Forum rules update

Status
Not open for further replies.
James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
Sciforums site rules, posting guidelines and advice to members have been updated today.

Members are advised to familiarise themselves with the updated rules. These are posted as an Announcement at the top of all subforums.

Questions, comments and suggestions are welcome.
 
O.K. then . I read em . I think Alphanumeric is itching for banning by the rules . I think I could name a few more , my self more than likely . please don't ban Me . I am trying to be better . It is hard . Foulness just seems to fall out of me pockets James . It Is not my fault . You all made Me that way . I learn from the old cronies . I look up to then because of there experience . I hope this does not turn into uncertainty like the business environment of the day .
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
I think Alphanumeric is itching for banning by the rules.
Click to expand...

Then hit the "report" button on the offending posts and a moderator will look into the matter. Generic opinions of the kind you've expressed here are useless, as well as being prima facie vexatious towards other members.

I am trying to be better . It is hard . Foulness just seems to fall out of me pockets James . It Is not my fault . You all made Me that way.
Click to expand...

This thread is not meant to be a confessional. If you want to confess, try a priest or something.
 
You may notice the following changes:

  • New introductory material setting out sciforums' site "philosophy".
  • New information on user names, titles and avatars and other registration matters (Section A).
  • New section on passwords and privacy (B).
  • New explicit policy section (C) on account closures.
  • Clarification of the circumstances under which moderation occurs (D).
  • New posting guidelines - advice to members (E).
  • New information about Copyright (F).
  • Clarification of Feedback and Complaints mechanisms (G).
  • Advice on Netiquette (H)
  • Clarification of the circumstances that are likely to result in temporary or permanents bans from sciforums (I).
 
could you tell me what the "few new rules" are?
are there any that result in temp or perma bans?
 
See section I of the updated rules for a comprehensive list of things that may result in temp or permanent bans.
 
ok

We similarly reserve the right to complain to a member’s ISP and/or to take legal action against a vexatious member.

how do you define "vexatious" and what constitutes it
what kind of lawsuits do you plan to file against these vexatious members?
 
We don't plan to file any lawsuits against vexatious people.

Members of sciforums will never be considered vexatious in the context of the part quoted in post #8. One example might be a permanently banned ex-member who kept creating sock puppets to return to sciforums with the intention of spamming the forum.
 
well that is certainly a relief. for a moment i thought you guys have gone batshit crazy :)

is this.....

We reserve the right to ban members who require continual policing by the moderators, those who contribute little useful content, and those who spend their time on the forum criticising it or its leadership.

........ bit new?

i know it is a frequent refrain by you, directed at me. did i provide the impetus and inspiration?

/hopeful

also i see nothing there that mention fraggle's strictures so.....

a - is the use of "kafir" a bannable offense?
b - is posting pm's another bannable offense?
c - is making consecutive posts here and here, bannable offenses?

thanks
 
Gustav said:
well that is certainly a relief. for a moment i thought you guys have gone batshit crazy :)

is this.....

We reserve the right to ban members who require continual policing by the moderators, those who contribute little useful content, and those who spend their time on the forum criticising it or its leadership.

........ bit new?
Click to expand...

The continual policing bit is unchanged from the previous rules. The other parts are new.

i know it is a frequent refrain by you, directed at me. did i provide the impetus and inspiration?
Click to expand...

No. No individual member of sciforums provided the impetus or inspiration for any of the rules. In creating a set of guidelines like this, one must look at general considerations and types of members, not at individuals.

also i see nothing there that mention fraggle's strictures so.....
Click to expand...

I don't know what strictures you're thinking of, so I can't comment.

a - is the use of "kafir" a bannable offense?
b - is posting pm's another bannable offense?
c - is making consecutive posts here and here, bannable offenses?
Click to expand...

a. We have discussed the term "kafir" before on the forum. Nothing has changed since then.
b. Potentially, yes. See Item I.10.
c. See Item E.4.
 
I got eye strain reading part of that rules page! Let's try and make fewer rules so that we can remember them better. I'll forget many of them due to not remembering them.:shrug:
 
Varda said:
Sounds like there has been a passing of hands.
Click to expand...
screaming_hand.jpg
 
cosmictraveler said:
I got eye strain reading part of that rules page! Let's try and make fewer rules so that we can remember them better. I'll forget many of them due to not remembering them.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Shorten it in your own mind.. In other words, imagine the whole page says 'Don't act like a dick' and you should be fine.;)

:m:
 
Civility would be a welcomed change. I do not understand why some member take such a personal stake in posts and attach the other posters with insults.

Acting like an "adult", if you are one, is a good thing.

If you are a kid, just say so, and maybe you'll be cut a little slack if you are nice.

There are stupid questions, but they can usually be answered with a non stupid answer.
 
Last edited:
johnpepper said:
There are stupid questions, but they can usually be answered with a non stupid answer.
Click to expand...

I like the above quote. But you could also say, There are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.

Really both quotes should make a distinction between stupid and ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected by education and good information, while stupidity is generally a condition beyond repair.

And yes this is off topic, though whether the content of post(s) is a reflection of stupidity or ignorance maybe should be considered in the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top