TOS Change: Off Topic Posting

Mímirswell · Oct 31, 2007

Off-topic Posting (1 or 2 points) (Changes in Bold)

Topicality is expected and will be enforced on all forums, so take the extra time to post on the proper forum. Examples of off-topic posting include, but are not limited to:

Threads that are not related to the topic of the forum in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
Posts that are not related to the topic of the thread in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
Re-posting threads that you know have already been posted elsewhere
In the Discussion and Debate forums, statements about other members, whether implicit or explicit, are off-topic. Statements that disrupt the discussion, regardless of intent, will be singled out in particular.
Unsolicited advertisement for any website, product, service, or facility not first approved by TWC staff

You can advertise websites, products, etc. in your signature, avatar, or other profile fields, as long as you post productively and don't just try to get exposure for your advertisements. Recommendation of websites, products, or other resources are also allowed if relevant to legitimate discussions.

Not, this is specific to just the Discussion and Debate forums and has no effect anywhere else on the site. Also, there will be a window of adjustment (~2 weeks) where infractions of these types will only be notes and not warnings.

Darkarbiter · Nov 1, 2007

So this this mean if your in the political forum you can't make minor comments about peoples political alignment (I understand this may have been because of insults but theres plenty of on topic discussion you can say about members).
Such as "I don't understand your alignment... what's your views on government type x exactly billy?"

removeduser_487563287433 · Nov 1, 2007

Yeah... I would like to hear the reasoning behind this. A person's background is essential to the formation of their political beliefs and motivations, and comes up in practically every thread with no ill-effect.

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

Trax · Nov 1, 2007

Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

Dayman · Nov 1, 2007

Trax said:
Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

Agreed. While ad hominem insults are annoying, a legitimate comment should be allowed.

Sosobra · Nov 1, 2007

Agreed, this is a poor move in policy.

makanyane · Nov 1, 2007

I don't mind the move so long as it is applied with discretion by the moderators, I actually think it could sort some problems out which were caused by removing trolling from ToS. Am a bit concerned that it seems to manage to imply that "statements about other members" are not off topic elsewhere. Comments about members, race, religion or occupation are a lot further off topic in the TW forums but this seems to imply that they wouldn't be acted on? I'm assuming that wasn't what was intended but it might be wheeled out that way if people start quibbling....

Mímirswell · Nov 1, 2007

Ferrets54 said:
A person's background is essential to the formation of their political beliefs and motivations, and comes up in practically every thread with no ill-effect.

You can state your political background as much as you wish and ask a question about another member's political alignment. For example, "What is your political alignment?" is perfectly acceptable. The member can then answer. At that point, you can refer back to the discussion and continue (and even include that knowledge indirectly if you think it helps further the debate such as tailoring your points towards a specific political ideology).

A statement has to have an illocutionary act (it asserts, demands, promises, or suggests something). Questions are almost never statements (though loaded questions like "Are you one of those retarded conservatives?" can be illocutionary acts and be fair game.

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

The statements in this case, have to be about other members. The natural evolution that occurs overtime to most topics is still perfectly valid and desired.

Darkabiter said:
Such as "I don't understand your alignment... what's your views on government type x exactly billy?"

It's not a statement and therefore perfectly valid provided it's on topic (asking that in a science thread about water buffaloes will likely have it removed).

Makayane said:
Comments about members, race, religion or occupation are a lot further off topic in the TW forums but this seems to imply that they wouldn't be acted on? I'm assuming that wasn't what was intended but it might be wheeled out that way if people start quibbling....

Insulting comments about a member's race, religion, etc. violate the Insulting others rule. Plenty of forums (such as the Q&S, Thema Devia, and modder forums) require the ability to talk about other members directly. This could expand to the general TW forums at a later date but currently we are going to evaluate it in the Debate and Discussion forums.

removeduser_487563287433 · Nov 1, 2007

Mimirswell said:
You can state your political background as much as you wish and ask a question about another member's political alignment. For example, "What is your political alignment?" is perfectly acceptable. The member can then answer. At that point, you can refer back to the discussion and continue (and even include that knowledge indirectly if you think it helps further the debate such as tailoring your points towards a specific political ideology).

A statement has to have an illocutionary act (it asserts, demands, promises, or suggests something). Questions are almost never statements (though loaded questions like "Are you one of those retarded conservatives?" can be illocutionary acts and be fair game.

But I can't say, "you are biased because you are American/Russian/poor/rich/southern/northern". And this is often important.

The statements in this case, have to be about other members. The natural evolution that occurs overtime to most topics is still perfectly valid and desired.

Very well. This might need clarifying.

Carach · Nov 1, 2007

Trax said:
Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

Indeed

Mímirswell · Nov 1, 2007

Ferrets54 said:
But I can't say, "you are biased because you are American/Russian/poor/rich/southern/northern". And this is often important.

Bias is demonstrated in posts, it rarely needs to be elicited via personal comments. When it does, a simple, "Are you an American/Russian/X?" will highlight your suspected bias to the reader and provide the necessary confirmation when they answer (or more often when they choose to ignore it). There are probably other more effective ways to accomplish this as well but that's the first that came to mind.

removeduser_487563287433 · Nov 1, 2007

Mimirswell said:
Bias is demonstrated in posts, it rarely needs to be elicited via personal comments. When it does, a simple, "Are you an American/Russian/X?" will highlight your suspected bias to the reader and provide the necessary confirmation when they answer (or more often when they choose to ignore it). There are probably other more effective ways to accomplish this as well but that's the first that came to mind.

You see this is the problem... nothing's been solved... it's just created an inconvenience and technicality. I click on a person's profile if I want to know somebody's nationality, I need to confront them if I want to establish bias.

Carach · Nov 1, 2007

Personally, im off to every thread to tell them they are all walking suspended men/women/children on grounds of the new offtopic rules.

s.rwitt · Nov 1, 2007

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

Have to agree with Ferrets here.

LoZz · Nov 1, 2007

bad move....

this is a internet forum, not a law court and as such i fail to see while we need such tuff regulations, i agree off-topic posting in the debateing forum is bad but this idea to me will kill off alot of debates as they wont be able to evolve

The Super Pope · Nov 2, 2007

Off topic posts can help break up a heated poll and everyone needs a laugh now and again. Idiotic spam threads are what needed new legislation not off-topics

iudas · Nov 2, 2007

For aforementioned reasons I am not content with this either.

+1

zznɟ ǝɥʇ · Nov 3, 2007

The Super Pope said:
Off topic posts can help break up a heated poll and everyone needs a laugh now and again. Idiotic spam threads are what needed new legislation not off-topics

Agreed.

Dismounted H@Xx0rZ · Nov 4, 2007

This ruling is uber fail.

You don't need to protect my feelings. I'm from 4chan. It takes alot to troll me. The Russians, however, are in need of having their feelings protected, but only because they're indoctrinated to the point that they don't even question their leaders OR their intents.

But whatever. It's not like the power-mad owners of TWC will listen to anyone on this issue...

Perikles · Nov 4, 2007

Less rules are more rules really. This is not a good rule:

In the Discussion and Debate forums, statements about other members, whether implicit or explicit, are off-topic. Statements that disrupt the discussion, regardless of intent, will be singled out in particular.

For all the reasons given above. Sometimes it is not enough to ask a question, especially when the member is not obliged to answer.

Erich von Manstein · Nov 4, 2007

My main concern is that Staff is already having some difficulty in quickly responding to all violations of the ToS, a problem I fear will only be compounded by adding another section so vast in scope. Additionally, quite a few members who have never received an infraction in their TWC careers have violated the proposed provision frequently. I personally will be a little wary of entering into any future debates outside of the administrative forums as frequently a person's background is an essential part of any debate.

Trax · Nov 4, 2007

I doubt this change enjoys the support of more then 10-15% of the forumites.

Roman Rapper · Nov 5, 2007

Trax said:
Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

No. It will simply prevent certain spiteful members from sticking the boot in when they know they will get a reaction.

I am claiming this change in the Tos as a victory for my campaign, and, what's more, a victory for all non-trolling members.

lol.

Trax · Nov 5, 2007

No. It will simply prevent certain spiteful members from sticking the boot in when they know they will get a reaction.

And why do they get a reaction?
Control yourself for god's sake.

a victory for all non-trolling members.

LoZz is the friendliest member I know and he disagrees (see above).

Roman Rapper · Nov 5, 2007

@Trax

Ask yourself this question: was it ever a possibility that members would come to this thread and praise a new prohibitive law being added to the Tos? Of course it wasn't, that wouldn't be in line with human nature, let alone the nature of the average internet forum frequenter.

The proof of whether this new rule is a good one or not will be found in the collective experience of its application over the coming months. It certainly will not be found in the bleatings of a few predictably indignant members.

Scorch · Nov 5, 2007

Medi Rapper said:
I am claiming this change in the Tos as a victory for my campaign, and, what's more, a victory for all non-trolling members.

lol.

That's quite a bit of credit you're attributing to yourself, quite incorrectly, I might add.

Roman Rapper · Nov 5, 2007

Scorch said:
That's quite a bit of credit you're attributing to yourself, quite incorrectly, I might add.

That comment was made tongue-in-cheek, hence the lol at the end. In fact, my own campaign for this change was only started after I saw Garb (a member I have immense respect for) start a thread bemoaning the extent to which certain members have been trolling recently. In doing so, he mirrored my own thoughts, and so I proceeded to continue the good fight in my "A question regarding official site policy" thread. Until, lo and behold, the Tos was changed accordingly.
(although I'm sure you're right, the change had nothing to do with me.)

Scar Face · Nov 5, 2007

I support this, it is after all more or less the re-introduction of trolling. I'm confused as to why there is such a large negative response, as in the Curia vote a majority of people supported the re-introduction of trolling. Which as I said, this more or less is. Yet lo and behold, I might just be the only supporter.

Scorch · Nov 5, 2007

Medi Rapper said:
That comment was made tongue-in-cheek, hence the lol at the end. In fact, my own campaign for this change was only started after I saw Garb (a member I have immense respect for) start a thread bemoaning the extent to which certain members have been trolling recently. In doing so, he mirrored my own thoughts, and so I proceeded to continue the good fight in my "A question regarding official site policy" thread. Until, lo and behold, the Tos was changed accordingly.

Yes, so was mine, funnily enough. So we're even.

(although I'm sure you're right, the change had nothing to do with me.)

I am.

I support this, it is after all more or less the re-introduction of trolling. I'm confused as to why there is such a large negative response, as in the Curia vote a majority of people supported the re-introduction of trolling. Which as I said, this more or less is. Yet lo and behold, I might just be the only supporter.

It's more about giving moderators more tools to deal with more situations more effectively than reintroducing trolling.

Scar Face · Nov 5, 2007

My point was, that this change has effectively covered what I wanted trolling to cover. It does exactly the same thing, and will be used in similar situations as to what I envisioned when I supported trolling.

TOS Change: Off Topic Posting

TOS Change: Off Topic Posting

ex scientia lux

Houston, we have a problem.

Indefinitely Banned

It's a conspiracy!

Romesick

I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse.

Luck is where opportunity meets preparation

ex scientia lux

Indefinitely Banned

I'm having an old friend for dinner.

ex scientia lux

Indefinitely Banned

I'm having an old friend for dinner.

Shamb Conspiracy Member

who are you?

Indefinitely Banned

They call me Mr Tibbs!

He who sweats more in training bleeds less in war.

Go ahead, make my day.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Breast obsessed, Esq.

It's a conspiracy!

Indefinitely Banned

It's a conspiracy!

Indefinitely Banned

One of Giga's Ladies

Indefinitely Banned

Indefinitely Banned

One of Giga's Ladies

Indefinitely Banned

Join the Total War Center!

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other