Constructive posts =/= happy-happy posts. And what loophole? Rulebreakers will be dealt with, as the admins/mods see it. This goes for all rulebreakers.
There is a loophole because definition of "constructive" is entirely subjective and is not defined within the rule itself. I.e., if you don't like someone's tone, you get to decide that they're breaking rule #2. I've got to hand it to you, that one's pretty brilliant really.
Don't be stupid, you know what I mean. The anti-profanity rule goes for needless using of foul language (etc. "Ooh this song is so motherfuc*ing good./Bleh I don't like that shitty fuc*ed up song."), in sentences where you could easily use normal words instead of swearing. Swearing doesn't make you look cool.
When you ask me to not be stupid, shall I interpet that as "good natured off topic" or as "contructive criticism"?
I mean, I wouldn't want to think that I'm being personally insulted by the same admin who just posted all these rules about respecting other users and not making personal offenses. Nah, couldn't be that.
And frankly, I see no difference between saying "this song is so motherfucking good" and discussing the DTR song lyrics "kiss my motherfucking ass". I would understand it if this were a Backstreet Boys forum, but why should users not be allowed to repeat the same language that the bands we are discussing
use themselves? Honestly, anyone who's offended by that kind of language should not be listening to X, hide, DTR, etc.
Umm yeah, combine rule #12 and you have a triple standard? The download links are not allowed the private sharing forum. In the future, it might be possible that YM messages will be allowed there, but this is yet uncertain.
Why does this double/triple standard exist? What's the purpose of it or reasoning behind it? I'd honestly like to know, as I find it confusing and don't understand the purpose behind it.
Because you should not be too lazy. Post the disclosure to your signature, if you think you can't remember to post it every time. Small font is ok.
What I meant was: what is the legal rationale behind it? You really want everyone to include legal disclaimer in their signatures just because you don't want to make such a disclaimer yourself for the forum? I've never seen that on a forum before (and I've been on many of them), frankly it makes no sense to me why you would want to require your users to go through all of that. It seems very arbitrary.
What problem? I saw problems in that the rules were unclear and mostly unwritten, so people got confused and posts edited/deleted for reasons they didn't know were wrong. Secondly, as I saw it, you were uncomfortable with admins/mods editing your posts without notification beforehand. That's fixed also. As I said, this is not a spamfest-norules-everythinggoes forum.
Given the two very lengthy threads about the problem at hand, I'm sure you know what problem we're talking about. You're avoiding the issue. While I am not you and cannot know what you're thinking or what you mean by all of this (until you tell us, of course), this whole thing gives the impression of someone who is taking advantage of forum unrest to force completely unrelated rules upon his forum. Please don't assume that your users are too stupid to realize when they've been "baited and switched" into irrelevant rules they didn't ask for.
When we all complained about PN's abuse of her admin power, we were told that solutions were in the works. We waited. These rules are the "solution"? They do nothing whatsoever to address the fact that PN has continually abused her admin power by editing and deleting posts for entirely frivolous reasons. It has absolutely nothing to do with "notification beforehand" as you would know if you read the two lengthy threads about the PN subject. I was "notified beforehand" that I was supposed to not call Yoshiki's drumming "multiorgasmic death-sex", which does not make her request that I modify my post any less silly.
Our problem was that we were uncomfortable with an admin editing our posts for ridiculous reasons, period.
Precisely.
There is nothing at all in these new rules that addresses the PN problem or will forbid PN from making further frivolous deletions.
EDITED TO ADD:
In case anyone missed this, here's an illustration of what I mean when I use the phrase "double-standard":
http://www.x-freaks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38719Really, stop speaking about PN and "JRR2 coming" everywhere like a fucking childish kid, get serious.
A mod calling a user "a fucking childish kid"? Isn't that nice.
And me allowing it, in this case? Even nicer.
I'm seriously thinking that calling us JRR2 or something = ban. I'm pretty sick and tired of this.
Hypno, why "in this case" is it acceptable to break user rules #1, #2, and #3, along with administrator/moderator rule #1?
I'm asking this as a serious question, because I'd like to know in which cases admins and mods are exempt from the rule that says they're not exempt from the rules.