We are currently considering a significant update and retooling of the MTGS forum rules, both in format and in content. Discussion is still pending on each of these proposals, and there is still substantial debate, brainstorming, and exchange of ideas taking place. In the meantime, before any final decisions are made, we would also like to gather input from the community as to these potential changes, or any other changes that users would like us to consider.
The proposed changes, so far:
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained moderator impact.
A lot of those actually sound pretty decent. My only care is the aspect of clans and the Market Street, if anything comes of rules for that.
We haven't yet reached a thorough review of those areas. From skimming over Market Street, however, I'm at least aware that the sheer length of that document is truly daunting and needs trimming to a manageable size.
We haven't yet reached a thorough review of those areas. From skimming over Market Street, however, I'm at least aware that the sheer length of that document is truly daunting and needs trimming to a manageable size.
Any ideas for those?
Well, I can take a look at them again and come up with some ideas I'm sure. Whether or not they're viable or acceptable of course, is another matter. I would be happy to offer whatever advice/assistance I can with such though for moderators/admins to review for whatever purpose.
If you want, I can PM you once I've done so as to not clutter this thread. It might take a couple of days though, I'm sure, as large as the Market Street rules are.
Well, I can take a look at them again and come up with some ideas I'm sure. Whether or not they're viable or acceptable of course, is another matter. I would be happy to offer whatever advice/assistance I can with such though for moderators/admins to review for whatever purpose.
If you want, I can PM you once I've done so as to not clutter this thread. It might take a couple of days though, I'm sure, as large as the Market Street rules are.
Clutter away, as far as I'm concerned. Easier for others to chime in with feedback and ideas based on what you come up with. Space in here won't be at such a premium that we can't afford to squeeze it in.
Unless it's politically sensitive and you'd feel more comfortable in that medium, of course.
This does seem like it would make everything a lot friendlier.
Mod text still should be red if it's something that's being directed to many people in the thread. If it's a simple addition of "Spam. Warning issued" or something like that, well... red seems too aggressive, as you said... but blue or green just don't... feel right.
As an example:
Quote from Just an example »
Spam. Warning issued.
Green seems like a color usually used for "good" things, not for "bad" things. Maybe some shade of orange? (Similar to the yellow card for warnings (or reminders, under the new terminology.)
Clutter away, as far as I'm concerned. Easier for others to chime in with feedback and ideas based on what you come up with. Space in here won't be at such a premium that we can't afford to squeeze it in.
Unless it's politically sensitive and you'd feel more comfortable in that medium, of course.
Well, I am one, in such situations that feel that it would probably be best in PMs, but again, I will see what I can think of and go from there. Chances are I would post it here, but a lot of times, especially with the Market Street area, there are aspects in which I KNOW members would dislike and would prefer to keep conflicts at a minimum.
@Aurora: Can we say...ew? LOL
Maybe something along the lines of: Infraction Issued. Stupidity. (Just in case, the hex code is #570F16)
and Reminder Issued. Just Because (Color hex: #826D17)
@iRebel (below): They already have 3 threads for them here, here and here
We haven't yet reached a thorough review of those areas. From skimming over Market Street, however, I'm at least aware that the sheer length of that document is truly daunting and needs trimming to a manageable size.
Any ideas for those?
The big reason they appear lengthy is because it's essentially three sets of rules in one post (trade forum, sales forum, general MS rules). With MS being an area where hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in cards/cash is exchanged, being thorough and as air tight as possible is best for all parties, IMHO.
That said, I horribly suck at being concise, so there's bound to some overly wordy sections that could be condensed.
If the length of the MS rules has proven to be an issue, my first recommendation would be splitting it into separate threads (General MS Rules then Trade/Sales Forum rules), then looking to make some sections more concise. But content wise, there isn't much fluff in'em.
@ Psijet:
@iRebel (below): They already have 3 threads for them here, here and here
One and Three are identical and I have no idea why two is still there given it's all said in One and Three, lol.
What I mean is doing this:
Welcome to MTG Salvation's Market Street. The following rules and regulations govern all transactions within the Market Street, as well as any disputes that may arise. If you have questions or concerns regarding the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of these rules or the policies and precedents of Market Street, please feel free to contact Annorax via private message or helpdesk (as applicable).
I. By maintaining a trade, buy or sales thread in Market Street, posting inquiries or inquiring via private message about items listed in a Market Street thread, you consent to and agree to abide by the following rules and regulations. You agree not to bring legal action of any kind against MTG Salvation or its staff for any reason, including but not limited to the posting of any and all personally identifiable information in a list of banned members should you be banned from MTG Salvation or have trading privileges revoked. These rules constitute your first and only warning. All offences in Market Street are automatic infractions.
II. You may only represent one (1) forum identity with one (1) shipping address within Market Street. Traders wishing to share the same mailing address must have prior approval from Annorax. We reserve the right to revoke approval at any time for any reason via notification. Users found in violation of this rule will have their accounts permanently suspended from Market Street. There are no exceptions.
III. A transaction is considered confirmed if one of the two following criteria has been established:
Exchange of addresses;
Confirmed sending order (with or without an exchange of address);
Once a transaction has been confirmed, it is as though you have exchanged cards in person. The transaction is final. Reneging is a serious offence and grounds for a Bad Trader Report to be filed.
IIII. It is your responsibility to ensure that your package(s) reach their intended destinations. You will be held accountable for items lost in the mail if you did not use a form of tracking. Proof of sending is not sufficient.
V. In the event that a third party trade is requested, please consult the official list of third party traders. Users acting as an intermediary without approval of a Market Street Staff member will be suspended for a minimum thirty (30) days.
VI. Whilst we respect your privacy, if you are the accused party in a BTR, your name and other identifying information (such as email address, name, city, state, postal code, etc) will remain public until the dispute is settled. Should the dispute result in the accused being banned from MTG Salvation, suspended from Market Street, banned from Market Street or listed as a bad trader, we reserve the right to repost your identifying information as a public service. Members in good standing may request their information be removed Bad Trading Report and Resolution forum. Requests for information to be removed from the Bad Trader thread will be handled on a case by case basis.
