Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »

I don't think we should be implementing a deletion scheme like other branches either way. The way I see it, our rating module is there mostly to compare the result to the original article's, to see how well it fares outside its home branch. I don't think deleting unpopular articles here has ever been an option.

The boot:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Field_Armor_Probably_of_Sir_John_Scudamore_(1541_or_1542%E2%80%931623)_MET_sfeah11-128-1iATs1.jpeg
Under CC0 1.0

The sign:
Made by Dr_Grom under CC BY-SA 3.0
Text from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_206_-_Halt!_Vorfahrt_gew%C3%A4hren!_StVO_1970.svg under public domain
Original SCP logo by far2 under CC BY-SA 3.0


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

Credits by Dr_GromDr_Grom, 13 Aug 2018 08:40

Put together, the evidence clearly speaks in her disfavour. While I think that it is legitimate to compare the Western far right to Islamic extremist (which is pretty much the Mideastern far right), her implied allegations of others being nazi, and her condoning of unprovoked violence (as in, not being attacked first) against far-rightists, are clearly over the line and should have been acted upon earlier. Why it wasn't is beyond me, though I reckon that the matter was unceremoniously closed down after Spaces departed. That was wrong, as Spaces was evidently not the only offender. Sepia's offences effectively constitute libel and sedition under Swedish law, and I'd hazard to guess that also holds true for German and British law. That in itself, deserves a warning on its own right.

The fact that she refuses to acknowledge opposing points is problematic in and of itself. However, since Rik's discussion with her happened off-server, and despite her acting like a dick in it, it's not severe enough for us to really do anything about it except take it as a warning sign.

I myself demanded that sepia stop with that behaviour at the last instance, as it had become obvious that it was long overdue. There were no logs of warnings to her before, but I feel that that may indeed be in order soon. I logged mine action in the staff_log on the Discord server for those of you who are interested.

While her slashfic gushing of CotBG-Sarkic characters can be annoying, I don't see that as enough to merit disciplinary action. Usually, she has done that when Sarkicism or CotBG has been discussed. As she posts no pics when doing that, thus not annoyingly taking up screen space, I would not regard the odd comment from her as shitposting. When it comes to cuttlefish, I really do not mind, on the contrary, I think it has a calming effect (cute animals always do), and there is definitely no need for disciplinary action on those grounds. Consider also that, lately, she has been posting far fewer cuttlefish pics, and has generally been far less active on the server, if you find the gushing and cuttlefish that annoying.

Re: Discord: sepiafishie by NederbirdNederbird, 27 Jul 2018 13:49

I agree that her behavior back then was inacceptable.

Though since some time she focusses on cuttlefish and fem-CotBG, in which I see no direct rule breaking. Haven't seen her taking part in an argument since (or I missed it). It is discussable though if that constant fem-CotBG commenting, especially on totally unrelated topics, can be seen as rule-breaking shitposting. I have no problem with cuttlefish or other animals though.


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

Re: Discord: sepiafishie by Dr_GromDr_Grom, 26 Jul 2018 17:13

I announced it a while ago, here it is: Screenshots of the most egregious instances of sepiafishie being aggressive and someone whos behavior should have lead to administrative action a while ago.

I hope all of that shows that we should have an eye on sepiafishie and show her much less leniency the next time she violates rule #1. By which I mean at least a kick. It was demanded she stopped being aggressive/insulting multiple times already.

Also, her constantly shitposting about being hot for cultists and cuttelfish has proven to annoy quite a number of our users. Anyone volunteers to tell her to tone that down?

Discord: sepiafishie by Rikjard RegrepsRikjard Regreps, 26 Jul 2018 15:56

We can use PL account for it or we can use opportunity to set up our mail/ social medias with INT account.

Re: INT survey 2018 by wanna-amigowanna-amigo, 06 Jun 2018 18:47

It seems Google Forms is quite good, I will set something up and we will test it first.


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

Re: INT survey 2018 by Dr_GromDr_Grom, 06 Jun 2018 10:23

I'll wait for see example from others :))


Sorry, My english isn't good.

Re: INT survey 2018 by DrSSSDrSSS, 05 Jun 2018 08:30

We will probably annouce that on main INT page, so we should let everybody participate. Besides that looks good for me.

Re: INT survey 2018 by wanna-amigowanna-amigo, 04 Jun 2018 12:30
INT survey 2018
Dr_GromDr_Grom 04 Jun 2018 09:39
in discussion O5-Forum / Discussions » INT survey 2018

So, we should think about a survey. If you want questions added or changed, or have an organizational idea, please reply here.

