Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

So it has been decided:

1: 8
2: 0
3: 0

Before I vote I'd like a response from RU on that matter and how far their legal research is. Because there was lots of time to do the research but apparently to no result.

If they can't get legal advice soon, I personally strongly recommend force-switching to BY-SA.

Also I think only Primary Contacts should vote, as this is an important matter.

It's been some time since this was discussed, and I think we should have a further vote on what to do. I've got a few alternative options here so it's not the same numbering Grom used.

1. Keep their hub, but move it to the unofficial section. Change the license on the page to the correct cc c-by-sa 3.0 license. SCP-EN's recommendation to our sister sites still linking to SCP-RU in an official fashion remains removing said linkage

2. Keep hub mostly as-is, with the licensing corrected. Put up a notice on page hub. Main site still recommends removing official linkage.

3. Do nothing yet other than correct the licensing on their -INT page hub.

4. Keep the present status quo

5. Moving their hub page without any kind of alteration to it.

If this is the wrong way to restart a vote consider these points for furthering discussion. If the SCP-RU team has any further updates in their own licensing process I encourage them to post them here.

Note that nothing here proposes deleting-RU content, as that would almost certainly be a sticking point in reconciliation.

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

This looks solid to me. It's important that everyone responsible for enforcing it becomes familiar with it so we don't end up with multiple iterations floating around. I don't expect we'll have problems with our group but it's important enough to be stated regardless.

I'm in favor of 1.

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Hm.. didnt RogetRoget wanted to say something on topic…?

Anyway, 1 for me please.

Great 10+ hours job by Grom, as usual. I'm all for implementing this, so

I vote 1.


If there are no objections, we should start voting:

  1. We bring this guideline into use.
  2. We do not bring this guideline into use.
  3. We bring it into use, but…

This is great! Makes it so much easier to know how to moderate. Thanks!

EDIT: One suggestion I have is a system used by some other discussion boards: That when staff members are taking disciplinary actions, they should append their posts with "ADMIN:" or "MODERATOR:", to let the user know that we are telling this to them in our capacity as staff and not just as private people stating our opinions. It'll also be easier for users to distinguish our regular opinions and discussions from our professional actions, which helps users know when its okay to discuss and debate opinions with staff and when they shouldn't arguing against a disciplinary action.

I agree, but also im strongly for option to appeal bans. I think that users should be informed how to appeal.

But that guide is more than i wanted, great job Grom.

So it has become apparent that we need a disciplinary guide to aid our chat staff to choose the right measure, and to bring some security to the users.

This is my proposal:

Demand: Before taking any action, staff has to demand that the offending user stops doing the offending thing. This does not have to be logged and has no direct consequences. When making an administrative post, like a demand or a warning, you have to mark them as such, e.g. by beginning your post with “<Administrative Post>” or so.

Warning: A warning is used to let a user know their offense is not going to be tolerated anymore. Use a distinctive phrasing, e.g. “Hereby I officially warn you for continuously talking about your ass hair!”. A warning should be preceded by the demand (not) to do something.

A warning is exactly that: a warning. Everything except some forms of emergency ban should be preceded by a warning. Warnings should be logged in the staff channel and a warning-log on the O5-wiki. In this and any other logs, also log their profile ID (e.g. Grom#7303). To get this ID, either copy it manually from their profile or copy the text that appears when pinging them (for some reason you can't copy the ID from their profile).

Kick: A kick is a mix of warning and ban. The user is removed from the chat but can reenter without delay through one of the invitation links. Though many users don't seem to know that. It lets them know we are serious and gives them a preview of the hammering. If they are not serious about their membership, they won't come back.

A kick must be preceded by a warning. Also bans should be preceded by a kick. It has to be logged in the staff channel, a kick-log and a disciplinary thread for the user on the O5-wiki. You must inform the user about the reason for the kick in the kick-window.

Ban: A ban is the maximum disciplinary action we can take. It removes the user from chat and locks them out until we decide to lift the ban. It usually is the result of a user not changing offensive behavior after a kick.

Any regular ban has to be preceded by a kick. It must be logged in the staff channel and the user's disciplinary thread. There also has to be created a timer on a timer-page about when to lift the ban. Before banning someone, you should ask the other staff members who are online in the staff channel for their opinion (use @here). You must inform the user about the reason for the ban in the ban-window. Set it not to delete anything. If posts have to be removed, do it manually and only posts containing offensive or frightening (for people with certain known phobias (I know of arachnophobia and lupophobia) content. Also check again that you are banning the right user.

In the disciplinary thread, staff members may discuss a ban period differing from those below. A ban can be lifted before the period is over by voting.

The periods for banishment should be the following, incrementing to the next period if the user is banned multiple times (if the user is banned for a different offense, the ban-period may begin by 1. again):

  1. 24 hours (or < 24 hours in case of minor offenses that rather require a really hard kick)
  2. 1 week
  3. 1 month
  4. 1 year
  5. perma

Somebody who hasn't learned it after the whole disciplinary escalation is rather not welcome I'd say. Everybody banned for over 24 hours may appeal their ban by PM to the staff member of their trust. If they are a pain in the ass, the staff member may block them though. The staff member forwards the discussion they have to the forum and the staff channel.

Branches may request that certain users they have banned on their branch is to be banned here as well. Open a disciplinary thread and explain the situation there.

Emergency ban: An emergency ban is a ban for an offense that doesn't allow for the usual lengthy procedure, for example:

  • Criminal offenses e.g. posting child porn, links to drug-shops etc. [perma]
  • Malicious content, like malware, links to infected sites etc. [perma]
  • Immediately continuing an offense after being kicked
  • Being a bot not invited by staff [perma]
  • Inviting a bot without asking staff first
  • Abusive behavior as a staff member
  • Advertising without asking staff first
  • Being below the minimum age for the chat (which Dr GrymDr Grym as the legal owner has to set in accordance with French law) [until they are old enough]
  • Having lied about their age to get into NSFW-channel [perma]

Apart from that, emergency bans are like regular bans. If there is enough time, talk to other online staff members first. Also in case of offenses not resulting in perma, you should warn them first. If other staff is not responding and banishment becomes necessary, just do it.

Informing authorities: This isn't really a disciplinary action, this is to not making ourselves chargeable. Offenses that we probably have to bring up to the authorities are e.g. child porn, links to drug-shops, links to other criminal sites etc. It is probably up to Grym to report to French police in any case, and a staff member from the homecountry of the offender, if that is known.

What is an offense: Everything that is annoying, abusing or illegal. In short, everything breaking rule #1 (Don't be a dick!) is an offense.

The most common offense we will encounter is shitposting. But what exactly is shitposting? Well, it's to post shit. Posting for the sake of posting, without any message, without coherence or just being annoying. A good indicator is that non-staff users are asking a offender to stop.

What is not an offense:

  • Not being a member of any wiki (should use the tag of the branch they are most often visiting)
    • I'd like to make an exemption for Philippine users. They are not having a wiki afaik, but a very active facebook group. I'd say they can use “-PH”.
  • Not using their Wikidot-nick as their nickname on discord (though this would be useful)
  • Thinking the Foundation is real. I mean, lots of us had at least doubts when we first encountered the Foundation (though playing inconvincible may be counted as an offense).
  • Having an unpopular opinion. We are a group of people from different countries, with different cultures and different perceptions of what is normal. Everybody is free to state and discuss their opinion if they do it in a civilized and respecting matter. This requirement also applies for staff members.
  • Being offensive unintentionally. Again, what is normal to some can be offensive to others and not everyone can express themselves well in English. Explain them their mistake in a respectful way, no matter how hard you are offended. If you can't, ask another staff member to do so.
  • Being offensive outside of the INT wiki or chat. We are not responsible for Wikidots or Discords private messages or the chats of other branches.
Re: raloibsp1
NederbirdNederbird 10 Jul 2017 21:06
in discussion O5-Forum / User related » raloibsp1

I see. It was a mistake of me to ban them, then. First, I thought the guidelines said that you need to be affiliated. Second, I suppose I was swept up in the negative moods following his post. I believe the ban was 24 hours, but I'm not sure. I'll see to it that it gets removed either way.

Re: raloibsp1 by NederbirdNederbird, 10 Jul 2017 21:06
Re: raloibsp1
wanna-amigowanna-amigo 10 Jul 2017 20:26
in discussion O5-Forum / User related » raloibsp1

Since logs are deleted, here are my point based on what i can find.

Perceive shitposting

Logs will be nice. I dont belive it was emergency ban tbh. there should be kick at most.

Lacking a country tag

I think that lacking it dont warrant even a kick. Admins can force change users nick to add country nick, and it should be done here.

Not being affiliated with any SCPF branch

Quoting chat guidliness: #SCP-INT is open to everyone! You don't need to be a member of the wiki to join. ~

So it never should be a reason to ban or kick anyone. Nowhere is said "you must be a member of SCP to join".

As well nowhere is said "your nick must be same as wikidot nick", and i saw some people talking otherwise (if somedoby needs logs as proof please ask). Just a two cents on that topic.

As well, err, how long is the ban? Perma? And user was informed about it (how long, what user can do while banned, how to rejoin/ appeal (if we handle it) etc? If not i volunter to try to do so)?

With that said, im for remove of the ban until i will be able to see logs of said incident (shitposts), but even then i belive ban shouldnt be more than 1 month.

Re: raloibsp1 by wanna-amigowanna-amigo, 10 Jul 2017 20:26
NederbirdNederbird 10 Jul 2017 16:47
in discussion O5-Forum / User related » raloibsp1

On 10/07/2017, user raloibsp1 was banned from the Discord chat for the following reasons:
- Perceived shitposting
- Lacking a country tag
- Not being affiliated with any SCPF branch

The decision was made by me. If you have any objections to said decision, wish to rescind the band and/or replace it with another form of punishment, or otherwise wish to discuss the ban, this is the thread to do it in.

raloibsp1 by NederbirdNederbird, 10 Jul 2017 16:47


Native speaker does not mean good speaker. For example, I can rarely be relied on for spelling technical things.

Re: Forming a Review Team by LadyKatieLadyKatie, 06 Jul 2017 20:43
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License