The Forum Rules - Read BEFORE You Post (Updated 8/9/08)

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'll let you know next time I want to. ;-]

[Darkmoon]

Rules have been tweaked a little (for the Art Section specifically), and the rules for the Merchant's Corner have been added. Please reread the rules, especially if you haven't in a while.

[Darkmoon]

Clarified the rules a bit further, as well as added in bits about "no double posting" and "make sure to write coherently". If you haven't read the rules in a little while, now's the time to go read over them again (or for the first time, for some of you).

EDIT: Oh, a double post. How amusing.

[Faerie Alex]

Two minor little issues/questions I have regarding the rules:

Regarding the rule on double-posting, should consecutive huggle announcements in the Random Huggle thread now be made in a single, edited post? It only comes up now and then, but it will occasionally happen that we end up with a situation where the last hugger to post ends up giving a hug again before anyone else has posted.

Also, regarding the rules for the Art Forum,

You MUST put "NSFW", "WARNING – NUDITY", "WARNING", "NUDITY WARNING", etc, etc in the thread title, in all-caps or you will be warned.

I might just be being a bit of a grammar-Nazi here, but it seems to me that this is saying that NSFW must be put in all thread titles. I know that Rule III makes mention that not work-safe "...threads MUST have a warning in the thread title..." but I might think that it would be nice to have a mention of that down in the Art Forum rules too.

[Darkmoon]

Eh, all rules for the forum apply to sub-forums.

The Huggle thread can be an exception, although really, none of the admins really care too much about that thread anyway, so I dunno that we'd even have noticed if you'd double-posted.

[Tapewolf]

How about the Birthday thread?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The Huggle thread can be an exception, although really, none of the admins really care too much about that thread anyway, so I dunno that we'd even have noticed if you'd double-posted.

I would.

But then, I watch everything. I thought everyone knew that? ;-]

How about the Birthday thread?

I think, as with all things, common sense is required. We're not going to jump on you for those two threads, nor any other game threads where several people are playing, but it just happens to be you that posts twice.

Having said that, it's great that you've brought these to our attention. ;-]

[Tapewolf]

I think, as with all things, common sense is required. We're not going to jump on you for those two threads, nor any other game threads where several people are playing, but it just happens to be you that posts twice.
Having said that, it's great that you've brought these to our attention. ;-]

If I may make a suggestion, both of these are purpose-built announcement threads, so IMHO that would make a good starting point for working out a more generic exemption, as opposed to "Except for the Hugs thread, the Birthday thread, ...".  As it stands, this rule can, under a variety of circumstances also forbid the creator of a leaving-for-a-bit thread from actually announcing their return.  (Common sense notwithstanding).

As a rule, if no-one else is interested in an announcement thread the creator will generally lose interest in it themselves.  If not, it would probably find its way into the mine anyway.

Maybe you can think of a flaw in this idea, but I think it covers most cases.

[Faerie Alex]

Eh, all rules for the forum apply to sub-forums.

I guess it just seemed to me that Rule III was contradicted in the span of the Art Forum by that rule. But reading it again, I think I see how that was meant.

[Darkmoon]

I think, as with all things, common sense is required. We're not going to jump on you for those two threads, nor any other game threads where several people are playing, but it just happens to be you that posts twice.
Having said that, it's great that you've brought these to our attention. ;-]

If I may make a suggestion, both of these are purpose-built announcement threads, so IMHO that would make a good starting point for working out a more generic exemption, as opposed to "Except for the Hugs thread, the Birthday thread, ...".  As it stands, this rule can, under a variety of circumstances also forbid the creator of a leaving-for-a-bit thread from actually announcing their return.  (Common sense notwithstanding).

As a rule, if no-one else is interested in an announcement thread the creator will generally lose interest in it themselves.  If not, it would probably find its way into the mine anyway.

Maybe you can think of a flaw in this idea, but I think it covers most cases.

The goal is to prevent people from posting the topics that no one seems to care about anymore.We were debating "well, if no one posts for 72 hours, maybe they can double post..." But then we figure that if, after 72 hours there's still no posts, probably no one cares.

In the case of an I'm leaving thread. If they're still posting in the thread, they haven't left yet. If they were the only person to post in the thread (ie, they posted it to begin with), then, to be blunt, obviously no one cares.

