# Rewriting Forum Rules



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

My goal for every rule is to be clear, distinct, and brief. I want as few as possible.
Post comments below. Please check and pick my grammar, brevity, and clarity.

It's difficult writing rules that apply to many boards at once, because they are only visible in their specific boards. Anything that applies to more than one board should, basically, be common sense.

*a. Global Rules*

*Have common courtesy.* Do not directly attack other users. We're all friends here; be nice.
*Handle problems like an adult.* Personal matters involving others (including staff) should be handled privately. Post in the Talk to Staff board, use conversations, or email us at admins@cwckiforums.com
*Don't post if you have nothing to say.* Don't post for the sake of being noticed. In discussion boards, please avoid a one liner / image / video reply that is just a joke. Further the conversation in some way.
*Don't gimmick post.* No recently created accounts should take on a persona when posting.
*Don't sockpuppet.* Creating secondary accounts is not allowed. If you decide to use alternate accounts to circumvent board restrictions or to be manipulative, you will be banned across all accounts. See: handling problems like an adult.
*Do not plea for sympathy. *Do not make posts about how you are leaving the forums. Just leave.


*b. Lolcow Boards ("Chris" and "Lolcow" Categories)*

*Be civil.* Don't aggressively attack and insult the people or groups we talk about. Don't get emotionally charged over things that do not matter. If you need to tell people you're better than someone, you're probably not.
*No trolling plans.* Don't use this forum as a place to organize trolling efforts. We cannot control your behavior off-site, but expect to be banned and ridiculed if you do something embarrassing.
*Be legal.* Avoid directly posting private information. Do not break the law trying to screw with people.
*Write descriptive topic titles.* [[ This rule applies to all Lolcow boards, but the description text is different for each. ]]

*c. Chris Updates*

*Posts in this forum are moderated.* This is for quality. All posts made here should be to point out something that everyone would find interesting, or that is very important. Posts are approved on a case-by-case basis, at a moderator's approval.

*Only staff may post threads in this board.* If you notice something before we do, post in Discussion and an update thread will soon be created.

*d. Chris Discussion*

*Write descriptive topic titles.* "_[Sep-5-2014] Facebook post about Sonichu_" is better than "_new update_".
*Limit discussion of body parts and functions.* Chris is gross. Discussing his incontinence in detail is unnecessary and disturbing.
*Chris doesn't read your posts.* Stop trying to directly, or indirectly, chastise Chris through your posts. He does not care about what you have to say, and these posts are boring.
*Don't post random articles.* Unless the subject matter is _directly_ related to Chris and his history, please do not post articles with a loose affiliation. Off-Topic is where that belongs.

*Don't roleplay in your posts.* Don't write pretend dialog between people, such as Chris and his mother.

*e. Sonichu*

This board is is only for discussion of Sonichu and related fan creations.

*f. Lolcow General*

Lolcows are bizarre people/groups/events, that are on the Internet, and respond negatively to people in a funny way. They _are not_ countries, political figures, celebrities, your highschool bully, or some random YouTuber that isn't a drama queen.

*Write descriptive topic titles.* "_Hunger Mythos_" is better than "_Girl that thinks she's a corgi_". Keep them as brief as possible.
*Do not create topics about forum members*. This extends to all existing and former members of the forum that were _first discovered_ by their presence here. If you think they deserve one, ask staff first.
*g. Golden Knight*

This board is only for discussing Jay and his life, activity, creations, and world.

*Make a new thread for each update.*
*h. Moleman9000*

This board is only for discussing Gabe Navarro and his life, activity, creations, and world.

*Make a new thread for each update.*
*Don't try to give Moleman advice when he visits.* It's hopeless and clutters the discussion.
*i. ParkourDude91*

This main forum is for discussing ParkourDude91 updates and livestreams.

*Don't ramble about military tech or terminology*. Nobody cares about the difference between a clip and a mag. Nobody wants to hear the specifics about the impracticality of dual-wielding two 50 caliber handguns.
*Make threads only for new events.* Keep off-topic and general discussion in Side-Ops.
*j. Side-Ops*

Any discussion of ParkourDude91 (and his friends) that verges on being off-topic or speculation should be posted here.

*k. Off-Topic & The Chatbox*

*Spoiler adult content.* Anything you wouldn't want your boss to see on your monitor should be hidden. Don't embed NSFW content in chat directly.

*l. Deep Thoughts*

This forum is for deep thoughts and more serious discussion. Please be mindful when challenging someone's opinions and beliefs.


----------



## Watcher (Sep 5, 2014)

What about sockpuppeting?


----------



## KatsuKitty (Sep 5, 2014)

Discussion needs rules against posting single images or youtube videos as replies. _Man_, I'm getting sick of seeing that.


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> What about sockpuppeting?


Added:

5. *Don't sockpuppet.* Creating secondary accounts is not allowed. If you decide to use alternate accounts to circumvent board restrictions or to be manipulative, you will be banned across all accounts. See: handling problems like an adult.


----------



## CatParty (Sep 5, 2014)

Will there be any specific chat rules? Like say no posting of nsfw images?


----------



## Mauvman Shuffleboard (Sep 5, 2014)

CatParty said:


> Will there be any specific chat rules? Like say no posting of nsfw images?


Or talking shit about our prettiest member.


----------



## Foulmouth (Sep 5, 2014)

Any chance people can be encouraged to not dump shitloads of un-spoilered youtube vids ?


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

KatsuKitty said:


> Discussion needs rules against posting single images or youtube videos as replies. _Man_, I'm getting sick of seeing that.


I don't think that needs its own rule. I'll throw it under "don't post if you have nothing to say". Unless the video/picture is actually conductive to discussion and not just a joke, feel free to delete it as you see it.



CatParty said:


> Will there be any specific chat rules? Like say no posting of nsfw images?


I'll create a group for Off-Topic & Chat because whatever applies to one will apply to both.


----------



## A-Stump (Sep 5, 2014)

D.5 just broke Discussion if it's actually enforced


----------



## Dr. Meme (Sep 5, 2014)

can we delete posts that have nothing to say except for "yes I agree"? it clogs threads.


----------



## LM 697 (Sep 5, 2014)

Suggestion

*e. Sonichu*
1. *Don't post in this section.*


----------



## Le Bateleur (Sep 5, 2014)

a4 said:
			
		

> *Don't gimmick post.* No new users or accounts should take on a persona in all of their posts.


This one is vague. Is it ok to take on a persona in _some_ posts so long as it is not _all_? Can existing (non-new) users take on a persona?


----------



## LM 697 (Sep 5, 2014)

Absinthe said:


> Can existing (non-new) users take on a persona?



If you want to seem autistic as hell, then sure, go ahead.


----------



## Le Bateleur (Sep 5, 2014)

CompyRex said:


> If you want to seem autistic as hell, then sure, go ahead.


My persona shall be "answers rhetorical questions".


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

Absinthe said:


> This one is vague. Is it ok to take on a persona in _some_ posts so long as it is not _all_? Can existing (non-new) users take on a persona?


I was trying my best to say "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN" without saying "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN".

How's this:
*Don't gimmick post.* No recently created accounts should take on a persona when posting.


----------



## Le Bateleur (Sep 5, 2014)

Null said:


> I was trying my best to say "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN" without saying "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN".
> 
> How's this:
> *Don't gimmick post.* No recently created accounts should take on a persona when posting.


Sounds good. Existing (non-Hulk) users will already know the score, new users will (should) take notice.


----------



## OBAMATRON (Sep 5, 2014)

> *a.3. Don't post if you have nothing to say.* Don't post for the sake of being noticed. In discussion boards, please avoid a one liner / image / video reply that is just a joke. Further the conversation in some way.


So, are jokes off limits even if they are topical?


----------



## Mauvman Shuffleboard (Sep 5, 2014)

It's not a gimmick when you're actually Hulk Hogan, brother.


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

OBAMATRON said:


> So, are jokes off limits even if they are topical?


----------



## OBAMATRON (Sep 5, 2014)

Null said:


>


I don't want to argue, but I think humor sometimes contributes to the discussion.
Edit: What if you find a youtube video that furthers the conversation, but you don't have much to say beyond posting it?


