Rules with no holes, unlike a smoker's lungs

[Frunk]

Hey everyone,

 

Just in case you missed the announcement, after that little bit of drama yesterday, I've rewritten the rules of YCM (click here). I'm making this thread as I'm curious as to what people think. Are the rules easy to read? Are they understandable? Are they reasonable?

 

Comments would be great and questions are welcome.

 

Cheers and thanks, Reece.

[Pikachu]

Wait a second, a smoker's lungs have no holes?

 

LET'S GO ON A CIGAR-SPREE!

 

Minor things aside, I sort of disagree with Rule 3, Paragraph 2.

[Frunk]

Wait a second, a smoker's lungs have no holes?

 

LET'S GO ON A CIGAR-SPREE!

 

Touché. I wasn't incorrect but I changed the title just to clarify. :P

 

Minor things aside, I sort of disagree with Rule 3, Paragraph 2.

 

Hmm... why? To share such information is a breach of privacy and that law transcends this forum.

[Mehmani]

They are not comprehensive enough and too simple. The "Other" rule is only useful when the rules are throughly written.

[Frunk]

They are not meant to be comprehensive as this way, honestly, allows for more flexible moderating. You bother with comprehensive rules and people will find loopholes all over the place.

[Christian Exodia]

For Rule 7, Section 2, some people have to make a second account(Like I had to) for non-rule-breaking reasons because their first was:

 

-Password Lost

 

-Account Hacked

 

-To rejoin if Account Name & Password lost

[Frunk]

In such a case it is important that the first thing you do after you've made your new account is to contact a staff member and get them to recover your account for you.

[Tentacruel]

I like 'em.

[♥ӞŁǚ℮Ӟ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ♥]

These rules be teh bamb.

 

Awesome.

[Frunk]

Good to know.

[Tentacruel]

I have a question Frunk, is explicit language considered against rule 2?

[Sammidysam]

You're such a good rule maker that I don't even have to look at them to know their good. But I don't want to do anything wrong so I'll have to look at them anyway.

[Welche the crab]

I liked the old ones. They were more descriptive.

[Frunk]

I have a question Frunk, is explicit language considered against rule 2?

 

Yes. Coarse language = explicit language/swearing/cussing/whatever you want to call it. ;)

[-Griffin]

They look good. To the point enough with plenty of room for moderators to apply common sense.

[Bassa]

I like them. Better than the old ones.

 

 

@Frunk, did you receive my PM on my Idea?

[Womi]

Is "moron" allowed?

[Frunk]

Is "moron" allowed?

 

As a word? Yes. Directed at someone? Yes. Used in a way to harass someone (repeatedly, forcefully, etc.)? No.

[Hungry Panda]

i like them. no holes.

[Fidel Castro]

I like 'holes' :)

 

But yah these rules are a improvement over the last ones.

[Dark]

What is considered coarse language, as stated in Rule 2? I know that MarbleZone enacted a no bypassing the swear filters rule, but he still had some leniancy when it came to swearing. Are we still allowed to cuss (in moderation, of course, I don't want this to be a forum where we post rap songs), or is it banned completely? If we are allowed to, what rule of thumb should we have for what we can/can't say? Obviously some words are less explicit than others, but where do moderators generally draw the line?

 

For Rule 3 (second paragraph), I don't really feel the need to ask permission to post a private message on the forums, as long as it doesn't contain other rulebreaking material. Private messaging is still part of the YCM forum, and as such, should be able to be used in posts. It's not that big of a deal to go ask for permission, but I don't fully understand the logic behind that rule.

 

Did we have Rule 4 before? If not, I love you. If so... whatever.

 

For Rule 5, is advertising a legal, legitimate website in your signature or profile (not status) allowed, or is advertising in general banned? If the latter holds true, a lot of people (including moderators) have broken that rule by having links to external websites in their sig. And how do you feel about those level-up internet things? They lead to external websites, but aren't blatantly advertising anything.

