Question Off-site/Discord Rule Enforcement

[tsukasa]

I'm unable to see anything other than a contradiction and loophole in the way rule 11/11a (I can't tell which one) is written; rule 11/11a states (colour-emphasis mine):

Please do not advertise other Discord communities, other forums or roleplaying sites. You may seek writing partners within your Request Thread to establish an RP group on Discord, but your Discord group shall consist of only approved BMR members and shall adhere to all BMR rules. Simply put, your Discord group shall be for the sole purpose of writing with other BMR members only. If you need any clarification, the onus is on you to contact staff.

Yet, just below it, rule 13 states (colour-emphasis mine):

Keep negativity and hostility off the boards. Staff discretion on what is and is not too negative for the site is final. If you see a problem on the forums or on Discord, either hit the report button or seek assistance from a Moderator or Administrator. Do not attempt to play moderator. Please note that any issues that arise on a venue other than Blue Moon Roleplaying or BMR's Discord server (i.e. emails, Skype/Discord, phone/text) are unable to be moderated by staff. Shaming members is not allowed anywhere on-site, Request Threads and Journals included. No matter what your reasons for it are (and 'humor' will also not be an acceptable explanation) any shaming of members is subject to removal at any time. No shaming anyone else's writing, kinks, preferences in regards to genre or plot, styles, or anything else.

How can off-site platforms, including Discord, be moderated by rule 11/11a when rule 13 states they can't be? If someone was to join from outside of BMR, how is that both enforceable and unenforceable, simultaneously? Neither rule seems to take precedence over the other, so this is either, or both, a loophole and/or flaw in the rules. Disputes occurring on such off-site platforms cannot be moderated by BMR staff (and rightly so), but they can be moderated against non-BMR members? It really doesn't make any sense, especially if the non-BMR members joined/were invited from outside of BMR (e.g. not brought in from BMR RTs etc).

Can a staff member clarify this and perhaps fix this so rule 11/11a takes precedence over rule 13 in this aspect, or just drop this aspect of rule 11/11a? It's a huge contradiction with too much room for opinion over fact when it comes to how off-site platforms are moderated, especially if staff are not participating in such off-site platforms and have no authority or control over them.

 

[Lord DreamCrusher]

From my understanding it's effectively a gentleman's agreement. By using BMR to find partners for Discord you are agreeing to the rules that BMR has established. While BMR cannot directly moderate off-site content since it isn't within their realm, you are obligated to follow their rules all the same if you are utilizing BMR for the active search of partners in the first place.

Obviously a moderator will have to clarify this further of course but you are correct in pointing out that it's a weird gray area at this point. Off-site wasn't even allowed until fairly recently and I believe the general moderator status was something along the lines of: "We are testing out how to approach the allowing of off-site roleplays through BMR. A lot of our rulings are temporary at this point and somewhat messy. They will most certainly be expanded upon and changed as time goes on."

 

[tsukasa]

From my understanding it's effectively a gentleman's agreement. By using BMR to find partners for Discord you are agreeing to the rules that BMR has established. While BMR cannot directly moderate off-site content since it isn't within their realm, you are obligated to follow their rules all the same if you are utilizing BMR for the active search of partners in the first place.

Obviously a moderator will have to clarify this further of course but you are correct in pointing out that it's a weird gray area at this point. Off-site wasn't even allowed until fairly recently and I believe the general moderator status was something along the lines of: "We are testing out how to approach the allowing of off-site roleplays through BMR. A lot of our rulings are temporary at this point and somewhat messy. They will most certainly be expanded upon and changed as time goes on."

Sure, it's an agreement, but the current state of the rules don't seem all that enforceable and are a huge grey area. BMR cannot, and should not (same as any other website, including Iwaku Roleplay and Umbra Roleplaying etc), be able to overreach into off-site platforms with their own rules when they simply do not control that platform. Of course, you can say you don't want people who behave a specific way to be a BMR member, the same way Discord does/has planned background checks on members, but the entire thing feels off, as if BMR is attempting to extend its control onto other platforms; this becomes a noticeable issue when people using such off-site platforms may come to an agreement at some point that non-BMR members are welcome into the RP/server, at which point the rule begins to fall apart as they would effectively be getting in the way of and preventing the RP from continuing, despite the members agreeing to split away from BMR and turn it into its own thing; at that point, what authority does BMR have when the exact same setup could have been achieved using the off-site platform, alone?

 

[Lord DreamCrusher]

The non-BMR member thing was intended to help prevent user poaching if I recall correctly; specifically the practice that established roleplaying servers would branch out onto other sites such as BMR and try to steal users away by advertising their own niche instead.

I think the problem is that BMR didn't even seem to want to include off-site roleplaying as something you could search for on the site because it couldn't be moderated. However the demand was there from users, especially for Discord, and so BMR felt the need to do something to cater to that group rather than risk losing them entirely. The agreement of BMR rules is also perhaps a safeguard for the site so that if an off-site group was found to be doing something sketchy that BMR could not be considered at-fault for their behavior.

Overall though I'm not disagreeing with you and your concerns. I was just trying to provide some added context surrounding the issue that you might not have been aware about. I don't really have anything more to add on the topic at this point.

 

[tsukasa]

I think the problem is that BMR didn't even seem to want to include off-site roleplaying as something you could search for on the site because it couldn't be moderated.

This is understandable, but it's not really enforceable, either way, and why should it be when that would prevent people from RPing on the platform of their choice? You could argue BMR is a walled-garden which doesn't want people to leave, but no one wants that level of restriction, and I'm pretty sure no one here is abandoning BMR for Discord servers (which have the nice feature of channels etc), just using it as a supplementary platform alongside BMR. It is, itself, a grey area, but it doesn't seem enforceable either way, as far as I perceive it. I consider BMR as more of a "hub" to discover partners.

Overall though I'm not disagreeing with you and your concerns. I was just trying to provide some added context surrounding the issue that you might not have been aware about. I don't really have anything more to add on the topic at this point.

I just want to understand how this is enforced (if it's even enforceable), because it is genuinely as confusing as it is frustrating. It seems we share a similar perception of these rules and the contradiction they create.

 

[ΛVΛ]

Permitting Discord to facilitate group RP for BMR members was a recent addition. It was when we created the Off-Site RT section. It was to adapt to the wide spread preference for Discord type venues to write with partners. The latter rule about moderating Discord was prior to the inclusion of Off-Site RT and simply hasn't been adjusted. The rules in 11 take precedence to the rules in 13 as it pertains to the requirements to be able to carry out an Off-Site RT. It is for BMR members only, so all members agree to the rules. That one line in rule 13 was just never adjusted to the inclusion of Off-Site RT, but it is essentially irrelevant. Rule 11 stands.

 

[tsukasa]

Permitting Discord to facilitate group RP for BMR members was a recent addition. It was when we created the Off-Site RT section. It was to adapt to the wide spread preference for Discord type venues to write with partners. The latter rule about moderating Discord was prior to the inclusion of Off-Site RT and simply hasn't been adjusted. The rules in 11 take precedence to the rules in 13 as it pertains to the requirements to be able to carry out an Off-Site RT. It is for BMR members only, so all members agree to the rules. That one line in rule 13 was just never adjusted to the inclusion of Off-Site RT, but it is essentially irrelevant. Rule 11 stands.

Could you at least update the rules so it's clearer and members know rule 11 take precedence over this? Explicit is always better than implicit in regards to policies.

Also, what happens if all BMR members decide to take the RP/server completely in its own direction? That would be identical to those members using their Discord accounts to create a server, since they already know each other, and BMR could not prevent or restrict that; even if an RT was created on-site, first. The only way which seems enforceable there is to remove their off-site group RT from BMR if they choose to do so, but, other than that, how could BMR enforce the server to remain BMR members-only, when it could either 1) be obscured from BMR members and staff, or 2) be recreated in another server which is private and invite-only in secret? Adding to those points, any BMR member obviously has the right to create RPs on Discord, unrelated to BMR, and have BMR members and non-BMR members there; this would be completely unrelated to BMR and its rules.

 

[ΛVΛ]

Then they can no longer advertise for it on BMR, or be in violation of the rules.

 

[tsukasa]

Then they can no longer advertise for it on BMR, or be in violation of the rules.

This is where it gets tricky, though, which is what I'm saying. How would you know if it originated on BMR or not? What if the RP was recreated in the same form in another server, and that was treated as different to the RT posted on BMR, with some tweaks? I don't understand how it's that easy to say BMR could enforce that. What if a member has multiple Discord servers for the same RP, but they are different, with only one of them being intended for the BMR post? There are a lot of holes which this rule doesn't patch.

 

[ΛVΛ]

Nothing tricky about respecting the rules and following them. If a group grows beyond the OP's desire to only advertise & recruit from BMR, then they are to cease advertising on BMR. The discretion is then on the other BMR members if they wish to remain within the group or to pull out and stick to BMR centered groups. The onus is on them to report misconduct should a group leader be violating the rules by including non-BMR members while still advertising on-site.

 

[tsukasa]

Nothing tricky about respecting the rules and following them. If a group grows beyond the OP's desire to only advertise & recruit from BMR, then they are to cease advertising on BMR. The discretion is then on the other BMR members if they wish to remain within the group or to pull out and stick to BMR centered groups. The onus is on them to report misconduct should a group leader be violating the rules by including non-BMR members.

This still doesn't answer my question. It isn't as easy as you are making it seem. Everything is tricky about this. If I made 2+ servers with the same RP, and posted on both BMR and Discord, how would you know which came from where? Even if I was to have a BMR-only server, and a BMR member reported me for having someone else there, what if that was the other server they were talking about? Lots of room for misunderstandings. Removing an RT from BMR isn't a straight-up, valid solution when the member would have done nothing wrong in having one server for BMR RT(s) and another for Discord or elsewhere. It's still a leaky policy.

 

[ΛVΛ]

Absolutely nothing is tricky or leaky about this. The onus is on you and each BMR member. Be responsible or risk warning, then discipline, then ban. Do not include BMR members (those recruited via BMR RT) into a non-BMR only group, problem solved. I'm not going to go around in circles on this.

 

[tsukasa]

Absolutely nothing is tricky or leaky about this. The onus is on you and each BMR member. Be responsible or risk warning, then discipline, then ban. Do not include BMR members (those recruited via BMR RT) into a non-BMR only group, problem solved. I'm not going to go around in circles on this.

Again, you did not answer my question, and are being hostile about answering my question.

I have a human right, respective of freedom, to create whatever server I choose on Discord, be it a replica of what I post on BMR or not, and I have a right to control those servers. You are seemingly wanting an easy way out by saying "one server for BMR and that's it, nothing else", which is a huge no-no and isn't actually enforceable, no matter how you put it. You do not control Discord, or any other platform, nor do you get to say whether I can post the same plot on Discord, and if BMR members decide to join my server after seeing the Discord post (NOT the BMR post), then someone decides to say they came from BMR when they did not, where do I stand after a false request?

I am still waiting for how that kind of situation will be handled, and how that is not defined as overreach.

 

[ΛVΛ]

No.

I did not state that you can only have one server ever in life. You are free to do whatever you want outside of BMR, where the scope of BMR rules do not reach. Please go back and read what I wrote. I said only include BMR members recruited via BMR RT into the BMR off-site group. It's pretty clear. What you do beyond that is up to you and up to everyone else involved. If BMR members wish to partake in another group that isn't bound by BMR rules, that is their discretion. The only rule violation is the active advertising and recruiting via BMR specifically for a non-BMR only group. Once again, it's pretty clear. I'm not sure how that is hostile.

 

[tsukasa]

The only rule violation is the active advertising and recruiting via BMR specifically for a non-BMR only group. Once again, it's pretty clear.

If I have 2 servers, with 1 for BMR off-site requests, and 1 for Discord requests (posted on Discord, not BMR), then someone from BMR joins the Discord-advertised server (not the BMR-advertised one), how would I be able to defend myself by saying "this isn't the BMR server, it's another one"? That's a scary point to consider, since you would have no idea which one is which. That's what I'm not understanding, and I don't know how to make it clearer. Saying we are going around in circles is untrue when nothing you have said has given a solution to this issue; it's a loophole for members who don't like you or are mistaken about the server they have joined (they think it's for BMR members only, despite being posted on Discord with my profile linked to here via my signature). It's not easy to comprehend, and knowing such a misunderstanding or malice could get me warned or banned is not a nice thing to think about. What are the safeguards against this, and how are checks performed when the same plot is posted on multiple platforms, and when more than 1 server exists, both having BMR members (only 1 BMR-exclusive from this site, the other BMR members who saw it via Discord, not BMR)?

This hasn't yet been answered and is the specific answer I am looking for. It is not as easy as seeing an RT on-site, and a public or PM thread for that RT.

 

[Fruit]

I think it would be better to simply follow the general goal/spirit of the rule rather than use mental gymnastics to argue loopholes and demand explanations regarding burden of proof in a hypothetical niche scenario with multiple contingent circumstances that didn't even happen.

Just my $0.02.

 

[tsukasa]

I think it would be better to simply follow the general goal/spirit of the rule rather than use mental gymnastics to argue loopholes and demand explanations regarding burden of proof in a hypothetical niche scenario with multiple contingent circumstances that didn't even happen.

Just my $0.02.

It's a real possibility, and something similar has happened to me, before (not on BMR), which is why this needs addressing.

 

[ΛVΛ]

You are creating a scenario where someone on BMR joins your non-BMR group in an attempt to set you up? That seems rather unlikely, but should that happen, a member of staff would be able to join the BMR specific group (or both groups if you wish) and view time stamps that verify that you, in fact, have similar groups running concurrently, but for specific people (BMR vs non-BMR).

The group for BMR would have only BMR members writing within and are bound by BMR rules. What takes place in the other group is beyond our rules and BMR members within the non-BMR group is there at their own discretion and at your prerogative. If you worry that someone in particular is out to set you up, then do not include them. It's your group, your call.

Lastly, should lines somehow get blurred, which I find to be unlikely, you'd first be warned, not outright banned, so you are not at risk of losing your account. You'd then also be able to make the decision to dismiss the BMR member(s) from the non-BMR specific group to protect yourself if it worries you so much. Staff will only take action if there is clear violation within the BMR specific group. What gets reported from another non-BMR group, regardless how similar it is, is beyond our control, and I assure you that staff wants nothing to do with that non-BMR group.

 

[Fruit]

It's a real possibility, and something similar has happened to me, before (not on BMR), which is why this needs addressing.

I just want to say, and this is just in general and not pertaining to the two rules in question, that it'd good to remember that at the end of the day BMR is just an online platform run and moderated by a group of volunteers. The site rules, in their current form, are the result of over a decade's work in revisions and rewriting from multiple generations of admins passing the torch. Loopholes, blurry lines, and vague wordings are found and fixed daily in constitutions written and revised by experts for centuries. Anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with an ironclad set of rules with no loopholes or ambiguity that still manages to cover everything that needs to be covered. Staff discretion will always be needed, and therefore it would be healthy to operate under the mutual trust that staff will prioritize the interest of the community without prejudice and that members won't try to exploit loopholes maliciously.​