Post your New Rules of Posting questions here.

[Arian]

I notice that among the Inappropriate Topics is listed:

Real-world religions (including religious reactions to Gaming)

This is new, right? No mention at all of real religion in connection with gaming?

Would "I am a [member of religion] and I think gaming is perfectly fine" count as an Inappropriate comment?

Voice of a Mod

Sorry, I edited your subject to let people know they should post their questions here, rather than create new threads. No warnings for you today :)

[RawBearNYC]

That's a judgement call for the mods in question.

However, I would rule against it. Basically, the only reason you'd mention it is if you're trying to suggest that as a member of religion X, you're talking about a religious issue. While I don't think anyone here would disagree with you, but the opportunity to disagree would push the conversation into the direction that the rule exists for. I don't, otherwise see a point of saying that. It would be like me saying "I'm right handed, and I like gaming" or "I wear denim, and I like gaming".

As a matter of fact, there's been a "I'm [characteristic] and I like gaming" topic i've wanted to post, but it comes close to breaking the rule, so I haven't posted it.

[Charity]

psst whats the characteristic, I gotta know....

aw go on....

[Wukei]

*waves hand frantically*


Here are some kinds of groups that are not acceptable:

Groups where the function is to oppose another group. This means that the group is out to attack, defame, or oppose the other group, not the other philosophy. For example, if someone forms an Anti-James Bond group, you may not form an Anti-Anti-James Bond group whose sole purpose is to attack or belittle members of the Anti-James Bond group. You may, if you wish, form a Pro-James Bond group to discuss the virtues of the British secret agent.

Um..does the ABM have to disban? It does say that you can't have a group to oppose another...but we were just about to have a big battle...

[RawBearNYC]

that's how I read it, unfortunately. I don't remember which mod wrote that rule, but I'll ask them to come here and clarify.

[Grey Watcher]

Unfortunately, yes. A number of the moderators have been... uncomfortable with things like Anti-Banjoism, Anti-Anti-Banjoism, Anti-Anti-Mikoism, and various other groups that seem to be drawing battle lines right accross the board. We know that 90% of it is meant in good fun, but there have been incidents of real flaming that seems to trace back to this stuff, and it just creates this very weird tension in the boards. I know it's "all in good fun," but there seems (to us, at least) to be a growing undercurrent of real hostility in these skirmishes.

Plus, it's terribly cliquey. People can't post an opinion about Banjo or Miko or whatever without either being arbitrarily (and sometimes even unwittingly) declared "the enemy" by half the forum, or they have to put ridiculous qualifiers in, like "I'm not involved in the fight, but I want to say this."

The thing is, the various "Board Wars" started benignly enough, but it just feels like, as they grow in size, there's been something of a mob mentality developing, and people are getting so worked up about it that otherwise intelligent, courteous members seem to forget that "it's all in good fun," and, more importantly, the rules of posting.

[Wukei]

All right, I'll disban the ABM.

However, I would like to state that I believe it is unfair to allow the CoB to express themselves, but not allow us to express our ill-ease over their group. They've dragged a character into a roll that can constitute almost a cult-like status on your boards. For us to not be able to say "Banjo isn't real" is like you're telling them that banjo is real, and it's okay for them to do whatever they want, because there will be no one to express an opinion other than that. It's not allowed.

[Grey Watcher]

Well, I think it would be acceptable if you could shift the focus of the group from "opposing Banjoists" to "opposing Banjo." We don't want to bar people from expressing their opinion on subjects like these, but we do have to maintain law and order here. The ABM, as it is now, can't continue, but if we could shift the focus back onto the puppet himself, and how unworthy he is as an object of worship (perhaps pointing out that his teachings are confused and inconsistent or something), that would, I think, be acceptable. (Rich Burlew himself, of course, has final say.)

All in all, you're right, it is a very messy situation we have here, but the only alternative was to A) let it continue as is, which the staff agreed was unacceptable, B) completely take away all rights to of forum members to associate with one another (also unacceptable), or C) do what we did, and limit groups to those that voice a philosophy or opinion, and prohibit those that attack real people.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

I notice that among the Inappropriate Topics is listed:

Real-world religions (including religious reactions to Gaming)

This is new, right? No mention at all of real religion in connection with gaming?

Would "I am a [member of religion] and I think gaming is perfectly fine" count as an Inappropriate comment?
To expand a bit on RawBear's answer, it's not actually a new rule, but a clarification on an old one. Previously, it had simply stated that rule world religion was not up for discussion, but the topic of religion and gaming fell into a bit of a grey area.

We know religion is important to people, and that how it interacts with gaming is important to most gamers, but it's an issue that gets too caught up with religious doctrine and real-world politics.

As for your particular example, from my POV, it would only show up in a thread discussing religious reactions to D&D, which wouldn't come up under the clarified rule anyways.

[The Prince of Cats]

To expand a bit on RawBear's answer, it's not actually a new rule, but a clarification on an old one. Previously, it had simply stated that rule world religion was not up for discussion, but the topic of religion and gaming fell into a bit of a grey area.

We know religion is important to people, and that how it interacts with gaming is important to most gamers, but it's an issue that gets too caught up with religious doctrine and real-world politics.

As for your particular example, from my POV, it would only show up in a thread discussing religious reactions to D&D, which wouldn't come up under the clarified rule anyways.
I was about to say... The Forgotten Realms do touch (closely) on some real religions, so to discuss Tymora or Besheba would be to touch on Tyche, for instance.Thor, Loki and I think Odin have turned up in the comic too.

I would ask why religion has to be such a touchy topic but I aalready know the answer...

[RawBearNYC]

I was about to say... The Forgotten Realms do touch (closely) on some real religions, so to discuss Tymora or Besheba would be to touch on Tyche, for instance.Thor, Loki and I think Odin have turned up in the comic too.

I would ask why religion has to be such a touchy topic but I aalready know the answer...

Well, there will be some judgement on the part of the moderators in those cases. There's a difference between discussing the character Thor from the strip, and discussing Thor from Nordic Mythology. Of course, the relationship between Mythology and Religion is something I'm going to need to discuss with Rich before I'll discuss that further.

[The Giant]

The mods have answered correctly so far, as is not surprising since we discussed these new rules at length before posting them. But just to be clear:

1.) As Grey Watcher says, an Anti-Banjo movement is perfectly acceptable. Banjo is a fictional character. An Anti-Banjoist movement is not; the Banjoists are actual human beings sitting at computers, and starting a movement against them constitutes harassment. The current ABM is mostly the latter rather than the former, unfortunately. And obviously any Anti-Anti-Banjoist movement is also not allowed, because they wouldn't be promoting Banjo, merely attacking the ABM.

2.) As RawBear said, the topic of real-world religions has ALWAYS been Off-Topic in these forums. In the past, though, the area of gaming & religion has been assumed by posters to be a "grey area" if they treated it with respect. Well, almost every thread that has ever delved into the topic has needed to be locked or edited, so we are simply enforcing our existing law: gaming & religion is NOT a grey area. It is Off-Topic.

3.) For the record, real-world religions are meant to include all those practised today in reality. Discussion of Jupiter-worshipping is OK, as is Banjo-worshipping since that's fictional.

By the way, I fully encourage you guys to keep asking questions about the new rules, so we can find any holes we might have missed.

[HempRope]

For the record, this is one ABM member very happy that goup is disbanding. No more organizations invading my precious PbP forums!

Thank you. ;D

[Winged One]

*reads new rules*
*panics*
The new rules aren't retroactive, are they?
*goes off to fix various recent violations of new rules*
EDIT: fixed all of the ones I remember.

[Samiam303]

The way it reads to me, you could continue it as long as the groups are "Pro-Banjo" and "Anti-Banjo". As long as the groups are actually about Banjo and not just about flaming the other group, it seems to fit within the written limits.

EDIT: I took the written rules and substituted the word "Banjo" for the James Bond references. If the mod's have any problem with this interpritation, please feel free to edit it at your lesiure. ;)

Here are some kinds of groups that are not acceptable:

Groups where the function is to oppose another group. This means that the group is out to attack, defame, or oppose the other group, not the other philosophy. For example, if someone forms an Anti-Banjo group, you may not form an Anti-Anti-Banjo group whose sole purpose is to attack or belittle members of the Anti-Banjo group. You may, if you wish, form a Pro-Banjo group to discuss the virtues of the god of puppets.


EDIT JR.:

An Anti-Banjoist movement is not; the Banjoists are actual human beings sitting at computers, and starting a movement against them constitutes harassment.

What if there was an Anti-Banjoist Movement who focused on the Banjoists within the OoTS Comic as opposed to the banjoist readers? Granted there aren't very many, but it's just a question.

[RawBearNYC]

That'll be another situation at the discretion of the comics mods (since that topic belongs in comics).

[SilverElf4]

How do signature lines fit in with the religion angle? I've seen any number of FSM (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) links and the occasional quote from a religious leader, and I was curious as to whether they fall under the same jurisdiction.

For the record:

a) Yes, I am aware that the FSM is a parody movement, but it is a religious parody movement poking good natured (for the most part) fun at people's beliefs.

b) No, I am not trying to single anyone/any group/any poster out. I picked FSM because I just happened to see one today, that's all.

Personally, I have a lovely number of quotes from various religious figures I'd like to add to my sig, but I want some clarification before I go adding those willy nilly. :)

[The Giant]

*reads new rules*
*panics*
The new rules aren't retroactive, are they?
*goes off to fix various recent violations of new rules*
EDIT: fixed all of the ones I remember.

No, they're not retroactive, but we may lock or edit threads that violate them, even if the thread is old. It's just that no one will get warned or banned for it. Of course, these rules have been posted now for just about 24 hours, so the window of "I didn't know about the new rules" is effectively closed.

------

Re: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Religious parodies are OK for discrete linkage, just not discussion. A thread talking about HOW the CoFSM pokes fun at religion will get locked. A link to it in a signature will not. You can link discretely to the website of the Vatican or some other religious group in your signature, too, as long as your link is clearly marked and not labeled, say, "Check out my new prestige class". Ultimately, if your link is properly labelled, it's the problem of the person who clicks on it if they don't like the content, not us.

Likewise, a signature quote by someone who happens to be a religious figure (i.e. Mother Theresa) is fine, as long as that quote is not actual scripture or exhortation to convert/accept a specific religion. A thread discussing a scriptural quote will be locked.

[SilverElf4]

Ultimately, if your link is properly labelled, it's the problem of the person who clicks on it if they don't like the content, not us.

Sounds fair to me. Thanks for the clarification!

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

I love discussing politics and religion but have never done so here, mostly because I post on the silly games threads which are by nature non-serious. But even if I posted on other boards I wouldn't have discussed either of those anyway this certainly is not an appropriate type of board for serious topics. There are plenty of those and for those of us who enjoy discussing that we should keep it there.

As the ABM movements go I saw some remarks by the ABM people that they were under the impression that banjoists really do worship banjo as a real go and really believe it. That seems pretty unlikely to me but that may have been a reason it go so heated.

[Winged One]

Well, that's a relief.

Does congratulating somebody about becoming a Titan in the Playground break the rules? I doubt that they do in spirit, but I'm not so sure about in letter.

[Zherog]

With any luck, it'll be considered a violation.

[jdrich]

Posting Oversized Images
Giant pictures that stretch the screen are a bane to people trying to read the boards. Please link to files larger than 400pixels wide, or 500kb.

I think the new rules are missing a 'do not' between 'Please' and 'link.'

I may be wrong, however...

[HempRope]

No, think they mean that instead of posting pictures of that size, please link to them.

Though I could, of course, be wrong.

[Zherog]

I read it the same way as you, HempRope. Use the URL tag rather than the IMG tag.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Zherog and HempRope are right on for that one ;)

[Wukei]

I just wanted to make sure that the Norse Church met all of the requirements afore mentioned:


Due to a few indescretions, the ABM has been disbanned. However, it is our belief that it is the group that should endure. You see Banjo's name nowhere in the top gods of the Norse Pantheon. (http://www.wizardrealm.com/norse/gods.html) You neither see him mentioned anywhere in any Norse mythological name. (http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/gods3.html)

But that can change.

We here at the Norse Church invite the CoB (Church of Banjo) to battle us for their right to place their 'god' on our pantheon. Once they have succeeded, it will take a vote of three or more followers of one god (IE Odin, Loki, Freya, etc) to call for a lack of faith in the so-called god to start another battle to remove Banjo again. Those that are not subject to one church in particular--like myself--may only be invited by a certain group to vote yes or no on a fight against Banjo.

The Norse Church is basically our way of inviting Banjo to try and become a real god. Of course, those that don't follow Odin (hey, he likes puppets) believe that Banjo is nothing more than a puppet. Let us see if he can prove us wrong.

[eof]

I have a non-Banjo question.

Under Warning Offenses/Flaming we find: "Tell a poster that they clearly didn't read what you wrote."

How does this constitute flaming? Is it merely because you make a claim about what that poster has (or in this case, hasn't) done?

How about when you actually, truly feel that a poster subverts (either intentionally or unintentionally) what you are saying? Say, for instance, by misquoting you (or more typically, not quoting you at all, instead "repeating" what you "said," or in some cases, quoting you out of context)? Even after you've made attempts to clarify what you meant (if there was anything unclear that even needed to be clarified)? After this happens repeatedly?

The obvious solution might of course be to ignore such a poster. However, other posters read those posts as well, and as such you feel that leaving them unanswered means allowing someone to misrepresent you.

What is the correct way to address such situations, without "flaming?" Because, although I can think of several reasons why this rule can be useful, I can also see situations where it is quite the opposite.

[RawBearNYC]

Then let a mod know, if the poster is deliberately trying to subvert an argument, then they're breaking rules in their own right.

There's an old saying, "Wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig has fun.". Never get into a pissing match with someone that doesn't play fair. By arguing with people, you lend them your credibility. By ignoring them, you treat their argument as unimportant and not meaningful to you.

Edit: Grrr...typo.

[Zherog]

Then let a mod know, if the poster is deliberately trying to subvert an argument, then they're breaking rules in their own right.

There's an old saying, "Wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig has fun.". Never get into a pissing match with someone that doesn't play fair. By arguing with people, you lend them their credibility. By ignoring them, you treat their argument as unimportant and not meaningful to you.


The uncooked ursus speaks wisely. :D

[Malachi, the Lich King]

There's an old saying, "Wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig has fun.". Never get into a pissing match with someone that doesn't play fair. By arguing with people, you lend them your credibility. By ignoring them, you treat their argument as unimportant and not meaningful to you.


Officially my new favorite expression. Similar to something Alan Moore [writer for DC comics] said some time back along the lines of "You can't punish a pile of [excrement] by jumping up and down on it. You can only walk away." Sometimes tougher to do in practice but there you go.

[Samiam303]

"You can't punish a pile of [excrement] by jumping up and down on it. You can only walk away."

I like it. ;D

[Winged One]

Is the discussion of banned topics disallowed if done via Private Message?

[RawBearNYC]

The rules of posting are designed to create a space where participants can have reasonable expectations on what kinds of subject matter they will encounter. As such, no rule of posting should be violated in private messages. However, our ability to police private messages is severly limited (not impossible, but limited), so we rely on members to complain about rules being broken there.

That leads, obviously, to the concept that if the noone complains about a PM conversation, then nothing will be done. However, be sure that the person you're communicating with wants to be a part of whatever conversation you're having. Otherwise, they will have the right to notify a mod and ask that the offender be warned (after verification of the message).

[Samiam303]

Just out of curiousity, is there a rule against threatining to gouge other poster's eyes out with a spork? ;D ::)


yea man whtever im just trying to provide a service so shut upbefore i gouge your eyes out with a spork!

[Wukei]

if it was in jest, probably not...but I know there's a rule about telling people to shut up...but that didn't look like it was in jest, either...

[Zherog]

You should be sending that sort of thing to a mod to deal with it in private, rather than making a public specticle out of it.

[Samiam303]

Well, that's what I did with his first post. Posting further was just asking for it. And I've just seen too many Runescape scammers go unchecked to pass up a line like that. ;)