Posting And You...

[mstriumph]

I always knew that Honda's were the best bikes and that god was Scottish.

Scottish and ghey [see previous threads lol]

[Waylander]

Taken from the game planet forum rules. Particularly relevant items highlighted in bold.

It has come to the moderators attention that these forums are getting very argumentative, bitchy, and generally not a very good place to visit. So in the interest of quality, and creating a more friendly community, we have decided to set up a list of guidlines. The moderators will act on the following events in a thread. They will be locked or deleted if they:

Are abusive posts.
Are cheats posts.
Are racist posts.
Are sexist posts.
Are warez posts.
Are attempting to optain CD keys or in any way pirate the game. We all bought the game, go buy your own.

Contain links to cheats, pornography or other socially unacceptable sites.
Contain excessive foul or offensive language or images.
Contain excess flaming.

Posts that alter the original threads' topic.

Posts that include unneeded quoting of the directly previous post. Or posts including quoting of large images, seeing them once is enough thanks.

Posts engineered to increase you post count.
Spamming.
Posts that have just a smile, or things like "sif", "wtf", "lol" or are just a general waste of a post, will be deleted. If you have nothing to say, don't post. Simple

Posts that ask questions already answered in the stickies or FAQ.

By creating a better environment here we will all find our on server game experiances alot better.

Bloody good recommendations to keep in mind while posting. We will be clamping down on such digressions. So if you don’t want you posts edited/deleted, follow these simple rules.

Well shoot that's me gone... Been nice knowing y'all.

[mstriumph]

... but, but ...... what does that leave??

..........................

[/I]

please consult the person who gave me red rep for unnecessary quoting if this post now makes no frikken sense whatsoever ...

[SpankMe]

Well I seee nobody took any bloody notice of this point.

Posts that include unneeded quoting of the directly previous post.

[jrandom]

Posts that include unneeded quoting of the directly previous post.

I disagree with this one. When there's reasonably activity levels on a thread, it's difficult to determine whether your post is going to appear immediately after the one you're replying to.

An extra line or two of text emphasising the points made by the previous poster that you're responding to increases readability, uses bugger-all bandwidth and guards against the tedious possibility of having to go back and edit after someone else pips you to the wire and pushes your post further down the page.

You see, if I hadn't quoted that part of your post just now, even though this one immediately follows it, I'd place unnecessary burden on the reader to figure out whether I was replying directly to your statement that nobody took notice, or the idea behind it, or both.

Since most users probably view threads here without any hierarchical structure information about replies turned on (does this forum software support that?) I think you should consider repealing that quoting rule.

[mstriumph]

will try to do better ...

[jrandom]

will try to do better ...

Don't be such a doormat.

[mstriumph]

tsk tsk ---- guess we'll just have to add 'irony' to the list of things you don't understand ...

[Ixion]

/me agrees. I often take quite a while from beginning to write a reply until I finally post it (because people keep coming along and wanting me to do werk in the midst of it - pests ).

So even if my post WOULD have been the next one when I started it may be well down (or up ) the page when it is finally posted. Which makes everything out of contect .

I belong to several other forums , some of which have such a rule, and it is a right pain. Because you have to preceed comments with a "Blogusername - post 99 " or such so people can figure out what the hell you're on about. And then when reading the post one has to scroll up (or down) the thread trying to figure out what the original post being replied to was. And then go back to the reply, then back to the original . And so on. A pain

(Oh, and this is actually a reply to Ms Fish, not Ms MsTriumph - or subsequent. See what I mean)

EDIT : It's a reply to Ms Fish's post #35. Not her post #37, which she posted while I was typing. SEE!. SEE! SEE! . You're all confused now. All would have been clear with a quote! See !

[jrandom]

tsk tsk ---- guess we'll just have to add 'irony' to the list of things you don't understand ...

problem with irony and sarcasm is that it's very difficult to find the right smiley too accompany it. I think your wee 'oops' graphic threw my comprehension off a bit there.

but then I must concede the difficulty of communicating clearly with nothing but text and very little time to type it in.

[jrandom]

/me agrees...

and look! you posted this while I was replying to mstriumph.

today's post was brought to you by the words 'quod', 'erat', and 'demonstrandum'.

[Hitcher]

It's OK to be offensive, though, right?

So long as it's either true, reasonably witty, or (at a minimum) correctly spelled?

Or spelt correctly. Where I come from "spelled" is a wee lie down...

[Hitcher]

Posts that include unneeded quoting of the directly previous post.

But it may not be the directly previous post by the time the reply is posted, such is our fast-moving and ambiguous world.

And, then again, one should always read the whole thread prior to responding to the first post that attracts one's attention. Bad Hitcher...

[Joni]

What we are requesting is not to quote more than is required. If there is a long post and you a replying to it, rather just quote the part you are replying to, not the entire thing. It takes up space on the server that is not necessary, and ups the work for the moderators.

[jrandom]

What we are requesting is not to quote more than is required. If there is a long post and you a replying to it, rather just quote the part you are replying to, not the entire thing. It takes up space on the server that is not necessary, and ups the work for the moderators.

nobody's arguing with that. but after a mod (I presume) red-repped me twice for the quotes I used earlier in this thread, I think my argument about the necessity for quoting had to be made.

fascists.

also, space on the server? gimme a break. even if the server's using a RAID 1 SCSI array current prices would only put storage at about 14 cents a gigabyte. nobody quotes THAT prolificaly. and yes even as a forum newby I'd be happy to chip in if an appeal for server funding was made, this site seems worth keeping in spite of all the fools frequenting it.