Rules revision

Just a suggestion, there are a few questionable rules floating around that've been around since the begenning, maybe we could revamp these rules to modernize the forums a bit since we have evolved as a community the past few years.

Just a thought.

Which rules would you change, and what would be your reasons for each change?

No posting of pictures featuring indecent exposure

This needs to be defined, I've tried to have it looked at by just pushing my limits, and obviously that doesn't work. So starting a thread to discuss the limitations of what is allowed and not needs to be atleast reviewed. I mean, getting banned for having a picture of cleveage is ridiculous when you can spam profanity across the forums without it being a problem.

No warez

I suppose I don't have any issues with pirated software, this rule is fine and probably protects the Zelaron name in itself.

Limitation on discussion of drugs or weapons illegal in the US

There is no limitation now, there's a whole thread with a 2-3 members that talk about how fucked up they are. Either change this rule or abolish it completely.

No creation of multiple usernames

Though this rule is put to decline in confusion from other members posting to be others, it's silly to be a rule in itself, I feel that if somebody wants to be schizophrenic let them, it doesn't harm anybody, and the least it could do is create more artificial activity like the whole -spector- situation seemed to have caused.

No spam outside of the chat forum

Another non-enforced rule, either revise it or just get rid of it. There are various occasions where something could be done, but it never seems to happen.

No flames outside of the flame forum

Same as above.

No doubleposting

Same as above. Another old outdated rule that has it's constigencies that don't always apply.

Rules when posting private messages in public

Abolish this rule, while as you can directly relate to what somebody had said to you, quoting it is not any different, and this rule is also pointless.

Did you actually read the text of the rules? If you think that there is any issue with the drugs rule, you obviously haven't. All the rules always apply, with the exception of the NSFW forum; the issue is how far the staff is willing to go in enforcing them.

I'm pretty sure that the drug conversation is not violating anything. We don't sell drugs on here, or try to exchange them by other means. Is it wrong to post in the appropriate thread that you're stoned? I think not. Most of it is educational, so that you learn from other people's mistakes and experiences. Right now I'm on quite a combination of substances, but I'll leave it at that since this is a more serious forum.

WW, what are you thoughts on that? Are any of us 'druggies' breaking those rules, or are we abiding?

The rules that are in place concerning drugs only restrict you from doing something that could get the forum in legal trouble. As long as you aren't selling, telling where to buy, or telling how to make, there is no rule violation.

How subtle. I had to laugh at this.

No posting of pictures featuring indecent exposure This needs to be defined, I've tried to have it looked at by just pushing my limits, and obviously that doesn't work. So starting a thread to discuss the limitations of what is allowed and not needs to be atleast reviewed. I mean, getting banned for having a picture of cleveage is ridiculous when you can spam profanity across the forums without it being a problem.

Limitation on discussion of drugs or weapons illegal in the US There is no limitation now, there's a whole thread with a 2-3 members that talk about how fucked up they are. Either change this rule or abolish it completely.

There is a limitation. Had you actually read the rule, you would see it.

Limitation on discussion of drugs or weapons illegal in the US You may not arrange a transfer of illegal drugs or weapons on this web site. You may not describe or link to descriptions of the processes to make illegal drugs or weapons on this web site. You may not direct members to another site, physical location, or person that does either of the two above. You may talk about what/how much you used, how it makes you feel, etc.

As long as nobody is arranging transfer, describing how to make drugs, or telling someone where to go or who to talk to to do these things, there's no problem. People can talk about how high they are or whatever they want, as that does not put Zelaron at legal risk.

No creation of multiple usernames Though this rule is put to decline in confusion from other members posting to be others, it's silly to be a rule in itself, I feel that if somebody wants to be schizophrenic let them, it doesn't harm anybody, and the least it could do is create more artificial activity like the whole -spector- situation seemed to have caused.

I don't think you'll find this rule to be up for debate, as there's no good reason for someone to have multiple usernames other than to be deceptive, unless there are multiple people living in the same place and using the same computer, which is allowed. Also, there is no punishment for this rule unless someone is making excessive names or someone is making new names to get around a ban. Otherwise, the accounts are usually just merged and the person is warned.

