NPR rules, please give suggestions Options

[jonathan83]

Since this forum is mainly serious discussion, we need to make some basic rules/guidelines here. Once we have a good amount of suggestions I'll make an "Official Rules" thread and sticky it.

For one, I think we need to make it mandatory that people post sources/links for whatever article they are referring to, etc.

Also, should things like TTUlow rap threads be moved to offtopic or be merged into one thread in NPR?

What other suggestions do you have?

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Feb 23 2006, 03:17 AM

[woody]

Give TTUlow his own pin

[Billy]

I think the only rule we need at the moment is no posting NSFW material here unless it's linked and there is a warning.

Let Low have his rap threads. And linking your sources is nice, but shouldn't be required.

[schwab]

ttulows rap threads should be in entertainment.....even though no one is entertained

[jwttu]

ya linking your sources just makes you look credible

[Hartmann]

Link to sources, don't post full article, etc.

[James]

You can post full articles. That's the main reason you need to link the source and put the article in quotes. Doing that doesn't violate any copyright laws.

[Hartmann]

You can post full articles. That's the main reason you need to link the source and put the article in quotes. Doing that doesn't violate any copyright laws.

That depends on the copyright held by the publisher.

[James]

You can post full articles.  That's the main reason you need to link the source and put the article in quotes.  Doing that doesn't violate any copyright laws.

That depends on the copyright held by the publisher.

Why would that matter?

[Hartmann]

You can post full articles.  That's the main reason you need to link the source and put the article in quotes.  Doing that doesn't violate any copyright laws.

That depends on the copyright held by the publisher.

Why would that matter?

If the publisher states "No Derived Works" that means it cannot be reproduced, at all, even if cited.

[James]

You can post full articles. That's the main reason you need to link the source and put the article in quotes. Doing that doesn't violate any copyright laws.

That depends on the copyright held by the publisher.

Why would that matter?

If the publisher states "No Derived Works" that means it cannot be reproduced, at all, even if cited.

Interesting. Why publish if you don't intend to share. Selfish bastards. Oh well. It's moot. The verdict has already been restated. I thought that is what Lance said last time, too.

[James]

the copyright system is broken, so techsans doesn't adhere to it, we're revolutionaries, if we get sued we get sued

To Big Brother, I know you're watching:

For the record, I am not a revolutionary. I just hang around and say random things. Thanks.

[Hartmann]

the copyright system is broken, so techsans doesn't adhere to it, we're revolutionaries, if we get sued we get sued

No, the patent system is broken. The copyright system works perfectly, people just don't know what they're doing.

[Spectatrix]

I would say:

1) Require links to all news articles.
2) Posting the full text of the article is optional, but if posted it must be placed in a quote block to distinquish it from your commentary.
3) Flaming, trolling, etc. will not be tolerated.
4) Absolutely no NSFW threads or posts in NPR. (I don't see any situations that would warrant them...)

[James]

I would say:

1) Require links to all news articles.
2) Posting the full text of the article is optional, but if posted it must be placed in a quote block to distinquish it from your commentary.
3) Flaming, trolling, etc. will not be tolerated.
4) Absolutely no NSFW threads or posts in NPR. (I don't see any situations that would warrant them...)

I see a problem with item #4

Suppose some hate organization is in the news and someone makes a thread about this hate organization. At a lot of work places, certain pictures or even words could be considered not safe for work. The same could be said of anti-government posts.

[Jim]

Another one: Don't ask for someone to summarize it for you. Don't say, "Too long, didn't read. Cliff Notes" or anything like that. It's annoying as shit.

[schwab]

no banning for personal opinions

[Spectatrix]

I would say:

1) Require links to all news articles.
2) Posting the full text of the article is optional, but if posted it must be placed in a quote block to distinquish it from your commentary.
3) Flaming, trolling, etc. will not be tolerated.
4) Absolutely no NSFW threads or posts in NPR. (I don't see any situations that would warrant them...)

I see a problem with item #4

Suppose some hate organization is in the news and someone makes a thread about this hate organization. At a lot of work places, certain pictures or even words could be considered not safe for work. The same could be said of anti-government posts.

By NSFW I meant sexual pictures. But yeah, you're right.

[jonathan83]

official rules posted. any problems with them, post them here.

[jonathan83]

oh, and dont worry about the rap threads. the mods have decided what to do about those.

[Billy]

No sig pics in NPR. Especially those involving anime.

[Mommy]

I think personal attacks should be allowed to an extent so that people can express how stupid some other people's views are.

[Throwdown]

WHY NO BOOOOOOOOOOOBIES

[jonathan83]

No sig pics in NPR. Especially those involving anime.

its not anime. i hate anime.

and yeah jessica, i know what you mean. its cool until it gets to a certain extent.

[schwab]

its not anime. i hate anime.

and yeah jessica, i know what you mean. its cool until it gets to a certain extent.

you mean you cant just call someone a dumbass? that ruins the whole point of arguing

[Jim]

I don't know if you can turn off signatures in specific forums...

After checking ACP (on a different forum), it doesn't look you can. But, this is a newer version than what's being used where I admin, so yeah.

[jonathan83]

you mean you cant just call someone a dumbass? that ruins the whole point of arguing

shutup dumbass i'm right, you're wrong.

[Mommy]

you can call the arguments dumb, but not the person

thats dumb



like that?

[jonathan83]

that comment was very stupid, but i respect your opinion!

reminds me of: http://gprime.net/video.php/reallifevsinternet

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Feb 23 2006, 09:10 PM

[Mommy]

only stupid people make double posts


i mean, I dont like how there is a stupid double post.



attack the problem, not the person

[FORSAKENR320]

if we really wanted this to be a civilized forum we'd have each person address the other person's argument with logic and attempt to find fallacies in the other persons logic

but since this is techsans and the internet, insulting the other person's argument when you can't win is the best we can do

don't forget attacking grammar, slandering each other, and generally trying to win arguements the way monkeys do... scream and shout and see who can shake the branch the hardest

[woody]

if we really wanted this to be a civilized forum we'd have each person address the other person's argument with logic and attempt to find fallacies in the other persons logic

but since this is techsans and the internet, insulting the other person's argument when you can't win is the best we can do

hahaha

this is true. when one person attacks the person & not the argument, you can consider the debate over

[jonathan83]

thanks for the suggestions.