Rewriting the Official Sythe.org Rules

[x339]

I remember a while ago Matthew talked about rewriting and organizing all of the sythe.org rules. I really think this should be done to specify things such as name sniping and other unwritten rules that have been causing controversies.

Some people say that this will make the rules to long, but that is really a pretentious argument considering there can never be "to many" rules. Each rule should be defined specifically so there is no question of what is wrong and what is right.

 

[Listen to Young Money]

I support. I sense it's been quite a while since the rules have had any serious revisions.

 

I've seen many holes in the rules. Should be rewritten and more specific and detailed. Support.

 

Hmm. I think we have adequate guidelines right now. What are these holes you speak of? Generally speaking, most forums have the policy that if it seems wrong, don't do it. Common sense. Don't hack accounts and then try to sell them here, etc. Instead of writing out the thousands things people could do wrong, we use this common sense principle.

 

Sorry, but makes no sense to rewrite them. They took years to build, aren't too long, and cover most issues.

 

Hmm. I think we have adequate guidelines right now. What are these holes you speak of? Generally speaking, most forums have the policy that if it seems wrong, don't do it. Common sense. Don't hack accounts and then try to sell them here, etc. Instead of writing out the thousands things people could do wrong, we use this common sense principle.

There some rules that I were to read the literally and not use common sense, I would get infracted yet I could dispute it. But I don't want that ofc.

It's not for me, I'm beyond the point of breaking rules for long time now. It's for other who, as you said, have no common sense.

 

[Laptop65]

Debatable topic, better to just fix and rewrite the parts of the rules that need doing rather than rewrite the whole thing which will take ages.

 

[Deacon Frost]

I did the work twice in the past:

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=666516
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=732406

Denied both times. While an overhaul would be nice, I don't think it's very high on the list of priorities.

 

[mill3n]

Rules are added over-time, and I think the current layout is good. I don't see any change necessary.

 

[Jeff]

Hmm. I think we have adequate guidelines right now. What are these holes you speak of? Generally speaking, most forums have the policy that if it seems wrong, don't do it. Common sense. Don't hack accounts and then try to sell them here, etc. Instead of writing out the thousands things people could do wrong, we use this common sense principle.

There are unfortunately a few 'holes in the system' that can definitely be specified and outlined more clearly.

These include, but does not exclude:

- Name Sniping; the definition and guidelines of 'Name Sniping'; what is 'Name Sniping'; how is it defined and what constitutes as 'Name Sniping'; does this include adding a display name which a person wishes to use (E.G. Sythe) to their Friend/Ignore list, waiting for that specific display name to change and once it is immediately transferable, that person immediately changes, or 'snipes', the display name?

- Grave-digging; although it is already currently outlined in the current Sythe.org rules, there are still some misconception about it generated between users. These include; what constitutes 'grave-digging'? A fair example which most forums use is the 14 day limit. Through this 'limit', if the last post on a particular thread was 14 or more days ago, then it is prone to 'grave-digging', unless the original poster decides to post/bump the thread then 'grave-digging' does not occur.

- The expiry date (

); after a warning/infraction is given to a user, an expiry date of that warning/infraction is also given. Once that expiry date expires, that warning/infraction should be removed, otherwise why distribute an expiry date at all? This is aimed at warning(s) and the relation between that and expiry date(s). I personally do not think this 'rule' is stated clearly enough, or even stated at all as in the current situation, the expiry date means nothing.

- Pin Sales

Users will be banned for 1 month for the following:

PIN Sales: Sale of membership PINs is strictly prohibited. Any discussion of this will be infracted. If it continues, you will be banned.

; a slight confusion is determined here whether the user will be immediately banned for 1 month or firstly infracted after their initial violation?


Those are just a few prime examples which could/should definitely be cleared up, although I personally know the boundaries of each action.

However these are merely suggestion and should not be pertained as the 'actual' rule(s). Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of the examples provided.

And I also support the original suggestion pertained in this topic.

 

[n4n0]

- The expiry date (

); after a warning/infraction is given to a user, an expiry date of that warning/infraction is also given. Once that expiry date expires, that warning/infraction should be removed, otherwise why distribute an expiry date at all? This is aimed at warning(s) and the relation between that and expiry date(s). I personally do not think this 'rule' is stated clearly enough, or even stated at all as in the current situation, the expiry date means nothing.

In regards to this. The infractions won't just disappear because we still use the "Expired" infractions to keep track of who's been consistently breaking rules. When the infraction expires, the infraction points no longer count against you. That's all that you should worry about.