My Lion King Forum

The past few days the staff have been working on a revamped system of rules and a revamped warning system. We're scrapping the three-strikes-you're-out system in favor of a more gradual consequential warning system. To implement this, we needed to revise the Universal Rules to reflect these changes, and in doing so we pretty much reorganized and categorized the offences a member could commit on MLK.

I recommend that every member read the new Universal Rules. You will notice that while the majority of the rules have remained the same, some have been added and some have been modified. The first thing you will notice is that offences are categorized into three categories: Slight, General, and Severe. These categories were put in place to hopefully bring a bit more consistency in consequences when offences are committed (You know what to expect when you commit an offence). Please read over the entire document and make sure you understand everything.

Now, as we make this transition, we ask all members to bare with us. This is a new set of rules and as such unexpected things can occur. If we missed something, we will need to revise the new rules in the coming weeks. We will most likely be announcing such revisions in this topic, although it does say at the top of the Universal Rules, as it has for a long time, that "They are subject to change without notification." In other words, you are responsible for keeping up with the changes in the rules.

Also, during this transition, "official warnings," as they were once called, get transferred into general offences. This means that, for example, if you have 1 board warning, then you have already committed your first general offence. If you have 2 board warnings, you are on your second general offence. No suspensions will be given out for your existing warnings, but if you have 2 board warnings and you get another, you will serve the consequence of receiving 3 board warnings for general offences. That consequence, as listed in the new Universal Rules, is a warning & 7 day suspension from the board. We will not transfer any slight offences from the "PM warnings," as they were called. Everyone starts afresh with 0 slight offences.

We will be keeping a copy of the Universal Rules as of February 14th, 2011 for members who wish to view the old rules for whatever reason. Just PM a staff member and we will send it to you.

While I feel that the new rule set (or rather, the new penalty system in regard to broken rules) is a bit too lenient, I won't argue that because chances are it will go nowhere. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions in regard to the explanation and definition of two rules.

Double Posting: I see that double-posting is defined as "the act of posting in a topic and then posting again in that same topic before anyone else has a chance to post." I would like to suggest changing the description to something along the lines of "the act of posting more than once in a row (before someone else has posted after your first post in question) within 24 hours." For example, with the definition I'm suggesting, I could create a new thread and then post in it again three hours later before anyone else has and be in violation of the rule. Similarly, Simbaholic could create a thread and then I could reply twice to that thread within 24 hours, with no one else posting in between my two replies, and then I would also be in violation of the rule. Since that's always been my understanding of the double-posting rule, I thought I'd throw that suggestion out there. I didn't see any provisions for a situation similar to the latter of my two examples, other than a vaguely-implied notion that the two situation types would be dealt with the same way due to their close similarity. While most people will probably understand it, it's always good to clarify when it's relatively easy to do so.

"Altering quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said": I'd like to suggest that instead of allowing quotes to be altered at all, prohibit it completely and require users to keep the exact quote (unless, of course, the unmodified quote would break a forum rule). If I am replying to a thread and I want to refer visually to something YFWE said, I would do so by quoting him in the post. If I modify his message, it is no longer a quote. Rather, I would be paraphrasing what he said. I think that users should never alter what is going to presented as a quote, even if their intent is to paraphrase (what you are allowing them to do as a quote). When someone is presented with a quote, by the very definition of the word they should be able to assume that the "quote" is word-for-word. Not to mention that some users may not paraphrase effectively (they might misunderstand the message, or misrepresent it on purpose or by accident).

Other than this, I think the new rule set looks good. It's definitely a lot simpler and easier to understand than before.

Cool new rule! The members might behave better with this

Snowy, altering quotes doesn't necessarily change the fact that it's a quote like say if someone has a lengthy message, and someone wants to open discussion on just part of what they say, they may alter their quote so that it is only the sentence or so they're posting about. or at least I would consider that altering. that's why I'd assume there's no total prohibition on altering quotes, so long as it doesn't change what the person is actually saying (and thus break the rule). or that's my assumption at least.

sounds like the new system will be pretty consistent and efficient so far.

Simba pretty much summed it up, the rule says in a way that alters what was said. Shortening the quote to just a few lines or so is okay if you only want to reply to that particular section of the post because it can look messy and get confusing when there are multiple large quotes going on. But you may not alter them...

[quote]If the original message says "I like Simba"[/quote]

[quote]I may not alter it when replying to say "I hate Simba"[/quote]

The Universal Rules have been updated.

Rule "Posting anything that will promote arguing. This includes political or religious discussions, as such things are bound to promote arguing." changed to "Posting anything that will promote arguing."

We will allow religious or political discussions as long as they do not become arguments.

That sounds like sound judgment.

Everyone is given the ability to prove their maturity, that's all anyone should ever ask.

oh, ok, cool! Yeah, I agree with Maaaaaan,we should all behave like adults or young adults as in some cases.

Note taken, thanks for the heads up Commandant.

So can Sillydog's topic be unlocked now.