[ZOOVILLE RULES]
- Thread starter dogluver101
- Start date
Ok, no need for revealing hidden information. But the rules should simply explain that users can get warning points, warning points can lead to automatic ban and therefore you should strive to have the least of them.
Currently it says that you can be warned, but not what it does in a clear way.
A simple thread like that should be enough.
This is already known public information, I just think it should be in some official place.
Last edited:
I'll add a thread in the ZooVille Announcements page tonight. Basically a break down of the points system for a more comprehensive understanding about how they work.
Link it into the rules please. Because when I send someone to read the rules, I want them to have all the official information in one place. Otherwise nobody knows where to find all the threads with different names when they need some specific information.
Thanks.
Thanks.
I have posted the thread detailing how the points system works:
www.zoovilleforum.net
This thread, and the rules thread, link back to one another.
A Breakdown on the Warning Points System
This thread is to serve as a basic comprehensive breakdown of the warning points system and what warning points/strikes mean. Baring zoo-sadism, pedophilia, being under the age of 18, doxing (as in posting PII of someone else), spamming advertising links, and a handful of other rule infractions...
www.zoovilleforum.net
This thread, and the rules thread, link back to one another.
jakidaki02
Lurker
Hi. I have stumbeled upon this wonderful forum. And thank you guys for keeping it so well runing.
I just have a few questions that i didn't find an answer to.
How do you handle the IP logs on this site? I have seen somewhere that you wipe them daily. Is that so?
I just have a few questions that i didn't find an answer to.
How do you handle the IP logs on this site? I have seen somewhere that you wipe them daily. Is that so?
CuriousGal
Lurker
Understood and agreed
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
I'm going to post my complaint here and then I'm done with it. I was engaging in this thread: https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threa...nnable-offense-now.60975/page-10#post-1399939
Naturally the first thing I did was to consult the rules... you know the OP of the current thread. It's not there, I pointed out it's not there. People talked about precedent. Now the guy who was banned for a week is fully banned for a call to action, which I have seen other people warned about; for instance in regards to the Zeta Chronicles.
I was going to post that at least he was banned for something in the rules... but he wasn't. "Call to action" or "CTA" is not in the OP or in any of the posts in this thread. I read through the whole thing so I didn't rely just on a search.
Judges in English Common Law systems aren't allowed to write new laws or alter old ones. All they can do is interpret them and their sometimes bizarre interpretations are precedent. Precedent in English common law systems has created the need for lawyers because you can't just read the law and know what it means. The absurd claim goes around that "ignorance is no excuse" but every single person who might say that ignorant because now not even lawyers can know it all. It's a bug not a feature. It isn't something to be trying to reproduce in miniature.
The mods here are not common law judges, when you come to a decision about a definable banned behavior you can put it in the rules. It can't be that hard, and even an imperfect description is better than no description at all.
I shouldn't have to say it, but apparently someone has to: You can't blame people for not following rules that aren't written down.
Naturally the first thing I did was to consult the rules... you know the OP of the current thread. It's not there, I pointed out it's not there. People talked about precedent. Now the guy who was banned for a week is fully banned for a call to action, which I have seen other people warned about; for instance in regards to the Zeta Chronicles.
I was going to post that at least he was banned for something in the rules... but he wasn't. "Call to action" or "CTA" is not in the OP or in any of the posts in this thread. I read through the whole thing so I didn't rely just on a search.
Judges in English Common Law systems aren't allowed to write new laws or alter old ones. All they can do is interpret them and their sometimes bizarre interpretations are precedent. Precedent in English common law systems has created the need for lawyers because you can't just read the law and know what it means. The absurd claim goes around that "ignorance is no excuse" but every single person who might say that ignorant because now not even lawyers can know it all. It's a bug not a feature. It isn't something to be trying to reproduce in miniature.
The mods here are not common law judges, when you come to a decision about a definable banned behavior you can put it in the rules. It can't be that hard, and even an imperfect description is better than no description at all.
I shouldn't have to say it, but apparently someone has to: You can't blame people for not following rules that aren't written down.
Are we talking about how he was now permma banned because of what he said today? When it was brought to ZT about what he said, he threw him another ban hammer. You're welcome to speak with ZT about it. Also he already made himself look bad by saying he's going to "expose ZV" and talk about in his podcast how he thinks another member is a zoosadist when he most likely never even talked to the guy.
You haven't seen his recent posts in his profile before he was banned today I'm guessing?
There are 4 pages after that. Did you not read them? There was plenty of proof. Do we really need to explain to you why we banned someone? Do we need to explain what a call to action is? Yes, we are common law judges. If we find that someone is a danger to us, our members or this forum we will FUCKING ban them instantly, without anyone else's approval, and without second thought. That is what happened, and that is what will continue to happen. If you make yourself a clear and true enemy, you will be shown the door in the most expedient way possible.
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
No, you are talking about the guy. I am talking about the principle.
The pages that are relevant to my complaint are in this thread.
I don't understand the problem. If you're all in agreement what is stopping you from updating the rules to reflect the mandate you are acting out?
Mandate is pure and simple. If you are deemed a real and credible threat, you will be thrown the fuck out. What rule do you want? If you are deemed a threat you will be thrown out? Is that what you want? We will do and will continue to do what is in the best interest of 1, this website, 2 us, 3 this community in any order you could mathematically imagine. If any of those are breeched or threatened, we will act accordingly. We will NOT waste time explaining things to you or anyone else. If you feel that you need explanation, feel free to contact admin. This problem is solved and done.
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
In the time you're taking to respond to me you could have put it in the rules. I don't need an explanation, I'm the one explaining what's wrong.
Simple: Whatever rule you're enforcing that isn't listed in the list of rules.
You ban people for calls to action, write down "calls to action are forbidden and instant ban without warning"
You ban people for threatening to dox, write down "threatening to dox is forbidden, and instant ban without warning"
You ban people for being a "credible threat" to "us/the website/this community", write down "...." yea I can't think of anything for something so obviously Orwellian, maybe you could call that rule the "patriot zoo act".
D
dr.zoo
Guest
I cant find any info on how to edit or remove my own thread or messages in threads...
There are no edit or delete button, only report and reply. Should there not be an option to do so, in case you published something you later regret??
There are no edit or delete button, only report and reply. Should there not be an option to do so, in case you published something you later regret??
Editing posts after five minutes is limited to members with 150 posts and above due to the edit feature being abused by a troll, and only staff members can delete threads so you have to report it and request it be deleted.
D
dr.zoo
Guest
ok thanks (new here ?
Ted Danson Machine
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Fuck yea, beautifully stated
Ted Danson Machine
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Oh, didn't see you arrive on your fucking golden throne.
Why do you think YOU are owed an explanation for any of this situation in which you were not involved? A bit egotistical honestly.
Ted Danson Machine
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Hey here's an idea, when we see something that is obviously detrimental to the safety and privacy of EVERYONE HERE, let's just say "fuck it, who cares"...........oh, unless it is specifically detailed in the rules as a violation in the manner WE think it should...makes sense.
jfc
jfc
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
I didn't ask for an explanation, read more carefully.
Kristy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
My question is for @Doglover001 or @Oldman or @FloofyNewfie
So, July 27, 2022: Human on human watersports becomes a new prohibited topic. That's fine, I can follow the rules easily enough. Problem: It's safe to say over 100,000 members joined before that. (A few of them might even have read the rules)
What is the method by which pre-July '22 members would be informed of a topic which wasn't prohibited before, but is now?
Because, currently, the only way for them to discover it, is to get a reprimand, or get banned or suspended. Knowing what topics are prohibited topics is crucial.
Another related question:
How are you defining "watersports?" It's a term which encompasses multiple activities.
There are hundreds of watersport comments of different kinds all over the site. Only a few days ago, I came across such a thread with recent activity. The rule says "Human on human watersports." If that's referring to one specific kind, what kind is that?
Thank-you for your time,
Kristy
Watersports is not ban worthy, nor even point worthy in my book. It's a simple delete with a verbal warning. And by verbal warning I mean the the little pop up message you get when you click on the notification icon.
Human on human watersports, means just that. Those can be viewed and enjoyed on another forum. This is a zoo forum.
No human on animal watersports. The animal will not receive pleasure from that.
If a dog, or any other animal is relieving themselves and someone jumps in, sure. We will allow it.
Kristy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I appreciate your reply. Yes, a human peeing on their pet or any animal is abhorrent, and disrespectful of their pet or that animal.
I'm assuming, then, you mean human on human watersports as a human peeing on another human's body.
I hope I'm not making anyone uncomfortable with this. That is certainly not my intent. It's just that there are a few other activities under the watersports category which get mentioned on the site, and on which a ruling is needed, in light of the July prohibition.
One is pee drinking, commented upon quite often, and the other is peeing inside your partner, discussed at length on it's own thread: https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/piss-inside-your-girlfriend-partner.46195/page-3#post-1372286
If I could get a ruling on those two activities, it would be a big help.
Thank-you, and I appreciate your indulgence.
Discussion...... I'm thinking we will allow. If there are pics, then the entire thread gets deleted. If it's animal pee in the pics, it will be a pass as well. Watersports encompasses everything related to human pee visually. Now, I could be over ruled, or if other mods vote that it needs to go then it's gone.
Kristy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Thank-you for your time spent on this. It helped a lot.
You are welcome.