Huntar! Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Ok. This section really isn't my true element here. So I want help from you the members of this forum to help Flame Dragon and I run this section. Suggest and comment on the rules, please. Thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Add an "IRL Clause", that lays out specific rules for what is allowed when discussing real life events, so that threads like, "OMG, this just happened!" don't pop up.Also, make a rule about questions, such as (to give a current example) "McDonalds Unhappy Meals", saying that threads featuring a poll, or a question on a topic be placed in the Polls section, and that if they are placed in General, they will be moved, and the OP given a raised warning level. Just a few ideas to cut down on pointless threads and spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I dont see much of a problem with that, but I'll look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frlf Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 It's all good, but I don't know how we can plagiarize things from General?That's more like a rule for CC or Graphic Design. Also, when sometimes a person creates 2 same threads it isn't basically their fault, so they shouldn't get warned for that. I know you didn't say you would, but just to try to keep things clear? Or maybe you meant 2 different people that create ''OMG MICHAEL JACKSON DIED!!11!'' threads? Apart from my ignorance, good job ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larxene Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 It's all good' date=' but I don't know how we can plagiarize things from General?That's more like a rule for CC or Graphic Design. Also, when sometimes a person creates 2 same threads it isn't basically their fault, so they shouldn't get warned for that. I know you didn't say you would, but just to try to keep things clear? Or maybe you meant 2 different people that create ''OMG MICHAEL JACKSON DIED!!11!'' threads? Apart from my ignorance, good job ;).[/quote'] Although, if two people post threads like that at the same time (within 5 minutes at least) then it isn't either of their faults. Or if the first person to post it doesn't have an obvious title, then you can't be sure that the second person would read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well i didn't say they get warned for that, Frlfy boy. And it is indeed possible to plagiarize, since you can discuss anything here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Section III is too loose for its own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larxene Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well i didn't say they get warned for that' date=' Frlfy boy. And it is indeed possible to plagiarize, since you can discuss [i']anything[/i] here. Because obviously no one's going to get warned if someone posts a thread about guro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frlf Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well i didn't say they get warned for that' date=' Frlfy boy. And it is indeed possible to plagiarize, since you can discuss [i']anything[/i] here. Yeah, thought so.But what do you mean as plagiarize? What could we copy from someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well i didn't say they get warned for that' date=' Frlfy boy. And it is indeed possible to plagiarize, since you can discuss [i']anything[/i] here. Yeah, thought so.But what do you mean as plagiarize? What could we copy from someone else? You know my new have. I SO made that. That is what it means to plagiarize. When you say you made something when your really didn't. So yea, you are basicly right. As for the rules, their good for now. I know as time passes they will be changed or edited and more will be added. Only reason I didn't make my own is because I couldn't think of anything that wasn't basic. Still have even basic things written out is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Glass went waay to in depth with the rules, most weren't even for this section. Icy, how can I make it "tighter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 And this thread isn't stickied because...? The rule against advertising must be elaborated upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Advertising should really be defined as this:- Posting a link to another site with the purpose of drawing membership or views to the site, and not for discussion, debate, or any form of thoughtful conversation on the subject of that site. Or at least some version of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 stuck. Adding Taiga's definition now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Trolling also needs a clearer definition.- Creating a thread or post designed with the intent of inciting and rousing negative, numerous, or impassioned reactions from other members, whether through defamatory or derogatory statements, or through spamming or pointless thoughts and conjectures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Taiga. You're leaving no room for growth within the rule.Just, stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Growth? This is a section that has become a feeding ground for spammers. The definition given merely states that attention seeking threads designed to produce negative comments and spam are against the rules, I don't see what's wrong with that. Feel free to alter the wording, I was merely offering a statement to show that the rule as-written is too vague, and that it could cause problems down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Being slightly Vague is actually a good thing. It keeps a safeguard in effect, where a moderator can say "You can't say that isn't against the rules", and helps keep order when needed (though a moderator is expected to not use this rule often). It still helps to be slightly noticeably vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Not a good defense, Icy. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Okay, then how about this?- Creating a thread or post designed with the intent of inciting reactions from other members that violate the site rules. It's vague enough for expansion, but solid enough so that members don't have many questions on the enumeration of the trolling clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Okay' date=' then how about this?- Creating a thread or post designed with the intent of inciting reactions from other members that violate the site rules. It's vague enough for expansion, but solid enough so that members don't have many questions on the enumeration of the trolling clause.[/quote'] <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Okay' date=' then how about this?- Creating a thread or post designed with the intent of inciting reactions from other members that violate the site rules. It's vague enough for expansion, but solid enough so that members don't have many questions on the enumeration of the trolling clause.[/quote'] <3 Agreed 100%. Nice job on that one, Taiga. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 And that was added to the rules. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think you should add something that says not to post things that might not be suitable for young children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 'Do not post misleading threads. Threads with a title that is not related to the topic will be automatically locked.' Something along those lines. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.