Rules of Posting Update

[Forum Staff]

At long last, the new Rules of Posting now grace the top of every forum.

Most things have stayed the same as before, but there are some new clarifications, expansions, and revisions.

Please take you time and revisit them at least once.
Or, if you haven't yet, we encourage you to look them over for the first time.

[Jacob Orlove]

This could be a good time to take advantage of the "welcome back!" box, and announce there that the rules have been updated.

Here's hoping the update includes a much shorter limit for signatures! Edit: aww, looks like I'm going to have to keep them disabled.

[Zherog]

Minor, nit-picky type error in the new rules:

fixed

Cheers!

[Ego Slayer]

*pokes around rules*
Okeday.

In regards to the multiple accounts rule: Don't a few of the most prominent Townies have more than a couple alts? Even though they're identified, and only exist in the Town, are they still being banned? :smallconfused:
Also, what about making another account for the purpose of anonymity? If I needed to post a thread asking for help, etc, where I wanted/needed to be anonymous, identifying myself as a member of the forum, would there be an exception?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Oh, yeah! I like the image size rulings. And the limits fit within my screen resolution, too.

[Amotis]

Akiosama is gone I guess, too bad, good man.

Kinda ironic that my biggest complaint is not being able to complain about my biggest complaint or someone else who has been banned about complaining about my biggest complaint.

And apparently WampaX is the board guru, whodathunk?

Still, the question stands, what is explicit sexuality and graphic violence? That's still pretty vague.

[Samiam303]

I'm noticing we have a sig WIDTH limit but still no LENGTH limit. Is this going to be forthcoming soon?

[Bookman]

Oh, yeah! I like the image size rulings. And the limits fit within my screen resolution, too.


Oh, yeah! I like the image size rulings. And the limits fit within my screen resolution, too.

The irony of a double post in a rules thread is staggering :biggrin:


I'm noticing we have a sig WIDTH limit but still no LENGTH limit. Is this going to be forthcoming soon?

This is a burning question of mine as well.

Also I *think* I know how to check on how wide an image is and how much memory it takes but could we perhaps include a way to check that?

[Zherog]

Also I *think* I know how to check on how wide an image is and how much memory it takes but could we perhaps include a way to check that?

Right-click -> Properties

Both width (and height), as well as size in kb, will be available there.

edit: Also, I've been able to verify what I previously removed from my post above. Let me requote the section of the rules that might be a problem:


Posting Non-SRD Copyrighted Content
Just mentioning a PrC or general mechanic that isn’t in the SRD isn’t a problem, but posting an entire stat block for a monster or class that has not been released under the Open Game Liscence (OGL) is not allowed. It will be removed. Remember that, so far, only d20 products are published under the OGL.

The last sentence is not true. For example, all of the books in WotC's "Complete" set are d20 books - they have the little logo and all that jazz. But none of that material is designated as OGC.

As I read that paragraph, you're saying it's OK to post verbatim from d20 books, because d20 books are OGL. That would need to be corrected.

[Samiam303]

No, see, it says that only d20 products are published under the OGL, not that ALL are. While it's not very clear, it's technically correct.

It just means that there's nothing under the OGL that ISN'T a d20 product.

[Zherog]

It just means that there's nothing under the OGL that ISN'T a d20 product.

And that's not a true statement, at least from a license POV. The two are separate licenses. There are several products that are OGL that do not make use of the d20 license. For example, the Book of Erotic Fantasy is one such book*. Another example of OGL material that doesn't use the d20 license is everything published (to this point) on this website.

I know this book for sure, because this book caused WotC to alter the d20 license. Essentially, as a result of this book, WotC now has the ability to veto d20 products prior to their release; they have no such control over OGL released material, however.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Discussing How to Circumvent the Forum Rules
We have developed these forum rules to ensure that we maintain a friendly community. As such, we expect all users to abide by them, and discussing or explaining ways to circumvent these rules makes it much more difficult to ensure that. Such posts are therefore themselves against our forum rules. Posts of this sort will be edited and the poster issued an Infraction.

That one puts me out of business, how am I suppose to sell information from the mod lounge? Can I discuss with earlier buyers of the information? Or do I just need to keep my methods to myself on this matter?

Seriously Charity, they are putting us out of our jobs!

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The irony of a double post in a rules thread is staggering :biggrin:
Sorry about that. Technical glitch. All fixed now.

