Rules: Clause

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

The current rules do not say that, so how should someone know that? How can someone be warned for a rule that there is no knowledge about?

Different55 · Before February 2015

Common sense. You knew what you were doing would be viewed as highly annoying, yet you did it.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

Okay, so it's common sense to not quote a post? But the problem is still that you need to know what's ban worthy, since I didn't know that quoting posts was ban worthy, the rules must be clarified.

Different55 · Before February 2015

We've been over this. Stop being difficult. You quoted a post that could've been a web page all it's own. You were being ridiculously annoying and you knew what you were doing. Since you DID know what you were doing, you were warned.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

Okay, so do we understand each other perfectly clear if we agrees on that I was warned because I quoted a long post? And can we be ready to get warnings by quoting a long post?

RPGMaster2000 · Before February 2015

TheGreenTroll wrote:

Okay, so do we understand each other perfectly clear if we agrees on that I was warned because I quoted a long post? And can we be ready to get warnings by quoting a long post?

I don't think the warning was given because of what you did, but more why you did it as Different55 just explained above. This clearly made your post worthy of a warning as it ventured in to the "public nuisance" territory, but you still insist on ignoring it. Failing to understand the boundaries of the rules does not excuse you from getting a warning.

I do agree on the point you were making though, that the rules need revising to include a clause regarding quoting long posts. You simply got a warning because of how you tried to prove that point.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

So then, RPGMaster2000, I am correct when I say that quoting long posts will be regarded as public nuisance?

And the public nuisance territory, what is that? What goes in under that territory? How should someone know that their action will be considered as public nuisance by a rule that doesn't exist, or at least by a rule that doesn't define what's public nuisance?

There is not a word in the rules that tells us what public nuisance is, the only rule that can warn someone for public nuisance is this clause. My problem with this clause is that the clause doesn't define what's ban worthy and that you could do it for no reason. I believe that you mods can't advocate a clause that doesn't define what the users can be banned/warned for, as a ban/warn can come as a surprise for the troubled user. How should this user know that he/she would be banned/warned for something that doesn't stand in the rules?

You need the clarify the rule, the rule is weak.

Tako · Before February 2015

How about this:

If the administrators or moderators think you are trying to be public nuisance in a way not stated here, we reside the right to give you the proper punishment.

RPGMaster2000 · Before February 2015

TheGreenTroll wrote:

So then, RPGMaster2000, I am correct when I say that quoting long posts will be regarded as public nuisance?

Yes, that would be correct. Especially when you're intentionally quoting the original post of a topic only to post a single line of approval when the original post very clearly stated that there is no reason whatsoever to quote it under any circumstance.

TheGreenTroll wrote:

And the public nuisance territory, what is that? What goes in under that territory? How should someone know that their action will be considered as public nuisance by a rule that doesn't exist, or at least by a rule that doesn't define what's public nuisance?

At this point, anything that is done to intentionally disrupt the community will be regarded as being a public nuisance. The rules do need to be revised and filled out though, I agree.

TheGreenTroll wrote:

There is not a word in the rules that tells us what public nuisance is, the only rule that can warn someone for public nuisance is this clause. My problem with this clause is that the clause doesn't define what's ban worthy and that you could do it for no reason. I believe that you mods can't advocate a clause that doesn't define what the users can be banned/warned for, as a ban/warn can come as a surprise for the troubled user. How should this user know that he/she would be banned/warned for something that doesn't stand in the rules?
You need the clarify the rule, the rule is weak.

An internal discussion seems to be due rather soon, in my opinion. Just remember that I do think that you have a valid point, but the warning could have been easily avoided by just using some common sense.

Toby · Before February 2015

You'll be hard done by to find an even semi-popular website without the "we have the right to remove everything/one and anything/one" clause. It's so people who cleverly find loopholes in the rules can still be removed at our discretion.

Oh, and we're all corrupt and delete opinionated posts while you're not looking.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

@RPGMaster2000: How do you know what my intentions was? There was no intentions to do it for the sake of annoyance.

To sum it up I'm glad to hear that we agree about something. I do not see the importance of this discussion anymore, since we are all repeating our arguments, but anyone that wants to continue to discuss this with me are welcome to send a PM.

Tako · Before February 2015

So you're saying you didn't see the giant, red banner at the top saying "DO NOT QUOTE THIS POST" then underneath it in bright green letters again? Yeah, right.

Different55 · Before February 2015

TheGreenTroll wrote:

@RPGMaster2000: How do you know what my intentions was? There was no intentions to do it for the sake of annoyance.
To sum it up I'm glad to hear that we agree about something. I do not see the importance of this discussion anymore, since we are all repeating our arguments, but anyone that wants to continue to discuss this with me are welcome to send a PM.

We HAVE to repeat the arguments because you keep taking us in a loop instead of letting the conversation take it's course off new tangents and whatnot.

tell you what, whatnot is a fun word

Chewy · Before February 2015

Toby wrote:

Oh, and we're all corrupt and delete opinionated posts while you're not looking.

Dammit Toby. Now they know our secret.

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

Different55 wrote:

TheGreenTroll wrote:
@RPGMaster2000: How do you know what my intentions was? There was no intentions to do it for the sake of annoyance.
To sum it up I'm glad to hear that we agree about something. I do not see the importance of this discussion anymore, since we are all repeating our arguments, but anyone that wants to continue to discuss this with me are welcome to send a PM.
We HAVE to repeat the arguments because you keep taking us in a loop instead of letting the conversation take it's course off new tangents and whatnot.
tell you what, whatnot is a fun word

My intentions was not to take you in to a loop, my intentions was to see how you think we should solve the problem. I'm finished, continue if my inbox if you wish too.

Different55 · Before February 2015

That's what you said last post....
anyway.

Things that need to be done:
Change the rules to say something like reserve the right to warn and ban if we think it necessary to keep the peace or something
Add <b></b> tags around the common sense part.

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

i honestly think this arguement is going nowhere. both sides are right, but neither seems to agree with each other. i say we just end this discussion because i can tell nothing will change.

Tako · Before February 2015

That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

MadReaper · Before February 2015

Uhhmmm..., youre right, I deleted it.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#52 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#53 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#54 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#55 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#56 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#57 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#58 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#59 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#60 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#61 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#62 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#63 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#64 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#65 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#66 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#67 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#68 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

#69 Before February 2015

Re: Rules: Clause

Board footer