[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1807

File: 1537228945538.png (217.19 KB, 910x878, 455:439, CLEAR.png) ImgOps Google

This is the thread for continuing discussion on the PACT Act, visible in /arch/ here.

 No.1809

File: 1537232285025.png (196.65 KB, 522x915, 174:305, cc5.png) ImgOps Google

>>1807
For voting, in addition to "yes"/"no" option, I suggest an option "agree in principle but disagree with the wording".

For example, I would vote against "Rule 6. Do not bait or goad another user into engaging in rule-breaking content. In the event of such an occurrence, both the baiting user and baited user shall be found in violation of this rule...." because the text of rule can be interpreted as mandating punishment of a completely innocent party.  E.g., if someone baits Manley by saying "Manley is a ${insert_insult_here}", the literal text of rule can be interpreted as requiring that Manley be punished, even if he successfully ignores the bait and doesn't even respond to the thread at all.  Now, of course, I think by "occurrence" you mean "[the baited user] engaging in rule-breaking content" instead of "bait[ing] or goad[ing] another user", but that is ambiguous.

 No.1820

File: 1537251928429.gif (896.97 KB, 500x204, 125:51, black and zarkon.gif) ImgOps Google

I'll continue to just say that I am in support of the new rules.

I think right now the wording will just have to be cleared and clarified, but I am a fan of the changes, that is all.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]