# New Forum Rules



## Sa967St (Mar 31, 2014)

The Site Rules have been updated. Please take the time to read them.

There are no new significant rules, but there are some important clarifications that everyone should be aware about, especially 1b and "Examples of Spam Posts and Threads".

Feel free to address any concerns or ask questions about the Site Rules in this thread.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 14, 2014)

[clarification: this post was originally posted in this thread]


I'm a bit late to this, but whatever. Still want to say stuff.

The moderation team is pretty unnecessary and doesn't improve the forum much IMO. Banning someone just because they don't use good grammar is dumb. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to post. The forum rules in general are way too stringent for what this forum is. All the post merging and thread merging that the mods do is a tiny bit useful, but it's absolutely not worth their time. It's also irritating seeing the occasional power hungry mod warn people about bickering and close threads whenever anyone becomes opinionated. And we don't need a profanity filter. Anyone who's old enough to discuss puzzle theory knows what the words mean anyway. The forum rules are *stupid.*

I got a bit off topic there, but to the point: Ben uses bad grammar, but he's a great solver. I don't think anyone here is going to argue with that. He knows stuff about cubes, and virtual puzzles, and probably has stuff to say that's perfect for what this forum is about. It's ridiculous that someone like Ben is banned but there can be dozens and dozens of noobs using perfect grammar to tell us about their experience reinventing petrus or asking which 3x3 method is the fastest, and they're welcome here. Is there seriously anyone who would rather read someone who doesn't know what they're talking about write a thread proposing a 1LLL method that already exists as their idea than read something by Ben that has bad grammar but some actual content??? Because that's what the actions taken by the forum imply. 

Preventing "spam" is pointless. Almost all the threads that aren't stickied die after days or weeks anyway. The very worst that Ben can do is add one extra page to a thread by posting some unneccesary comments. Big deal. It wastes almost none of anyone else's time, and it'll just be forgotten in a very short time. And all this is assuming that what Ben is saying is pointless, which I don't think it is. The people who should be banned are the legitimate spambots. And that's pretty much it. Hurry up and unban Ben's main account. He's been banned long enough to get the message anyway.


----------



## XTowncuber (Apr 14, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I'm a bit late to this, but whatever. Still want to say stuff.
> 
> The moderation team is pretty unnecessary and doesn't improve the forum much IMO. Banning someone just because they don't use good grammar is dumb. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to post. The forum rules in general are way too stringent for what this forum is. All the post merging and thread merging that the mods do is a tiny bit useful, but it's absolutely not worth their time. It's also irritating seeing the occasional power hungry mod warn people about bickering and close threads whenever anyone becomes opinionated. And we don't need a profanity filter. Anyone who's old enough to discuss puzzle theory knows what the words mean anyway. The forum rules are *stupid.*
> 
> ...



Pretty sure Ben was banned more for his corrosive attitude and for frequently picking on newer members. Just a few points about the rest of your post:

You will notice that when a mod closes a thread, it's almost always because constructive discussion had ended.

As for the profanity, I really like that this site discourages it. I hate having to read through posts with a ton of rude words. Why not have a profanity filter? It makes the site a better place to be, particularly for young members.

Spam is annoying, and it crowds the front page. The mods get rid of spam for the same reason you would try to filter spam on your email. It's even more annoying on a forum because a person cannot tell by the title if a post is spam.

Are you an anarchist or something?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> You will notice that when a mod closes a thread, it's almost always because constructive discussion had ended.


I disagree. A closed thread usually just means the mods don't like what's going on, whether it's "constructive" or not. I can remember several times where I wanted to continue talking in a thread but it had been closed.



XTowncuber said:


> As for the profanity, I really like that this site discourages it. I hate having to read through posts with a ton of rude words. Why not have a profanity filter? It makes the site a better place to be, particularly for young members.


I can understand that, but it just makes things confusing sometimes, like when words such as id iot are in the filter. I think it should include fewer words, and if someone posts something really bad, you can just report it anyway.



XTowncuber said:


> Spam is annoying, and it crowds the front page. The mods get rid of spam for the same reason you would try to filter spam on your email. It's even more annoying on a forum because a person cannot tell by the title if a post is spam.