We could generic it up, but it's just easier make a very broad rule and have people ask us once in a while for exceptions. As we say, time and again, if any of the rules don't make sense, or you want a small loophole for this or that, just ask the admins and we'll be happy to let you know if something is okay.

[Tapewolf]

In the case of an I'm leaving thread. If they're still posting in the thread, they haven't left yet. If they were the only person to post in the thread (ie, they posted it to begin with), then, to be blunt, obviously no one cares.

Maybe I should have posted this to begin with, but this scenario immediately sprang to mind. 

* * *

A: I'll be off for the next week
B: Have fun
C: Take care
D: ....
A: Thanks.  Catch you later
:
A: I'm back, it absolute rocked / sucked / whatever

* * *

...Indeed, if the original announcement was made a few hours before departure, 'D' might well be asking where 'A' is going.  I seem to recall doing this myself in one of Pal's threads.
This may also happen if the trip is delayed or cancelled entirely.

The 72 hours thing is an interesting idea.  One of the other double-post situations that I have been in, which the above example is similar to, was follow-ups to an earlier event, which may take a week or so to have cleared.  For instance, the Paypal thing.  That had a gap of about 10 days in it while I was waiting for it to clear, after which I posted how long it took.  Starting a new thread is an option, I suppose but the best course of action in this scenario is not clear, to me at least.

Edit:
Just turned off smileys, so it's more clear. ;-]
  -- llearch

[Sunblink]

The double-posting thing hardly ever affects me, so I'm not terribly concerned about the adjustments to the rules, but what about places like... say... art topics? Are the double-posting rules going to become more strict there?

Also, I'm probably going to poke you for clarification on something. In terms of the rules of NSFW warnings in the thread titles, should the NSFW tag ALWAYS be present in the title, or just when a new, NSFW picture is announced?

~Keaton the Black Jackal

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The double-posting thing hardly ever affects me, so I'm not terribly concerned about the adjustments to the rules, but what about places like... say... art topics? Are the double-posting rules going to become more strict there?

"More" strict, no. If you look closely, there's an exception for art threads. Rule IV.A.1 ...

About all we've done is take some scenarios where we've had to explain things, and put the explanation into the rules, so that everyone else can see what is what.

Or, at least, that was the intent.

Also, I'm probably going to poke you for clarification on something. In terms of the rules of NSFW warnings in the thread titles, should the NSFW tag ALWAYS be present in the title, or just when a new, NSFW picture is announced?

If there's a NSFW image in the thread, using img tags, then the NSFW tag in the thread header MUST be present. After all, the whole reason for providing it is so people don't accidentally open the image at work, right?

On the other hand, if you're only linking to the image, and it's labelled in the post as being NSFW, that's a barrier right there.

Strictly speaking, it should be there all the time, but if it's a link, rather than an img, you can probably let it slide. Common sense, remember? Think of the kiddies, and keep your thread within what the paranoid politically correct people might want to see at work, and you'll be ok, even if some of the images you link to are not.

Fair enough?

[Sunblink]

"More" strict, no. If you look closely, there's an exception for art threads. Rule IV.A.1 ...

About all we've done is take some scenarios where we've had to explain things, and put the explanation into the rules, so that everyone else can see what is what.

Or, at least, that was the intent.

Understood - thanks for clearing that up.

If there's a NSFW image in the thread, using img tags, then the NSFW tag in the thread header MUST be present. After all, the whole reason for providing it is so people don't accidentally open the image at work, right?

On the other hand, if you're only linking to the image, and it's labelled in the post as being NSFW, that's a barrier right there.

Strictly speaking, it should be there all the time, but if it's a link, rather than an img, you can probably let it slide. Common sense, remember? Think of the kiddies, and keep your thread within what the paranoid politically correct people might want to see at work, and you'll be ok, even if some of the images you link to are not.

Fair enough?

Very fair. I always use links myself, and put a whole barricade of warnings and stuff on the off-occasion I post something NSFW, so that works.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

[Darkmoon]

Rules have been revised. Specifically, Rule 2 has a new Section A. It is advised you read the rules again, just to make sure you know and understand them.