Your Forum Moderator!

DeletedUser13939

Guest
Hello Ladies and Gents! This Dwarf will be your forum moderator! Expect lots of laughs, ale, and people running wild as I swing my Dwarven Warhammer! :3

In all seriousness, I'm looking forward to modding this section. To start things off, here is a list (that I stole, hehe) of commonly asked questions about the rules that I will be going with.

Question: Is the use of the word "shit" allowed?

[Spoil]Answer: The use of the word "shit" does not count as profanity in itself, and thus is allowed. The word is, however, not allowed to be used to insult other players outside of a game-related context.
Allowed: That's bullshit.
Allowed: You're a shit player.
Not Allowed: You're shit. [/Spoil]

Question: Is "crap" allowed?

[spoil]Answer: Same as "shit". It's allowed on its own, but not when used to insult another player. [/spoil]

Question: What about "asshole"?

[spoil]Answer: This depends on the mod. Some mods allow this, similar to "shit". I do not, so don't use it in this forum![/spoil]

Question: And does the same apply for "bitch" and "bastard"?

[spoil]Answer: These are allowed in a manner similar to 'shit'. Acceptable if used on their own, but not if used as an insult.[/spoil]

Question: Is the f-word allowed at all?

[spoil]Answer: The f-word is not allowed, even if quoted, used in an acronym, shown in an image, starred out, or otherwise obscured. If it is understandable you are using the f-word, you will get in trouble for it.
Allowed: Nothing.
Not Allowed: Wtf, lmfao, milf, f'ing, feck, fubar, frick, and anything else that is clearly meant to be read as the f-word.[/spoil]

Question: What are the rules for posting pictures?

[spoil]Answer: Pictures are not allowed to be larger than 640x480 pixels, unless posted in a spoiler. If you're unsure how big a picture is, you should check the image properties by right-clicking it and looking for the size. If that doesn't work, better safe than sorry, and you should post it in a spoiler . Also, any profanity rules and other rules still apply when posting pictures.[/spoil]

Question: What are the signature rules?

[spoil]Answer: Signatures must be smaller than or equal to 700x80 pixels in size, when not spoilered. This is much shorter than most forums allow, so be careful! If placed in a spoiler, one can make the signatures equal to or smaller than 700x300 pixels in size. If you're not sure how big a signature is, you can always ask a mod, or do the math using the formula on the Rules Page. All rules for posting pictures apply to signatures.

Also, please refrain from using any animated images in your signatures. They are not allowed. That includes animated emoticons[/spoil]

Question: What about extreme content in signatures/avatars/pictures?

[spoil]Answer: There won't be punishment for a picture that has the image of a weed plant in it unless it also has words/sentences in it that condone/glorify the use of it. If the image of the drug is alone, most of the time we will disregard it. If you're not sure about if a signature/avatar/post is legal, feel free to message any mod and we'll be happy to help.[/spoil]

For further convenience, here is a link to the Forum Rules. --> http://forum.tribalwars.net/announcement.php?f=8

If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please voice them here! And remember everyone, we are all here to have fun. ;)

~~DK
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13939

Guest
Bad rep? I haven't given a single person a postive or negative rep since the system was first created. :<
 

DeletedUser85032

Guest
Your dwarf village is no match for my fortress of death
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hey DK. Been a while mate. Good luck modding this world.

Thanks for explaining the rules more clearly but isn't even mentioning those dangerous words as a mean to explain the rules still forbidden? :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser13939

Guest
Nima Unknown said:
Hey DK. Been a while mate. Good luck modding this world.

Thanks for explaining the rules more clearly but isn't even mentioning those dangerous words as a mean to explain the rules still forbidden? :icon_wink:
Click to expand...

You are quite correct there sir. The only exception to this rule is when a moderator explains a rule. Why? Because SOMEONE has to explain the rule. Obviously it's going to be the ones enforcing the rules, not the ones trying to break them. ;)
 

twenty-five

Guest
Dwarven King said:
You are quite correct there sir. The only exception to this rule is when a moderator explains a rule. Why? Because SOMEONE has to explain the rule. Obviously it's going to be the ones enforcing the rules, not the ones trying to break them. ;)
Click to expand...

Honestly the use of "not the ones trying to break them" would I guess speak of your moderation style. It implies you have an assumption that people are actively trying to break the rules, I always thought it would be more reasonable to assume not until proven otherwise. Clearly rules get broken, but assuming posters are trying to do it does them a disservice. It suggests you are actively looking for people to punish. At least to me, and I'm not sure that's something I'm entirely comfortable with.

Now I hope I'm wrong, but I've always found it easier to get along with moderators who believe they are merely keeping the wheels turning rather than those who are seemingly out to get people. I hope I'm wrong, that phrase just stuck out to me as somewhat odd. As I say, I hope I'm wrong and your goal is to keep the forum running smoothly rather than punish people because you can.

Best of luck either way.
 

DeletedUser13939

Guest
twenty-five said:
Honestly the use of "not the ones trying to break them" would I guess speak of your moderation style. It implies you have an assumption that people are actively trying to break the rules, I always thought it would be more reasonable to assume not until proven otherwise. Clearly rules get broken, but assuming posters are trying to do it does them a disservice. It suggests you are actively looking for people to punish. At least to me, and I'm not sure that's something I'm entirely comfortable with.