It's not just actual spam that's annoying. Certain users have many hundreds of posts and yet almost no content in any of them. How come those people stay on the forum and don't even get temporarily banned from time to time, while someone like ben (who knows a lot, who has programmed his own simulators, and who is one of the driving forces behind a set of unofficial events becoming popular) can't stay? If the mods do something that follows the rules but hurts the community, is it still the correct action?

Basically the question is, do we value the people who know stuff and create new things, or the people who can follow the rules? And which *should* we value?


----------



## ThomasJE (Apr 14, 2014)

qqwref said:


> It's not just actual spam that's annoying. Certain users have many hundreds of posts and yet almost no content in any of them. How come those people stay on the forum and don't even get temporarily banned from time to time, while someone like ben (who knows a lot, who has programmed his own simulators, and who is one of the driving forces behind a set of unofficial events becoming popular) can't stay? If the mods do something that follows the rules but hurts the community, is it still the correct action?



From the posts that I have seen, Ben often flamed new users that had not had the chance to integrate within the community before that maybe did not know as much as others. I believe that this and the fact that some of his posts were unreadable were some of the factors that got him banned (mods please correct me if I'm wrong).

Ben does know a lot, and is a very active member of the community. Even after he was banned, he was still making updates to his 15 puzzle simulator and giving them to soup to upload and post on his behalf. Maybe he should have *one* last chance, but it shouldn't be up to him to create a new account; it should be up to the mods to decide and to Ben to prove that he can once again be the polite member of our community that was always coming up with new ideas.



qqwref said:


> Basically the question is, do we value the people who know stuff and create new things, or the people who can follow the rules? And which *should* we value?



Both. We don't particularly want people who are knowledgeable but impolite, and people who contribute nothing but are polite and courteous while doing it are not of much value to the community. There needs to be a fine balance between the two.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 15, 2014)

> You will notice that when a mod closes a thread, it's almost always because constructive discussion had ended.



"Constructive" is arbitrary. Just because a thread isn't "actively adding to the knowledge of the speedsolving community" doesn't mean it isn't constructive. People enjoy casually discussing things. If people didn't enjoy posting on those threads, they wouldn't, and I think that the enjoyment alone makes posting "constructive." This isn't a classroom. If someone has fun with a conversation, I don't think the mods need to go close it just because they think there isn't a point to the discussion. If nothing else, having other speedcubers to talk to and be motivated by keeps people interested, and leads to people wanting to push the boundaries of cubing and innovate. It's not pointless. 



> As for the profanity, I really like that this site discourages it. I hate having to read through posts with a ton of rude words. Why not have a profanity filter? It makes the site a better place to be, particularly for young members.



The profanity filter doesn't even work. It censors words like (remove the spaces in the middle) boas tful, and distrus tful, just because of a four letter sequence in the middle of it that's considered profane. Which is annoying. It also doesn't prevent people from being rude. Kirjava and company just think of worse things to say. 

As for the stuff about Ben, maybe he was. I don't know. His time on here predated any of mine. But I'm in a cubing group with him on facebook, and still see how he talks and how he acts towards others. He's a cool guy. Does a bunch of cool puzzles. Grammar isn't amazing, but not as bad as it was, and I've never seen him pick on another person other than as a joke.

EDIT: should've read qq's post before replying. We said some similar stuff. 



> Basically the question is, do we value the people who know stuff and create new things, or the people who can follow the rules? And which *should* we value?



Exactly.


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 15, 2014)

If you think mods stick 100% to those rules you're wrong.

I think a similar user would be Kirjava, contributes a LOT, but has also come on speedsolving drunk numerous times and posted random crap and "suggestive" pictures. I'm sure if Kirjava wasn't constructive he would've been permabanned by now too. Why is an exception made for him and not Ben?

(For the record I disagree with either being banned as they've both been more constructive than the majority of users)


----------



## XTowncuber (Apr 15, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I'm a bit late to this, but whatever. Still want to say stuff.
> 
> The moderation team is pretty unnecessary and doesn't improve the forum much IMO. Banning someone just because they don't use good grammar is dumb. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to post. The forum rules in general are way too stringent for what this forum is. All the post merging and thread merging that the mods do is a tiny bit useful, but it's absolutely not worth their time. It's also irritating seeing the occasional power hungry mod warn people about bickering and close threads whenever anyone becomes opinionated. And we don't need a profanity filter. Anyone who's old enough to discuss puzzle theory knows what the words mean anyway. The forum rules are *stupid.*
> 
> ...



