(04-30-2015, 10:10 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.

(04-30-2015, 10:12 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 10:08 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 10:05 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote: You could simply go back, and put in a note saying *this opinion has been changed, please disregard this point* that would not generate a warning, as the flow has not been changed, nor has the point that generated the argument in the first place.

Please, mods, Freelance, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was editing a post once an argument had been started, in order to claim that you didnt say what they are claiming you said.

Just to reiterate, this is a thread about MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES. I don't think it's odd that I might have misconceptions or confusion about these new rules in it.

I get that you might assume the worst of me, but please, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume any misconceptions of mine are held in good faith.

That's the whole reason I'm asking these questions, after all.

With respect, the rules have not been modified. The policies just clarify and standardize how we're going to be enforcing them. It's always been against the rules to go mess up a thread using the edit function in bad faith -- and as Nako'li pointed out, the editing rule specifically deals with bad faith editing of posts, such as editing your post to delete something and then claiming you never said it, or just obliterating posts using the edit function as an end run around the mod-only delete function. Editing in good faith -- to clarify, to self-moderate, or even to just strikethrough an opinion you've changed -- is fine. We want people to do that.

I believe the reasoning section in the post talks about the above, but if it's not clear, I can certainly expound a bit more there.

(04-30-2015, 09:05 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: "If you fail to tone it down a bit or back out of a topic when it's clear that you're beginning to offend people rather than simply disagree with them, then you are venturing into punishable territory."

What if you offend someone simply by disagreeing with them?

I just think it's ok if someone reads a post and goes 'This makes me mad'.

I don't think people should get warnings for not always wording things in the most proscribed way. I think the focus should be on posting that impacts the discussion or is needlessly targeting an individual. For example spamming, personal attacks that have nothing to do with the situation at hand, posting non related things to stop a conversation.

If something is offensive to someone, but is appropriate to the conversation at hand, and doesn't personally attack another poster. My reaction would be "So what?"

As others have said, policing offence is just a road we shouldn't go down.

(04-30-2015, 09:09 PM)Edvyn Wrote: if something is pointless why is it bad to call that thing pointless?

would it be considered reasonable to say "this has no point"? because that's what pointless means anyway

what about asking "where is your point"? or "i don't see a point"? this also pretty much means the same thing

pointless shouldn't be considered a rude word, even if used frequently - it's a valid descriptor in many cases, and people who are offended by being told their post was pointless should probably get a clearer point

(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: Offended is not the same as offensive. I'm not sure if your being deliberately obtuse or what, but at this point it seems there isn't any reasoning with you.

I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.

(04-30-2015, 09:25 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Because editing posts is also punishable <_<

(04-30-2015, 10:01 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: However if someone makes a point that ends up generating a warning, and then they edit it later, even if it's because they changed their mind, suddenly that becomes an offence. I was never saying that someone making grammatical corrections is punishable.

Changing a post that says something offensive, mean, rulebreaking, into one that does not break the rules IS against the rules.

As far as I understand.

(04-30-2015, 10:10 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.

(04-30-2015, 10:15 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: However forgive me for feeling the rules are being changed. If the enforcement is being changed that means the rules are being changed.

As a crude example, several states outlaw sodomy, but is one thing to outlaw it, and another to actively try to police people for it.

There are a few rules I was either never aware of, or that were not actively upheld, so to me it feels like this is somewhat of a change.

(04-30-2015, 10:58 PM)☆Flynt Reddard☆ Wrote: Oh hey this looks like a normal thread with a wholesome topic not about triggers or any other asinine things not related to roleplay on FFXIV's Balmung serv-- 


I threw money at a forum hoping to be able to discuss anything freely as so long as it falls under reasonable rules and guidelines and from what I read this is turning into the next Gamergate. Under what circumstances would posting in your signature another means to contact the user be wrong or even questionable. Especially when you can flat out put it in your profile. Triggers are just a means for sheltered folks to stay more sheltered and penned in their little safety box instead of accepting that there are things on the internet that they don't like. It's depressing and an unhealthy way with coping with what makes you uncomfortable. In addition, if there is a link to something like say, a five second audio clip related to the user's character (I'm obviously talking about my sig link), is that illegal? Do I need to tag it? Don't even try to disregard anything I say as argument bait either, because I'm actually pretty rustled by this and would want to toss in my five cents before I pop out to browse the less self-destructive threads on the forum. Serious shame for not going a week without some thread that will rustle some chump's tailfeathers. That's what the moderators should focus on. Get tighter on threads that erupt into things like this, because it just turns into a big shitstorm that causes users to quarrel among one another. 

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid teenager, right guys? 

(04-30-2015, 11:01 PM)Alothia Wrote: We did say that links in sigs can't be for promotion...like trying to sell something on another site or get people to sign up for things with referrals. I'm pretty sure that that's somewhere in this thread.

Also...I don't...I can't...

I don't even know where to begin with responding to your post, so I'm not going to. I'll let someone else handle it.

(04-30-2015, 11:05 PM)Foxberry Wrote: Yeah, Freelance I think said on page one or two that artists' commissions are fine in sigs, but things like GoFundMe's, (I'm going out on a limb here with that) or "Buy my tickets to the next Nicks games" aren't allowed.