[Annarrkkii]

Fixed
Also. IF you receive, say, a Minor Infraction, what is the appropriate response? Will Mods expect you to Reply to the Infraction PM? If they do, what should you say? Is "Sorry, I was out of line, won't happen again" a valid response, or something similar to that effect, or is considered a Mea Culpa? Or is an entirely different Reply expected?

[Samiam303]

And that's not a true statement, at least from a license POV. The two are separate licenses. There are several products that are OGL that do not make use of the d20 license. For example, the Book of Erotic Fantasy is one such book*. Another example of OGL material that doesn't use the d20 license is everything published (to this point) on this website.

I know this book for sure, because this book caused WotC to alter the d20 license. Essentially, as a result of this book, WotC now has the ability to veto d20 products prior to their release; they have no such control over OGL released material, however.
Alright, I don't know much about licensing. I was just commenting on the grammatical structure of the sentence, and the meaning it conveyed.

[Zherog]

What you said is true, from a non-licensing POV. White Wolf's Storyteller system, for example, is not OGL. So in that sense, yeah - you're right.

I just brought it up because of the technicalities and possible confusion it could create for some people.

[Roland St. Jude]

And that's not a true statement, at least from a license POV. The two are separate licenses. There are several products that are OGL that do not make use of the d20 license. For example, the Book of Erotic Fantasy is one such book*. Another example of OGL material that doesn't use the d20 license is everything published (to this point) on this website.

I know this book for sure, because this book caused WotC to alter the d20 license. Essentially, as a result of this book, WotC now has the ability to veto d20 products prior to their release; they have no such control over OGL released material, however.

It's not really a prescriptive part of the rules; it's merely a description. You're correct that it isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, but it's not there as a prohibition on doing something so much as an attempt to suggest to people that non-d20 stuff isn't OGL. Which is generally true (the BoEF is the only exception I'm aware of).


Fixed
Also. IF you receive, say, a Minor Infraction, what is the appropriate response? Will Mods expect you to Reply to the Infraction PM? If they do, what should you say? Is "Sorry, I was out of line, won't happen again" a valid response, or something similar to that effect, or is considered a Mea Culpa? Or is an entirely different Reply expected?

No response is required or expected, typically. Just review the Rules of Posting. If you have something to say feel free to say it via PM.

[Zherog]

It's not really a prescriptive part of the rules; it's merely a description. You're correct that it isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, but it's not there as a prohibition on doing something so much as an attempt to suggest to people that non-d20 stuff isn't OGL. Which is generally true (the BoEF is the only exception I'm aware of).

All of the gaming material on this site is another example. It's OGL, but it doesn't use the d20 license.

I understand what you're saying. White Wolf, GURPS, etc are not open content, and therefore can't be quoted in large chunks. I just think it'd be a good idea to contemplate re-wording that passage a bit.

[Alarra]

*pokes around rules*
Okeday.

In regards to the multiple accounts rule: Don't a few of the most prominent Townies have more than a couple alts? Even though they're identified, and only exist in the Town, are they still being banned? :smallconfused:
Also, what about making another account for the purpose of anonymity? If I needed to post a thread asking for help, etc, where I wanted/needed to be anonymous, identifying myself as a member of the forum, would there be an exception?

Yes. A lot of the people in town do have quite a few alts. These are going to be being banned as well. Actually, I'll go make a post regarding those right now.

I do not believe that there is a plan to make exceptions for anonymity's sake. However, there is an anonymous confessions thread....you could email your problem in there...

[Roland St. Jude]

...I just think it'd be a good idea to contemplate re-wording that passage a bit.

Agreed. The easiest answer would be to omit that line and leave it up to people to figure out what is OGL, d20, etc. on their own.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Still, the question stands, what is explicit sexuality and graphic violence? That's still pretty vague.
We tend to go by a NSFW/PG13 standard - if it's not something that would be appropriate to view in a normal office environment, or wouldn't make it into a PG13 film, then it's most likely not going to fly here. To be honest, we haven't made this more specific because we need it to be somewhat broad - rather than maintain a huge list of specific items that would not be appropriate, the rule gives us the ability to approach things with some flexibility.

For the most part, when this rule comes up, it's pretty easy to make the call. If it's a bit more nebulous - well, that's one reason we have the option of doing Warnings instead of Infractions.

