StarGateWars Forums

Long Rules, Section 2, Paragraph 4 wrote:A user can only return from an indefinite ban after contacting the Ombudsperson and arranging a meeting with a forum admin at which the user will present their case for being unbanned. The user will also present two respected members of the community to vouch for the reinstatement.

Was originally 'form'.

Long Rules, Section 3, Subsection e. wrote:e. Posting for banned users.
Posting for banned users is too hard for the moderators to police and as such is permitted however if you post for a banned user you take full responsibility for the content posted.

Was originally to.

Sorry, I'm a editting freak

Nice spotting phoenix - fixing now.

The Grammar Police Strike Again!

Long Rules, Section 2, Subsection e. wrote:e. Posting for banned users.
Posting for banned users is too hard for the moderators to police and as such is permitted however if you post for a banned user you take full responsibility for the content posted.

Perhaps this should be rephrased as one of the following (I think the first two sections would be preferred):

a) ...permitted. However,...
b) ...permitted; however,...
c) ...permitted, however...

Long Rules, Section 6 wrote:Role playing is an important part of the SGW experience. In order to facilitate this, certain topics will become more heated than would otherwise be tolerated by the moderating staff. It should generally be kept to the Race Forums and the Galactic Colosseum. The normal rules of profanity and abuse still apply however specific taunts towards others within reason and not of a personal nature will be given more tolerance.

Was originally 'Coliseum'. Also, was originally 'with in' (not sure if 'with it' is right or not, but I know within is).

Okay, I can't find anything else, except for some iffy comma use possibilities (where they might be needed). Sorry to be a grammar hound, but 11 years of English class have a way of getting in your head

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Was originally 'Coliseum'. Also, was originally 'with in' (not sure if 'with it' is right or not, but I know within is).

Okay, I can't find anything else, except for some iffy comma use possibilities (where they might be needed). Sorry to be a grammar hound, but 11 years of English class have a way of getting in your head

Fixed, though for the record coliseum / colosseum can go either way - both are correct (for consistency though I changed it).

Seriously though you are great at this - I should make you read all my essays before I submit them

smooshable wrote:

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Was originally 'Coliseum'. Also, was originally 'with in' (not sure if 'with it' is right or not, but I know within is).

Okay, I can't find anything else, except for some iffy comma use possibilities (where they might be needed). Sorry to be a grammar hound, but 11 years of English class have a way of getting in your head

Fixed, though for the record coliseum / colosseum can go either way - both are correct (for consistency though I changed it).

Seriously though you are great at this - I should make you read all my essays before I submit them

Lol, as if I didn't have enough school related stuff in my life

i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

hidden wrote:i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

Fire is the best way to kill necromancers and their creations. I'm so sorry hidden.

Jokes aside, wouldn't that fall under mod discretion? There are some threads that ressurecting might be allowable, such as market threads or so. Plus, as long as it is not ridiculous, it seems acceptable for the temple. Is there a need to mention it?

hidden wrote:i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

I thought about necromancing but honestly all you have to do is lock it, it doesn't offend or hurt anyone.

smooshable wrote:

hidden wrote:i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

I thought about necromancing but honestly all you have to do is lock it, it doesn't offend or hurt anyone.

whats necromancing

raising the dead. like wooden nickels and herpes, avoid it whenever possible.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

hidden wrote:i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

Fire is the best way to kill necromancers and their creations. I'm so sorry hidden.

Jokes aside, wouldn't that fall under mod discretion? There are some threads that ressurecting might be allowable, such as market threads or so. Plus, as long as it is not ridiculous, it seems acceptable for the temple. Is there a need to mention it?

the temple has some different rules

necro and spam is allowed there

anyway

ok thx that means i can necro all the old threads and get them locked(while still posting in them)

i dont get it

hidden wrote:

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

hidden wrote:i probably shouldn't be mentioning it because it will only serve to ruin my fun but

theres nothing in the rules about necromancy

not even the spam part covers it

Fire is the best way to kill necromancers and their creations. I'm so sorry hidden.

Jokes aside, wouldn't that fall under mod discretion? There are some threads that ressurecting might be allowable, such as market threads or so. Plus, as long as it is not ridiculous, it seems acceptable for the temple. Is there a need to mention it?

the temple has some different rules

necro and spam is allowed there

anyway

ok thx that means i can necro all the old threads and get them locked(while still posting in them)

While necromancing make sure you don't falll into spamming though.

Hairy: Necromancing is sometimes called bumping - heard of that?

o ok
is that against the rules? cuz i see it all the time

HairyMehoff wrote:o ok
is that against the rules? cuz i see it all the time

It's bumping really old topics.