So yeah, we've like, rewritten them and stuff.
You should probably, I dunno, read them or something (http://pkmn.net/rules).
Erm.
Yeah.
Ahahahahahah. Not only are they more enjoyable to read (consistent with the site's dry humour and such) they're also more flexible and lovely and stuff.
I sense gooood things to come. Awesome, work, guys.
typo: positing in rule 3.
Also, damn, i can't start a world war now
EDIT: Looking through, i'm loving this concise ruleset now. it's pretty solid. I think a list of swears should be posted somewhere, though...
Quote from: Lord Raven on March 04, 2010, 22:08
I think a list of swears should be posted somewhere, though...
In the form of an audio file of a barbershop quartet reciting the forbidden words?
Wow, these new rules are excellent, nice and common sense-y Great work. I wonder how this change the atmosphere of the forums in the future.
Jumping on the bandwagon, loving the rule changes and consolidatingness. Good times for the site! <3
I'll be the first to throw negativity out there and say that I'm not too sure it'll be as great as people think.
that said, I'm willing to give it a while before making any further comments. I just think people are putting a bit too much hope into this.
I'm appreciative enough that the rules are a smooth read, which I think is the most important part-- and a welcome surprise at what difference it makes. ;D
Quote from: Zy on March 04, 2010, 23:00
I'll be the first to throw negativity out there and say that I'm not too sure it'll be as great as people think.
Why not, exactly?
Quote from: Lord Raven on March 05, 2010, 01:27
Why not, exactly?
feel free to disagree [and you likely will]
but to me, a relaxation of the rules isn't really enough.
sure it sets new guidelines for staff and whatnot, but again, it all comes to the discretion of the staff at hand. Not saying I doubt the moderation team in any way.
I'm also not saying this won't have a change and effect. It will, it just won't be as momentally ground-breaking as everyone else thinks.
We did spend a good 2 hours discussing the rule changes, how to enforce them etc. We're not just here taking a new set of rules make up by 1 person and enforcing them. We discussed what needs to be relaxed, what tightened etc as a TEAM.
Quote from: Mushroom on March 05, 2010, 09:38
We did spend a good 2 hours discussing the rule changes, how to enforce them etc. We're not just here taking a new set of rules make up by 1 person and enforcing them. We discussed what needs to be relaxed, what tightened etc as a TEAM.
I appreciate that, but I actually agree with Zy. I've been pretty against changing the rules at all from the start; they worked fine when i was a newbie and I've always followed them happily ever since (with only maybe 2 or 3 very minor slipups)... so why others feel they need to change is beyond me. The obvious ones that simply go with the times (joeno rule and sig size) sure, but practically all of them?... I really don't see why.
I'm quite upset that the three word rule gone. ;;
The rules were one of the things I really respected about the forum over (closing in on 6 years) time here. I'm really sad to see such a drastic change.
Quote from: Pandemonium on March 05, 2010, 10:35
I'm really sad to see the three word rule gone. ;;
5.
No Spamming That is, don't post multiple times in a row, don't post off-topic, don't post the same topic or post multiple times. Common sense stuff. To help enforce this, we enforce that
any post containing just two words or less will be deleted when found, regardless of content. This is to ensure consistency.
3 word rule is still here. ;)
I've never been supportive of the idea of changing the rules, but they don't seem any different at all. They're just merged and condensed, so it still works out I guess. I wasn't there for the meeting last night so I don't know all the changes and I've had to guess at them, so I'm probably wrong somewhere.
It's almost hidden, what's the point in that? It's like it's not a rule in itself... as long as there are people who only scanread them (which there always will be, it's the natural way to do it for most)... rules like that that won't be followed. If it's different it needs to be the main topic of the rule.
These are actually harder to read than the others, in my opinion. At least the others made every rule clear as day. ><
it should be
RULE - explanation
not
RULE - explanation - OH, and this is another rule
I guess I better go reread them, if I missed stuff ó-o
EDIT: I see that's the only case like that, but I still think it should be separated for clarity reasons.
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
Quote from: Pandemonium on March 05, 2010, 10:45
it should be
RULE - explanation
not
RULE - explanation - OH, and this is another rule
I guess I better go reread them, if I missed stuff ó-o
EDIT: I see that's the only case like that, but I still think it should be separated for clarity reasons.
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.
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?"
QuoteHah. 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.
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: Crisps on March 05, 2010, 15:39
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.
Quote
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:
Quote4. 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.
Quote from: Winston Payne on March 05, 2010, 16:15
Bish, bash, bosh.
I love it when you use such debonair legal jargon when answering queries :D
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.
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.
Quote from: Mulholland on March 05, 2010, 16:29
I love it when you use such debonair legal jargon when answering queries :D
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.
^ 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).
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.
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.
Ah, yes. The woman was pregnant; I remembered that case as "Preggers Pagett".
