Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
90 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - discussion on site rules
For all forums: do not
- spam
- flood
- double post
- vandalize
for the VGS forum only: do not post
- randomly in existing threads
- random flames
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:03 pm
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
proposal wrote:
For all forums: do not
- spam
- flood
- double post
- vandalize
i think it needs to be more streamlined. since those rules wont be possible to enforce on the "General/Flaming" section, unless of course you shut it down completely.
But here is a more serious matter, because to me the VGS site is a expression of a unique site that wants to have freedom of speech and not constrained by rules or corporations for advertisement. The style of the reviews portrays vgs to be a carefree site where anything goes. A rebel. So you cannot just enforce those good boy rules in the flaming section.
So points you mention above are valid for the main forum obviously, but not for the flaming forum. quoting your rules i add comments
proposal wrote:
For flaming forum: do not
- spam
( how do you define spam? is it advertisement? flaming is not applicable since it is the flaming forum )
- flood ( i see this as a problem only because it may take up site bandwidth )
- double post
not applicable in most, because it is hard to define. if i post 2 smiley faces that would be a double post too. so its hard to define.
- vandalize
not applicable because it is hard to define. or give an example. donot post url to the other forum here pls.
as you can see it is increasing the burden on the admin to enforce all this in the flaming forum. so the only concern should be bandwidth imo.
here is for the vgs forum, quite trivial
proposal wrote:
for the VGS forum only: do not post
- randomly in existing threads
- random flames
- post with relevance to the topic heading
now that i am done with that, what about the topic of porn? shouldint there be some 18+ warning shown before entering the site ? porn is posted quite freely here. kids come visiting this site and see naked tits of bitches. i am talking abt 12, 13 yr old kids. yeah so think abt that FIRST before making all the rules and wussifing VGS.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:54 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
But here is a more serious matter, because to me the VGS site is a expression of a unique site that wants to have freedom of speech and not constrained by rules or corporations for advertisement. The style of the reviews portrays vgs to be a carefree site where anything goes. A rebel. So you cannot just enforce those good boy rules in the flaming section.
So you do not want to change anything for the banter/flaming section?
Quote:
- spam ( how do you define spam? is it advertisement?
- flood( i see this as a problem only because it may take up site andwidth )
And because it makes the forum unusuable, like vandalism.
Quote:
- double post
not applicable in most, because it is hard to define. if i post 2 smiley faces that would be a double post too.
Yeah, but then why would it be a problem if one of these posts were deleted?
Quote:
vandalize
not applicable because it is hard to define
We do not need to define everything. You will get warned and can discuss it then, if you are in the mood that is.
Quote:
- post with relevance to the topic heading
I'm not sure what your problem is with topics wandering off. On usenet this has never been a problem for decades now. Why would it be different here? It would be ridiculous and annoying to break up threads all the time if the discussion wanders off a bit.
Quote:
shouldint there be some 18+ warning shown before entering the site?
You are talking about smashing up someone's face but the impact of porn on kids is what concerns you?
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:16 pm
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
- spam ( how do you define spam? is it advertisement?
LOL ok. that would classify suislides reviews under spam cause its abusive. sorry i only consider advertisements as spam. and link to external sites.
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
- flood( i see this as a problem only because it may take up site andwidth )
And because it makes the forum unusable, like vandalism.
then it is the same as spamming!
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
- double post
not applicable in most, because it is hard to define. if i post 2 smiley faces that would be a double post too.
Yeah, but then why would it be a problem if one of these posts were deleted?
ok let me give another example. i post a smiley, then some1 else posts and i post the same smiley again, so would that be double post to you? not to me sir no.
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
vandalize
not applicable because it is hard to define
We do not need to define everything. You will get warned and can discuss it then, if you are in the mood that is.
??? first we are here to discuss rules. if your not in the mood to be specific then its pointless to describe rules. and since you are not the admin, then any kind of definition of vandalism is his interpretation. But then again looking at your interpretation it seems to be using abusive language aka flaming, which is the very nature of that flaming forum. so what you are asking is the complete shutdown of that part of forum. this seems to me like your personal agenda.
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
- post with relevance to the topic heading
I'm not sure what your problem is with topics wandering off. On usenet this has never been a problem for decades now. Why would it be different here? It would be ridiculous and annoying to break up threads all the time if the discussion wanders off a bit.
well we can discuss for ages, but then i see no point in wasting my time since admin will decide. i am merely presenting logical rules so that it is easier to read the main forum topic without getting side tracked.
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
shouldint there be some 18+ warning shown before entering the site?
You are talking about smashing up someone's face but the impact of porn on kids is what concerns you?
DONOT try to quote something that is out of context. if you want to discuss that come to the other form. keep this area clean. but since you have brought up the matter here...i would say that stmt does not have anything to do with the question of free porn on this site without a 18+ disclaimer. you are a dad too, what if your kid happened to come here and ??? would that make you a good father? please think of that Mr righteous.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:38 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
- spam ( how do you define spam? is it advertisement?
LOL ok. that would classify suislides reviews under spam cause its abusive
You didn't notice this part is about forum-spam? How could his writings (on his own website) be considered spam in the first place? Or are you just being obnoxious (shock, horror!)?
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:34 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
You didn't notice this part is about forum-spam? How could his writings (on his own website) be considered spam in the first place? Or are you just being obnoxious (shock, horror!)?
well i just used your definition of spam and it lead to those conclusions. quite simple really ol' chap!
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Re: discussion on site rules
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:52 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
You didn't notice this part is about forum-spam? How could his writings (on his own website) be considered spam in the first place? Or are you just being obnoxious (shock, horror!)?
well i just used your definition of spam and it lead to those conclusions. quite simple really ol' chap!
There are many definitions of spam, this is the relevant definition (of forum-spam) but obviously it doesn't necessarily apply to other forms of spam (because it is a definition of forum-spam, compris monsieur)?
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:37 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Is Master Capt Puggy????????
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:01 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Obviously.
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:37 pm
mihai_alexandru73
Banned
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 778
And there's only 99% chances for him to be the new clone, Michael-Jackson.
P.S.: The other 1% chances are MJ to be the real MJ.
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:58 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
mihai_alexandru73 wrote:
And there's only 99% chances for him to be the new clone, Michael-Jackson.
P.S.: The other 1% chances are MJ to be the real MJ.
thanks for again flooding and spamming the topic MJ. this is getting no where....anyways i have given inputs. you guys can now do what you do best "start shitting on it"
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:01 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
I guess this all proves that we should have very few rules that are left to M0nkey to interpret and enforce. I.e. the situation we have had for 4,5 year now. In that time we had only 1 ban and a handfull of warnings, so spending more time on rules would seem like a waste.
Elaborating these rules a bit to facilitate the interpretation and to make them more understandable appears to be thwarted by "then define this" questions all the time, so that does not seem to be the way to proceed either.
Conclusion: leave everything as it is.
Last edited by berzerker on Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:47 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
I guess this all proves that we should have very few rules that are left to M0nkey to interpret and enforce. I.e. the situation we have had for 4,5 year now. In that time we had only 1 ban and a handfull of warnings, so spending more time on rules would seem like a waste.
you should also take into account of the limited amt of traffic we get at vgs.
the reasons for that are the horrible look of the site. i am hoping with the ui upgradation the traffic will increase, as it will look more refined and pleasing. so traffic may probably increase and we may see more users....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You didn't notice this part is about 