Some new rules and extra rule revision

[anoni]

Hey there guys!

  Just to announce the staff team have added some new rules to the forum as well as edited some old rules. The changes can be summarized as follows.

  [New rule]: Posting private or personal information about another member without that members consent is now against the rules. You can see the rule under the "General" section.

  [New rule]: Having disorienting or annoying profiles, avatars or posts is now against the rules. We may ask you to remove annoying or flashing posts, avatars, signatures or profile pages. This is primarily for the safety and well being of the entire forum. (You can find this rule in the "Account/Profiles" section).

  [Amended Rule]: The alternate text of the two word minimum rule has been modified to add in tapatalk autogenerated signatures. These now count as word padding so having a post with one word and the phrase "posted from tapatalk" or something similar will now be a warnable offense.

  [Amended Rule]: The "report rule violating posts" rule has been amended to specifically mention backseat moderating to get rid of any potential confusion that may ensure about backseat moderating.

  As always these rules may be subject to change and revision, in which case I'll post the changes here.

Thanks!
  Anoni.

[Malina]

Thank you for that flashing strobe profile rule, I hate clicking on a link and being flung into a rainbow disco, makes me want to have a seizure 

Just wanted to ask about the "more than two words a post" rule: I'm a very dry person and like to use one-word responses more often than not, but obviously can't. I know it's to stop spamming posts but do you think this could maybe be amended to allow 'trusted' members to post this but not ones which have warnings /offenses on their profile ?

[Timmy Fox]

Just wanted to ask about the "more than two words a post" rule: I'm a very dry person and like to use one-word responses more often than not, but obviously can't. I know it's to stop spamming posts but do you think this could maybe be amended to allow 'trusted' members to post this but not ones which have warnings /offenses on their profile ?

Not sure that would be a good idea, first of all you'd have to figure out what makes a member "trusted", secondly you have the issue where you have some members who are suddenly more special than others (indirect special treatment).

And most importantly, why should some users be exempt from a rule but others not? It would cause new users to think it's OK to do this because all the old ones are doing it and thus causing the argument of "Why can they do so but I can not?".

The point of the rule isn't entirely to stop spam (there is a separate rule, after all, that prohibits spamming) but more for the sake of encouraging meaningful conversation; Pretty much anything that you might want to say with only one word can probably just as well (or better) be said with multiple words, and taking the effort to think through what you want to say instead of just a plain and simple one-word response should almost always make the discussion more interesting and encourage other users to actually partake and put more effort into it.

[Vosur Aekira]

@Lumix: Unfortunately, making exceptions to the rules would bring of questions of "why is this person allowed and not me?" type of questions at every turn. Even staff members have to be held accountable as well, so we are no exception to the rules either.

@Timmy: You beat me to the punch.

[Malina]

Trusted members would be ones who don't excessively use one word messages or have received warnings in past for a similar reason (not sure why that had to be emphasised but whatevs)
I know that one word responses can kill a conversation, but if I can get my point across with one word instead of fifteen I'm gonna choose the lazy option, after all less is more!  It also creates a much more damning tone, something I'm quite fond of using 


If someone's posts are completely one word responses I can see where this trouble may arise but It'd be nice if the option was there for the lazy /passive aggressive, in moderation of course

[Timmy Fox]

Well, aside from what's already was mentioned it would be unnecessary work to maintain such a list of "trusted users" amongst other things making it a less-than-ideal way to go about it.

The exact same thing you're suggesting could be achieved by simply rephrasing the rule to suggest that one should not excessively post one-word responses rather than banning it altogether without having to use some complicated system where some users are allowed to and others are not.

However, that is still rather besides the point since, as mentioned, there good are reasons for the rule being there and for it being enforced rather strictly as opposed to only restricting excessive such.

Once again, it should be easy enough to add another word or two to make your post look nicer; For example "Agreed" could rather be written as either "I agree" or "Yep, I agree completely! That's a great idea!" and neither of those would break the rules yet (especially in the case of the latter) look nicer to the person reading it.

[anoni]

I think another point of the rule isn't just to stop spam but to provoke discussion as well (as a side effect). If you've only got one word to a response like "hah" or "yeah" or something, it doesn't really leave much room for extra discussion, it's sorta filler and doesn't add any sorta substance.

  That's just a secondary reason, but yes primarily we don't want to make exceptions to member. All members on TFF are treated equally in the eyes of the rules

[Bricket]

  [Amended Rule]: The "report rule violating posts" rule has been amended to specifically mention backseat moderating to get rid of any potential confusion that may ensure about backseat moderating.

Since I'm catching back up on the forum I respond quite late and I realise this.

This time, no discussion nor a debate, just me simply saying I'm glad there is now an end to potential confusion