I'm really surprised at the amount of people expressing agreement with this. I never have felt that the moderators were not doing their job properly.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Apr 15, 2014)

If they were to ban someone based on grammar, then Antoine Faz Fan, Michael Womack, and my past self would have been permabanned by now. 

From what I see at this point, spam/bad troll threads are being removed (and some of the users who replied to mess with the troll, were banned as well.


I do see the mods working, but some don't really take the responsibility as in what the COMMUNITY thinks of the rules.. This forum mainly went from a loose end fun fest to primarily discussion.... I notice that the mods want the forum to look professional and family friendly. 

Look, people are going to argue and insult. As long as it doesn't get vulgar and it has a point, keep it.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 15, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> I'm really surprised at the amount of people expressing agreement with this. *I never have felt that the moderators were not doing their job properly.*



The entire point I was making is that they don't even *have* a job to do properly. It's a pointless job. It's not that they're doing it improperly, just that it's unneccesary.

I guess it really depends on what you want from the forum. Maybe the moderation guidelines should be more category based. I'd be fine with having these rules on constructive speedcubing, puzzle theory, and private forum. For the most part, they aren't neccesary elsewhere.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Apr 15, 2014)

I am assuming their job is to keep everything that is "worth discussing" up. The community is quickly spreading... It isn't just notable speedcubers anymore..


----------



## XTowncuber (Apr 15, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> The entire point I was making is that they don't even *have* a job to do properly. It's a pointless job. It's not that they're doing it improperly, just that it's unneccesary.
> 
> I guess it really depends on what you want from the forum. Maybe the moderation guidelines should be more category based. I'd be fine with having these rules on constructive speedcubing, puzzle theory, and private forum. For the most part, they aren't neccesary elsewhere.


So...in all the rest of the forums people could post whatever they want just as fast as they can type it? You realize that that wouldn't go well, don't you?

As I originally suspected, an anarchist through and through.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 15, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> So...in all the rest of the forums people could post whatever they want just as fast as they can type it? You realize that that wouldn't go well, don't you?
> 
> As I originally suspected, an anarchist through and through.



If anyone gets too ridiculous, then yes. They should be banned. I don't think most people need the rules in order to not cross the line.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 17, 2014)

The key thing to keep in mind when posting is that Speedsolving.com is a family-friendly forum for the cubing community. The cubing community consists of many young people, and it's important that the forums are a safe place for them to post. This isn't Facebook or YouTube where you can say something offensive or harass someone and get away with it. It's important to us that users feel safe here. The Forum Rules are what they are for a reason. If you have concerns about specific Rules, feel free to address them.



qqwref said:


> I disagree. A closed thread usually just means the mods don't like what's going on, whether it's "constructive" or not. I can remember several times where I wanted to continue talking in a thread but it had been closed.


Did you ever report these threads to ask why there were closed? When we close threads, they're never because we just don't like them. If we don't like them, there's a good reason behind it, and it's not always obvious.



qqwref said:


> I can understand that, but it just makes things confusing sometimes, like when words such as id iot are in the filter. I think it should include fewer words, and if someone posts something really bad, you can just report it anyway.


When Brest became an Admin, he removed words like "idiot" from the filter. The purpose of the filter is to hide words that are vulgar, inappropriate, offensive and profane. If a word is hidden from the filter, you shouldn't be using them. If you think that there are words in filter that shouldn't be there, ask an Admin about it.



IRNjuggle28 said:


> The profanity filter doesn't even work. It censors words like (remove the spaces in the middle) boas tful, and distrus tful, just because of a four letter sequence in the middle of it that's considered profane. Which is annoying.


This isn't even true. I don't recall whether it was like this in the past, but it certainly hasn't been recently.

boastful 
distrustful



IRNjuggle28 said:


> The entire point I was making is that they don't even *have* a job to do properly. It's a pointless job. It's not that they're doing it improperly, just that it's unneccesary.


It sounds like you don't know what a moderator's jobs actually are.


----------



## KongShou (Apr 17, 2014)

Whilst I really appreciate the time and effort mods put into this forum, and by that I really do mean it, I think some stuff has gone way overboard. 

Threads shouldn't be closed. As long as the title of the thread is appropriate and has an appropriate subject, the discussion should carry on. If there's people trolling or spamming, warn them or ban them. Do't close the whole thread so that the rest of us who has something to contribute can't post. 