Organization:

  • Platform: EN and DE used Survio, a highly flexible platform but the free account can take max. 100 answers per month. Someone mentioned Google, but I for myself distrust and try to avoid that company. Maybe a self-hostable software?
  • Financiation: We will probably need a pro account of sort
  • Should we just let INT users participate, or should this be a survey among all branches?

Questions:
• marks multiple choice, […] marks a text field. Note that while all questions are optional, questions regarding private information have an explicit opt-out option for those who have not read the introduction.

Demographics:

Username
- Prefer not to say
- […]

Age
- Prefer not to say
- […]

Gender
- Prefer not to say
- Male
- Female
- Trans-Female
- Other: […]

Sexual orientation
- Prefer not to say
- Heterosexual
- Homosexual
- Bisexual
- Pansexual
- Asexual
- Other: […]

Educational degree
- (Have to research these further)

Country
- (the most common countries of the branches, each branch is asked to tell us where most of their users come from)

Primary language
- English
- Russian
- Korean
- Chinese
- French
- Polish
- Spanish
- Thai
- Japanese
- German
- Italy
- Ukrainian
- Portuguese
- Other: […]

Secondary language(s)
• English
• Russian
• Korean
• Chinese
• French
• Polish
• Spanish
• Thai
• Japanese
• German
• Italy
• Ukrainian
• Portuguese
• Other: […]

INT-related:

What branch(es) do you visit?
• The International Translation Archive (INT)
• English (EN)
• Russian (RU)
• Korean (KO)
• Chinese (CN)
• French (FR)
• Polish (PL)
• Spanish (ES)
• Thai (TH)
• Japanese (JP)
• German (DE)
• Italy (IT)
• Ukrainian (UA)
• Portuguese (PT-BR)
• An unofficial: […]
• None

What are your activities?
• Reading on the English wiki
• Reading on a branch
• Reading on the Translation Archive
• Writing on the English wiki
• Writing on a branch
• Translating for the Translation Archive
• Translating from English for a branch
• Translating from one branch to another
• Creating artworks
• Creating readings (e.g. on YouTube)
• SCP Roleplaying
• I am Staff of the English branch
• I am Staff of an official branch
• I am Staff of an affiliate or unofficial branch
• I do neither
• I do this: […]

What platforms do you use regarding the SCP Foundation?
• The wikis
• Discord
• IRC
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Youtube
• Reddit
• Tumblr
• DeviantArt
• Other: […]

Feedback:

Wiki-Feedback
Is there something you dislike or would change about the INT-Wiki?
• The appearance/theme/style elements
• The structure of the hubs
• The choice of translated articles
• The quality of the articles (not the translation)
• The quality of the translations (not the article itself)
• The Review Team is too slow
• The Review Team does not meet my quality standards
• The administration
• Specify/other: […]

Chat-Feedback
Is there something you dislike or would change about our Discord chat?
• The platform Discord
• Too lax moderation
• Too strict moderation
• Too many channels
• Too few channels
• Too much offtopic
• I dislike the bot KIRA
• KIRA has too few commands (please specify below)
• KIRA has too many commands
• I have a problem with some users
• Specify/other: […]

Survey-Feedback
Would you change something about this survey, or add or remove questions?
- No
- […]

If you could change one thing about the International Translation Archive, what would that be? (please make it short)
- Nothing
- […]


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

INT survey 2018 by Dr_GromDr_Grom, 04 Jun 2018 09:39

I think that having defined escalation of ban length is more fair to the users and prevents arbitariness, which we are not immune to.


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

First of all i do not like the idea of "hard guides for ban lenght", more like "guides how we can do it", suggestions lets say. After all even now we are discussing ban lenghts, so i want to keep it that way. Of course with some sort of guide. In short: EN style.

Agree. As most cases are completely different, it would be a good idea to decide case by case how long the user gets banned, and when they can repeal it. As such, I also think that the possibility to repeal a ban is a good idea. How we can do it though is another question.

But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?

What did you try, exactly, and how did it fail? Friend requests/PMs may or may not be a good idea, I think we could just try it out and see if it works. In general though, I'd think that having some sort of system where the whole Staff team can look at the repeal would be better.

As Grom stated, permabans should be used carefully. In general, I don't support permabanning a user, but that should be decided case by case. Additionally, I think that Neders proposal is a good idea. Three years are a long time for a teenager, but again, we should decide case by case. In other words, the guideline should be clear on how to handle troublesome people, but still be flexible enough for us to decide individually.

Logging stuff in one place is a good idea. I'd think that the bigger part of the Staff is more active on the Discord and as such we should use that (same thing with voting).

We should be able to ban users based on their actions on other servers. As an example, DE had its share of assholes and raiders. Note the should be able.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

First of all i do not like the idea of "hard guides for ban lenght", more like "guides how we can do it", suggestions lets say. After all even now we are discussing ban lenghts, so i want to keep it that way. Of course with some sort of guide. In short: EN style.

I would change permabanning. The maximum regular ban time shall be 6 month, after that, they are banned for indefinite time. After X months, e.g. 12, they can appeal their ban. We then decide case by case.

Permaban can stay, after all permabans are for trolls and bots mostly. So people that come there for one purpose only: to be trouble and be toxic. As for "troublesome but pretty normal" users we should of course do not ban them permamently, but maybe year? And yes, we need a way to handle appeals. I will try personally to add said users to my friend list to have contact with them, just in case. But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?

Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord

We can keep kicks and short bans in Discord, fully agree. But any serious case should be noted here, i think. Lets say second ban of same user or very serious rule breaking.

I do not want any witch hunts. But if one user have ben banned for something in one place, and then they come here and they are NOT a productive, normal member, but decides to shitpost/ troll, they i think we have full right to remove them. We give new users privilage of doubt and we do not know them: this have no existance here.

In short i would want to have our disciplinary rules as simple as possible, but clear and fair at the same time. There are many staff members, not everybody need to vote/ take part in disciplinary actions. That said i would like if every disciplinary action would have agreement from at least 3 other staff members.

Hope my English is not too broken to understand my points and thank you for your time.

The user was permabanned after a series of misbehaviours across multiple SCP-related platforms, the last of which being what may be intended as a joke kind of advocating for Israeli mass murder.

It is to be noted that this disciplinary action left several staff members dubious about the action itself and about our disciplinary rules, which are currently being revised.


-LofB

Chat: ConnieCommie#9265 by LofBLofB, 20 May 2018 13:59

I second this. Most of the dumb shit pulled by people that may earn permabans are committed by people still young and foolish. Opinions, ideas, and values change over time, and people might come to deeply regret whatever harm they've caused in the past. If somebody has truly matured and changed for the better, I see no reason not to let them back in.

However, I would like to see the maximum regular ban penalty to be 3 years. Three years is usually enough time for a person to grow out of a certain phase in life, change environments, and be exposed to new ideas, especially when it comes to teens. One year in the life of a teens brings oodles of change in character, and by the time that three years have elapsed, they will most likely have graduated to high school or uni or real life, and received enough new input to reasonably assume a change in attitude and behaviour.

I would like to call for a revision of the following point: 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.

From what I have observed, this is an issue that we have repeatedly been confronted with since the inception of INT, and many times have proven highly impractical if not outright inappropriate. Potentially, it might also hurt our standing with our fellow branches, and seeing as how we are primarily a neutral meeting grounds for the various branches, that is something we should try our hardest to avoid.

At the same time, I would like to avoid witch hunts, and like to give every user a fair chance. I therefore suggest that with banned or otherwise disciplined offenders from other branches, we skip Step 1 (Demand) and go straight to Step 2 (Warning), either at the first offence on our branch, or as soon as they enter Discord, seeing as how that has essentially become our community hub. This notice is preferably to be delivered by our bot, KIRA. This would save us the red tape of going through proper procedures to kick or ban somebody we know is toxic, as current practice is essentially asking and waiting for trouble to happen.

Furthermore, we as Staff should have the option of blocking users who, due to their offences on other branches, we highly suspect would be harmful to our users. We have had problems with users before messing around with sensitive topics like suicide (when we have people who're extremely sensitive and suggestive to such things) or troll about extreme ideologies only to incite flame wars, which has happened on multiple occasions. Said measure could also be used to block known raiders. Just letting extremely, harmfully toxic people waltz into our branch when we know they've been just as harmful on others is, in mine honest opinion, an extremely stupid thing to do.

Therefore, I reiterate, I request a revision to the following rule: 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.

I would change permabanning. The maximum regular ban time shall be 6 month, after that, they are banned for indefinite time. After X months, e.g. 12, they can appeal their ban. We then decide case by case.

I would only permaban bots and users that we can never allow on our server, like pedophiles, and without ability to appeal.

To make it easier to determine what is what, I would call the first one "indefinite ban".

Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

It is time to reconsider our disc-policy. In this thread, please post feedback to our Disciplinary Actions Guideline.

What do you want to keep, what would you change, what would you add?


I rarely check forums for updates, so please send PM if you want to talk to me

Kicked for obvious reasons.

This is both their discord name + chat handle.

Please escalate if they continue to rejoin.

Chat:A Nigger Beater#774 by DrMagnusDrMagnus, 16 May 2018 21:58
page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License