't have the authority to say that THESE ARE THE FORUM GUIDELINES!, and he might be better served either asking a mod/admin to do it or rewording his title, I'd like to say a couple of things in his defense.

First, this site does lack a written set of guidelines for what is or isn't okay to post, and such a thing could be useful.

Second, since this is The Process, the stuff that gets posted in the content forums should actually have process. It's right there in the name.

Third, he's not actually asking for much--the third guideline *is* a rule already (although again, not written up in an accesible code of conduct) and the other two rules are perfectly reasonable.

And finally, while vincent may lack the authority, LK, aka the guy responsible for this site's existence, certainly had the authority...and these guidelines match up to how he wanted it.

Say what you will about an Adolf Mickey avatar, but it has nothing to do with the validity of vincent's post.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

The reasoning would have to be irrelevant in order for it to constitute an ad hominem and dismissal of an argument would have to occur. It's not. Someone's hyperbolic behaviour should be taken into account when assessing whether to take what they have to say seriously. We're not seeing "What you did here is fucking stupid therefore your argument is invalid". We're seeing "Using Nazi iconography is stupid. I don't want to be part of a forum run by someone who engages in such behaviour. If this is not the case, acting as though one runs a forum though they do not is stupid". No ad hominem because the behaviour being criticised is relevant to whether someone's contributions should be treated with seriousness and because we're not seeing dismissal of an argument. We're seeing displeasure over Godwinning as a means of making an argument and disapproval of behaving as though one is in charge when they aren't. That's it.

Lesson: relying on hyperbolic iconography to make arguments for you makes people less likely to take you seriously and behaving as though you wield power when you in fact do not does too.

That's really it. I'm going to sleep. I'm pining for my man hardcore.

[vincent_richter]

Good luck changing my avatar. Until The Rat stops behaving as a cult of personality does, I have no desire to change it. That is, unless someone wants to give him a massive handlebar mustache?

None of this changes the fact that having a CoC and acknowledging a CoC are two very different things. None of this excuses judging me based on a picture which barely reflects my stance, and was originally intended as a joke, even if in poor taste.

Oh, and Rachel? I've never lied to you. Enjoy your man, knowing that he can say the same.

EDIT: Additionally, I find it funny that nobody ever mentions the pushback against an established ruleset by the administration. "I know it when I see it" is okay for behavioral analysis, but it makes for shit policy. That's my piece; make of it what you will.

[BillPratt]

Haven't said or argued a thing about Vincent's proposed rule-set. I only disagree with rule two, and think it can be worded better. The current version reads homophobic: "We frown on erotic male transformations."

As for Vincent's avatar, that could be ignored so long as he remained cast in the roll of forum troll. When it looked like he may have had some standing.... You have to call that out.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by BillPratt

Haven't said or argued a thing about Vincent's proposed rule-set. I only disagree with rule two, and think it can be worded better. The current version reads homophobic: "We frown on erotic male transformations."

As for Vincent's avatar, that could be ignored so long as he remained cast in the roll of forum troll. When it looked like he may have had some standing.... You have to call that out.

See, though, that was my problem with your post. You didn't say anything about the content and instead chose "Your avatar is stupid and offensive" to be the thing you talked about, while ignoring what vincent was actually trying to discuss. As a matter of fact, your first reply of "Are you serious?" added absolutely nothing to the discussion and made it sound as if you were opposed either to the idea of having guidelines or to following the ones that were posted. Pardon me if I misread you there, but that's how it sounded.

Fair point that it did sound a bit homophobic written that way; seems vincent has rephrased it, so hopefully no longer an issue.

And I can understand why it could be off-putting to think that someone who actually has some authority around here might have a deliberately offensive avatar like that, or why it's upsetting for someone who isn't a mod or an admin to post something that sounds like "THESE ARE THE RULES!"; to reflect the true nature of things I made a minor edit to the thread title. For the record, I do support the idea of having established, written guidelines that are easy to find and that users and mods alike should be expected to follow.

Everybody cool now?

[Blake Isaac Gordon]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

You've read the threads and know why I have that avatar. As soon as Buena Vista stops screwing its employees and the general public by dumping them into welfare, and I stop being a lazy arse, it'll change. Until that time, the opinion of me of a four-month newbie matters about as much as a fart in the wind. You know the score, and if you've no desire to change the status quo for the better, you can piss right off. At least Oz is trying to be funny.

Man... I was going to post on this thread, decided not to, and now I'm going to.

1st... This is BillPratt, a very good BE fiction writer of some very long outstanding history/pedigree (aka he's good and he's won some story contests.) I'm not saying people should fall to their knees and kiss his sitter every time he posts (kinda like people do when BA posts...) but you should consider this at least when you call him a 4 mo-newbie.
2nd... Mr. V your avatar is very polarizing. I (think) am in complete understanding of your freedom to chose such an avatar, and I think I understand your source of frustration for choosing such an avatar, but just as a means of 'letting you know what trouble it might cause...' be careful. When I fist saw your avatar I winced, and I kept me from wanting to actively participating in any posts.

This post rules make me uncomfortable. Why:
Rule 2: Why does it have to be about females only? This place has a reputation (which I do not understand fully as of yet) of being 'bad' I've seen a few posts on other forums saying stay away from the Process-Forums. Why, I have no idea. In the past I have thought this place was nice. I enjoyed some of the threads and when Thought Bubble 6 was posted at the Process Store I said cool, let me buy some of that. Yet if these forums only focus on female transformations wouldn't only guys show up?

Rule 3 makes little sense to me. What happens if I have some work on Smashwords and all I want to do is put a link in my signature directing the curious types to my work. Is that now forbidden?

Please do not see this a morphing into a 'troll' or worse into a full out PAB, but this is one of the few active BE forums left that are not associated with Bearchives. The TOB forums are a spam wasteland and I have yet find any other place that even remotely talks about writing BE fiction that's not "I wrote another chapter to my epic BE story on my DA account, please tell me what you think..."

I guess I am super, super naive... This whole Female Transformation Fetish gig falls under the sphere of sexual objectification, which I guess is most male eccentric erotica. But I was hoping this place would be more "we all are different and weird, lets all swap some stories and be a place of 0% judgment so people feel comfortable in speaking out."

I hope this makes a bit of sense.

[qzar9999]

Male transformation goes in Everything Else, it's always been like that. So it isn't that it's not allowed at all, just that it has to be in the right section. And no, it doesn't only attract men- there are women here interested in being transformed or in doing so to other women.

As for rule #3, that wasn't even his idea. That actually is a stated policy from the Governor. All three of these rules technically already exist here; Vincent was proposing to post them in an official capacity so everyone knows what they are and where to find them.

[vincent_richter]

Blake, you've managed to be respectful and courteous in your response, so I will answer your first two points. The "rules" proposed, Qzar has addressed more succinctly and accurately, so I agree with and endorse his position on them.

1st: I know exactly who BillPratt is, and if he's going to let my avatar impact both my intelligence and the wisdom of acknowledging a ruleset that's been proven to exist, in my book his name is mud. That said, he's been attempting to clarify his position, and that is to his credit; however, he's never taken the time to apologize for misreading my intent or directing personal insults towards me.

2nd: Good. It's meant to be that way. I'm a busy man, though; so anyone willing to come up with a visual representation of a lesser cult-of-personality is totally welcome to cast Mickey as Stalin or Mussolini. Perhaps that would be less offensive, but I both can and will not change it until such an alternative exists.

Again, thank you for taking the time to reply.
Hopefully, some good may come of all this.