No spam outside of the chat forum Another non-enforced rule, either revise it or just get rid of it. There are various occasions where something could be done, but it never seems to happen.

It is enforced to some extent. We don't hunt down everything that could possibly considered spam, but if it's blatantly obvious that someone is spamming and it's harming the conversation, it's taken care of. This is a rule that we pretty much enforce however we feel appropriate.

No flames outside of the flame forum Same as above.

Same as above. We don't hunt down every instance of name-calling or what have you, so this rule is really only enforced when a moderator feels it necessary, such as if someone is getting out of hand.

No doubleposting Same as above. Another old outdated rule that has it's constigencies that don't always apply.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it having "constigencies" that don't always apply, as that isn't a word. However, this rule is enforced, though not incredibly harshly. If someone triple or quadruple posts, it's definitely taken care of. Double posts are usually ignored, especially since it's not even considered a double post if you wait 10 minutes to post again, which is stated in the rule, which I'll post below.

No doubleposting You may not doublepost. A doublepost is defined as replying to the same post, or to yourself within 10 minutes without someone else posting between those two posts. There is an edit button for each post you author; if you forgot something or made a mistake, edit your post instead of posting again unless a significant amount of time has elapsed (10 minutes). Chains of doubleposts (AKA tripleposts, quadrupleposts, quintupleposts, etc) are likely to result in an instant ban.

Rules when posting private messages in public Abolish this rule, while as you can directly relate to what somebody had said to you, quoting it is not any different, and this rule is also pointless.

This rule was actually added somewhat recently, and for good reason. When someone is communicating with someone else through private messages, especially if it's a moderator communicating with a member, it is not alright for someone to post the conversation on the public forums unless both parties agree to it, as private messages are meant to be just that. If both people involved in the conversation don't mind, then neither do we, but on some occasions, especially when it has to do with a moderator communicating with a member, it won't be allowed by the staff. I'm sorry if you don't agree with this.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it having "constigencies" that don't always apply, as that isn't a word. However, this rule is enforced, though not incredibly harshly. If someone triple or quadruple posts, it's definitely taken care of. Double posts are usually ignored, especially since it's not even considered a double post if you wait 10 minutes to post again, which is stated in the rule, which I'll post below.

Also note that it says posts in reply to the same post or yourself. (And if you click the wrong reply button just to be an ass, don't think we won't call you on it. It says who you're replying to, not specificially which post your posts says it's in reply to.)

It should also be noted that replying to every post in a thread just to be smart, while inside the rules, is not allowed. Yes, I've done it before, and I've been warned and had my posts merged. Anyone feeling like being a smartass and doing the same thing(I'm talking to you, D3v), will have the same thing happen.

Somebody violated that last rule very recently.

Oh well.

Where? If one of the people involed doesn't want something posted publicly, they should alert one of the staff.

Maybe demod Soveriegn, he doesn't stop here anymore, no need for him to be a 'staff' member.

It was a PM of mine that somebody posted publicly, but I really don't care.

D3V, neither does Medieval Bob and they're both Sup. Mods.

Zing, remove both of them, and assign 2 people as news posters.

The indecent exposure rule is pretty dumb... I mean, I got temp banned for posting something that could be found in a gradeschool textbook (or at least high school).

I dont think Xenn should be allowed to get banned.

And D3V, i think you're just saying things now so that you can have some peresonal satisfaction by saying that you changed Zelaron. De-Modding them will do nothing. You can still add 2 newsposters. The problem is, who the hell wants to be a newsposter?

Misleading link is as K_A said, too onesided. Either it's bannable or not, when really there are instances where it could be okay, or for comedy. Trojan and links to porn, and/or virus websites or anything that could be harmful should obviously be bannable, but if you link to a Rick Roll'd video, or something stupid, like a yougotowned.com website, then the comedy and sarcasm should be noted, and not taken seriously.

Wholeheartedly agree. Because I'm about to post a misleading link that is completely harmless.

Watch out!

Then clearly define the difference between a harmful misleading link and a non-harmful one, and the rule might change.