Revised Rules & New Signature Limit

Please read the updated rules HERE.

The majority of updates to the rules were in form only, not in function. We have updated the look and feel of the rules so that they are easier to read and look less like a wall of text. Please review the changes so that you can be fully aware of what the rules are and so you can follow them.

Some rules have been tweaked, others have been added (or removed). One of the main additions to the rules has been a standardized Signature Size Limit. This is very important. Everyone (including the staff) must cut down their signature sizes to within this limit within two weeks - or they risk signature removal.

Thank you for your continued cooperation and contributions,
The DiabloFans Staff

Comments

  • #1 Blackwing
    Okay. I like your art by the way, Jetrall.
  • #2 Jetrall
    Errr... Thank you. That's kind of off topic though. :P

    Please try to stick to the topic at hand, folks.
  • #3 tkrow21
    4 - Common Sense


    I think the entire rules section should be labeled common sense. The only one that isn't based on common sense is the signature size limit.

    Besides that little point, I think that whoever made these rules did an amazing job. I honestly never read the previous ones when I joined because they seemed so overwhelming. These are concise, straight to the point, and organized very well. I also like the Punishment section, gives people a wake-up call.

    P.S. I like your signature and avatar.
  • #4 Magistrate
    So it's finally finished, this thing you guys have been hinting about for e t e r n i t y. Just kidding. I like the fact that it's all laid out in sections with reference coding- that makes it easier to quote and such.
  • #5 XXLaw
    Soo... meaning I could have 2 sig's only if they both (together) took 150pix in height?

    EDIT
  • #6 Kenzai
    Cool improvement. :thumbsup:

    Magistrate i love your sig.


    Edit

    XXLaw, i dont think thats allowed.
    (Common sense.)
    Were you joking? :P
  • #7 LinkX
    Yes Magistrate, that is what it means.

    Anyway, have to memorize this set of rules now. Id absolutely hate to break a rule.
  • #8 Jetrall
    Quote from "XXLaw" »
    Soo... meaning I could have 2 sig's only if they both (together) took 150pix in height?

    EDIT


    Correct. In other words, one of those big guys needs to go.
  • #9 akse
    Thanks for the new signature rule :) Now I can probably put them visible again.
  • #10 PhrozenDragon
    Quote from "Krow" »

    I honestly never read the previous ones when I joined because they seemed so overwhelming. These are concise, straight to the point, and organized very well.

    Did we have rules back then? Oh wait maybe we did, it just wasn't in posted as an announcement if I remember right.

    Quote from "Jetrall;371419 »
    Quote from XXLaw" »
    Soo... meaning I could have 2 sig's only if they both (together) took 150pix in height?

    EDIT

    Correct. In other words, one of those big guys needs to go.

    Or, you could perhaps put them side by side.
  • #11 FrozenRealm
    Fair and clear rules! Keep it up! :)
  • #12 Doppelganger
    1C - Arguing

    Argument and Debate are two different things. Despite the divide between them being very small, there definitely is one. To put it simply, the main difference is civility. In a debate, people take different sides and attempt to prove their point. They remain polite and stick to fact and reason to prove their points. In an argument, people may resort to insults, personal attacks, and may abandon reason in exchange for violent emotions. Stick to debates. Arguing leads to flaming, which is not allowed, so don't do it.

    Punishment: Temporary - Permanent Ban (Dependent On Severity)
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argument
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arguing

    This whole section is a scapegoat for butt-hurt mods/admins to silence particular debates and keep them from being held. (art-design anyone?)
    Lame.
  • #13 XXLaw
    Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »

    Or, you could perhaps put them side by side.

    I like the sound of that :)

    Though I already have modified and improved my Diablo Sig :D
    But if this is possible ,I could add another. Gotta choose wise though ,I have 3 Diablo sigs :D (excluding the one I'm currently using)
  • #14 Elfen_Lied
    This whole section is a scapegoat for butt-hurt mods/admins to silence particular debates and keep them from being held. (art-design anyone?)
    Lame.


    The art debate would and could still happen under the new rules. You just cannot post things like "new graphics = suxors. Screw you Blizzard. Anyone who likes the new art is gay and bums goats." And before you say anything, yes, someone actually said that. If someone wants to argue against something, say the new art direction they can, so long as they do it in a concise, logical, structured, informative meaningful and reasonable way. "Hate the game, not the player" Reducing people who think differently to you to "gay fags" is not needed.

    And sadly that is what happened in a lot of threads where an arguement or debate was taking place. All that rule does is stop the flaming on the person. It doesn't stop you from voicing your oppinion on whether you like or dislike something.
  • #15 Doppelganger
    Flaming is already covered under the section "flaming", i really don't see why to complicate the rules with vague "it leads to flaming" reasoning which is even completely faulty defined to begin with. (read the definitions of "arguing/argumentation, its not at all what Jetrall, or whoever made/defined those rules, wants to make you belief)
    I myself already received an infraction once based on this "arguing" rule just because i was in a debate about the art (in an appropriate thread may i add, which later got locked i belief just because said mod was "sick of hearing about it" or something stupid like that). Its utterly ridiculous.
  • #16 Kenzai
    Doppelganger, the given definition of "argument" in the rules section may be incorrect (idk), but what they try to say definitely makes sense.

