Close Topic Options

In the discussion about whether or not someone could get banned for starting threads in the wrong section, I took a minute to briefly review the Forum Guidelines ( contrary to what most people probably assume, no, I do not know them from memory ).

The first three rules itself need to be revised in order to accommodate the lower amount of activity on the forums ( said rules are probably more at home on a busy board like NASIOC, and such, and even there I do not see infractions being handed out for doing these ):

This is the first rule of the forums. Kind of overbearing, I think it needs to get the warn part dropped altogether. I do not think it would be a lot of work for the mod team to just move the topic without further action. A person intentional creating threads in the wrong sections over and over again would just be caught under the rule of "solely coming to the boards of antagonizing" or a revised version of that.

Again, the second rule is valid, but I do not think there is a need to put in the warn part. If there is a duplicated topic, how much work is it to merge? I remember doing merges that were 4-5 threads in total, and I do not remember warning anyone over a duplicated topic.

This is the one that takes the cake... Seriously?

This one needs to be wiped out altogether. Completely. Utterly. Posting a thread with a question that might be buried deep in a massively multipage thread earns you a warn? Might as well just ban the troublemaker.

This is where I would draw upon when I say that you cannot get banned for merely accidentally starting threads in the wrong sections. The description for the verbal is fine, and so is the description for the first actual, but it looks to me like the second warning is only ever issued if you are actively disrupting the forums, flaming people, etc?

And one last one, just because it screams Engrish :

Causing "havoc and troubles"?

This post has been edited by Möbius on Aug 8 2012, 04:22 PM

You bring up some good points, and I'll consider them to bring up to the rest of the staff (though they'll probably see this anyway, but just in case any don't...)

The only problem I find here is that you said "lower activity". Fifth stage was just announced, for crying out loud!

Total post for the day :

158

I've seen over 400, and that was not on a day when there was a spam contest.

How many new threads are there this week?

12, out of which at least one is in the Staff Section. That's 3 a day. Even if they were all in the wrong section, it would be a total of 20 seconds for a mod to rectify that.

I do not think you can call that the same as IDWF of past times. This place has seen a lot more activity.

Lower activity compared to NASIOC or other large forums. 300 members is a neat idea for IDW, but it pales in comparison to some other boards. It's all about frames of reference.

Hm, that's true. I think maybe we should wait, though - we might get back up to those figures once Fifth Stage airs, and that's in just three months. If we don't see activity like that after November, I think we could change the guidelines to accommodate the lower activity. No sense changing the guidelines now if we're going to have to do it again within a few months, y'know?

Yes, but I think it's better to look at IDW on its own. Each forum is unique and IDW is no exception, so it's best to look to IDW's own past when talking about things like this.

This post has been edited by kyonpalm on Aug 8 2012, 04:46 PM

Yes, but I think it's better to look at IDW on its own. Each forum is unique and IDW is no exception, so it's best to look to IDW's own past when talking about things like this.

If you think that the activity will increase to anything over triple, I want some of the stuff you had, because it must be the good stuff.

And the NASIOC reference is a good one, their rules are even more lax, and they are huge compared to IDW.

The rules do need to be changed, they needed to be changed years ago, and they need to be changed soon. Perry would not listen, and I could not say anything due to the "Staff must be on the same side in public" rule. I can now, and I do.

And IDWF's past includes numbers that will not be attained again. Yes, I said that as an absolute.

I'll look at this and change things as necessary.

Thank you kindly, in the name of the general forum membership.

The forum guidelines have been changed and expanded slightly as of right now.

Specifically:

- I made it known that typical new member offenses (duplicating existing threads, for instance) will not result in an actual warning unless the member refuses to stop committing the offense.

- The rule regarding pinned threads was removed. It was pretty much already covered by the "search function" rule.

- The search function rule was expanded to better explain why members should use it.

- Almost all text explicitly laying out a specific warning to an offense has been removed. The bump limit text regarding an actual warn was not altered, as one would have to knowingly violate the rule in order to break the bump limit.

- A specific spoiler tag article was added explicitly stating that X-rated content is not allowed on IDW regardless of whether or not members are hiding it behind spoiler tags.

- Warning level descriptions have been edited to be inclusive of all offenses.

- Warning level clarification text has been slightly edited to direct members to contact admins if they feel they have been unjustly banned or warned. The original text only stated that members could contact admins regarding ban appeals.

- Timestamp was updated to reflect today's date.

Much, much better. Thorough work, thanks Tessou.