Rules Suggestions

[sage]

This thread is dedicated to adding rules and making amendments to the current Rules of the Forum, allowing everyone to shape the rules to fit the needs of the community.

Here, you are free to make any suggestions to the rules that you want and debate them.
You can elaborate on preexisting rules to make them more exact, or help come up with new ones that I might have missed when creating the original set.

If a consensus can be reached, the change will most likely* be made.
This includes the removal of existing or future rules.

----

*Please remember that the final decision does still come down to @Xyphien and I.We are the ones with the power to change the rules.

 

[Trumully]

Maybe another rule you could add might be 'Do not use other peoples content and say it's your own' or something like that. Or is that too specific?

 

[sage]

Maybe another rule you could add might be 'Do not use other peoples content and say it's your own' or something like that. Or is that too specific?

I think that is a really good suggestion, actually. I added it.

 

[HotfireLegend]

Something I've always found about the necroposting rule; it's a little bit illogical in some cases. For example, there was a site which had an exception that made it more logical - if the reply to the topic was informative and relevant, then the topic would stay open. For instance, if the topic was about something where there was no new news for two months then suddenly something new surfaces, surely it is better to revive that topic (if it is known about) rather than to make a new one? (Otherwise, a new topic is also acceptable)

Additionally, necroposting shouldn't really apply to resources including games.

 

[Trumully]

Another rule might be 'No impersonating staff' or any other person because it's happened with many things I've been helping with before and was a pain to solve the problem...

 

[Rise Evil]

Another rule might be 'No impersonating staff' or any other person because it's happened with many things I've been helping with before and was a pain to solve the problem...

I don't know what does it mean. Care to explain to a poor unaware person like me please? ^^"

 

[Trumully]

I don't know what does it mean. Care to explain to a poor unaware person like me please? ^^"

An 'obvious' scenario of impersonating staff would be making a post on a thread with something to say like this: 'i will ban u becuz I iz admon.' (Grammar was for dramatic effect :P)
Do you get the idea?

 

[Rise Evil]

Yes, a person self entitled with a power trip as well as disregarding the main point of a forum's motive ^^

EDIT: Also, I forgot my manners, thanks! ^^

 

[sage]

Another rule might be 'No impersonating staff' or any other person because it's happened with many things I've been helping with before and was a pain to solve the problem...

Good suggestion, but I don't think it would cause many problems. The given example is just someone being immature and foolish, and there are many other ways for that they could do that while still following the rules. It's very clear who the staff members are as well, so I don't think anyone would fall for it. It's just lying, and I don't think lying is really a ban-able offense.

If they made a new account and started messaging users saying that they are an admin and got locked out of their account or something, in order to get passwords/files/etc., then they deserve to be banned. But I that would be for scamming, not lying.

If enough of you guys still want it though, I'll add it.

Something I've always found about the necroposting rule; it's a little bit illogical in some cases. For example, there was a site which had an exception that made it more logical - if the reply to the topic was informative and relevant, then the topic would stay open. For instance, if the topic was about something where there was no new news for two months then suddenly something new surfaces, surely it is better to revive that topic (if it is known about) rather than to make a new one? (Otherwise, a new topic is also acceptable)

Additionally, necroposting shouldn't really apply to resources including games.

I feel the same way, which is why I accounted for that when I wrote the rules. I tried to avoid being wordy when writing the rules, so I kept it short. On this, they state:
"Posting on old threads that can no longer provide any valuable discussion."
If there are still things that can be discussed without going off topic, then posting in an old thread fine.
Posting in something like an introduction would not be, because there isn't a need to

 

[Trumully]

Good suggestion, but I don't think it would cause many problems. The given example is just someone being immature and foolish, and there are many other ways for that they could do that while still following the rules. It's very clear who the staff members are as well, so I don't think anyone would fall for it. It's just lying, and I don't think lying is really a ban-able offense.

If they made a new account and started messaging users saying that they are an admin and got locked out of their account or something, in order to get passwords/files/etc., then they deserve to be banned. But I that would be for scamming, not lying.

If enough of you guys still want it though, I'll add it.


I feel the same way, which is why I accounted for that when I wrote the rules. I tried to avoid being wordy when writing the rules, so I kept it short. On this, they state:
"Posting on old threads that can no longer provide any valuable discussion."
If there are still things that can be discussed without going off topic, then posting in an old thread fine.
Posting in something like an introduction would not be, because there isn't a need to

Yea. Agreed.

 

[HotfireLegend]

The one about keeping status updates to 5 lines minimum is really weird and irrelevant. There's a 140(?) character limit on the statuses, and length does not equate a good status if this is what you were aiming for. I suggest it be removed entirely, it contributes nothing.

 

[Xyphien]

The one about keeping status updates to 5 lines minimum is really weird and irrelevant. There's a 140(?) character limit on the statuses, and length does not equate a good status if this is what you were aiming for. I suggest it be removed entirely, it contributes nothing.

It actually does. We had

someone


type



like



this.


It's


in the


140 character limit.



So, to keep people from doing this again, we added this rule to the list to prevent people from posting overly long status updates that take up the whole thing.

 

[PandaMaru]

I really wish the users would pick "Reply" and not "quote" eeeeevery single time. Quotes are for cases in which it does make sense to refresh the content of the conversation (due to may other posts between the post and the answer), or pick up special parts of the post.
And @username is enough to adress someone.

 

[Xyphien]

I really wish the users would pick "Reply" and not "quote" eeeeevery single time. Quotes are for cases in which it does make sense to refresh the content of the conversation (due to may other posts between the post and the answer), or pick up special parts of the post.
And @username is enough to adress someone.

I am 100% guilty of this *Hints why I'm doing this now XD* for some reason, if I address someone, it's easier for me to quote them to ensure they know exactly what I'm talking about, as well as if I forget something I can easily re-read their post in the quote. I'm probably one of the reasons as too why this is so popular :O

 

[HotfireLegend]

Then do you not mean at least five lines MAX IMUM, Xy?

 

[LTN Games]

Then do you not mean at least five lines MAX IMUM, Xy?

It's more of a limit to ensure no one does spam status updates. So keeping it under 5 is ideal, sometimes it will go over that but as long as the update is not like in the example. We can make this rule a little more clearer for members who don't quite understand what it is saying.

I really wish the users would pick "Reply" and not "quote" eeeeevery single time. Quotes are for cases in which it does make sense to refresh the content of the conversation (due to may other posts between the post and the answer), or pick up special parts of the post.
And @username is enough to adress someone.

I'm guilty of this as well, I always quote to read what I am replying to, sometimes it's a piece of the message sometimes it's the whole thing. So what is your suggestion? To stop the quoting process to only when really needed and stick to @username for when it's not needed ?

 

[PandaMaru]

@Xyphien
But it's the last post before your own. :( You can read it easy by scroll up a bit. Everyone can do that to reread it.

 

[HotfireLegend]

What i am saying is at the moment, the rules say you need five lines minimum which makes no sense lol

 

[PandaMaru]

@LTN Games
Yes. It stretches the threads without any value. If you need it while texting the answer, you can delete the quote before posting at last. ;)

 

[LTN Games]

Okay I updated and fixed the rule, it now says maximum and a bit more clearer lol. PX

Edit: @PandaMaru okay I understand now, it does help keep things cleaner, especially in the work in progress threads or the screenshot thread. Thanks for the suggestion :)