Rules: version 2

[Perfection]

Not acceptable:
*%#&you!
You $ ^ * @ # ( $ % bastard
How can you be so %#&*@# stupid?
Etc.

These are not good examples because they are against the rules anyways (flaming).

 

[Maniacal]

It can lead to feelings of elitism if certain posters get praised above the rest of the forum.

So all the praising of Sid Meier...? (Less so after Civ5 but in the past definitely lots of praising of Sid Meier).

 

[Birdjaguar]

These are not good examples because they are against the rules anyways (flaming).

I'm missing your point. What is your question regarding use of %^&*%$#?

 

[Perfection]

No question, I'm just saying they're bad examples because they're already not allowed by a different rule (they're all flames).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So all the praising of Sid Meier...? (Less so after Civ5 but in the past definitely lots of praising of Sid Meier).

By golly, you're absolutely right! He's a member here, so we must stop praising him, or he might actually start feeling good about himself...

And we certainly can't have that, can we?

 

[azzaman333]

By golly, you're absolutely right! He's a member here, so we must stop praising him, or he might actually start feeling good about himself...

And we certainly can't have that, can we?

Not according to the rules, since that'd be elitist.

 

[Abaddon]

Within this new rule set has the Babe Thread essentially been banned? Or is it now The "Pictures of Women" Thread?

 

[Perfection]

I'm not sure if these rules are in force yet, but there doesn't seem to be anything in their that changes babe thread rules from how they always were.

 

[GhostWriter16]

By golly, you're absolutely right! He's a member here, so we must stop praising him, or he might actually start feeling good about himself...

And we certainly can't have that, can we?

Not according to the rules, since that'd be elitist.

Actually, PrinceScamp is technically right, so if positive comments to members are not allowed because it would be "Elitist" these rules SHOULD apply to Meier.

Then again, I highly doubt "Flaming" Meier would be infracted either, since he's a public figure.

But in any case, positive comments should always be allowed. Negative comments... not so much.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I hate Sid. I asked him if he would post a picture of him holding a sieve in my "Sieve Fanatics" group and he hasn't obliged How elitist of him.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I hate Sid. I asked him if he would post a picture of him holding a sieve in my "Sieve Fanatics" group and he hasn't obliged How elitist of him.

And I doubt you will be infracted for this comment. If you said it about a regular member, you would...

In any case, he only joined to post once (Have we actually received any confirmation that it was him and not an employee of his?), and I doubt he's even come on since.

 

[Zelig]

"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this forum."

Maybe this should be "without permission"? There is lots of copyrighted material which is freely distributable.

"We also consider "abandonware" to be piracy, as it has no official legal recognition. Please do not link to abandonware sites."

I would shorten this to "There is no such thing as abandonware".

"Anyone found guilty of participating in piracy activity on the forum will be punished."

I find the concept of "punishment" on a forum to be amusing; someone are taking themselves too seriously.

"If that content is offensive, you may find yourself infracted for it, even though you were not the original poster."

Change to "inappropriate" rather than "offensive". "Offensive" is too subjective.

"Acceptable: $%&$#@*#^ [note that in acceptable use, there is not following word, just symbols]"

How can you use this in a post without other words?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this forum."

Maybe this should be "without permission"? There is lots of copyrighted material which is freely distributable.

You have a point there, but this isn't always made clear in the original source.

"Acceptable: $%&$#@*#^ [note that in acceptable use, there is not following word, just symbols]"

How can you use this in a post without other words?

Technically you can, if it's not in the autocensor, and it is more than five characters. But if you used it as the only content of your post, we'd likely consider it spam and you wouldn't be able to post it anyway.

 

[Zack]

Technically you can, if it's not in the autocensor, and it is more than five characters. But if you used it as the only content of your post, we'd likely consider it spam and you wouldn't be able to post it anyway.

So the Rules advocate spam? The rules say you can't post the symbol substitutes with other words.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think that means you can go "Oh $#@%! I broke expensive electronics!"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So the Rules advocate spam? The rules say you can't post the symbol substitutes with other words.

I think we may need to reconsider this in light of it appearing to be a catch-22 situation. I'll bring it up in the staff forum.

'Cause I am pretty sure we are not advocating spam. I think the original intention of this change was that people could post it if it wasn't immediately obvious what the word was supposed to be. But I don't see how it could fail to be obvious, since if it meant an innocuous word, we'd use that other word, right?

 

[Abaddon]

Is it not "evading the censor" when you type "$#@%!"

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Is it not "evading the censor" when you type "$#@%!"

I dont think so. Because it's a generic one like "darn" and they use it in cartoons I think. I used to think it meant "Im angry"

 

[Earthling]

I think that means you can go "Oh $#@%! I broke expensive electronics!"

Right, it seems to me this sort of example is what should be intended to be allowable. Something like, "because #!(@* scouts."

 

[useless]

If these rules turf out the blighters and keep valued posters such as myself in, then I am happy with them. But we must.. wait.