It was inevitable. The board has rules now. Feel free to ask for clarifications or to suggest new rules based on specific annoying behaviors that you have seen.
Does the no piracy rule extend to disassemblies of SMB1?
I would imagine that a commented disassembly of a commercial game program done in a scholarly tone might fall under fair use as a comment on the program, as long as nobody tries to sell copies of a mod of that program. Compare to Lions' Commentary on UNIX. But good luck getting the rom kiddies to produce such disassemblies.
Quote:
Do not advertise currency exchange or services related to a multiplayer role-playing or simulation game on a non-Nintendo platform.
This needs to be ironed out, I think. Spam is ok, as long as it's for a Nintendo platform? Why limit it to MMO services?
If you need to make this a rule, just have some general No Spamming / No Commercial Advertising rule.
I suppose exceptions should be made for things of obvious interest to the board, like retrousb.com coming out with a new NES product or whatever.
loopy wrote:
Spam is ok, as long as it's for a Nintendo platform? Why limit it to MMO services?
It's not limited to massive games: the rule as it exists today covers Diablo and Starcraft too. But I wrote it this way because spam related to Windows-based online games is the pattern of abuse that has shown up over the past few weeks. As the pattern expands, the rules will expand with it.
Quote:
I suppose exceptions should be made for things of obvious interest to the board, like retrousb.com coming out with a new NES product or whatever.
Which is one reason for the Nintendo platform exception.
tepples wrote:
loopy wrote:
Spam is ok, as long as it's for a Nintendo platform? Why limit it to MMO services?
It's not limited to massive games: the rule as it exists today covers Diablo and Starcraft too. But I wrote it this way because spam related to Windows-based online games is the pattern of abuse that has shown up over the past few weeks. As the pattern expands, the rules will expand with it.
Looks like you need to add a clause about chinese pottery and Kung Fu classes.
(edit)
Judging by our new members' www links, you might also want to consider preemptively banning ads for beauty products, korean software(?), and luxury watches.
Well at least even the spammers are reading the rules. Updated.
It's sad to make rules, but frequent use of non-censored bad language should be definitely be banned, along with posts containing very long lists of stuff irelevant to NESDev.
Also, just as posts that answer to a NESDev topic and switch to another topic are moved on a new thread, posts that answer NESDev topic with a topic with no relation at all (or just posts that make no sense and answers posts that make sense) should be moved to a garbage thread or something like that.
Also, just as posts that answer to a NESDev topic and switch to another topic are moved on a new thread, posts that answer NESDev topic with a topic with no relation at all (or just posts that make no sense and answers posts that make sense) should be moved to a garbage thread or something like that.
Based on past experience with other boards I've moderated, I highly doubt there are actual people behind these accounts. Bots don't read rules; I'm pretty sure they're just automatically rotating their ads, perhaps partially in an attempt to avoid keyword filters and automatic bans.
How old is this version of phpBB, anyway? Recent versions are probably less susceptible to automated spam attacks. At the very least, I'm sure you can find modifications to the registration code that would block them at the first step (a CAPTCHA, perhaps?).
How old is this version of phpBB, anyway? Recent versions are probably less susceptible to automated spam attacks. At the very least, I'm sure you can find modifications to the registration code that would block them at the first step (a CAPTCHA, perhaps?).
How about a rule that allows a moderator to delete any members' replies to spammers, if the member's post has no on-topic content? Otherwise a spammer incites witty replies by members, moderator deletes spam, but members' posts are left behind in an unrelated technical thread. Thoughts?
How hard is it to just delete dangling, useless posts? Do you need a rule to do that too?
I think rules are for guiding regular user behavior, not telling mods what they can or can't do.
A moderator who can't deal with situations on his own, relying on a book of codes to tell him what to do would be a ineffectual moderator indeed.
This is all just common sense net etiquitte anyway. If someone acts up, bop him on the head and carry on.
DAMN ALL THESE STUPID RULES, HOW LONG HAS THIS BOARD BEEN RUNNING? WHAT HAS CHANGED IN JUST ONE WEEK TO F*CK EVERYTHING UP?
Nothing, just trivial sh!t. In a week or two, it will blow over and be back to normal. Except for that new pile of rules and a moderator running around playing police man.
Oh crap. Now we need a rule about typing in caps.
blargg wrote:
How about a rule that allows a moderator ...
I think rules are for guiding regular user behavior, not telling mods what they can or can't do.
A moderator who can't deal with situations on his own, relying on a book of codes to tell him what to do would be a ineffectual moderator indeed.
This is all just common sense net etiquitte anyway. If someone acts up, bop him on the head and carry on.
DAMN ALL THESE STUPID RULES, HOW LONG HAS THIS BOARD BEEN RUNNING? WHAT HAS CHANGED IN JUST ONE WEEK TO F*CK EVERYTHING UP?
Nothing, just trivial sh!t. In a week or two, it will blow over and be back to normal. Except for that new pile of rules and a moderator running around playing police man.
Oh crap. Now we need a rule about typing in caps.
I agree that reply to spam should be deleted too. There's really no point in replying to spam anyways... It's not like the spammer is going to read it, or care. It's not like it could help a mod spot spam in a thread either, as they scan the forums all the time. So there really is no point.
loopy wrote:
How hard is it to just delete dangling, superfluous posts? Do you need a rule to do that too?
I think rules are for guiding regular user behavior, not telling mods what they can or can't do.
A moderator who can't deal with situations on his own, relying on a book of codes to tell him what to do would be a ineffectual moderator indeed.
This is all just common sense net etiquitte anyway. If someone acts up, bop him on the head and carry on.
DAMN ALL THESE STUPID RULES, HOW LONG HAS THIS BOARD BEEN RUNNING? WHAT HAS CHANGED IN JUST ONE WEEK TO F*CK EVERYTHING UP?
Nothing, just trivial sh!t. In a week or two, it will blow over and be back to normal. Except for that new pile of rules and a moderator running around playing police man.
Oh crap. Now we need a rule about typing in caps.
blargg wrote:
How about a rule that allows a moderator ...
I think rules are for guiding regular user behavior, not telling mods what they can or can't do.
A moderator who can't deal with situations on his own, relying on a book of codes to tell him what to do would be a ineffectual moderator indeed.
This is all just common sense net etiquitte anyway. If someone acts up, bop him on the head and carry on.
DAMN ALL THESE STUPID RULES, HOW LONG HAS THIS BOARD BEEN RUNNING? WHAT HAS CHANGED IN JUST ONE WEEK TO F*CK EVERYTHING UP?
Nothing, just trivial sh!t. In a week or two, it will blow over and be back to normal. Except for that new pile of rules and a moderator running around playing police man.
Oh crap. Now we need a rule about typing in caps.
I feel what loopy is saying in this post. I mean, there hasn't ever been a need for rules around here, and I think there still isn't a need. Things should always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis on a forum like NESDev. For the most part, it's quiet around here. I think that's a REALLY good thing. People get more tight with each other, listen to each other, etc.... whatever, that's a different subject.
What I'm getting at is just because there has been some different posts on this board than what we're used to, doesn't mean we have to change things and add "rules" to it. This has always been a good spot where none of us had to worry about rules, only worry if our code was good enough or not ; )
I'd personally like to see the rules be gone, and do as what loopy said above, use common sense net etiquette when using moderation powers.
My board allows guest posting, and it gets almost no spam.
How I pulled it off:
* Fake invisible textarea when making a post which spammers fill their text into
* Disallow guests and users with less than 3 posts from posting links
All that matters is that it's not a stock version of the message board software.
How I pulled it off:
* Fake invisible textarea when making a post which spammers fill their text into
* Disallow guests and users with less than 3 posts from posting links
All that matters is that it's not a stock version of the message board software.
blargg: Added rule to clarify that mods may do the same things here that I've been doing on gbadev.org.
If a new user signs up on dwedit.org to report a bug in PocketNES, how does he cite the test case that he created to demonstrate the bug if he can't link or upload it?
Dwedit wrote:
* Disallow guests and users with less than 3 posts from posting links
If a new user signs up on dwedit.org to report a bug in PocketNES, how does he cite the test case that he created to demonstrate the bug if he can't link or upload it?
loppy and Roth, I agree fully. If this were my board, I would have kicked/banned/deleted any fuck-tards from the start. Rules broken? Just the one that says NO FUCKTARDS. But apparently the mods don't work that way, so I'm just trying to work with that.
blargg wrote:
loppy and Roth, I agree fully. If this were my board, I would have kicked/banned/deleted any fuck-tards from the start. Rules broken? Just the one that says NO FUCKTARDS. But apparently the mods don't work that way, so I'm just trying to work with that.
The rule is already "Don't be a dick". But there's so much discussion about whether or not jargon has actually been a dick that I have trouble seeing the dickery itself.
About the linking, someone could type something like this:
nesdev dot parodius dot com
and get away with not typing an actual link. I think it's not a bad idea for blocking spam.
Just a random thought, I don't know how well it would work out, you could put a notice/rule that says that a mod can ban any member/delete any posts at will. Though that might result in disaster if a different moderator were to come about, I think Tepples wouldn't abuse this power. Just a thought.
nesdev dot parodius dot com
and get away with not typing an actual link. I think it's not a bad idea for blocking spam.
Just a random thought, I don't know how well it would work out, you could put a notice/rule that says that a mod can ban any member/delete any posts at will. Though that might result in disaster if a different moderator were to come about, I think Tepples wouldn't abuse this power. Just a thought.
Celius wrote:
you could put a notice/rule that says that a mod can ban any member/delete any posts at will.
I thought such powers were implicit and understood. Why is an extra rule necessary?
loopy wrote:
Celius wrote:
a mod can ban any member/delete any posts at will.
I thought such powers were implicit and understood. Why is an extra rule necessary?
"For the avoidance of doubt", as one often sees in the terms of a contract. But then I guess "Don't be a dick" and "Your posts may disappear" cover that rule.
The rules are un-instated, gone, obliterated. We never needed rules before. Though it was all wrote up well enough, we don't need it. The part of the forum with the rules are still there, just hidden.
Just saying "No Fucktards", sums it up best.
Just saying "No Fucktards", sums it up best.
And there was much rejoicing.
Memblers wrote:
The rules are un-instated, gone, obliterated. We never needed rules before. Though it was all wrote up well enough, we don't need it. The part of the forum with the rules are still there, just hidden.
Just saying "No Fucktards", sums it up best.
Just saying "No Fucktards", sums it up best.
Thank God.
Now how about appointing a mod/admin that is willing and able to apply this rule?
I take it "fucktard", "dick", "jerk" and the like are defined as "inconsiderate person" like on Meta. But then how do I determine which posts show inconsiderate behavior?
No offence, but you shouldn't be a mod if you can't figure that out.
I try to figure it out as best I can, but I guess I might have disagreed with some people on whether or not jargon has been inconsiderate.
In my view, it's a question of whether any users regularly disrupt discussions in a similar way. Higher level than simple-to-define behavior. It's about the effect. The goal of most forums is to foster discussion on topics that interest most participants. Anything which skews it towards satisfying just a few participants must be dealt with. The obvious first approach is to talk to those doing the disruption so that they can see the effect and solve the problem on their own. Once that fails, more crude solutions are necessary.
http://nesdev.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=4365
Were this any other messageboard, this idiot would have been banned more than a month ago.
Enough is enough. I've had it with this bullsh!t. tepples, you're a really smart guy, but that's also your biggest flaw as a moderator--you can't turn the logic off when the need arises. We shouldn't have to make detailed lists explaining why this guy should be banned when it's clear as day that he's insulting and irritating the hell out of everyone. If you can't figure out for yourself what kinds of behavior are acceptable here, or take appropriate action when lines are repeatedly crossed, perhaps you should hand the keys over to someone who can.
Were this any other messageboard, this idiot would have been banned more than a month ago.
Enough is enough. I've had it with this bullsh!t. tepples, you're a really smart guy, but that's also your biggest flaw as a moderator--you can't turn the logic off when the need arises. We shouldn't have to make detailed lists explaining why this guy should be banned when it's clear as day that he's insulting and irritating the hell out of everyone. If you can't figure out for yourself what kinds of behavior are acceptable here, or take appropriate action when lines are repeatedly crossed, perhaps you should hand the keys over to someone who can.
I do agree with BMF54123 that this thread is going out of hand. I read all the messages of this board every day and it should have never went that far. It's obvious the owner of this thread only goal is to push the limit more and more and see "how far the rabbits holes goes". This thread is doing more harm than good.
Tepples, I do understand that you want to be impartial and in some way this is the right thing to do as a moderator, but because of this, it kind of stop you at the same time do your job properly.
If you do have an issue regarding if an user should be banned or not then what I would suggest you is to pick a few active members of the boards that are willing to give their opinion and to vote on the issue. This way, it will be a group consensus. So if most people opinion and vote are the same as yours you will be able to make a better decision.
Are people willing to do this? I don't mind to be a volunteer on this issue because I like this board and want to see more interesting discussion everyday.
Tepples, I do understand that you want to be impartial and in some way this is the right thing to do as a moderator, but because of this, it kind of stop you at the same time do your job properly.
If you do have an issue regarding if an user should be banned or not then what I would suggest you is to pick a few active members of the boards that are willing to give their opinion and to vote on the issue. This way, it will be a group consensus. So if most people opinion and vote are the same as yours you will be able to make a better decision.
Are people willing to do this? I don't mind to be a volunteer on this issue because I like this board and want to see more interesting discussion everyday.
I do agree that people should vote on such matters. However the people vote should determine the moderator's course of action. If everyone here is all mad about a certain user insulting people and posting nothing productive, it is obvious that that user should be banned for the good of the board.
On another forum, I got a lot more practice enforcing "don't be a pirate" than "don't be a dick". So let's try this: If you suspect dickery in someone else's post, quote it and say "Strike".
That just means that every time somebody acts like a dick we're going to have 3-7 posts all quoting that exact same post and saying nothing but "Strike", making the SNR (since you love wikis) even lower.
Just put somebody who can handle the job in charge!
Just put somebody who can handle the job in charge!
Check that: Instead of posting "Strike", report posts by PM'ing any moderator that's online at the time.
@Xkeeper:
Man, you're really not helping with your not-so-subtle jabs. Tepples is trying to get everyone involved in this, so at least he is trying to make a step forward here. I mean, nesdev hasn't been a huge place that always bans people. It just seems that recently there is more of a flux of people that are... hmmm... time wasters? I'm not sure, but I don't think Memblers did a whole lot of banning when he wasn't so busy, either, did he?
If we're gonna do a thing like "quote and say strike," I highly recommend this is done via PM, and not in the threads. That would only lead to more flaming and ignorance that doesn't need to be on here.
Basically, if Tepples would like to take measures via PMs from people about different topics/posts before initiating a ban on someone, then I see nothing wrong with this. Roll with it and see what happens, what's it going to hurt?
EDIT: haha Tepples beat me to the PM idea : P
Man, you're really not helping with your not-so-subtle jabs. Tepples is trying to get everyone involved in this, so at least he is trying to make a step forward here. I mean, nesdev hasn't been a huge place that always bans people. It just seems that recently there is more of a flux of people that are... hmmm... time wasters? I'm not sure, but I don't think Memblers did a whole lot of banning when he wasn't so busy, either, did he?
If we're gonna do a thing like "quote and say strike," I highly recommend this is done via PM, and not in the threads. That would only lead to more flaming and ignorance that doesn't need to be on here.
Basically, if Tepples would like to take measures via PMs from people about different topics/posts before initiating a ban on someone, then I see nothing wrong with this. Roll with it and see what happens, what's it going to hurt?
EDIT: haha Tepples beat me to the PM idea : P
The PM idea is reasonable, we should stick to it. Same thing if a spammer shows up.
Other than recently, AFAIK, only one other person has been banned from here (and long since unbanned). So 99% of the time, it's a non-issue.
I definitely agree on the PM-ing complaints theory. Keep in mind this is a forum and a searchable archive, there's no point in leaving it cluttered up with the drama of the day.
I definitely agree on the PM-ing complaints theory. Keep in mind this is a forum and a searchable archive, there's no point in leaving it cluttered up with the drama of the day.
As long as reported threads and members are actually dealt with in a timely fashion, I can go with this. My biggest issue is that these disruptions have been allowed to go on for so long with minimal/no action being taken (jargon), and I hope we're not just moving the endless song and dance of complaints and non-solutions behind closed doors.
Memblers wrote:
I definitely agree on the PM-ing complaints theory. Keep in mind this is a forum and a searchable archive, there's no point in leaving it cluttered up with the drama of the day.
The next action would be to clean those recent drama from the forum. It shouldn't stay there.
I finally got around to pointing "almost" in the General Stuff description at the Parodius policy page instead of the revoked policy topic.
*claps* 
tepples wrote:
blargg: Added rule to clarify that mods may do the same things here that I've been doing on gbadev.org.
If a new user signs up on dwedit.org to report a bug in PocketNES, how does he cite the test case that he created to demonstrate the bug if he can't link or upload it?
Dwedit wrote:
* Disallow guests and users with less than 3 posts from posting links
If a new user signs up on dwedit.org to report a bug in PocketNES, how does he cite the test case that he created to demonstrate the bug if he can't link or upload it?
Should i not be posting links? iam confused now....... Links=Bad
alienform wrote:
Should i not be posting links? iam confused now....... Links=Bad
Links are bad only when, well, they link to bad stuff. "Bad stuff" would be pirated software (including ROMs), porn, viruses, ads that are not relevant, and crap like that.
The rule you quoted was meant to keep spam bots away, because they often only register to promote something. Disallowing linking for guests and users with few posts would cause the bots to fail promoting whatever they are trying to.
Every legitimate user can post links, if the linked content is relevant to the other users of the board.
OK, so it appears we're all fine with from parodius import policies as our rules. With that said:
I'm working on an NES game where the player is trying to win parole from an internment camp run by a racialist totalitarian state by beating the guards in a mind game.* Does Parodius have assets in France or Germany, countries that strongly regulate depictions of racialist totalitarian states that run internment camps?
* Not a Soviet mind game. I'm done with Tetris.
I'm working on an NES game where the player is trying to win parole from an internment camp run by a racialist totalitarian state by beating the guards in a mind game.* Does Parodius have assets in France or Germany, countries that strongly regulate depictions of racialist totalitarian states that run internment camps?
* Not a Soviet mind game. I'm done with Tetris.
tepples wrote:
OK, so it appears we're all fine with from parodius import policies as our rules. With that said:
I'm working on an NES game where the player is trying to win parole from an internment camp run by a racialist totalitarian state by beating the guards in a mind game.* Does Parodius have assets in France or Germany, countries that strongly regulate depictions of racialist totalitarian states that run internment camps?
I'm working on an NES game where the player is trying to win parole from an internment camp run by a racialist totalitarian state by beating the guards in a mind game.* Does Parodius have assets in France or Germany, countries that strongly regulate depictions of racialist totalitarian states that run internment camps?
I have a horrible time trying to discern if you're either sarcastic, serious, or a combination of both. :-) I chuckled regardless.
No, our only presence is in the United States -- I don't have any plans on relocating to another country nor placing servers in non-US countries -- so you're free to link/discuss/put up whatever you'd like.
koitsu wrote:
I have a horrible time trying to discern if you're either sarcastic, serious, or a combination of both. I chuckled regardless.
I chuckled regardless.I have the same problem too. It appears IT prowess is correlated with an inability to discern sarcasm. But in this case, I'm as serious as Capcom and Id were about Bionic Commando and Wolf3d respectively.
Quote:
our only presence is in the United States [...] so you're free to link/discuss/put up whatever you'd like.
Thanks. I can't give away too many details just yet. In the past, I've announced several projects too early; all ended up abandoned before becoming playable.
EDIT: I edited the Nazism out of my game anyway.