Tyteen wrote:.....but from what I see in other forums they either have warning/infraction kept to themselves and the mods or not show to the user at all. ..... Marinus about spammer-has-mod-as-friend-thing: Moderators should always be clean. Regardless of the relation of the rule breaker, he still broke the rule. A mod is required to not do such things
Yes, they
should be. Also a king, an emperor, a president, a senator etc. should be... Let me say that I don't distrust Qloof or a potential second/third moderator; I just want to say that nobody is 100% objective. Let me ask you Tyteen and all of you:
Keep 2 forum-members in your mind, A: the one who you like most, and B: the one who you dislike most, who's always annoying and bothering you. Both people make exactly the same breaking-of-rules. If you were moderator wouldn't you rather say to A: "I trust that you don't do it again, so let's forget about it this time, my friend", and to B: "You get an official warning"? If I had to answer that question, I wouldn't dare to say 100% sure. Also, Lady Justice has to be blindfolded, (no matter if she's represented by one person, or by a small group) which means that the general public has to keep its eyes wide open to check if she doesn't take a sneaky peek.
Of course it's not my intention in the first place to get "criminals on the pillory", but it definitely will be a good deterrent. Also it won't be good if people go look at the "spam/trash subforum" with the intention of: "Well, let's see who's been bad today." But on the other hand, there should be a way for everyone to get access to all available information.
I said several times before that I don't want to be a moderator. Which means that I don't want special powers to (re)move posts and such. All I want to moderate, is doing it my own way, which you all probably know what that is: By a good serious reasonable talking / discussion / debate, sometimes mixed with a bit humor. And I only can do that if I have access to all secret information. Or, even better, no secret information at all. Because, if the well-being of this forum depends on secret information sent by PM or such, it can cause the same situations as happened in the past.
Tyteen wrote: - it can be easy to find out. (How I do it: let another mod handle it)
In case we have only one adm. and only one mod. it will mean in my opinion that the adm. has to check all the mod's activity's, which won't be good for either of them.
14-09 Tyteen wrote:3. I am lost here.
4. A 'massive amount' doesn't have a static limit - common sense will help. Individual cases means warnings will only stack if the user is spamming again in a short period of time since the warning is given.
10-09 (4 days earlier) he wrote: A suggestion on using 3.studIo AS A REFERENCE is because it is more updated and prevents every out-of-the-rule happenings in this forum currently from happening. E.G Profanity (in the old rule it only stated that to Play nice, and did not actually ban profanity)
That's pretty contradictory in my opinion. It seems you want rules that clear that it's always 100% sure if a rule is broken or not. (which is definitely not possible in my opinion) On the other hand, to decide how many times a rule may be broken, in how long time, also, after how much time a breaking-of-a-rule can be forgotten, (things which are actually easy to describe in the rules) you want to use "common sense" for! Who's common sense? Mine, yours, Qloof's, Patrick's?
So for the moment I stay which my my suggestion here:
http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258833#258833 which makes clear all those things, without common sense needed. Just in case it's going to be decided that a public subforum for that purpose will be not appropriate, my second choice will be the way Patrick did last day, giving a user an official warning in public, but only to be found by a good search. (Still keeping the "how many times in how much time, and the Statute of limitations)
Next part may be a little bit off-topic, since it's not a rule about the off-topic's but a general rule instead; About the avatar/signature stuff. I think the current rule is sufficient if it's about the size. However, there's nothing said about flashing /moving pictures. I would like to suggest: A picture in avatar or signature may be animated, but it should
not look like a movie. The area of the moving part may be not bigger then 25% of the total surface, also depending on, how contrasting the colors are. (I have to admit; a bit common sense is needed, but I don't see another way yet) Also: using a picture of someone who or something which stands for "evil", such as Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Satan / Lucifer / the devil are not allowed.
Tyteens other rules:
http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=258547#258547
-Personal... Should be a strong advise, but not a rule which
must be kept. Everyone is free to post his/her own personal information things. If it's about someone else, of course only with the otherone's permission.
- Signa.... personal photos > not agreed. If I would want to see my own face in my avatar, should be no problem. About the rest I mostly agree. Only I would like to have a better description such as: Don't use pictures which are related to evil, violence, politics, religion, racism, and sex. Also what I said about it above here in this same post.
- PG things (and also profanity which is 3 rules further.) For this I would also have a more clear definition. All that I can do is search on Wikipedia and find that PG(13) is such as an age-related-limit for movies, and a small list of "swear" words. Lots of common sense needed here.
If you are uncertain as to whether a certain subject, word, image, or link is allowed, contact a moderator or administrator before adding it to this site.
Not agreed. (At least not a moderator.) Because that means a moderator /administrator should color an unclear rule by his/her personal opinion.
If you want to use this rule, there should be a complete clear list of things which are not allowed. That's probably impossible, so let's keep it on common sense (and a good debate.

)
BTW, I didn't think of racism, added it to the avatar rule, after I read it in this rule. I may have forgotten more things though.
- Langua... OK, but may be broken once in a while for a joke or such. Addition: Please write correct English which can be found on a translating site (such as:
http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/ ) Also, if you mean "you are" you may say "you're" but not "your" because that means something different. (I did make that mistake a few times, but I try not to do.)
- Spamm... Fine! Can also be discussed later, if a certain post is spam or not. Addition: If someone asks you why you post something which may be spam, please give a reasonable answer. And please be consistent.
Also do not make unnecessary quote's. Quote only that sentence which you are replying to. (maybe this should belong to another rule instead of the spam-one though, but I'm not sure which one.)
- PM things... OK, but is hard to be kept since an admin can't read other people's PM's
- Troll.... OK. (I think I'll say more about that, related to Muzo's rules of the thumb.)
- Bump... Do not Bump, unless you have really something to say what you forgot to say earlier.
- Posting sty.... OK Addition: Don't use CAPS without a good reason.
- Naming.. Not agree: Offending in public > Talk about it in public.
- Impersonating... 1st part agreed. 2nd part: If I think someone does things which are not appropriate, I don't like to act sneaky "behind his/her back."
- Religion... Fine!
- Multipl... OK.
- Postin... OK.
- Thread... The mod should leave a link to the moved topic.
- Profile.... Not sure what that means, but I guess it's OK.
- Sign... Do not mention a rule more then once.
I think if these rules are going to be used, they need to be adapted a bit, some merged, and integrated into the existing rules, using a clear numbering.
I think Muzo's rules also should be used:
http://pcpuzzle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17284
1. Not quite sure what that means.
2. OK
3. OK
4. Well sometimes I use to say something serious, but with a bit of humor. I think that's not really sarcastic, but when someone doesn't quite understand, I use to explain clear what I mean without the humor. I think if we keep it that way it should be fine.
5. OK!
6. OK
7. OK
8. OK
9. Well, maybe some reasonable talking or critical questions without being angry may be fine. If you start getting angry; ignore them.
10. OK
BTW, Muzozavr, several people have suggested you for moderator. Several more, including Patrick, have agreed with that. I saw no one who disagreed,
(well, maybe one person who only came here to complain a bit.) so, if I may ask you, what's your opinion about:
- All these stuff? (this entire topic)
- Being a moderator?
Qloof234 wrote:... I'm already used to them from 3.s/WonderForum moderation as well.
tyteen4a03 wrote:... He is a trained monkey in that kind of situations

wat?
Well, it seems you already answered your own question, even before you asked it.
Oh, and before I forget: Anyone dares to quote this entire huge post; He/she must die!
