+- Mirage Source (https://mirage-engine.uk/forums)
+-- Forum: Mirage Source (Nostalgia) (https://mirage-engine.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=61)
+--- Forum: Archive (2006-2011) (https://mirage-engine.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+---- Forum: Staff (https://mirage-engine.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+---- Thread: Rule Discussion: You asked for it Verrigan! (/showthread.php?tid=1059)
Re: Rule Discussion: You asked for it Verrigan! - Cruzn - 25-06-2007
Like I said in the announcement post, this is all I think it should be:
Quote:Rules:Rules = Warning when broken.
- 1. No flaming/bashing. (Fairly obvious.)
2. No flame baiting.
Guidelines:
- 1. No eluding the forum's word filter.
2. Give your post a meaning. Simply posting "lol." is a waste of space. "Great game," however, would be accepted.
3. If someone is asking for criticism, only post constructive criticism. Example: "This game is lame!" would not be accepted but "You need to add unique features. . ." would.
4. Keep personal information out of the forums. Whether someone is harassing you or not is none of our business. Keep it off the forums. If you want to discuss users who are stealing X, or copying Y, and Z, simply make a topic stating what happened, but don't post user names. Users can request to have you private message them with the user in question.
Guidelines = Post deletion + warnings only when they're broken excessively.
They're strict enough to keep people in-check, by lenient enough to give them elbow room when posting.
Re: Rule Discussion: You asked for it Verrigan! - Cruzn - 25-06-2007
I don't think they should be banned by the number of warnings they've acquired, but instead by the severity of each issue.
Example: If someone flamed people 4 times, but they were all "You suck at programming." types of flames, he doesn't deserve the same punishment as someone who went all out on someone with "You freaking n-word, n-word this, f-word that. Go die." Ya know?
Re: Rule Discussion: You asked for it Verrigan! - Cruzn - 25-06-2007
I would just leave it at: "If we see a user accumulating warnings at an alarming rate, we will take action by issuing bans, both temporary and permanently, as we see fit."
Severity and the number of warnings should dictate the ban length together, but maybe not one or the other alone.