Revised Rules & New Signature Limit
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
Please try to stick to the topic at hand, folks.
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.
Anyway, have to memorize this set of rules now. Id absolutely hate to break a rule.
Correct. In other words, one of those big guys needs to go.
Or, you could perhaps put them side by side.
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.
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.
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.
Lol, it's totally relevant. Why do you get to choose what is and is not relevant?
You took the statement to an extreme. Not everything, logically, will lead to flaming. For instance, let's take your quote there.
"Not its not."
That has no obvious negativity, so it wouldn't.
[The rest of your post]
Obviously condescending and overbearing, which could easily lead to flaming.
I would have agreed with you for a second, Doppel, but they pinned the last part on there:
So:
Which is flame. So, by extension of logic:
Trolling -> Arguing -> Flame
So, either way, you're perpetuating flame no matter where you start in that tree. And, if you want to get rid of the "arguing" part, you're just cutting out a middle man, so to speak.
No, there were an announcement. I just replaced the old announcement with this one (which happens automatically whenever you post a new announcement).
I am simply using the words 'argument' and 'debate' to separate out the two different concepts here. Yes, in reality the lines between the two are blurred. On this site, however, I am using argument to represent heated debate which includes flame and debate to mean civil disputes. The point of this rule is to essentially say debate is still allowed as long as it doesn't include flaming. I am not once again saying "flame is not allowed". I am saying "feel free to debate, as long as you don't break any of the other rules while doing so".
Make sense?
If you really want to be this disagreeable about a simple usage of semantics then we can do it via Personal Message. If you want to let it go and try to be a mature adult who is capable of reading just a little bit between the lines rather than being spoon-fed an explanation of my word choices, then by all means - please do.
I do not see how this rule allows us to silence arguments because we don't like them. The last line,"Arguing leads to flaming, which is not allowed, so don't do it.", simply says that flaming is not allowed, and that we advise against it.
I think the main messare of the arguing section needs to remain in the rules, but perhaps it should be reworded and/or moved within the rules.
I was talking about way back, 2007 and before.