Opinion Survey - Should foids be allowed on .cc

[Sukhoi]

Yea the gore shit is already kinda weird on a looksmaxxing forum lol
It might be the PSL culture but we don't need to follow that tbh

eh who says we need rules tbh
we will see how it goes

 

[Administrator]

Sadly u will have to add rules eventually

nah we won't.

Not in the way you think

Rules are only added when in a certain area the freedom is worse than the overall effect to the community.

The constitution implies "everything goes until otherwise regulated" and if it is regulated the rules are democratically made anyways, and can be amended and overulled

 

[oleg.mltn]

Should we allow foids here ?

This is not a vote, or even anything that will set anything in stone, it is an opinion survey so while the staff are debating this in parliament we have the general idea of the forums feelings towards such a thing

Please vote and elaborate on your stance in the comments if the poll doesn't exactly fit your position

I think they should be on .cc in between cleaning and cooking. So it is okay to let them in. Anyone who thinks otherwise severe mental illness.

 

[Sukhoi]

I think they should be on .cc in between cleaning and cooking. So it is okay to let them in. Anyone who thinks otherwise severe mental illness.

View attachment for legal ourposes we have been asked to clarify that this is a skit, all beverages are nonalc...mp4

 

[oleg.mltn]

ICL cant lie just let them BONESMASH

 

[nsk4ll]

Should we allow foids here ?

This is not a vote, or even anything that will set anything in stone, it is an opinion survey so while the staff are debating this in parliament we have the general idea of the forums feelings towards such a thing

Please vote and elaborate on your stance in the comments if the poll doesn't exactly fit your position

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PLEASE NO PLAESEPLASDAEFJAEUIFEAUI
NO

 

[eren]

View attachment 983

Mirin

 

[Lukas]

wtf wtf no???

 

[eren]

Did

View attachment 983

u post this? If u posted it whats ur tt

 

[BastiHgh]

so many people gonna larp as foids to troll if they are allowed in without exception

Absolutely not

 

[Halhal]

Should we allow foids here ?

This is not a vote, or even anything that will set anything in stone, it is an opinion survey so while the staff are debating this in parliament we have the general idea of the forums feelings towards such a thing

Please vote and elaborate on your stance in the comments if the poll doesn't exactly fit your position

Look like they are some foids that are annoying asf ao lets just make like a own rule forfoids if they ever annoy anyone thwy will get a 20% warning but we will talk abkut this then in the mod chat yk

 

[nsk4ll]

Look like they are some foids that are annoying asf ao lets just make like a own rule forfoids if they ever annoy anyone thwy will get a 20% warning but we will talk abkut this then in the mod chat yk

lets just not allow w*men at all

 

[Randomized Shame]

We can have a proof of foid system where they have to prove, that would solve that

Wouldn't that break the "the unconditional right to privacy" line in the Constitution?

As someone who moderates forums on both sides of the debate, I think outright banning either gender is just a moderation nightmare. It makes people very paranoid, it forces people to give up their privacy for the sake of verification, and all you have to do is accuse someone of being the other gender to force them through the verification process. I personally think it's a waste of time for content moderators to be trying to spot a "gender" out rather than just enforcing content policies.

The primary concerns with .com's multi-gendered approach is there's just two different cultures and people don't like it. I think both genders contribute the same amount of slop and the same amount of shit questions. Men don't like the women's humor and the women don't like the men's humor. I don't think it actually has anything to do with the "value" either gender provides, but rather than the value they provide is different. Men's tutorials are just simply different than the women's.

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

I think focusing on trying to be niche/gatekeeping by adding new rules that blocks certain types of users instead of simply making it not appealing to normies on a content level would be defeat the overall objective you're trying to achieve with the "no rules" sales pitch.

Some websites will have etiquette recommendations or community culture expectations posts. These technically are not rules, but it teaches users what kind of culture you're trying to aim for and you can remove users under the assumption they're not a fit culturally in the community, which you have established is how you want removals to work most of the time. It would make sense it should be up to the community to determine what fits culturally.

The concern about it happening "too often" is putting the cart before the horse. You would learn how to deal with issues once you actually face them. If it happens then you would address it then, not before.

 

[Lukas]

Wouldn't that break the "the unconditional right to privacy" line in the Constitution?

As someone who moderates forums on both sides of the debate, I think outright banning either gender is just a moderation nightmare. It makes people very paranoid, it forces people to give up their privacy for the sake of verification, and all you have to do is accuse someone of being the other gender to force them through the verification process. I personally think it's a waste of time for content moderators to be trying to spot a "gender" out rather than just enforcing content policies.

The primary concerns with .com's multi-gendered approach is there's just two different cultures and people don't like it. I think both genders contribute the same amount of slop and the same amount of shit questions. Men don't like the women's humor and the women don't like the men's humor. I don't think it actually has anything to do with the "value" either gender provides, but rather than the value they provide is different. Men's tutorials are just simply different than the women's.

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

I think focusing on trying to be niche/gatekeeping by adding new rules that blocks certain types of users instead of simply making it not appealing to normies on a content level would be defeat the overall objective you're trying to achieve with the "no rules" sales pitch.

Some websites will have etiquette recommendations or community culture expectations posts. These technically are not rules, but it teaches users what kind of culture you're trying to aim for and you can remove users under the assumption they're not a fit culturally in the community, which you have established is how you want removals to work most of the time. It would make sense it should be up to the community to determine what fits culturally.

The concern about it happening "too often" is putting the cart before the horse. You would learn how to deal with issues once you actually face them. If it happens then you would address it then, not before.

holy fuck dude dnr ngl but yea ur right

 

[Halhal]

Wouldn't that break the "the unconditional right to privacy" line in the Constitution?

As someone who moderates forums on both sides of the debate, I think outright banning either gender is just a moderation nightmare. It makes people very paranoid, it forces people to give up their privacy for the sake of verification, and all you have to do is accuse someone of being the other gender to force them through the verification process. I personally think it's a waste of time for content moderators to be trying to spot a "gender" out rather than just enforcing content policies.

The primary concerns with .com's multi-gendered approach is there's just two different cultures and people don't like it. I think both genders contribute the same amount of slop and the same amount of shit questions. Men don't like the women's humor and the women don't like the men's humor. I don't think it actually has anything to do with the "value" either gender provides, but rather than the value they provide is different. Men's tutorials are just simply different than the women's.

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

I think focusing on trying to be niche/gatekeeping by adding new rules that blocks certain types of users instead of simply making it not appealing to normies on a content level would be defeat the overall objective you're trying to achieve with the "no rules" sales pitch.

Some websites will have etiquette recommendations or community culture expectations posts. These technically are not rules, but it teaches users what kind of culture you're trying to aim for and you can remove users under the assumption they're not a fit culturally in the community, which you have established is how you want removals to work most of the time. It would make sense it should be up to the community to determine what fits culturally.

The concern about it happening "too often" is putting the cart before the horse. You would learn how to deal with issues once you actually face them. If it happens then you would address it then, not before.

Damn i actually read that all i didnt dnr and @Administrator hes right
@Feuerwehr @Johan @Kaligula567
Randomized u are actually so right man i think this makes a lot of sense imo

 

[Sink]

Wouldn't that break the "the unconditional right to privacy" line in the Constitution?

As someone who moderates forums on both sides of the debate, I think outright banning either gender is just a moderation nightmare. It makes people very paranoid, it forces people to give up their privacy for the sake of verification, and all you have to do is accuse someone of being the other gender to force them through the verification process. I personally think it's a waste of time for content moderators to be trying to spot a "gender" out rather than just enforcing content policies.

The primary concerns with .com's multi-gendered approach is there's just two different cultures and people don't like it. I think both genders contribute the same amount of slop and the same amount of shit questions. Men don't like the women's humor and the women don't like the men's humor. I don't think it actually has anything to do with the "value" either gender provides, but rather than the value they provide is different. Men's tutorials are just simply different than the women's.

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

I think focusing on trying to be niche/gatekeeping by adding new rules that blocks certain types of users instead of simply making it not appealing to normies on a content level would be defeat the overall objective you're trying to achieve with the "no rules" sales pitch.

Some websites will have etiquette recommendations or community culture expectations posts. These technically are not rules, but it teaches users what kind of culture you're trying to aim for and you can remove users under the assumption they're not a fit culturally in the community, which you have established is how you want removals to work most of the time. It would make sense it should be up to the community to determine what fits culturally.

The concern about it happening "too often" is putting the cart before the horse. You would learn how to deal with issues once you actually face them. If it happens then you would address it then, not before.

Blud how did actually high iq randomized shame pop in here

 

[eren]

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

Ugh

 

[Kaligula567]

Wouldn't that break the "the unconditional right to privacy" line in the Constitution?

As someone who moderates forums on both sides of the debate, I think outright banning either gender is just a moderation nightmare. It makes people very paranoid, it forces people to give up their privacy for the sake of verification, and all you have to do is accuse someone of being the other gender to force them through the verification process. I personally think it's a waste of time for content moderators to be trying to spot a "gender" out rather than just enforcing content policies.

The primary concerns with .com's multi-gendered approach is there's just two different cultures and people don't like it. I think both genders contribute the same amount of slop and the same amount of shit questions. Men don't like the women's humor and the women don't like the men's humor. I don't think it actually has anything to do with the "value" either gender provides, but rather than the value they provide is different. Men's tutorials are just simply different than the women's.

Most of the issues have to do with e-dating. But it's very easy to enforce, you just ban people who mention it or act gay (matching profile pictures, etc).

I think focusing on trying to be niche/gatekeeping by adding new rules that blocks certain types of users instead of simply making it not appealing to normies on a content level would be defeat the overall objective you're trying to achieve with the "no rules" sales pitch.

Some websites will have etiquette recommendations or community culture expectations posts. These technically are not rules, but it teaches users what kind of culture you're trying to aim for and you can remove users under the assumption they're not a fit culturally in the community, which you have established is how you want removals to work most of the time. It would make sense it should be up to the community to determine what fits culturally.

The concern about it happening "too often" is putting the cart before the horse. You would learn how to deal with issues once you actually face them. If it happens then you would address it then, not before.

interesting would lowkey mog to have my rrm here, she already got banned on .gg

 

[eren]

I cant even act gay anymore

 

[Kaligula567]

Ugh

those who know