VII. Retaliatory posting will not be tolerated. If a BTR is filed against you, it does not give you justification to file one against the other party. Any such retaliatory threads will automatically be closed along with a permanent infraction for bad trade practices.
VIII. We reserve the right to make any BTR ruling we deem necessary to protect the integrity of MTG Salvation.
IX. Users who submit BTRs that do not meet the minimum criteria outlined in these rules will receive infractions.
X. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate any users trading/sales privilege at any time for any reason.
XI. Negative iTrader feedback may only be left with Market Street staff approval after a BTR case for the trade has been resolved. Approved negative feedback will be edited by the approving staff member; giving negative feedback without a BTR and staff approval will result in a permanent infraction and suspension of length to be determined by the staff.
XII. Members posting in Market Street are required to list their actual location (state if in the USA, province in Canada, country otherwise) in the location field of their profiles. Failure to do so will result in suspension. Members who receive confirmation of trades or actual shipments from locations that do not match their trading partner's listed location are to contact staff immediately, before shipping or confirming.
XIII. Hall of Fame/Shame sections are not permitted in trade or sale threads; feedback serves this purpose wonderfully.
Bad Trade Reports
A Bad Trade Report (henceforth "BTR") is filed when a user is suspected of or caught breaking any rule(s) governing Market Street or violating established ethics regarding a transaction on Market Street. If a user believes their transaction has gone afoul for reasons not covered in these rules and regulations, please contact Annorax for further assistance.
Filing a BTR should be your last resort to resolve any disputes pertaining to your transactions. You should attempt to resolve the matter privately before seeking administrative relief. Additionally, a BTR may only be filed after the following deadlines have passed:
For payments via Paypal, allow 72 hours from the confirmation PM or email for receipt of payment
For transactions within the United States, allocate two (2) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
Four (4) weeks to an Army Post Office (APO) or Fleet Post Office (FPO);
For transactions to/from the United States to/from Canada, allocate three (3) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
For transactions between European Union countries, allocate three (3) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
For all other international transactions, allocate four (4) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time.
When filing a BTR, use the subject line to indicate who your dispute is with (for example, iRebel's trade with Jabberwocky). Make sure to indicate the nature of your dispute within your post as well as providing all substantiating documents, such as private messages, emails, instant message logs or any relevant photographs. If you have a delivery conformation number, you must include it in your substantiating documents. Addresses are required when posting BTRs and may not be omitted for any reason.
Items purchased using Paypal must be shipped to a Paypal confirmed address. Users requesting that items be shipped to an address not provided to the seller via Paypal forfeit all BTR rights for that trade and will be banned if they file a Paypal dispute for that trade for any reason.
Members who are listed as the defendant in a BTR thread are considered suspended from trading as of when the thread is posted and may not make offers or confirm trades until the case is dismissed, unless specifically authorized by Annorax. Disciplinary action for trading before receiving notification of a BTR thread being posted will be determined on a case by case basis by the administration. Disciplinary action for trading after receipt of a notification infraction is considered suspension evasion, which results in automatic banning from MTGSalvation.
Do NOT post in BTR threads that do not involve you (i.e. you're not the sender, receiver, or third party) unless the information you are posting is vital to the case at hand. Infractions will be issued if the information is not vital or the post is spam.
Do NOT 'bump' BTR threads. You may post new, relevant info to the case (as a double post), but you are not allowed to bump for an update request or anything else. This will result in infractions.
Conditions of cards and other items cannot be used as dispute grounds if conditions were not specified in the original trade negotiations. If conditions are not specified and a card shows up in poor, but sleeve-playable condition, BTR rulings will not result in compensation for conditional differences. (Added 3/10/2010)
Members who do not have valid trading privileges may not post BTR threads. The MTGSalvation staff will not assist banned members or members without valid trading privileges in any way. All BTR cases posted by members without trading privileges will be dismissed; such members will have no recourse for any kind of dispute on MTGSalvation.
BTRs may result in disciplinary action, even if the case is resolved without loss or hardship to anyone. Sloppy trading practices and other issues may result in disciplinary action even if made corrected when identified.
Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction:
Participation in Market Street is a privilege, not a right, of all MTG Salvation members. Therefore, any member that has had their trading privileges revoked from any other site will be considered guilty of bad trade practices on MTG Salvation and have their trading privileges revoked.
Users must be at least the legal age of majority in the jurisdiction they reside in and legally able to make a binding legal agreement or contract in order to participate in Market Street. Users under the age of majority (18 in most parts of the US, 20 or 21 in a lot of other places, but in no event younger than 18) found trading will be banned from MTGSalvation. Proof of identity and age may be requested by Market Street staff, and refusal to provide such proof of identity and age will result in automatic banning from MTGSalvation.
Any user whose trading privileges have been revoked under this Doctrine may file an application for privilege restoration with the Market Street Staff. All applications will be thoroughly reviewed and all claims investigated. You agree to abide by our decision, be it in the affirmative or negative. This decision is not appealable.
Any user caught participating in Market Street* without valid original** or restored*** trading privileges will be banned from MTG Salvation permanently and without recourse.
* Market Street Cafe and BTRs excluded
** Original trading privilege is defined as a user whose first online trade is conducted through MTG Salvation
*** Restored trading privilege is defined as a user whose trading privileges were revoked under this doctrine and subsequently restored by the Market Street Staff.
Trade and Sale Thread Rules
I. Users are permitted to have no more than one (1) active trade and one (1) active sales thread at any time. Any additional trade or sale threads will result in the newest thread(s) being closed without notice.
i. Updating or modifying your thread through use of the edit function on your post is absolutely the right way to fix your list. Do NOT make multiple threads in each forum; you will be infracted.
II. Your trade thread must contain the following:
i. Both a "haves" and "wants" list;
ii. Your location, which must include your state/province;
iii. Whether or not you trade internationally. You must use the flag icon which corresponds to your actual country of residence.
