Either remove Rule 1.9 or do not make Rule 1.19 Coincide with Rule 1.9

[Maddy]

Rule 1.9 states the following:

Do not post content in a language other than English or without an English translation unless consented and limited to private conversation

Rule 1.19 states the following:

Do not spam or promote spam anywhere on our site

If someone follows Rule 1.9 by providing a translation in the same message, it is dubbed a "double" or "duplicate" message by the staff team and therefore coinsides with rule 1.19. This is absurd.

TLDR: If you follow Rule 1.9, you are punished for not following Rule 1.19

 

[Landon]

For clarification; bb was kicked from shoutbox for providing translations to his messages as it was considered “flooding.”

 

[Ally]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

 

[solo]

Well, you got them there

 

[Maddy]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

How is "a few is fine" a reasonable argument towards a rule that has no context whatsoever? If bb wants to speak german, he can; providing he provides an English translation, which he did for each message. Even if the Rule states that, who are you to assume how many messages is too many/too little?

 

[Landon]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

I disagree with the view that it’s considered “flooding.”

I view flooding as sending two independent messages:
1. Hallo
2. (Hello)

However, when the translation is done within the same message and within the shoutbox character limit, I fail to see how that can be considered flooding.

Perhaps it’s semantics and how the rules are interpreted.

I’ve always seen spam as irrelevant comments:

“a”
“behshe”
“3)^{!”
“heyshehzwh”

Whereas “flooding” is relevant content for the sake of taking up space:
“Hey”
“How are you all”
“doing today?”

With my view on the interpretation of “flooding,” having it within the same message doesn’t seem to be any cause for punishment.

Interested to see how it is interpreted by others.

 

[Franix]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

So when multiple people follows rule 1.9, it's considered flood and someone at random should be punished for it?

 

[Maddy]

So when multiple people follows rule 1.9, it's considered flood and someone at random should be punished for it?

Winner winner! MCM Rules at their finest!

 

[Franix]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

I also fail to see how you can decide when the rule doesn't count anymore. If the people that were chatting were talking in a foreign language, but provided an English translation, then it should be fine... right? How can you suddenly just say "stop following the rules and listen to me". Doesn't sound fair to anyone

 

[Configx]

You staff are wrong for this. You don’t have to speak english to be allowed on this site. Open your minds a bit. It’s 2020 and not 1943 where hitler would’ve beaten your ass for being english[DOUBLEPOST=1605530503][/DOUBLEPOST]

No.

When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by.
There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway. All you're doing at that point is toeing the line of what is and isn't flooding.

In this instance, it wasn't a singular message that had been translated. Those messages are fine. A few is fine. When multiple people are doing it however, and over a longer period than what would be expected.
In this instance also, everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked.

How was there no need for it to be translated when the MCM rules clearly ask that if you are to speak in another language that it should be translated? Where on the rules does it show that it shouldn't be done in shoutbox ? It doesn't? So why ban someone who was following the rules.

Realistically you fucked up and everyone can see that. But from the looks of it BB's actions were not spamming or inflecting flooding in anyway. He/she/they were just abiding by the rules and providing a translation. That to me looks like he followed the rules.

Also how do you have the jurisdiction over someone's conversation(When its being translated). Why do you get to decide when the " Hallo / Hello " (Translation) should be stopped. Personally i disagree with your actions however I do understand that being Staff on a site of this size would be stressful in ways and hard to work with (So keep up the good work there) but for this situation I just think those rules need to be looked over.

 

[Stelios]

"Do not post content in a language other than English or without an English translation" implies that any SINGLE post need be written in English OR have an English translation included.
I don't know how this kick/ban happened, but I take it from what's been said that there was one message in German and one following it in English. That would not abide by this rule, they would both need to be included in the same message

Even then,
Ally mentions "everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked."
The Guidelines specifically mention at the very start "If you have any doubts about whether or not you are allowed to perform a certain action on MCM, always contact a staff member and request clarification. Just because something may not be listed here in the Guidelines, doesn’t mean it isn’t listed somewhere else."
The user did not request clarification about this "conflicting" rule - Despite that ,Ally went ahead and informed them to stop... And they kept on going? - No wonder they were kicked!

 

[Landon]

"Do not post content in a language other than English or without an English translation" implies that any SINGLE post need be written in English OR have an English translation included.
I don't know how this kick/ban happened, but I take it from what's been said that there was one message in German and one following it in English. That would not abide by this rule, they would both need to be included in the same message

Even then,
Ally mentions "everyone in the relevant context had been requested not to continue with doing so. The user bb ignored this and was subsequently kicked."
The Guidelines specifically mention at the very start "If you have any doubts about whether or not you are allowed to perform a certain action on MCM, always contact a staff member and request clarification. Just because something may not be listed here in the Guidelines, doesn’t mean it isn’t listed somewhere else."
The user did not request clarification about this "conflicting" rule - Despite that ,Ally went ahead and informed them to stop... And they kept on going? - No wonder they were kicked!

The translations were done along in the same message.

If you would check the attached image in the first reply, you would see this.

Contacting a staff member on clarification should not be needed when the rules explicitly state to provide translations to non-English messages. A translation was provided in the same message, what further clarification is needed?

 

[Stelios]

The translations were done along in the same message.
If you would check the attached image in the first reply, you would see this.

I checked it but I missed it, apologies.

In that case it does abide by the first rule, but since they were asked to stop by a staff member, they ought to have stopped. If they felt it was unjustified they ought to have stopped and created a thread like this. IMHO not listening to staff members is enough to justify a kick.

Anyway, back on topic.
I personally will agree with Ally in that "There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway".
Maybe there should be a dedicated rule to forbid languages other than English in the shoutbox.
Allowing users to chat freely in any language is not an option IMHO, as:
- It does not allow for proper moderation
- It doesn't allow other members to partake in the conversation, at which point it becomes a private conversation which can be continued via PMs as described in the rules.

Contacting a staff member on clarification should not be needed when the rules explicitly state to provide translations to non-English messages. A translation was provided in the same message, what further clarification is needed?

If the user was asked to stop a particular activity they thought was compliant with the site's rules they ought to have asked for clarification. Again, like the guidelines state, "If you have any doubts about whether or not you are allowed to perform a certain action on MCM, always contact a staff member and request clarification. Just because something may not be listed here in the Guidelines, doesn’t mean it isn’t listed somewhere else."

 

[JasmeowTheCat]

No joke. I agree with this thread massively. Even if I am fueling the arguement, this gets a +1 one from me unless the moderators can provide more proof of this happening, and what is actually considered "Flooding" or "Spamming".

However, even all staff of any forum don't know completely the rules, so you can't be harsh to them for that. The rules are VERY broad, so it's not really her fault for kicking bb, however, I do feel like that's a little unfair. Why also limit MCM to full English? Seems a little silly.

I don't know how else to put this, but something does need to change with these two rules, I agree.

 

[Landon]

I checked it but I missed it, apologies.

In that case it does abide by the first rule, but since they were asked to stop by a staff member, they ought to have stopped. If they felt it was unjustified they ought to have stopped and created a thread like this. IMHO not listening to staff members is enough to justify a kick.

Anyway, back on topic.
I personally will agree with Ally in that "There is and was absolutely no reason to converse in a language in shoutbox in a language other than English given that an English translation must be provided anyway".
Maybe there should be a dedicated rule to forbid languages other than English in the shoutbox.
Allowing users to chat freely in any language is not an option IMHO, as:
- It does not allow for proper moderation
- It doesn't allow other members to partake in the conversation, at which point it becomes a private conversation which can be continued via PMs as described in the rules.



If the user was asked to stop a particular activity they thought was compliant with the site's rules they ought to have asked for clarification. Again, like the guidelines state, "If you have any doubts about whether or not you are allowed to perform a certain action on MCM, always contact a staff member and request clarification. Just because something may not be listed here in the Guidelines, doesn’t mean it isn’t listed somewhere else."

Staff cannot just ask someone to “stop” if it isn’t in violation of any rules.

 

[Stelios]

Staff cannot just ask someone to “stop” if it isn’t in violation of any rules.

To quote MCM TOS:
"MCM may suspend, disable, or delete your account (or any part thereof) or block or remove any content you submit to MCM via the Service if MCM determines that you have violated any provision of the TOS or for any other reason."

"Furthermore, by using the Service, you agree that: [...] (iv) You will not use the Service in a way that could interfere with, disrupt, negatively affect, or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the Service"

"If MCM believes you are abusing the Service in any way, MCM may limit, suspend, or terminate your account and access to the Service, remove any content you have submitted to the Service"

The staff team is in place to keep the website enjoyable for everyone. Whether that means sticking to the rules by letter or using common sense.
If Ally felt this was flooding the chatbox and asked the user to stop, they ought to have stopped, then continued to open such a thread discussing whether it's something that CAN be continued, as it's not something that's clear in the main guidelines page, or whether Ally was in the wrong instead.
But under No circumstances would continuing sending the same messages be the right thing to do.
If a staff member deems one's behavior or actions wrong, they have every right to ask them to stop.
The user in question should not go against the staff's sayings, but they have every right to question them and clear things up in a thread like this.

The staff team's job is to instruct and moderate users to keep things clean, and users need to follow their instructions. If a staff member is not doing their job correctly and lots of complains arise, it's up to Mick to make a decision on keeping them or demoting them. If anyone feels Mick is not doing a good job of picking and hiring good staff members, and you don't like the way they handle things to keep the site fun for everyone, nobody's forcing you to be on MCM.

I will agree that another additional guideline rule might be needed for clarification, but if a staff member asks you to stop, you stop.

P.S: Keep in mind, the staff members are people just like me and you. They're not here to make enemies, they're trying to do their job. Don't make it any harder for them. They are human, they do sometimes make mistakes, threads like this or support requests are the way to dal with those. But do follow their instructions.

 

[Landon]

To quote MCM TOS:
"MCM may suspend, disable, or delete your account (or any part thereof) or block or remove any content you submit to MCM via the Service if MCM determines that you have violated any provision of the TOS or for any other reason."

"Furthermore, by using the Service, you agree that: [...] (iv) You will not use the Service in a way that could interfere with, disrupt, negatively affect, or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the Service"

"If MCM believes you are abusing the Service in any way, MCM may limit, suspend, or terminate your account and access to the Service, remove any content you have submitted to the Service"

The staff team is in place to keep the website enjoyable for everyone. Whether that means sticking to the rules by letter or using common sense.
If Ally felt this was flooding the chatbox and asked the user to stop, they ought to have stopped, then continued to open such a thread discussing whether it's something that CAN be continued, as it's not something that's clear in the main guidelines page, or whether Ally was in the wrong instead.
But under No circumstances would continuing sending the same messages be the right thing to do.
If a staff member deems one's behavior or actions wrong, they have every right to ask them to stop.
The user in question should not go against the staff's sayings, but they have every right to question them and clear things up in a thread like this.

The staff team's job is to instruct and moderate users to keep things clean, and users need to follow their instructions. If a staff member is not doing their job correctly and lots of complains arise, it's up to Mick to make a decision on keeping them or demoting them. If anyone feels Mick is not doing a good job of picking and hiring good staff members, and you don't like the way they handle things to keep the site fun for everyone, nobody's forcing you to be on MCM.

I will agree that another additional guideline rule might be needed for clarification, but if a staff member asks you to stop, you stop.

P.S: Keep in mind, the staff members are people just like me and you. They're not here to make enemies, they're trying to do their job. Don't make it any harder for them. They are human, they do sometimes make mistakes, threads like this or support requests are the way to dal with those. But do follow their instructions.

Your logic is so flawed. Rules exist for staff to enforce. If a rule exists regarding translations for non-English messages, a staff member should not say: "Hey, can you stop sending messages in another language." It is not in violation of the rules, and there is no reason for it be stopped.

You can quote the Terms of Service all you want, it doesn't change the fact that what happened with the enforcement of the rule in this specific case is wrong. The rules and guidelines exist for a reason- to provide a basis for staff and how they "keep the website enjoyable for everyone."

Hear me out on this one, since I know we will disagree, staff should not be able to just enforce whatever non-existent rules they want. If there is a rule explicitly stating that non-English messages are allowed if a translation is provided, a staff member should not be able to ask you to stop. Why should I stop? Am I in violation of the rules? No, then what I am doing is okay. Sending a message that is not in English not hurting the welfare of other users, especially when an English translation is appended to the end of the message.

Your logic is that staff can enforce whatever if they deem necessary. At that point, let's remove the rules and guidelines and let staff enforce whatever! "Hey, can you stop posting threads? I know this is a forum, but stop." The rules and guidelines exist to serve as a baseline for the staff and as guidelines for the community. I understand the Terms of Service when it comes to a nuance, something that can be misinterpreted. But 1.9 is explicit, and should not have been circumvented just because "a staff member deems one's behavior or actions wrong" The user's behavior or actions was directly in compliance with the rules.

But anyways, this thread isn't to bash any staff members. Obviously, I think it was handled improperly, but I don't want Ally demoted or anything. I think you trying to defend their actions is a bit wrong, because as a community member, you should stand up to ensuring rules are enforced across the community equally. I think we can all agree rule 1.9 and correspondingly flooding need to be clarified, removed, or revised, and that staff should have a more baseline approach to how rules are enforced rather than just winging it.

 

[Stelios]

Your logic is so flawed.

Disagreed.

Rules exist for staff to enforce.

Agreed.

If a rule exists regarding translations for non-English messages, a staff member should not say: "Hey, can you stop sending messages in another language." It is not in violation of the rules, and there is no reason for it be stopped.

