Draft forum rules

[whitetiger0990]

Whitetiger...the guy posted above you...why quote?

at the time it was a *really* interesting (and funny) conversion that may look like giberish now. And about the quoting thing... I dont think anybody knew better (and if there are people that knew better it wasn't me.) and people wanted to see the limits of the board.


PS: i think that quote thread was deleted.

[wildcard]

na_th_an: The rules are not supposed to be restrictive. They are only there to let people know what happens here. I posted them for comment, they are not "official" yet. Please comment on what you feel is restrictive. For the most part 99% of the people here do not break them, not in any serious way. They are not being introduced to give admins a reason to ban/delete, they are just being written down so people don't have to try work out whats acceptable and what is not. The censor thing was a legacy from one of the past problems where people were using gay as an insult and I was not able to be here 24/7, I have now removed it.

[na_th_an]

Cool.

It's only that I think that this forum has many people caring about posting style but not posting contents.

[Lachie Dazdarian]

One rule...

Users should therefore not post demanding anything, holding the admin accountable for problems with the board etc.

Does that mean we can't ASK for anything? I mean, was my request for a shifty smilie a wrong thing to do?

I'm OK with the rules though I agree with Nathan about them being a bit too restrictive. I mean, that thing about posting styles and signatures.

What is most important, by my opinion is to stop member's flaming. I saw few good forum gone to hell cause their's admins allowed users to insult and patronize each other.

[wildcard]

Lachie: No it does not mean that. You can ask for things, no problem there hifty:. Asking, suggesting and requesting are fine, its just demanding isn't. But I'll reword that part better. I added in the shifty smile a while ago, just forgot to mention it ;-) Its in the "View more Emoticions section".

I'm OK with the rules though I agree with Nathan about them being a bit too restrictive. I mean, that thing about posting styles and signatures.

Ok, like I said in my previous posting; the rules were posted here for peoples comments. I need to know in what why you find the posting style/signature rules too restrictive.

What is most important, by my opinion is to stop member's flaming. I saw few good forum gone to hell cause their's admins allowed users to insult and patronize each other.

Agreed. The difficulty is deciding whether something is a flame or a joke. Its not always easy. The last thing I want is this forum to die or become a place for flaming.

The rules aren't really for the people who have posted here(in this topic) as they are the ones who post with common sense. The rules are for people who don't and so they can be referred to them. We just need to get a good set of rules that already occur here, just written down.

[TheBigBasicQ]

I see people (cough ahem) didn't get my point.
Whitetiger...the guy posted above you...why quote? TBBQ you quoted a guy quoting you i think...its absolutely uneccessary.

Seph I appreciate you're sensitiveness.

Nate, agree with you, but I think this forum is getting a little out of hand...some measures have to be taken, and i KNOW you agree with me. However, yes, some of the rules make me feel like I'd rather not post for fear of not being able to return again :|

Now, if I wouldnt quote you how would you know I was replying to you? It just removes any confusion as to whom I am replying to and more importantly what i am replying to =)

It's only that I think that this forum has many people caring about posting style but not posting contents.

Thats correct.

Wildcard: I want to draw your attention to rules 2, 4, 6 of board policies. I agree with them but I feel they are a little harsh. What I mean is arguements do happen and people do get angry and they vent their anger on others through this board by posting 'hot' posts. This should be tolerated to some extent but not allowed to go out of control. And with the set of rules you have framed do allow some amount of arguement but dont allow for angry debates/arguments which I feel is totally wrong. Anger is a part of human nature and should be expressed and not entirely supressed.

Secondly, threads shouldnt be locked they should be deleted immediately but people will not like that so I feel you should create a new category called as 'Locked Threads' and move all locked threads to that forum so people wont normally come across locked threads. Locked threads remind people surfing the board of the fights due to which they develop a grudge against the other person and their hatred increases. Anyone wishing to see any locked thread should enter the 'Locked threads' forum on their own 'risk'. This will ensure that the forum remains clean and at the sametime you dont 'hide' the arguments or fights.