III. Your sales thread must contain the following:
i. A list of cards for sale;
ii. Price per card (if packaged as a lot, you must have a price for the lot; if offered as a lot and as singles, you must have both prices per card and a lot price [Sales threads priced as lots may not have individual offers submitted. Doing so will result in a permanent infraction]);
iii. Shipping prices and procedures;
iiii. Whether or not you ship internationally;
v. Payment method(s);
vi. The currency you are using for prices (no listed currency defaults to USD);
vii. Your location, which must include your state/province.
If you are soliciting to buy cards, you must list the card(s) you wish to buy and the price you are willing to pay in addition to requirements iii through vii.
Whenever a trade or sale is finalised, all card(s) must be removed from the trade/sale thread.
You may not post on threads that are not compliant with these rules. If the thread is not in compliance with these rules, report the post; do not post an offer or 'fix this' post. Any non-staff post on a noncompliant thread will receive an automatic spam infraction.
IV. Unless otherwise noted, all forum and Market Street rules supersede rules posted by traders or sellers/buyers. However, should both parties agree to the use of a set of rules via PM or post, the agreed upon terms may be used in lieu of our rules. We reserve the right to refuse enforcement of agreed upon rules at our discretion.
V. You may only "bump" (self reply) to your trade and/or sales thread once per every twenty-four (24) hours (This means you may only bump your thread twenty-four (24) hours after your last post). Threads with no activity for thirty (30) days will be locked and archived. If you would like your thread(s) reactivated, please post in the reactivation sticky.
VI. You may use/reserve the first five posts of your thread(s) for the use of larger lists, et cetera. You must reserve the posts at the time of thread creation.
VII. For trades involving the following items, we strongly suggest (but do not require) the use of a third party trade with a staff member or approved third party trader if being traded away or sold by a member with less than 100 iTrader feedback or less than 100% positive feedback:
i. Power 9 (Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Timetwister, Mox Sapphire, Mox Ruby, Mox Emerald, Mox Pearl, Mox Jet)
ii. Mishra's Workshop;
iii. Bazaar of Baghdad;
iiii. Library of Alexandria;
v. Any Edgar/Summer Magic card;
vi. Any other card with an average MOTL price guide value of $100 or greater. [i](no longer mandatory 3/10/2011)
VIII. The following are not allowed for sale or trade:
i. Item(s) you do not have physical possession of*;
ii. Repacks and or grab bags;
iii. Proxies and/or reproductions**.
* You must have physical possession of all items you are soliciting for sale and or trade. Users caught soliciting items they do not have physical possession of will be receive a permanent infraction for bad trade practices.
** Anyone attempting to sell/trade proxies and or reproductions will be automatically banned from MTG Salvation and will be reported to Wizards of the Coast and any appropriate US or foreign law enforcement agencies. There are no exceptions.
VIII. You may not post an itemised list of off-site references. You may, however, provide a link to any off-site references you feel are necessary.
IX. Proper etiquette should be observed when posting on members threads. Posts should contain the card(s) you're interested in and the card(s) you have for trade or price you're willing to buy them for. Messages containing nothing more than a notification that you have contacted them (IE, "PM'd ya; sent you a message, et al) is considered spam.
X. Any thread found to be in violation of these rules will automatically be locked. Users should re-post their thread(s) only after correcting all moderator documented errors.
XI. Users sharing an IP address, email address, or physical address may not exchange i-Trader References. Trades or sale transactions negotiated and exchanged in person are not eligible for i-Trader References.
This way, neither post is TOO big and more manageable to read.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
Clarity is a good thing. More is better.
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
Please don't eliminate the rule. It's extremely annoying to see wannabe mods pop up everytime someone breaks the rules. And it is even more annoying when those wannabes are incorrect in their judgements. Best to just prevent that stuff before it happens.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
Sounds like a great change.
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
I think this sounds good but am not entirely sure what is being suggested here.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
Sounds great.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
The color change sounds like it is being too sensitive to an issue that doesn't really exist. And when I see quote boxes, I often just ignore them or skim over them, because they indicate something I've just read earlier in the thread. If you make a uniquely formatted text box for mods, that would okay. But using the normal style is bad practice in my opinion.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
I don't know how the color change is relevant.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
Can you clarify the difference? But I agree, this is certainly an area that needs clarified in the rules.
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained moderator impact.
We are currently considering a significant update and retooling of the MTGS forum rules, both in format and in content. Discussion is still pending on each of these proposals, and there is still substantial debate, brainstorming, and exchange of ideas taking place. In the meantime, before any final decisions are made, we would also like to gather input from the community as to these potential changes, or any other changes that users would like us to consider.
The proposed changes, so far:
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
Couldn't hurt.
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
I suppose if you wanted to you could simply include posts that do nothing but backseat moderate under the spam rule (as they're not discussing anything on-topic) and make everything else OK, and see how that goes for a while.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
Probably a good idea. While I know the staff frequently says that users shouldn't be too concerned with warnings because they don't count against a suspension, it's been clear for some time that the userbase didn't see it that way. So I'm happy to see that the staff is doing something about that.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
I'm fine with paring down the overall size, but I'm not sure I like the idea of hyperlinks (unless you're talking about a "table of contents" kind of thing to a series of posts in the same locked thread.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
I'm not sure what value there is to be gained from a system where text from a mod in normal font means one thing, blue means another thing, green means yet another thing, etc. It seems like a difficult system to keep track of.
I'd say that if you really want to get away from the bold red, to pick just one color that works with the most popular skins and stick with it for all modtext.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
I'm not really sure how you can get to that point, given that not having this rule would allow people to remove modtext from their own posts. I think it needs to stay.
Preferably the software could automatically lock an individual post from further editing once a mod has done so, so the rule wouldn't even be necessary. But that would require a forum software upgrade, and at this point I've basically conceded that Hannes is never going to do anything about that.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
I'd have to see more info before having an opinion on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Wanted to state an opinion on one of your proposed changes: Please do not change Mod Text to anything other than red. Yeah, red mod text might not be friendly to look at sometimes, but is the best way I can think of to clearly distinguish that someone with authority is speaking.
