Update To Off-Topic Rules

[Constantina 5]

I haven't got a clue. It's just that the two post rule applies everywhere, regardless of the type of off-topic thread.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: callagrafx

The two post rule means that after Person A posts, Person B and Person C must post before Person A posts again. quote>

That rule can only be found in the forum games section...apply that to the rest of the forums and you may as well shut up shop and go home. What is this site becoming?quote>

 

It's not applied to the rest of the forums.  Only to the chatter threads that have no particular topic.

[Camaron 1]

I have grasped what this rule means, though I can view other people getting confused by it. I support the staff of SimTropolis and many other sites in their fight against spam. And if this rule does work then I will support it one hundred percent, but if it really will help, I am not sure, I guess we will find out.

[callagrafx 3]

Ach...forget it...it's obvious any form of social conversation is now frowned upon...may as well delete the entire off topic forum.

[Constantina 5]

Well,

let's hope it works.

[jacqulina 162]

i understand the two post rule now, but what does that mean..? if we are discussing atopic or event or just friendly chit chat say, " how are you today, or are u busy today or perhaps how is school today " and so on, with one member of the forum , will it mean that we will have to stop our conversation untill two other people have joined " watever" before we can continue our discussion ? if so, thats going to take the enjoyment out and the pleasure of being here each day ! i thought that we could talk on here amongst ourselves as long as it wasnt offensive to anybody but it seems that thats not the case. if you can give me a straight answer to this and one more question, then i can decide what i want to do . the second question is, 71 of my posts were removed from the birthday thread with not enough explanation given to me by moderator Mc6ASH, i dont see the harm in me using capitals to emphersise my birthday wishes to those that have birthdays on that particular day/s, and for moderator Mc6ASH to say that i must be " more creative " in wisheing them "happy birthday " is beyond me and the real world..! untill i am given a " facts " explanation to this question, i would like my 71 post removed by Mc6ASH back if possible please,thankyou for reading this.

[sloppet 3]

That rule can only be found in the forum games section...apply that to the rest of the forums and you may as well shut up shop and go home. What is this site becoming?quote>

Well.. On one hand we have a rule that will be a great thing for the ST... Instead of shutting up, you can post... post quality posts The answer to the question "What is this site becoming?" is really easy: This site is better and better every day. And it will be for ever.

Very good idea there! Well.. too bad this Rule was not "updated" a bit earlier... let's say, 6 months ago

But still I like this rule very much, It'll prevent some people from posting useless posts, and maybe they will even this of going into the "real" Chat - The Live Chat. And as some people mentioned double posting, well.. you know, there's the "Delete Post" button/option here, so you can always delete one, and your post count (if someone even cares ) will not change...

It's also nice to see somegood ol' members of ST like that rule (I'm thinking aboout the "Knaveman" aka DT).

Regards,

sloppet

[callagrafx 3]

From the King of Spam, I really don't think you are in a position to critique me or anyone else about quality (anyone remember the countless "no" posts).

Let's call it how it really is..the mods don't like moderating "chat" threads, as they are called, because it means more work for them because there are more posts to read through. These threads do no harm to anyone, except those who are a bit isolationist and cannot grasp the concept of friendly chat. In fact, one of the oldest threads on ST is a "chat" thread, remember.

And funny thing is, a lot of the "good ol' members" of ST left this site, a lot in protest at poor treatment they received. Thankfully they found a good home so the SC4 community can still enjoy their creations.

And btw...how is making people wait between posts going to alter the quality of what's posted? It won't.

One of the longest standing members of this community and certainly the most supportive across the entire site has been reduced to tears by the actions of moderators with underhanded accusations of spam...is that what this site represents?

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: jacqulina

and also there has been server probs and sometimes a double post is caused by this,and also when two people post at the same time replying to each other and theres beats you and goes in as a double post,that does happen occasionally,i know there is a delete button but its a newish thing and people have to get used to using it,and to checking if a double post has gone in.it happened in the kabin and now it has a warning and that was before the new updated rules.quote>

 

There seems to be some confusion here.  The issue isn't double posts.

The two post rule means that after Person A posts, Person B and Person C must post before Person A posts again.quote>

Thanks for clearing that up, Ski... a little bit of bad wording on my part, I guess.

Just to clear this up for you guys, I personally have no problems with conversation in these threads, in fact I do encourage members to interact with each other. However, when the conversation becomes a string of one or two word posts between two members, it becomes tiresome to read and is, to me, a form of spam. Vandy briefly demonstrated the difference between 'spam conversation' and 'hearty conversation', as I like to call it. If you'd like to banter back and forth with someone in a 'spam conersation' type context, we have the Chat available for you to use. If you'd like to keep it away from the main chat, simply make another room for you and your friends to chat in. Also, you can certainly talk on MSN if waiting half an hour for some replies is too long for you.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: callagrafx

Let's call it how it really is..the mods don't like moderating "chat" threads, as they are called, because it means more work for them because there are more posts to read through. These threads do no harm to anyone, except those who are a bit isolationist and cannot grasp the concept of friendly chat. In fact, one of the oldest threads on ST is a "chat" thread, remember.quote>

As beebs laid out above, that's not the case.

[s.i.X 13]

[BlondeTwiggy 43]

I dont have a problem with the rule, but i know some ppl don't like to use chat, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the entire world has MSN lol...... but yea, sometimes its hard to distinguish what is spam ...

[jacqulina 162]

SIX i would like an apology of you as i have just went through my posts in the moose factory and there are only a couple of my posts that relate to what you described you are a very mean person,you should check before you type,thankyou i am not a spammer i read and post in 100s of cjs and other posts

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: BlondeTwiggy I dont have a problem with the rule, but i know some ppl don't like to use chat, and contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the entire world has MSN lol...... but yea, sometimes its hard to distinguish what is spam ...quote>

It's hard to set down rules saying "OK, this is spam, and this isn't."  More or less, it often has to be judged based on the other content that is provided in the post.

Also, we're not targeting any one particular person here.  What applies to one person applies to us all.

[SC4 meister 7]

Hmmm, thanks for clearing that up ski, as I was under the impression the 2 post rule WAS in effect for the whole site. I agree with this rule, 100%. This is a perfectly reasonable rule, and, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, you can use the private topics for small group convos, and you can always PM people. Also, argue nicely and politely please everybody.

[Vandy 110]

Originally posted by: s.i.X I don't mean to be mean or anything here, but even I, Vidioman, the King of Spam, believe that you go a bit too far. Leave out the semi-daily 'Just dropping in hi, I';ll have a coffeee!!!!!' or 'Oh thats so good!!' if you aren't going to add more than that. I may spam, but at least mine had substance.

Not that you're a bad member or anything, but the same post every day is a bit tedious. You could at LEAST add a joke or something to it, shesh.quote>

 

Personally, SIX, I believe your post to be very rude and certainly NOT the type of reply that is appropriate in any Forum.

There is no need to belittle a person over their personal posting habits or the way they word their posts.

Quite frankly, I believe Jacqulina is doing a wonderful thing posting in the Happy Birthday thread.  Imagine, someone deliberately taking time out of their day to wirte a post wishing someone a Happy Birthday.  I believe that to be a very nice thing to do.

Take care of yourself, SIX.  Be Good and Be Well.

Regards,

Vandy

[callagrafx 3]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: callagrafx

Let's call it how it really is..the mods don't like moderating "chat" threads, as they are called, because it means more work for them because there are more posts to read through. These threads do no harm to anyone, except those who are a bit isolationist and cannot grasp the concept of friendly chat. In fact, one of the oldest threads on ST is a "chat" thread, remember.quote>

As beebs laid out above, that's not the case.quote>

However, when the conversation becomes a string of one or two word posts between two members, it becomes tiresome to read and is, to me, a form of spam.quote>

from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

[vab423 8]

The two post rule means that after Person A posts, Person B and Person C must post before Person A posts again.quote>

 

Sounds like rules to a board game.

I truly believe that NO ONE -- Staff or participants -- desires that people not have fun when interacting in a thread.  That would be so counterproductive to the health of ANY Web site.  The SimTropolis membership demographics are very broad -- young members, middle-aged members and old members (no offence to any group, please -- I, myself, am one of the "old fogies" on Staff) and it would be ludicrous to believe that we all think and act the same.  Nonetheless, there is a framework within which we all can operate -- the Rules of SimTropolis. 

Even within that framework, using the suggestions I've outlined above, we should all still be able to have fun and great interaction amongst ourselves.quote>

Vandy, with all due respect, actions speak louder than words and believe me, the rules and moderating (in general) around here are SCREAMING, "you will have NO fun around here unless you have fun MY WAY."  It's much like the little kids who are playing ball but, unfortunately, the kid who owns the ball insists on making up his own rules to the game.  If the other kids don't like it, tough for them.  As a disinterested mostly lurking 3rd party, I have seen a significant decline in politeness, general camaraderie and lot/bat quality in the approximately 1.5 years since I first joined.  The oppression lately has been overwhelming.

Technically the definition of spam is unsolicited bulk messages or message flooding.  I hardly think that two or three messages in a row could be considered flooding.  I'm guessing what's being discouraged here is having someone reply to previous posts separately, but rather to consolidate all posts in one message?  I'm guessing this rule is in effect throughout all sections of the board?  For example, if an author releases a lot and has 20 questions about the lot in his or her showcase board, he or she should answer every question in one post rather than answering each post individually.  

Theoretically, you are correct - within the framework of the rules everyone *should* be able to have fun here.  In reality, there is broad interpretation of the rules and the very fact that there are different standards in different forums and for different people make it very difficult for people to have fun around here.

EDITED AGAIN BECAUSE OF RESPONSE BY SKIGEEK ABOVE:  So this rule is not applicable to other forums?  Maybe it's easier for the moderators to remember the rules since they have specific areas for which they are responsible.  However, for the regular user who visits more than one location, having a different set of rules in different areas makes the rules much harder to remember and more easy to break.

There are 6 counties in a 50-mile radius where I live.  Could you imagine how difficult driving would be and how many traffic tickets I'd have if the driving laws were different in all 6 counties? Has anyone ever considered the idea of having a consistent set of rules throughout the board?

[Vandy 110]

Originally posted by: vab423Theoretically, you are correct - within the framework of the rules everyone *should* be able to have fun here.  In reality, there is broad interpretation of the rules and the very fact that there are different standards in different forums and for different people make it very difficult for people to have fun around here.quote>

 

Hi, Vab.

I do have to agree with you.  In order for this site and its Forums to continue to flourish, a fair and equitable application of the SimTropolis rules must be applied equally across the site and by ALL people -- Staff and membership alike.

When THAT happens, we can all sit back and enjoy ourselves and this wonderful experience called SimCity WITHOUT the hassle of unfair application of rules.

Of course, I also believe in Superman and that pigs can fly so take it for what its worth...

... which, I'm sad to say, isn't worth much.

Regards,

Vandy

[vab423 8]

Originally posted by: Vandy Of course, I also believe in Superman and that pigs can fly so take it for what its worth...

Vandyquote>

 

Vandy I'm so glad you posted this while I was editing my post otherwise I'd be in violation of the law - oops, I think I am because it's a two-post width not one but thanks for this.  I laughed as I took a drink and spit a little water on my monitor. 

[jacqulina 162]

vandy thankyou for your post about six he or she was talking about the moose factory all my happy birthday posts got deleted 71 days at one post a day by mc6ash

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: callagrafx From the King of Spam,quote>

Way back once upon a time in a land of old (Simtrop 3.0 in 2003-04) it was I who had that title.

But times change. And for the better, too. After my dethroning, it was vid's, then it was sloppet's.... and now I almost wanna say it's jackie's....

Anyway, on topic now: a reccomendation for how to avoid confusion: perhaps a new subforum should be created tor "topicless chatter", the relevant threads moved there, and this rule just applied to that forum. Would that be doable?

[jacqulina 162]

i do not spam leave me alone

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: vab423

EDITED AGAIN BECAUSE OF RESPONSE BY SKIGEEK ABOVE:  So this rule is not applicable to other forums?  Maybe it's easier for the moderators to remember the rules since they have specific areas for which they are responsible.  However, for the regular user who visits more than one location, having a different set of rules in different areas makes the rules much harder to remember and more easy to break.quote>

 

The key here is chatter threads that have no specific topic.

Applying this rule to threads that do have a topic would be silly.   Say that in the diabetes thread, for instance, two people got into a conversation, one newly diagnosed person asking questions, the other with years of living with the condition answering them.   That would clearly be a 'hearty conversation', not a 'spam conversation' which Vandy thoughtfully demonstrated earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Anyway, on topic now: a reccomendation for how to avoid confusion: perhaps a new subforum should be created tor "topicless chatter", the relevant threads moved there, and this rule just applied to that forum. Would that be doable?quote>

 

I think everyone is forgetting something here:  even off topic threads are supposed to have a topic.   If we really wanted to be the meanies that some people think we are, we could remove all of the "topicless chatter" threads as a violation of that rule.  The two post rule seemed like a reasonable compromise.

[Vandy 110]

Originally posted by: SkiGeekI think everyone is forgetting something here:  even off topic threads are supposed to have a topic.   If we really wanted to be the meanies that some people think we are, we could remove all of the "topicless chatter" threads as a violation of that rule.  The two post rule seemed like a reasonable compromise.

quote>

 

   

Oh, SkiGeek!

I haven't heard "meanies" in more years than I care to admit!  Thank you for this great revival of a even greater word!  I have really enjoyed this!!

Regards,

Vandy

[ky72x 13]

In my opinion, this will definitely keep the number of posts down in the chat-type threads, but realistically, this is only resulting in flamed comments about one another's posting habits.

[MC6Ash 4]

I thank you for your input on this, every comment in this thread is being carefully concidered. But, please note, that comments in this thread that are bluntly rude, or ones that break other site rules (such as flaming and spamming) will not be concidered in the possible expansion or amendment of this rule.

~Ash~

[vab423 8]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek [Applying this rule to threads that do have a topic would be silly.   Say that in the diabetes thread, for instance, two people got into a conversation, one newly diagnosed person asking questions, the other with years of living with the condition answering them.   That would clearly be a 'hearty conversation', not a 'spam conversation' which Vandy thoughtfully demonstrated earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Anyway, on topic now: a reccomendation for how to avoid confusion: perhaps a new subforum should be created tor "topicless chatter", the relevant threads moved there, and this rule just applied to that forum. Would that be doable?quote>

 

I think everyone is forgetting something here:  even off topic threads are supposed to have a topic.   If we really wanted to be the meanies that some people think we are, we could remove all of the "topicless chatter" threads as a violation of that rule.  The two post rule seemed like a reasonable compromise.

quote>

 

Skigeek, you said it yourself ... in a DIABETES thread, there is a specific topic.  In a topicless thread, there is no topic. Which is why I'm confused as to how one can say "even topicless threads have a topic."  Isn't that an oxymoron?

Some other moderator actually gave a valid reason for instituting the rule, cutting through all the drivel:  because HE (or she) doesn't like to read through all the one- or two-line posts.  While I do not agree with it, at least that person is honest enough to give the real reason.  And as one person pointed out, this topic has been a perfect forum for people to flame other people's posting styles.

I have the utmost respect for Vandy but his definition of hearty chatter (which might not be exactly what he said because I can't scroll back far enough to read his original post) doesn't work for everyone and, quite frankly, isn't appropriate in every situation.  For those of you old enough to know the phrase, think "*****tail chatter."  While perfectly fine amongst friends, it's not generally appropriate in the workplace.  So why isn't the converse true?

The more rules you have in place, the more likely it is you will find that more people look for loopholes.  For example, if you tell a kid not to hit, pinch or sock his sibling, he will more than likely bite his brother and then say, "but you didn't tell me I couldn't bite."  Sometimes it's better to have GUIDELINES which allow for flexibilty in dealing with specific issues.  I would also like to point out that when there are too many rules in place, it becomes a full-time job to monitor and enforce them.

EDIT:  Oh brother I just noticed the board software censored my phrase in the above paragraph.

**** is another word for rooster.  ****tail is also what sophisticated people call "drinks"

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: vab423

Originally posted by: SkiGeek [Applying this rule to threads that do have a topic would be silly.   Say that in the diabetes thread, for instance, two people got into a conversation, one newly diagnosed person asking questions, the other with years of living with the condition answering them.   That would clearly be a 'hearty conversation', not a 'spam conversation' which Vandy thoughtfully demonstrated earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by: Duke87 

Anyway, on topic now: a reccomendation for how to avoid confusion: perhaps a new subforum should be created tor "topicless chatter", the relevant threads moved there, and this rule just applied to that forum. Would that be doable?quote>

 

I think everyone is forgetting something here:  even off topic threads are supposed to have a topic.   If we really wanted to be the meanies that some people think we are, we could remove all of the "topicless chatter" threads as a violation of that rule.  The two post rule seemed like a reasonable compromise.

quote>

 

Skigeek, you said it yourself ... in a DIABETES thread, there is a specific topic.  In a topicless thread, there is no topic. Which is why I'm confused as to how one can say "even topicless threads have a topic."  Isn't that an oxymoron?quote>

Nope, the diabetes thread has a specific topic, while a chatter thread has a mutagenic topic(s).  Meaning that topics are still there, but they can change from day to day and week to week.

[sloppet 3]

Skigeek, you said it yourself ... in a DIABETES thread, there is a specific topic.  In a topicless thread, there is no topic. Which is why I'm confused as to how one can say "even topicless threads have a topic."  Isn't that an oxymoron?quote>

I guess that is this oxy.. er.. soemthing. Don't really know what that is, but it can sure be, well... Darn, I forgot what I wanted to say...

This is a topic, which became very rude and, let's say, mean to some of the good members... Firsty, I would like to apologise to callagrafx if my post has offended him. Maybe just because sloppet didn't come here so often lately, you forgot that sloppet's words have always a hidden meaning, and that sloppet is really a good guy. Some people may call me  "The King of Spam", but for me, it's better now, just because I can go to the chat topic, and be called a $%&^! by a 120 poster... That feels really great.

Well, I think that the problem for some people is the way this rule was, let's say, "presented to us".  That's true some number of the "good 'ol" mebers has left ST. It's true ST isn't as good as it was in "The Golden Year", but hey, some people go, some people come, and some people are just here, and they don't go anywhere... But that's not important. The important thing are the rules, which have to be obeyed, or else the site will go down faster that the Titianic. Duke once said that some people would be banned for the style of their posts on other sites. Well, instead of kicking them away, it's better to add a rule, that will give them a possibility to change they behavior, isn't it?

I don't really know what's the crying all about.. It's a simple, very simple you can say, rule. There's the same rule in the Forum Games, and no one ever complaint about it, so if there's the same rule for the chat topicss, just don't argue with it, because:

1. It won't change for sure.

2. *Insert any good reason here*

3. The Dirktator is always right.

4." 2. Be polite. Please post civilly. Speak to others as you would if they were standing in front of you - the anonymity of the net is not an excuse for poor manners and jerk-like conduct."

And, well, atacking the staff accusing them for laziness isn't so.. nice. The staff is doing a great work keeping the forums user firendly. If some people don't care how many posts they post, they should ignore calling them "a spammer".

As long as the Moose Factory was the only chat topic - there was no problem.. But unfortunately (or fortunately) people thought of some new ones, and maybe that's where all the problems started?

Regards,

sloppet