Tyroki's AnimeB Code of Conduct - Page 2 - Love Hina & Negima Forums

Tyroki · #21 (**permalink**) 7 Dec 2007, 4:19 am

Forgive the double post.

No word from Flashy... I assume he doesn't want to help with this, so hina, might have to be you and I :3

**Flashman** · #22 (**permalink**) 7 Dec 2007, 8:03 am

Do not assume anything my dear Tyroki, I would be glad to help you with this, so check your pm box.

**hinarei** · #23 (**permalink**) 7 Dec 2007, 11:48 am

I'd have thought a good way of getting his attention would have been to PM him, Ty

Well, you two chat among yourselves and see how best you can fit 'em together

Tyroki · #24 (**permalink**) 7 Dec 2007, 2:11 pm

I did PM XD Turns out he was busy and I was a little impatient

Tyroki · #25 (**permalink**) 24 Dec 2007, 2:04 am

Alright. Its been long enough. Lets get this thing checked out and implimented already.

Tone... · #26 (**permalink**) 29 Dec 2007, 10:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyroki

will become inactive in your profile. Just click your name to get there. Inactive infractions don't count toward the 10 points required for a one week ban, but remain for a while afterwards to serve as an extra warning to be good.

The Rules

1) Flaming, bashing, ridiculing, and baiting other users/members will lead to penalties.

1.a) Flaming, is basically a heated attack on another member, calling them names, etc. Insults and flaming can also be used to bait others.

1.b) Bashing, is constantly being on a members case, constantly attacking, attacking, attacking.

1.c) Ridiculing, is making fun of another member at their expense. A friendly joke is all well and good, but there is a very thin line, and once crossed, you will be in trouble.

1.d) Baiting is saying things in an attempt to bait others into a negative reaction, which usually ends in someone else flaming the baiter. Both will be punished.

This is supposed to be a fun place, even though it does have its serious topics, however, these will not be tolerated. Be considerate.

And how is this different from BC's idea which you ridikuled?

Personal Attacks Act

☼Pepe☼ · #27 (**permalink**) 30 Dec 2007, 2:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gogeta

And how is this different from BC's idea which you ridikuled?

Personal Attacks Act

The difference is that Tyroki's has definitions of the different types of personal attacks...

**hinarei** · #28 (**permalink**) 30 Dec 2007, 5:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gogeta

And how is this different from BC's idea which you ridikuled?

Personal Attacks Act

What's different is that people on here haven't just read the last post of a thread on another board and posted in here shouting

It's just going over the rules we already have and making sure we all know what they are and how we can eliminate as much "interpretation" as possible

mouse1992 · #29 (**permalink**) 30 Dec 2007, 6:57 am

And yet, if it was "BobCat's" instead of "Tyroki's", it won't be supported.........

**hinarei** · #30 (**permalink**) 30 Dec 2007, 7:04 am

please add constructive criticisms to this thread as needed. Any further talk along those lines above and they will be deleted. Grievances are fine and dandy, but they won't help this topic.

We need to get back on this as soon as we can, folks (maybe after the holidays)

Tyroki · #31 (**permalink**) 1 Jan 2008, 5:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gogeta

And how is this different from BC's idea which you ridikuled?

Personal Attacks Act

Believe it or not, but I never actually touched his thread

The entire "Personal Attacks Act" name was the reason. It sounded like another whining fest, and considering I'd just finished with that whole thing at the time, I refused to read his act. I still haven't, and I never will.

As hinarei said. Constructive critisism only please

It would be nice to get this implimented already ^-^

☼Pepe☼ · #32 (**permalink**) 1 Jan 2008, 5:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gogeta

so did the BC's but you ignore that fact for some reason.

No it didn't.

It had a single, vague definition...
It defined personal attacks as "remarks which seek to make another member look bad or reduce another's reputation."
Tyroki's on the other hand, subdivides this into different types of personal attacks, and rewrites the rest of the rules...

And I'd just like to clarify that no one ridiculed Bobcat's idea. In fact, majority of the members supported it...

The only reason why it was never implemented is because nothing really ever gets done here, amirite?

**hinarei** · #33 (**permalink**) 1 Jan 2008, 6:33 am

I believe I said no gripes to that effect, gogeta. I'm going to delete any and all bitching in this thread. Talk about the topic, will you please?

Tyroki · #34 (**permalink**) 2 Jan 2008, 2:17 pm

Well, Flashman went through his defenses and in the end picked one, as the others applied far too many loopholes.

Quote:

Defence of triviality

In circumstances where such actions that may be constituted as offences such as flaming and the like are deemed to be of a trivial nature, eg Pepe Sucks, you smell etc. It will be deemed to be of a trivial nature and thus will unlikey recieve punishment. How ever if such trivial offences are part of a larger more insidious plan via that of concentrated and constant attacks upon the person than the actions shall be treated as bashing.

I can agree to this. Might be worth applying?