|
Post by lovelylemontree on Aug 6, 2008 23:21:42 GMT -5
The rules of other forums are irrelevant. We're talking about the rules on this forum.
If you read the board rules, it says which avatars and which size are allowed.
|
|
lilafowler
Sitting For The Johanssens
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by lilafowler on Aug 6, 2008 23:26:52 GMT -5
You told us that already
|
|
Rie
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 1,998
|
Post by Rie on Aug 6, 2008 23:31:40 GMT -5
Cait Sith: I don't think we should allow enormous avatars.
|
|
|
Post by sparklymouse on Aug 7, 2008 15:33:10 GMT -5
I turned the avatars and signatures off about a year ago. I don't miss seeing them at all. how? You just go into your profile and click the modify button. At the bottom of the page is a list of preferences with yes/no options. Of course I had to go turn mine back on just to see what all the fuss was about. Yeah, they got turned back off pretty quickly.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Oct 2, 2008 3:05:50 GMT -5
What about avatar size? I been on many forums that have Ginormus sized avatars that are really huge. Pluys, I am attached to my avatar anyway. I wouldn't worry about what others say to you about the size of your avatar. Others had avatars in the past that were larger than allowed and no one really got after them about the rules for it. It just seems as if some are allowed to break the rules and have no body care about it but others, when they do, people throw the rules at them. For instance, there was this user, aln, who often double of triple posted and no one seemed to mind, but it was always brought to others' attention when they did it. It just seemed a lot more pleasant when people were free from having others lord the rules over them. And "people advising people of the rules" seem to be a tactic that's used to dissuade new members from being more active by making these boards seem not as pleasant. p.s. As for myself, I DO want you to tell me if I'm doing something against the rules or that has an inkling of a chance of getting this board shut down. Since I don't want to see this board get shut down.
|
|
|
Post by booboobrewer on Oct 2, 2008 15:30:08 GMT -5
aln still posts here occasionally, you know, so using her as an "example" is not altogether fair, and furthermore, not really even relevant, because she did always want to facilitate discussion, and made sure if she double posted that her posts had substance.
There it is; that's only what others want as well. If you see it as "domineering," "policing," "lording," you're certainly entitled to have that opinion, but I see it differently. It's always difficult to interpret someone's tone over the internet. I honestly don't think anyone (and I include myself in this) who has tried to "advise" others is doing it in a way that is purposely harsh. Tactics to dissuade new members? Hardly.
You know, when young kids began posting, it was clearly against the rules of proboards for them to do so. This did raise some questions. Would they have been allowed to if moderators were here? I don't know. But personally, I feel the boards became "not as pleasant" when people decided to join only to call members out on certain threads. They became not as pleasant when we started getting spammed. They became not as pleasant when members started triple posting for no good reason. Do you expect people not to voice their opinions on these things?
Please understand that I'm not upset or trying to start an argument or anything, just explaining my view. I enjoy these boards a lot, always have, and it's too bad that someone might think I or anyone else may be putting on airs or getting self-important about stuff when that is really not the case. At all.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Oct 5, 2008 13:50:57 GMT -5
I don't know how using aln as an example isn't fair. I'm not using her in a negative way at all. I don't h ave a problem with anything she did. It is the behavior of certain others that I'm highlighting as negative. Anyways, a person is double or triple posting no matter what others judge the quality of the content of the posts to be. If a person is posting 2 or 3 posts in a row then he/she is double or triple posting. It's only your opinion if you think that her posts had substance or not. And it is only your opinion if you think that a particular person seems to you to be posting "for no good reason." You can't bend the rules for her just because you like her or her posts (and I do like her a lot). If you break the rules, then you are breaking the rules. That "example" (your words) was perfectly relevant; I guess I didn't make the connection clear enough the first time. Let me try again: If aln and others are allowed to break the rules (aln: double/triple posting, others: having an avatar size larger than allowed) and/or at least not get "called out on it", then others should be allowed to break the rules and not get "called out on it" (double/triple posting & having avatar sizes larger than allowed). If not, then that is hypocrisy. Did you expect that people weren't going to raise their voices about this?? I actually haven't seen anyone that has joined recently that joined in order to "call people out." I've only seen people who have been here for a while that have "called people out" for supposedly breaking some of the rules. And lastly, I didn't really expect for anyone to admit to it when I mentioned how people were using "[it] as a tactic to dissuade others." It just seems as if only certain people are being "advised of the rules." And I never thought that your tones were harsh or that anybody was "putting on airs" or "getting self-important." P.S. And besides, if anybody wants to join this discussion, feel free to. Don't be shy. People usually shy away from these though. I'm surprised that booboo was the only one that responded.
And if you don't like this one, start another one. Yeah, I'm not that good of a person to bicker with (for various reasons). And relax, it can be fun . . . but people have to join.
|
|
|
Post by booboobrewer on Oct 5, 2008 18:26:45 GMT -5
I'm quite aware that rules are rules and if they are broken, they're broken, despite the content of the posts. Maybe I didn't make things clear either. What I was trying to say was that it seems unfair to compare posts that have no punctuation, and don't further discussion of the books, and quite honestly, don't make a whole lot of sense to most people, with posts that do seem to have the best of intentions--that is, the intention to provoke interesting discussion in a forum of BSC lovers.
You say it's only my opinion if I deem a post substantial. Of course it is. Anything anyone posts here is their opinion. Yet can you honestly say that a post which contains "I agree" and nothing more has substance? If you think so, that's fine, because do I expect everyone to feel the same way? Of course not. And I'm not saying that posting that way makes someone a bad person, or that we should drive them out of town. It is something that is simply discouraged because it is unnecessary.
And another thing--double posting doesn't even bother me. It really doesn't. It only becomes a nuisance when it happens a lot, and in recent times it has happened quite a bit.
I don't want to name names. That's what you did when you referenced aln (and I'm not saying this trying to defend her). If you take a look at some threads you will find people who did register for reasons other than to discuss the books. Now, I'm not saying it isn't THEIR RIGHT to do that, because of course they can. Anyone can register, apparently, and anyone can write whatever they wish.
No, I didn't, that's why I asked that very question in the first place. I know there is always going to be differences of opinion and people will post what they want to post. No one's going to stop them. So you see, I nor anyone else has any "authority" around here, yet you seem to think we are trying to achieve that. We simply would like to keep the boards in good shape.
|
|
|
Post by sparklymouse on Oct 5, 2008 19:15:26 GMT -5
I've debated posting anything in this thread because I'm sure I'll make someone angry no matter what I say. But mcpon wanted replies, so replies she shall get.
I guess I don't understand exactly what you're upset about. Are you talking on behalf of other posters or for yourself? Because this at the end of your first postconfuses me a bit. Your issue seems to be mostly with people picking and choosing who they want to correct, but then you say you want to be told if you're breaking the rules. So how should it be decided when to say something and when to let it slide? I think the age limit is a legitimate issue. I have little patience for posts I can't read and I think anyone who is truly within the legal age limit for this board should be able to write clear ideas. Thirteen is at least a 7th grade education, and you must admit that some of these posts don't add up to that.
As for people being afraid to post, I don't know what to do about that. I feel like I have practically BEGGED people to jump in and start talking. There have been days where I'm here talking to myself because nobody else has posted. (All those who have thought "Get a life, Sparklymouse" raise your hand. Or not. I may cry. ;D )
|
|
Penny Lane
Sitting For The Arnolds
The Girl With Colitis Goes By
Posts: 2,888
|
Post by Penny Lane on Oct 8, 2008 14:29:37 GMT -5
I don't have a lot to say. We have rules here, we don't have anyone to actually enforce those rules, so we have to self govern. We don't have any recourse for people who want to be obnoxious or trollish or rude. We can't just have the posts deleted or moved. That is why people are constantly repeating the rules. We also don't want to alienate people who do contribute to discussions.
There are also some problems that could get these boards shut down. Sharing links to copyrighted information, posting when you are under 13, and things that haven't happened yet but could...
That is stuff that people should: a.) know better by now and b.) know if they had read the thread that says "read this first". The most we can do is politily ask people to re-read the rules. But that's not alway going to work, so we just say the rules in the threads.
I'm also really concerned about the younger than 13 crowd that is on this forum. We do have a few threads that are not really appropriate for younger pre-teens. (well, i'm cool with it, but I don't want parents complaining and getting us shut down because their kids learned something about sex that they should know anyway, but their parents didn't think they were ready for it) .
I also wouldn't want to use these boards if it turned into an endless string of "me too!" and "i like that too!" and "I agree" ... where people just post to get their post count up and show off their signatures and user icons and things are flashing and blinking and it's enought to give someone a seizure.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Oct 10, 2008 20:54:56 GMT -5
When Aln double-posted, it was usually bumping up a thread from several months earlier which no one had replied to. Thus, it wasn't "double-posting" in the usually-understood sense of the term. If she had merely edited a post, no one would have read it. A new thought after several months merits a new post, in my opinion.
I also want to agree with what penny lane and booboobrewer already said. The rules are there to ensure quality.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Oct 23, 2008 15:50:08 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand exactly what you're upset about. I wasn't really upset; I was just in a mood for bickering, of which has passed (now this is becoming more of a chore). If you didn't reallyunderstand, then oh well (not suggesting that you're really bummed out or anything ;D). I don't really care to try to clarify. The reason why I named aln, booboo, is because you might have wanted specific proof, or else it seems wishy-washy about who I can possibly be referring to as YOUR references seem to be . And referencing aln in these posts is not nearly as "foul" as accusing people of "registering for other reasons than to discuss the books," since you really don't know people's motivation for joining but aln's double/triple posting is factually right there. (If I go any further, I might hurt someone's feelings. ) The rules may be there to "ensure quality," greer, but it is also there to ensure fair treatment (or respect as it is termed) among fellow users, regardless of age. I'm just trying to get everybody on board with that rule, since it is indeed a rule. And, no offense, but let's be honest, all of us avid posters here have posted really retarded (no substance) posts, so who are we to judge other people's posts? To Sparklymouse: I'm going by Amalia now, since Mcpon just seemed too masculine-sounding. (I googled Mcpon and found some creepy users who go by that handle.)
|
|
|
Post by sparklymouse on Oct 23, 2008 20:07:44 GMT -5
^Re: your screen name. You were switching your name like once a week there for a while, so I just referred to you as what most people know you as.
|
|
|
Post by booboobrewer on Oct 23, 2008 20:18:05 GMT -5
No, that's not accusing, because I'm not blaming anyone for their reasons, and it seems pretty clear what one's motivation is just from where and what they post, is it not? Anyway, I'll try not to go any further either, because I'm not concerned with this anymore. I'm out.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Oct 23, 2008 22:45:30 GMT -5
Anyway, I'll try not to go any further either, because I'm not concerned with this anymore. I'm out. ^ Quitter. Anyways, "I'm out" too. It was more fun on other forums. We had more enthusiastic participants. Oh well.
|
|