Other than that, a recommendation: Could we (you) please not delete infracted posts that lead to suspension/banning. I think it would be useful to link to what posts caused suspension/banning in the Banned/Suspended member list so that people know what not to do.
On the changes to mod text: If there's a way to put it as bold black on a red background, I think that'd probably work nicely, especially since there isn't a way to change the background of text in posts otherwise.
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
Couldn't hurt.
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
In support. For example, let's take a common occurrence in the rules forum: a person new to the site creates a thread and doesn't use card links.
[Under current rules:]
Poster clicks the thread and answers the question.
Poster clicks the report button and reports OP for not cardlinking.
OP reads the thread, gets his answer, and doesn't learn the rule.
After some time, a mod reads it and infracts OP.
After some time, OP logs on and notices he's been infracted.
OP whines about how mean the moderation staff is.
[Under the proposed revision:]
Poster clicks the thread, answers the question, and adds "By the way, card links are required in this forum. Here's how to use them."
OP reads the thread shortly thereafter (since he's been waiting for an answer to his question) and learns the rule.
OP thanks the community of MTGS for being helpful.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
I support these in conjunction. Perhaps a high frequency of warnings/reminders could increase the length of time before they expire, to deter abuse of the system.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
Shouldn't the rules have been written this way in the first place?
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
This is the change I am most strongly against. The reason is because users have become accustomed to bold text in non-red colors being permissible for the general population to use, and changing those colors to mod text would probably create a good deal of confusion. Most mod intervention is along the lines of "you're in trouble" anyway.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
Not entirely sure what the difference is. Examples?
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained moderator impact.
Where has it been shown that the subforum mods are willing to create more work for themselves, or that it is necessary to do so?
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.) If this includes the hundreds of responses during rumor season to a post, when the response is essentially the same thing then yes I am all for this.
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule. As someone who gets hit for this alot I'm all for removing it. I can see why it's there but IMO it's harmless to gently advise someone that they are in the wrong forum for something or that they need to put in card tags, don't double-post, etc.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more
accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them,
and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally
feel upon being "warned".
To me this is basically just semantics but the change makes sense.
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders
are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction. This is a bit of a yes and no for me. I think it would depending on severity of the matter and how much of a repeat offender the person is.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible
blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or
overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and
understood.
Making the rules less wordy but keeping to the point of what they're conveying is never a bad thing.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as
blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a
quote box to help mod-text stand out.Other than the prior mention of color blind people I agree that this may be a good idea. Green for a warning, orange for an infraction.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the
importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule. I think that it's still important to preserve the editing after mod-text rule especially if the user were to try to edit the post in order to proclaim innocence. (This is assuming infracted posts are not screen-shot to maintain evidence.) 8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting. No offense but this seems kind of vague, could this be elaborated upon please?
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to
create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained
moderator impact. I think I know where you're going with this and I fully agree regardless.
From the replies so far, I believe that 4 isn't being understood by everyone. What "reversible warnings/reminders" means is actually "appealable warnings/reminders", as with the current system Admins and Globals pretty much don't hear these appeals (since they're not proper infractions) and us mods cannot reverse them ourselves.
Appreciate the feedback, especially as to the red-text idea. It helps to get an idea in advance whether a change we're considering is unnecessary or unhelpful.
As to the difference between advertising and soliciting, the difference would be that things such as linking to other websites, blogs, videos - those would no longer be under threat of infraction.
By contrast, trying to promote your pay-for-access website, trying to sell men's fragrance, flooding us with bots - those would remain restricted.
I'm actually really impressed with these changes and I seriously hope they all see the light of day. More over, I seriously hope more of these changes are in the works!
Appreciate the feedback, especially as to the red-text idea. It helps to get an idea in advance whether a change we're considering is unnecessary or unhelpful.
As to the difference between advertising and soliciting, the difference would be that things such as linking to other websites, blogs, videos - those would no longer be under threat of infraction.
By contrast, trying to promote your pay-for-access website, trying to sell men's fragrance, flooding us with bots - those would remain restricted.
I think this is the big thing that is deterring the artists that post on here. IN all fairness they should be able to link to their own blogs without fear. That and linking to relevant articles from known Magic websites that are not dailymtg should definitely be OK in my mind.
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained moderator impact.
1. (re: spam) good idea. i think it will be important to point out to users that spam is not just posts like "first", but also includes comments that are wildly out of context of the discussion ("my cat's breath smells like cat food") or basically just stifle the discussion rather than further it ("cool story bro" or "don't comment until you've playtested")
2. (re: backseat modding) strongly in favor of this. crowdsource the issue of common problems that currently need moderator action. other users are often willing to inform others of the forum rules and this would save alot of mod time. right now we have to just report the offense. why not let us handle the small stuff?
3. and 4. (re: warnings/reminders) also strongly in favor of this. might i suggest SandyBrown as the reminder text color. its not as aggro as red, and much more readable then yellow. it also doesn't send the wrong message of "this is ok" which is what is implied by green or blue.
5. (re: size of rules text) users already don't read the rules. the fact that some rules sheets are walls of text greatly exacerbates this problem. i'd suggest that if a rules post cannot be read and understood in under 30 seconds it is too long. my formal suggestion is to keep the "long form" rules stickied wherever they need to be, and linked to in each forum where appropriate, but that the actual forum rules posts that users are expected to read should be like 4 sentences, tops.
6. and 7. (re: modtext color) please color code this. infractions should be red. warnings should be sandybrown. any other form of modtext (announcements for example) should be in something non-aggressive like blue or purple. i personally find green hard to read and a conflixt with color-blindness (red-green colorblind is relatively common) so i'd avoid it. editing after modtext should still be infractable though. thats like trying to cover up the crime.
8. (re: advertising) YESSS. single most important change we can do. users should be encouraged to use this site as a hub for the greater magic community. promoting your blog or local game store or online play group is critically important for this site to retain its relevance. the only thing that should be against the rules is someone posting ad-spam or someone trying to arrange a transaction (except in market street, where this is ok).
I just think that mods being more careful about the (in some cases) highly subjective spam category would solve a lot of problems. If a mod realizes something is borderline, then their first instinct should be a warning, not an infraction.
Really, just being more heavy on warnings instead of infractions could go a long way.
I think this is the big thing that is deterring the artists that post on here. IN all fairness they should be able to link to their own blogs without fear. That and linking to relevant articles from known Magic websites that are not dailymtg should definitely be OK in my mind.
For those of you looking for examples of advertising:
The OP is infractable by the current rules. In fact if we really wanted to we could suspend him. Hopefully most people think that would be counter productive to what we are trying to acomplish as a resource.
Personally I would prefer that he copy the decklist and leave the link for people to look up his source, esp since he can't copy the rest of the page.
Now a link like buy this deck here would clearly be solicitation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
[ 3. and 4. (re: warnings/reminders) also strongly in favor of this. might i suggest SandyBrown as the reminder text color. its not as aggro as red, and much more readable then yellow. it also doesn't send the wrong message of "this is ok" which is what is implied by green or blue.
If the colors are changed for warning could we not use the Sandy brown as suggested by Metamorph. At least on my screen with the white skin it does appear washed out/faint and hard to read.
That or it could just be my eyes playing up again. I do like Psijets suggestions as they do stand out are easier to read and not as garish.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
hmm, i suppose it looks pretty different on different monitors and themes. its pretty high contrast on mine but i could definitely see how that might look washed out on some monitors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The proposed changes, so far:
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them, and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally feel upon being "warned".
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and understood.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a quote box to help mod-text stand out.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained moderator impact.
Link to the current copy of the forum rules.
We would appreciate your input.
We haven't yet reached a thorough review of those areas. From skimming over Market Street, however, I'm at least aware that the sheer length of that document is truly daunting and needs trimming to a manageable size.
Any ideas for those?
Well, I can take a look at them again and come up with some ideas I'm sure. Whether or not they're viable or acceptable of course, is another matter. I would be happy to offer whatever advice/assistance I can with such though for moderators/admins to review for whatever purpose.
If you want, I can PM you once I've done so as to not clutter this thread. It might take a couple of days though, I'm sure, as large as the Market Street rules are.
Clutter away, as far as I'm concerned. Easier for others to chime in with feedback and ideas based on what you come up with. Space in here won't be at such a premium that we can't afford to squeeze it in.
Unless it's politically sensitive and you'd feel more comfortable in that medium, of course.
Mod text still should be red if it's something that's being directed to many people in the thread. If it's a simple addition of "Spam. Warning issued" or something like that, well... red seems too aggressive, as you said... but blue or green just don't... feel right.
As an example:
Green seems like a color usually used for "good" things, not for "bad" things. Maybe some shade of orange? (Similar to the yellow card for warnings (or reminders, under the new terminology.)
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
Well, I am one, in such situations that feel that it would probably be best in PMs, but again, I will see what I can think of and go from there. Chances are I would post it here, but a lot of times, especially with the Market Street area, there are aspects in which I KNOW members would dislike and would prefer to keep conflicts at a minimum.
@Aurora: Can we say...ew? LOL
Maybe something along the lines of: Infraction Issued. Stupidity. (Just in case, the hex code is #570F16)
and Reminder Issued. Just Because (Color hex: #826D17)
@iRebel (below): They already have 3 threads for them here, here and here
The big reason they appear lengthy is because it's essentially three sets of rules in one post (trade forum, sales forum, general MS rules). With MS being an area where hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in cards/cash is exchanged, being thorough and as air tight as possible is best for all parties, IMHO.
That said, I horribly suck at being concise, so there's bound to some overly wordy sections that could be condensed.
If the length of the MS rules has proven to be an issue, my first recommendation would be splitting it into separate threads (General MS Rules then Trade/Sales Forum rules), then looking to make some sections more concise. But content wise, there isn't much fluff in'em.
@ Psijet:
One and Three are identical and I have no idea why two is still there given it's all said in One and Three, lol.
What I mean is doing this:
Welcome to MTG Salvation's Market Street. The following rules and regulations govern all transactions within the Market Street, as well as any disputes that may arise. If you have questions or concerns regarding the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of these rules or the policies and precedents of Market Street, please feel free to contact Annorax via private message or helpdesk (as applicable).
I. By maintaining a trade, buy or sales thread in Market Street, posting inquiries or inquiring via private message about items listed in a Market Street thread, you consent to and agree to abide by the following rules and regulations. You agree not to bring legal action of any kind against MTG Salvation or its staff for any reason, including but not limited to the posting of any and all personally identifiable information in a list of banned members should you be banned from MTG Salvation or have trading privileges revoked. These rules constitute your first and only warning. All offences in Market Street are automatic infractions.
II. You may only represent one (1) forum identity with one (1) shipping address within Market Street. Traders wishing to share the same mailing address must have prior approval from Annorax. We reserve the right to revoke approval at any time for any reason via notification. Users found in violation of this rule will have their accounts permanently suspended from Market Street. There are no exceptions.
III. A transaction is considered confirmed if one of the two following criteria has been established:
Exchange of addresses;
Confirmed sending order (with or without an exchange of address);
Once a transaction has been confirmed, it is as though you have exchanged cards in person. The transaction is final. Reneging is a serious offence and grounds for a Bad Trader Report to be filed.
IIII. It is your responsibility to ensure that your package(s) reach their intended destinations. You will be held accountable for items lost in the mail if you did not use a form of tracking. Proof of sending is not sufficient.
V. In the event that a third party trade is requested, please consult the official list of third party traders. Users acting as an intermediary without approval of a Market Street Staff member will be suspended for a minimum thirty (30) days.
VI. Whilst we respect your privacy, if you are the accused party in a BTR, your name and other identifying information (such as email address, name, city, state, postal code, etc) will remain public until the dispute is settled. Should the dispute result in the accused being banned from MTG Salvation, suspended from Market Street, banned from Market Street or listed as a bad trader, we reserve the right to repost your identifying information as a public service. Members in good standing may request their information be removed Bad Trading Report and Resolution forum. Requests for information to be removed from the Bad Trader thread will be handled on a case by case basis.
