I believe these are unfair and need to be removed, as otherwise mods can punish you for stuff that isn't against the rules.

You're seriously just trying to make people mad. It hasn't been abused, it won't be abused, so just don't make a big deal out of it. Leave the forum if you don't like it.

It is simply impractical to have the rules cover every possible scenario that may arise, and the staff would be unable to punish people if such a clause wasn't included in the rules. I don't think that either clause will be used to justify punishment that isn't obviously unacceptable, so there isn't anything to worry about. And the second clause exists more for your benefit than anything else, because it gives you (the blog owner) much more control over your blog. As it says, the staff is generally much more lenient in blogs than on the forums so that you can put some content in your blog that probably wouldn't be allowed on the rest of the forums.

Fruityfed also put it quite nicely.

That is a matter of opinion and I'm guessing the OP thinks differently. Hear him out before you shun him or don't read his posts at all.

@ OP: The rules cannot be written without loopholes unless it was written like a 15 page legal document. To eliminate such length, the rules as they are have loopholes. The general idea behind the rules still exists and that is what the mods try to enforce. If you're punished for something that you cannot seem to find as the general idea behind a rule, take it up with the mod who punished you or a superior.

You really don't even need the rules to know how to behave. It's common sense to be respectful to people both online and in person. Just act mature when posting, and stop complaining about how you want the rules bent at every possible chance that could benefit you, while at the same time trying to enforce them to the max when that evil Team Weiner and all those other 'trolls' bully you.

Although I don't post much and am more of a lurker, I still manage to follow all the rules without even reading them. And if I broke them, it would probably be worth it. Unless my warns went as high as yours, I probably wouldn't even care, as long as I made a point in what I tried conveying when posting on the forum.

If we wanted a bot to be moderator, maybe we'd outline every single possible scenario that could ever happen on forums and program it, but we can't.
Moderation is a lot of common sense as to what's punishable and what's not.

Obviously, posting porn in a blog is just as inapropriate as anywhere else, even if we are "more lenient" there.

Tell me why it should stay or not. None of that leave the forum if you don't like it shizzle.


Unable to punish people with the 30-something rules already set?


The problem is, there's nothing fair about these. You can be punished for anything a mod likes, and mods usually tend to agree with one another.

What is the point of the rules when these are still here? They allow you to theoretically get punished for anything, as long as at least two mods agree.

The thing is, two mods don't run the forums. If a warn is unfair, it can be discussed by other mods.
And no, in case you didn't know, we buttbuddies don't agree on everything.

"Unable to punish people..."?
How does that argue your point at all. Just because we don't have a law regarding every single thing out there doesn't mean we're unable to moderate things.

@Lilshu below
Exactly, I'm pretty sure if you got warned for "You're fat" and two mods agreed on it, they'd both be demoted, obviously.

They allow you to get punished for anything that requires punishing.

Respectfulness is already outlined in the set rules.


No, you can wait til a certain scenario happens, then discuss with other mods whether it should be added to the rules.


And many things that don't.

Mutt, not every little thing needs to be documented in the rules, or else our rules would be a list of things you can't say. The rules already outline things you can't do. Name a scenario in which we have to add a new rule.

Also, if you are punished for something not worth punishing, ASK FOR A REVIEW or ask another mod to look at it and discuss it. It's not that hard.

Anything you would punish people for that was only punishable through the snippets I'm trying to have removed.

And what would those things be.

If we listed out every single scenario that would warrant some sort of action, then the rules would be too long and no one would read them.

If there isn't stuff, then these aren't needed. If there is, the rules would show themselves to you when needed.


Which is why I am saying to discuss whether a rule should be added after this thing that isn't against the rules should happen.

1. So why get rid of them if there's nothing wrong? If nothing is happening, then it's not affecting it. If something innapropriate is occurring, then that's where they come in.

2. Rules are meant to be broad enough to cover a subject yet concise enough to make sure people know what it means. Respect is an obvious one. People know what's respectful and not. Obviously, we can't list every little thing that isn't respectful each time it comes up.

Inappropriate things should be outlined clearly and concisely in the rules.

You see, most people have this thing called common sense.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize not having common sense was against the rules.

dude what happened to u?
you were like a few of the chilled ppl around here
now ur acting this way

just calm down

I didn't say it was. I was just saying, most people have the common sense to tell what is and what isn't inappropriate, including the staff.

Doing that (and excluding the sentence we have in the rules right now) would require us to retroactively punish people for rules which are created after the fact, and I think you would agree that doing so wouldn't be appropriate for us to do. So instead we have this sentence, which, although rarely used, will allow us to punish the first time the rule is broken, and then we will almost certainly discuss whether the infraction is a serious enough issue for a new rule to be added (or a previous rule to be edited to include the infraction).

If I'm not mistaken, here's an example of when the first quote was used: We have had a couple of issues over the previous years with bug abuse. Since there was no rule on bug abuse until relatively recently, one could have argued that the users couldn't have been punished for the bug abuse (the first quote was reworded with the most recent rule update to clarify moderators' power). So it was discussed, and the Bug Abuse rule was added. Had that clause existed already, we could have punished the users and THEN added the rule, but instead I believe those users got away with nothing more than a "Don't do it again."

So if it isn't clear already, these rules simply aren't going to be changed. So unless you have anything more to add beyond declaring a conspiracy, there doesn't seem to be much else to say.

EDIT: @below: That's hilarious!

I'm going to close this and continue in my blog where I can moderate it.

Close please.