A few concerns with the new rules
"Do not link to ad sites or sites that may contain advertisements, referral sites/links, or malware/spyware"
but specifically
"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
So we can't link to youtube, facebook, myspace, or pretty much any other site?
"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What if the users posted the images on this forum, and we're simply reposting them?
"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
Okay, so example:
Person A posts something in the screenshots thread.
Person B replies to their image with "Grats!"
MOD: Person B directed something at person A, infraction.
"Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
So we can't bump our recruitment threads?
Thanks for your attention, just trying to clean things up.
but specifically
"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
So we can't link to youtube, facebook, myspace, or pretty much any other site?
"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What if the users posted the images on this forum, and we're simply reposting them?
"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
Okay, so example:
Person A posts something in the screenshots thread.
Person B replies to their image with "Grats!"
MOD: Person B directed something at person A, infraction.
"Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
So we can't bump our recruitment threads?
Thanks for your attention, just trying to clean things up.
Comments
-
Last time I checked youtube, facebook and myspace were not direct advertisements/referral sites/malware etc. Sure if you were to link http://youtube.com/"insert random game name here"/http://facebook.com/"insert random game name here" or http://site.com/ref/xyz then sure that would be advertising/referring.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not link to ad sites or sites that may contain advertisements, referral sites/links, or malware/spyware"
but specifically
"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
So we can't link to youtube, facebook, myspace, or pretty much any other site?
Link the post then, simple enough.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What if the users posted the images on this forum, and we're simply reposting them?
It is part of the topic, the topic is directed at several users. If the user was asking something along the lines of "How did you do xyz" then that would warrant the rule.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
Okay, so example:
Person A posts something in the screenshots thread.
Person B replies to their image with "Grats!"
MOD: Person B directed something at person A, infraction.
Correcto. Even more so if you're not actually 'recruiting'.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
So we can't bump our recruitment threads?
Also moved to off topic as it is not related to the CrossFire game. -
GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not link to ad sites or sites that may contain advertisements, referral sites/links, or malware/spyware"
but specifically
"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
So we can't link to youtube, facebook, myspace, or pretty much any other site?
"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What if the users posted the images on this forum, and we're simply reposting them?
"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
Okay, so example:
Person A posts something in the screenshots thread.
Person B replies to their image with "Grats!"
MOD: Person B directed something at person A, infraction.
"Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
So we can't bump our recruitment threads?
Thanks for your attention, just trying to clean things up.
1. I'm sure they'll tone down this first one, or we can't link our videos in the Fan Works section.
2. Such as quoting them in a thread I think is fine, but posting them in another thread/section I think is bad because you are re-posting it without the user(s) consent.
3. I don't think he means it like this, although many will interpret it like so. I think he's more specifically talking about threads accusing Z8 Staff Members and MODS, and trying to restrict the public forums from one to one chatting, and he may also be talking about what I cal "taking shots" at people and their actions in the past/present, and other rude and crude things.
4. I think we need this. Although I've done my fair share of bumping, it's starting to get out of hand with others. It's not "bumping" though when you add something on that is relevant to the topic, so I suppose we can just do that.
Thank you for posting this thread, by the way.
-
GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
"Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
Well, I take these as general guidelines, trying to cover everything.
1) Site smashed with advertisements and referrals, I'd warn/infract. Nobody is going to ban you for linking youtube.
2) Kids on this forum are very prone to ridiculing others by posting someone elses image, which this rule covers.
Those threads are pretty easy to spot, as people posting their own image rarely go "AHAHA LOOK AT MY UNIBROW".
If you quote someone who posted their image in a "normal" thread, you're not going to get banned unless you're being intentionally offensive in the writing, which obviously has nothing to do with the act of quoting the image itself.
That falls under different rules anyway.
3) Covers the endless "@MYBROTHERSSISTERSCOUSINSUNCLE: YOU FAT" threads.
Also covers topics that are not to be discussed publicly, such as complaints or inquires regarding moderator decisions.
4) This one is a bit confusing since we've let recruitment thread bumping go unpunished for 4 years, but it covers necroposting which is good.
I'd expect some clarification on the recruitment thread thing when a GM sees this thread.
Mind you this is just how I'm interpreting it.
If we're told that these rules are literal then so be it. Harsh times. -
GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What about this thread? (basically an example)
http://forum.z8games.com/showthread.php?t=132284&highlight=posting+images -
Well, I take these as general guidelines, trying to cover everything.
1) Site smashed with advertisements and referrals, I'd warn/infract. Nobody is going to ban you for linking youtube.
2) Kids on this forum are very prone to ridiculing others by posting someone elses image, which this rule covers.
Those threads are pretty easy to spot, as people posting their own image rarely go "AHAHA LOOK AT MY UNIBROW".
If you quote someone who posted their image in a "normal" thread, you're not going to get banned unless you're being intentionally offensive in the writing, which obviously has nothing to do with the act of quoting the image itself.
That falls under different rules anyway.
3) Covers the endless "@MYBROTHERSSISTERSCOUSINSUNCLE: YOU FAT" threads.
Also covers topics that are not to be discussed publicly, such as complaints or inquires regarding moderator decisions.
4) This one is a bit confusing since we've let recruitment thread bumping go unpunished for 4 years, but it covers necroposting which is good.
I'd expect some clarification on the recruitment thread thing when a GM sees this thread.
Mind you this is just how I'm interpreting it.
If we're told that these rules are literal then so be it. Harsh times.
Once again,
Dot has the most win.
I made a rhyme.
OT: This helps me understand a bit more. -
The rule's say advertisements in general.
Youtube is spammed full of advertising. Even the videos about advertising have advertisements in them. LOLZ!
But seriously here, everyone (^ that was sarcasm by the way, not overly exaggerated though sadly....) these rules are not to be taken entirely literally. Yes these rules are in motion and they are simple rules, just like you have always had to follow. Just do not do anything that you know would get you in trouble. Do not be rude to others on the forums and you will not get the Mod BanHammer to the face. Lolz.
With that said I think we all know what to expect from these rules and there really is no need to ask these silly little questions. (the one I posted is basically an example of what is described by the new rules.) -
"Do not link to ad sites or sites that may contain advertisements, referral sites/links, or malware/spyware"
When this is said, I believe it's referring to websites that are like skip ad to view the website. A common website that allows people to do this for money is called adfly, where you go to the link, must wait 5-10 seconds, then you can skip the sponsor, and go to the website."Do not bump threads. Bumping threads includes reminders for people to look at specific content displayed earlier in a thread, or to put the thread at the top of the list, this also includes necroposting."
This rules was meant for older discussions, not recruitment threads. I can see how recruitment threads would be an exception because otherwise the thread would die, and the owner would have to re-create it, which is just spam. But what the rule means is for older discussions say about a gun that came out, going back four months, the previous members that were discussing the gun may be inactive or offline, so it's a dead conversation."Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
The only way I could think of this being correct is if one user goes off-topic to speak to an individual user, when the private conversation that nobody else is included in could be taken to the Private Messaging system.
Though it's appreciated that you've looked past the meaning of the rule, and found alternatives, you're taking the rules much too literally. You do make SOME valid points though. *cookie -
RawrJafrikan wrote: »I can't wait till Muffin does a #LogicBomb in here
And God... you are becoming me slowly and surely.
I don't see how pointing out loopholes/flaws/things overlooked means I'm becoming you, if anything I try to be like VATAV.
*Side note* You said something to me, according to the new rules that is infraction worthy. Get my point?Well, I take these as general guidelines, trying to cover everything.
*THE REST*
The point of these new rules are to cut out the grey area according to what Saidin has told me, and avoid incidents where the moderators have to make judgement calls. There have been cases where the judgement of any one moderator have been and will be less than appropriate. If anything, these new rules make things worse, and introduce so much more grey area.Last time I checked youtube, facebook and myspace were not direct advertisements/referral sites/malware etc. Sure if you were to link http://youtube.com/"insert random game name here"/http://facebook.com/"insert random game name here" or http://site.com/ref/xyz then sure that would be advertising/referring.
I don't think you're reading the rule correctly. They posted it in such a way that the second quote I posted can be derived from the original quote while maintaining it's integrity.Link the post then, simple enough.
Okay, good point.It is part of the topic, the topic is directed at several users. If the user was asking something along the lines of "How did you do xyz" then that would warrant the rule.
But if the person saying grats was only saying grats to that one other person, it becomes an infraction. In fact, saying anything to anyone on the forums is now infraction-worthy, if only saying it to 1 person (unless of course it's in a VM or PM).Correcto. Even more so if you're not actually 'recruiting'.
I think this rule has to be remodeled, unless threads are going to be created every couple days for each clan. -
GodsGunman wrote: »But if the person saying grats was only saying grats to that one other person, it becomes an infraction. In fact, saying anything to anyone on the forums is now infraction-worthy, if only saying it to 1 person (unless of course it's in a VM or PM).3) Covers the endless "@MYBROTHERSSISTERSCOUSINSUNCLE: YOU FAT" threads.
Also covers topics that are not to be discussed publicly, such as complaints or inquires regarding moderator decisions.
You are reading far too much into some of these things. The posting directly to someone rule? Dot answers it perfectly, which you left out of your reply. That rule is in regards to the 8,000 @user threads created that usually end up in spam or trolling. We're not going to infract you for posting a reply "directly" to someone in a thread that is on topic. That's just ridiculous.
I responded to you. I must infract myself for speaking to you.
Come on now.
I will make a note of it and have Saidin change the wording around to be a little more clear, since it's obviously not. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »You are reading far too much into some of these things. The posting directly to someone rule? Dot answers it perfectly, which you left out of your reply. That rule is in regards to the 8,000 @user threads created that usually end up in spam or trolling. We're not going to infract you for posting a reply "directly" to someone in a thread that is on topic. That's just ridiculous.
I responded to you. I must infract myself for speaking to you.
Come on now.
I will make a note of it and have Saidin change the wording around to be a little more clear, since it's obviously not.
That's what a certain mod did to me. Ya know, that ridiculous one. -
You're taking the rules too literally, by advertising they mean to post links that are of no value to anyone else and the sole purpose of them is to offer personal gain of whoever posted it.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not link to ad sites or sites that may contain advertisements, referral sites/links, or malware/spyware"
but specifically
"Do not link to sites that may contain advertisements"
So we can't link to youtube, facebook, myspace, or pretty much any other site?
The rule was more than likely made due to people posting images with bad intent without permission. ( i.e look at this nerd, he's so ugly! ) posting images with a good intention could be tolerated if posted in the correct section.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not post personal images of other people or users."
What if the users posted the images on this forum, and we're simply reposting them?
Again, too literally.GodsGunman wrote: »"Do not make posts directed at one specific user or staff member. (please use Private Messages, if their inbox is full then wait for an opportunity)"
Okay, so example:
Person A posts something in the screenshots thread.
Person B replies to their image with "Grats!"
MOD: Person B directed something at person A, infraction.
I'm sure they meant to say thread instead of post, there are tons of people making threads @thisguy @thismod, etc.
Making a thread toward one user specifically is just asking for attention, if you felt that HE needs (and not everyone else) to know what you're saying you don't go make a thread about it, you use the PM system.
Replying to another user within a thread (i.e guy1 posts; hey godsgunman i heard you're a bad player, godsgunman: shut up you're bad.) is also unneeded but also deemed necessary at times to upkeep public social status. (i.e: guy 1 makes a thread about a tournament, exampletroll posts: haha, exampleperson1 wont be able to perform on this tourney. exampleperson1: shut up exampletroll, I've outperformed you and your entire team is trash.)
Basically, if you have good intentions with your posts then you should not get in trouble and if you don't plan on posting things of a malicious nature or lying/trolling/accusations/hackusations/etc then you should have nothing to worry about. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »You are reading far too much into some of these things. The posting directly to someone rule? Dot answers it perfectly, which you left out of your reply. That rule is in regards to the 8,000 @user threads created that usually end up in spam or trolling. We're not going to infract you for posting a reply "directly" to someone in a thread that is on topic. That's just ridiculous.
I responded to you. I must infract myself for speaking to you.
Come on now.
I will make a note of it and have Saidin change the wording around to be a little more clear, since it's obviously not.
If the rule is supposed to be for entire threads, then it should say that. Having that changed to threads instead of posts would make a lot more sense in my opinion.You're taking the rules too literally, by advertising they mean to post links that are of no value to anyone else and the sole purpose of them is to offer personal gain of whoever posted it.
The rule was more than likely made due to people posting images with bad intent without permission. ( i.e look at this nerd, he's so ugly! ) posting images with a good intention could be tolerated if posted in the correct section.
Again, too literally.
I'm sure they meant to say thread instead of post, there are tons of people making threads @thisguy @thismod, etc.
Making a thread toward one user specifically is just asking for attention, if you felt that HE needs (and not everyone else) to know what you're saying you don't go make a thread about it, you use the PM system.
Replying to another user within a thread (i.e guy1 posts; hey godsgunman i heard you're a bad player, godsgunman: shut up you're bad.) is also unneeded but also deemed necessary at times to upkeep public social status. (i.e: guy 1 makes a thread about a tournament, exampletroll posts: haha, exampleperson1 wont be able to perform on this tourney. exampleperson1: shut up exampletroll, I've outperformed you and your entire team is trash.)
Basically, if you have good intentions with your posts then you should not get in trouble and if you don't plan on posting things of a malicious nature or lying/trolling/accusations/hackusations/etc then you should have nothing to worry about.
You can't take rules too litterally. Do you really think we should guess at what they mean by the rules? Of course not. I don't think they intend to imply things with their rules, but that is what is happening. They need to work on their wording a bit, also they need to get rid of the giant grey area that they just imposed on the forums. -
GodsGunman wrote: »If the rule is supposed to be for entire threads, then it should say that. Having that changed to threads instead of posts would make a lot more sense in my opinion.
You can't take rules too litterally. Do you really think we should guess at what they mean by the rules? Of course not. I don't think they intend to imply things with their rules, but that is what is happening. They need to work on their wording a bit, also they need to get rid of the giant grey area that they just imposed on the forums.
I'm not sure what forum communities you have been a part of, but there is no way to cover EVERYTHING literally. You are taking these rules too literally. Some things are implied by common sense so that the rules list isn't 1900 pages long.
Again, your direct post rule? Let's apply common sense here. Taking it in the way you're interpreting it, that would mean communication would cease on an online forum community. Does that make ANY sense to you? Some things are implied to be taken with some common sense such as the posting rule. Why would Saidin say that you can't talk to anyone directly on a forum where that's the only purpose of a forum? In your example, someone replying to someone on a thread would mean an infraction. Do you REALLY interpret it that way? Does that make ANY sense to you at all? It was meant towards what everyone has been saying. It's directing to the "@user - you're stupid" threads or the "@user - PM me" threads that have no purpose. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »I'm not sure what forum communities you have been a part of, but there is no way to cover EVERYTHING literally. You are taking these rules too literally. Some things are implied by common sense so that the rules list isn't 1900 pages long.
Again, your direct post rule? Let's apply common sense here. Taking it in the way you're interpreting it, that would mean communication would cease on an online forum community. Does that make ANY sense to you? Some things are implied to be taken with some common sense such as the posting rule. Why would Saidin say that you can't talk to anyone directly on a forum where that's the only purpose of a forum? In your example, someone replying to someone on a thread would mean an infraction. Do you REALLY interpret it that way? Does that make ANY sense to you at all? It was meant towards what everyone has been saying. It's directing to the "@user - you're stupid" threads or the "@user - PM me" threads that have no purpose.
Then it should be changed to say threads, it clearly says posts, that's my only point for that rule. -
Well, by making a thread --- you are adding to your post count are you not? That makes it a post. Again, it's implied what was meant. Too literal.
Thread title - The rules are too literal
First POST by User - I think the rules are too literal.
Implied.
As I said, we have made a note of these things in the Private Section already. Do you mind if I close the thread up as these issues have been addressed already? There really is no further need for these specific points you have talked about. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »Well, by making a thread --- you are adding to your post count are you not? That makes it a post. Again, it's implied what was meant. Too literal.
Thread title - The rules are too literal
First POST by User - I think the rules are too literal.
Implied.
That's a stupid argument, and it looks as if your example is arguing in my favour.
Saying posts covers all threads and posts.
Saying threads covers threads, which is what the rule is aimed at according to my new understanding.
To say it's fine staying as posts means I'm either not understanding something due to the wording of the rule, or you need to pick and choose your battles better. -
GodsGunman wrote: »To say it's fine staying as posts means I'm either not understanding something due to the wording of the rule, or you need to pick and choose your battles better.
I'm simply saying you are taking some of these things too literally and that's fine. I'm not battling you, it's called an opinion or a point of view. These rules and this thread have been noted in the Private section. There is no need to leave this thread open as your opinion has been heard and will be addressed on Monday when Saidin comes back to the office.
Also, not everyone when differing your opinion is out to "battle" you. People have a right to have a differing opinion and it doesn't have to be a battle. You have a different point of view than other people do and that's fine. It will be addressed. Thank you, have a good day.
![[Rory]](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/17/navatar_3095917.gif){kind=avatar}
![[Seashore]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/39/navatar_12098639.gif){kind=avatar}
![[dot]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/27/navatar_2942827.gif){kind=avatar}
![[MOD]Polleus](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/7/navatar_8918107.gif){kind=avatar}
![MissA]Suzy](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/24/navatar_4061724.gif){kind=avatar}
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2K CrossFire
- 590 CrossFire Announcements
- 592 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 160 Community
- 12 Modes
- 280 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 38 CF Competitive Forum
- CFCL
- 14 Looking for a Team?
- 542 CrossFire Support
- 64 Suggestion
- 12 CrossFire Guides
- 33 CrossFire Off Topic