VII. Retaliatory posting will not be tolerated. If a BTR is filed against you, it does not give you justification to file one against the other party. Any such retaliatory threads will automatically be closed along with a permanent infraction for bad trade practices.
VIII. We reserve the right to make any BTR ruling we deem necessary to protect the integrity of MTG Salvation.
IX. Users who submit BTRs that do not meet the minimum criteria outlined in these rules will receive infractions.
X. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate any users trading/sales privilege at any time for any reason.
XI. Negative iTrader feedback may only be left with Market Street staff approval after a BTR case for the trade has been resolved. Approved negative feedback will be edited by the approving staff member; giving negative feedback without a BTR and staff approval will result in a permanent infraction and suspension of length to be determined by the staff.
XII. Members posting in Market Street are required to list their actual location (state if in the USA, province in Canada, country otherwise) in the location field of their profiles. Failure to do so will result in suspension. Members who receive confirmation of trades or actual shipments from locations that do not match their trading partner's listed location are to contact staff immediately, before shipping or confirming.
XIII. Hall of Fame/Shame sections are not permitted in trade or sale threads; feedback serves this purpose wonderfully.
Bad Trade Reports
A Bad Trade Report (henceforth "BTR") is filed when a user is suspected of or caught breaking any rule(s) governing Market Street or violating established ethics regarding a transaction on Market Street. If a user believes their transaction has gone afoul for reasons not covered in these rules and regulations, please contact Annorax for further assistance.
Filing a BTR should be your last resort to resolve any disputes pertaining to your transactions. You should attempt to resolve the matter privately before seeking administrative relief. Additionally, a BTR may only be filed after the following deadlines have passed:
For payments via Paypal, allow 72 hours from the confirmation PM or email for receipt of payment
For transactions within the United States, allocate two (2) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
Four (4) weeks to an Army Post Office (APO) or Fleet Post Office (FPO);
For transactions to/from the United States to/from Canada, allocate three (3) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
For transactions between European Union countries, allocate three (3) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time;
For all other international transactions, allocate four (4) weeks for delivery from the arranged upon mailing time.
When filing a BTR, use the subject line to indicate who your dispute is with (for example, iRebel's trade with Jabberwocky). Make sure to indicate the nature of your dispute within your post as well as providing all substantiating documents, such as private messages, emails, instant message logs or any relevant photographs. If you have a delivery conformation number, you must include it in your substantiating documents. Addresses are required when posting BTRs and may not be omitted for any reason.
Items purchased using Paypal must be shipped to a Paypal confirmed address. Users requesting that items be shipped to an address not provided to the seller via Paypal forfeit all BTR rights for that trade and will be banned if they file a Paypal dispute for that trade for any reason.
Members who are listed as the defendant in a BTR thread are considered suspended from trading as of when the thread is posted and may not make offers or confirm trades until the case is dismissed, unless specifically authorized by Annorax. Disciplinary action for trading before receiving notification of a BTR thread being posted will be determined on a case by case basis by the administration. Disciplinary action for trading after receipt of a notification infraction is considered suspension evasion, which results in automatic banning from MTGSalvation.
Do NOT post in BTR threads that do not involve you (i.e. you're not the sender, receiver, or third party) unless the information you are posting is vital to the case at hand. Infractions will be issued if the information is not vital or the post is spam.
Do NOT 'bump' BTR threads. You may post new, relevant info to the case (as a double post), but you are not allowed to bump for an update request or anything else. This will result in infractions.
Conditions of cards and other items cannot be used as dispute grounds if conditions were not specified in the original trade negotiations. If conditions are not specified and a card shows up in poor, but sleeve-playable condition, BTR rulings will not result in compensation for conditional differences. (Added 3/10/2010)
Members who do not have valid trading privileges may not post BTR threads. The MTGSalvation staff will not assist banned members or members without valid trading privileges in any way. All BTR cases posted by members without trading privileges will be dismissed; such members will have no recourse for any kind of dispute on MTGSalvation.
BTRs may result in disciplinary action, even if the case is resolved without loss or hardship to anyone. Sloppy trading practices and other issues may result in disciplinary action even if made corrected when identified.
Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction:
Participation in Market Street is a privilege, not a right, of all MTG Salvation members. Therefore, any member that has had their trading privileges revoked from any other site will be considered guilty of bad trade practices on MTG Salvation and have their trading privileges revoked.
Users must be at least the legal age of majority in the jurisdiction they reside in and legally able to make a binding legal agreement or contract in order to participate in Market Street. Users under the age of majority (18 in most parts of the US, 20 or 21 in a lot of other places, but in no event younger than 18) found trading will be banned from MTGSalvation. Proof of identity and age may be requested by Market Street staff, and refusal to provide such proof of identity and age will result in automatic banning from MTGSalvation.
Any user whose trading privileges have been revoked under this Doctrine may file an application for privilege restoration with the Market Street Staff. All applications will be thoroughly reviewed and all claims investigated. You agree to abide by our decision, be it in the affirmative or negative. This decision is not appealable.
Any user caught participating in Market Street* without valid original** or restored*** trading privileges will be banned from MTG Salvation permanently and without recourse.
* Market Street Cafe and BTRs excluded
** Original trading privilege is defined as a user whose first online trade is conducted through MTG Salvation
*** Restored trading privilege is defined as a user whose trading privileges were revoked under this doctrine and subsequently restored by the Market Street Staff.
I. Users are permitted to have no more than one (1) active trade and one (1) active sales thread at any time. Any additional trade or sale threads will result in the newest thread(s) being closed without notice.
i. Updating or modifying your thread through use of the edit function on your post is absolutely the right way to fix your list. Do NOT make multiple threads in each forum; you will be infracted.
II. Your trade thread must contain the following:
i. Both a "haves" and "wants" list;
ii. Your location, which must include your state/province;
iii. Whether or not you trade internationally. You must use the flag icon which corresponds to your actual country of residence.
