YTMND talk:Proposed Rules

Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss the rules or suggest your own.


Define real effort. --RySenkari
I think it means "not sticking random images with random sounds." Classic style sites get a little bit of a pass in that way, because the image and sound often go together in an important way to make a joke. Taking images/sounds from the internet and uploading them to YTMND without reasonable modification would break that rule. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)

People who do this are easily filtered out, shouldn't be a problem to figure these offenders out.--Laundry 23:29, January 16, 2008 (CST)

For one thing, I think the first offense should not be 1 month for any of the things. And also I hope this spamming thing doesn't just become picky moderators choosing what sites they think are dumb and marking them as spam. I can understand punishing users for duplicate sites but punishing someone for "sites with no real effort" really really bugs me. If that becomes an issue I could see a lot of people quitting ytmnd fast. --Keatonkeaton999 18:01, February 3, 2008 (CST)

No real effort: Number of sites that use this asset: 20. --Hanktherapper 18:22, February 3, 2008 (CST)

I'm a "NARV". There are more emotions evoked by YTMND than just LOLZ, why is this info NOT in the title properties? I should also be forced to choose "YESYES" ,"PTKFGS" or "YTMND" in my account type. Voting can also be filtered by being forced to leave a full comment with a complete sentence before voting a polar YES[5] or polar NO[1] so repeat offenders can be caught [Example:"Ariel_-is-Dinero_con_Ron-Paul's_Vin-Weapons"] Can't there also be weighted votes in favor of those who have older accounts that have successful fads above 3 stars in order to weaken vote attacks from over 9000 "n00b" "Alt-socks"? Non voters who view the site lets the software auto-vote 3 if they don't choose [After 6 months,voting for that site is locked]. But this would take a lot of work. Work that Max doesn't deserve to be burdened with due to his exhaustive life of awesome. Please send me a constructive comment so I can know this hasn't fallen on deaf,apathetic ears.--Mikewee777

So that means EVERY site with minimum effort will be deleted? Well, so long Lcad, dunsprace, and Daltonofzeal2. --MarioStar06

No, minimum effort means pulling a funny picture off the net and adding sound that's been used thousands of time. --Hanktherapper 22:53, February 22, 2008 (CST)

this site will be killed ?--Thebigbaka 17:06, June 16, 2008 (CDT)

At first I thought warnings would be better for people who don't know the rules, come in and just make a site because the button is there to do so. Then again, if they post 10 shit sites in 10 hours, they are idiots and deserve a time-out.--MrStump 03:42, October 6, 2008 (CDT)

Obscenity, Racism, Harassment, and shock value

Define unnecessary amount. --RySenkari
This one is up to a moderator's judgment, unless a consensus can be reached on a boundary. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST) I think the average user of the site is smart enough to understand what kinds of sites are only being made for shock value and can easily filter out offenders to this. I wouldn't see this as a problem, that rogue moderaters are hurting the site or the user base, the worst offenders tend to float to the top anyways.--Laundry 23:26, January 16, 2008 (CST)

A consensus, yes. This should begin with the establishment of a YTMND Decency Standard.

For example - FCC indecency definition: “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Our ytmnd standard should be set so that and all sites such as these will be subject to removal.

All sites which are deemed to perpetuate forms of hate by the definition I am drafting here should also be subject to removal:

Those sites which express hate via overt language/messages/images in relation to one's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation or otherwise derogatory references expressed in an inflammatory fashion.

Harassment of users should not be tolerated. Sites made specifically to attack certain users should be subject to removal. There should be no grey area here. A criticism is one thing; an attack is quite clearly another.

Shock value: If there is no content inherently obscene, indecent or overtly offensive in any fashion previously mentioned above, a site should stand. NiteSky 01:54, January 17, 2008 (CST)

Replies should be deleted as seen in ANY commented flame war. Mikewee777

Have people forgotten about Nigga Stole My Bike or am I just that old? --Cymoro 17:13, February 9, 2008 (CST)

The intention of these rules would be to completely eliminate racism, even something like NSMB. BTape 02:16, February 10, 2008 (CST)

Shit, if I could have my classic stuff or new PC people on YTMND, then fuck all y'all. You can't take my bike away from me, nigga. --Cymoro 08:35, February 11, 2008 (CST)

It says "Being racist for shock value or with a complete lack of humor or tact." That doesn't mean eliminating racist sites completely. It sounds more like it means only racist sites with low scores. Ochobobo 03:06, February 11, 2008 (CST)

It also says that NSMB is actually safe for work here: and that the only reason it's being nsfw'd is because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. Apparently max is trying move the ads around so that it can be marked worksafe. Ochobobo 23:12, February 16, 2008 (CST)

Site scores have nothing to do with a site being marked work safe or not safe for work. There is an uncertain future for how the work safe system will be handled. One discussion involved simply removing racism completely from ytmnd because it makes the site look bad and adds little at all. Less extreme would be what you noticed, which is an alternate way to remove the importance of marking sites nsfw. BTape 14:21, February 17, 2008 (CST)

I thought this was about suspending site creation for "racist" sites, not just nsfw'ing them. I just interpreted "complete lack of humor or tact" to mean the site has a low score. I imagine if it didn't then it should have at least some humor. Ochobobo 20:32, February 17, 2008 (CST)

One of the ideas in the discussion I mentioned was to use these new rules to forbid racism completely, not just to warn people/hide sites with NSFW. Depending on the way the situation turns out, the rules may be different. Complete lack of humor or tact seems to be up to the discretion of moderators, though user reaction will likely be involved as well for more borderline sites. BTape 21:07, February 17, 2008 (CST)

General use of pornography

These sites don't tend to do well anyways, and there shouldn't be a problem sifting out the problematic offenders.--Laundry 00:04, January 17, 2008 (CST)

In accordance to the terms of my drafted YTMND Decency Standard, pornography would be included under content worthy of removal. To be accurate, any form of imagery depicting human reproductive organs in a context blatantly intended to arouse sexual feelings or denote human sexuality. NiteSky 01:59, January 17, 2008 (CST)

also cocks --Kassius 09:32, January 28, 2008 (CST)

Creating to or linking sites or comments glorifying generally illegal actions

What about sites that are soley created to try and drive traffic to other sites, like that my mini city thing that was going on, or if I remember from before trying to get people to help out on Those weren't really attacks, just trying to generate web traffic. I do say they are annoying to look at, and generally aren't "good". maybe this type of thing would fall under just being a general idiot.--Laundry 23:17, January 16, 2008 (CST)

If it's glorifying extremely illegal actions, not only should the account be deleted but the person's IP should be permabanned from YTMND and their IP should be given to the local law enforcement community with a description of what they did. If it's glorifying illegal actions that the user was not a part of nor witnessed, only the first two actions need apply.--Firebird00500 20:31, February 5, 2008 (EST)

I just wanted to chime in and say I wholeheartedly agree with stern action against sites involving the mutliation/torture/burning of animals. There are few lines I draw with this site but this is seriously one of those that is only really funny to deranged individuals and is totally tasteless even to the most distasteful community YTMND is. However, I would hate to see this extend to "Legalize Marijuana" sites (account deletion). --Goneja 8:22, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Stephanie fad sit with this rule? Some of the more popular sites are suggestive to say the least.--MrStump 03:44, October 6, 2008 (CDT)

What about weed/various drug - related sites? Those could be classified as "glorifying illegal actions" but some of them are pretty funny and popular DarthWang 17:32, October 6, 2008 (CDT)

Voting Trends

Telling people how to vote is retarded, but whatever. --RySenkari
While some of the rules that fall under voting trends may be difficult to enforce, such as "revenge voting," I think there do need to be limits on the abusive voting habits that plague the site. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
So upvoting is banned? Even if there's a good reason? I only click on a site if I'm pretty sure I'm gonna like it, that's why most of my votes are 5s. You want me to deliberately try to view shitty sites? --RySenkari

I'd have to agree that there are some users that for whatever reason just seem to like almost everything, for example YourTheCoconutman. Ochobobo 19:17, January 15, 2008 (CST)

I think this is one of those up in the air kind of things on the borderline of impossible to enforce. People have the right to choose how they want to vote. On the other hand, you can sometimes clearly see the worst offenders doing it for no other reason than for the attention, and also the revenge 1's in a row on a different users top rated sites. That's going to take some watchful moderators to enforce that.--Laundry 23:13, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Yeah I think telling other people how to vote is very weird. If a user has no alts but chooses that he hates 99% of YTMNDs, then he is entitled to his/her votes. --Keatonkeaton999 18:08, February 3, 2008 (CST)

I think a good example of what BTape is talking about is users like Googler311 who is currently upvoting hundreds of sites a day using the random link or visiting people's page. I've watched him a lot in spy and he's upvoting sites faster than he could possibly view them. Fourest did the same thing a few months ago, but stopped when I pointed out he was doing it. The same could be said of leet-shoes and other downvoters who just blindly attack all new sites. --Hanktherapper 18:15, February 3, 2008 (CST)

There is no such thing as balanced voting anymore, I will completely admit that I abused the system by fiving every site but as of now the majority of the users just give split votes, either a 1 or a 5. The FPA mainly focuses on their own "style" of sites and tend to downvote the good quality ones by users that don't appreciate them for their boring site-making ways. I don't think there is ever going to be a chance in fixing the voting system because half of the people don't give a shit, and since that is the case, why should I? The site has a lot of issues that need to be dealt with so I will just try my best to stay away and I will make a positive comeback when good things are enrolled. --fourest 20:40, February 3, 2008 (CST)

Just a crazy idea, but how about just disabling the negative votes altogether? If you like some site, then hit a button, otherwise just don't vote (no ability to lower the rating, it can only go up). You know, sorta how SACD works - you get 1-bit signals that are served at a great frequency, so then we calculate the rating based on the number of those positive votes. Buckie 05:31, February 6, 2008 (CST)

You know, if we start following this mind set, why don't we have a Good/Bad vote system instead of a 5 star system? Then at the very least the problem of upvoters/downvoters is solved. Ensignmpls 17:40, February 16, 2008 (CST)

I dont know, going to proportions instead of means is kinda dangerous. --shoover

Grouping up to push an agenda

This would kind of elminate inside jokes from differnt parts of the ytmnd community, which I don't think might be a good thing. Forced fads would technically fit under this category, but It would all be up to moderators discretion. I guess it would be easy to pick out which ones are harmful though.--Laundry 23:33, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Real forced fads (Juicy Juice Day!) shouldn't be a concern. In my opinion, abusive group activity would include the recent BTape harassment or that Anime GIF spam not too long ago. That's the kind of stuff we should be dealing with. --Chav-Slayer

User Moderation Abuse

Does incorrectly mean blatantly labeling an NSFW site of yours SFW, or does it also extend to being wrong about a borderline site? --RySenkari
The punishments outlined currently are probably too harsh, but that can be changed. Yes, incorrectly marking a "borderline site" would fall under this rule. The planned moderation system may or may not have the same NSFW strictness it has now, though. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
Forcing people to make difficult judgment calls at the risk of being banned = bad. It makes YTMND less fun. --RySenkari

People tend to learn quicker by harsher punishments. They tend to think more clearly on what they post. I can understand the accident cases where they just clicked wrong. Maybe create more steps of the punishment ladder. first time: verbal warning, second time: week suspension, third time: month suspension, fourth time: account deleted. that way you can sift out who are the repeat offenders who are doing it on purpose.--Laundry 23:50, January 16, 2008 (CST)

"Voting comments of users you don't like down, or vice versa." How is stuff like this even enforceable? Do mods know how people are comment voting? --Hanktherapper 19:40, February 3, 2008 (CST)

Yeah, I mean, If there is a funny comment chain, I want to + all of the funny ones (which might just be all) I don't want to have to worry about punishment. There should be an option to not view comment ratings (if there isn't already). -TheGoogle 17:26, February 7, 2008 (CST)
This comment voting rule doesn't really make much sense. Minusing comments by people you don't like? Maybe you don't like them because you don't like their comments in the first place. Isn't that a much better explanation for why you're minusing them? If you're in an argument with someone in the comments section and you minus all of their opposing comments, then that may be a little childish but it's hardly abusive. The only way comment voting could be abusive at all is if you use alts to vote on comments and manipulate comment ratings. Ochobobo 21:13, February 7, 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure how this is meant to be enforceable, but even if it goes into effect the punishments aren't that harsh and would still have to be justified. BTape 00:56, February 8, 2008 (CST)

Use of alternate accounts

This makes sense, but also go after the offenders who have done this type of thing in the past to send a message of a level playing field for all ytmnd users.--Laundry 23:38, January 16, 2008 (CST)

But that wouldn't serve a point. In reality, it's just as effective as reading the rules itself. Besides, there are ytmnders guilty of this in the past but don't do this anymore. It wouldn't be fair to them to delete their account and all their hard work. --Claremonster 23:42, February 3, 2008 (PST)

Meta Data

Oh God I'm fucked. --Kassius 06:46, January 14, 2008 (CST)
All kinds of crazy, stupid shit here. This will kill a lot of good sites if you do this. --RySenkari
The punishments for improper citation might be lowered, but the emphasis is still put on crediting your sources. BTape 03:34, January 15, 2008 (CST)
Well that just blows. If I take from 20 different sources, do I have to credit all of them? This is YTMND, not shitty fucking Wikipedia. --RySenkari

Oh god, will you shut up? This is ytmnd, not the threat of nuclear war. --Kassius 17:03, January 15, 2008 (CST)

We should probably add "with complete lack of humor" to this or something. Sometimes just saying "uncited" or "Kill Bill" can be kinda funny, especially when everyone already knows what it's from. Ochobobo 19:24, January 15, 2008 (CST)

This would be a judgment call. I'm sure people would be intelligent enough to figure out who are reallyabusing the system. People are smart and functional enough to type "edited" or "+ edit".--Laundry 23:56, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Actually the only reason I can think of where "Knowingly putting incorrect image/sound origins into your site" would be really bad is if someone stole an image/sound from another YTMND and then cited it as if they made it. Ochobobo 20:06, January 17, 2008 (CST)

If you ever have that many sources, it's more of a Wiki article than a YTMND anyway. Seriously though, if you have multiple sources to cite, state 'Various' or 'See Description' then put the relative/important ones on your site profile via the description or keywords. --Chav-Slayer

I think the logical thing to do for this would be to enforce this rule on sites made after the rules are revised. --cobalt

What about Poland sites or other interruptor fads where a citation would ruin the surprise? Seriously a classic poland site would have to cite "04 Presidential debate+KHAAAAAAN+NOOOO+WROOOONG+LEEROY JENKINS+3500Hz Square Wave+MCFLYYYYY+MCGYVERRRRRR+" etc. etc. ad infinitum. Sites like that need humorous mis-citations just to even have some semblance of being cited, and also a funny image origin/sound origin is sometimes reason enough for me to raise my vote. Also imagine a Spanish Inquisition site with "Spanish Inquisition" in image and sound origin. NOBODY EXPECTS... Wait I did, it said it right in your citations fool. Humorous "abuse" of the citation system actually makes some sites a lot funnier and I am against this change. -Captain-L337

I think the default image origin should be "Created By XXX" That way it is easy to bash that they didn't create it and that they know they should change it. -Shoover

Just generally being a dumb idiot

This is easily enforcable. Should be no problems here for questionable judgment calls.--Laundry 23:43, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Yeah, I imagine the offenders in a lot of cases will be newcomers, so punishments here won't be so bad i.e. they have less to lose and more to learn. --Chav-Slayer

I can see 1 month punishments for alt accounts or whatever, but I don't like having 1 month punishments for these picky opinionated issues such as how constructive our comments are or how well put together our ytmnds are. At least give a warning on these or something. Funny, sometimes offensive, comments are one of the biggest reasons I like this site. If we have to make a certain number of characters in our comments (like newgrounds) or can't say anything slightly witty or edgy (like on digg) then site is going to goto hell. --Keatonkeaton999 18:16, February 3, 2008 (CST)

Trying not to get caught

Wouldn't this fall under the Alt account Category? This section seems unneeded and should be grouped above.--Laundry 23:58, January 16, 2008 (CST)

Section 47. B. Miscellaneous

The site change thing after it is highlighted is sometimes annoying, but there have been fads created from such actions. Maybe have a roll back option for mods. Such if a site is sponsored and someone decides to change it, then have the mods roll it back and slap protection on it from being edited.--Laundry 00:03, January 17, 2008 (CST)

But if max changes the content completely once the site is featured on digg, it's cool? --Keatonkeaton999 18:12, February 3, 2008 (CST)

I've only really found ytmnd's linked on digg annoying when it's clear whoever posted it did not make anything at all, and just found some image/sound on the internet. I think that's the only kind of site max has ever changed, so it's not as if he's destroying a YTMNDer's own work. Ochobobo 13:30, February 4, 2008 (CST)

Just found out about this proposed rule and I think it's a crock of manure. Two of the best and funniest fads, Dr-L337 and Pacard, are as a result of this exploit. It is hardly abused because any sites that try to employ this method either have to be really funny or good and therefore that makes it okay, or it is just crap and therefore gets voted off the front page. If in the case of sponsorship or top viewed then I can understand that as they can't simply get voted off the front page, but even then, Father-Mackenzie changing his page every day while he was sponsored was pretty damned hilarious. Just another ruse by the mods to make YTMND not funny really. Herald77 18:34, February 28, 2008 (CST)

Pacard was never funny. Ever.--MrStump 03:52, October 6, 2008 (CDT)