Although a few items are still being discussed and tweaked, the staff has implemented a revised draft of the MTGS forum rules.
The following changes have been made:
1. Brevity and organization. The length of the document has been trimmed significantly, from approximately 2800 words to 1800. The document has also been reorganized to more prominently feature and present important information, and numerous provisions have been tweaked for clarity as well as conciseness.
2. Elimination of the rule against excessive double-posting. Users will still be encouraged to refrain from double-posting instead of editing, but this will no longer be considered an infraction-worthy offense. It will be regarded simply as a matter of good internet etiquette.
3. Elimination of the backseat moderation rule. We feel that many of the cases in which backseat moderation occurred, the user was simply providing a helpful service to members who were not familiar with the rules. Since additional awareness of the site rules isn't harmful to the site (quite the reverse), this infraction is off the books.
4. Clarification of the rule against spam. The former description of spam was as follows:
A spam post is any post that contributes little or no content to a thread. This includes (but is not limited to) a thread not relevant to the forum it’s posted in, posts discussing topics not relevant to a thread, and posting on a thread solely to “bump” it.
The new description:
A spam post is any post that does not contribute an original thought, advance the discussion, or add on-topic content to a thread. Examples of spam posts include, but are not limited to: bumping a thread (other than a haves/wants trading list), discussing a topic that is not relevant to the thread it's posted in, and posting excessively short messages such as "thanks", "k", "QFT", "Oh god no", etc.
5. The rule against advertising has been eliminated in favor of a rule against soliciting for financial gain:
Promoting or linking to content on other websites is permissible for purposes of discussion, but not for the purpose of soliciting for financial gain. Accounts whose only purpose is starting threads meant for advertising will be banned on sight. If you wish to buy, sell, or trade cards or other items, you should confine those activities to the Market Street section of the site, or contact an administrator.
6. The plagiarism section now includes the requirements for crediting artwork.
If you share or modify artwork, include the original artists' full name and a link to the source.
Other issues:
A. Without a number of technical changes, we are unable to rename "warnings" as reminders, but we have endeavored to clarify that that is the function that they fulfill. We have yet to reach a consensus whether warnings/reminders should be reversible.
B. No changes have been made to the color of moderator text at this time.
I like the new definition of spam; it's a tricky thing to pin down at times and involves a lot of subjectivity, but this definition it a lot closer than the old one.
My only concern is that double-posting may get a little crazy, but otherwise, all of these are great changes.
I'm not concerned that it will get out of hand, however I am curious why the previous rule was overturned. It seemed logical that the only need for a double post was to quasi-necro a thread to bring new content to the table.
I'm not concerned that it will get out of hand, however I am curious why the previous rule was overturned. It seemed logical that the only need for a double post was to quasi-necro a thread to bring new content to the table.
As for the list, it's a stellar improvement.
It was a pain in the butt for me. Constantly having to click "quote" then cut/paste into an edit window. I can't tell you how many posts I lost becuase I pushed the wrong button or something.
I mean, I'll still try and do it, but sometimes mulitple posts is useful and helpful.
I'm still not a fan of eliminating the backseat moderation rule for the times that the one doing it can often be wrong and only cause more confusion than anything else. And that's beyond the fact that it's typically spam and the same effect can be had by simply reporting the post and letting the mods do their thing. But even that's more of an irritant than a heinous offense, so I see this change cutting down on warnings and resulting butthurt posters and that can only be good.
Honestly, this just frees me up to break a lot of old rules. Imma be doubleposting, backseat modding and advertising like a champ. **** da police.
I like the new definition of spam; it's a tricky thing to pin down at times and involves a lot of subjectivity, but this definition it a lot closer than the old one.
That was one of the most difficult parts of the rewrite. That definition is the product of at least a half dozen authors, and probably more.
And that's beyond the fact that it's typically spam and the same effect can be had by simply reporting the post and letting the mods do their thing.
Well, part of the discussion about altering the rule (and I hope this is the intent of the staff) is that if a post is doing nothing but backseat modding, it is no longer advancing discussion or adding on-topic content, and would be infracted as spam.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
That was one of the most difficult parts of the rewrite. That definition is the product of at least a half dozen authors, and probably more.
I'll bet! Quite the tricky thing to pin down indeed. Now I don't have to feel as bad for my brief definition of spam in a certain Staff Inbox thread
I do sort of worry about the removal of backseat moderation re: people calling each other flamers and trolls, but I suppose the backseat moderation rule was redundant in that sense anyways because it is flaming. YMMV.
Well, part of the discussion about altering the rule (and I hope this is the intent of the staff) is that if a post is doing nothing but backseat modding, it is no longer advancing discussion or adding on-topic content, and would be infracted as spam.
Which does indeed make sense (I always treated the rule as a variant of spamming with unique hazards), I admit. I just see the possibility of newer users being misinformed or confused by backseat mods giving incorrect 'help'. Though I don't necessarily think that needs to be something that gets punished, per se. Nor is it necessarily a rampant problem, I'd just think it unfortunate to become as issue. The old rule discouraged it, eliminating the rule opens the door to it.
But since it's not a major issue at present and may not even be a likely issue in the future, I'm not going to rock the boat over it.
I think these are all positive changes. Really, the majority of rules tend to be common-sense related, and trimming them down makes it easier for people to read.
I think you guys have done a very good job keeping the line between the rules and open discussion. I hear a lot of talk about strictness on behalf of moderators, but having come from discussing WoW on elitist jerks, these forums are rather lenient to my perception. If you ever have issues with posters complaining of strictness or power hungry mods (looking at the Troll Mod thread on this one), send them over there to learn. They keep a very clean forum though. Mainly because those types of people aren't allowed back.
I think this will be a great boon for the community. Many people have helpful things to add to threads or their own comments that were somewhat stifled under the previous incarnation of the rules. I hope this change is well received by the rest of the community.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
the user formerly known as isopsycho86
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig Legacy RUBFaithless Dredge
I agree with MikeyG about the loss of back-seat moderation as a problem. I see the logic behind allowing forum users to help each other. But, that is viewing the users here as polite and helpful. Many are, but many are also just combative and jerks.
Like always happens around rumor season, someone misposts. Then, because of the high traffic and before a mod gets to it, there'll be 10 or more posts back-seat modding that post. Some will have the rule correct, some will quote the rule, and others will just be flippant about it. Many of them will still have said things on topic. But, as a new poster, I'd be turned off by such a cascade of people yelling at me for my mistake.
I've never had a problem with the Mods here and looking back, the few warnings/infractions I've received were justified. I've always endorsed the Mods and their no-nonsense approach. I'll admit, sometimes it may seem overboard, excessive, etc.
But they definately keep the forum flowing freely, coherently, rather than spiraling into a nonsensical oblivion... on their own unpaid time, mind you.
Of course only time will tell, but I'm confident the changes will only better the site.
And for those who claim the Mods are all power-hungry, what-nots... well, the fact that a thread was made to encourage opininons on what rules needed to be changed/clarified/eliminated = its obvious the Mods care just as much as any new member. They are willing to listen and adjust, just the same as any regular 'ole member. Kudos, cookies, and warm brownies even.
Keep up the good work,
Qtip, Lord of all that is cotton-swabbing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Mysticake" »
(about the English language) It's kinda like a raft that was cobbled together from parts of three different boats and since then has been kept barely afloat with crude repairs every time a leak appeared.
2. Elimination of the rule against excessive double-posting. Users will still be encouraged to refrain from double-posting instead of editing, but this will no longer be considered an infraction-worthy offense. It will be regarded simply as a matter of good internet etiquette.
Not really a fan of this. I am fine with double posting in certain cases but explicitly allowing "excessive" double posting does not actually make sense especially with perfectly functional multiquote and edit forum functions. There is a case for not punishing ignorance (i.e. failure of users to know about the multiquote and edit function) but I don't see why we should allow posters to break up their point into three separate posts (which gets annoying and incoherent when it goes to another page). Under the new rules, it suggests that if I split my post into ten separate posts but somehow "add content" to ensure that it is not spam, I would not be infracted (even though I really should be).
It was a pain in the butt for me. Constantly having to click "quote" then cut/paste into an edit window. I can't tell you how many posts I lost becuase I pushed the wrong button or something.
I mean, I'll still try and do it, but sometimes mulitple posts is useful and helpful.
Not really a fan of this. I am fine with double posting in certain cases but explicitly allowing "excessive" double posting does not actually make sense especially with perfectly functional multiquote and edit forum functions. There is a case for not punishing ignorance (i.e. failure of users to know about the multiquote and edit function) but I don't see why we should allow posters to break up their point into three separate posts (which gets annoying and incoherent when it goes to another page). Under the new rules, it suggests that if I split my post into ten separate posts but somehow "add content" to ensure that it is not spam, I would not be infracted (even though I really should be).