I still don't see why Ben was and still is banned. There was never a proper explanation and we lost one of our most regular contributing member. The stuff he has contributed far far outweight any annoyance he causes. 

Thread merging are useful and the strict no-double-posting rule, whilst being really irritating at times, do have lots of benefit. This is where the mods have done a very good job imo. But sometimes posts are deleted. There might be a justification, there might be a really good reason, but if the post doesn't do any harm, why delete it? I can think of numerous cases where my posts(and other peoples) are just deleted. Other members also expressed their dissatisfaction, not on this forum but in private emails and messages(not PM on this forum). Some times the mods are far too strict and this cause quite a bit of pain. The line between spam and a post that dont contribute much, but still says something, is very blurred. There are many posts which is basically spam, like "wow you sub 15'd there!, gj!", which is ignored, but stuff like arguments are deleted, whole pages are sometime deleted, simply because they are arguments, and therefore off topic. 

The filters are quite annoying but i dont mind them being there, although they don't stop childrens being exposed to offensive language at all. 

I hope the forum can be slightly less stringent.


----------



## TDM (Apr 17, 2014)

I agree with basically everything in your post.


KongShou said:


> I still don't see why Ben was and still is banned. There was never a proper explanation and we lost one of our most regular contributing member.


There was a pastebin and a page of discussion, but everything mysteriously disappeared...


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> I still don't see why Ben was and still is banned. There was never a proper explanation and we lost one of our most regular contributing member. The stuff he has contributed far far outweight any annoyance he causes.


If you were banned, would you want the exact reasons being public? No one needs to know the reasons behind Ben's ban, especially since he's just 17. FYI, It has nothing to do with the way he was typing.



TDM said:


> There was a pastebin and a page of discussion, but everything mysteriously disappeared...


Yes, right after he was banned, there was a discussion in the Random Cubing Discussion thread, which I and another mod cleaned out. The posts were deleted because there was a lot of false information.



KongShou said:


> Threads shouldn't be closed. As long as the title of the thread is appropriate and has an appropriate subject, the discussion should carry on. If there's people trolling or spamming, warn them or ban them. Do't close the whole thread so that the rest of us who has something to contribute can't post.


Can you give examples? If you ever feel a thread was wrongly closed, just ask about it. Seriously, we're not evil.



KongShou said:


> There are many posts which is basically spam, like "wow you sub 15'd there!, gj!", which is ignored, but stuff like arguments are deleted, whole pages are sometime deleted, simply because they are arguments, and therefore off topic.


Spam posts differ depending on the thread and the subforum. Posts like "wow you sub 15'd there!, gj!" are fine in the video gallery.

When something isn't deleted, it doesn't mean it's not spam. We don't have the time to go through every single thread, and when things aren't reported they are often missed.


----------



## KongShou (Apr 17, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> If you were banned, would you want the exact reasons being public? No one needs to know the reasons behind Ben's ban, especially since he's just 17. FYI, It has nothing to do with the way he was typing.
> 
> 
> Yes, right after he was banned, there was a discussion in the Random Cubing Discussion thread, which I and another mod cleaned out. The posts were deleted because there was a lot of false information.



Im sorry but if I was permabanned I would probably want people to know why. Of course, it depends on the circumstances and I respect that ben might have asked you to keep it secret. I personally never asked him. I feel that if its something he want us to know, he would tell us.

Interesting. I never mentioned his age. How does him being 17 have anything to do with this? Intrigued. But it's probably best if I don't find out. 

Tbf sarah it was just a script from some random chatroom. I don't dislike you at all but I don't see why anyone would fake a chatroom history. Especially the person who provided the info and the link (who I probably shouldn't name) gained nothing from this. I do respect that the script isn't the whole story and it is probably more complicated than that. 



Sa967St said:


> Can you give examples? If you ever feel a thread was wrongly closed, just ask about it. Seriously, we're not evil.
> 
> 
> Spam posts differ depending on the thread and the subforum. Posts like "wow you sub 15'd there!, gj!" are fine in the video gallery.
> ...



Yeah thanks I'll ask the next time when I feel something is wrongly deleted.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 17, 2014)

KongShou said:


> Im sorry but if I was permabanned I would probably want people to know why. Of course, it depends on the circumstances and I respect that ben might have asked you to keep it secret. I personally never asked him. I feel that if its something he want us to know, he would tell us.
> 
> Interesting. I never mentioned his age. How does him being 17 have anything to do with this? Intrigued. But it's probably best if I don't find out.



The short answer is that having something very negative about you public on the Internet can seriously hurt your reputation in real life.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> Did you ever report these threads to ask why there were closed?


Wait, what? I thought closed meant you guys had already dealt with it, and were one step short of deleting it completely, and definitely didn't want to see anything related to that thread pop up anymore. Are you sure you guys would be OK with a report like this?



Sa967St said:


> When Brest became an Admin, he removed words like "idiot" from the filter. The purpose of the filter is to hide words that are vulgar, inappropriate, offensive and profane. If a word is hidden from the filter, you shouldn't be using them. If you think that there are words in filter that shouldn't be there, ask an Admin about it.


OK, it's good that he removed words like that. Anyway, I thought the official position was like your 3rd sentence (the filter is final, no discussion, do not use these words) as opposed to your 4th sentence which kinda contradicts it (if you think the filter should be changed, just let us know and we'll think about it). So I'm confused now, do you want input or not?



KongShou said:


> Some times the mods are far too strict and this cause quite a bit of pain. The line between spam and a post that dont contribute much, but still says something, is very blurred. There are many posts which is basically spam, like "wow you sub 15'd there!, gj!", which is ignored, but stuff like arguments are deleted, whole pages are sometime deleted, simply because they are arguments, and therefore off topic.


Yeah, I agree. As a non-moderator it's hard to tell what got deleted, and sometimes I come back to the thread and a ton of stuff is gone, including stuff I thought was useful. Sometimes the explanation is that the posts were off-topic, but topics can shift into other (sometimes more interesting) directions and this doesn't mean the offending part should be removed. I've also seen explanations like posts are not contributing, but in an argument, couldn't someone use that to justify removing anything they don't like?


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 18, 2014)

Maybe have a filter option, where by default a filter is on but you can turn it off? Endless swearing is pointless but when used sparingly, can be used to add emphasis or style.

Abusive swearing, "you're a ******* moron" would still be against the rules.


----------



## TDM (Apr 18, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> Yes, right after he was banned, there was a discussion in the Random Cubing Discussion thread, which I and another mod cleaned out. The posts were deleted because there was a lot of false information.


Imo, you should've said it was false information rather than deleting everything and saying nothing about it, making it look like you were trying to hide what had happened.


----------



## sellingseals (Apr 18, 2014)

In my opinion, what it comes down to is that we're all guests here. This isn't my forum, and it's not your forum. There are rules, the same way that every website has. If you don't agree with the rules or don't think you can follow them, move on.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 18, 2014)

Any further posts not about the Forum Rules will be deleted. If you need to continue other discussions, please kindly do so through Private messaging or some other means.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2014)

sellingseals said:


> In my opinion, what it comes down to is that we're all guests here. This isn't my forum, and it's not your forum. There are rules, the same way that every website has. If you don't agree with the rules or don't think you can follow them, move on.


I, for one, do not particularly fancy being part of a dictatorship. Some people may think like this but the truth is that Speedsolving has been the hub of the English-speaking cubing community for a long time. It is important enough to cubing that it does not just belong to the forum owners anymore - because of all the experts who post here, all the valuable content and discussion, and the organization, this site is far more important to cubing as a resource than to the owner or moderators as a simple website. Asking someone to "move on" from speedsolving is more or less asking them to quit publicly cubing. My point is that if the people in charge care about cubing - and they absolutely do - it is not right to use their position to do something that would hugely harm the community. (And I'm not talking about Ben here, I just mean how things should be set up in general.)


About how the rules should be followed (meta-discussion?) I want to reiterate something I said before: "do we value the people who know stuff and create new things, or the people who can follow the rules?" Of course, when someone is both or neither, the decision is easy. But when you can only get one, you should value the first one. And I think historically that's what we've done, which is why Stefan and Kirjava (and others) have been around for so long.


