Topic: RULES: Updated

[Crisps]

Hah. I was just waiting for someone to shoot down a perfectly reasonable point and then it happened. Amazing.

They're rules. They should be clearly explained and seperated out as convinient for the reader.

It should not be
"Rule 4: In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "re-appears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence. Also, don't murder people, okay?"

[Ledyba]

Hah. I was just waiting for someone to shoot down a perfectly reasonable point and then it happened. Amazing.

Nature of debate love.  I'm afraid points you agree with doesn't necessary make them sacrad cows.

It should not be
"Rule 4: In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "re-appears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence. Also, don't murder people, okay?"

Mmm.  Exaggeration or not, I don't see a single rule on that page that reaches the absurdity that you're purposing it does.   Reading them now, everything seems clear to me and a logical extension of it's core.

[Winston Payne]

They're rules. They should be clearly explained and seperated out as convinient for the reader.

Y'see the bolded parts? Yeah, they're the super-clear part.

It should not be
"Rule 4: In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "re-appears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence. Also, don't murder people, okay?"

tu exagères. None of the rules are like that, silly~
In fact, I'll show you how fallacious your example is by posting the actual rule 4:

4. No advertising. We forbid advertising for profit (for example, "I need more members, cry cry"). Afterall, we want to keep our visitors. The two exceptions to this are a) sites which offer a feature relevant to the topic that is not offered by PKMN.NET, a fact which should be made clear in your post and b) your signature, where you can advertise whichever site you wish. Assuming it follows other relevant rules of course.

See the bolded bit? That's the short version of the rule. The one for the scan-readers. But if someone wants to know a bit more about that rule, they read the rest. Which is all still very simple, with a twist of dry wit. Bish, bash, bosh.

[Mulholland]

Bish, bash, bosh.

I love it when you use such debonair legal jargon when answering queries

[Trainer Dave]

What people should probably take note of here is that we decided to condense multiple rules and incorporate them into one. Some of the old rules were very similar, so it's easier to include them all under the same banner.

Take the spamming rule. The three word rule was placed separately to ensure larger content in posts. This was effectively intended to reduce spam, therefore meaning that it could easily be included as a guideline under the "spamming" rule.

If people really want to complain about having less rules to read and remember, then so be it. Just be aware that, aside from the obviously redundant rules, the same rough 'guidelines' still exist.

[Webby2]

The only rules that have been removed are those which were common sense or those that we didn't agree with. So ones like "Read a topic before posting in it" were removed as they were not really that necessary. We chose to merge some together because they weren't needed as separate rules, but would be more appropriate together as they shared a very similar topic. An example, as Dave said, is the spamming/three word rule.

The way we enforce these rules will not change drastically, everything is just more concise which will be more beneficial for everyone.

[Winston Payne]

I love it when you use such debonair legal jargon when answering queries

Well, it is one of my specialities!

Also, I must object to your correlation of extinction to murder, Crisps. The two are very much different. In fact, even the law (you know, THE rules) isn't simple, concise or convenient to the reader; allow me to educate you.

Murder is "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being, under the King's/Queen's peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied." Now, that's a 17th Century definition by Lord Coke. And yet that still forms the basis to the most serious offence in the country. In that definition, you have 4 further points that you must explore deeper independently;

1. Killing (unlawful, too)
2. Reasonable creature in being (what exactly is one?)
3. King's/Queen's peace (When is/isn't this?)
4. Malice Aforethought (and the differences between expressed or implied malice.)

So...compared to the rules of society, these rules are much more concise and convenient.

[Ledyba]

^ I thought it was Human being or is now/was Reosnable creature in being? I know the defitation of murder does not cover children in the womb (Although bizzarely enough if they're born and then die from an injuries, it is so).

[Winston Payne]

It's reasonable creature in being by my textbook. And yes, it doesn't cover babies in the womb, apart from the scenario you presented. Pagett was one of the authorities on that case...I think. It featured a pregnant woman, anyway.

[Ledyba]

First I've heard of the phase, although in practice they amount to the same thing, probably.  I suppose 'human binging' is a less archanical way.

Pagett?  D held a woman as a human shield, shot at the police consequence the woman died in the shootout?  Even though D's action's didn't directly kill the woman, they were caculacted and substianl enough to be the cause of death.

[Winston Payne]

Ah, yes. The woman was pregnant; I remembered that case as "Preggers Pagett".

[Ledyba]

Ah, I'm afraid I didn't know much of such case outside a breif discription and it's underlying principle.

Eh, love, here we are going off topic in a thread about the rules. 

[Winston Payne]

Indeed.

Well, I think the rules have been codified and refined in a very lovely manner. Still easy to comprehend for both scan-readers and in-depth readers.

[Pandemonium]

The rules haven't changed a great deal, like others said they have been condensed a lot. They also have a much more friendly tone to them


See, this is what I don't like. Some of us don't like to be treated like children and given SOLID RULES as if we can't follow simple guidelines. It's a forum not a board game, why should it be assumed that we're idiots who can't act properly. It still amazes me how a lot of the people here who boast a high IQ and excellent school grades are still apparently to stupid to know how to act around other people.

If you're in need of being bossed around then there's an army out there who would love to have you join them, but even they have an excuse to do so because it really is a matter of life and death for them, the same can't be said for a pokemon forum however.

At it's core a forum is just a social gathering, if you need to be told how to be sociable then you shouldn't be here at all.

You're right- people shouldn't need to be told how to be social, which is why these aren't rules on being social. They're rules for how the forum is run. The rules are set by the staff so they don't have to put up with those few that refuse to be social for whatever reason.

For that reason they need to be as clear cut as possible to avoid people having an excuse when they break them, because sadly people do break them.

[Winston Payne]

For that reason they need to be as clear cut as possible to avoid people having an excuse when they break them, because sadly people do break them.

But they are clearly cut.

1. The admins and mods make the final decisions.
4. No advertising.
5. No spamming.

...and so on and so forth.

If a person is confused as to what is "advertising" or "spamming", then they can read on, which explains exactly what it is.