Forum Warning Guidelines Discussion

Seriously guys!!! I always found it funny no matter what Forum or what game you are playing people are always going to speak there minds. Ya some people really need a kick in the butt, But There are always going to be Ban Happy admins! Give some one a little power and they think they are on top of the world. You cant say anything these days without offending someone. Its an online forum, Easiest way to do it in my opinion, is have no rules. Then there is nothing to complain about!

• Links to copyrighted content

This needs to be clarified, I think. As written, it would almost completely disallow links. Even links to other posts on this very forum would be disallowed, as per the "Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd" message at the bottom of the page.

It should probably be changed to read something along the lines of "Illegally linking to copyrighted content" or "Illegally distributing copyrighted content" or something similar.

We are now happy with the results and will be localizing the guidelines.

I would still encourage you to change the following:

• Links to copyrighted content

As an example of why this is bad, here are 4 posts which would fall afoul of this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2423053 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Twitch Interactive, Inc"

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2422539 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Mudspike.com"

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2412437 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Valve Corporation."

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2292287 -- Contains link to content "©2015 Google"

Under the new policy, these would earn you a 120% warning and 3 month posting suspension.

I highly doubt this is what you intend, but if what you say and what you intend are different, you have not succeded in your goal to make the rules "fair, clear and accountable."

What it means is content that could be downloaded or viewed illegally, such as posting a manual from somewhere without permission... in the examples you show, I think there is permission to share... what do you think?

Yes, that is probably exactly what is meant. However, it is not what is said.

How is a 10% warning, or any odd amount, going to show on a bar graduated in 20% increments?

What is wrong with selling or trading modules, if I may ask?

Lvl 4. – 40 percent permanent warning (no expiration).

• Module trading, selling

• Attacks on Eagle Dynamics staff, other forum members or moderators

• Product feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending. However, critical feedback that is mature, truthful and reasonable is welcome

• Extreme cases of using other social media to spread untrue, malicious information with the intent to harm Eagle Dynamics

• Posting of online cheating and exploit methods

• Posting links to phishing/scam pages

• Pornographic content

• Racist comments

• Real life threats

Wow - I have not realised that - not that I was trading or selling anything... Can I have a link at the rules?

It's against forum/ED rules.

I think is best when building a rule (or a pair) not to have inside it two statements that give for same action but in different circumstances or subjective measures totally opposed and ultimate punishments or rewards.

my example is this:

Lvl 4. – 40 percent permanent warning (no expiration).

...

Product feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending. However, critical feedback that is mature, truthful and reasonable is welcome

The first part refers to 40 points warning and basically banishing. So it's like a capital punishment. This part in itself is a bit to be worked on because it is vague or subjective to each ones interpretation. Condescending feedback? = ban? That means a joke can be in this situation. Plus, due to internationalization the thresholds are blurred by cultural or language differences/difficulties.

But the most detrimental part is to have after the statement that punishes, same action but with different subjective interpretation that is actually welcomed.

In such situations you will have polarization. People will either spite the rule and then in time it will be more and more quickly punished with the capital punishment or... people will "behave", like in the face of a ruthless kingship and less and less feedback will be given (good or bad) to avoid the punishment.

A solution to this problem would be to keep the sentence/rule/guide line, but move it at a lower warning such that after a ruling against ones feedback he can adjust not lose head.

But isnt it common sense that if you dont own the rights to post something, you probably shouldnt be posting it?

Yes, but the rule states no posting links to any sort of copyrighted content, it doesn't have any requirement of being illegal.

Most of all, we want them to be fair, clear and accountable.

If this is the point of the rewrite, having a rule which could be applied to more or less any situation involving a link, at the discretion of a moderator's whims, does not achieve the goal.

It may seem like the intent of the rule is obvious, and to an extent it is. But if the letter of the law doesn't match the intent, sooner or later, it is going to be applied in a case where it is fuzzy whether or not it's right, someone is going to say it was just because the moderator didn't like them, and everything will be back to where we started.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this for my own sake. You can see my post count. More than half of them have been in this thread, trying to convince you of why this rule is phrased poorly. But, I have seen rules applied in very fuzzy ways in the past, and I hope in at least one case I can help clarify things and prevent people here potentially risking a punishment for any link to copyrighted content, even perfectly legal ones, just because a moderator doesn't like it.

Edit:

Not to suggest that moderators are evil or anything, but we're all human and humans are falliable.

Is that not good enough for you now?

I didn't notice the change. Yes, that's far more clear. Thanks.

The first part refers to 40 points warning and basically banishing.

No. With every infraction of this kind, you get 40% permanent warning and your posting privileges suspended for one month. After your third strike, you get one year off. If the first two strikes aren't enough to get the message across, then one isn't listening.

A question to ask (of the higher ups) at this point is; How can a User Edited/ Deleted post ( ie a general member, who only has access to the frontend of the forum), who has chosen to edit their post (for whatever reason), or just plain out deleted their post (again, for whatever reason); have that same User pre edited/ deleted post used in the above situation of the rules as set?

Once a General Member has deleted, or, edited a post, that general member considers the post as No Longer In Existence, for the purposes of this or any other forum? sorry, but this is the way its seen by front end users (different in the Real World, for sure, but that's the legalities of the real world and Emails).

How does that play with the rules as set in the OP?

This was already explained to you, your post was deleted (by a moderator) because it violated rules, you didnt edit it, you didnt delete it.

I'm asking an honest question on something entirely different, Sithspawn, and on topic :)

Ah, that's an interesting information, I wondered about that as well.