Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
Moderators: EN - Assistant Moderators, EN - Forum Moderators
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7319
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:06 pm
- Gender: Female
- Spoken languages: ES/FR/EN/DE
- Location: Spain
- Contact:
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2010-12-18)
Seeing as everyone agrees, and what Meph told me when we discussed this, I am going to remove the rule.
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
Looking at it...
That definition of "spam game" is pretty bad.
Should probably be something like "Spam games are forum games that encourage (usually short) posts that require minimal thought or effort"
That definition of "spam game" is pretty bad.
Should probably be something like "Spam games are forum games that encourage (usually short) posts that require minimal thought or effort"
- Ami
- Moderator
- Posts: 8429
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:42 pm
- Gender: Female
- Spoken languages: English
- Location: Puppies!
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
The definition is purposefully wide in case someone decides to nitpick the rules and/or try to get around the rules with exact word phrasing in the rules, wherein the spirit of the rule is meant to be more broad.Bad Player wrote:Looking at it...
That definition of "spam game" is pretty bad.
Should probably be something like "Spam games are forum games that encourage (usually short) posts that require minimal thought or effort"
...Also, I'm not gonna change it because loleffort.
since 2008!
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
By the current definition, the counting game isn't a spamgame (the point of the game is counting, so how is counting irrelevant?) while the new DERP Theory thread is (it's literally ONLY for people NOT in the game; I'd say it fits all parts of the current definition perfectly)
There's a difference between a definition being "wide" and "completely different from the thing that's supposed to be getting defined"
There's a difference between a definition being "wide" and "completely different from the thing that's supposed to be getting defined"
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7319
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:06 pm
- Gender: Female
- Spoken languages: ES/FR/EN/DE
- Location: Spain
- Contact:
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
That thread is relevant, it's for people who are not in the game to have a way of participating in the game. It is in a way relevant to the game even though if the actual players won't take information from there, but still not a good example. However, I don't know... Giving a too accurate definition is not that easy, and a spam game can be defined contextually by the staff, so meh. Not a huge fan of changing that, wouldn't bring much imo (although given, it'd be a preemptive measure).
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
"objectively irrelevant": It's related to the game, but it's not relevant
"do not add any real content to the game": This one is a given, considering the groups of people allowed to post in the theories thread and the main game thread are mutually exclusive
"will most likely be ignored later": Are people really going to be combing back through the thread later to check what everyone's random comments and joke theories were?
I agree that a definitive, accurate, all-encompassing definition is difficult, but that doesn't mean you have to have a definition that really doesn't define spam games. I think the definition I gave pretty much hits it *shrug*
"do not add any real content to the game": This one is a given, considering the groups of people allowed to post in the theories thread and the main game thread are mutually exclusive
"will most likely be ignored later": Are people really going to be combing back through the thread later to check what everyone's random comments and joke theories were?
I agree that a definitive, accurate, all-encompassing definition is difficult, but that doesn't mean you have to have a definition that really doesn't define spam games. I think the definition I gave pretty much hits it *shrug*
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7319
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:06 pm
- Gender: Female
- Spoken languages: ES/FR/EN/DE
- Location: Spain
- Contact:
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
Not everyone would post joke-theories you know (Well maybe you would ) Those theories are not ignored by later posts, they will likely be taken into account, since that thread is to drop in theories but also confront them. Then again, it's all up to you how you use the thread, but don't act like you know how everyone else is gonna actBad Player wrote:"will most likely be ignored later": Are people really going to be combing back through the thread later to check what everyone's random comments and joke theories were?
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Forum rules (last updated 2011-08-17)
There have been only joke theories so far, Dan xP Also, only completed chapters are supposed to be read. Meaning that the solution will always be available to the people posting there. Meaning there isn't room for much besides joke theories
And it still fits the current spam game definition pretty well
And it still fits the current spam game definition pretty well