Also, regarding old threads. What is wrong with reviving an old thread? I have seen that anyone replying to an old thread causes the thread to be locked. Is it wrong if someone comes across an old subject and posts his recent thoughts or comments about it? If you dont want anyone replying to old threads then just delete them or move them to a 'Old threads forum' in which only admins can post. This ensures that a person searching for a post will know where to find it and at the same time it will disallow the person from replying to it. But I am personally against this idea since i may read some old discussion and I may have not participated in it and would like to post my comments/suggestions/ideas.

Anyway if the admins/mods are gonna lock old threads if they are replied to after a long time then make it 'crystal clear' in the board's policy.

Thanks for reading my longish post =)

[oracle]

Okay, id just like to add that i think the whole idea of banning someone and then having thier profile say "ive been banned" not a good idea. If theve been banned fine, but not everyone needs to know that, just ban them and leave the sub name text/rank alone, it doenst need changing.

Wildcard thought that too... but I think that is shows what will happen to you should you step out of line, and also that the admin are doing their job. Anyone remember concerned_parent? I asked for him to be banned, and he was, but we never heard about it so thought that the admin were ignoring us/me again... showing that makes you think about what you post before you get even a temporary ban, because you don't want to see that by your name.

That and animated avatars are cool the only problem with avatars is people with massive avatars (cough tbbq and the guy with the lemon who takes half a fricken page for his avatar). I dont see why their is a need to stop animates avatars, as one only needs to press stop to stop the animation.

Animated images burn up no small amount of PC power for the user, and if the avatar is 90X90 and has 15 frames... well let's just say that it isn't nessecary to have an animated avatar anyway.

lachie, of course you can ask for something, but you shouldn't post saying "Upgrade this forum NOW!!!!", or direct complaints at wildcard if the host server takes a dive

arguements do happen and people do get angry and they vent their anger on others through this board by posting 'hot' posts...

There is no reason why the rest of the board should have to put up with one angry person, period. Those types of posts will be locked and warnings handed out. If you wish to argue with someone, do it in a reasonable tone, or don't do it here. And that includes PM messages, if we admin recieve a message from a member saying another member abused them via PM there will be trouble.

you should create a new category called as 'Locked Threads' and move all locked threads to that forum so people wont normally come across locked threads.

There already is a category for that, it just ain't visible for you guys. So remember, if you post anything nasty, it will be moved to the "trash" forum for leisurely examination by all admin, rather than taking the word of one admin.

lso, regarding old threads. What is wrong with reviving an old thread? I have seen that anyone replying to an old thread causes the thread to be locked.

There's no need to revive ancient polls on "coke vs pepsi", or post a :rotfl: in an ancient thread about something funny someone found on the net... and likewise reviving old debates will get you in trouble. I suppose other threads are fine though, and whether other users complain about it.

It would be impossible to lock every old thread, there is a feature called "auto pruning", but I for one wouldn't want it turned on, if someone searches the board for help on a problem I'd rather that the old threads were there so they could find an answer without posting again.

Perhaps there is a feature called "auto-locking"? Anyone wanna find it?

[na_th_an]

Well, about topic closing and reviving old threads, two days ago seph's post about his hosting was closed and I don't agree with that. I mean, Seph himself revived it to announce he was quitting and giving proper reasons, and I think it is normal that people post afterwards giving their opinion or supporting or whatever. That topic should not have been closed.

[oracle]

We'll discuss it and work it out. I've just seen that thread, I don't know why Fling closed it though...

[na_th_an]

Oh, no. Don't worry about it. I am just claiming that thread closing should only be done when offensive, harsh stuff is going on, flamming, hate wars and stuff.

What I said, sometimes it seems that posting style is more important than posting contents. I've seen people who use the 75% of their posts to spam or to comment unrelated stuff complain when someone double-posts for example. I've seen people flamming AAP just for the bells and whistles, whilst they don't write a single line to help the community, just sites showoffs or strange diaries in the general section.

These draft rules have too many rules about posting style. I think what we need is rules about posting contents. Not the one with "incorrect" posting style should be warned, but the one who flames the incorrect poster but doesn't contribute EVER should.

That's my opinion, of course.