Thandal Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 CHAPTER V - Thread NecromancyThread Necromancy is...---- This is solvable technologically, why make it something that people can do wrong? Threads could automatically be marked "archived" after 30 days of no activity, and the thread is locked. Why not use tech to guide people to correct behavior, when possible.I'll let the site coders respond to this one. Chapter IX - VigilantismVigilantism is... Performing a moderators job or impersonating a moderator by telling someone they have done something wrong or against the rules.---So telling a peer, that they might be doing something that might merit a warning that they might repent and not be warned, is a no no? Surely you aren't hoping people will stray down a wrong path severely and get a warning if someone could warn them off of some forbidden act? This is exactly what's being defined by Dark0ne as "not allowed". Especially if one tries to do it "in public" by replying to someone else's post. The chances of creating more problems (for yourself and others) far outweigh any possible benefits. Chapter X - Constructive Criticism Constructive criticism is voicing your concern about an idea or implementation of a mod as well as providing a possible solution.----????? This one I don't get. If someone has a problem -- and they are brainstorming and someone thinks .. "no no, that won't work, see, if you try it this way, you'll get what you want..." That's bad?? Is black, white and Green, Red as well, or am I misunderstanding? Usually *constructive* criticism vs. just criticism is a lot more helpful and wanted that destructive criticism, or just ignoring the person -- and then they don't know what they did wrong and don't get any help -- but maybe I'm not understanding what you are intending...See: Difference between constructive criticism and trolling. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bben46 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 @Astra_Thanks for actually taking the time to read our rules. :thumbsup: I think you are reading in things that are not there. Thread necromancy: There ARE legitimate reasons for digging up dead threads. And the rule allows for that. Forum Vigilantism: Is for those a-hats who constantly try to police the threads by flaming or trolling minor offenders "nya nya nya I'm gonna report you cause you used a naughty word" :rolleyes:. Almost all of our bans are visible - count the ones for Forum Vigilantism - if you can find any. Constructive Criticism: A very good example of taking a single phrase out of context. What you quoted is the definition of what IS allowed. NOT what IS NOT allowed. Maybe that section should be labled 'Destructive Criticism' instead. :biggrin: There is a big difference between constructive criticism - allowed and encouraged, and negative or destructive criticism which can get an instant ban. Example: "This mod sux". Yup, that's criticism all right. But how is it constructive in any way? There is no attempt to tell the author why the poster doesn't like it - except maybe a personal dislike of that type of mod (covered in another rule) there is no attempt to give any advice. And it could easily discourage the author from making any more mods or even improvements in that mod. Multiple Accounts: Sorry to hear about your affliction, I will send a separate PM to your other personalities informing them they are banned. From now on all of you will have to use the same account. :tongue: I have actually seen that multiple personality used as an excuse for trolling. "It wasn't really me it was my other personalty(or brother, sister roommate, dog etc) using my account - so I shouldn't be banned for what he did." I doubt if their teacher believed that either. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif We have had many problems with multiple accounts being used to intentionally violate rules. - To harass other members, as sock puppets to upvote a person's own mods. To downvote a mod. And mostly to bypass a ban and keep on trolling. Here is one you seem to have missed (from the Terms of Service) These rules are open to interpretation by moderators of the site. That gives us a lot of leeway in what we do in that we are not locked into things like we MUST give a strike for thread necromancy every time - nah, usually its someone just didn't notice the date on the thread. Who cares? If it really is something that should not be resurrected, I just lock it and let it slide. Maybe with a PM suggesting starting a new thread if I think it is reasonable. :wink: We have over 3.5 million members now. Someone once calculated that our ban rate is something like less than .01% Most people don't seem to have any problem staying within the rules, even if they didn't bother to read them. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphabeticjunk Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) @Astra_Thanks for actually taking the time to read our rules. :thumbsup: I think you are reading in things that are not there. Thread necromancy: There ARE legitimate reasons for digging up dead threads. And the rule allows for that.I guess I missed that part. Forum Vigilantism: Is for those a-hats who constantly try to police the threads by flaming or trolling minor offenders "nya nya nya I'm gonna report you cause you used a naughty word" :rolleyes:. Almost all of our bans are visible - count the ones for Forum Vigilantism - if you can find any.===== Well, I was a bit taken aback when I saw the word Vigilantism in a forum. I had this picture of somehow a group a members getting together a lynching mob... and .. well it sorta fell apart then... hung their mod by a tree until it was dead? ;-) Constructive Criticism: A very good example of taking a single phrase out of context. What you quoted is the definition of what IS allowed. NOT what IS NOT allowed. Maybe that section should be labled 'Destructive Criticism' instead. :biggrin: There is a big difference between constructive criticism - allowed and encouraged, and negative or destructive criticism which can get an instant ban. Example: "This mod sux". Yup, that's criticism all right. But how is it constructive in any way? Absolutely! I was responding to what was said...I read the entire context -- it really wasn't clear...but what you say is a no-brainer. Multiple Accounts: Sorry to hear about your affliction, I will send a separate PM to your other personalities informing them they are banned. From now on all of you will have to use the same account. :tongue: I have actually seen that multiple personality used as an excuse for trolling. "It wasn't really me it was my other personalty(or brother, sister roommate, dog etc) using my account - so I shouldn't be banned for what he did." I doubt if their teacher believed that either. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif----My dog has been known to get up on my chair and be sniffing for food around the keyboard, but rare does that result in coherent messages --let alone directed to any specific forum or individual... beagles! ;-) Thanks for the clarifications... I still think the archiving old messages is a good idea -- if someone wants to revive a dead thread they can copy relevant parts into a new note, I'd think, or pm a moderators and ask for assistance.... but that's just me... Happy thoughts and thanks again! P.S. -- one other problem I've noted -- it seems like there is a rule against thread hijacking, but to say that to newbies and then disallow them to post a new thread seems a bit taunting or is something wrong with my account? It made sense not to be able to post a new topic in this admin forum, but I had a question about a mod I went to ask in the mod forum, and it said I couldn't create new posts....(or the button was greyed out)... Am I doing something wrong? Edited March 19, 2012 by Astara_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyKristy Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 You can't create new topics in the mods forum because those topics are auto-created when a mod is created with commenting enabled. There are many other forums that anyone can create a topic in, and your question should either go there or in the comment topic for the mod. If it's about a specific mod, use the comment thread; it's my understanding that the "necromancy" rule doesn't apply to mod comment threads at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlazenM227z Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) How do you request a ban, I'd like to switch user names from BlazenM227z (2009-2012) to my current MarcTBG (2012-2015) third quarter of this year. Edited: The last bit had a redundancy This post will workHowever, there is a forum topic just for this - Here: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/564026-account-closure-requests/ Banned by requestbben46 Edited May 30, 2012 by bben46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orand06 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 This thread has been updated with a few important changes and clarifications. It has also been opened to allow people to ask questions regarding the current rule set. Quick question is it considered a one-liner to agree to a post about a particular bug, if you're having the same problem as what is stated in the original thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddah Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 If the post is not inflammatory and adds to the information on the issue, all is good. If it just say "yeah, this sucks." Prepare to get the boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBodZod Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If the post is not inflammatory and adds to the information on the issue, all is good. If it just say "yeah, this sucks." Prepare to get the boot. I pretty much think the same thing, however, frustration can get the most of folks sometimes and they just want to vent about something that is annoying them. I guess it's best to maybe step back for a few and think about what to post before just going half-cocked and blurting out whatever is vexxing you at that particular moment ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathByCactus Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) edit: nm found it. Edited June 26, 2012 by DeathByCactus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceBarName Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 You can no longer enter chat. Copy from the article The history of messing up Romanian on computers on MICHAEL KAPLAN's blog1997. Adobe Glyph List (AGL 1.0 and 1.1) specifies "Tcommaacent" and "tcommaaccent" instead of Tcedilla/tcedilla (no resolve for Scedilla and scedilla). The consequence of this decision is that Romanian documents using the (unofficial) Unicode points U+015E/F and U+0162/3 (for Ș/ș and Ț/ț) are rendered in Adobe fonts in a visually inconsistent way using S/s with cedilla and T/t with comma below. Good going bad... You are also banned from Computing.com for posting. You are also banned from The Nexus for continuing to post nonsense in unrelated topics. If you are having problems with language, I suggest finding someone fluent in English to translate for you. The machine translations are just not getting across.Bben46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts