Time to update the JC rules ?

The intoxication isn't the issue. It's the behaviour that stems from the intoxication that's the problem - shoud such behaviour occur (if it doensn't, then everyone can go post about bra shopping or whatever). The moderator judgement should be to decide if the 'presumed intoxicated' is breaking the spamming or poor posting rules or, more clinically, breaking the promotion of irresponsible use of legal drugs rule (E.i).

 

Right, that's what I was saying up there, but I might not have made it clear.

 

Ok cool. Sorry.

 

I think the rule, as ObiWan506 is trying to implement, isn't about restricting drunk posting but providing an amplifying rule for the "promotion of alcohol use for minors" rule (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The issue is that, for some, posting "I?m drunk" could be interpreted as promotion of alcohol use. For example, if I went to every JCC thread on the first page and posted "I'm drunk", that would be spamming AND promoting alcohol use. While it's not necessarily expressly aimed at minors, it's still inappropriate. The rule under consideration would give the moderator in question the flexibility to edit such posts. There are, of course, subtler examples, but the idea is the same. The moderator would make a judgment call on whether or not the post in question--based on context--is promoting alcohol use. If they think it meets that criteria, then the post gets edited and/or the user warned.

It's only after a user has gotten a few edits of that nature that a ban might be necessary.

While I generally prefer rules to be clear-cut and obvious, rules that always apply invariably become draconian. I?m concerned that if you write one that leaves no ambiguity at all in it, such a rule will end up effectively being a ban on the phrase ?I?m drunk? or anything like it.

If a mod edits a post under the rule as ObiWan506 describes it for reasons you believe to be unwarranted (i.e. you think his/her judgment was flawed), there's a moderator complaint process that is designed for just that purpose.

 

Thank you, the rules should be enforced on the actual severity of TOS violation, rather than making the fact that someone mentioned in passing that they may be inebriated a violation. Who installed this rule in the first place? It was KK wasn't it? I bet it was KK.

 

Yes but to be fair, there are zillions of occurrences where those complaints are neither answered, or not done so in any sort of timely fashion.

 

But it's also already mod-able based on the fact that it is also spamming.

I'm curious if there's a real-life example out there of a situation where someone is expressing that they are drunk, but are otherwise following every rule, but which would still warrant warning/banning/editing.

For example, let's say I posted "Hey guys, what's up? I'm in Vegas for the evening and went to a great place called the Ghostbar. I had a great time - met up with some friends, had some drinks, got a nice buzz on, and partied the night away. Just got back in and wanted to say hi."

Is that a problem? I guess I just fail to envision a situation where a user is not encouraging minors to drink, is not breaking any other rule, but is annoucing their intoxication, and that drawing some moderator's warning. When would this occur?

If it wouldn't, then why the need for additional verbiage beyond "no encouraging illegal behavior" and the rest of the rules (no spamming, trolling, etc.)?

The umbrella of "no encouraging illegal behavior" coupled with the wide array of other rules should be more than enough to cover the moderators in any situation.

I could be wrong, though.

 

According to Sape, it was in place before he became Head Admin the first time. So your attempts at scapegoating FAIL!

 

Sape said lots of things.

 

Either jp-30 or MarcusP2 can field this one for you.

 

Depends on where the discussion goes - Vegas, your friends, or how many drinks you had and what crazee-kewl behaviour that resulted in.

 

This is how I see it:

 

Well..yeah...but that's a whole other discussion.

 

I don't think this is questionable; I think this is tantamount to saying it's cool to be drunk. Thus it's promoting irresponsible use of legal drugs. Thus editable.

lol

 

Totally agree with you.


EDIT: you should be a mod.

 

Really, since I've been here, there's been one, and it was a misunderstanding based on the current (obviously faulty) wording of the rules. Percentage-wise, I don't think it would count for a blip and not enough to make black and white verbage on it.

Either of these would be bad.

And I can't even imagine getting a zillion PMs. I want to meet his person and shake their hand.

 

If said drunk person is clear of mind enough to turn on the computer and sign onto here, surely they should be clear of mind enough not to act like a bloody idiot?

 

Are you serious sidious? We have completely sober people logging on and acting like bloody idiots all the time.

 

http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=14362&mforum=shinycouncil
http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=14368&mforum=shinycouncil
http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=14366&mforum=shinycouncil

 

I don't think that being drunk in and of itself is irresponsible.

 

Yeah. That second one was a bad example but I was at work and couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head while the phone was ringing.
Take out the "Let's go parti and have a good time tonight!1!" part and its more questionable, I think. The point is that it's a judgment call, which I'm personally fine with.

 

I would. Of course, that's just perhaps because of poor word usage?

Is getting drunk -- which is blowing by all of your own body's limits and tolerances on the consumption of alcohol -- wrong? No. Immoral? No. Illegal? No. Fun? Yep (at times).

Is it, however, irresponsible? Yes.

Have I gotten drunk in the past? Yes, I have (more than once! ZOMG!)

 

Personal opinion, but I think this is what most (or a lot) of mods would do:

Vertical's example: nothing, as long as the conversation doesn't turn to specifically the drinks and part, as was said above.

Something questionable: edit and send a PM, and keep an eye on the person to make sure he/she isn't so drunk that he/she starts violating the TOS.

Something bad, like the hey kiddies bit: edit and ban.

 

It's irresponsible if you're driving, working, moderating etc. It's not irresponsible if you are just posting on a messageboard.

 

In my opinion, drinking to excess can be irresponsible, if you're irresponsible about it, but it is also possible to drink responsibly. Being drunk doesn't mean that you're automatically being irresponsible, the same way that being drunk doesn't automatically mean that you're spamming/trolling/etc.

ETA And now for something completely different...

I'd like the disallowed words list looked at, specifically when it comes to quoting things. BobaFrank got edited for quoting Star Wars Family Guy, and the fact that I could not ever quote Molly Weasley's famous "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU" line makes me very sad.

Srsly?