New Forum Rules ~ Feedback!

[Hecktix]

I think it just needs an additional clause; '...with the exception of certain forum sections'. This would be more valid as those types of threads would be deemed pointless in most sections, but there are certain sections where they are OK.

This just brings more complications in my opinion, we have removed the example and left "a thread that doesn't prompt discussion" which I think is self explanatory really, I think an example of a thread under this description could be one in the sports section when one of the members posts a thread saying "OI BOB COME ON XBL" or something, I think the "What are you listening to", "What are you eating" and "What are you listening to" all have possibility to generate discussion, for instance someone could see a song someone is listening too and like it and compliment them on that song, or maybe they'd never heard the song before so they listen to it, etc.

I think where the line can be drawn is at the discretion of moderation.

[Catzsy]

They seem concise enough but with conciseness there comes a ream of loopholes, enjoy

That sentence seems terrible gramatically but I can't work out why

Which are? I have had a good look and can't really see any. =]

[The Professor]

Which are? I have had a good look and can't really see any. =]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

[GommeInc]

They're clearer, but for God's sake put "A moderator may use their own discretion when a rule is believed to have been broken." It'll make you somewhat believable

[Catzsy]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

Well as I say I have looked pretty closely at these and they seem to cover all the bases. We will have to wait and see!

[Nixt]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

I guess we'll have to see. Moderators are allowed to use their discretion when in keeping with the rules, it's not like they can go about doing things willy nilly.

They're clearer, but for God's sake put "A moderator may use their own discretion when a rule is believed to have been broken." It'll make you somewhat believable

I might put something like that in the T&Cs.

[iJoe]

They're better but still really long haha

Is there really a need to explain what a pointless post is?

Should have a short code and long code, cut them down to just the headers as the short code than explain them as a long code

[Black_Apalachi]

This just brings more complications in my opinion, we have removed the example and left "a thread that doesn't prompt discussion" which I think is self explanatory really, I think an example of a thread under this description could be one in the sports section when one of the members posts a thread saying "OI BOB COME ON XBL" or something, I think the "What are you listening to", "What are you eating" and "What are you listening to" all have possibility to generate discussion, for instance someone could see a song someone is listening too and like it and compliment them on that song, or maybe they'd never heard the song before so they listen to it, etc.

I think where the line can be drawn is at the discretion of moderation.

Fair enough. As long as the example isn't any of those which are allowed, than it shouldn't cause confusion.

They're better but still really long haha

Is there really a need to explain what a pointless post is?

Should have a short code and long code, cut them down to just the headers as the short code than explain them as a long code

Are you serious?! Any shorter and I would barely be able to take them seriously! The explanations are necessary for new and younger members. Imagine if you were using the internet for the first time, you wouldn't have a clue what any forum-related lingo meant. Even something that seems so self-explanatory as Pointless posting is not always clear - as is proven by the amount of feedback threads we regularly see regarding confusion over various rules.

[iJoe]

Are you serious?! Any shorter and I would barely be able to take them seriously! The explanations are necessary for new and younger members. Imagine if you were using the internet for the first time, you wouldn't have a clue what any forum-related lingo meant. Even something that seems so self-explanatory as Pointless posting is not always clear - as is proven by the amount of feedback threads we regularly see regarding confusion over various rules.

The habbo way isn't a patch on habbox's rules and I wouldn't say new users get confused over them.

Fair enough about explaining some of them, but really, the way they're explained is a bit excessive.