Rewriting Forum Rules

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Holdek and silentprincess
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holdek and silentprincess
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: Holdek, silentprincess, Foulmouth and 1 other person
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.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Holdek and silentprincess
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.
Click to expand...
that's a design issue, not a rules issue. I'll try to get the report button more visibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silentprincess
Don't roleplay in your posts. Don't write pretend dialog between people, such as Chris and his mother.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: OBAMATRON
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: CatParty
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OBAMATRON and Holdek
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?

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Null said:
i. ParkourDude91
  1. 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
NegaCWC said:
Why not make this a global rule? I don't see why we should encounter unspoilered images of SheCamForCWC in Discussion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
Because it was all-consuming. Every Jace thread can, at heart, be derailed into a conversation about something irrelevant and tech related.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FramerGirl420
Null said:
Because it was all-consuming. Every Jace thread can, at heart, be derailed into a conversation about something irrelevant and tech related.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...
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.".
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Agree
Reactions: Judge Holden, CatParty and Holdek
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back