Jump to content

Staff Conduct Rules

Recommended Posts

Hello all. In wake of recent events, I've decided to make this suggestion. I'm sure that a "code of conduct," already exists for staff members, yet I feel that if it exists it is missing a crucial element. I'm unsure if they have anything separate from the rules binding the regular userbase, however I feel this suggestion could be extended to them as well.


I would like to propose a rule update that out of the moderation/admin staff, only TJ, or a staff member at the behest of TJ with written, explicit permission, can create an off-site discussion locations and that these locations must be open to every member of DC unless they have broken DC rules enough to have such privileges taken away. 


With a sort of 1.2 portion of the rule: Any off-site discussion location, with the exception of the official, moderated IRC chat, cannot be endorsed by members of staff.


Reason for Consideration:

+ Staff members running things give a false sense of "official" to many users. This is not a DC-only problem, when a staff member does something, it has much more weight than if a regular user did. A staff member being a normal user of someone else's discord, for example, with no special privileges is not a problem. A regular member excluding users on their own, private off-site location is not a problem, it is their locale and unless harassment/bullying is taking place they have a right to have whomever they like on it. HOWEVER, the staff represent DC and, by extension, TJ. A staff member excluding certain users from doing things just because that's how they want it is NOT acceptable, and violates a staff member's supposed impartial, unbiased viewpoint.


+ Help the staff members remain impartial. Sure, people are going to have favorites, people they like, and friends. It's a part of being human. However, allowing staff members to exclude people or require proof of some condition to join a group is not remaining impartial. 


+ Excluding users because a staff member wants to makes DC look bad, unprofessional, and biased in the eyes of the internet community. DC has always wanted to come off as professional - we have description reviews, sprite updates, and a strict dragon request review/revising system for this reason. The staff should not present DC in a way that is unfitting of this professionalism, except in the case of truly private/not site affiliated situations (ie, a staff member's personal account on a website is their own business, so long as it's unaffiliated with DC business)




+ Sprite staff, as they have no real power on the forums or on DC moderation-wise. They should be exempt from this rule and free to be however biased they want, so long as they're not also a moderator :P


+ Staff creating or maintaining an "official," channel on any platform with the express permission of TJ. 


+ Staff's own personal pages that are unaffiliated with DC; staff can do whatever they'd like with their own pages on platforms not associated with DC. However, when making a chatroom/group/anything else related to DC directly, being advertised on DC by a staff member, exclusions cannot be made of users just because.


+ Users who have broken forum rules/site rules and who have lost chat/forum privileges can be excluded for the duration of their forum/chat/site punishment, but cannot be excluded after the chat/forum/site punishment period has ended. Perma-banned users can be excluded permanently without warning.



I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense, if you need any clarification feel free to ask.

Tl;dr: Make a new rule that staff cannot make + endorse mediums of communication off-site using their position as a staff member if it excludes members without a.) the explicit, written permission of TJ himself or b.) a punishment on the forums, chat, or site itself that warrants the muting or exclusion of a user from discussion with other DC users for the duration of their punishment.

Share this post

Link to post

Full support.


I've made my views on recent developments known in the forum feedback thread, so I won't reiterate it here, but I feel that those developments have caused such a policy as this to become an absolute necessity.

Share this post

Link to post

As much as I agree with this, I PM'd TJ last night when this whole thing started. He didn't seem to care one bit. The issue runs deeper.

Share this post

Link to post

This is something that would need to be handled by TJ. 


I get that emotions are running high but this is not the time to get into something like this.


As such, closing.

Share this post

Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.