The Official Forum Rules

[shirogake]

It doesn't BELONG here, because it doesn't apply everywhere. It only applies in shops, therefore, it only belongs in Shop Rules

[The Dark Master]

Then why is the Image theft rule there? And what is the harm in adding it?More people will read it...Actually, it isn't nescessarilly a shop rule, as someone could give it to someone through PM or chat and charge for it, without using a shop.

[shirogake]

But someone would have to ask for it via the other's shop.

The Image Theft rule is about some stealing an image from a shop, an example right clicking, clicking Save As, then uploading the image and using it themself.

Another example(As staff) would be if staff took the link via modify post and put the URL as their avvy.

Last example is simple, quote the post and steal the URL.

[The Dark Master]

There's still no harm in putting the rules in the official rules, as it is an official rule.

[shirogake]

Point taken. ._.

Okay, I'll add the rule.

[The Dark Master]

Oh good. Now can we stop debating about it?

[shirogake]

Yes, we had a page of arguing. ._.

I added it as a sub rule in the "Image Theft" rule.

[Ozone]

Jun 7, 2009 11:44:58 GMT -5 The Dark Master said:

I knew it was already there, but I want it here so more people can see it and be aware of it.
Please don't call me an idiot or insult me in any other way, try to be more polite.

If you think people need it in plain view to know it, you ARE an idiot. It should be common sense to only sell things you've made, you don't see people running to Wal-Mart, buying a video game, and selling it with their name on it, do you?

[The Dark Master]

I know that, but if people do sell things they didn't make, they can use the fact that the rule is not in the official rules as a defence for not doing anything wrong.
Don't presume I'm an idiot. Try to be less stereotypical, ozone(Ip match).

[Qwerty]

No they don't... that's like saying "It's in the rules that we are all required to read, so it's okay!"

[The Dark Master]

Hang on, I've just noticed something. There is nothing is the rules about spamming. If we catch someone spamming, do we give them an instant ban or what?

[jakebob]

May 28, 2009 19:51:36 GMT -5 PickleMan said:

Complaining:
Do not complain about these forums, the staff have worked and are working very hard, and they aren't going to be happy if you're saying garbage like "Dan-Ball SUX i culd ttaly make a bttr forum hen this Crap". Such is not only complaining, but also spam and flaming. If you really have beef with these forums, put it in About The Site, and keep a civil tongue there. Also keep to the proper format (Located below), point out the problem, and share a possible solution that will help the forums, if you have one.

Not a direct rule against spamming, but it's a reference.

[-M4-]

There should be a direct rule against spamming. Except on the spam board, but I think that's pretty obvious. Also, there should be a set warning percent for flames. Also, I think people should be allowed to revive threads in General Chat and Forum Games. Also, you should mention that people can revive threads in the spam board.

Also: "Pertaining to reproductive activity harassment" ..lol

EDIT: I also think people should be able to bump threads in tiny boards... Like in the Liquid Webtoy Board. Once the conversation in it's one thread dies... the whole board dies. Then it's like, "Why is there a Liquid Webtoy board?" Because if someone posts in that thread tomorrow it's officially a revival, then a mod will come and say stop bumping, and it will die from there..

[General Veers]

Please note that the following responses to their respective quotes are not official say-so's, but a voice of opinion. Several staff members must agree upon inclusion, exclusion, or modification of a rule before the change can take effect, unless TheListo specifies that such an effect must take place.

Jun 18, 2009 2:59:59 GMT -5 -M4- said:

There should be a direct rule against spamming. Except on the spam board, but I think that's pretty obvious.

That would be a good idea, just in case some smart-alec comes here saying that spamming isn't technically against the rules. With a direct rule, we can also set a definite value for percentage warnings.

Jun 18, 2009 2:59:59 GMT -5 -M4- said:

Also, there should be a set warning percent for flames.

The problem is that flaming varies too much, especially if considered by how long the flaming continued since its start. For instance, should a five-post argument about who's right or wrong count as much as a page-long (20 post) arson war about the intellectual level of one arsonist or the other?

Jun 18, 2009 2:59:59 GMT -5 -M4- said:

Also, I think people should be allowed to revive threads in General Chat and Forum Games. Also, you should mention that people can revive threads in the spam board.

General chat, I'm not so sure about...

Forum Game revival ought to be fine.

Jun 18, 2009 2:59:59 GMT -5 -M4- said:

EDIT: I also think people should be able to bump threads in tiny boards... Like in the Liquid Webtoy Board. Once the conversation in it's one thread dies... the whole board dies. Then it's like, "Why is there a Liquid Webtoy board?" Because if someone posts in that thread tomorrow it's officially a revival, then a mod will come and say stop bumping, and it will die from there..

I agree, the only mention of a Dan-Ball game should not be prohibited from posting only because no one discussed it for a month. If the Java game were to be removed from the site, on the other hand...

[-M4-]

Jun 18, 2009 17:03:19 GMT -5 General Veers said:

The problem is that flaming varies too much, especially if considered by how long the flaming continued since its start. For instance, should a five-post argument about who's right or wrong count as much as a page-long (20 post) arson war about the intellectual level of one arsonist or the other?

Yeah I was thinking of something, something to determine how bad a flame is. I was thinking that a staff member could issue a certain % warning for a bad flame and a certain % warning for a... less bad flame. Flames would fit into one of the 2 categories, and you get a certain % warning for each flame. This way no member can complain that they were given too high a warning for flaming.

[~Memzak~]

I think that 5% warning per psot of flam should do it...

[-M4-]

So I wouldn't be banned if I called you a [flame x 19]?

A bit low..

[~Memzak~]

how about that after 4 flames we increase it to 10% per flame...

[Regzal]

I think that is a good idea and I think that could redues flaming quite a lot

[I wuv M4( Satar Jaèoèdoæ)]

But you can flame more in one flaming post then your other flaming posts.