III. Your sales thread must contain the following:
i. A list of cards for sale;
ii. Price per card (if packaged as a lot, you must have a price for the lot; if offered as a lot and as singles, you must have both prices per card and a lot price [Sales threads priced as lots may not have individual offers submitted. Doing so will result in a permanent infraction]);
iii. Shipping prices and procedures;
iiii. Whether or not you ship internationally;
v. Payment method(s);
vi. The currency you are using for prices (no listed currency defaults to USD);
vii. Your location, which must include your state/province.
If you are soliciting to buy cards, you must list the card(s) you wish to buy and the price you are willing to pay in addition to requirements iii through vii.
Whenever a trade or sale is finalised, all card(s) must be removed from the trade/sale thread.
You may not post on threads that are not compliant with these rules. If the thread is not in compliance with these rules, report the post; do not post an offer or 'fix this' post. Any non-staff post on a noncompliant thread will receive an automatic spam infraction.
IV. Unless otherwise noted, all forum and Market Street rules supersede rules posted by traders or sellers/buyers. However, should both parties agree to the use of a set of rules via PM or post, the agreed upon terms may be used in lieu of our rules. We reserve the right to refuse enforcement of agreed upon rules at our discretion.
V. You may only "bump" (self reply) to your trade and/or sales thread once per every twenty-four (24) hours (This means you may only bump your thread twenty-four (24) hours after your last post). Threads with no activity for thirty (30) days will be locked and archived. If you would like your thread(s) reactivated, please post in the reactivation sticky.
VI. You may use/reserve the first five posts of your thread(s) for the use of larger lists, et cetera. You must reserve the posts at the time of thread creation.
VII. For trades involving the following items, we strongly suggest (but do not require) the use of a third party trade with a staff member or approved third party trader if being traded away or sold by a member with less than 100 iTrader feedback or less than 100% positive feedback:
i. Power 9 (Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Timetwister, Mox Sapphire, Mox Ruby, Mox Emerald, Mox Pearl, Mox Jet)
ii. Mishra's Workshop;
iii. Bazaar of Baghdad;
iiii. Library of Alexandria;
v. Any Edgar/Summer Magic card;
vi. Any other card with an average MOTL price guide value of $100 or greater. [i](no longer mandatory 3/10/2011)
VIII. The following are not allowed for sale or trade:
i. Item(s) you do not have physical possession of*;
ii. Repacks and or grab bags;
iii. Proxies and/or reproductions**.
* You must have physical possession of all items you are soliciting for sale and or trade. Users caught soliciting items they do not have physical possession of will be receive a permanent infraction for bad trade practices.
** Anyone attempting to sell/trade proxies and or reproductions will be automatically banned from MTG Salvation and will be reported to Wizards of the Coast and any appropriate US or foreign law enforcement agencies. There are no exceptions.
VIII. You may not post an itemised list of off-site references. You may, however, provide a link to any off-site references you feel are necessary.
IX. Proper etiquette should be observed when posting on members threads. Posts should contain the card(s) you're interested in and the card(s) you have for trade or price you're willing to buy them for. Messages containing nothing more than a notification that you have contacted them (IE, "PM'd ya; sent you a message, et al) is considered spam.
X. Any thread found to be in violation of these rules will automatically be locked. Users should re-post their thread(s) only after correcting all moderator documented errors.
XI. Users sharing an IP address, email address, or physical address may not exchange i-Trader References. Trades or sale transactions negotiated and exchanged in person are not eligible for i-Trader References.
This way, neither post is TOO big and more manageable to read.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
Clarity is a good thing. More is better.
Please don't eliminate the rule. It's extremely annoying to see wannabe mods pop up everytime someone breaks the rules. And it is even more annoying when those wannabes are incorrect in their judgements. Best to just prevent that stuff before it happens.
Sounds like a great change.
I think this sounds good but am not entirely sure what is being suggested here.
Sounds great.
The color change sounds like it is being too sensitive to an issue that doesn't really exist. And when I see quote boxes, I often just ignore them or skim over them, because they indicate something I've just read earlier in the thread. If you make a uniquely formatted text box for mods, that would okay. But using the normal style is bad practice in my opinion.
I don't know how the color change is relevant.
Can you clarify the difference? But I agree, this is certainly an area that needs clarified in the rules.
Sounds good.
Couldn't hurt.
I suppose if you wanted to you could simply include posts that do nothing but backseat moderate under the spam rule (as they're not discussing anything on-topic) and make everything else OK, and see how that goes for a while.
Probably a good idea. While I know the staff frequently says that users shouldn't be too concerned with warnings because they don't count against a suspension, it's been clear for some time that the userbase didn't see it that way. So I'm happy to see that the staff is doing something about that.
I'm fine with paring down the overall size, but I'm not sure I like the idea of hyperlinks (unless you're talking about a "table of contents" kind of thing to a series of posts in the same locked thread.
I'm not sure what value there is to be gained from a system where text from a mod in normal font means one thing, blue means another thing, green means yet another thing, etc. It seems like a difficult system to keep track of.
I'd say that if you really want to get away from the bold red, to pick just one color that works with the most popular skins and stick with it for all modtext.
I'm not really sure how you can get to that point, given that not having this rule would allow people to remove modtext from their own posts. I think it needs to stay.
Preferably the software could automatically lock an individual post from further editing once a mod has done so, so the rule wouldn't even be necessary. But that would require a forum software upgrade, and at this point I've basically conceded that Hannes is never going to do anything about that.
I'd have to see more info before having an opinion on that.
I sent a PM to card_father a couple of days ago on Warn/Infraction Logs, I hope that what I said is at least read over and considered.
Other than that, a recommendation: Could we (you) please not delete infracted posts that lead to suspension/banning. I think it would be useful to link to what posts caused suspension/banning in the Banned/Suspended member list so that people know what not to do.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Couldn't hurt.
In support. For example, let's take a common occurrence in the rules forum: a person new to the site creates a thread and doesn't use card links.
[Under current rules:]
Poster clicks the thread and answers the question.
Poster clicks the report button and reports OP for not cardlinking.
OP reads the thread, gets his answer, and doesn't learn the rule.
After some time, a mod reads it and infracts OP.
After some time, OP logs on and notices he's been infracted.
OP whines about how mean the moderation staff is.
[Under the proposed revision:]
Poster clicks the thread, answers the question, and adds "By the way, card links are required in this forum. Here's how to use them."
OP reads the thread shortly thereafter (since he's been waiting for an answer to his question) and learns the rule.
OP thanks the community of MTGS for being helpful.
I support these in conjunction. Perhaps a high frequency of warnings/reminders could increase the length of time before they expire, to deter abuse of the system.
Shouldn't the rules have been written this way in the first place?
This is the change I am most strongly against. The reason is because users have become accustomed to bold text in non-red colors being permissible for the general population to use, and changing those colors to mod text would probably create a good deal of confusion. Most mod intervention is along the lines of "you're in trouble" anyway.
Not entirely sure what the difference is. Examples?
Where has it been shown that the subforum mods are willing to create more work for themselves, or that it is necessary to do so?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
1. Clarification of the definition of spam. (Such as providing examples.)
If this includes the hundreds of responses during rumor season to a post, when the response is essentially the same thing then yes I am all for this.
2. Reorganization, revision, or elimination of the backseat moderation rule.
As someone who gets hit for this alot I'm all for removing it. I can see why it's there but IMO it's harmless to gently advise someone that they are in the wrong forum for something or that they need to put in card tags, don't double-post, etc.
3. Transitioning from the term "warnings" to the term "reminders", which more
accurately reflects their function, and the attitude of moderators issuing them,
and should reduce the worried, offput, or offended response many users naturally
feel upon being "warned".
To me this is basically just semantics but the change makes sense.
4. Making warnings or reminders reversible, on the basis that repeated reminders
are sometimes taken into account on whether to issue an infraction.
This is a bit of a yes and no for me. I think it would depending on severity of the matter and how much of a repeat offender the person is.
5. Formatting and condensing the rules into smaller, more easily digestible
blocks, potentially through the use of hyperlinks. Paring down unnecessary or
overly wordy subsections, so that the forum rules can be more easily read and
understood.
Making the rules less wordy but keeping to the point of what they're conveying is never a bad thing.
6. Changing the color of mod text from red to something less aggressive, such as
blue or green, or implementing a tiered text-color system. In addition, adding a
quote box to help mod-text stand out.Other than the prior mention of color blind people I agree that this may be a good idea. Green for a warning, orange for an infraction.
7. Whether changes to the color and formatting of mod text would eliminate the
importance of preserving the editing after mod-text rule.
I think that it's still important to preserve the editing after mod-text rule especially if the user were to try to edit the post in order to proclaim innocence. (This is assuming infracted posts are not screen-shot to maintain evidence.)
8. Changing the rule against advertising to a rule against soliciting.
No offense but this seems kind of vague, could this be elaborated upon please?
9. An ongoing review of subforum specific rules on a similar basis, aiming to
create a more stream-lined, easily understandable, and appropriately restrained
moderator impact.
I think I know where you're going with this and I fully agree regardless.
Thought that needed clarification...
My YouTube Channel
As to the difference between advertising and soliciting, the difference would be that things such as linking to other websites, blogs, videos - those would no longer be under threat of infraction.
By contrast, trying to promote your pay-for-access website, trying to sell men's fragrance, flooding us with bots - those would remain restricted.
I think this is the big thing that is deterring the artists that post on here. IN all fairness they should be able to link to their own blogs without fear. That and linking to relevant articles from known Magic websites that are not dailymtg should definitely be OK in my mind.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
1. (re: spam) good idea. i think it will be important to point out to users that spam is not just posts like "first", but also includes comments that are wildly out of context of the discussion ("my cat's breath smells like cat food") or basically just stifle the discussion rather than further it ("cool story bro" or "don't comment until you've playtested")
2. (re: backseat modding) strongly in favor of this. crowdsource the issue of common problems that currently need moderator action. other users are often willing to inform others of the forum rules and this would save alot of mod time. right now we have to just report the offense. why not let us handle the small stuff?
3. and 4. (re: warnings/reminders) also strongly in favor of this. might i suggest SandyBrown as the reminder text color. its not as aggro as red, and much more readable then yellow. it also doesn't send the wrong message of "this is ok" which is what is implied by green or blue.
5. (re: size of rules text) users already don't read the rules. the fact that some rules sheets are walls of text greatly exacerbates this problem. i'd suggest that if a rules post cannot be read and understood in under 30 seconds it is too long. my formal suggestion is to keep the "long form" rules stickied wherever they need to be, and linked to in each forum where appropriate, but that the actual forum rules posts that users are expected to read should be like 4 sentences, tops.
6. and 7. (re: modtext color) please color code this. infractions should be red. warnings should be sandybrown. any other form of modtext (announcements for example) should be in something non-aggressive like blue or purple. i personally find green hard to read and a conflixt with color-blindness (red-green colorblind is relatively common) so i'd avoid it. editing after modtext should still be infractable though. thats like trying to cover up the crime.
8. (re: advertising) YESSS. single most important change we can do. users should be encouraged to use this site as a hub for the greater magic community. promoting your blog or local game store or online play group is critically important for this site to retain its relevance. the only thing that should be against the rules is someone posting ad-spam or someone trying to arrange a transaction (except in market street, where this is ok).
Really, just being more heavy on warnings instead of infractions could go a long way.
For those of you looking for examples of advertising:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=386452
The OP is infractable by the current rules. In fact if we really wanted to we could suspend him. Hopefully most people think that would be counter productive to what we are trying to acomplish as a resource.
Personally I would prefer that he copy the decklist and leave the link for people to look up his source, esp since he can't copy the rest of the page.
Now a link like buy this deck here would clearly be solicitation.
If the colors are changed for warning could we not use the Sandy brown as suggested by Metamorph. At least on my screen with the white skin it does appear washed out/faint and hard to read.
That or it could just be my eyes playing up again. I do like Psijets suggestions as they do stand out are easier to read and not as garish.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru