Clock Crew

Clock Crew Archives => The Ol' Dusty Trail => Policy => Topic started by: AbsintheClock on September 23, 2011, 10:24:47 AM

Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AbsintheClock on September 23, 2011, 10:24:47 AM
Will formally modify Rule #6 to read:
"
6. Do not steal people's names

If you are caught pretending to be someone you are not, you will be banned.

If, at your time of joining, it is made clear that the clock name you wish to use has already been claimed by another user, active or not, you must come up with another one, or you will be banned.

Adverse possession: An exception can be made on your behalf IF AND ONLY IF (1) No objections to your claiming the name have been made over a period no shorter than 9 months following your first claim to the name on the Clock Crew forums AND (2) You've made regular claim to it during the entire span of time between claiming it and the present AND (3) You've contributed in some memorable way to the community, preferably Flash animation AND (4) The previous owner had not contributed any Flash that passed judgement on Newgrounds.com or played a significant role in any crew-related events AND (5) Your claim to the name is sincere and unique. If you feel your case meets ALL of these qualifications, contact an administrator and request that they put it to a community vote. If you pass with a simple majority, the name will be passed on to you. Exceptions are extraordinarily rare. It is highly recommended that you instead simply invent a unique name and lay claim to it."
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: Topcatyo on September 23, 2011, 02:27:22 PM
Internets Democracy at work
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: VuBawlsClock on September 23, 2011, 05:22:06 PM
So does Blob have to change his?
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AbsintheClock on September 24, 2011, 12:11:51 AM
No, but he really is fucking up lately.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 07:13:46 PM
Considering that he knew the name was taken at the time he took it, shouldn't he? I could see if it was an innocent mistake, but it's not.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: pop-tart on September 24, 2011, 07:17:37 PM
This is a revised policy thread. Reigniting the debate over an individual is not appropriate let alone necessary in this forum.

Also, butts.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: RobClock on September 24, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: AbsintheClock;1857897
(1) No objections to your claiming the name have been made over a period no shorter than 9 months following your first claim to the name on the Clock Crew forums

 
I was gonna see if I could somehow get the name 'Iceblock' back for sentimental reasons, but since the entirety of my first 2 years consisted of people telling me to change it, It does not seem like that's going to happen.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 07:34:45 PM
Are the claims reviewed publicly or privately? Is dishonesty considered synonymous with or antithetical to a sincere claim?


Quote from: pop-tart clock;1858721
This is a revised policy thread. Reigniting the debate over an individual is not appropriate let alone necessary in this forum.


And you think you're who now?
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858737
I swear if we're going to be looking into the semantic definition of "sincere" in this regard we are way way overthinking it

So then lying isn't sincerity and I should be really surprised if "Blob", upon application, is allowed to keep the name?
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 09:02:54 PM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858755
I refuse to take the blob situation as a serious concern at all.

 
Then you might as well delete this thread, rule 6, and all the other rules.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: Slurpee on September 24, 2011, 09:22:37 PM
Sincere just means preceding from genuine feelings. It means the person under question is not trying to claim the name for the sake of irony or rhetoric, but because he actually feels he has a right to it. The "sincere and unique" requirement is just there to prevent the purely hypothetical scenario of somebody claiming a name for the purposes of poking a hole in the system, or making a point about somebody else's claim to a name.

Whether somebody's dishonest about whether or not they knew the name was taken is not made relevant by these additions. The reason for this is, to be perfectly honest, to give people leeway to take names they knew were already taken, because sometimes people claim names and do nothing with them, and, frankly, good names are a commodity and I, as the person that penned this, don't feel we should explicitly omit what at the logical conclusion of things would amount to any clock name that was ever registered on any website anywhere.

The limitations are not to define somebody as having a right to the name, they're there to filter out hopeless cases before the matter is brought to a public vote, which will make the ultimate call. If you feel, for example, that Blob's dishonesty in knowing whether the name was already claimed (as evidenced by his Newgrounds username) is sufficient reason to deny him the name, speak with your vote... should the vote even ultimately arise (last I checked it seemed he wanted to change his name to Diglett).
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
Oh, I didn't see that we'd get to vote on it. Ok then, that's reasonable.

It's much better when someone addresses concerns instead of just being dismissive.  Thanks Slurpee.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 10:00:38 PM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858772
Oy :mad:

 
I assumed it was a staff vote because of the way you were talking. Anyway, you were still dismissive. That's not the best way to deal with people's concerns.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858777
You're right I do dismiss the blob outrage as nonsensical, reactionary nonsense.

I don't think that government policy should change every time Fox News goes apeshit about some minor nonsense either. It's a silly issue, and I'll gladly say that. Being dismissive would have been me going "lol yeah sure blob big issue" and not saying anything else about it.

Be mad if you want, I don't care I'm doing what I think is right vote me out if I'm in the wrong.

See that's exactly what I mean. My having a problem with something automatically makes my position equivalent to Fox News going apeshit about something minor, simply because you disagree. That's not the kind of person who should be on the staff, because it's not the kind of person who can compromise or actually have a discussion. That's why you were kicked out of the grid before. If you actually want to be good at your job you're going to have to learn to be a little less arrogant.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 24, 2011, 10:30:51 PM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858779
Um no, it's because it's a big silly contrived issue and Fox News goes apeshit over big, silly contrived issues. It's blown out of proportion, no one cared about the blob issue a week ago. It's silly, it doesn't really effect anything or cause any harm, and it's already been given more attention than it deserves.

Hey you can call me names all you want for saying that (apparently) but don't misrepresent my point.

You think it's silly and contrived. I think it's a matter of expecting some small degree of honesty. The point is that because you disagree with me and are positively steeped in confirmation bias you immediately dismiss everything I say in favor of your own opinion, offering no discussion or attempt to understand. That's a problem. That's not the kind of trait we should want in someone who's supposed to be part of a body that makes decisions in the interest of the community.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AnkhClock on September 24, 2011, 10:38:11 PM
I like democracy but I don't like CNN
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: Thor on September 24, 2011, 11:14:52 PM
woah simmer down guys

You're getting all mad and stuff
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: Slurpee on September 24, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
Quote from: Thor;1858802
woah simmer down guys

You're getting all mad and stuff

 
Thor for admin 2012
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AlbinoClock on September 25, 2011, 12:06:32 AM
Ok Corpse keep ignoring what people say and acting like you're being persecuted when really people are just calling you out on acting like a douche.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AnkhClock on September 25, 2011, 12:52:47 AM
You guys are acting like CNN if my last post wasn't clear enough. Just a bunch of heads arguing about bullshit that doesn't matter.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: DWARFINATORclock on September 25, 2011, 06:58:11 AM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858823

Again, present me with anything to indicate to me that this is a problem at all other than people being randomly upset about it for the past few days.

 
thats all the evidence you need, and i dont think they are "randomly" upset
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: RobClock on September 25, 2011, 07:34:41 AM
Quote from: RibsClock;1858823
other than people being randomly upset about it for the past few days.

 
People became upset about it when the subject came to light. It's hard to be upset about it before it's a known issue.

But now it is known and people want it dealt with.
Title: Rule Revamp for September 23rd 2011
Post by: AbsintheClock on September 25, 2011, 11:15:59 AM
I don't mind an argument, but can we drop the petty name calling? Or better yet lets keep the soon to be 12 pages of bickering to your PM boxes.