I think time's going to tell on this one.
I can see it making it simpler in the cases where the second post comes some time after the last but the thread is being bumped with new content important somehow to the discussion (examples being a new batch of cards on a custom set thread, an update to an ongoing political event in a debate thread, etc). Though they were never punished in the first place, the removal of the rule eliminates any confusion on that point.
Of course, the other case is that it's going to get annoying and allows people to make even less effort with their posts. If I see posters triple+ posting, I'm probably going to tell them to knock it off because we don't need three posts from them when one will suffice. Luckily, backseat moderation is no longer prohibited.
Fair enough. This is probably knee-jerk since a majority of post reports I make fall under this category and this changed ruling will put me out of job
I can see it making it simpler in the cases where the second post comes some time after the last but the thread is being bumped with new content important somehow to the discussion (examples being a new batch of cards on a custom set thread, an update to an ongoing political event in a debate thread, etc). Though they were never punished in the first place, the removal of the rule eliminates any confusion on that point.
I understand that there are merits in doing so but in the case of Custom Cards, couldn't this be simply allowed in that subforum? As for debates on ongoing political events, I am sure an exception can be made for the occasional breaking news updates but it can get annoying having: -
<POST 1> : <Argument 1>
<POST 2> : "Oh, I just thought about it so <Argument 2>"
<POST 3> : "By the way, in response to a post I just read at the top of the page, <Argument 3>"
<POST 4> : "Oh, and to reply to another post disagreeing with me, <Argument 4>"
<POST 5> : "Ooh, I totally agree with <Argument 5> made by that poster"
<POST 6> : "As I mentioned in <POST 1>, <Argument 1>"
<POST 7> : "Hmm.... I just quintposted / going to hexpost so to summarise, <Argument 1>, <Argument 2>, <Argument 3> and <Argument 4>"
<POST 8> : "...and oh, I agree with <Argument 5> and here are some additional reasons why"
Of course, the other case is that it's going to get annoying and allows people to make even less effort with their posts. If I see posters triple+ posting, I'm probably going to tell them to knock it off because we don't need three posts from them when one will suffice. Luckily, backseat moderation is no longer prohibited.
Actually, I believe that backseat moderation rules should never be repealed since I have seen random posters replying just to harp about the forum rules without adding any content. While viperesque did clarify that this would still constitute spam, the above "Summary of Changes" doesn't make it very clear that this very clear. Also, the example you gave is a perfect recipe for derailing a thread
Again, lots of knee-jerk reaction on my part here so we'll see how things roll out in a few weeks.
Again, lots of knee-jerk reaction on my part here so we'll see how things roll out in a few weeks.
I think it's easy for us to fear the worst with change. Luckily, I have every reason to believe that if any of the rules changes here wind up being abused and cause issues, they'll be altered to put an end to it. In many ways, this is the leniency in forum rules and moderation that a segment of the membership has been crying for for some time. The staff are willing to play along, but if that leniency raises more issues that it solves, they'll rectify it.
I plan on being cautiously optimistic. The staff obviously put thought into it so there's no reason not to be content with their judgment for now. That said, if I notice their leniency being abused on a larger scale, I'm going to raise that concern. I hope I don't have to.
1. Brevity and organization. The length of the document has been trimmed significantly, from approximately 2800 words to 1800. The document has also been reorganized to more prominently feature and present important information, and numerous provisions have been tweaked for clarity as well as conciseness.
Since I didn't actually save the previous document, I am not sure what sort of parts are being slashed / added besides those mentioned in this summary. I don't know if brevity is actually a good thing though; there are good reasons why most rules are designed to be comprehensive rather than brief though I can see the point here -- i.e. improving readability -- so all is good, I guess.
2. Elimination of the rule against excessive double-posting. Users will still be encouraged to refrain from double-posting instead of editing, but this will no longer be considered an infraction-worthy offense. It will be regarded simply as a matter of good internet etiquette.
I believe I have said my piece on this. I could understand if it is a server lag or the forum simply not allowing edits or multiquotes but this is rarely the case (and for the latter, definitely not the case unless you're talking about locked threads here). If a user is unaware of that function, he/she should be informed of that function rather than being allowed to persist. Yes, specific exceptions could be given in separate subforums but allowing this in most parts of the forums that has no real need to double post is just unnecessary and allows for potential abuse.