    "Arguments" like this should clearly be avoided:
    A: "The new art sucks! They have to change it."
    B: "Shut up, they aint gonna change something."
    A: "Then i wont buy the fuckin game, screw Blizz!!1!"

    Though yes, posts like that are already against other rules like flaming and trolling, so putting an extra rule like that doesnt make sense that much.
    Then again, people may forget about the flaming rules, or trolling may remain unseen, in a thread thats already filled with flaming, so putting a rule like that kinda makes the job easier for mods i suppose. They cant be checking all posts in an argument thread to see how much trolling and how much flaming each post contains. Instead theyll punish everyone, who got into the flame-fest in one way or another, saying they broke the argument rule.

    Does it make sense what i say? :P
  • #17 Doppelganger
    Those aren't arguments in any way, thus that whole particular section is irrelevant and can be used as a scape-goat for giving invalid sanctions. (which it already did on numerous occasions)
    And yes, a mods job IS to check all posts containing flames and whatnot, not simply punishing the one who supposedly started "the argument", 'coz if it does then this entire forum will turn into one hell of a dull and boring "yes-man" place which would be a big shame.
  • #18 Magistrate
    Quote from Doppelganger »
    This whole section is a scapegoat for butt-hurt mods/admins to silence particular debates and keep them from being held. (art-design anyone?)
    Lame.


    No, it isn't. What you're quoting there is exactly the issue we're trying to avoid. Those threads, every single one of them, degraded in to an opinion debate, and since no one could agree logically, flame ensued. And that flaming usually contained, in a far more vulgar and moronic way, something to the effect of "you don't agree with me that the art style should look like it did in the previous 2D games, so you're a WoW MMO prick" or "you don't agree with a change in art direction, so you're a noob". That's how every one of them degraded, and it's because they were never nipped in the bud. People would slide in little annoyances to the opposing side because they knew that to respond to them the opposing arguer would have to post off-topic. That's the kind of thing this would avoid, not well-intentioned, organized, burning arguing.

    Yes, of course this rule could be misused by any moderator or administrator. They're human. If you were one, you would also have errors in judgment because you're not perfect. Any rule can be used for personal gain. It can also be used for what it's meant to be used as, in a way that is the most non-biased as humanly possible. In any case, that's why moderators and administrators are picked rarely and with scrutiny, so this kind of thing is minimized.

    This isn't some kind of conspiracy.
  • #19 Doppelganger
    In what way is that not covered in the "flame" or "troll" section of the rules?
    I completely fail to see what "arguing" has to do with any of the examples you gave.
    You can't simply say that "oh, that kind of argument will lead to flames thus we'll just get rid of them" which is entirely within the interpretation of said "arguing" rule.
    Anyways, if mods and admins truly are human, and they truly aren't perfect beings incapable of making mistakes, then its all the more important for rules to be correct, make sense, and be clear which this one fails at on all levels.
  • #20 Magistrate
    Quote from "Doppelganger" »
    In what way is that not covered in the "flame" or "troll" section of the rules?
    I completely fail to see what "arguing" has to do with any of the examples you gave.
    You can't simply say that "oh, that kind of argument will lead to flames thus we'll just get rid of them" which is entirely within the interpretation of said "arguing" rule.
    Anyways, if mods and admins truly are human, and they truly aren't perfect beings incapable of making mistakes, then its all the more important for rules to be correct, make sense, and be clear which this one fails at on all levels.


    It's not civilized argumentation. That's what that rule is against. That's what I showed by example.

    Doppel, let's take this argument. For simplicity's sake, let's say it's the classic art debate.

    A:

    "The art isn't dark enough, it doesn't fit the classic feel from the previous two games. I don't like it."

    B:

    "It's something different, and it's something new. It'll attract new people to the game series. I like it."

    A:

    "You don't know what you're talking about- it's like WoW rehashed, you probably never even played Diablo."

    (Starts by degrading the opponent by assuming something that has no fact basis.)

    B:

    "I've been playing it for like 5 years, and I'm ready for a change. If you can't deal with it, gtfo."

    (Assumes the opponent is incapable of maintaining a level of maturity.)

    (Further elaborates by adding vulgar language, which has been proven to heighten, in all circumstances, arguments. No, I'm not saying I'm against cursing. I'm saying in this use it's bad.)

    A:

    "You're not even a fuckin Diablo fan, get the hell off this site bitch."

    (Argument has gone now off-topic in addition to becoming not a civilized debate based on facts, but a raw-emotion, vulgar mess.)

    B:

    "You're prolly just a fuckin teenager with no friends. Get a fuckin life."

    (The downward spiral continues, the raw argument over nothing but e-pride continues, the subject is off-topic, flame, trolling, etc.)


    Honestly, in my opinion- opinion- this rule is pointless because I believe if the Troll and Flame rules are applied adequately, these situations shouldn't happen, anyway. The new Argument rule seems to me- in my opinion- to only be a reiteration of the two in one rule, which is not contradictory with any previous rules.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes