runouw.com

Wow I'm away for half a day and look what happens.

Firstly, I did not say that there should be a no spoiler rule. And the 1 spoiler rule was a suggestion. Personally I'd just find it tedious having to open loads of spoilers in people's sigs. Maybe a 3 spoiler limit is a better one as I don't see a lot of sigs with more than 2 spoilers anyway. More than 3 spoilers (unless they are tiny or neatly laid out, like Nin's sig) is likely to go over the size limit anyway.

But even so, that's not the main point here. If we need more server space then for the sake of the forums themselves we can all try to just reduce our sigs just a bit if it's necessary. (although there are probably better ways tbh)
I honestly don't see why there's so much complaining in the first place. Sigs are sigs. If we have to reduce them a bit or put a bit more in spoilers, then that's pretty fair IMO. It's not like we're asking you to completely nuke your signatures, we're just suggesting alternatives of how to shorten them down in cases where they've gone over the size limit and we haven't clamped down on them because the signature rules just got pretty forgotten about. Also, it could still help to save more space, like MoD said. Again, we are not doing this to annoy everyone; rules are there for a reason. It took a long time for me to realise how important some minor rules actually are.

(although tbh I'm not fully supporting the space topic idea. I still prefer having sigs, but just shortened if we need to.)

The problem with user threads is that barely anyone is going to bother opening them. They aren't displayed everywhere like sigs are.

That's aside the point. Are there anymore problems with the rules as they are now?

It doesnt matter about whether or not youguys support the newsig rule or not. when you lok at it, we had a limit that every on broke the first time.

Sad to say it, but you all have a choice. Clean up the sigs an find a smaller style, or we all need to pitch in and make donations. And by all, I meN each and every person.


That is my honest opinion. I have no problem with the new rule and when I get back on my desktop, will clean without argument.

nin10mode wrote:Are there anymore problems with the rules as they are now?

Needs more distinction between severity of bans. Seriously, if we're going to be exiling people from the community (whether temporarily or permanently) there needs to be irrefutable proof that they did in fact deserve it. This would prevent favoritism, as well as clearing up ambiguity about ban lengths. Maybe a handy little table of common lengths (1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, perma? along with what sorts of things would earn you each one). Obviously there would still be cases not covered, but they should be added to the list as they are encountered after F23 has agreed upon a suitable punishment (no more one man shows- it protects the user who gives the punishment and there is less chance of bias due to more discussion) for future reference.

That's really the only thing I feel should be added/changed. Maybe a bit more about how exactly the URs are going to work, but that seems like it would be a trial and error process till we find something that works.

EDIT: Also maybe put that ban appeal email somewhere in the rules?

Venexis wrote:EDIT: Also maybe put that ban appeal email somewhere in the rules?

Added two lines about it, but it might need to be rephrased because I can't into formal english.

Bans should be carried out at the discretion of the moderator, with the length decided by them depending on the severity of offense(s). For the longer bans - months to permanent - there should be discussion. If you've been given the responsibility to moderate the forums, then you should be able to judge how long the ban should be for. If other members strongly disagree, then the time can be edited.

I find the severity of offenses pretty self explanatory. If you've read the rules, then you know what you shouldn't be doing and what is severe; bumping: no, flaming: yes. It's more of a question if we need it? If enough users think we actually do then sure.


I'm not completely opposed to these (as the rest of the post may suggest), but why add extra things when they won't do very much? Genuinely love some feedback.

bumping needs to be explained again. tjeres loopholes that are hard to describe, and he way i remmber is if it added discussion it was okay.

i also dontthink its up to the members to decide a users ban length. what if it was a user veryone loved? what bout one everyone hated? that is where bias comes into play. regardless if the mmberbase agrees on tje bn or not, its the mods job. not theirs.

caugh spelling. ---^
The warning/banning system is always biased to a certain degree. While the possibility for users to get back to the site lies about 2-3% the decisions of a ban were normally justified. In my opinion it's only that ban appealing e-mail which should maybe even get mentioned in one of those red boxes above, in the rule subforum. (I hope you know what I mean.)

Or even creating a topic extra for such permaban cases in the rule forum.

the ban system definitely needs to be repaired first. i know there are some who were permad and were unbanned and given second, even third chances. yet there are oters who never got that. they were given the finger more or less.

i just really feel we need to make things fair before we work on anything else.

It all depends on the circumstances. I have never permabanned anyone should really be reserved for those who register for malicious purposes/several subsequent bans and showing no change.