Page 7 of 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:03 pm
by Fartingbob
Since i didnt use the invite thread im ok with it gone. It was mainly just full of forum newbs and people spamming the same requests every day for weeks on end.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:42 pm
by MrFredPFL
i am breaking one of the rules :P

i am bumping this thread for 3 reasons.

1. some rules have been amended or tweaked.

2. some rules have been added.

3. some rules which have existed from the beginning are being ignored.

in the case of the third example, i particularly notice that rule 3 is frequently either discounted, or ignored entirely. i will go on record here as stating that i will continue to try to enforce this and the other rules as fairly as possible. we feel these rules are in place for the purpose of making slyck the best possible forum for our users. the rules are not here to spite some particular user or users. in the case of the no politics rule, i can say without hesitation that i have removed far more political comments that i agree with than those that i disagree with.

please respect the rules of this forum. thanks.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:05 pm
by Nutty-Slack
Without trying to be clever, could you give some clarification of exactly what this rule covers.
Be as specific as you like. :wink:

What rule #3 actually states is "No political threads", which to me would imply a topic (thread) being created for the sole purpose of discussing a political subject.
Rather than just the occasional mention of politics within individual posts which is bound to occur from time to time.
How I suspect you're interpreting this rule is a flat: No politics whatsoever. Ever!
If that's the case, then why not make the rule: No politics whatsoever. Ever?

Also what is 'politics'?

Like I say, i'm not trying to catch anyone out.
But some clarification would benefit everyone who posts here.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:19 pm
by MrFredPFL
sigh - this is exactly the problem. you have that opinion of that person because of his political decisions, and you choose to express it anyway, regardless of the fact that this is not a thread about him, or any choice he has made regarding filesharing. it is offtopic and gratuitous. i will add the word "posts" to the rule if you think it will help - but it won't stop anyone doing what you just did, because as you said, you didn't think it was political. i think it was totally political, unless you can convince me that you know him personally, and you feel that way because of your personal interaction with him - in which case it is still totally offtopic. please try to respect the spirit of the rule, regardless of any strict literal interpretation of the wording that you may perceive. to me, that's deliberate hairsplitting. i think you know what the author meant when writing that rule. as for never ever, the rule already clearly states the circumstances in which it's acceptable.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:24 pm
by MrFredPFL
ok, i added the word "comments". i did not add the word "posts" because i could easily see someone using the same reasoning as above to argue "it wasn't a political post, it was a comment in an otherwise non-political post." :roll:

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:53 pm
by Nutty-Slack
Well, it's unfortunate that you think i'm being deliberately provocative here.
What can I say. :roll:

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:07 pm
by MrFredPFL
i apologize for the tone. i appreciate the removal of... what you removed :)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:15 pm
by Nutty-Slack
It was a pretty stupid and puerile example of what I was trying to get at.
Anyway, I think i'm (slightly) the wiser, and I suspect that the addition of "or comments" will help others.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:02 am
by Mrs. 2p
Nutty-Slack wrote:What rule #3 actually states is "No political threads", which to me would imply a topic (thread) being created for the sole purpose of discussing a political subject.

Also what is 'politics'?

I know I've been away for far too long, and things evolve and change and I should just shut up and watch before intervening. But I fear that by the time I'm fully back in the loop and can make that intervention, I will be breaking the "thread bumping" rule by reviving a discussion that will already be old.... so just take this as a "revival" opinion, trying to get back to the original spirit of the rule.

"what is politics?" is a good question... I, for one, tend to think almost eveyrthing is politics, as it has to do with how we envision our communities. In particular, the p2p and Intellectual Property debate is a highly political debate, which gets into issues such as the right to information, the right to access culture, participation in the community we are part of (which is difficult wihtout accessing its cultural products), privacy... yup, highly political! In this sense, almost all interesting threads on slyck (except for those dealing with tech difficulties and specific websites) are political threads. But this is a news site, political threads are bound to abound (forgive the repetition).

in this case, though, "political" is understood in a much more restricted sense, as in partisan politics and inter-governmental relations. In particular, it refers to "gratuitous" comments on partisan and inter-governmental politics, which add nothing to the file-sharing debate, do not contribute to enriching the thread in which the post was made, and/or do not make slyck a "smarter" site to read.

...all this with special intolerance towards unargumented slogans bitching or glorifying political stances which insult the poster's intelligence rather than show off his/her understanding of current affairs and major issues at stake.

there was a time when political discussions took place on slyck. And I remember the day in which we decided that people should just be sensible, and go back to "shar[ing] something intelligent". That's when the rule went up.

Things have probably evolved since then, and the rule may have become stricter, but I haven't seen the spirit change: just keep discussions on slyck intelligent, argumented, and content-full, rather than slogan-driven. ;)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:49 am
by IceCube
applaudes 2p's post

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:30 am
by enigmax
Seems simple to me. No discussions unrelated to file-sharing that are likely to divide the community.

Rule of thumb: It's ok to split the community with file-sharing issues but not with a discussion about anything else.

Do I get a badge?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:41 am
by MrFredPFL
/me hugs mrs. 2p (without the tom mask ;) )

and enigmax: yes, thank you. well said. the cheque is in the mail :)

seriously - i don't think the issue should be so complex. we try to be fairly liberal (pardon my choice of words ;) ) about what is ontopic and what is offtopic. we ask that people specifically avoid going offtopic in a political vein. and please don't argue that everything is political. it may be to you, but it isn't to everyone, and if you're convinced that you know the truth and they don't, please don't use slyck as your place to convert them to your own particular brand of wisdom. i for one happen to believe that not all people have ulterior political motives for everything they do, and as a wise man once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. as stated in the original rule, there are countless other places for political debate.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:07 pm
by Mrs. 2p
/fetches princess leia braids
/hugs back


Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:16 pm
by agarath
Well I some how think they at demonoid have deleted all the Canadian account as I can't log in via proxy no how....

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:20 pm
by MrFredPFL
ummm - and what exactly does that have to do with the forum rules?

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:10 pm
by edokun
Great, i'll follow the rules.

greetings from Peru.

Re:so is this why you prevent me form helping my countrymen

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:08 am
by chronoss2008
imade post that i wanted to add a link to , phone mubers and emails of members of parliament and you prevented me from editing my post.
thanks this site is now dead to me.

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:33 am
by countrypirate
What the hell :popcorn:

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:37 am
by NocturnalVagabond
ROFL @ irony ..... spammer hitting the Forum Rules thread :lookup:

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:13 pm
by countrypirate
Spammer who me


Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:54 pm
by SlyckTom
How's that avatar contest going CP ;) ?

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:16 am
by Fartingbob
I think its going bloody well.

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:30 am
by MrFredPFL
i think we need a new rule about drive-by cricket messages. this is when someone sends you a bizarre message, out of the blue, about cricket, and then disappears, rather than answer you when you say wtf.

tom, what do you think? :P

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:38 am
by multivariable
Nothing wrong with a drive-by cricket message. Or any cricket message, for that matter. :wink:

Re: Forum Rules

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:41 am
by Psycho Ced
My hero!!!! :D