Setting Some Standards

Firstly, those rules were made WAY back when this place had virtually nothing to moderate about it. Back then SW was probably enough for the whole boards. Now however, some of those rules, especially the definition of spam, doesn't seem the right thing. How does it matter if the posts are composed of one line or ten if they don't make sense anyway, or if they actually add something constructive to the topic?

Also, not everyone here are video-game freaks. I personally am not one, which is why I am lost for speech beyond Cave Story and LF2 and a few more titles whenever someone asks me what games I enjoy. It's really not a very helpful rule about the signatures because most of us have generic sigs or something based on other stuff we enjoy. So why the rule about videogame-based sigs?

I think those rules were originally written up to apply more to the GameFlaws forums than just the Cave Story ones, back when the site was more of a joint effort than it was mostly just the Cave Story bit. GameFlaws looked like it was originally designed for serious discussions and most forums with a hard-set purpose don't allow much room for spam or sillyness because that just promotes idiocy and bad reasoning. I still think most of them make sense though, and that a complete re-write isn't needed; just a bit of a fix-up to put them back in the necessary context.

Moreover, the IMG code is disabled there, which is an obvious measure to enable us to lighten up the rule enforcement there.

Uh wut? This doesn't really make sense. If anything the IMG code should be enabled there to promote the postings of pictures if it's the off-topic forum not the other way around.

I do understand that flamebaits aren't welcome anywhere in this forum, but there should be an allowance to go at least a bit offtopic over there.

Yeah a bit never hurt anybody, but at the moment it's ALL SPAM IS ALLOWED ALL SPAM HAS ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE OTHERWISE. Off-topic doesn't have to = auto-spam, just 'not really related to Cave Story' stuff. And such a forum shouldn't exist, there's no reason for it.

The obvious solution to Garde calling the "Kohaku vs whatever" posts offtopic is to make a new thread for such stuff which would only last a page or so because the scope of discussion itself is limited in such stuff. Shouldn't we, as a family, think of all this before pointing fingers on each other and saying "you spammed so you deserved to be warned" or "so and so has been bitching about his whole stay, so ban him"?

Applying the rules still have to start somewhere though. I really think that after the dust settles we can all relax a bit and understand what is acceptable and what isn't but right now I think it's better if we just try to keep it at a minimum for a while. A week would be enough. That isn't excuse though to say "oh well I haven't spammed for a while now it's okay to do it again", it isn't a points system or something. But I do think all this focus on purely spam is a bit unnecessary because there are worse things that should be considered first (flaming, trolling, etc). If they go a good portion of the spam will go with them.

And please, don't bring the personal arguments back here. PM's were used for a reason, now don't untie what has been knotted in. If you have something to add to or argue with my opinion, feel free, but don't pick names unnecessarily or that defeats the whole point of this post of mine.

Alright then, but if having another discussion is going to get anywhere, and some changes are ultimately produced, we all have to adhere to them and not just turn a blind eye when it suits us. I'm sick of seeing "But but but it's okay for him to spam/flame/troll because he's funny about because I said so because I don't want to deal with the only slightly negative consequences" and calling everybody a hypocrite the moment they mention something because they're not blooming Jesus perfect. Just because somebody else does something isn't an excuse. If this is discussion is to work it needs to be about what is best for everyone and not going off on tangents when the obvious is stated.

Seeing as this is still my thread and all: If you can't be bothered to discuss your opinion properly then don't. It isn't that bloody hard to not-do something.
EDIT: This last bit is @ everyone before somebody gets mad at me >_>

 

I think those rules were originally written up to apply more to the GameFlaws forums than just the Cave Story ones, back when the site was more of a joint effort than it was mostly just the Cave Story bit. GameFlaws looked like it was originally designed for serious discussions and most forums with a hard-set purpose don't allow much room for spam or sillyness because that just promotes idiocy and bad reasoning. I still think most of them make sense though, and that a complete re-write isn't needed; just a bit of a fix-up to put them back in the necessary context.

Agreed. I should have been more clear with my point: Most of those rules made sense to me, it's only the one or two that seemed outdated (I've mentioned those already).

Uh wut? This doesn't really make sense. If anything the IMG code should be enabled there to promote the postings of pictures if it's the off-topic forum not the other way around.

That was basically my take on why SW would disable the IMG code if he expected the S Lounge to be full of detailed 100 sentenced posts.

Applying the rules still have to start somewhere though. I really think that after the dust settles we can all relax a bit and understand what is acceptable and what isn't but right now I think it's better if we just try to keep it at a minimum for a while. A week would be enough.

That would kill off the activity because we've all got lives too. We're not gonna set our cell phones to a remind us to start posting a week from now. It's about the time any change needs to set in. If we don't post within that time, we'll never know what we should do and what we shouldn't

That isn't excuse though to say "oh well I haven't spammed for a while now it's okay to do it again", it isn't a points system or something. But I do think all this focus on purely spam is a bit unnecessary because there are worse things that should be considered first (flaming, trolling, etc). If they go a good portion of the spam will go with them.

Which was exactly my point. Even rules have an order of priority and by pointing fingers at every mild spam, we're leaving room to ignore other more malicious offences.

I'm sick of seeing "But but but it's okay for him to spam/flame/troll because he's funny about because I said so because I don't want to deal with the only slightly negative consequences"

lolwut? Nobody ever associated spammage with wit, all we were saying is that it's okay to spam as long as we kept it where it should be kept.

Seeing as this is still my thread and all: If you can't be bothered to discuss your opinion properly then don't. It isn't that bloody hard to not-do something.

Not sure if you meant me by that, but why the hell would I bother myself with such long posts if I weren't bothered to discuss my opinions properly?

EDIT: Okay, got it.

 

That would kill off the activity because we've all got lives too. We're not gonna set our cell phones to a remind us to start posting a week from now. It's about the time any change needs to set in. If we don't post within that time, we'll never know what we should do and what we shouldn't

I didn't mean not-post I just meant not-spam. I have nothing against posting itself on forums, I mean that wouldn't even make sense. Spamming while spam is such a big issue really isn't going to help. And I am pretty sure everybody here is at least smart enough to know how long a week is.

lolwut? Nobody ever associated spammage with wit, all we were saying is that it's okay to spam as long as we kept it where it should be kept.

But it shouldn't be anywhere really. And yes actually, "Because I'm funny and you aren't" is basically what has been stated from day 1. The reason it sounds like such a bad argument is because it is one :|

Damnit now I want some tinned ham really badly

 

I didn't mean not-post I just meant not-spam. I have nothing against posting itself on forums, I mean that wouldn't even make sense. Spamming while spam is such a big issue really isn't going to help. And I am pretty sure everybody here is at least smart enough to know how long a week is.

But it comes to the same thing, doesn't it? We're all used to a carefree environment in the SL section and the generally accepted idea was that if you don't like to be mocked, you can stay out of the conversations or not provoke someone else. And now we're told that one-lineing or even joking could get us warned (I'm not arguing with the Metalogz ban, mind you) or banned. So basically, you're saying we should make analytical and detailed long posts in a place we never thought would have such a rule, so it's easier to just ignore the SL and let it die.

But it shouldn't be anywhere really. And yes actually, "Because I'm funny and you aren't" is basically what has been stated from day 1.

The general agreement was that both sides of the mock argument was spam and acceptable as long as they were kept in the right section. You're confusing waht was classified as spam with what the spam comprised of, DT.

 

But it comes to the same thing, doesn't it? We're all used to a carefree environment in the SL section and the generally accepted idea was that if you don't like to be mocked, you can stay out of the conversations or not provoke someone else. And now we're told that one-lineing or even joking could get us warned (I'm not arguing with the Metalogz ban, mind you) or banned. So basically, you're saying we should make analytical and detailed long posts in a place we never thought would have such a rule, so it's easier to just ignore the SL and let it die.

So if somebody wants to have a decent conversation about something not-CS related they have to put up with petty insults and the like? That isn't a very good moral. I really don't know when any of these ideals became "generally accepted" and I think you'll find that they aren't really. I do think we can relax a bit about spam eventually but right now stuff needs to be fixed. You can make a joke or something, I'm just saying keep it to a minimum for a short while. That way nobody can accuse anybody of anything unless they specifically ignore this and make it very clear that they don't give a shit about the forums. Not everything has to be an extreme, a 100% or 0% deal, and I really don't see how behaving ourselves for a measly week or so can possibly be bad for anything. Anyway this is just a suggestion, it mightn't even happen, it's not up to me.

The general agreement was that both sides of the mock argument was spam and acceptable as long as they were kept in the right section. You're confusing waht was classified as spam with what the spam comprised of, DT.

I know what it comprised of and it was just boring and annoying and it RUINED THREADS so user X could have their little shit-giggle. It was worse than spam, spam can at least be fun to read. The fact that quite a few users (me, Metalogz, Freezit, RuneLancer, etc) didn't enjoy it shows that it wasn't generally agreed on at all and that it frankly wasn't that enjoyable to ~half of the forum. We can't possibly all be wrong on this, surely? Also you mightn't have been serious but I can assure you that others were very much so. I could argue for a long time about this, but I'll just suffice to say that not everybody thinks like you do and just because you flame and joke about it doesn't mean they are. If what you say is true then let them stand up for themselves rather than claiming they're right in your eyes.

 

So if somebody wants to have a decent conversation about something not-CS related they have to put up with petty insults and the like? That isn't a very good moral. I really don't know when any of these ideals became "generally accepted" and I think you'll find that they aren't really. I do think we can relax a bit about spam eventually but right now stuff needs to be fixed. You can make a joke or something, I'm just saying keep it to a minimum for a short while. That way nobody can accuse anybody of anything unless they specifically ignore this and make it very clear that they don't give a shit about the forums. Not everything has to be an extreme, a 100% or 0% deal, and I really don't see how behaving ourselves for a measly week or so can possibly be bad for anything. Anyway this is just a suggestion, it mightn't even happen, it's not up to me.

I know what it comprised of and it was just boring and annoying and it RUINED THREADS so user X could have their little shit-giggle. It was worse than spam, spam can at least be fun to read. The fact that quite a few users (me, Metalogz, Freezit, RuneLancer, etc) didn't enjoy it shows that it wasn't generally agreed on at all and that it frankly wasn't that enjoyable to ~half of the forum. We can't possibly all be wrong on this, surely? Also you mightn't have been serious but I can assure you that others were very much so. I could argue for a long time about this, but I'll just suffice to say that not everybody thinks like you do and just because you flame and joke about it doesn't mean they are. If what you say is true then let them stand up for themselves rather than claiming they're right in your eyes.

1. You misread my point. If you have to make a point that doesn't involve anyone among those that enjoy a bit of a party and taking friendly pots at each other, you, as a rule, won't get flamed. If you do, the one who does the flaming gets a good talking, that's how it is.

2. Funny how you've just ASSUMED that I was referring to that particular time when ____ flamed ____ or when _____ retorted with abuses. I was referring to the general picture, and now you've hopped to something you can't lay the fuck off just because you have an opinion that differs from mine.

Of the names listed, only Rune has actually made the said point, the rest only agree with you about __. On reading Metalogz's posts, you would realise that he was as much for the same low-rules policy as I or some others are. freezit and Metalogz are both guilty of one-liners pretty much most of the time, and what you're doing there is calling for support those who share your view about a particular person rather than those who actually think he has done anything wrong.

Rune's views I agree with for most part and the fact was that we kept missing each others' points and I think his suggestions were for the better. About you, I'm learning to accept that you're letting your insight get blurred by someone who's already said he doesn't care about what you think which is pretty much what anyone in their right mind would say.

btw, it was your wish in your first post that we shouldn't pick on any particular incident and now you're breaking your own rule for this thread by dropping so many hints that you think person X was wrong. Speaks miles on how biased you've been on this. Also, I'm sorry about the "____"s but I really couldn't put this in a better way.

EDIT: Please don't assume I'm talking about any incident in particular (except for bits in this post for which I apologise). If you do, we have PM's for that but I've already told you I don't wanna argue any more. Just... try to keep the personal stuff out.

 

CS Forum Rules Idea TAKE 2!

1. No spam posts allowed. Spam shall be classed as any post that does not follow or does not contribute to the "current" topic of discussion (within offtopic discussion) or the the thread's topic of discussion (within ontopic discussion).

2. No illegal material, rom requests etc. (Sorry guys but all forums have this rule)

3. Signatures must not be greater than [insert size here]. (I'll let you guts work this out)

4. Fully coloured posts are not allowed in order to improve readability in all skins.

5. Arguments, debates are accepted depending upon their nature.

6. No trolling (directly attacking a person).

7. Offtopic can be tolerated as long as it follows the flow of conversation and if it goes back ontopic at the request of the thread starter, moderator, or admin.

8. Location names cannot be longer than 30 characters.

9. Reviving old threads should only be allowed if you have something to contribute to the thread's original topic.

10. Use of text over size 4 is not allowed unless the enlarged text is kept under 10 words.

11. Posting of spambot threads is not allowed.

12. Doom text is allowed, although full post doom text isn't. There must be at least some unconcealed text on your post.

13. Posting in the incorrect section is not allowed. Duh!

 

4. Fully coloured posts are not allowed in order to improve readability in all skins.

/disagreement

If it's too hard to read, it's fine to just ignore it. The one to lose anything is the one to have posted in a hard to read colour because his views won't be appreciated if nobody reads it.

12. Doom text is allowed, although full post doom text isn't. There must be at least some unconcealed text on your post.

Pretend this is a new post. I really don't think this is gonna work, you know.

 

10. Use of text over size 4 is not allowed unless the enlarged text is kept under 10 words.

What about Jacob's take on Death Story? That was far over 10 words, but 1) made his point perfectly clear, and 2) was freaking hilarious. I know, I know, no naming, but that's just an example...

12. Doom text is allowed, although full post doom text isn't. There must be at least some unconcealed text on your post.

Yeah, what Roonil said. That would be more like "There must be at least X% of unconcealed text on your post."

If it's too hard to read, it's fine to just ignore it. The one to lose anything is the one to have posted in a hard to read colour because his views won't be appreciated if nobody reads it.

The bad thing is, somebody will read it. Always.


Well, to add something "new": I usually go by a rule that says "Off-topicness is tolerable as long as the entire post is largely on-topic".

 

2. Funny how you've just ASSUMED that I was referring to that particular time when ____ flamed ____ or when _____ retorted with abuses. I was referring to the general picture, and now you've hopped to something you can't lay the fuck off just because you have an opinion that differs from mine.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You said that everyone thinks flaming in general is okay as long as the users aren't being serious and I said no, that isn't true, and never has been. This is simply the most recent case of it (a bad one at that) and therefore the most relevant, I'm not going to reference something that happened a year ago. It might be amusing for whoever is involved but that doesn't mean it's amusing for everybody else. I enjoy having fun and making jokes and I do it quite a lot, I just don't feel the need to constantly be a dick about in the process, what is so hard to understand about that? You seem to be under the opinion that your opinion is totally right. Yes my damn opinion is different than yours, my issue is that your opinion just doesn't make any sense to me.

Of the names listed, only Rune has actually made the said point, the rest only agree with you about __. On reading Metalogz's posts, you would realise that he was as much for the same low-rules policy as I or some others are. freezit and Metalogz are both guilty of one-liners pretty much most of the time, and what you're doing there is calling for support those who share your view about a particular person rather than those who actually think he has done anything wrong.

Who is this _____ chap? He sounds like a real jerk
As I said, this wasn't just about the spam, it was about the attitudes therein. Not everybody does it with bad intentions or even does it on purpose, I can read that and that doesn't bother me because it's not an insult to my bleeding intellect. If you're so intent on defending your right to flame then tell me why it is so essential that it has to take place on this forum, and why the rules and definitions are allowed to bend at your whim and not somebody else's.

About you, I'm learning to accept that you're letting your insight get blurred by someone who's already said he doesn't care about what you think which is pretty much what anyone in their right mind would say.

I don't know what the hell this is meant to mean either. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular because I knew you'd get all uppity about it, you're the one who's transposing what they want to see. In a forum where there is only a handful of users and even fewer rude types there are only so many examples I can pick out of different people so like I said I'm going to use the most recent and relevant ones to help my argument. Do you want to pick a fight or something? I don't give a bloody damn if he doesn't care what I think, but maybe, just maybe, there's somebody else who isn't so stuck up their own arse they'll be willing to hear me out. I'm not just conversing with you here, I'm TRYING to post my opinions in a form everyone can see and relate to. Stop telling me what I'm doing, I already know what I'm doing ffs, you don't have to make a big deal out of it any more than I do. And stop trying to find every tiny little error in my posts. I'm not perfect, and I've admitted that repeatedly. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all do that?

btw, it was your wish in your first post that we shouldn't pick on any particular incident and now you're breaking your own rule for this thread by dropping so many hints that you think person X was wrong. Speaks miles on how biased you've been on this. Also, I'm sorry about the "____"s but I really couldn't put this in a better way.

It was my wish not to specifically call out individual users in case they got uptight about it (which they did anyway), but of course I am going to refer to particular incidents, for the love of god what else do you expect me to do? Refer to imaginary ones? I haven't even picked a single one out yet, I've been speaking in general the same as you have, you just insist on bringing the argument back to a point you think you can argue better from by belittling me with thinly-veiled insults. And yet again we come back to the "lol you're a hypocrite" crap, how is this discussion meant to move forwards if users are constantly having to step back and defend themselves? I could point out plenty of things you've said where you've acted a hypocrite, but I don't, because I actually want to see the conversation go somewhere and I don't enjoy insulting people. It is the ideals that are important, not the actions. I'll also choose to ignore the fact that most of your allegations against me aren't even true in the first place, because I want this thread to remain on the level and not turn into another accusation-fest that gets locked.

EDIT: Please don't assume I'm talking about any incident in particular (except for bits in this post for which I apologise). If you do, we have PM's for that but I've already told you I don't wanna argue any more. Just... try to keep the personal stuff out.

I WAS GODDAMNIT BUT YOU KEEP PUTTING IT BACK IN. All I have done so far is post replies to things you have said and offer one idea which in truth wasn't really an idea until you made it out to be one. If you expect me to be impartial then you could really word your arguments a bit more carefully, but I'm still going to use examples that are relevant to the issue at hand. And I'm sorry but I'm not going to sit back and let you make me out to be an idiot in front of everyone, especially in my own thread. Yeah I got opinions, so do you, what makes mine so biased and wrong compared to yours? I have stated from the start that I am trying to think of what is best for everybody, and if that means disagreeing with some people on some things, then so be it. I can't please everybody, I don't think I'm above them, but you can't tell me two plus two is five and expect me to take it in stride. If you don't want this to be personal then stop making it personal between you and me. I can't prove I'm trying to be impartial so you're just going to have to take my word for it. If the issue comes from me overreacting in the past then yes I have, I'll admit that as often as you want, but find me somebody who hasn't. I'm not going to put it behind me if you aren't.

@ Everyone again:
Yes I am aware this is off-topic but it needs to be said. Not everybody is going to agree with everybody else. The initial aim of this thread has changed somewhat since I started it, since opinions and circumstances have obviously changed since then, most have had their say on what could be fixed, and now these opinions can be gathered. It has sort of become much more generalised, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the focus should remain clear; to combat bad posting. Don't chuck a hissy-fit just because somebody disagrees with you, I'm not going to, possibly aside from this post, although if somebody has something morally wrong with users defending themselves then maybe that's what we should discuss next.

@ Andwhyistheskyblue: I'll read that properly at some point tomorrow. I need to go to sleep now and I have an assignment to do tomorrow as well, which unfortunately takes precedence over discussions here. Full-time study sucks.

 

Oh yeah, that reminds me:

14. Long posts. Don't.

Seriously. There are people who can't or don't want to read through huuuuuge walls of text. I, for example, got lost halfway through DT's last post. Whenever I find something like that, I fight the urge to skip to the end. Sometimes, I lose. And I'm sure I'm not the only one here. So keep those posts short. You want them be read, don't you?

 

CS Forum Rules Idea TAKE 2!

1. No spam posts allowed. Spam shall be classed as any post that does not follow or does not contribute to the "current" topic of discussion (within offtopic discussion) or the the thread's topic of discussion (within ontopic discussion).

2. No illegal material, rom requests etc. (Sorry guys but all forums have this rule)

3. Signatures must not be greater than [insert size here]. (I'll let you guts work this out)

4. Fully coloured posts are not allowed in order to improve readability in all skins.

5. Arguments, debates are accepted depending upon their nature.

6. No trolling (directly attacking a person).

7. Offtopic can be tolerated as long as it follows the flow of conversation and if it goes back ontopic at the request of the thread starter, moderator, or admin.

8. Location names cannot be longer than 30 characters.

9. Reviving old threads should only be allowed if you have something to contribute to the thread's original topic.

10. Use of text over size 4 is not allowed unless the enlarged text is kept under 10 words.

11. Posting of spambot threads is not allowed.

12. Doom text is allowed, although full post doom text isn't. There must be at least some unconcealed text on your post.

13. Posting in the incorrect section is not allowed. Duh!

1. -> Accepted. Though one-liners are spam too.
2. - 13. -> Accepted, GREAT NO ****ING COLOURED POSTS, oh how I hate them -_-" Anyway, thanks.

/disagreement

If it's too hard to read, it's fine to just ignore it. The one to lose anything is the one to have posted in a hard to read colour because his views won't be appreciated if nobody reads it.

There will be no full coloured posts aslong as I'm an admin here. Sorry.

Oh yeah, that reminds me:

14. Long posts. Don't.

We don't want short posts like as one-liners, long posts never will be forbidden, sorry.

Oh yeah, that reminds me:

14. Short posts. Don't.

Better.

 

Firstly, Hi.

Secondly, I see that we're discussing the topic on which I got banned for.

I get DT's point about

It was my wish not to specifically call out individual users in case they got uptight about it (which they did anyway), but of course I am going to refer to particular incidents, for the love of god what else do you expect me to do? Refer to imaginary ones?

It's true that arguments have to be backed-up by evidence, which, in this case, are incidents. However, if we are not allowed to make clear which incidents we are talking about, people would take our arguments as baseless assumptions which would lead to uncertainty, which... in turn... may turn ugly. So maybe some users may not want their names metioned but... If they don't want their names mentioned, we cannot help to solve their problems, which is exactly what we're trying to do (indirectly). So I do think that there isn't any problem in mentioning names here, so long as people are not intentionally insulted in the process. I know I'm alright with my name being mentioned.

Oh yeah, that reminds me:

14. Long posts. Don't.

Seriously. There are people who can't or don't want to read through huuuuuge walls of text. I, for example, got lost halfway through DT's last post. Whenever I find something like that, I fight the urge to skip to the end. Sometimes, I lose. And I'm sure I'm not the only one here. So keep those posts short. You want them be read, don't you?

What the. So you'd rather have us spliting up the huge amount of stuff we have in mind to say into many many small posts. Now that defeats the purpose of even having this thread to discuss about problems such as spam and so on. For one, double or triple or quadruple or etc. posting can be considered spam. Long posts are unavoidable in bringing up a point of argument so I don't see why we should avoid posting huge walls of text and make our points appear vague instead.

Maybe instead of not writing huge walls of text, we can instead paragraph our text instead of lumping them up into one large ball of wtfux? =P

In my opinion:

Spam - Anything 100% un-related to topic, 100% un-helpful, 70% not funny, repetitive (mebbe I'm missing out something lol.)
Flame - We all know what this means.

I think those 2 are the 2 main issues we have problems with right now.

CS Forum Rules Idea TAKE 2!

1. No spam posts allowed. Spam shall be classed as any post that does not follow or does not contribute to the "current" topic of discussion (within offtopic discussion) or the the thread's topic of discussion (within ontopic discussion).

Well I don't think that ANY post that doesn't contribute to the current topic can be considered spam. For example, someone can make a joke or something that is RELATED to the topic at hand, but does not CONTRIBUTE to the topic. I find that so long as a post is, in someway, related to the topic of the thread in which it is posted in, it's fine.

2. No illegal material, rom requests etc. (Sorry guys but all forums have this rule)

No illegal material? >_>

Well I don't think that I've seen that kind of things anywhere. However, I have seen, and made (I admit, remember Melty Blood? xD), quite a few in the thread about games that no one seems to play. I guess that can be implemented.

Agree (I agree, dunno about anyone else though)

3. Signatures must not be greater than [insert size here]. (I'll let you guts work this out)

Em... I don't quite agree on the limiting of siggie size.

Firstly, I rarely ever see people with huge chunks of text in their sigs.

Secondly, I have seen a few, or maybe one, member with a huge pic or two in their sig.

Conclusion: Limit picture size, not text amount, in sigs.

Maybe the picture size can be limited to... 120 width and 120 height? >< I dunno lol.

4. Fully coloured posts are not allowed in order to improve readability in all skins.

Aww come on! I tought we've already discussed this! Although I'm not one to fully colour my posts, I'm sure others would like to keep their posts the colour they want!

The only forum skin post background colours that are most common here are whitish-grey and black, or maybe blue. Perhaps only these few colours can be disallowed for the whole post?(unless for a specific reason like doom text, but not post-long)

5. Arguments, debates are accepted depending upon their nature.

Em... I don't quite get what you're trying to say so.. could you please be more specific please

6. No trolling (directly attacking a person).

Agree

So long as you don't directly insult a person, I find it fine. Anyways, indirectly insulting someone (like mebbe through a joke or commonly used phrase?) is way more fun than using vulgarities like FUCK OFF or something like that (sorry. I just HAD to give that example) UNLESS it's made jokingly (please make it obvious that it's in a friendly and joking manner) like, for example, how jcys810 calls me a cunt and etc. when he doesn't really mean it xD.

7. Offtopic can be tolerated as long as it follows the flow of conversation and if it goes back ontopic at the request of the thread starter, moderator, or admin.

Hey! Doesn't this contradict your first point? D:<

8. Location names cannot be longer than 30 characters.

Totally Agree.

9. Reviving old threads should only be allowed if you have something to contribute to the thread's original topic.

Yeppers.

10. Use of text over size 4 is not allowed unless the enlarged text is kept under 10 words.

I kinda agree... I'm not sure how large LARGE text is because i rarely ever bother to change text size xD

[EDITED]
http://www.cavestory.org/forums/posts/42232/

Hmm... =/

Might wanna revise this after reading that post? o.o?[/EDITED]

11. Posting of spambot threads is not allowed.

Wtf? xD

How can an un-spambot member post a spambot thread?
And if you really did mean OF, then I feel that stating it wouldn't help. Spambots are bots. They can't read and decide not to spam xD

I think you meant IN spambot threads.

Well if you meant IN spambot threads, then maybe. Though I have a tendancy to post in a spambot thread, I feel that doing so would attract more spambots because it just proves that it does indeed attract attention. So yeah.

Agree ^^"

12. Doom text is allowed, although full post doom text isn't. There must be at least some unconcealed text on your post.

For this, on Roonil's point about doom text, I feel that he does have a point there.

For example, if someone makes his whole post doom text APART from a single fullstop, what the hell? xD

I feel that 60% of the post should be, at least, visible. There should be a limit really.

13. Posting in the incorrect section is not allowed. Duh!

Obvious xD!

 

Hey! Doesn't this contradict your first point? D:<

Look closely at my definition of spam. Spam does not follow nor contribute to the flow of conversation nor the original topic. SP added one-liners to this definition. Offtopic is allowed as long as it follows the flow of conversation (i.e. must be related to the current conversation).

Wtf? xD

How can an un-spambot member post a spambot thread?
And if you really did mean OF, then I feel that stating it wouldn't help. Spambots are bots. They can't read and decide not to spam xD

I think you meant IN spambot threads.

Well if you meant IN spambot threads, then maybe. Though I have a tendancy to post in a spambot thread, I feel that doing so would attract more spambots because it just proves that it does indeed attract attention. So yeah.

Agree ^^"

Remember demenoff?

Yeah it is a useless rule since neither spambots nor spambot users would obey it, but I thought it should go in anyway.

 

Oh yeah, that reminds me:

14. Long posts. Don't.

Seriously. There are people who can't or don't want to read through huuuuuge walls of text. I, for example, got lost halfway through DT's last post. Whenever I find something like that, I fight the urge to skip to the end. Sometimes, I lose. And I'm sure I'm not the only one here. So keep those posts short. You want them be read, don't you?

There is a very complex and awkward solution to this matter: if you don't like big posts, then don't read them, just don't expect to be able to keep up with the conversation.
Also who the heck are you, you have 123 posts already and I barely know you :|

EDIT: I never said it wasn't .-.
TIDE: Oh and he joined on my birthday too. How aboot that >_>

 

Also who the heck are you, you have 123 posts already and I barely know you :|

That is your fault, not his. T-Jack has been around for a while now.

 

What about Jacob's take on Death Story? That was far over 10 words, but 1) made his point perfectly clear, and 2) was freaking hilarious. I know, I know, no naming, but that's just an example...

SIZE 4 IS STILL FAIRLY LARGE

 

Why don't you guys just allow coloured posts, it's not that hard to highlight the text, is it? :/

 

Multi-posting: the edit button is there for a reason. (note that this applies only when editing the post is an applicable option. If, for example, the last post of the thread is quite old, you are allowed to double post PROVIDED that you have something constructive to add)


Forum Ethics: Respect the opinions of others. Don't attack somebody just because you disagree with them.

Swearing: Swearing occasionally in good humour or to put a point forth more effectively or to express yourself better is fine. However, using swear-words to deliberately attack another member is an offence.


I don't mean any of this at any member, these are just rules I thought should be added. >_>

I'd also like someone to clarify what one-liners actually are. <_<

I mean, someone could say "Hey people I made this artwork, do check it out ^__^ [insert pic here]". Does that count as a one-liner? Or a post that is made to appreciate/criticise a certain work where not more than one line is required to get the message across (within constructive appreciation/criticism) Like: "this mod is awesome, I especially find the music amazing. :O"; Or: "Hmmm... I didn't enjoy this thing, the difficulty is nowhere near as challenging as is expected of a Cave Story mod, sorry".

 

Why don't you guys just allow coloured posts, it's not that hard to highlight the text, is it? :/

You should not expect people to have to follow the standards for how you do things. But enough of that. If something becomes too big a problem and people complain... well you get the idea. If the coloured posts were not a problem as you say then no-one would have complained about it, simple as that.