No Thanks What I hate seeing in Forums

Re-read the OP. It advocates a ruleset restricting people from making 'rude' comments, regardless of intention, or specific reference to grammar/style. Rudeness, unless blatantly intentional, is subjective, meaning to enforce such a rule we would resort to never commenting. It takes an incredibly hard line stance on grammar, interpreting any comment as 'trolling', and it advocates the banning of image macros (as the '50', as already pointed out, is almost certainly hyperbole). If the OP were to be followed by the letter, it would not be far off from the ruleset I presented.

 

I would like to make clear that all I did was post a link and point out hypocrisy. I made no statements regarding the value of such. The OP was the one who complained about it, not me.

 

If you read where the conversation is going, it's far different from just 'banning all commenting'. Rudeness may be subjective to some, but there are rules--rules which basically frown upon certain actions, yet still allow people to speak as they have all these years. As a rule of thumb, it is requested that people respect each other. Misunderstandings can and will occur, but if they are misunderstandings due to subjective reasons, then they're usually resolved.

Ah, right. The answer still applies to the particular instance as an answer to the opening post, so I guess it works out ;>

 

This would be valid if he were responding to the conversation, but he did not quote anyone. He was responding to the opening post and not everyone else. Isn't that right, P?

 

Addressing the end of the conversation would require you to see how it's going in the majority of cases. In which case, he'd have to see the direction it was veering towards to make a concrete statement on the matter. But that's beyond the point of discussion, really. Should KHV have stricter rules in the way the opening post states? If not, how? That's the subject matter. Not who P quoted or didn't quote.

Again, going back to the subject, I believe the rules are fine as they are while some things could be improved on. What Starseeker asks is basically a stricter structure for the rules. No repeated images, no rudeness (intentional or not)

But the only instances where this happens is the Spam Zone. Repeated images aren't a foreign concept in the spamzone and we'd have to see if the individual member is spamming images as a method of trolling all the time or the majority of the time. And as mentioned before, not all rudeness is intentional or preconceived so giving harsher punishments before actually talking to a person during the first few instances where it is seen would be a bit extreme.

In the end, it all boils down to contacting Staff members if you feel a problem arises. If someone feels some rule could be made different, then this is to discuss that, too.

 

Chevalier basically covered my thoughts on the first bit here, yes that is the point of OP, but the OP's initial suggestion is rarely what is actually enacted; this section offers the opportunity for users to review the idea and for everyone to come up with the version that works for everyone. The OP =/= law.

Secondly, while it is subjective, there are basic societal standards that you are expected to follow on the internet. That is basic netiquette and while you're free to have your own standards, your standards are not the ones that others must be held to. If you disagree with the aforementioned standards, and are incapable of posting under a site's standards because they conflict with your own, start your own site. However, there is no excuse for failing to follow both the established rules and the common law of a site, and expecting no backlash or repercussions for not doing so is just silly.

By posting on KH-Vids you are agreeing to follow our rules, which have some clear sections on this topic:

 

Uh, yes? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. The OP made a suggestion. I criticised it. If it were the default, OP would hardly be suggesting it, now would s/he?

 

I'm saying that sticking purely to what the OP said is moot at this point, as the topic has drifted. But that's a bit redundant at this point, others have said it already so whatevs.

 

I reply to the topic of the post, and as a result get chastised by an admin for not replying to the off-topic discussion instead. How quaint. Especially considering Chev's comment of:

Which is it to be? Am I to address the OP, as I initially thought, or am I to address the off-topic discussion?

(Please note: I am currently addressing you, Misty. You can tell, because it is your name in the quote box.)

Please direct your attention to the Reply button at the bottom of each post. It is beside the Reply With Quote button. If one presses it while viewing the OP, a textbox appears in which one can post in, allowing one to post without addressing the end of the conversation.

(Please note: I am currently addressing you, Chev. You can tell, because it is your name in the quote box.)

 

Because where the topic is going (or was going, until we got off on this) is still related to the issue that the OP brings up--should we more actively punish members for being rude to others, and whether or not we have a problem at all. And you are free to address who you choose, but please do not patronize others. It's uncalled for and frankly more than ironic in a thread on this subject. People are free to respond to posts whether they are directly involved in them or not. Enough of this tangent though, it's going nowhere.

 

Agreed, you can reply to who you like. I was merely elaborating on who I was addressing, as there seemed to be confusion about how the quoting system worked earlier in the thread. You're reading more into it than is there.


To remain on topic though, I must ask Starseeker, what do you define as 'grammar trolling'? Should I be allowed to comment in passing that you may want to consider installing a Spell Checker, for example? Also, where do you draw the line between acceptable typing, and unadulterated txt-tlk?