The Forum Rules have just received a major revision. We basically went over every rule and removed the unnecessary ones and merged the similar ones. In other words: we made the rules more condensed so that reading them won't be a pain anymore.

A big thanks goes to the whole mod, admin and retired mod teams; especially to Steve who started this revision.

Please be aware that several rules have changed, so in order to avoid any rule-breaking situations you should read the updated version of the rules here.

If you have any questions about the rules don't hesitate to use the Forum Help forum, or contact a moderator.



On a related note, we would like to inform you that using shorthand links (such as Tinyurl) is against the rules unless it's properly labeled.

Mmmk cool, nothing wrong with that


Edit: first reply

Grats Rule Revision! Me next.

Congrats rules! I always knew you could do it.

I peacefully disagree with this rule revision

Uhh . . . shouldn't it be "You may not encourage the breaking of any RuneScape rules, or ask for or give help with the breaking of RuneScape rules.

Of course not, rule breaking is encouraged.

Looks good, i just wish the ppl would reply to me after i appealed my warns
there ignoring me >.>

I am outraged. While you give Forum Rules a revision, you're ignoring all the members who TRULY deserve a revision, like Mutt!

Congrats rules, I think I knew it was coming!

me next?

May I know why?



Uh fail.



Heck yea.



Look at your warn log.



Don't make me feel bad.

@fin
i belive hawk decreased a warn as soon is it was 30days
which is when i replied to everyone that gave me a warn, and but they all ignored me.. (i only replied to the ones that gave me the warns)

Look at the two posts above mine.

You can only get ONE reduction every thirty days. Not one per warn.




But the rules were distinguished enough.

@fin
What?!
4x30


120 days...
im outta here..

Yeah 120 days. Just don't break any rules and you'll get it.

I need a moderator's opinion, preferrably several.

You may PM me too.



Question: If someone post a thread in 2005 asking a poll question, even if it's silly, and it closes. In 2008, he makes a new topic, same silly question. Even though the 2005 thread is closed (or violates 7 day bump rule [obv] if posted in), is a warn warranted? Even though he hasn't crossposted before?

But ask yourself this. Does making a new thread off of the same topic of an expired/closed topic count as cross posting?

The rules don't state that if a thread is expired, that it can be reopened on request.

What's new?

All I see is a split between Forum Guidelines and General Rules.

It is much more compressed, and easier on the eyes to read.

I haven't reviewed the forum rules yet, but I wanted to point out a nice tool in relation to short-URLS. It's in the Free Software sticky called LongURL Mobile Expander. It's very helpful in knowing exactly where the link takes you before you click it. Glad the rules further prevent misleading links and phishing.

Great idea, and great... revisions
This was needed.

I'm confused about the short URL part. They're allowed if the actual URL is labeled or they're allowed if the link text is labeled? If it's the latter wasn't that always a rule (or has been a rule for a while) around misleading links?

Also the rules don't mention short URLs specifically at all (and the bit about URLs should probably be under linking instead of misleading content).

they don't mention em specificly
we just wanted to remind people about it
yes misleading url via tinyurl also count as misleading links

nothing new really indeed
just a reminder





jep i agree he needs to revised
being totally taken apart, cleaned and reassembled might do him good



cross posting refers to active threads, a thread dead since 2005 isn't active
just basic common sense


what isn't in the rules can always be requested
and it's up to the mod's discretion to grant or deny it

Looks good, well revised guys! Easier to read through too

This was certainly needed. I guess I'll have to take a look through the rules again. Maybe I'll find some more funny typos!

yea its good

huh. very interesting. i'll read 'em when i get a chance

What if I have no idea what the Jagex rules are- Don't tell me I have to read through them

The "Level of Appropriateness" rule is very vague - like, what is considered a bad word? Or is it based purely on the intent of the word?

Oops!


It's already in the rules under Misleading Content: "On a similar note, all links must be properly labeled, and may not try to mislead the user into clicking them." Recently, there have been some issues with misleading links through TinyURL, so this is really just a reminder that you need to make sure that your links are pretty clearly labeled as to what they are. And there really isn't much need to use TinyURL on Sal's anyways, since you aren't going to hit the character limit.

Thanks for the information!
I'll go and re-read the rules straight away.

That's how I just got my first warn :'( I wish this announcement came sooner.

Nice... rules, they're a lot fair-er than the other ones. Hmm, that sentence came out worse than I excpected.

Let's put those two things together.

So, if a mod warned someone for that, are his actions without grounds?

Also, when common sense has been attempted to been explained to said moderator's falseness, and a warn reduction isn't warranted because this person "did not contact a moderator so that he can re-open the previous thread"?