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.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/30iut50.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Turner on March 05, 2010, 15:09
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.
Quote from: Pandemonium on March 05, 2010, 19:51
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.
Quote1. 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.
Quote from: Pandemonium on March 05, 2010, 19:51
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.
If a moderator can't take user complaints, then they're not cut out for moderating the place now are they?
I'm not sure why
anyone would push for more rules on an internet forum.
nice to see the fabled rule 20 still exists..
the changes are good, no more waffle in the rules and it should help new members start of on a better foot around 'ere.
Quote from: Lord Raven on March 05, 2010, 21:56
I'm not sure why anyone would push for more rules on an internet forum.
If something that keeps on cropping up which could be seen as offensive or troublesome for the forums then it'd make sense. Other than that, there would be no need to add more rules =P
Quote from: b1g on March 05, 2010, 22:00
nice to see the fabled rule 20 still exists..
the changes are good, no more waffle in the rules and it should help new members start of on a better foot around 'ere.
Umm, but there are only 8 rules. You must be making one up.
Quote from: Lord Raven on March 05, 2010, 21:56
If a moderator can't take user complaints, then they're not cut out for moderating the place now are they?
I'm not sure why anyone would push for more rules on an internet forum.
I don't mean complaints... I mean actions that one would consider social and others may not. There is a standard that the rules keep, much the same way laws deal with difference in morals.
Amongst one group of friends being social may mean one thing, whereas in another such things would be hugely unacceptable. I like rules to be in place and clear to show exactly what is acceptable in that situation... not everyone picks it up naturally and when they don't the tone drops. That's what forum rules are for, no?.
I prefer more rules to less, as it means the tone won't drop and there are more things enforced to prevent it.
...besides, the case her is that I simply believe that the three word rule should be put in it's own line to be clearer that it's a rule in it's own right, not a footnote on another. o-o
Believe me... had I a forum like this it'd have lots of rules and all would be followed to the tee... and I believe it'd work just as well.
People don't like rules for the simple fact that they don't want to follow them. When you start arguing that they're too rule-like... you're just being petty.
people don't like rules becuase if they're forced to adjust to a simple mechanical process of "what kind of member IS quality," then it becomes less human. if you honestly have no common sense or social awareness that you need strict, clear, long-winded rules to follow, then that's something more about your character than the quality of the rules.
It's not that I myself need them, it's that I believe many do... I used to, before I started posting more intelligently. It pushes you to be more articulate and there's something to be said about being a valued member in a site that requires you to contribute well to a discussion.
You don't have to be breaking the rules to derail a topic permanently... that's the problem as I see it, with having few rules.
With more rules, even if it's just the same few rules written out as many, it pushes you to think more, I believe.
so let the amount of people getting pissed and giving you a hint take care of that, not rules. i'm not sure the rules even concern your general personality [unless it's inflammatory.] What, you're going to lobby so the place gives a rule that you should not posting anything even a speck off topic so you don't derail threads?
Rules give you a push but they also limit you and make the place more mechanical... this is a community of people, not a computer program or video game.
Quote from: Mushroom on March 05, 2010, 22:32
Umm, but there are only 8 rules. You must be making one up.
you can't silence me!
i'm not going to be a part of your system you communist scallywag
The new rules are much better than before. A lot more readable than the list of 20+ we has before. Now when we welcome people to PKMN.net and say "Read the rules", we can actually expect that they do it.
Also, bolded parts aren't hard to miss. Imo, this argument is pointless. But continue on if you want, it doesn't bother me.
Quote from: Pandemonium on March 06, 2010, 00:53
It's not that I myself need them, it's that I believe many do... I used to, before I started posting more intelligently. It pushes you to be more articulate and there's something to be said about being a valued member in a site that requires you to contribute well to a discussion.
Let people post how they want, not how you want them to post. If you wanna be intelligent and articulate then do it, but don't enforce it on others who want to be mindless drones in constant debate. Honestly, how can you call yourself intelligent when reading a paragraph of text is too much for you?
Funnily enough, I came here to have fun. Being constantly engaged in debate and intelligent discussion is not my idea of fun. I'm not saying I want to have loads of ridiculous topics about cheese and cookies, but to be honest I much prefer laid back topics to topics about politics or moral issues.
In other words, you just want everyone else to be like you. Yeah great.
It also speaks volumes about what you truely think of the members here if you believe that we'd break rules at the drop of a hat.
You take what I'm saying and twist it to something it isn't. Your screen-name is perfectly chosen.
I can see my opinion isn't going to be something you'll accept as being valid, no matter how much I make it clear that what you're reading from it isn't the case.
So I'm going to stop trying.
QuoteNow when we welcome people to PKMN.net and say "Read the rules", we can actually expect that they do it.
Utterly legendary. <3
You know, this must make the staff want to commit suicide - the Member Council has spent a number of meetings trying to make the rules more concise and, with very little pressuring from the rest of the community, they do a COMPLETE revamp of the rules. And then it's all "omg but i want MOAR rules" or "meh, they're not going to make that much difference <_<; "
For me, the fewer rules are awesome, and no, I don't think it'll make the forums explode with excitement and activity - but I do feel that it'll make mods jobs a lot easier to moderate, as they can clearly point out what a member's doing wrong - i.e. "Your post is simultaneously breaking rules four, seven and twenty one, being 'do not spam,' and 'do not post under three words,' and 'treat all members as if they are human.'"
Quote from: Mushroom on March 05, 2010, 22:32
Umm, but there are only 8 rules. You must be making one up.
Quote from: THE RULES20. This rule does not exist - But you are still expected to follow it.
Does this answer your query?
Quote from: Camzoman on March 06, 2010, 11:24
Does this answer your query?
I think it was a joke that you missed the point of. xD
Don't think so literally. Rule 20 doesn't exist... it says so right there.
There are only 8 rules.
All I will say is that by quoting the 8 rules of the site at me, you have proved my point.
Chill out guys xD the core of the rules is still the same. We just scrapped some of the more stupid ones, merged a few that were basically covering the same point, worded them in a less patronising way and simplified them so that both members and moderators have a clearer idea of what the rules are asking. If you don't like walls of text, there are bolded bits which sum everything up; if you want more clarity, that's what the rest of the text is there for.
Tim has it right haha, I'm kinda baffled as to why anyone would see this as a
bad thing.
Quote from: Camzoman on March 06, 2010, 11:24
Quote from: Mushroom on March 05, 2010, 22:32
Umm, but there are only 8 rules. You must be making one up.
Does this answer your query?
Does
what answer our query..?
Quote from: The Enigma on March 06, 2010, 10:58
"Your post is simultaneously breaking rules four, seven and twenty one, being 'do not spam,' and 'do not post under three words,' and 'treat all members as if they are human.'"
CHALLENGE: Think up the theoretical post that would have broken these 3 rules. The best I can come up with is "Disappear android" or simply "0011001000110000"
Anyway yes, less rules are better, sarcastic comments about ones usename are not.
^If anyone can think of one that I find utterly amazing, I'll find a way to reward them. Not with karma though. With virutal cookies. They are much better.
Yay, this means that there are less rules to follow, and less to remember. Too bad I joined when there were still 20-odd.
Just remember kids: You are still expected to follow Rule 20. No exceptions.
There's no Rule 20... it's all in your head, Laprabi!
Quote from: Turner on March 06, 2010, 13:00
CHALLENGE: Think up the theoretical post that would have broken these 3 rules. The best I can come up with is "Disappear android" or simply "0011001000110000"
'brickhead' a good answer to that? :3
^Brick..head?
Sounds like the sort of medical treatment I need.
Cos...I didn't notice anything different about the rules until I read this whole topic.
...Doh...
Wouldn't you guys love to be as naive as stupendously stupid as me?
Unfortunately the other admins didn't concur with my desire to have listening to I'm Free (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2RyzMC8a8) made compulsory.. =[
Quote from: Gethsemane on March 06, 2010, 22:52
Unfortunately the other admins didn't concur with my desire to have listening to I'm Free (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2RyzMC8a8) made compulsory.. =[
we'd form a lynch mob, is why =]
I don't know why people prefer more rules, but they are more or less the same and easy to remember (I actually remember them all). Less rules gives us more freedom, they are much easier to follow and it says in the footnote that we are only human so less rules are better.
I like it. :laugh:
Quote from: Moon Chaser on March 07, 2010, 22:36
I don't know why people prefer more rules, but they are more or less the same and easy to remember (I actually rememver them all). Less rules gives us more freedom, they are much easier to follow and it says in the footnote that we are only human so less rules are better.
I like it. :laugh:
I like this girl. She gets it, give her a prize
She wins a boot to the head.
Karma also exists on this site...
Quote from: Camzoman on March 09, 2010, 16:41
Karma also exists on this site...
True, but it's all carrot no stick
Quote from: Camzoman on March 09, 2010, 16:41
Karma also exists on this site...
And I only give out Karma on very rare occasions. Usually when someone makes a great point to balance a debate.
Quote from: Camzoman on March 09, 2010, 16:41
Karma also exists on this site...
Yes... it sure does. xD
Quote from: Mushroom on March 09, 2010, 16:46
And I only give out Karma on very rare occasions. Usually when someone makes a great point to balance a debate.
I'll try to do that from now on. =]
Quote from: Neon Nocturnal on March 13, 2010, 19:52
Yes... it sure does. xD
Yeah you should know Leon. You've given out the most and you've only had it since mid January.
I still haven't given out any yet. I might become like Mushroom, only giving it out on rare occasions.