3. Elimination of the backseat moderation rule. We feel that many of the cases in which backseat moderation occurred, the user was simply providing a helpful service to members who were not familiar with the rules. Since additional awareness of the site rules isn't harmful to the site (quite the reverse), this infraction is off the books.
Similar to the above, while I understand the spirit of repealing this rule, I wish it would be clarified (see my point below).
This is decent but if you must remove the rule on backseat moderation and double-posting with the apparent intent of using "spam infraction" as a catch-all safety valve, maybe you could list instances where backseat moderation and doubleposting would be infractable?
5. The rule against advertising has been eliminated in favor of a rule against soliciting for financial gain
A question though. If I open a thread on MTGS advertising my blog, would I be infracted for advertising if it does not directly solicit for financial gains?
A. Without a number of technical changes, we are unable to rename "warnings" as reminders, but we have endeavored to clarify that that is the function that they fulfill. We have yet to reach a consensus whether warnings/reminders should be reversible.
B. No changes have been made to the color of moderator text at this time.
I am sceptical if these changes would result in any significant improvements. A user who is offended by a moderator action will likely continue to be offended by that action (whether justifiably or otherwise) regardless if you call it a warning in big bold red or if you declare it to be "a humble appeal for the user to adhere to the rules" in rainbow colours and pepper the associated PM notification with pictures of puppies, kittens and unicorns.
A question though. If I open a thread on MTGS advertising my blog, would I be infracted for advertising if it does not directly solicit for financial gains?
Previously, yes, you would.
Now: Probably not, though it depends on the content of your blog.
Just a hypothetical question here because i've never been infracted for anything, (yet) but If one was infracted for backseat modding, (or anything in general) and there is a rules change that disqualifies that rule as a infraction level offense, would a user that was infracted for said rule still have an infraction? Would the same also apply for a suspension? or a ban? In my opinion (which matters very little) I would think that it would be wrong to keep someone banned or suspended for a rule that was no longer enforced on the site.
Just a hypothetical question here because i've never been infracted for anything, (yet) but If one was infracted for backseat modding, (or anything in general) and there is a rules change that disqualifies that rule as a infraction level offense, would a user that was infracted for said rule still have an infraction? Would the same also apply for a suspension? or a ban? In my opinion (which matters very little) I would think that it would be wrong to keep someone banned or suspended for a rule that was no longer enforced on the site.
What about the fact that someone broke a rule while it was still a rule? It doesn't change that they went against site policy.
Just a hypothetical question here because i've never been infracted for anything, (yet) but If one was infracted for backseat modding, (or anything in general) and there is a rules change that disqualifies that rule as a infraction level offense, would a user that was infracted for said rule still have an infraction? Would the same also apply for a suspension? or a ban? In my opinion (which matters very little) I would think that it would be wrong to keep someone banned or suspended for a rule that was no longer enforced on the site.
In all of those cases I would expect the penalty to stand. Allowing someone to appeal an infraction that's no longer an infraction would have a significant chilling effect on further relaxation of the rules due to the mountain of work that would be involved in sorting through all of those appeals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Just a hypothetical question here because i've never been infracted for anything, (yet) but If one was infracted for backseat modding, (or anything in general) and there is a rules change that disqualifies that rule as a infraction level offense, would a user that was infracted for said rule still have an infraction? Would the same also apply for a suspension? or a ban? In my opinion (which matters very little) I would think that it would be wrong to keep someone banned or suspended for a rule that was no longer enforced on the site.
Outside of the market street it is very hard to get yourself banned from this place with out some monumental stupidity or great effort over several months as you are going to be spending time on the sidelines due to suspensions before you end up getting banned completely.
I am not sure if any member has ever been suspended solely on the basis of repeated back seat modding warnings/infractions or double posting. There is usually enough other stuff going on to justify the suspension with out needing the backseat modding/double posting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The following changes have been made:
1. Brevity and organization. The length of the document has been trimmed significantly, from approximately 2800 words to 1800. The document has also been reorganized to more prominently feature and present important information, and numerous provisions have been tweaked for clarity as well as conciseness.
2. Elimination of the rule against excessive double-posting. Users will still be encouraged to refrain from double-posting instead of editing, but this will no longer be considered an infraction-worthy offense. It will be regarded simply as a matter of good internet etiquette.