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh, yeah! I like the image size rulings. And the limits fit within my screen resolution, too.
What, are you running 640x480 or something? 400 pixels wide is tiny. :smallsigh: Regardless, that didn't change; 400 pixels has been the limit for quite some time.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

What, are you running 640x480 or something? 400 pixels wide is tiny. :smallsigh: Regardless, that didn't change; 400 pixels has been the limit for quite some time.

1024 by 768

The navigation sidebar takes up space. And then there's the negative space separating the forum section from the navbar (for readability)...

There's only about 550 pixels of space when I have my window maximized. And I do need to have it maximized because layout elements other than pictures cause the Horizontal Scroll Bar of Doom™ to appear when it's not anyway.

[HempRope]

Do you want to hear about typos and such?

[Zherog]

I've been pointing them out. That's what all the red "Fixed" comments are back in my previous posts - mods removing the parts of my posts pointing out typos.

[InaVegt]

There is more than d20 stuff published under the OGL, IIRC the latest version of runequest or something similar is also published under the OGL.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

There is more than d20 stuff published under the OGL, IIRC the latest version of runequest or something similar is also published under the OGL.
I can't vouch for that , but even if the statement in the rules is true now, it can easily change without notice in the future. And it took them this long to update the rules after the new system... :smallwink:

[InaVegt]

Runequest SRD (http://www.runequestrpg.net/index.php/RuneQuest)

[Quincunx]

I would suggest reordering the "Please Don't" list slightly; make "One Topic, One Thread" immediately follow "Thread Necromancy", since the two are contradictory headings. A poster skimming might take notice of one and not the other, separated as they are now.

I would have liked the visual of maximum pixel size, but given the text-only Rules of Posting post, see how it would have jarred with the layout of the page.

There is a minor difference of wording between the Rules of Posting saying that a person's multiple accounts will be "closed" and the current discussion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39599) saying that they will be " 'banned' ". "Closed" is the better term.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

I would suggest reordering the "Please Don't" list slightly; make "One Topic, One Thread" immediately follow "Thread Necromancy", since the two are contradictory headings. A poster skimming might take notice of one and not the other, separated as they are now.
Good idea.



The last sentence is not true. For example, all of the books in WotC's "Complete" set are d20 books - they have the little logo and all that jazz. But none of that material is designated as OGC.

As I read that paragraph, you're saying it's OK to post verbatim from d20 books, because d20 books are OGL. That would need to be corrected.
This rule has been reworded for clarity and to cover other circumstances. Functionally it's still the same, though.

[Zherog]

This rule has been reworded for clarity and to cover other circumstances. Functionally it's still the same, though.

http://majik.be/smilies/yea.gif

I give it my stamp of approval. Much clearer than previously.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Runequest SRD (http://www.runequestrpg.net/index.php/RuneQuest)
Well, there ya have it. A non-d20 open game.

I also think the new wording is better.

[Rawhide]

There is a minor difference of wording between the Rules of Posting saying that a person's multiple accounts will be "closed" and the current discussion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39599) saying that they will be " 'banned' ". "Closed" is the better term.

Technically there is no difference between an account being 'banned' and an account being 'closed'. However you are right, the term 'closed' is better in this instance, I just didn't think of it when I was letting people know they could opt to close their account rather than merge.

[LotharBot]

Suggestion:

Whenever you put a "rules have updated" message in the welcome box, put the date the rules were updated on. That way, if you update a couple times close together, people won't miss the second update (thinking the "updated" message was referring to the first update they already read.)

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

Infractions: 1/0 (0)

:smalleek: Aren't denominators of zero, like, dabbling in things that should not be dabbled in? Eventually I sussed it out, maybe (yellow/red?), but perhaps that should be defined in the pertinent sticky.

...or maybe it is. I can't check it again because my internet has suddenly slowed to a crawl and I need to go perform some "percussive maintainace" on the router...

:elan: Woo! I'm undefined!

[Rawhide]

Infractions: 1/0 (0)

:smalleek: Aren't denominators of zero, like, dabbling in things that should not be dabbled in? Eventually I sussed it out, maybe (yellow/red?), but perhaps that should be defined in the pertinent sticky.

...or maybe it is. I can't check it again because my internet has suddenly slowed to a crawl and I need to go perform some "percussive maintainace" on the router...

:elan: Woo! I'm undefined!

Warnings/Infractions (Points)

1/0 (0) means you have one warning, no infractions and no points. Infractions give you a certain number of points and warnings give you none. We use a 100 point scale with 100 points = 100%. After 300 points are accumulated, the account is flagged for review and possible banning.