|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 16, 2010 5:56:50 GMT
Yes, but we have no solid reason to reapply the No-Bump rule. The forum has proven that it can use common sense and not bump threads even though there's no rule against it, so why reinstate the rule? Why not let the forum take care of it itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 16, 2010 6:16:16 GMT
Ok. We'll let the forum take care of itself then. I guess we are mature enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 18, 2010 17:15:12 GMT
I got a suggestion for "The Law".
Shop Spam:
If a Member creates too much Shop that CAN be merged to one shop. You may create a different one if it's a Bank or another important thing.
"Punishment": 20% to your Warning Bar per Shop and merging of all Shops.
Micro Farad would be a good example of someone using Shop Spam. I would like to see all of his Shops merged together. It would be a nice shop. It could be called: "MicroFarad Mall"
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 18, 2010 19:23:21 GMT
I guess... Creating multiple shops for silly things could be a new rule...
Like if someone has an Avatar shop, a sig shop and a star shop all separate, they should merge it into one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 21:00:58 GMT
That would fall under normal spam. An admin can just do that regardless of being written on the rules.
Although we could add it to the "Dan-Ball Shop" description that you should keep your shops limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 19, 2010 6:31:14 GMT
And what about the back alley? Since that isn't really the official shop board and it is sorta the grey market... Would you be allowed multiple shops there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 19, 2010 14:56:02 GMT
No doubt, if they are based on different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 19, 2010 16:03:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 19, 2010 16:35:48 GMT
Perhaps between the colors one and the other one. The code one could be separate but since you are doing it anyways might as well join all three...
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 21, 2010 2:33:50 GMT
All those shops are dead. It hardly matters now. None of them have had posts since September.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 21, 2010 8:11:08 GMT
Ok fine.... but it still looks kind untidy. Oh well.
I have no further rule modifications at the moment. I'll post here if I see something that might need a rule/modification in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 22, 2010 9:47:28 GMT
How does it look untidy? There's only one of them that's actually on the front page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 22, 2010 14:38:53 GMT
All those shops are dead. It hardly matters now. None of them have had posts since September. But if there is one big MF's Mega Mall then Members would ne interested again. Nobody wants to buy from a guy that has 5 Shops. |
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 22, 2010 15:49:09 GMT
Yea, what he said!
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 22, 2010 19:55:42 GMT
Not really. People are interested in shops when they want to buy something and when the shop is visible on the front page. They do not grow interested because there's a dead thread three pages back that happens to have three shops in it instead of two. In fact, almost nobody would even notice it. Plenty of people are very happy to buy from people with 3 (not 5) shops, as shown by the fact that plenty of people have bought from people with multiple shops. FoxtrotZero, Ggoodie, MicroFarad, all of them have had multiple shops at some point and all got plenty of business until their shop died of natural causes, NOT the fact that there were a few of them selling totally different things.
If MF wants to merge them himself if he feels it will revitalize interest in his shop, that's his own accord, not the staff's job. I've got no problem with that. But if you want the staff to merge his shops for him, why don't we just post for people and give them the post count, or keep track of an independently run game for people, or make the graphics for people? Maintenance of a shop is the shop owner's job.
I can see doing this with new shops, but rules are never ex-post-facto, and this shop is far too far back to matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 24, 2010 6:13:40 GMT
For new shops it is then...
Perhaps we can evaluate whether a shop should be merged when we first see it and have to approve it (3 or more items) and then we can decide whether to merge or not. (only for new shops though)
|
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 24, 2010 6:19:44 GMT
We just need to update everything, the rules are fine but most of them are outdated. I remember when it was "Post Porn - 50% Warning" What the fack?
Also, Memzak, check my webcomic on General Talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 24, 2010 14:02:22 GMT
Yes I have and as I posted there and in the pm you sent me... I can't see your cursed images. (go to that thread to ask why as this has nothing to do with forum rules)
|
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 25, 2010 16:20:24 GMT
I just read the rules and I learned a lot that I didn't know before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 25, 2010 23:20:48 GMT
Good. Everyone else also ought to reread the rules...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fireball9903 on Nov 26, 2010 2:33:43 GMT
Why is Veers now Natasha Bedingfield?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 26, 2010 3:25:38 GMT
That question is better asked in a different thread, preferably in General Talk. I'll answer the question there...
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 26, 2010 12:20:05 GMT
It is because she is his favorite singer and it is her birthday today.
He did it a while ago (last year) too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 7, 2011 3:46:33 GMT
It has come to my attention that, lacking B0t and having DBFBot et al. as more civilized replacements, all but the first of the bot rules are obsolete. Regardless of the bot and its capabilities, the user of a bot is responsible for the bot's actions.
I propose that the rules be modifed to reflect not just B0t, but other bots with commands both known and unknown. How should we go about modifying the bot rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 8, 2011 4:30:24 GMT
Hmm, that's an idea. I think we can probably stick to the first, it encompasses everything bad the user-made bots can do. Maybe we can add something against bot profanity that places blame on the bot-maker.
Oh, and no flagbots, like the one Omni has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 8, 2011 5:01:01 GMT
So, a user of a bot is responsible for that bot's actions, flagbots are to have their flagging capability commented out while running on DBF chat, and the creator of a bot is responsible for the "static" messages, such as use of profanity unqueried by a user.
Do we need anything else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Jan 8, 2011 16:07:24 GMT
Shop Spam and Raiding should also be added.
If you raid our Forums, you should get insta-banned.
If a DBF Member raids another forum that didn't do anything wrong, should also be punished here.
...
Dan-Ball Stealing should also be added. People won't fall for things like Sparkpowder's lottery or Nmagane's Dan-Ball Shop so it won't work but an attempt to Dan-Ball Stealing should already be enough for a Warning Bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparkpowder on Jan 8, 2011 16:42:14 GMT
That's what the Back Alley/Grey Market is for.
Don't mention my lottery, it has nothing to do with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by speedyclock on Jan 8, 2011 21:56:35 GMT
My shop has a ton of freaking sales. Especially since it's new!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jan 8, 2011 23:46:30 GMT
I don't see a shop made by you in the Dan-Ball Shop board...
I'll wait for more input on the bot rule amendments before updating them. I do have a few concerns with some of the other proposals.
Non-members who raid the forum already customarily receive permanent bans. I guess if we added a rule specifying that, it could serve as a warning to others and as a guide for how staff should intervene in a raid.
Dan-Ball exchanges always have to be executed by Global Moderators and/or Administrators, the only ones who actually have the power to modify the number of Dan-Balls an account has, so it seems that the only way true theft of Dan-Balls could occur is if a staff member was a shop owner (or other collecting side of a Dan-Ball exchange) and intentionally neglected to provide a promised function or service to the payer. In that case, the staff member would require demotion. Since we usually wait for the payer to receive a service before modifying anyone's Dan-Balls, there is usually no chance for a scam to be successful. I don't think a Dan-Ball theft rule would be necessary, except for staff. If a person does decide to make a "scam," then by all means that member can make it in the Grey Market and not get any business. If a member made such a thread in the Dan-Ball Store board as a legitimate shop, however, then I presume we could punish the user, but how without going over the limit?
|
|
[M:977802]
