|
|
Post by GGoodie on Oct 9, 2009 17:21:00 GMT -5
Oh no! go run and tell the council elders! Someone said a no-no word.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkraine on Oct 9, 2009 22:41:47 GMT -5
I gotta agree with GG, the forum is dieing anyways, making it even more strict isn't going to bring it back to life . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 10, 2009 10:24:45 GMT -5
Yeah, people have been saying that the forums have been dying. However, this is where my personal text comes into effect: Where's yer stinking evidence? Our posting rates have been fine. We got a few new members recently. In fact, we seem to be going up from where we were before.
People have been saying that the forums been dying for months and months now. They were saying it last year, even.
You people didn't see the staff lounge conversation. The original redefinition of the "no spam" rule was much harsher. Much, much harsher. Consider yourself lucky we aren't very strict here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 10, 2009 12:33:35 GMT -5
yea... be glad that the staff didn't agree to make a no-post-under-10-words-rule as was the original idea.... you'd be burning down the forums if we did that. It isn't as strict as you say (this new rule) and I don't think forum activity is currently declining. It is lower than the golden ages, but it is not declining. It is in fact inclining....
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 10, 2009 14:54:20 GMT -5
This actually isn't anything new, when you think aboiut it. The rule already existed. We just wrote it down here.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Oct 10, 2009 15:46:10 GMT -5
Oh no! It used to be stricter! That automatically means that this isn't strict!!!
Jesus Christ, have you noticed that only about 1/16 or less of our new members actually do anything? Now, most of these are just coming to browse, but i can garuntee at least a few of them see the rules of these forums and just say "Screw It" and leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Oct 10, 2009 17:19:14 GMT -5
Since when do Category Mods get to 'add' rules? Hell, since WHEN hasn't this rule basically been the same as the "No Spam" rule?
Also, Memzak, no, there was no "no posts under ten words" vote, you just thought of it yourself for no good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Oct 10, 2009 17:25:31 GMT -5
That was why this rule was created instead. It wasn't just a Category Moderator who made the rule official, but who took constructive criticism from other staff members, adopted a wording by the Co-Owner, and had consensus from the staff in that thread to adopt that rule. Technically, it's just making the existing rules more clear.
If there are staff who want to remove some rules, ask to do so in the Staff Lounge. There will be others who will either agree or disagree, and then we can try to come upon some agreement as to whether we take down some rules or not. What have you got to lose in trying? It's not as if I'm some totalitarian dictator who can do whatever he wants, regardless of the good to the forum...
|
|
G
Dedicated Member
{S=0}[M:-1954]
Posts: 986
|
Post by G on Oct 10, 2009 17:28:23 GMT -5
Although my opinion may not be worth much to some due to my recent inactivity, I thought I might contribute. This rule doesn't seem too unreasonable if it is implemented and enforced well. By this I mean to say: This rule is worded in such a way that it could be more effective at cutting down on the random, spammy, and out of place comments that are nothing more than a nuisance but sometimes slip through the loopholes of the current rules. however, whether it is beneficial or harmful to the members of the site depends on how it is interpreted. A comment does not have to be ground breaking or multiple paragraphs long to contribute to the discussion. simply stating you opinion on a matter or making a suggestion is contributing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 10, 2009 17:32:20 GMT -5
ALL HAIL G!
Your word is worth a whole lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Oct 10, 2009 17:35:55 GMT -5
Your opinion is always valuable, regardless of inactivity (but the opinions of those who try to destroy the forums are null and void).
I'm glad you made that point: this helps to clarify the spam rule and ensures that certain posts do not try to go through loopholes in the rules. As with certain rules and clauses, this one's "pertinence to discussion" has varying interpretations. Staff should be able to responsibly interpret rules without being unreasonable, so we shouldn't have much of a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 11, 2009 1:46:03 GMT -5
In other words, this does nothing. If anyone here has any complaints about the rules, I suggest they go read another forums' rules. They usually interpret one week as a massive bump, and consider using first person or posts under 200 words when roleplaying a bannable offense. I'm completely serious. They do not understand the concept of a warning. If you post too little, they punish you. If you post too much, they punish you. If the admin happens to dislike you, they permaban you and make a thread making fun of you. You aren't allowed to make threads without admin approval (not forum games, anyway).
Don't complain about our rules being strict. Ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Oct 11, 2009 11:08:47 GMT -5
Yes, i think i will. This isn't an RP forum. Its not really relatable.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Oct 11, 2009 15:23:15 GMT -5
Well, if you would like to have a rule rescinded, you may respectfully state so, state why, and have staff discuss the issue with your rationale in mind. If it seems reasonable that a particular rule should be removed, then (unless TheListo states otherwise) the rule might be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 11, 2009 15:44:02 GMT -5
That wasn't an RP forum, either. I just happened to spend time on the RP board a lot. Talk about skipping to conclusions...
The rules are the standards for all forums. No swearing, no spam, no flaming, no derogatory remarks. Good luck finding a forum that allows those (besides the "No Swearing" rule, some forums may allow that).
|
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Oct 12, 2009 16:52:55 GMT -5
Ah, I see...well, I have a feeling that we won't crack down on every single case. For instance, we do let people slide when they revive threads for the first time, post in the wrong board once or twice, or things along those lines. When they become more frequent is when major moderation will really take place. Example of a "cool story bro" troll: A phrase sarcastically used to indicate one's disgust or indifference towards a tl;dr story. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cool+story+bro |
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Oct 12, 2009 18:23:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation, oZone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 14, 2009 21:07:22 GMT -5
It's leaked into RL way too much... now I hear people using it at least five times a day, four of those out of context.
|
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Oct 15, 2009 1:07:36 GMT -5
Cool story, bro
As much as this was being discussed as an unfavorable message, please refrain from being rude to others...
-General Veers
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 15, 2009 9:27:01 GMT -5
I think that was purposely spammed.... and probably a violation of the rule we are meant to be discussing...
|
|
[img src="http://i25.[tinypic].com/10ygymt.png"]
[M:-7020]
[img src="http://i25.[tinypic].com/10ygymt.png"]
[M:7000]
