AshazTGA
Veteran Member
Posts: 317
| Likes: 102
|
Post by AshazTGA on Jul 18, 2020 12:03:01 GMT
This is actually StevenNL2000's idea which he suggested a while ago, but it never got implemented, so credit to him. Basically, we should write the rule with the explanation underneath so no loop holes are created. c. Attempting to DDoS or dox any (ex)member of TotalFreedom.
Threats to DDOS (distributed denial-of-service attack) the Total Freedom server, forum, TF admins, OPs/members, or actual evidence of DDOS. Threats or evidence of DOX (publishing personal information of others without their permission) an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom. Attempting to place malware on another user's computer or device (e.g. Remote Access Trojan). Actual cases of DDOS, DOX, or malware placement can also be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities. 'Joke' threats to another member or the server is still a violation per Section 3h but unless admins are absolutely certain it's a joke, it will be treated as a perm banmable offense. Discussion of such activities is allowed only in terms of defending against such activities. Threats to other servers (associated or not, Minecraft or not) or players/persons not connected to TF will be treated the same way.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 18, 2020 12:04:04 GMT
Vouch I like the idea but I still think most of the paragraphs need revisiting
|
|
fionn
Club 4000 Member
Admin Officer
elmon sucks
Posts: 6,157
| Likes: 4,775
|
Post by fionn on Jul 18, 2020 12:04:50 GMT
Vouch
|
|
CurtainPoles
Veteran Member
My name is Lucifer.
Posts: 3,523
| Likes: 715
|
Post by CurtainPoles on Jul 18, 2020 12:14:24 GMT
Vouch, even if it was an eye sore and a lot to read, it avoids players and even admins from bending the rules around them.
|
|
Geek
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,372
| Likes: 1,104
|
Post by Geek on Jul 18, 2020 13:00:28 GMT
Vouch. Completely agree with this.
|
|
burger
Registered
fionn is overated
Posts: 0
| Likes: 446
|
Post by burger on Jul 18, 2020 13:15:22 GMT
Vouch
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin 
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jul 18, 2020 13:20:38 GMT
I was going to wait with this suggestion until tomorrow because there is already so much discussion going on about the rewrite, but sure. I specifically think the full text of the old rule should be below each new rule in a spoiler. After that, we can discuss whether any of those long texts need to be changed.
|
|
monkeh
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,371
| Likes: 881
|
Post by monkeh on Jul 18, 2020 13:34:04 GMT
vouch
|
|
XenVoltz
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,461
| Likes: 1,488
|
Post by XenVoltz on Jul 18, 2020 16:55:44 GMT
Vouch
|
|
dog
Full Member
Leaving this world is not as scary as it sounds.
Posts: 218
| Likes: 80
|
Post by dog on Jul 18, 2020 17:05:34 GMT
Vouch
|
|
Alosion
Veteran Member
Posts: 589
| Likes: 237
|
Post by Alosion on Jul 18, 2020 18:06:06 GMT
Vouch
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 19, 2020 12:46:00 GMT
Object, the re-write thread made clear that we've not changed / loosened the restrictions on any of the rules and therefore this should not be necessary.
|
|
Luke
Veteran Member
Go home to your family, Neo
Posts: 1,124
|
Post by Luke on Jul 19, 2020 12:51:31 GMT
Object, the re-write thread made clear that we've not changed / loosened the restrictions on any of the rules and therefore this should not be necessary. ...? isnt this thread arguing to bring back the chunks, meaning they won't be changed, they'll just be the same as before? meaning theres no change to the policy other than transparency? |
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jul 19, 2020 13:08:50 GMT
Object, the re-write thread made clear that we've not changed / loosened the restrictions on any of the rules and therefore this should not be necessary. ...? isnt this thread arguing to bring back the chunks, meaning they won't be changed, they'll just be the same as before? meaning theres no change to the policy other than transparency? He's making a rhetoric argument. Some people claim that the new conduct policy is exactly the same as the old one, so if that is really the case, the old text doesn't have any extra explanation in it because they say the exact same thing according to those people. |
|
AshazTGA
Veteran Member
Posts: 317
| Likes: 102
|
Post by AshazTGA on Jul 19, 2020 13:20:21 GMT
Object, the re-write thread made clear that we've not changed / loosened the restrictions on any of the rules and therefore this should not be necessary. The issue with the rewrite is there's loopholes |
|
