|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 15, 2009 20:13:52 GMT -5
Well, is there anything further to discuss here?
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Oct 25, 2009 23:51:58 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. You're back to the "Another forum is stricter than us, so we aren't strict" excuse. You say "another forum" yet most of those aspects are limited to a select forum. There are millions of popular forums with relaxed rules that run very well. I'll start shooting off URLS if you want me to.
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Oct 26, 2009 3:58:04 GMT -5
OMG URL GUN YAY! Bomb us.
|
|
|
Post by jakebob on Oct 26, 2009 6:55:23 GMT -5
You're back to the "Another forum is stricter than us, so we aren't strict" excuse. You say "another forum" yet most of those aspects are limited to a select forum. There are millions of popular forums with relaxed rules that run very well. I'll start shooting off URLS if you want me to. I can help there. There's a forum for the Destructoid website, and these are their Seven Commandments: These guys are very laid back in that they don't come down on you like a ton of bricks if you swear excessively (they only introduced a filter to block out nig-ger and fag-got (without the dashes) because some user(s) became excessively stupid. And even that will probably die out soon), there is an off-topic topic titled The Bar that has over 1050 pages of posts, and over 350k views, and so long as you follow the seven basic commandments rules, you're welcome at the forums. There's no signatures allowed, but it's understandable due mainly in fact that no-one can use it to advertise or make themselves look like a complete clot. They can do that just fine without the help of animated gifs. Basically, there ARE more easy-going sites than this one. And in reply to what oZone quoted, you chose one of the stricter sites to quote. Yes, there are forums with those type of rules, but there are other forums that have the same rule set as this site, and others that are way less strict than this website.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 26, 2009 8:43:41 GMT -5
That's the only forum I happened to pass by. In fact, pretty much all the forums I happened to pass by did that.
These rules are only the bare basics. If you want us to go completely rule crazy, feel free to ask. I mean, this thread isn't even a new rule. Everything it says was already in the forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Oct 26, 2009 16:31:30 GMT -5
For God's sake, stop trolling every frickin' announcement with your excessive failure.
|
|
|
Post by artik on Oct 27, 2009 14:23:35 GMT -5
Heh, my TF2 clan forum is so awesome.. Much more laid-back, and the mods are much more mature.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 28, 2009 8:57:21 GMT -5
I find that very easy to believe, for some reason...
However, do not go by the list of rules alone. You also have to consider how seriously the staff take them and administer warnings. Of course, I let the person off with a text warning most of the time, or a post modification, and although I can't say the same of everyone, I do notice that at most people have a small warning. Actual one or two-day bans are rare-ish. Permabans, even more rare.
Sure, we have tonsa rules. I guess that qualifies us as strict. However, wouldn't a stricter forum mean more punishment?
|
|
|
Post by jakebob on Oct 28, 2009 10:03:21 GMT -5
Well, I've never actually seen anyone get in real trouble on the Destructoid forums unless they were trolling, and in the time I've been there there's been one guy who doesn't know of humour on the internet, and one guy who believed the "Gamer Girl" badge (represented by boobs) should be replaced with something less demeaning like an iron, or a "Girls" toilet sign, coloured pink. He caused such a furore that one of the main admins told everyone to put him on Ignore. But other than the odd blip on the radar they're laid back enough that taunting or mocking other users is only brought up if the guy's got his serious face on.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 30, 2009 3:02:34 GMT -5
You're back to the "Another forum is less strict than us, so we are strict" excuse.
Sorry, but re-using your own argument against ya... (Your side's, not yours personally).
I do not recall double-posting... Either the first post didn't show up, or it was some kind of glitch.
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Oct 30, 2009 20:06:49 GMT -5
You're back to the "Another forum is less strict than us, so we are strict" excuse. Sorry, but re-using your own argument against ya... (Your side's, not yours personally). No, we are pointing out that we don't have to have a rule over everything to be a good forum.
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Oct 31, 2009 5:18:51 GMT -5
Okay okay. Enough with the arguing. Otherwise I'll have to get qwerty to move this to the flames of the serious debate board. DUHDUHDUHHHHH.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 1, 2009 11:01:22 GMT -5
I say we just simplify the whole thing of rules to:
Don't Spam (avoid* one word posts) Don't Flame Don't Troll Don't Illegal (and no pronz) Don't Hax Don't Suck (be noobish and annoying)
* unless it is relevant
Is everyone happy with that? Cause thats basically our rules in a nutshell, unless i missed something.
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Nov 1, 2009 11:33:08 GMT -5
Some people don't know what some of those are.
Besides, rules with lots of wording in them makes us look more official.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Nov 1, 2009 12:00:24 GMT -5
I say we just simplify the whole thing of rules to: Don't Spam (avoid* one word posts) Don't Flame Don't Troll Don't Illegal (and no pronz) Don't Hax Don't Suck (be noobish and annoying) * unless it is relevant Is everyone happy with that? Cause thats basically our rules in a nutshell, unless i missed something. I must admit that people will be more likely to remember and follow rules if they can actually read them in a few seconds, but I'm afraid that some of them, unless staff gets to interpret these rules broadly, won't be comprehensible to others. For instance, a so-called "n00b" would not consider himself/herself as such and would deny any violation of the last rule. If staff does get to interpret rules broadly when problems become vague, the users might just get upset with the "unfair" rulings and do who-knows-what. There would not be as much argument over what a rule says if the rule is clear and well-defined. In that case, when a rule fails to cover something, staff must simply decide upon a new rule with consensus... ...although, having clear, well-defined rules seem too "overwhelming" to users and would seem to discourage them from obeying those same rules.
I personally would also like to agree with Ryuu Arch Zero that having a well-defined list with limited vagueness would make us seem more official, but seeming official doesn't rank as high as having a rule-abiding population on a forum that already has attained "official" status...
In short, I don't really know what to do: having a short list would be too vague, but having many well-defined rules would be too overwhelming...
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Nov 1, 2009 13:09:16 GMT -5
Well, some rules are quite self-explanatory, so we may as well get rid of the huge descriptions. I'd also like to point out we can simplify the rules into one or two summary statements instead of making them a whole paragraph long, like I'm doing right now. It could be shorter, but still explain it perfectly. This would make it easier to read the rules and still be.. not vague. Also, Ggoodie, general "noobishness" is looked down upon, yes, but it's not fair to give them a warning over it. There is a difference between Internet noob and Molopoy, Community noob, I think, would be somewhere in-between that.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 1, 2009 13:54:52 GMT -5
I propose we keep the old rules exactly as they are, BUT add those new ones as a summary at the top. New members can read the very short list at the top, but if someone gets in trouble or gets accused of power abuse, then we go deep into it. It's like speeding tickets: Everyone knows, if you speed, you get in trouble. You know that even before Driver's Ed. However, if you DO speed, the exact price of the ticket, scale of the punishment, or any exceptions can be looked up in the exact working of the law.
Tl;dr: We throw the short list into the top of the rules and state that's really all they need to read. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Nov 1, 2009 17:57:37 GMT -5
I propose we keep the old rules exactly as they are, BUT add those new ones as a summary at the top. New members can read the very short list at the top, but if someone gets in trouble or gets accused of power abuse, then we go deep into it. It's like speeding tickets: Everyone knows, if you speed, you get in trouble. You know that even before Driver's Ed. However, if you DO speed, the exact price of the ticket, scale of the punishment, or any exceptions can be looked up in the exact working of the law. Tl;dr: We throw the short list into the top of the rules and state that's really all they need to read. Problem solved. That's quite ingenious. Are there any objections to adding a "summary" at the top of the rules? If not, it would be quite a nice idea to implement...
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Nov 1, 2009 18:04:18 GMT -5
I object to it. I still stick to my suggestion.(located above Qwerty's post)
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Nov 1, 2009 18:41:15 GMT -5
I object to SZ's presence.[/offtopic] I agree with qwerty's idea.
|
|