 

For Rule 6, while this is going a bit off topic, since trolling doesn't really have a cut-in-stone definition, there should be some leniancy. It's fairly obvious is someone is intentionally trolling (which is usually the case), but if it isn't obvious, a warning should be given as opposed to an outright ban, which is a problem a lot of YCMods have had before, although I'd rather not get into that. Basically, nothing falling under trolling should necessarily warrant an outright ban, but I have no control over that, do I?

 

If a link to the old rules still exists, I'd love to compare the two, and definitely will inform you on anything major you missed. Overall, I like the simplicity, and because it isn't specific leaves less room for loopholes. It also leaves more room for forum-specific rules to be enacted.

[Kaisu]

This is a minor issue, but...

 

Yin's been after me for having more than 3 images in my sig e-e

 

Care to clarify?

[Frunk]

@Dark:

 

When it comes to me and how I moderate here, swearing is totally banned due to the nature of this site, but as it says, "What is inappropriate will be determined by moderators on a case-by-case basis.", so other moderators may choose to interpret and police the rule differently in their parts of the site, so you'd have to ask them. If you're wondering about General specifically, I'm probably not the best to ask as I'm not the most active of General's moderators.

 

As for disclosure of private messages, it is a matter of privacy that transcends this board. It is called the Private Message system for a reason and breaching that can actually get one into serious trouble outside of the forum. It is therefore best to refrain, or ask for permission if it's necessary you post it. If the PM you are sent breaks the rules in anyway, the rights afforded to the sending member are void and the receiver may do what they wish with the PM.

 

No Plagiarism was a rule in the old rules, but it was not elaborated on (it was quite literally just two words, "No plagiarism"). I felt due to issues in the past it required elaboration. I'm glad you like it. :P

 

As for advertising, it was debated in the Mod's Forum and eventually we came to the conclusion that links to websites that do not "advertise real-life products or similar, non-internet related goods, services, or information", and/or do not otherwise infringe the rules of YCM (for example, a site/blog/forum with pornographic images, or links to them, etc.), are allowed to be linked to and "advertised" in profile fields only. By profile fields, that is places like your Bio, About Me, etc., as well as avatars, signatures, and even usernames, all of which are edited via your UCP, and therefore are "profile fields". Topics and posts, despite being available through one's profile, are not profile fields, and places like the Calendar, Points system, etc. are prohibited from advertising too. Statuses were not discussed, but I personally think they pass as a profile field, as they only temporarily appear on the index, even though they can be edited either on the index or in a member's profile.

 

In regards to Trolling, I would expect notice would be given. You are correct that it is impossible to define, and therefore leniency must be given. That is why this line exists: "Essentially, if you are told by a moderator that you are trolling, you must cease that behaviour."

 

The key thing to remember about these new rules is Rule 1. Moderators now have effectively much more power than they did under the old rules as "essentially, whatever they say goes, whether it be locking a thread or banning a member." Anything I left out from the old rules, linked above, doesn't really matter, as the new rules "are purposefully vague as there is no way that every breach of them can possibly be anticipated. Stating something was not precisely covered in the rules will be ignored. Staff do indeed have the final say." Nonetheless I would still appreciate your looking for things missed. :) The intent and purpose of rewriting them was to eliminate loopholes and giving moderators more power to run their section by their own rules as they want, so it's good to hear they do.

 

@Kaisu:

 

You'll have to ask Yin. Signatures restrictions are not my domain these days. Just because I wrote the rules does not mean I am the authority on them, just the interpreter. If Yin does have an issue with your signature, she has the authority to deal with it via combination of Rules 1 and 7.

[Limited Edition KING]

I hardly see any new rules they look the same as the old rules.

 

I would like to see a new rule about the status updates to be added onto the thread.

[Dark]

Damnit, man. I don't think I disagreed with a single line of Frunk's post. D: