I'd just like to say....

[doh_boy]

Xane you seem to be being willfully obtuse. They have the 'right' to change the rules when ever they like and ban (for example 'fudge' and ban you) for dubious reasons. But in reality rules are there to ensure the behaviour of the users of this board stay within the parameters you want. So with this in mind nath and mank wanted clarification so they could stay within them. So technically, yes, their point is irrelevent but in reality what they were asking for wasn't. They wanted to stay within the rules, which are more restrictive, enough to not be banned but they want to change as little as possible.

One should respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. Anything beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways.”

I thought the above was a better worded version of what I figure was nath&manks point.

to nath and mank:

I think the rule of thumb is this: Some people don't like swearing to the point of avoiding it (or being a *ahem* and complaining needless about it) so when you freely swear you're forcing your opinion (or way of life, whatever) upon them. So basically you won't get banned for it but try to make a concious effort to 'temper' your language.

 

[throdgrain]

To be quite honest, you're all arguing about nothing.
If the servers dont start filling up in the next few months BW will more than likely cease to exist. And where will your forum be then ? Gone.
Most of the people involved in this conversation dont seem to play online games, which makes it all a bit confusing for me .
Do you think Ted has left because its all going great and he sees a pay rise looming ? No , nor do I.

 

[DaGaffer]

Right, let's get this clear. Xane, while you are correct to say we could change the rules if we wanted to, we wouldn't and haven't. The Terms & Conditions are deliberately written to establish a structure of behaviour not to establish hard codified rules.

Think of it as following the English legal model rather than the European 'codified' legal model. In English law, a rule is established and then legal remedies are defined by individual cases (case law). In European law ('Napoleonic' or codified law) the rules are much tighter and are generally tightly defined until they break or are superceded by another law (its one of the reasons we have so many problems with the EU).

So, we establish rules, but until we have cases, you're not going to know the 'boundaries' you seem to so desperately want us to establish Nath, because they have to be established by deciding what's reasonable (another English Law thing; most cases are decided by what a 'reasonable' man would do. Of course judges wouldn't necessarily recognise a 'reasonable' man if they bit him on the arse, but that's a different issue...) .

There are sound reasons for doing it this way, and believe me, we thought about it at length; if we set specific rules e.g. 'don't say c*nt*' certain people of a more pedantic/mischievous bent (e.g. about 98% of you lot) would find ways to break the rules within the letter of the law, or push against every rule. We would then spend our lives establishing new rules which you would all then rail against.

So, two things to remember; 'Reasonableness' should be thought about by you, but is ultimately defined by us, and, this isn't a democracy. Thank you and good night.

 

[Clowneh!]

is bw dying?

 

[pcg79]

1 - free bodhi, didnt like that exor chap

2 - about what dagaffer said about codified law - well it really is true; you do learn something new everyday

3 - Ted rox - gonna miss ya

that is all

 

[nath]

DaGaffer, I didn't actually want a specific "these words are ok, those aren't" etc. My original point was that swearing wasn't a problem. Abuse was. Now it seems you're saying be reasonable with the swears. Which is fine, but that's all I really needed to know because before, we could swear ourselves blind and it'd cause no problem.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by DaGaffer
Right, let's get this clear. Xane, while you are correct to say we could change the rules if we wanted to, we wouldn't and haven't. The Terms & Conditions are deliberately written to establish a structure of behaviour not to establish hard codified rules.

I did not mean to imply that is what you are like. I am trying to highlight the "use your discretion" style of rules you employ (but failing madly it seems).

I have many times written stuff, then edited it out before I hit submit, basically because I judge myself and intend to stick within the "rules", as vague as they are. I would hope most people do this and in all, the forum becomes self-governing and a better place to be, petty name-calling is left out.

Nath and Mank don't see a connection between their "state the rules" request and my "they can do what they like really" argument, yet the connection is established in both Teds "Fair Warning" post and your post earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by DaGaffer
So, two things to remember; 'Reasonableness' should be thought about by you, but is ultimately defined by us, and, this isn't a democracy.

There it is again, but I admit that when _you_ say so, it sounds a lot better

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by throdgrain
Most of the people involved in this conversation dont seem to play online games, which makes it all a bit confusing for me

I play a lot of Q3 and am in a couple of pretty good clans tbh!

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by xane
Nath and Mank don't see a connection between their "state the rules" request and my "they can do what they like really" argument, yet the connection is established in both Teds "Fair Warning" post and your post earlier in this thread.

Neither of us are asking state the rules, just a rough idea of what's acceptable now it seems the rules have been altered slightly with bodhi's banning in mind. This is where the confusion between you and nath and I lies, afaik.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by nath
DaGaffer, I didn't actually want a specific "these words are ok, those aren't" etc. My original point was that swearing wasn't a problem. Abuse was. Now it seems you're saying be reasonable with the swears. Which is fine, but that's all I really needed to know because before, we could swear ourselves blind and it'd cause no problem.

Well, no, you couldn't swear yourselves blind, but we didn't pull people up for excessive swearing because, frankly, we had bigger fish to fry. It was always there in the Ts&Cs if you bothered to read them, so you could have got grief for it anytime over the last year, but we've deliberately taken a fairly hands off approach, but it gets wearing after a while. And when it comes to 'reasonableness' it makes more sense for us to get tough on abuse than swearing. We're NOT jumping on swearing automatically, but, just, show some restraint guys. OK?

 

[Jonny_Darko]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
is bw dying?

Certainly not. We would have had the plug pulled long before now if it were the case.

Yes, I know you've all heard it before, dozens of times, but changes, they are a-coming.

Heh, DaGaffer, we really need to get out more

 

[mank!]

Yeah guys, it's 8:30 and you're still working! GO HOME!

 

[Jonny_Darko]

I am home, that's the problem!

 

[nath]

Originally posted by DaGaffer
Well, no, you couldn't swear yourselves blind, but we didn't pull people up for excessive swearing because, frankly, we had bigger fish to fry. It was always there in the Ts&Cs if you bothered to read them, so you could have got grief for it anytime over the last year, but we've deliberately taken a fairly hands off approach, but it gets wearing after a while. And when it comes to 'reasonableness' it makes more sense for us to get tough on abuse than swearing. We're NOT jumping on swearing automatically, but, just, show some restraint guys. OK?

What you've just said there is exactly the type of thing I was asking about.

You've completely answered my question now. So thanks. Lets hope that's the end of it.

 

[Ono]

Originally posted by Gumbo
Ono's idea of a swear filter may well be the way ahead, (sorry mank), but then at least there would be no grey area.

*My* idea?

Fuck that! I was being sarcastic.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

This thread has too many grandmas, don't snuggle me!

 

[MYstIC G]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
I am home, that's the problem!

Oh to be home for 8:30..... :/

 

[(Shovel)]

I don't know whether my two-penithworth is welcome or not, but the threads still bear the top so I'll chip in anyway.

The comment about swear filters. This was debated a while ago. The consensus from those supporting it was that if such a creation were optional, and users (or a user's parents depending on age) could toggle it on or off during signup. Whatever we are "supposed to be" - there will always be children here (as in, real children, not just immature students). Introduce such an optional filter for them and the problem is solved. You still take action against people being "overly abusive" against individuals (for want of a better term), but "day-to-day" swearing becomes a non issue and entirely optional. It'll please parents too

Bodhi' post (as in, the response he did a few pages back). I was quite impressed at that. I particularly agree with one thing he said: That - however wrong and, frankly, sick the phrase was - no one told him to stop with his "Fuck off and ..." lines. You can argue for the T&C, but it was going on specifically before they were finalised, and continued afterwards. In fairness to him, he should just have been told not to do it - as he said, deleted post and private message.

Oh, and I found the earlier "avoid swearing at all costs" responses infinitely funnier than any explicit response hidden in these boards - more of that please

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
IOh, and I found the earlier "avoid swearing at all costs" responses infinitely funnier than any explicit response hidden in these boards - more of that please

The answer is clearly to invent your own shorthand for swearing, thus turning this place into the a minefield of incomprehensible injokes.

That'd be superb.

 

[GDW]

No offence but if it wasnt for you and a few others like you no one would have to resort to that tbh.

The many suffer for the crimes of the few....or something like that.

But hey we forgive you

 

[mank!]

Seeing as GDW's thread was closed I'm going to post it here (and expect it to disappear in nanoseconds)

Rubbishing, being patronising towards your customers and not allowing them an opinion on what's going on as of late doesn't strike me as a hugely wise idea, but carry on nevertheless.

 

[Clowneh!]

how many of you will be renewing ur subs?

how will game sell more subs if the current ones dont renew?

whats happening?

im scared

 

[The Fonz]

They might start giving out free subscriptions with every AOL CD.

 

[mank!]

I won't because I don't play a game BW supports anymore. They don't offer any Q3 threewave servers and Jolt do. It also looks as if Jolt is heading to P2P as well, so I'll sub there if anywhere. Simple as that.

 

[cjravey]

Originally posted by mank!
Seeing as GDW's thread was closed I'm going to post it here (and expect it to disappear in nanoseconds)

Rubbishing, being patronising towards your customers and not allowing them an opinion on what's going on as of late doesn't strike me as a hugely wise idea, but carry on nevertheless.

The thread is open, the water's lovely.

 

[-fus-]

Where's that 'argueing on the intarnet!!!111' pic?

 

[mank!]

Filed under 'for use by shit cunts with nothing good to say'.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko


Heh, DaGaffer, we really need to get out more

Ain't that the truth?

 

[old.Kez]

I've only read through to page 4 of this revoltingly dull thread, and I will suggest one thing, though I'm almost certain it will be glanced over and ignored. It seems to be the consistent case (the chimps you employ for web development still have fixed-height fonts on the shopfront).

Someone, I can't be bothered to check who, pasted content from the terms and conditions as defence for the policies being outlined regarding what is acceptable behaviour. I can only guess it was a suit of some sort, because there is obviously no logic involved. Just because you put up 6 pages (according to Firebird, in terms of A4 printed documents) of legal conditions, doesn't mean anyone is going to recognise and adhere to them. It'd be interesting to go through your logs and look at the GET requests for the t&cs. I'll wager that they're minute in comparison to the successful signups.

I doubt many remember, because it was mostly a disaster, but I did a newbie guide that sort of hinted at what was acceptable use (back when we, the users, pretty much defined it). This is what is missing, from the signup form. There really ought to be two popups on the relevant page, outlining in clear, stupid english what is acceptable and what is not ("No copyrighted files" etc). Have the terms and conditions clearly marked as legal, and you cover both bases. Doubly, it clearly states twice what your stance is, which may be a useful thing to argue should you ever find yourself in court for something that appears on here (which is what this whole fiasco boils down to).

A forum rules charter is a goddamn must for a site this size, but so are many other things you ignore, which I'll not touch on here.

 

[(Shovel)]

Amen to that.