Rules: Clause

Different55 · Before February 2015

If you put up your sig and then you don't post for the better part of a month no one will know unless they go dig through all your old posts.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

I'm borrowing this thread since the mods activity in this thread is high.

Did I get my first warning because I quoted Zoeys post? I believe it was Rurigok that gave me the warning, but he/she wouldn't give me a clear answer if it was because of the quotation.

Did I get my second warning because I censored words that you, Different55, thought was swear words? I made clear after you had warned me that I didn't swear, but the warning wasn't deleted until I wrote in the thread about how many warnings you had.

Just wonderin'.

supadorf24 · Before February 2015

TGT, I can only answer your first question, which is yes. Rurigok gave you the warning, and there was even a topic protesting your ban.

Zoey2070 · Before February 2015

I personally love that rule, and would ban anyone for being a public nuisance if I were a mod.
inb4 that's why you're not a mod.

Quoting insanely long posts makes Zoey mad long time. Especially when it's the first post.
Point being, it's Cyclone's forum, the mods have power, and they can do what ever they feel like as long as there's a reason for it [In my opinion. There's a reason for everything, even if the reason makes no sense].

Twipply · Before February 2015

Some people were born with the ability to think, some were not.

Unfortunately, some of the ones that were not are above the ones that were.

coolio · Before February 2015

^ deep.

I think the mods know how to use their power respectively, and if something's not fair, well all humans make mistakes, let anger cloud their judgement sometimes, all that stuff.

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

the mods can add more rules whenever they want. if something is not stated in the rules but you do it, you can still get in trouble. i have had this problem before. if you make a mistake that isnt in the rules, then you still get punished as if it was. whenever something like that happens, the person who did it should not be warned, but it should be added to the rules so it dosent happen anymore.

Tako · Before February 2015

Why WOULDN'T we have this clause?

JadElClemens · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

Why wouldn't we have this clause?

This.

Jeremifier · Before February 2015

Willard. Stop flaming people, you're probably going to get banned.

And, it's just a sig. The sig was over 350 pixels in height, text and all. There's a perfectly good reason to remove it.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

Why WOULDN'T we have this clause?

Because it can easily be misused as it has been in my cases. If you want to make the mods appear as fair, they shouldn't be able to warn/ban people for no reason.

Rurigok · Before February 2015

Just because we can doesn't mean we SHOULD. We RESERVE the right to warn and ban for no reason. After all, everyone agreed to the rules and terms of use so if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have agreed.

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

you ever see that human centipad episode of south park? sorry if you did but its the same principle. most people dont read the rules and dont actually agree but they say they do.

Tako · Before February 2015

Not the point. By clicking "I agree" you are agreeing.

What happens if a mod sees someone doing something really bad, but it is not in the rules. What are they supposed to do?

Chimi · Before February 2015

Brawler700 wrote:

the mods can add more rules whenever they want.

*ahem* ADMINS can add more rules whenever they want.

Rurigok · Before February 2015

Either way, if they click the button and use the forums, they agree.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

Rurigok wrote:

Just because we can doesn't mean we SHOULD. We RESERVE the right to warn and ban for no reason. After all, everyone agreed to the rules and terms of use so if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have agreed.

Well, you gave me a warning for quoting a post, and quoting isn't against the rules right?

And yes, I agreed on the rules, but if you agree on something, does that automatically mean that you never will oppose something in the agreement? I agree to be a EU-citizen by being a Swedish citizen, but that doesn't mean that I want to be an EU-citizen.

I welcome a change in the rule, it would be enough if you erased "no reason". Since the rule is commonly used, and I got both my warnings (and a ban that was withdrawn), for no reason. It's not just right to be able to ban and warn users because of no reason.

Do you believe that it's right to ban and warn users because of no reason?

Different55 · Before February 2015

You were warned for being a public nuisance. That was a freaking huge post. Like Rurigok said, we reserve the right to. I could go off right now and ban LuigiFan47. But I won't. I have no reason. As much as I dislike him, I won't ban him for no reason. I has mah morals.

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

heres my idea for a new system. whenever someone does something annoying that isnt in the rules, let them off but add it to the rules so it dosent happen again.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

Different55 wrote:

You were warned for being a public nuisance. That was a freaking huge post. Like Rurigok said, we reserve the right to. I could go off right now and ban LuigiFan47. But I won't. I have no reason. As much as I dislike him, I won't ban him for no reason. I has mah morals.

I've just read the rules once again and I didn't see any rule that said "quoting a long post can be interpret as public nuisance". Therefore, my first conclusion is that you mods can ban/warn people for something that aint written in the rules. My second conclusion is that you can ban/warn people for anything and we don't know what anything is (but now I know that long posts shouldn't be quoted because it can be interpret at public nuisance). If you don't understand what I mean, you will know when you have read the whole post.

By the way, you can actually ban me right now because you might interpret my questioning of this rule as public nuisance, and by prejudices public nuisance is ban worthy.

You must define what's ban worthy and what's not, and whom decides what behaviour should be defined as ban worthy?

PS. You could ban LuigiFan47, if you dislike him you could interpret it in such way that he is a public nuisance and suddenly, he is ban worthy!

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

unless all the other mods and admins agree, you cant just ban someone for no reason. the other mods would get your mod status revoked.

EDJ · Before February 2015

For that post you made in the IRC topic TGT, it can be considered as spam. I mean quoting the first post is practically useless, even more if you add only one meaningless sentence to it.
I think the rules are fine,Brawler's idea looks good too, but maybe we'll end up with 4 pages of rules then.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Brawler700 wrote:

unless all the other mods and admins agree, you cant just ban someone for no reason. the other mods would get your mod status revoked.

Of course. It was just an example that the rules WOULD allow that, even though anyone with common sense would react. My point is that it might need to be changed slightly. Maybe a "within reason" or something with common sense somewhere.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

@EDJ: Then add "quoting the first post can be considered as spam". I can't break against a rule that doesn't exist, and when did positive feedback turn into a meaningless post?

As you think that the rule looks fine (as I do too, except for "no reason"), do you think that it is fair to be able to ban/warn users for no reason as I've been, and I'm just referring to the current rules (quotation is not ban worthy, neither is censoring words).

@Different55: And that's exactly what I've been trying to say. If the rule is changed to "within reason", I believe it would be great to also add some ban worthy reasons.

I'm just trying to clarify the rule system, so that incidents like these wont happend again.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Quotation of a post that's half the page is VERY annoying and goes under the public nuisance category. The only purpose to that is to annoy, and should be treated as such.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#27 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#28 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#29 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#30 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#31 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#32 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#33 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#34 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#35 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#36 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#37 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#38 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#39 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#40 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#41 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#42 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#43 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#44 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#45 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#46 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#47 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#48 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#49 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#50 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

Board footer