+- Mesalia Forums (https://www.mesalia.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Locked Threads (https://www.mesalia.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=36)
+--- Forum: Archive (https://www.mesalia.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+--- Thread: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] (/showthread.php?tid=372)
RE: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] - Michelle - 13-10-2013
Then perhaps we'll need to revisit rule one later, since if 'arguing/heated discussion' is only clarified in chat rules... well we have forums and Skype chats and god-knows-what in the future. @_@ I realise this method of rule-approval isn't very efficient, but the idea is that we have to keep moving forward.
Even if we do revisit it, however, I'd agree to keep this clarification here, even if it becomes redundant. Better safe than sorry, and we can always see if we can remove it later.
Pinkie, your opinions since you contributed to this as well?
EDIT: Actually I don't approve this yet.
Add 'no out-of-character all caps spam' under local?
RE: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] - SentaiPink - 14-10-2013
Quote:You shouldn’t feel like you’re in a hostile environment. Everyone at Mesalia not only deserves to be respected, but also deserves to have their ideas and thoughts respected – regardless of any circumstances.Michelle is right, rule one does basically go over this. But at the same time a little redundancy or just spelling it out for people isn't always a bad thing.
But my objection was to the stipulation of doing it when others around. So I'm pretty content with the revisions here. May want to add no arguing in privet messages either...
RE: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] - ccspycrab - 14-10-2013
Isn't that the point of PM's?
RE: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] - Michelle - 14-10-2013
I realise that if the PG13 rule and the grammar rule is there, then we might as well go for a little redundancy.
I'm a little conflicted with PMs as well. If staff can read private messages, does that mean they shouldn't be considered private? But I'd disagree that the point of PMs is to argue in them, and we do intervene when arguments get a little heated/start spamming our chats/turn into name-calling. So perhaps it's best to put a 'no arguing' rule in there, or at the very least a 'no insults'. On top of that, we should probably add 'no bad grammar/spelling' in there too?
RE: [2] Rules Revison [Chat Rules] - Michelle - 15-10-2013
1. Don't forget to bump this bloody thread.
2. You've misspelt 'arguments', BUT
3. Consistency. I believe formally it's called parallel structure, but the jist of it is... MAKE YOUR LISTS CONSISTENT.
This means 'No heated arguements' should be 'No out-of-character fighting/heated arguing', and should probably be before 'Keep all conversation topics, roleplay and language within the PG-13 guidelines', just like in the other lists.
4. Furthermore, I would add 'No insulting other players out-of-character' between PG 13 and arguing, under /msg, both for consistency and for the simple fact that insults should be more not-allowed than arguing.
5. Again for consistency, the 'No spamming or all caps spamming' under /ch l should be two separate rules, just like it is under /ch g
I think that's everything I could possibly complain about.