3. Elimination of the backseat moderation rule. We feel that many of the cases in which backseat moderation occurred, the user was simply providing a helpful service to members who were not familiar with the rules. Since additional awareness of the site rules isn't harmful to the site (quite the reverse), this infraction is off the books.
4. Clarification of the rule against spam. The former description of spam was as follows:
The new description:
5. The rule against advertising has been eliminated in favor of a rule against soliciting for financial gain:
6. The plagiarism section now includes the requirements for crediting artwork.
Other issues:
A. Without a number of technical changes, we are unable to rename "warnings" as reminders, but we have endeavored to clarify that that is the function that they fulfill. We have yet to reach a consensus whether warnings/reminders should be reversible.
B. No changes have been made to the color of moderator text at this time.
C. Next, we hope to begin revising subforum specific rules.
Link to the new forum rules.
My only concern is that double-posting may get a little crazy, but otherwise, all of these are great changes.
I'm not concerned that it will get out of hand, however I am curious why the previous rule was overturned. It seemed logical that the only need for a double post was to quasi-necro a thread to bring new content to the table.
As for the list, it's a stellar improvement.
Or, wait, what's the other one? I like them. Yes, that's it.
It was a pain in the butt for me. Constantly having to click "quote" then cut/paste into an edit window. I can't tell you how many posts I lost becuase I pushed the wrong button or something.
I mean, I'll still try and do it, but sometimes mulitple posts is useful and helpful.
Honestly, this just frees me up to break a lot of old rules. Imma be doubleposting, backseat modding and advertising like a champ. **** da police.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That was one of the most difficult parts of the rewrite. That definition is the product of at least a half dozen authors, and probably more.
Well, part of the discussion about altering the rule (and I hope this is the intent of the staff) is that if a post is doing nothing but backseat modding, it is no longer advancing discussion or adding on-topic content, and would be infracted as spam.
I'll bet! Quite the tricky thing to pin down indeed. Now I don't have to feel as bad for my brief definition of spam in a certain Staff Inbox thread
I do sort of worry about the removal of backseat moderation re: people calling each other flamers and trolls, but I suppose the backseat moderation rule was redundant in that sense anyways because it is flaming. YMMV.
Which does indeed make sense (I always treated the rule as a variant of spamming with unique hazards), I admit. I just see the possibility of newer users being misinformed or confused by backseat mods giving incorrect 'help'. Though I don't necessarily think that needs to be something that gets punished, per se. Nor is it necessarily a rampant problem, I'd just think it unfortunate to become as issue. The old rule discouraged it, eliminating the rule opens the door to it.
But since it's not a major issue at present and may not even be a likely issue in the future, I'm not going to rock the boat over it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I think you guys have done a very good job keeping the line between the rules and open discussion. I hear a lot of talk about strictness on behalf of moderators, but having come from discussing WoW on elitist jerks, these forums are rather lenient to my perception. If you ever have issues with posters complaining of strictness or power hungry mods (looking at the Troll Mod thread on this one), send them over there to learn. They keep a very clean forum though. Mainly because those types of people aren't allowed back.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig
Legacy
RUBFaithless Dredge
Like always happens around rumor season, someone misposts. Then, because of the high traffic and before a mod gets to it, there'll be 10 or more posts back-seat modding that post. Some will have the rule correct, some will quote the rule, and others will just be flippant about it. Many of them will still have said things on topic. But, as a new poster, I'd be turned off by such a cascade of people yelling at me for my mistake.
My two cents.
"Can you apply the penal code to demons?"
I've never had a problem with the Mods here and looking back, the few warnings/infractions I've received were justified. I've always endorsed the Mods and their no-nonsense approach. I'll admit, sometimes it may seem overboard, excessive, etc.
But they definately keep the forum flowing freely, coherently, rather than spiraling into a nonsensical oblivion... on their own unpaid time, mind you.
Of course only time will tell, but I'm confident the changes will only better the site.
And for those who claim the Mods are all power-hungry, what-nots... well, the fact that a thread was made to encourage opininons on what rules needed to be changed/clarified/eliminated = its obvious the Mods care just as much as any new member. They are willing to listen and adjust, just the same as any regular 'ole member. Kudos, cookies, and warm brownies even.
Keep up the good work,
Qtip, Lord of all that is cotton-swabbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really a fan of this. I am fine with double posting in certain cases but explicitly allowing "excessive" double posting does not actually make sense especially with perfectly functional multiquote and edit forum functions. There is a case for not punishing ignorance (i.e. failure of users to know about the multiquote and edit function) but I don't see why we should allow posters to break up their point into three separate posts (which gets annoying and incoherent when it goes to another page). Under the new rules, it suggests that if I split my post into ten separate posts but somehow "add content" to ensure that it is not spam, I would not be infracted (even though I really should be).