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

OBAMATRON said:


> I don't want to argue, but I think humor sometimes contributes to the discussion.


It's hard to say like, "no jokes", but when I read discussion it often makes me grimace because it's usually so awkward and force. It's rarely directly contributive.


----------



## OBAMATRON (Sep 5, 2014)

Null said:


> It's hard to say like, "no jokes", but when I read discussion it often makes me grimace because it's usually so awkward and force. It's rarely directly contributive.


I wasn't necessarily talking about Chris Discussion. The rule _is _in the global section.
What about something like fanart of TGK or a shoop of him that's posted as a joke in that forum? A screencap of Jace in a funny freakout pose? I'm just trying to get an idea of what you're thinking. 
Chris Discussion is a train wreck, I can see a "no joke posts" rule being there.


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

Well it specifies "in discussion boards". If a joke is topical enough to add something that's usually self-evident. The problem with writing rules is that they are never interpreted super literally. It's always up to discretion.


----------



## OBAMATRON (Sep 5, 2014)

Null said:


> Well it specifies "in discussion boards". If a joke is topical enough to add something that's usually self-evident. The problem with writing rules is that they are never interpreted super literally. It's always up to discretion.


Maybe I just have autism, but maybe you should specify "in the Discussion board", instead of "in discussion boards". Isn't this whole site discussion boards? Besides that, I think you're just saying "only post to contribute and not to circlejerk with jokes".


----------



## exball (Sep 5, 2014)

Null said:


> I was trying my best to say "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN" without saying "EVERYONE EXCEPT HULK HOGAN".
> 
> How's this:
> *Don't gimmick post.* No recently created accounts should take on a persona when posting.


Hulk Hogan isn't a gimmick bruh.


----------



## EI 903 (Sep 5, 2014)

Would it be possible to have a reminder that the report function exists included with the rules? It's really easy to forget when you're not a mod and rarely deal with such things.


----------



## Null (Sep 5, 2014)

Hellblazer said:


> Would it be possible to have a reminder that the report function exists included with the rules? It's really easy to forget when you're not a mod and rarely deal with such things.


that's a design issue, not a rules issue. I'll try to get the report button more visibility.


----------



## José Mourinho (Sep 6, 2014)

I suggest adding the mention of A-Logging  . I know it's linked with the *be civil *rule but I think it would work better.


----------



## Null (Sep 6, 2014)

Alan Pardew said:


> I suggest adding the mention of A-Logging  . I know it's linked with the *be civil *rule but I think it would work better.


Randoms won't know what a-logging is.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 6, 2014)

> *Don't roleplay in your posts.* Don't write pretend dialog between people, such as Chris and his mother.


I'd say get rid of this.  If it's a problem it can be included in "Don't post if you have nothing to say," I guess.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 6, 2014)

Maybe add a rule talking about how this is a serious board about a serious subject and violations of protocol can trigger Asperger's symptoms.


----------



## Null (Sep 6, 2014)

Holdek said:


> Maybe add a rule talking about how this is a serious board about a serious subject and violations of protocol can trigger Asperger's symptoms.


People complain about shit posting and shitty boards, then people complain about the rules being too serious.


What do you want? Maybe I should just start banning people when they post shit I think is stupid?

No, that wouldn't work. Too many people would be banned unfairly.

New idea: Let mods ban people they want, but only if they can justify it. Maybe make a list of things mods can ban for, but let them choose _not_ to ban and delete posts if they think it's funny/contributive, despite being on the list. A set of guidelines to show new people how to post, while not being set in stone "letter of the law" restrictions.

Hm, yeah. This is giving me great inspiration that is usually hard to come by. I'll get on this new thing immediately.


----------



## NegaCWC (Sep 6, 2014)

Null said:


> *k. Off-Topic & The Chatbox*
> 
> *Spoiler adult content.* Anything you wouldn't want your boss to see on your monitor should be hidden. Don't embed NSFW content in chat directly.



Why not make this a global rule? I don't see why we should encounter unspoilered images of SheCamForCWC in Discussion.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 6, 2014)

Null said:


> People complain about shit posting and shitty boards, then people complain about the rules being too serious.
> 
> 
> What do you want? Maybe I should just start banning people when they post shit I think is stupid?
> ...


People are going to have different opinions about what they like and what they don't like.  The new ratings system will help.  If someone has the vast majority of their posts being rated as negative, then the community in general would probably support a ban.  And, if a specific post is labeled mostly as "dumb" or whatever, you can safely delete it without much controversy.

Otherwise, I think you are on to something when you suggest posting a handful of general guidelines without going into a long list of elaborate rules that can be covered under "use common sense."  This will allow more flexibility on the part of both posters and mods that take circumstances into account.  And you'll avoid shitposters trying to use the rules to "lawyer out" of shitpost accusations by leaning on the letter of the law without arguing defenses from common sense.


----------



## Bucharest (Sep 6, 2014)

Null said:


> *i. ParkourDude91*
> 
> *Don't ramble about military tech or terminology*. Nobody cares about the difference between a clip and a mag. Nobody wants to hear the specifics about the impracticality of dual-wielding two 50 caliber handguns.



The one thing I've never really understood is why it's acceptable to discuss Chris' misunderstandings of social interactions, art production, sonic the hedgehog, and whatever else he rambles on about, but the largesse of what Jace blathers about is off limits.

Now, is it allowed to make a passing comment on the ridiculousness of something he fucks up on as long as it's minimal, or is mentioning anything military related at all verboten?


----------



## Holdek (Sep 6, 2014)

NegaCWC said:


> Why not make this a global rule? I don't see why we should encounter unspoilered images of SheCamForCWC in Discussion.


Because that's a major Christorical event and you are specifically going to the subforum that talks about a perverted LOLcow who has many NSFW moments that he has broadcast to the entire world.


----------



## Null (Sep 6, 2014)

Bucharest said:


> The one thing I've never really understood is why it's acceptable to discuss Chris' misunderstandings of social interactions, art production, sonic the hedgehog, and whatever else he rambles on about, but the largesse of what Jace blathers about is off limits.
> 
> Now, is it allowed to make a passing comment on the ridiculousness of something he fucks up on as long as it's minimal, or is mentioning anything military related at all verboten?


Because it was all-consuming. Every Jace thread can, at heart, be derailed into a conversation about something irrelevant and tech related.


----------



## Bucharest (Sep 6, 2014)

Null said:


> Because it was all-consuming. Every Jace thread can, at heart, be derailed into a conversation about something irrelevant and tech related.



So, anything military/ tech/ political/ etc. related he says that goes somewhat beyond common knowledge is not allowed to be discussed?


----------



## Clown Doll (Sep 6, 2014)

Bucharest said:


> So, anything military/ tech/ political/ etc. related he says that goes somewhat beyond common knowledge is not allowed to be discussed?



I think it means more like not derailing it or nitpicking about minor stuff like I don't know if you've ever been to /k/ or TFR or the Something Awful forums but people _will _make a fight on some stupid mistakes in terms of terminology either seriously or ~*ironically*~ or to boast on their niche knowledge about something and the intention of the rule is to prevent threads from derailing into shitballs that have nothing to do with the original context of the thread.

But I agree that I don't think it's the best idea for a forum, any forum, to try to make minor adjustments to the forum culture by adjusting the global rules, especially when people who'd most likely be breaking these rules would make them anyway, regardless of what it says on the dotted line. Like Holdek said, the forum ratings are a good way for the community to communicate to the staff what posts are deemed bad and while this forum isn't a democracy,conversation cultures are largely formed organically by the people posting in them, rather than being warded off by rule. Clarifications to existing rules are still extremely welcome and yeah, the forum rules need updating every once in a while, but trying to micromanage posting from the macro level is exceedingly inefficient.



Null said:


> It's hard to say like, "no jokes", but when I read discussion it often makes me grimace because it's usually so awkward and force. It's rarely directly contributive.


I was never into "Meemaw wants her q-sands!" either, but if a no-joke rule had been in effect, would it have warded away those posters or prevented the people who had something the majority of people would've found really funny from posting ? Would it have warded off either? The staff ultimately makes the decision what kind of discussion they want but it might be easier to let the staff give bad posters anymous dunce caps instead of trying to appeal to would-be-bad-posters via the forum rules in the off-chance they read them.

That all being said, I think the new rules seem nice and clear enough, the only thing I'd change really imo, is the "Be legal" being it's own point in the rules in Lolcow discussion, because it could easily be included in "1. Be civil.".


----------



## CatParty (Sep 6, 2014)

Bucharest said:


> So, anything military/ tech/ political/ etc. related he says that goes somewhat beyond common knowledge is not allowed to be discussed?




Yes


----------



## Null (Sep 6, 2014)

Bucharest said:


> So, anything military/ tech/ political/ etc. related he says that goes somewhat beyond common knowledge is not allowed to be discussed?


The word "ramble" is there to give leeway because it's not a strictly exclusive term. Talk, but don't sperg.


----------



## Bucharest (Sep 6, 2014)

Ahaaaa, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## _blank_ (Sep 6, 2014)

Null said:


> *e. Sonichu*
> 
> This board is is only for discussion of Sonichu and related fan creations.





CompyRex said:


> Suggestion
> 
> *e. Sonichu*
> 1. *Don't post in this section.*





So, this is just me being paranoid, but just want to get confirmation that stuff like my "The Real Sonichu" and other related "fan" comics and "fan" projects we've been doing recently are still okay to do, or is it verboten since it's not part of the Sonichu "history" like ABL's Asperchu.


----------



## Pikonic (Sep 6, 2014)

Holdek said:


> Because that's a major Christorical event and you are specifically going to the subforum that talks about a perverted LOLcow who has many NSFW moments that he has broadcast to the entire world.


The problem isn't bringing it up. It's that it's unspoiled.

It's not hard to make one of these


Spoiler: NSFW


----------



## OBAMATRON (Sep 6, 2014)

Are people being warned for bad posts or are the posts being deleted? I have a problem with deleting posts that aren't outright offensive. No one learns what's not okay to post if they can't see examples.


----------



## CatParty (Sep 6, 2014)

Pikonic said:


> The problem isn't bringing it up. It's that it's unspoiled.
> 
> It's not hard to make one of these
> 
> ...




Worst spoiler let down ever


----------



## Pikonic (Sep 6, 2014)

CatParty said:


> Worst spoiler let down ever


Yeah it's like a refrigerator, if you open it again it's still gonna be empty.


----------



## Flowers For Sonichu (Sep 6, 2014)

How about a rule to stop trying to find out the identity of Chris' hooker?


----------



## LM 697 (Sep 6, 2014)

hurrhurrhurr said:


> How about a rule to stop trying to find out the identity of Chris' hooker?



We already know.



Spoiler


----------



## Pikonic (Sep 6, 2014)

hurrhurrhurr said:


> How about a rule to stop trying to find out the identity of Chris' hooker?


Or better yet, no more debating is Chris is techically still a virgin or not.


----------



## CatParty (Sep 6, 2014)

Pikonic said:


> Or better yet, no more debating is Chris is techically still a virgin or not.




Isn't that just an extension of alogging though? Like they can't contain their own jealous rage at a pants shitting retard because he's gotten laid and they haven't.


----------



## Mr. 0 (Sep 7, 2014)

A "calm down" rule where if someone's getting all worked up for whatever reason, they leave the forum for a couple of hours (at least) to cool off and come back when they can think a bit more clearly?


----------



## Null (Sep 7, 2014)

Adding to global rules.

*Do not plea for sympathy. *Do not make posts about how you are leaving the forums. Just leave.


----------



## Pikonic (Sep 7, 2014)

Null said:


> Adding to global rules.
> 
> *Do not plea for sympathy. *Do not make posts about how you are leaving the forums. Just leave.


Has this happened?


----------



## CatParty (Sep 7, 2014)

Pikonic said:


> Has this happened?




http://cwckiforums.com/threads/i-want-the-harassment-to-stop.2853/

http://cwckiforums.com/threads/hey-null-stop-being-a-dick.3020/


----------



## Null (Sep 7, 2014)

Typically we handle people that want to leave by not banning them and I think for the most part this is OK, but if it's someone being disruptive staff can justify the ban with that rule alone and more specific issues aren't required.


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Sep 9, 2014)

How would the "No trolling, do not attempt to contact Chris" rule be affected by Chris's commissions on eBay?  I'm all for not calling Chris or emailing him, since it's pointless anyway, but it seems like he's at least somewhat approachable on eBay.  Does this change anything?

For example... It seems like an enterprising Christorian could pay him $20 to draw his night in jail, or an action shot of Best Buy, or the ideal tomgirl.  The request could be fairly innocuous, but still provide payoff since we know Chris will fill in excessive details.   I'm not saying we should do this, but I am saying that it's a weird loophole in the "no trolling Chris" rule, since it gives him the option to come to us, on his own terms.  I also know a lot of forum members have bought stuff from him, when they would otherwise never have contacted Chris.  How close are they to breaking the rules?


----------



## LM 697 (Sep 9, 2014)

ChurchOfGodBear said:


> How would the "No trolling, do not attempt to contact Chris" rule be affected by Chris's commissions on eBay?  I'm all for not calling Chris or emailing him, since it's pointless anyway, but it seems like he's at least somewhat approachable on eBay.  Does this change anything?
> 
> For example... It seems like an enterprising Christorian could pay him $20 to draw his night in jail, or an action shot of Best Buy, or the ideal tomgirl.  The request could be fairly innocuous, but still provide payoff since we know Chris will fill in excessive details.   I'm not saying we should do this, but I am saying that it's a weird loophole in the "no trolling Chris" rule, since it gives him the option to come to us, on his own terms.  I also know a lot of forum members have bought stuff from him, when they would otherwise never have contacted Chris.  How close are they to breaking the rules?



Unless you try to scam him or send him a bomb instead of money, it's not breaking the rules.


----------



## Null (Sep 9, 2014)

ChurchOfGodBear said:


> How would the "No trolling, do not attempt to contact Chris" rule be affected by Chris's commissions on eBay?  I'm all for not calling Chris or emailing him, since it's pointless anyway, but it seems like he's at least somewhat approachable on eBay.  Does this change anything?
> 
> For example... It seems like an enterprising Christorian could pay him $20 to draw his night in jail, or an action shot of Best Buy, or the ideal tomgirl.  The request could be fairly innocuous, but still provide payoff since we know Chris will fill in excessive details.   I'm not saying we should do this, but I am saying that it's a weird loophole in the "no trolling Chris" rule, since it gives him the option to come to us, on his own terms.  I also know a lot of forum members have bought stuff from him, when they would otherwise never have contacted Chris.  How close are they to breaking the rules?


Not very. There's always sort of a difference between trolling and, for instance, talking to Jace through Twitter or in his Livestreams. When people expose themselves like that, they're encouraging interaction. With Chris, the majority of trolling plans involve finding him and fucking with him when he's been trying to elude the whole world. The eBay stuff is the only recent example of him going out and communicating again.


----------



## Null (Dec 31, 2014)

I've fixed the rule mod for the umpteenth time. If you have a comment to make about this, post here.


----------



## HG 400 (Jan 20, 2015)

Null said:


> *k. Off-Topic & The Chatbox*
> 
> *Spoiler adult content.* Anything you wouldn't want your boss to see on your monitor should be hidden. Don't embed NSFW content in chat directly.


I wouldn't want my boss to see kiwifarms on my monitor at all, so that's a pretty bad example.


----------



## Null (Jan 20, 2015)

Dynastia said:


> I wouldn't want my boss to see kiwifarms on my monitor at all, so that's a pretty bad example.


You'd be surprised.


----------



## Morbid Boredom (Jan 20, 2015)

"Search is your friend".  Lots of questions can be answered if one uses the search function.


----------



## EI 903 (Jan 27, 2015)

Guys, stop interacting with TJ in this thread. It just makes more work for whichever mod ends up tidying up the place.


----------