Again, you keep bringing it back to this. Like Ally said, "When people converse for a prolonged duration in a language and provide a subsequent translation, every message in that conversation is doubled. Therefore there is flooding, even though 1.9 is being abided by." The problem in this case is not the translation itself, but the flooding cause by it. It's a different thing posting in a thread once a day, and a whole different thing posting every 12 seconds in a shoutbox.
If it is flooding, it does need to be stopped. Is it Ally's or the user's job to decide whether it's flooding or not? I'll leave that up to you to answer.

You can quote the Terms of Service all you want, it doesn't change the fact that what happened with the enforcement of the rule in this specific case is wrong. The rules and guidelines exist for a reason- to provide a basis for staff and how they "keep the website enjoyable for everyone."

Might be. Might not be. User would be right to dispute this AFTER complying with the staff's instructions. That's what support exists for. When a staff member asks you to stop, you stop and ask for clarification. If it's "unfair", you make a thread like this asking for changes. And you'll see that I have already agreed multiple times that another rule for clarification might be needed. You DON'T go against what staff have told you. The rules and guidelines can list all they want, in the end though you need to use common sense.

Hear me out on this one, since I know we will disagree, staff should not be able to just enforce whatever non-existent rules they want.

Agreed. Never said otherwise.
They need to enforce the site's rules.
If they don't do a good job of doing this, or make a mistake feel free to open a support ticket or create such a thread.

If there is a rule explicitly stating that non-English messages are allowed if a translation is provided, a staff member should not be able to ask you to stop.

Yup.

Why should I stop?

Cause you're sending a billion of those messages, and a staff member find it to be flooding the chat. They may be wrong. You don't go against that, you ask for clarification.

Sending a message that is not in English not hurting the welfare of other users, especially when an English translation is appended to the end of the message.

I personally don't like it. I don't feel part of a community when everyone around me speaks different languages that I can't comprehend. And despite a translation being provided, I feel excluded as that person seems to be talking to others and just keeping a translation to be compliant with the rules.
What I do or do not like doesn't matter in this case however.

Your logic is that staff can enforce whatever if they deem necessary.

Yup. Keeping stuff reasonable, logical and following common sense all with the purpose of keeping things fun for everyone.

At that point, let's remove the rules and guidelines and let staff enforce whatever! "Hey, can you stop posting threads? I know this is a forum, but stop."

Yeah, cause stopping the posting of threads:

1. Is common sense,
2. Is reasonable,
3. Is logical,
4. Improves the experience for users

facepalm ...And you say MY logic is flawed? Do you listen to yourself?

The rules and guidelines exist to serve as a baseline for the staff and as guidelines for the community.

Yup. No flooding.

I understand the Terms of Service when it comes to a nuance, something that can be misinterpreted. But 1.9 is explicit, and should not have been circumvented just because "a staff member deems one's behavior or actions wrong" The user's behavior or actions was directly in compliance with the rules.

Sure, in compliance with 1.9, but not when it comes to flooding apparently.
Just to get things straight, 'cause you don't seem to be getting my point and keep making false assumptions:

• I'm not saying Ally was in the right here. Could've been an error kicking them. Or not. That's up to Mick to decide.
• I'm not saying the staff team can do any unreasonable crap they wish.
• I'm not saying the guidelines are rubbish. Nor perfect. They're simply guidelines.
  
  guideline:
  /ˈɡʌɪdlʌɪn/
  noun
  plural noun: guidelines
  a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.​
• I'm not saying ban everyone cause TOS says they can ban everyone if they wish.

What I am saying, is:

• Yes, a clarification rule may be needed.
• Yes, I personally believe Ally's thinking was correct. If it was my own forum I would agree & disallow foreign languages in the shoutbox altogether. That is merely my own personal view. I don't expect you to agree with me on this one.
• Forget 1.9 - This is not a matter on whether the user was in compliance with 1.9. This is about whether this is considered flooding the chatbox or not. YES, an additional clarification guideline may be needed.
• In ANY case, Ally considered this flooding. Ally asked the user to stop. She may have been wrong. IT DOESN'T MATTER! The user should have stopped & asked for clarification. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not. Doesn't matter if you WERE complying - or THOUGHT you were complying with the rules. In this case the user may've been compliant with the rules. Other times they may not be. Follow the TOS and ask for clarification. Just stop sending messages in two languages for a day or two, till you can create a thread like this or open a support ticket for more info. Or ask Ally directly and explain your point of view. You're not gonna die doing this or anything.

But anyways, this thread isn't to bash any staff members. Obviously, I think it was handled improperly, but I don't want Ally demoted or anything. I think you trying to defend their actions is a bit wrong, because as a community member, you should stand up to ensuring rules are enforced across the community equally.

I'm not trying to defend their action.
I do think the user in question is 100% in the wrong though for completely disregarding what Ally said.

I think we can all agree rule 1.9 and correspondingly flooding need to be clarified, removed, or revised

Agreed.