Wouldn't the multiquote function do it just fine?
I think time's going to tell on this one.
I can see it making it simpler in the cases where the second post comes some time after the last but the thread is being bumped with new content important somehow to the discussion (examples being a new batch of cards on a custom set thread, an update to an ongoing political event in a debate thread, etc). Though they were never punished in the first place, the removal of the rule eliminates any confusion on that point.
Of course, the other case is that it's going to get annoying and allows people to make even less effort with their posts. If I see posters triple+ posting, I'm probably going to tell them to knock it off because we don't need three posts from them when one will suffice. Luckily, backseat moderation is no longer prohibited.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Fair enough. This is probably knee-jerk since a majority of post reports I make fall under this category and this changed ruling will put me out of job
I understand that there are merits in doing so but in the case of Custom Cards, couldn't this be simply allowed in that subforum? As for debates on ongoing political events, I am sure an exception can be made for the occasional breaking news updates but it can get annoying having: -
Actually, I believe that backseat moderation rules should never be repealed since I have seen random posters replying just to harp about the forum rules without adding any content. While viperesque did clarify that this would still constitute spam, the above "Summary of Changes" doesn't make it very clear that this very clear. Also, the example you gave is a perfect recipe for derailing a thread
Again, lots of knee-jerk reaction on my part here so we'll see how things roll out in a few weeks.
I think it's easy for us to fear the worst with change. Luckily, I have every reason to believe that if any of the rules changes here wind up being abused and cause issues, they'll be altered to put an end to it. In many ways, this is the leniency in forum rules and moderation that a segment of the membership has been crying for for some time. The staff are willing to play along, but if that leniency raises more issues that it solves, they'll rectify it.
I plan on being cautiously optimistic. The staff obviously put thought into it so there's no reason not to be content with their judgment for now. That said, if I notice their leniency being abused on a larger scale, I'm going to raise that concern. I hope I don't have to.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Since I didn't actually save the previous document, I am not sure what sort of parts are being slashed / added besides those mentioned in this summary. I don't know if brevity is actually a good thing though; there are good reasons why most rules are designed to be comprehensive rather than brief though I can see the point here -- i.e. improving readability -- so all is good, I guess.
I believe I have said my piece on this. I could understand if it is a server lag or the forum simply not allowing edits or multiquotes but this is rarely the case (and for the latter, definitely not the case unless you're talking about locked threads here). If a user is unaware of that function, he/she should be informed of that function rather than being allowed to persist. Yes, specific exceptions could be given in separate subforums but allowing this in most parts of the forums that has no real need to double post is just unnecessary and allows for potential abuse.
Similar to the above, while I understand the spirit of repealing this rule, I wish it would be clarified (see my point below).
This is decent but if you must remove the rule on backseat moderation and double-posting with the apparent intent of using "spam infraction" as a catch-all safety valve, maybe you could list instances where backseat moderation and doubleposting would be infractable?
A question though. If I open a thread on MTGS advertising my blog, would I be infracted for advertising if it does not directly solicit for financial gains?
I am all for anti-plagiarism measures so this sits well with me.
I am sceptical if these changes would result in any significant improvements. A user who is offended by a moderator action will likely continue to be offended by that action (whether justifiably or otherwise) regardless if you call it a warning in big bold red or if you declare it to be "a humble appeal for the user to adhere to the rules" in rainbow colours and pepper the associated PM notification with pictures of puppies, kittens and unicorns.
Now: Probably not, though it depends on the content of your blog.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
What about the fact that someone broke a rule while it was still a rule? It doesn't change that they went against site policy.
In all of those cases I would expect the penalty to stand. Allowing someone to appeal an infraction that's no longer an infraction would have a significant chilling effect on further relaxation of the rules due to the mountain of work that would be involved in sorting through all of those appeals.
Outside of the market street it is very hard to get yourself banned from this place with out some monumental stupidity or great effort over several months as you are going to be spending time on the sidelines due to suspensions before you end up getting banned completely.
I am not sure if any member has ever been suspended solely on the basis of repeated back seat modding warnings/infractions or double posting. There is usually enough other stuff going on to justify the suspension with out needing the backseat modding/double posting.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru