Post deleted by User.
Rules Rewrite (draft)
Rules rewrite (draft)
Rooks said: »
Draylo said: »
What happened, he deleted all the rules?
Yep.
And again, if I'm at my desk, I laugh at this and probably give him a badge. But I get basically one nice day a week with my family and today's was a shitshow because of that, so that mustache is going up on a pike for a while.
I don't see "ruining rook's brunch" anywhere in da rules.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Wait, so what actually changed with the rules?
Effectively nothing. It was just meant to be a plainer-English rewrite and codify the fact that moderators are allowed to show leniency.
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
I don't see "ruining rook's brunch" anywhere in da rules.
'Don't be a jerk. If a moderator shows up on your doorstep and you have to ask "What rule did I break?", the odds are pretty good that it's this one.'
[Edit: nevermind, added it!]
[+]
Your screen name ends with an S, it's "Rooks'" not "Rook's".
>.>
>.>
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
It seems as though it's missing a few important things, but I can't be for sure as I'm on my phone and well viewing from that I'm weary of. I'll edit later if I'm correct. (and not just flare, but core items).
Quote:
Any sexual role-playing and/or discussions of sexual activity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a more recent rule that was added due to some going ons in RT and not a Google rule? I mean it's a fair enough rule, just a question.
Quote:
Don't post any personal real-life identifiable information or images about a particular user without their permission.
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
Quote:
MLP
Ha!
Jetackuu said: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a more recent rule that was added due to some going ons in RT and not a Google rule? I mean it's a fair enough rule, just a question.
The rule was added to clarify the actual infractions, but it's very much an AdSense thing.
Jetackuu said: »
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
[+]
My rules were way better, you should have stuck with those...
someone go watch "The People vs. Larry Flynt", then make it about me. change being a pervert to being a jerk and add more american flags...
and cut courtmey love
someone go watch "The People vs. Larry Flynt", then make it about me. change being a pervert to being a jerk and add more american flags...
and cut courtmey love
[+]
Rooks said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
I meant more of is it ok to quote their post? Obviously in a manner that doesn't otherwise violate other established rules. I apologize if what I meant was vague.
all rules need to be re-written again, for the final version.
in old English
on a parchment
in old English
on a parchment
[+]
Bismarck.Misao said: »
all rules need to be re-written again, for the final version.
in old English
on a parchment
in old English
on a parchment
[+]
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
I meant more of is it ok to quote their post? Obviously in a manner that doesn't otherwise violate other established rules. I apologize if what I meant was vague.
Don't see why not, unless you're editing/modifying what was said.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
How can we borrow BGs catch all rule and then not allow open season on RL stuff?!
Because those two things aren't remotely related?
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Rooks said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
I meant more of is it ok to quote their post? Obviously in a manner that doesn't otherwise violate other established rules. I apologize if what I meant was vague.
EDIT: The RL info thing used to be to stop people from sharing stuff other users didn't want posted here.
Anna Ruthven said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Rooks said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
Does their posting it in say the RL Pics thread count?
As in, do pictures posted in the RL pics thread become fair game? No. When someone is posting it themselves (or giving permission), they have control over the the context. Allowing anything in public to become open season strips them of that control, and discourages sharing them in the first place. This is actually one of the few changes over the old rules, even if it's subtle - someone putting RL info out there doesn't make it fair game forever.
I meant more of is it ok to quote their post? Obviously in a manner that doesn't otherwise violate other established rules. I apologize if what I meant was vague.
EDIT: The RL info thing used to be to stop people from sharing stuff other users didn't want posted here.
Well obviously privately shared information is a no, and harassing/misusing info is a no, but the way it was worded it just seemed a bit overcompensating. To me anyway.
Bismarck.Misao said: »
all rules need to be re-written again, for the final version.
in old English
on a parchment
in old English
on a parchment
If he is really talented Elvish on leaves would be pretty great.
[+]
A suggestion, since the mods seem like nice people I'd like to spare potential headaches:
Determining whether someone has permission to post information can quickly become a real pain for moderating staff:
Just cut out the permission aspect entirely and use a hard rule of not posting personal information of others. If for some legitimate reason a user needs to share information about another (of which I'm struggling to come up with a real one), they can link to an instance of the user posting it themselves:
Quote:
Don't post any personal real-life identifiable information or images about a particular user without their permission.
Determining whether someone has permission to post information can quickly become a real pain for moderating staff:
Did User A give permission?
What specific information did they give permission to post?
I see some personal information User B posted about User A, but User A didn't report it. Does that mean User A is okay with it?
Did they give permission in a PM?
Should I ask User A?
What do I do while I wait on a response? If User A didn't want this information public, and I don't remove it, I'm letting it spread. But if I remove it and it turns out they had permission, I'm needlessly meddling in something consensual.
Was permission explicitly given, or did it merely seem implicit to User B?
If it wasn't explicit, was the assumption made by User B - that User A would be okay with it - a reasonable one? Would I have come to the same conclusion?
User B is saying they had permission, but User A is saying otherwise. Does that mean I need to make User B prove it?
Should we just have consent forms for people to sign?
Why would User B need to be the one to share User A's physical address anyway?
Just cut out the permission aspect entirely and use a hard rule of not posting personal information of others. If for some legitimate reason a user needs to share information about another (of which I'm struggling to come up with a real one), they can link to an instance of the user posting it themselves:
Quote:
We should all send Skjalf presents for always being so considerate towards others. You can find contact information here.
[+]
ibm2431 said: »
Just cut out the permission aspect entirely
Necro Bump Detected!
[1713 days between previous and next post]The forum rules have been changed to add:
It was mostly understood as an unwritten rule, but given how hidden the P+R section is now, it seemed better to make it an actual written one.
Quote:
No politics/religion outside of the Politics and Religion section. This will be strictly enforced.
It was mostly understood as an unwritten rule, but given how hidden the P+R section is now, it seemed better to make it an actual written one.
[+]
I almost had a stroke when I opened my browser and saw this.
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: »
I almost had a stroke when I opened my browser and saw this.
[+]
Let see if we got some real admin & mods now, becuz I remember having it out with one of ya years ago for being bias asf against users, as well as not doing your jobs. I bet half of you don't even read your I still haven't gotten a reply back on something is asked, I'm not gonna say who it got sent to, got check your PMs.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.