----------



## sellingseals (Apr 18, 2014)

qqwref said:


> I, for one, do not particularly fancy being part of a dictatorship. Some people may think like this but the truth is that Speedsolving has been the hub of the English-speaking cubing community for a long time. It is important enough to cubing that it does not just belong to the forum owners anymore - because of all the experts who post here, all the valuable content and discussion, and the organization, this site is far more important to cubing as a resource than to the owner or moderators as a simple website. Asking someone to "move on" from speedsolving is more or less asking them to quit publicly cubing. My point is that if the people in charge care about cubing - and they absolutely do - it is not right to use their position to do something that would hugely harm the community. (And I'm not talking about Ben here, I just mean how things should be set up in general.)
> 
> 
> About how the rules should be followed (meta-discussion?) I want to reiterate something I said before: "do we value the people who know stuff and create new things, or the people who can follow the rules?" Of course, when someone is both or neither, the decision is easy. But when you can only get one, you should value the first one. And I think historically that's what we've done, which is why Stefan and Kirjava (and others) have been around for so long.



Well no, in fact this site does belong to somebody, and that somebody has given trust to certain individuals that are there to enforce the rules. There are rules for a reason. There is no reason that someday shouldn't be able to follow the rules. The guidelines set on this website are very fair, and very easy to follow. After looking them over, for the most part they are rules that enforce positive thinking and just a general positive environment. If people can't follow those rules, they are probably just being mean. I would say it again, if you can't follow these very easy to follow rules, then leave. They are not hard to follow, and they are there for a reason.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 19, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> The key thing to keep in mind when posting is that Speedsolving.com is a family-friendly forum for the cubing community. The cubing community consists of many young people, and it's important that the forums are a safe place for them to post. This isn't Facebook or YouTube where you can say something offensive or harass someone and get away with it. It's important to us that users feel safe here. The Forum Rules are what they are for a reason. If you have concerns about specific Rules, feel free to address them.
> 
> 
> Did you ever report these threads to ask why there were closed? When we close threads, they're never because we just don't like them. If we don't like them, there's a good reason behind it, and it's not always obvious.
> ...



No, I don't report threads asking why they're closed. I don't assume that me simply asking "why is this closed" is going to get it opened again, and am not intererested with arguing with mods just to get to post on a thread. Not worth it.

Boastful happened on a thread by Oliver Frost on how to memorize using letter pairs. Distrustful happened on Jacob Hutnyk's 23.08 4x4 single where the "fake" argument happened. Ollie's thread was not that recent; Jacob's was just a few weeks ago. 

I don't think we need an automatic filter. Comments that are extremely profane are rare enough that they can just be reported individually. Sure, it's more work for mods, but I doubt many people are really going to post anything that vulgar. And if they do, they'll get banned. 



> It sounds like you don't know what a moderator's jobs actually are.


 Yeah, true enough. I shouldn't assume that I do. Let me rephrase my statement: lots of the things that mods do publicly seem unimportant or plain annoying. I'm sure you all do plenty of good things that we never see.


----------



## ChickenWrap (Apr 19, 2014)

I like the change that considers posts with only "GJ" or another useless single word to be spam. We all know that was a good solve, so we don't need 10 people to point it out!


----------



## sellingseals (Apr 19, 2014)

cmowla said:


> To believe it or not, there are people you would call "mean" who actually have good intentions with their "cruelty". It's just their way of expressing themselves when someone posts something not constructive or dumb. When they rebel against authority when confronted from doing so, it's because they are frustrated that the authorities fail to see their good intentions because they assume that the authorities _should_ have an open mind to understanding a variety of different backgrounds since they put themselves in a position to lead the entire community.
> 
> There are some individuals who are (or were) ahead of their time, no matter what the subject matter is. For cubing, if we ban them from the SS forums (which, if they are especially an high-contributing and active member), we could in fact take a part of them away which fuels/drives them to discover more. Therefore banning such individuals can put a dent in the evolution of puzzle theory (including speedcubing stuff, not just math stuff) which will most likely take several years, decades, or never (if the cubing community dies like it did before) for someone else to come along, who can follow the rules, that can contribute.
> 
> ...



Ok. I understand now. We are to allow people to be cruel to other people because they might have something else to offer, or MIGHT come up with something helpful in the future, so that makes it ok. That makes perfect sense now. When people are mean... but do it with good intentions... Yes. I agree. That is the best way to go about things. To be mean about it. A lot of sarcasm just went on there. 

Your analogy isn't quite fitting either. I'm not sitting here saying people have to change for my liking. I'm saying this website seems to have some guidelines and rules that are easy to follow. For the most part, they are designed to keep this place civil and nice. You're rebuttal to that is to basically say who cares, people can be mean because they might do something worthy in time. I'm sure if it's worthy enough, people will hear about it regardless. 

I can see you thought this through, and you seem like an intelligent person, but unfortunately I can't understand the logic you have presented. Let them be mean because they might be mean with good intentions, even though they could just as easily been nice about it instead, therefor not breaking these easy rules to follow, just in case they happen to have something to offer later on. That makes perfect sense.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 19, 2014)

sellingseals said:


> Ok. I understand now.


That's great. My post wasn't for anything else but to _try_ to give you a different perspective of what possibly is going on here besides the idea you have that people are just being rebels.

I personally do not like this kind of behavior we are talking about, but I have both seen victims and have been a victim of this behavior (so I have had a lot of time to think it over and try to understand why this phenomena happens besides resorting to the easy assumption of rebelliousness), *but who said that the rules are easy to follow for everyone*? Maybe for you and I, but not for everyone. Try to be in someone else's shoes...you don't know who they are or where they have been.

Even I, a person who depends on rules to follow, can remember many times when I got into an argument on this forum, even if I carefully tried to write something so it wouldn't seem offensive, I still would fail: people would misunderstand me. So now, I learned that when you want to be "nice" in everyone's eyes, you have to pretend you're talking to a sensitive 5 year-old. With me even saying this, I have to think, "is this really necessary?". Of course, the answer is "yes", but there is an urge in me which begs to differ. It is in that moment of aggravation, disbelief, and blood boiling that I have to imagine that I have the power to kill someone with words or tickle them to death with words. Either way resolves the issue, so at that point I just choose the latter because big brother is more happy with that one...

However, when I read my posts a month or two later, I understood how someone still might take my posts to be offensive if I pictured them having a _negative_ picture of who I am. But for people who cannot learn as fast as I can or are unable to change as fast as I can will have problems learning to write like this in time before a ban, especially if there is a flame war.

Ever heard of Genie the wild child? That's a little extreme to describe members here, but that should give you an idea that some people really can't help/hold themselves from behaving a certain way based on their environment. We cannot expect everyone to be as tamed as we are.

EDIT:
Being nice to people with words on the forum who deserve otherwise kind of reminds me of this episode of the Twilight Zone, if you have ever seen it. I have become pretty good at restricting what comes out from my fingers, but it's not a practice everyone is accustomed to or feel that it's really necessary to do because they have hope that the person they are talking to just might have the capacity to understand what they are trying to say without them spending 15 minutes on a post that should be writable in 2 minutes.

You've probably noticed, but my posts are long and detailed (can I get an "amen", Stefan? LOL). Another good practice is to write longer posts which explain your intentions and, of course, constantly apologize around any sentences which could be taken as offensive. People who do not want to type out a lot of text might be taken to be offensive because they do not take the time to explain their intention but make the assumption that the other person understands their intention.


----------



## elrog (Apr 20, 2014)

"To believe it or not, there are people you would call "mean" who actually have good intentions with their "cruelty". It's just their way of expressing themselves when someone posts something not constructive or dumb. When they rebel against authority when confronted from doing so, it's because they are frustrated that the authorities fail to see their good intentions because they assume that the authorities _should_ have an open mind to understanding a variety of different backgrounds since they put themselves in a position to lead the entire community."


Many times I see this situation happen when a new member/inexperienced is asking a dumb question. Anyone who thinks being mean or cruel will teach them better is completely mistaken. People are more likely to listen if you explain things to them and they will learn better when they listen. You make the argument that we shouldn't be driving these people off, but what if that "misfit genius" if allowed to stay would have drove off another "genius" before they got fully indulged into the forums?

As for the filter, I don't see why it is ever necessary to use vulgar language. There is no situation that you should need to use vulgar language to emphasize anything (assuming it is cubing related). If you did get rid of the filter, you'd also see a lot more people using vulgar language just because they could. The filter is fine and it needs to stay.

I am really surprised at the reactions to this thread. I am completely on the moderators side from everything I've read in this thread up to this point.


----------



## Escher (Apr 20, 2014)

Funnily enough, the last 8 hours of posting here provide a perfect example of why moderation on this forum is necessary, even Godwin's Law was observed (but from what I've seen I think Dene does that on purpose <3 ).

My personal view is that profanity, while an awesome section of language and should be used liberally with great vigour most of the time, is not a good thing to have on a community for people who just left primary school, simply for the parental factor. I don't want overly protective parents to be stopping young new cubers from joining this community because they see some profanity. I still think being sensitive to cursing is extremely stupid in general but I don't mind sacrificing that privilege here. 

I don't browse enough to feel at all justified in throwing my personal opinion out there on Ben's ban, but there's probably a bit more going on if he has as yet unpoliced alts via proxy. I'm happy with the current rate of bans, and Kirjava's is probably a 5 day one fyi. Personally I'd rather the ban lengths in general were a little shorter, simply because the banning criteria can't explicitly rule out things that are 'clearly jokes' and must still punish them if they are relatively significant infractions.

Regarding the argument Cmowla brought up about evolution of the sport and whatnot - I don't think talent has anything to do with it. I would much rather we waited another couple of years for someone to come up with 'x needed program/method' than have one released now written by a bully who thinned out the field of new members to this community through his attitude. I remember when several people who are now considered the best of the best joining this forum, and some of them were complete nabs. There are plenty of users here who would be ashamed if you dug into their submitted threads history and went way back to around their joining date. Point being growth of the hobby > increasing depth of current knowledge, since the former eventually improves the latter.

As for the final argument... It's rarely a case that new users need yelling at. I think a stern detailed PM from a moderator does more than some other user/s publicly telling them they're an idiot for say, not understanding how EO works and spamming their method idea in 10 locations. Most of the time, if 'not being rude' is apparently equivalent to 'acting like pansies', I think it's pretty much fine to be a community of pansies.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 20, 2014)

I don't want us to become a community that rewards people who can post nothing pleasantly. I'm not the only one who remembers how it used to be, and it's not unreasonable to occasionally be frustrated or annoyed at people who have several hundred posts of misspelled garbage. Sure, it's possible that moderators send "a stern detailed PM" and get people to improve, but I doubt it. I tend to see the same people making low-quality posts for months or longer, which just makes me think nothing is being done. Escher claims everything will be developed eventually, so there's no loss. Will it, though, if we get rid of those who are looking for worthwhile discussion? The fact is, smarter people want to be with other smarter people, and have less tolerance for stupidity. And drama happens. Ban people for a few days if they need to chill out, sure, but when bans get to a month or longer it brings up the question of what we want the forum to look like.

I don't want to be embarrassed when I see other cubers. I want to be in a place where there is room for smart people even if they may not have perfect social skills or make friends with everyone they meet. I want to be in a place where people care about post quality, and where interesting debates can come up without having to worry that everything they say might offend the other side, or that the whole thing will get deleted for not precisely adhering to the title of the topic. And speedsolving being what it is, there is no great alternative, so we should work together to improve the community, by fixing the problem rather than the people who are frustrated by the problem.


----------



## Escher (Apr 21, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Escher claims everything will be developed eventually, so there's no loss.



(I agree with most of your sentiments btw)

More of a loose assertion than a statement of fact - I just think that if the assertion is true that more conduct rules = less developers, I'd rather have a growing community composed of a wide variety of people benefiting from cube developments as opposed to a smaller community with more developments but less scope for growth. 

Sure, there's an argument that the 'smarter, obsessed but rude' group would get more total enjoyment than a diluted group might but I'd rather we had more people to spend money and drive hardware developments and public visibility. I really do think the environment of speedsolving.com has a pretty reasonable effect on the growth of the future economy of the hobby, and for that reason I think being careful about allowing too much 'anti-social behaviour' is wise. 

It's just I agree completely with the 'spirit' of the rules and the reasons they exist are imo quite important - I don't want that to be forgotten if the community voice calls for a rework. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with noobs/newbs. I was a horrific poster in 2008, but it was only a couple of years later I went on a thread spree and I think I helped the community build a foundation for discussing deliberate practise. To me it's just a case of creating a few well-policed environments for those who want small/closed, expert discussions to happen.

As an aside, as much as I think it myself, I do find those 'the old days of this community were better' sentiments quite amusing - it seems to be a mainstaple of any old poster on pretty much any small and growing online community - I've seen it in so many obscure subreddits and forums.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 15, 2014)

An idea I came up with is having the profanity filter be an off/on account option. Anybody who doesn't want to see it can choose to turn profanity into ****, and people who don't mind it can use it. Is that doable?


----------

