Page 4 of 5
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:30 pm
by hidden
smooshable wrote: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?
well considering the new description of spamming would allow anyone to easily necro an old thread within the rules
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:45 pm
by hidden
Jack wrote:smooshable wrote:Section 4: Spam
a. Topics.
Topics will be considered spam if they fit into one of three categories.
i) They appear in the wrong section of the board.
ii) The poster has made more topics than is reasonable for one user within the day. (For a rough guide most users won’t start more than two topics in a single forum within a day however if they are all of interest and relevant to the forum then there is some flexibility to this rule.)
iii) The topic has already been locked by a moderator and the user has reposted the topic.
Consequence:
Topics in the wrong section will generally be moved to the correct section. Users who post too many topics or repost locked topics will be given one warning point.
b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users.
Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.
That right there is your rule against necromancy
i disagree
you can still continue the discussion form a long dead thread
the only difference is its long dead
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:27 am
by Zeratul
posting in long-dead topics doesnt contribute to it...
also, the game suggestions forum, necromancing is to a small degree allowed (if topic is still valid, as in could actually work still), then it is allowed...
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:22 am
by hidden
Zeratul wrote:posting in long-dead topics doesnt contribute to it...
also, the game suggestions forum, necromancing is to a small degree allowed (if topic is still valid, as in could actually work still), then it is allowed...
depends on the post
you could state your opinion about the issue
i mean who cares if theres newer threads on the same topic your rules dont cover that
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:44 am
by Wolf359
Some topics, such as thoughs listed in the Common Suggestions thread are there to stop others that are exactly the same being created time and time again (as was frequently happening) - so they can be added to no matter how long they have been inactive. At the end of the day, we need to be sensible, if it adds a valid/new point to an old thread, then I don't see the harm. If it is someone going through every post they can find and saying things like 'I agree' or adding smilies, then they'll be smited! 
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:14 pm
by smooshable
Thanks to everyone who helped. The new rules are now live =)
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:50 pm
by Nuto vixen
Very well thought out and written. Congratulations to the mod team on the great new lay out and detailed rules. Also to the community's input thats helped with a lot of them.
Two thumps up.
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:43 pm
by Bazsy
BTW
You guys should also check the reworked and cleared announcements section, as it surely contains usefull information for you! Its been cleared and modernized a month ago, just we didnt announce it.
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:34 pm
by RobinInDaHood
5 ) The abuse of other users whether through verbal attacks on their character, threats against them as a person or attacks on another’s race / gender / ethnicity or other minority status are prohibited on these boards.
To clarify, I guess I can abuse someone if they are gay? Oh wait, that might be considered minority status since homosexual people are in the minority, which is fortunate for the propogation of the species.
To comply with the rules, I'll stick to insulting heterosexuals for their sexual preference since they are, in fact, the majority. That isn't covered by race, gender, ethnicity, or minority status and sexual orientation isn't a function of their character.
Silly? Or course. However, it doesn't matter how clearly you try to define rules, someone will always find a way to circumvent them. Instead of coming up with complex conditional structures that attempt to address every possible permutation of disorderly behavior, it's probably better to simply have no rules. Or alternately, ban everyone that steps out of line immediately so they won't continue to be a problem.
Either way, this rewrite may have been mildly interesting to some but I suspect you'll be right back here in a few months with a new set of proposed rules that cover yet-another-set-of-unwanted-forum-behavior.
/sigh
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:08 pm
by Nuto vixen
Can you at least appreciate that they have been trying?
I'm sure if people start circumventing the existing rules, they will be adjusted appropriately to include the more more in depth complexities of the rules.
Just because someone is bound to break the rules, does not mean they should all be scrapped. Thats just ludicrous.
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:32 pm
by smooshable
RobinInDaHood wrote:5 ) The abuse of other users whether through verbal attacks on their character, threats against them as a person or attacks on another’s race / gender / ethnicity or other minority status are prohibited on these boards.
To comply with the rules, I'll stick to insulting heterosexuals for their sexual preference since they are, in fact, the majority. That isn't covered by race, gender, ethnicity, or minority status and sexual orientation isn't a function of their character.
Quiet Robin, you're just a heterosexual, what would you know?
Kinda lacks the punch of a good racist slur but feel free to give it a go. Have I missed something obvious? I've never known a heterosexual to be insulted by someone calling them heterosexual.
Smoosh
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:03 pm
by RobinInDaHood
smooshable wrote:Kinda lacks the punch of a good racist slur but feel free to give it a go. Have I missed something obvious? I've never known a heterosexual to be insulted by someone calling them heterosexual.
Smoosh
Personally, I've never known a secure heterosexual man to be offended by being called gay, either. Or a woman, for that matter.
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:42 pm
by HairyMehoff
They Aren't Offended Because They Probably Are Partially Gay... If Somebody Called Me Gay I Would Send Them A Virus And Destroy Their Computer
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:43 pm
by smooshable
RobinInDaHood wrote:smooshable wrote:Kinda lacks the punch of a good racist slur but feel free to give it a go. Have I missed something obvious? I've never known a heterosexual to be insulted by someone calling them heterosexual.
Smoosh
Personally, I've never known a secure heterosexual man to be offended by being called gay, either. Or a woman, for that matter.
Thing it comes back to though is you're calling them gay to insult them, like you think there's something wrong with being gay and you think there's something wrong with them.
It's an insult when you call someone gay, but it's not if you call them straight. It's very weird, I agree, but it's the way it works.
Re: New Rules - Public Input
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:21 pm
by hidden
smooshable wrote:RobinInDaHood wrote:smooshable wrote:Kinda lacks the punch of a good racist slur but feel free to give it a go. Have I missed something obvious? I've never known a heterosexual to be insulted by someone calling them heterosexual.
Smoosh
Personally, I've never known a secure heterosexual man to be offended by being called gay, either. Or a woman, for that matter.
Thing it comes back to though is you're calling them gay to insult them, like you think there's something wrong with being gay and you think there's something wrong with them.
It's an insult when you call someone gay, but it's not if you call them straight. It's very weird, I agree, but it's the way it works.
if they are gay they shouldn't care
anyway if you call someone straight its not insulting because odds are they are straight
just like how i originally call everyone a he until i find out for sure because im usually right