By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - [STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT] The Site Rules Have Been Updated: Effective Immediately

bananaking21 said:

Moderators will look at overt discrimination very harshly. Blatant forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other sort of hatred towards a group of people(s) will not be tolerated, and will be met with firm moderation.

 

well ill be blunt here, i hope the moderators actually pay attention to comments about muslims, arabs or middle easterns in general. while i dont usually enter political threads to stay away from these comments, at times i do. and the number of misinformed, blantantly wrong or just flat out offensive comments. personally ill stay away from these threads, but there is a good number of people who are from those groups that i mentioned that might be in those threads, and get offended by them. 

and? Very similar remarks are made about Americans and Christianity as well. I stay away from those threads because there is nothing to gain by participating, but there's plenty to go around.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
IFireflyl said:
Ka-pi96 said:

There is already a rule against one word posts, I've seen it enforced a few times as well.
9. Spamming. Spam, which is multiple replies in a row without any substance and replies that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, is not allowed.

  • Explain and justify your opinions. If you have nothing to add to a topic, then don't post at all.


I think this is the point though. If the thread is "Do you own any video game consoles?" and someone replies, "No," they can argue that their reply had everything to do with the topic at hand. There should be a 3-6 word minimum, in my opinion anyway.

I think the explain and justify your opinions part kind of covers that. If people are saying just yes or no then they aren't explaining anything. The "Do you own any video game consoles?" question could be answered with other negatives such as 'not any more but I used to...' or 'no but I'm quite interested in...' or 'no, because...' and various other answers like that.


But then there is the argument of who needs to explain their reasoning behind a yes/no answer to a yes/no question. Ultimately, I agree that what you're saying should occur, but it would be simpler to impose a minimum amount of words rule instead of threatening with action for answering yes/no to a closed-ended question.



 

"Inciting abuse or harassment - of anyone. This includes attempting to discredit any user based on their preferences."

So dismissing a user's argument on the grounds that they are or are not a fan of the object of discussion is flaming?



IFireflyl said:
Ka-pi96 said:
IFireflyl said:
Ka-pi96 said:

There is already a rule against one word posts, I've seen it enforced a few times as well.
9. Spamming. Spam, which is multiple replies in a row without any substance and replies that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, is not allowed.

  • Explain and justify your opinions. If you have nothing to add to a topic, then don't post at all.

-snip

-snip


But then there is the argument of who needs to explain their reasoning behind a yes/no answer to a yes/no question. Ultimately, I agree that what you're saying should occur, but it would be simpler to impose a minimum amount of words rule instead of threatening with action for answering yes/no to a closed-ended question.

This seems a little silly to me, what is wrong with a one word answer (to a close-ended question), does it take you hours to read? What is the actual harm?  I might think that even a two page response is devoid of any real contribution to a discussion, so length isn't an indicator of worth in my mind.

So are the moderators going to be handing out lots for this thread and it's responses? I guess I think adding filler just for the sake of adding filler is pointless. This site is perhaps going to far to try to be completely inoffensive to everyone. This is life not rainbow happy land.  If we make everything bland (i would say vanilla but then that might offend someone) then what is the appeal? Sorry, as Mods I know you are between a rock and a hard place, just my two cents.



the_dengle said:

"Inciting abuse or harassment - of anyone. This includes attempting to discredit any user based on their preferences."

So dismissing a user's argument on the grounds that they are or are not a fan of the object of discussion is flaming?


If I understand correctly, you are free to dismiss their argument on whatever grounds you want, as long as you don't do it verbally, or you have valid reasons why you're dismissing it (e.g. I don't see any facts that support your argument, etc). If you tell them you're dismissing their argument because they're a fanboy (or the like) then that violates this rule:

  1. Substance. Content is king for all posts and threads. Threads breaking the following rules and/or lacking content can and will be locked. Some tips to keep you and your posts out of trouble:
    • Poster Above You threads, Voting threads, Elimination threads, and the like require moderator approval. If you do not have it, the thread will be locked, and if you are a repeat offender, you will be moderated. Note that an approved thread may still be locked by the Lead Moderators.
    • Other things to avoid (the following can be moderated):
      • Do not only post a link, or a copy-pasted article. At the very least avoid committing plagiarism by giving credit to the original author of the piece. Providing original context or commentary is also highly encouraged.
      • Do not say that item A sucks, or that item B is better than item C. Give reasons why, and provide evidence (articles, screenshots, technical information, even opinion etc).
      • Do not reply to other posters with simply "you're wrong" or by calling them a fanboy, idiot, troll (or any other sort of name calling).
      • Avoid "In Before The Lock" (IBTL) posts.
      • Do not posts spoilers unless you have CLEARLY marked them as such - if necessary using the ?spoiler' tool in "styles." Be sensible here. The plot twist in The Empire Strikes Back is not a spoiler. The plot twist in BioShock is.
      • Threads sometimes naturally transition to new discussions, but try to stay on topic as much as possible.
      • Quote trees should be no longer than three posts.


 

Around the Network

my much needed permaban just got moved up by 6 months!!



IFireflyl said:
the_dengle said:

"Inciting abuse or harassment - of anyone. This includes attempting to discredit any user based on their preferences."

So dismissing a user's argument on the grounds that they are or are not a fan of the object of discussion is flaming?

If I understand correctly, you are free to dismiss their argument on whatever grounds you want, as long as you don't do it verbally. If you tell them you're dismissing their argument because they're a fanboy (or the like) then that violates this rule:

Well I meant verbally. Nonetheless calling someone a fanboy was already against the rules.

RolStoppable said:

Correct. Pointing out the reason why a user's argument is garbage is now considered flaming, true to the belief that a spade shouldn't be called a spade and users who get easily butthurt need to be protected, so that they can they spew more worthless rubbish without fear of any consequences for them.

I mean, I can see the logic behind this. If someone makes disparaging comments about a game, coming back at them with "Well you're an Xbox fan so of course you don't like it" or something like that is just unnecessary. Make a legitimate critique of their post or don't bother with them.

I've had to deal with comments like this in the past, so I don't mind this rule: "You haven't played the game. You have a Pokemon avatar. I think its safe to say you have no right to be judging this game this harshly. You're being way too critical. Here's a thought: keep your opinions to yourself. Unless you've played the game, your opinions on the game are irrelevant."



I feel like it's all pretty good rules. I only have one thing to add; I can't trim my quote trees when I'm on the phone. What then?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

the_dengle said:

I've had to deal with comments like this in the past, so I don't mind this rule: "You haven't played the game. You have a Pokemon avatar. I think its safe to say you have no right to be judging this game this harshly. You're being way too critical. Here's a thought: keep your opinions to yourself. Unless you've played the game, your opinions on the game are irrelevant."


I think that's going to come down to a moderator decision. On the one hand, if they haven't played the game then I don't disagree with the statement. On the other hand, you have to know without a doubt they haven't played the game before you can say something like that, and even then to some people that could be considered "harsh". I personally have no problem with it, but only if you can prove that they haven't played the game.

DanneSandin said:
I feel like it's all pretty good rules. I only have one thing to add; I can't trim my quote trees when I'm on the phone. What then?

I would suggest not quoting, and just referencing the user you're talking to.



 

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
As for quote trees what about just altering the code? Are you guys in control of that?


I think that's all on iOi. There is a lot more code that needs be managed before quote trees, I'll tell you that.