Rules Updated
- Thread starter tjrgg
- Start date
- Status
Well that's embarrassing. All fixed now, thank you.
I think it should just be "refers to anyone".
Good stuff Rocket!
Does being "clear and concise" mean never using pronouns?
https://gyazo.com/24f5c15119a065d4db5e3f018ab0ea55
Reading that post gave me a headache. >.<
Anyways...
Lots of great additions.
Lots of grammar issues as well.
Not really what I'm concerned about.
The layout.
Right now it just looks like a massive wall of bullet points.
I personally prefer similar styles of organization shown in the fair usage policy page.
http://www.mc-market.org/wiki/fair-usage-policy/
Though perhaps with a bit more detail described in the titles.
The hierarchical indenting describing in more and more detail the specifics of a rule or group of rules.
It allowed for more information to be provided for a certain rule without overpowering any of the others within the same plane.
Large descriptions could be written, and then even more detailed descriptions of those descriptions could be written.
This, if utilized properly, saves confusion for members with concerns about, "how" and "to what extent" or even "why".
Which would be a lot of talk about in a single bullet point.
"Section 3.1.4" I could say, and everyone would be able to refer to exactly what I was talking about, in it's exact location.
Now.... I can say: "Global rules... Uh... One of the bulletpoints." try counting them maybe... Have the other user count them; and cross my fingers.
At the very least they should be numbered.
It doesn't take much to change a bulleted list to a numbered list.
It may not look as uniform, but it's a lot easier to navigate.
Also, I just clicked the "premium guidelines" link, and the page wasn't there.
Never mind, the link is gone now.
https://gyazo.com/24f5c15119a065d4db5e3f018ab0ea55
Reading that post gave me a headache. >.<
Anyways...
Lots of great additions.
Lots of grammar issues as well.
Not really what I'm concerned about.
The layout.
Right now it just looks like a massive wall of bullet points.
I personally prefer similar styles of organization shown in the fair usage policy page.
http://www.mc-market.org/wiki/fair-usage-policy/
Though perhaps with a bit more detail described in the titles.
The hierarchical indenting describing in more and more detail the specifics of a rule or group of rules.
It allowed for more information to be provided for a certain rule without overpowering any of the others within the same plane.
Large descriptions could be written, and then even more detailed descriptions of those descriptions could be written.
This, if utilized properly, saves confusion for members with concerns about, "how" and "to what extent" or even "why".
Which would be a lot of talk about in a single bullet point.
"Section 3.1.4" I could say, and everyone would be able to refer to exactly what I was talking about, in it's exact location.
Now.... I can say: "Global rules... Uh... One of the bulletpoints." try counting them maybe... Have the other user count them; and cross my fingers.
At the very least they should be numbered.
It doesn't take much to change a bulleted list to a numbered list.
It may not look as uniform, but it's a lot easier to navigate.
Also, I just clicked the "premium guidelines" link, and the page wasn't there.
Never mind, the link is gone now.
I believe that there needs to be a clear division between the punishment received for an act such as a low quality post and an act such as harassment.
I myself was banned for 3 months entirely on the basis of low quality posts and "excessive" bumping, which many people would agree is retarded. I think people should only receive temp-bans of low duration for excessive low quality posts, I don't believe it compares at all to someone engaging in harassment.
When you post a lot on the forums it's impossible not to accumulate warnings for low quality posts. I still refrain from posting a lot outside of arguments/debate threads about the forum because I am paranoid about getting banned again. Monty and other formerly active members do too. The restrictions around low quality posts still aren't clear (i.e. Monty once had a thread that she made featuring her teaching members how to draw with an instructive YouTube video removed from the site for "advertising" and received a warning for it) and I feel like nothing really changed in regards to this with these rule updates.
I honestly believe you guys should just remove the low quality post part from the rules and just punish people for spamming, and leave removing low quality posts up to the creator of a thread. If a thread creator reports a low quality post in his thread, then remove it, and warn the person for doing it if they continue doing it afterwards. It should be up to them. Low quality threads should be removed if they're blatantly low quality, and don't create any sort of actual discussion or contribute anything of merit. If something is funny, however, it should be allowed to stay, as long as it's in the correct forum.
There's nothing really wrong with low quality posts as long as they aren't cluttering up important threads such as buying/selling threads. In General Discussion, I believe that people should receive a pass for this, as that's kind of what the point of the forum is.
I'd also suggest the creation of an Off Topic board, as I have before, to condense all of the low quality posting on the site into one centralized location. This would help mitigate the effect of removing the ban on low quality posting. Then we could just have General Discussion be a place for more Minecraft-focused topics.
I myself was banned for 3 months entirely on the basis of low quality posts and "excessive" bumping, which many people would agree is retarded. I think people should only receive temp-bans of low duration for excessive low quality posts, I don't believe it compares at all to someone engaging in harassment.
When you post a lot on the forums it's impossible not to accumulate warnings for low quality posts. I still refrain from posting a lot outside of arguments/debate threads about the forum because I am paranoid about getting banned again. Monty and other formerly active members do too. The restrictions around low quality posts still aren't clear (i.e. Monty once had a thread that she made featuring her teaching members how to draw with an instructive YouTube video removed from the site for "advertising" and received a warning for it) and I feel like nothing really changed in regards to this with these rule updates.
I honestly believe you guys should just remove the low quality post part from the rules and just punish people for spamming, and leave removing low quality posts up to the creator of a thread. If a thread creator reports a low quality post in his thread, then remove it, and warn the person for doing it if they continue doing it afterwards. It should be up to them. Low quality threads should be removed if they're blatantly low quality, and don't create any sort of actual discussion or contribute anything of merit. If something is funny, however, it should be allowed to stay, as long as it's in the correct forum.
There's nothing really wrong with low quality posts as long as they aren't cluttering up important threads such as buying/selling threads. In General Discussion, I believe that people should receive a pass for this, as that's kind of what the point of the forum is.
I'd also suggest the creation of an Off Topic board, as I have before, to condense all of the low quality posting on the site into one centralized location. This would help mitigate the effect of removing the ban on low quality posting. Then we could just have General Discussion be a place for more Minecraft-focused topics.
Apparently, I'm not as good as writing as I thought. Haha.
The rule is suppose to say this: "Do not buy, sell or encourage others to buy or sell unmigrated accounts."
I've fixed the errors mentioned. I'll leave the two rules that are similar as they are, just so it's crystal clear.
should just be its, not it's.
---
these are basically the same
---
missing the word "to"
---
+ the ones already mentioned
I've modified the layout a little bit. We've got number instead of bullet points now. This may not be fully what you wanted, but I'm hoping it's close.Does being "clear and concise" mean never using pronouns?
https://gyazo.com/24f5c15119a065d4db5e3f018ab0ea55
Reading that post gave me a headache. >.<
Anyways...
Lots of great additions.
Lots of grammar issues as well.
Not really what I'm concerned about.
The layout.
Right now it just looks like a massive wall of bullet points.
I personally prefer similar styles of organization shown in the fair usage policy page.
http://www.mc-market.org/wiki/fair-usage-policy/
Though perhaps with a bit more detail described in the titles.
The hierarchical indenting describing in more and more detail the specifics of a rule or group of rules.
It allowed for more information to be provided for a certain rule without overpowering any of the others within the same plane.
Large descriptions could be written, and then even more detailed descriptions of those descriptions could be written.
This, if utilized properly, saves confusion for members with concerns about, "how" and "to what extent" or even "why".
Which would be a lot of talk about in a single bullet point.
"Section 3.1.4" I could say, and everyone would be able to refer to exactly what I was talking about, in it's exact location.
Now.... I can say: "Global rules... Uh... One of the bulletpoints." try counting them maybe... Have the other user count them; and cross my fingers.
At the very least they should be numbered.
It doesn't take much to change a bulleted list to a numbered list.
It may not look as uniform, but it's a lot easier to navigate.
Also, I just clicked the "premium guidelines" link, and the page wasn't there.
Never mind, the link is gone now.
EDIT: Apparently, the wiki doesn't support the number-bullet option. But it still looks better than it did, I think.
Much of what you said is all about enforcement and how we decide to go about enforcing the rules. We do have it on our to-do list to re-evaluate the warning system and improve discipline overall. We'll most likely make an announcement or maybe add a page in the wiki about discipline to outline what will happen if you decide to misbehave.
With regard to low-quality posting, there is no longer a rule regarding low-quality posts. Instead, we've made a rule about meaningless content and defined examples of meaningless content in the rules. Like I said earlier, we have yet to come up with a discipline plan and that's something we'll most likely do in the upcoming days.
As for an "off-topic" forum, this has been suggested within the staff team as well, and we decided against it. The reason for this is we feel that an "off-topic" forum will encourage more "shitposting". This is a marketplace forum, after all.
I'm confused. What rule are you referring to?
This is regarding the rule about attempting to contact staff in the shoutbox. The rule doesn't say you can't talk with staff in the shoutbox. We only don't want members to rely on the shoutbox and depend on staff being there. You should always send a private message to a staff member if you need to contact them.
- Status