Now I hope I'm wrong, but I've always found it easier to get along with moderators who believe they are merely keeping the wheels turning rather than those who are seemingly out to get people. I hope I'm wrong, that phrase just stuck out to me as somewhat odd. As I say, I hope I'm wrong and your goal is to keep the forum running smoothly rather than punish people because you can.

Best of luck either way.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, and now I hope you can understand where I am coming from. If we allow everyone to explain the rules in whatever fashion they wish, we WILL have posters who will use it as a way to break the rules. No, I am not actively looking for someone to punish. Merely setting down the boundaries. I understand that sometimes these boundaries can seem harsh sometimes. But that's what happens when a feel bad apples roll in. Trust me, the rules used to be a lot more relax...and spamming was at an all time high.

As for this circumstance, there are certain words that one is not allowed to say at all. It was been made known that these words can not be said numerous times. Thus, I will be strictly enforcing that rule. That includes posts where people are explaining the rule. Afterall, the rule says these words can't be said at all.

It may seem confusing at all, but there is a method behind all this madness. Simply put, let moderators explain the more dangerous rules. After all, that's the whole reason why I made this thread and why the PM system is such a nice perk. :)
 

twenty-five

Guest
I don't think you understood my post very well. Obviously it's perfectly fine for you to set down the rules, it was the choice of referring to people who do break the rules as "the ones trying to break them". The word trying assumes rule breakers do it intentionally, or at least that is how I read it. Making that assumption is kind of a negative way to moderate, even if you do consider it a rule breach it does not mean that was the goal of the post. I think it does all posters a disservice to assume that is the case.

I don't know what you were replying to, but most of it was certainly not the post you quoted. Again, this is also worrying for me. I think I might have to take a seat out of the w79 forums if the approach to moderation is one of reading what you want, rather than the post itself, and furthermore considering rule breakers to actively be trying to do it. Honestly I know you were replying to Nima about you being allowed to explain the rules, but my post had very little to do with that -- it was focused on a perceived attitude from you towards those you moderate. As I said, I hope I'm wrong but the evidence is gradually making me feel I was correct.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Dwarven King said:
Trust me, the rules used to be a lot more relax...and spamming was at an all time high.
Click to expand...

Is (what you call) "spam" really such a bad thing? Doesn't allowing flexibility for posts that may not be 100% on topic allow for people to express themselves and show their character, thus adding to the flavour and quality of the forum? Deleting every post that is not necessarily strictly on topic surely makes posters flat, mechanical and above all boring (and we see evidence of that everywhere here at TW forum). As long as the posts are still part of the discussion at hand what is the harm in not deleting them? It is natural for conversations to develop and evolve.
 

DeletedUser13939

Guest
Ohgodhowdidthisgethere said:
Is (what you call) "spam" really such a bad thing? Doesn't allowing flexibility for posts that may not be 100% on topic allow for people to express themselves and show their character, thus adding to the flavour and quality of the forum? Deleting every post that is not necessarily strictly on topic surely makes posters flat, mechanical and above all boring (and we see evidence of that everywhere here at TW forum). As long as the posts are still part of the discussion at hand what is the harm in not deleting them? It is natural for conversations to develop and evolve.
Click to expand...

If the posts are still within topic, they will not be deleted. Look at Shayad's posts. A few of them seem like they are going to go off-topic, but he quickly ties it all in and ultimately remains on topic. Evolving a topic is fine. Making a post about how many cats your grandmother has in a thread about who you think is going to win the Super Bowl is NOT fine. Trust me, back in '07, spam like that happened all the time. Why? Because the posters knew the moderators either didn't care or didn't have time to sort through it all due to how active the forums were back then. Now, eight years later, the rules have become more refined and the core moderating team have developed a system that the new moderators can easily understand. Thus, moderating has become less stressful and it is much easier to decide who is breaking the rules and who isn't.

It seems I kinda went off on a tangent there. My apologies. Long story short, evolving the topic at hand and adding flavor to the subject matter is fine. I call that fluff, and it's something I myself do when I write stories. However, flat out posting something that has no correlation with the topic at hand is and always will be considered spam.

Now, if you're still confused on whether or not what you wanna do will break the rules (a new signature, a post, etc), you can always send me a private message and I will happily tell you if what you are wanting to do will get you in trouble or not. :)
 

DeletedUser113867

Guest
Dwarven King said:
If the posts are still within topic, they will not be deleted. Look at Shayad's posts. A few of them seem like they are going to go off-topic, but he quickly ties it all in and ultimately remains on topic. Evolving a topic is fine. Making a post about how many cats your grandmother has in a thread about who you think is going to win the Super Bowl is NOT fine. Trust me, back in '07, spam like that happened all the time. Why? Because the posters knew the moderators either didn't care or didn't have time to sort through it all due to how active the forums were back then. Now, eight years later, the rules have become more refined and the core moderating team have developed a system that the new moderators can easily understand. Thus, moderating has become less stressful and it is much easier to decide who is breaking the rules and who isn't.

It seems I kinda went off on a tangent there. My apologies. Long story short, evolving the topic at hand and adding flavor to the subject matter is fine. I call that fluff, and it's something I myself do when I write stories. However, flat out posting something that has no correlation with the topic at hand is and always will be considered spam.

Now, if you're still confused on whether or not what you wanna do will break the rules (a new signature, a post, etc), you can always send me a private message and I will happily tell you if what you are wanting to do will get you in trouble or not. :)
Click to expand...

Does this mean you'll delete everyone of my post? Clearly this message is still on topic mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top