((Serious)) Change rule 1.10.1, it's ridiculous.

[Pi]

Previously, this thread was removed for including the video.
So, here is the rule: 1.10.1 Do not false advertise, post screamers, promote clickbait, or rickroll.

I was kicked from shoutbox for rickrolling, it's just ridiculous.
The only god worth supporting is the man himself, Rick Astley.

New rule: 1.10.1 Do not false advertise, post screamers or promote clickbait.
We've also seen clickbait on accounts & service threads go completely unpunished.
What classes as clickbait? YouTube has made is firm that nobody knows.

 

[Pi]

Maybe.

Definitely.

 

[Mv_]

Only get rid of rick rolling rule, the rest has a point.

 

[Pi]

Only get rid of rick rolling rule, the rest has a point.

That is what was said on this thread. The "rickroll" bit was added as a joke, and is now being enforced.

 

[Lotus]

That is what was said on this thread. The "rickroll" bit was added as a joke, and is now being enforced.

Considering your prime case where you spam rickrolled endlessly, it was fairly low quality and annoying. If we make a public decision that "rickrolling is allowed, go ahead and do it to your heart's content!", then I'm very sure we will have a rickroll epidemic flood our forum as all our trolls get ready to rumble.

However, from a general standpoint, I personally wouldn't mind the odd rickroll or two every once in a while. If it's non-excessive, it's acceptable. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is any way to enforce excessive behavior otherwise, unless through a vague interpretation of our other rules.

 

[Pi]

Considering your prime case where you spam rickrolled endlessly, it was fairly low quality and annoying. If we make a public decision that "rickrolling is allowed, go ahead and do it to your heart's content!", then I'm very sure we will have a rickroll epidemic flood our forum as all our trolls get ready to rumble.

However, from a general standpoint, I personally wouldn't mind the odd rickroll or two every once in a while. If it's non-excessive, it's acceptable. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is any way to enforce excessive behavior otherwise, unless through a vague interpretation of our other rules.

I was making a point that the rule was ridiculous, which it is.
Making a meme punishable.

 

[Lotus]

I was making a point that the rule was ridiculous, which it is.
Making a meme punishable.

Meme or not, it’s low quality garbage if you excessively and disruptively spam it everywhere.

 

[Justis]

Even if we remove the explicit mention of rickrolling from 1.10.1, the act of rickrolling is still squarely in violation of rule 1.10 which forbids the posting of content intended to mislead users.

There’s only one reason that 1.10.1 mentions rickrolling, and that’s to protect users from overlooking the fact that it violates 1.10 and earning themself warning points.

 

[User]

Suggestion: silently remove the rule, rick astley is good

 

[Pi]

Even if we remove the explicit mention of rickrolling from 1.10.1, the act of rickrolling is still squarely in violation of rule 1.10 which forbids the posting of content intended to mislead users.

There’s only one reason that 1.10.1 mentions rickrolling, and that’s to protect users from overlooking the fact that it violates 1.10 and earning themself warning points.

It's not mis-leading if you know it's coming.

So here's one that's coming:

 

[Justis]

It's not mis-leading if you know it's coming.

So here's one that's coming:

But that’s not rickrolling. That’s just sharing Youtube’s best music video.
It’s only rickrolling if it’s done deceptively.

 

[Seatbelts]

But that’s not rickrolling. That’s just sharing Youtube’s best music video.
It’s only rickrolling if it’s done deceptively.

'best music video' xD

 

[Zyger]

Is this a serious thread? I can't tell.

 

[Pi]

But that’s not rickrolling. That’s just sharing Youtube’s best music video.
It’s only rickrolling if it’s done deceptively.

Well my original thread was deleted for including the video. So I feel like it's being enforced wrongly.

 

[Mick]

Even if we remove the explicit mention of rickrolling from 1.10.1, the act of rickrolling is still squarely in violation of rule 1.10 which forbids the posting of content intended to mislead users.

There’s only one reason that 1.10.1 mentions rickrolling, and that’s to protect users from overlooking the fact that it violates 1.10 and earning themself warning points.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion