Rules discussion topic

[USABxBOOYO]

I was warned once for calling someone out for derailing a thread before I was a Moderator. I was never warned after that and I never did it again. In my opinion, the rules are completely fair. They're not hard to follow and I have no problems with them whatsoever. For those of you who complain about continuously getting warned, think about the following things, "Would this bother someone?", "Could this be considered against the rules?", "Do I need to post this?". If you think about those things and have good judgment, you will never get warned.

[LinktersHD]

Well i got warned for posting on a old post.
Then other people posted and they didn't get warned.
Anyway if you don't like people commenting on old post then "Lock The Threads".

[USABxBOOYO]

There's a difference between posting on an old post if there's a new development and posting on an old post restating what has been resolved.

[DrunkenChild]

There's a difference between posting on an old post if there's a new development and posing on an old post restating what has been resolved.

Does that mean there is now a loophole in triple posting.

[TheGrandmaster]

The rules are guidelines for users to follow and for moderators to act upon. It's down to admin discretion in the end however. Triple posting, even with new content.. is not good.
Any 'loopholes' are fixed by admin judgement.

[Tank]

We have an extensive set of rules that, we hope, covers all bases.
As staff we'll be following this fairly strictly, quoting sections where needed.

This topic is for anyone suggesting ideas for new rules/amendments to the current rules.

[demo123]

I have a rule to suggest.

If a person1 promotes an action, that can result in a warning, that can get person2 or other people warned, that the person1 gets a double warning(2 warnings). Only if person2 or other people did that action.

Example:

Don't be afraid to reply to an old thread!

[Paratrooper]

It's pretty much obvious that you're pertaining to me :/

If a person isn't allowed to reply to a thread in the DNSL, what's the point in having it in the first place? As long as the user posts something that is still relevant to the topic, he/she should still be in the clear, instead of just saying "bump".

Check rule 3.i

[demo123]

It's pretty much obvious that you're pertaining to me :/

If a person isn't allowed to reply to a thread in the DNSL, what's the point in having it in the first place? As long as the user posts something that is still relevant to the topic, he/she should still be in the clear, instead of just saying "bump".

Check rule 3.i

That was just an example. There are many rules out there that a person can promotes it in a way that is sounds harmless so an another person breakes it.