Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WizO_Cat 04-20-07, 10:59 PM	Basically, the below is what I copied from Paradox with some reminders as well: Number One: The Code of Conduct is still enforced. Swearing, masking, trolling and baiting, encouraging illegal activies and so on are NOT allowed. Number Two: As in the past, we don't allow organized boycotts to take place using WotC servers. As for the comments "I'm not going to spend money on WotC products", we're going to allow that - however, where we draw the line is when it becomes organized. Please note that we've had this rule on the boards for a long time and we've extended it to 3rd party companies as well. Please note that this includes boycotts of the message boards as well. Is a guests want to leave the message boards for a while that is understandable - however, organizing a boycott of the message boards will not be tolerated. Number Three: The WizOs are NOT the ones that make the decisions for WotC. Expressing displeasure is fine, but blaming and bashing the WizOs is wrong. Making our lives difficult by breaking the rules is a no-no as well. (See Number One.) Number Four: If the discussions threads become to unmanageable, I'll have to leave one open for discussion and close the rest, as we've done before on other hot topics. Number Five: Reminder and an extension on Number 1 - advocating unauthorized downloading of non-OGL/copyrighted material is considered as serious as Copyright Infringement on these boards, and thus both are a violation of the Code of Conduct. Number Six: Reminder and an extension on Number 1 - keep the discussion on the topic of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, it is going to be considered Baiting, which is against the Code of Conduct. All we're asking is though we understand that discussion can get heated at time when both sides have a strong opinion, please just don't make it personal in nature to other guests. Please note that we're of course allowing all the guests to vent their frustration when it comes to this subject, and we appreciate constructive criticism. In fact, we're leaving open the threads that are venting because we understand the basis for it. A magazine that has been around for 30 years, when many of us were starting the game MANY years ago, is closing. However, when it becomes destructive, to the products and our on-line community, is where we as WizOs draw the line.
Seeker95 04-21-07, 08:34 AM	Number Four: If the discussions threads become to unmanageable, I'll have to leave one open for discussion and close the rest, as we've done before on other hot topics.Can we please jump to this immediately? We don't need eight threads on Dungeon / Dragon magazines on the first two pages. Especially when they all say the same thing (except Yaeri's 1001 thread, which points out in a thread how many threads there are). One Magazine Thread to rule them all? Please?
NobodyRemembersThis 04-21-07, 07:26 PM	Seconded. Let's please get all of the knee jerk reactions in one thread so other legit topics (not the stupid Balor thing :P ) can be discussed.
Solaris 04-22-07, 12:26 AM	advocating downloading non-OGL material is considered Copyright Infringement on these boards, and Copyright Infringement is a violation of the Code of Conduct. What? Advocating copyright infringement is copyright infringement? Why would you dishonestly equate two unequivalent things when you could just as easily be honest and forbid them both? Instead of "infringing copyright is against the code of conduct, and advocating copyright infringement is the same thing as copyright infringement", you could simply say "Infringing copyright and advocating copyright infringement are against the code of conduct". Is making up your own nonsensical definitions just more fun, or something?
WizO_Cat 04-22-07, 12:34 AM	Please note that is says: advocating downloading ono-OGL material is considered Copyright Infringement on these boards I'm not saying the legal definition - we're saying how the WizOs moderate the Wizards Community boards. This is no different than how we have always moderate the boards. In fact, there are other actions which people legally have the right to do everyday in their house, but we don't allow per the Code of Conduct. (ie. Spamming, Off-topic discussion, etc.)
Solaris 04-22-07, 12:41 AM	I'm not saying the legal definition - we're saying how the WizOs moderate the Wizards Community boards.That's not addressing my point. Why make up your own false definition which differs from the legal one? It's certainly not necessary in order for both of them to be against the code of conduct. Look, it's as if instead of a "cats and dogs are not allowed" sign, you had a sign saying "cats are considered to be dogs, and dogs are not allowed". Why bother with such nonsense when sense is actually easier and more honest? [Edit: Even the code of conduct itself correctly says "promotion of or engaging in..." -- the bogus interpretation you presented appears to be all yours, and not a matter of policy after all.]
WizO_Cat 04-22-07, 01:31 AM	That's not addressing my point. Why make up your own false definition which differs from the legal one? It's certainly not necessary in order for both of them to be against the code of conduct. Look, it's as if instead of a "cats and dogs are not allowed" sign, you had a sign saying "cats are considered to be dogs, and dogs are not allowed". Why bother with such nonsense when sense is actually easier and more honest? Well, that's because we intentionally don't try to get into the fine details for each one of the items of the Code of Conduct. Part of the reason that we don't is due to that if we did: (a) some guests would just try to find loopholes in the "rigidly written" rules to bypass the intent of the Code of Conduct (ie. "yeah it says that I can't spam the board, but it doesn't say I can't spam the boards with the word "cheese" specifically") and, (b) if we tried to capture every detail, it would be a little unwieldly for each guest to try to comply because of how wordy it becomes. Thus, for these boards, all guests signed up to the message board policy set forth by WotC. WotC has decided to use message board moderators (WizOs) and the Code of Conduct for moderating the Wizards Community message boards. The Code of Conduct states, "but not limited to" at the introduction of the policy. I'm just telling you how we moderate it, and it is no dfferent than how we have done it in the past. Am I saying this is the only way that it can be moderated on the internet. No, it's just how we do it here. I could easily imagine a board that deals with legal discussion maybe making a Code of Conduct that emulates the law exactly. However, it's just not the way we do it here.
Solaris 04-22-07, 01:45 AM	Well, that's because we intentionally don't try to get into the fine details for each one of the items of the Code of Conduct.This has nothing to do with fine details. "cats and dogs are forbidden" and "dogs are forbidden, and we consider cats to be dogs" are both equivalent in meaning -- the difference is that the first one is simple and true, and the second one is insane. This, and the rest of your post, again, completely fails to address my point. My point is that you're opting for the completely insane definition instead of the simple one which is actually in the Code of Conduct. (a) some guests would just try to find loopholes in the "rigidly written" rules to bypass the intent of the Code of Conduct (ie. "yeah it says that I can't spam the board, but it doesn't say I can't spam the boards with the word "cheese" specifically") Spamming the boards with the word "cheese" is a special case of spamming the boards, and is therefore forbidden by the more general statement -- this example is completely useless and hopefully isn't representative of the logical skills you bring to bear in your moderation. Thus, for these boards, all guests signed up to the message board policy set forth by WotC. WotC has decided to use message board moderators (WizOs) and the Code of Conduct for moderating the Wizards Community message boards. The Code of Conduct states, "but not limited to" at the introduction of the policy. My point has absolutely nothing to do with the "not limited to" clause. It's a matter of Wiz_Os making up their own bizarre definitions which aren't reflected in the policy we all signed up to. Are you ever going to get around to addressing my point?
WizO_Cat 04-22-07, 02:02 AM	Well, besides the "not limited to text, let's also go to the comment in the Code of Conduct in question: promotion of or engaging in certain illegal activities, For example: drugs, drug paraphernalia, rape or solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation Thus, the copyright violation is really just an example of the main point, which is promotion of certain illegal activities, which I noted in the original post. And, yes, we as WizOs are going to moderate on the conservative side of the subject (whether it is WotC or 3rd party content) since the industry takes the issue seriously. Also note that copyright violation was one of the examples. The statement doesn't imply that those are the only examples. It like saying, "Pets can have fur. Some examples are cats and dogs." That doesn't mean that cats and dogs are the only examples of pets that can have fur ... you could have a hamster, gerbil, rabbit, rat, etc.
Solaris 04-22-07, 02:14 AM	Three posts, and you've still failed to come anywhere near addressing my point. Well, besides the "not limited to text, let's also go to the comment in the Code of Conduct in question: promotion of or engaging in certain illegal activities, For example: drugs, drug paraphernalia, rape or solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation Thus, the copyright violation is really just an example of the main point, which is promotion of certain illegal activities, which I noted in the original post. No, what you noted in the original post is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The code of conduct says "promotion of or engaging in ... copyright violation" is forbidden. This is a perfectly reasonable statement, analogous to "dogs and cats are forbidden." You, however, said that copyright violation is forbidden, and that promotion of copyright violation is considered to be the same thing as copyright violation itself. This is a completely unreasonable statement, NOT supported by the code of conduct, analogous to "dogs are forbidden, and we consider cats to be the same thing as dogs". My question, once again, is: why are you insisting on making that false identification, in contradiction to the code of conduct, when the simpler statement that both are forbidden is (a) sufficient, (b) not insane, and (c) what the code of conduct actually says in the first place? All this stuff about "not limited to", and "examples", have nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm asking. They do not bear on the situation. They are completely irrelevant. Please stop avoiding my question by focusing on them.
Shadowhowler 04-22-07, 03:58 AM	Well, that's because we intentionally don't try to get into the fine details for each one of the items of the Code of Conduct. Part of the reason that we don't is due to that if we did: (a) some guests would just try to find loopholes in the "rigidly written" rules to bypass the intent of the Code of Conduct (ie. "yeah it says that I can't spam the board, but it doesn't say I can't spam the boards with the word "cheese" specifically") Yup... I can see the Rules-Lawyers now... "Well, the CoC RAW does not forbid my doing it THIS way... Muhahaha." Ugh. I would also like to third the condencing of the Dragon/Dungeon threads into one thread... they are all OVER the place now, would be easier to deal with in one spot.
ORC_Paradox 04-22-07, 04:51 AM	You, however, said that copyright violation is forbidden, and that promotion of copyright violation is considered to be the same thing as copyright violation itself. This is part of the hair splitting (no pun intended- honest.) that we don't get into. Since we're not a court of law, we don't have different levels of punishment for breaking the rules. There's warning, and banned. The end result is the same, whether you do it, or promote it. Obviously none of the examples given in the CoC would be treated the same in a court, but again, promoting it and actually doing it are treated the same. You, however, said that copyright violation is forbidden, and that promotion of copyright violation is considered to be the same thing as copyright violation itself. Because it is right there in the CoC. Promoting illegal activity aginst the CoC. Engaging in illegal activity against the CoC. Thus, promoting the illegal activity is treated the same as engaging in the illegal activity. Person A keeps posting copyright material. Gets the warnings and a ban. Person B keeps posting a message where to illegally obtain material. Gets the warnings and a ban. What's different? Nothing. Both got warnings and a ban after breaking the rules continuously. If one violation got called something else, then I'd have to apologize for not crossing i's or dotting t's- but it doesn't change the fact that a breaking of the rules occured. And sometimes it's tough to tell which rule is broken, and there have been times where different rules were broken at the same time. You could argue that the cop gave you a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 35 mph zone should have been only 65, but your insurance company is going to say "You still got a speeding ticket."
Solaris 04-22-07, 06:49 AM	Because it is right there in the CoC.No it isn't, as I have shown several times now. The Code of Conduct says that each is forbidden, not that they are considered to be the same thing. Thus, promoting the illegal activity is treated the same as engaging in the illegal activity. Treated the same; that's fair enough, and is indeed what the Code of Conduct says. But for what it's worth, that's not what Cat said, or what he defended when challenged. I'll consider the matter settled, now that you've clarified the moderators' position. It's just a shame that Cat lacked sufficient understanding to accurately state that position in the beginning, or to clarify it himself when asked. Perhaps you can explain things to him.
Zersch 04-22-07, 12:34 PM	I would like to say that trimming the forums of these threads would be a good thing. So, here's my two cents along with Seeker and Shadowhowler. Solaris, I think the point is rather simple. For example: Person A commits a crime, say murder. Person B doesn't actually commit the crime, but they held the murder weapon beforehand, and stood by while the act was commited. While Person B didn't actually do anything, they didn't actually stop the crime from being commited either. Hence, guilt by association. I understood what the Wiz O's were getting at. I see that it says, basically to the effect of: "Don't do it, and don't tbe a party to it. It'll get you tossed out of here." Just my intrepratation.
Seeker95 04-22-07, 06:43 PM	14 Dungeon/Dragon Magazine threads currently active (posts in the last 48 hours). Can we *please* have the "One Thread" now?
Shadowhowler 04-22-07, 07:06 PM	14 Dungeon/Dragon Magazine threads currently active (posts in the last 48 hours). Can we *please* have the "One Thread" now? Amen!
WizO_Cat 04-22-07, 10:11 PM	We're not going to have just "one" thread since I think there is enough differences in some of their subject matter. However, I have closed some and merged others together for now.
daggeroflath 04-23-07, 03:37 AM	Well, that's because we intentionally don't try to get into the fine details for each one of the items of the Code of Conduct. Imagine what the char-ops board could come up with working on the Code of Conduct. The forum equivalent of Pun-Pun. <shakes in stark abject terror> :eek:
Gemstone 04-23-07, 08:48 AM	Imagine what the char-ops board could come up with working on the Code of Conduct. The forum equivalent of Pun-Pun. <shakes in stark abject terror> :eek: My guess would be WizO_Pun, a moderator with unlimited moderation power!
crimsonwolf 04-23-07, 02:03 PM	The Charc Op would come up with you able to do nothing becuse every action leads or influces someone in some way to do something illiegel :P
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-23-07, 06:07 PM	Cazt and paradox: Not to beat a dead horse, but I just thought that i would point out that solarris was not commenting the CoC, or how it is inforced. He was commenting on the way in which you worded your reminder. Basically he was correcting your grammer. The way you have it currently worded implies that you define promotion of copy right violation as copy right violation. And this is not the case. Granted both are voilations of the CoC, and no one is disputing that. However they are not the same thing. It would be if you said promotion of rape is against the CoC, and we the Wizos consider swearing to be the same as promoting rape. While both are against the CoC and can certainly result in either warning or banning, swearing and promoting rape are not the same thing. A better way to word what you had said would be to say, "The promotion of and or copy right infringement are aginst the CoC." It would be easier to understand, and less award.
WizO_Cat 04-23-07, 06:58 PM	The key was that, in the board moderators' eyes, we consider advocating non-OGL downloading the same in magnitude as Copyright Infringement, and thus we punish it in the same way. The OP was meant to infer the seriousness of how we treat the situation, not the education of what is a Copyright Infringement in the legal arena. However, there's no use in continually answering the same question on the same subject. Thus, in order to move on, I've edited the OP.
Zherog 04-23-07, 07:38 PM	The key was that, in the board moderators' eyes, we consider advocating non-OGL downloading the same in magnitude as Copyright Infringement... Does this imply you allow advocating the downloading of OGL material? Because, you know, that material is still protected by copyright as well.
WizO_Cat 04-23-07, 07:54 PM	Of course not. If it is copyrighted, and the downloading is unauthorized, then such advocation of downloading isn't allowed on the boards. (I also remember that there are site that legally download material with the publisher's permission either (a) though an excerpt review from the publisher or (b) selling PDFs with the publisher's approval - of course we're not trying to prevent this)
Zherog 04-23-07, 08:03 PM	So if your friendly reminder applies to everything, why did you only specify non-OGL material? Wouldn't it've just been easier to say, "Downloading sucks; don't do it."
WizO_Cat 04-23-07, 08:24 PM	It's been changed in the OP ... ;) And, as I said in my last post, there are forms of legal downloading. I had thought that my original post gave guests the idea of what we're asking/reminding without having to make it too verbose, but in the name of accuracy I've changed it.
crimsonwolf 04-23-07, 09:16 PM	question.... is it just UsA law ? becuse i have heard of issues like shareware music is semi legel so talking so about books is not?
TheYeti1775 04-23-07, 10:11 PM	Hey WizO's, It's only getting worse no rest for you guys. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=834968 Sorry but they are pulling more back. Yeti
TheYeti1775 04-23-07, 10:12 PM	question.... is it just UsA law ? becuse i have heard of issues like shareware music is semi legel so talking so about books is not? They base their rules off USA's law.
WizO_Cat 04-23-07, 10:16 PM	What he said. :)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-24-07, 10:26 AM	I would like to say that trimming the forums of these threads would be a good thing. So, here's my two cents along with Seeker and Shadowhowler. Solaris, I think the point is rather simple. For example: Person A commits a crime, say murder. Person B doesn't actually commit the crime, but they held the murder weapon beforehand, and stood by while the act was commited. While Person B didn't actually do anything, they didn't actually stop the crime from being commited either. Hence, guilt by association. I understood what the Wiz O's were getting at. I see that it says, basically to the effect of: "Don't do it, and don't tbe a party to it. It'll get you tossed out of here." Just my intrepratation. Close but not quiet. Wizo defination: Person A encourages person B to commit infraction X. Person A is guilty of inciting infraction X. Which carries the same penalty as infraction X. Therefor infract X and the incitement of infraction X are the same. Sorrelis and TPK point: Infraction X =/= incitement of infraction X.
Zersch 04-24-07, 11:00 AM	Eh, good enough for me. Thanks for the clarification. *points at TPK* What he said.:D
WizO_Cat 04-24-07, 12:16 PM	Just a reminder: it was changed last night ....
turalisj 04-29-07, 10:49 AM	Seconded. Let's please get all of the knee jerk reactions in one thread so other legit topics (not the stupid Balor thing :P ) can be discussed. We don't need 20 threads advocating how fighters are not broken/broken on the class boards either. Perhaps if the people who wrote the PHB stepped in and said something...
atlarman 06-04-07, 09:57 PM	Three posts, and you've still failed to come anywhere near addressing my point. No, what you noted in the original post is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The code of conduct says "promotion of or engaging in ... copyright violation" is forbidden. This is a perfectly reasonable statement, analogous to "dogs and cats are forbidden." You, however, said that copyright violation is forbidden, and that promotion of copyright violation is considered to be the same thing as copyright violation itself. This is a completely unreasonable statement, NOT supported by the code of conduct, analogous to "dogs are forbidden, and we consider cats to be the same thing as dogs". My question, once again, is: why are you insisting on making that false identification, in contradiction to the code of conduct, when the simpler statement that both are forbidden is (a) sufficient, (b) not insane, and (c) what the code of conduct actually says in the first place? All this stuff about "not limited to", and "examples", have nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm asking. They do not bear on the situation. They are completely irrelevant. Please stop avoiding my question by focusing on them. this is how " customer service" deals with most of our rules q s, so why does it shock u here? evade and confuse that they answer to every at wotc because if it wasn't muddled & confusing we wouldn't need them!
TheRealOrion 10-08-07, 10:40 PM	Sorry, I can't help but point this out. It's a pet peeve of mine: Copyright infringement isn't "illegal" per se. Infringing on someone's copyright merely grants them the legal right to sue you. Nothing more. It's not a crime unless it's done on a massive scale. Under no system can it be logically considered "theft," not legally, not philosophically, not logically. Even American law, which assumes that everything is like property (your soul, you life, your ideas, etc.), doesn't consider it theft. I did a fair amount of research on this. I know what I'm talking aobut. Now, I'm not saying it's ethical and I entirely respect Wizard's policy to not allow discussion of conspiracy to infringe copyright, theirs or anyone else's. But it is, and I cannot stress this enough not a crime. That's all. Done now.
FoulQ 10-08-07, 11:57 PM	Who cares about the fine details, let's just all follow the rules :P
ORC_Paradox 10-12-07, 07:35 AM	It's not a crime unless it's done on a massive scale. On the internet, one post can be viewed by millions. I'd say that's large scale.
branmakmuffin 10-12-07, 03:52 PM	Copyright infringement isn't "illegal" per se. Infringing on someone's copyright merely grants them the legal right to sue you. Nothing more. It's not a crime unless it's done on a massive scale. Under no system can it be logically considered "theft," not legally, not philosophically, not logically. Even American law, which assumes that everything is like property (your soul, you life, your ideas, etc.), doesn't consider it theft. I did a fair amount of research on this. I know what I'm talking aobut. In the U.S., certain violations of the Copyright Act are crimes without necessarily being on a "massive" scale, although from a practical standpoint, prosecution is probably reserved for those who do infringe on a "massive" scale. Haven't you ever seen those FBI disclaimers at the beginning of DVDs? I don't think he FBI investigates civil wrongs. Check out chapter 15 of Nimmer on Copyright. The idea of criminal IP infringement is ludicrous, IMO, but there it is.
WizO_Mimir 10-21-07, 10:08 PM	Let's avoid making things personal and accusing individuals. Note the age of the original post, and realize that this thread is stickied for informational purposes. Regardless of individual thoughts and feelings on the subject, Wizards of the Coast's policy must be followed on Wizards of the Coast's website. It's that simple.
branmakmuffin 10-22-07, 02:00 AM	Let's avoid making things personal and accusing individuals. Note the age of the original post, and realize that this thread is stickied for informational purposes. Regardless of individual thoughts and feelings on the subject, Wizards of the Coast's policy must be followed on Wizards of the Coast's website. It's that simple. Did I miss something? it seemed like a respectful debate to me. I know I wasn't advocating violating WotC's policy.