• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Potential rule merger/restructuring (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crabwhale

Wasteland Gravetender
VS Battles
Administrator
11,121
12,229
Hello all.

I'm going to cut straight to the meat with this one. We have a slight redundancy in our site rules, which goes as so:

Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the disabled or mentally ill, etcetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language.

Do not instigate drama or systematically spread toxicity, and follow the instructions in official staff warnings.

You can leave comments in the forums if you want to argue about a character's power or point out things that seem wrong, but don't be rude, obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative.


These are all separate rules listed in the wiki's main page. However as you can clearly see, they more-or-less can be summed up and compressed into a general idea of "don't be a dick". Now, my idea isn't to simplify these rules, they are quite alright in that department. What I'm proposing is the combination of all three of them into one single, exhaustive rule that will keep things concise and also cut down on the space the rules actually take up (as I feel three separate entries saying basically the same thing is not all that optimal).

This is my proposal, and I would be willing to write up a draft provided it gets accepted. What are your thoughts?

Note: STAFF ONLY. You know the drill people. If you're a regular user (who wasn't in the OG thread), get permission from someone with a colored name. I will delete posts if not.
 
Why not draft it first, then gather opinions?
It is hard for an opinion to form on a proposal without one.
As a general concept, making the rules more concise is a good thing, but only if it does not subtract from clarity in any way.
 
That is a very fair point. Very well, my draft would go something like:

Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, etcetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language. Furthermore, do no instigate drama or toxicity, and while posting in the forums in order to discuss any variety of topics, do not become overly argumentative, or engage in any of the previously mentioned disallowed behaviors.
 
How about this?

"Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, et cetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language. Furthermore, do no instigate drama or toxicity, and follow the instructions in official staff warnings. You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors."
 
I would however like to hear more staff opinions on it before implementing it.
 
How about this?

"Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, et cetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language. Furthermore, do no instigate drama or toxicity, and follow the instructions in official staff warnings. You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors."
That's fine.
 
Good suggestion, good phrasing. No complaints from me.
 
How about this?

"Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, et cetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language. Furthermore, do no instigate drama or toxicity, and follow the instructions in official staff warnings. You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors."
The updated text seems fine.
 
How about this?

"Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the physically disabled or mentally ill, et cetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language. Furthermore, do no instigate drama or toxicity, and follow the instructions in official staff warnings. You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors."
I agree with this.
 
I have done so:


I also tried to improve on the word flow for a few other connected rules listed there.

Does all of this seem fine, and if so, should we close this thread?
 
The new merged rule looks fine to me.
Though, perhaps the rules page itself could do with some headers.
It currently suffers from being a homogeneous wall of text.
 
Well, our rule pages could likely be considerably improved by better organisation into topic sections, yes, as long as we don't overdo it. Unfortunately, I am very overworked and have limited time available, and the rules themselves should obviously not be changed at all, just moved around a bit.
 
Well, our rule pages could likely be considerably improved by better organisation into topic sections, yes, as long as we don't overdo it. Unfortunately, I am very overworked and have limited time available, and the rules themselves should obviously not be changed at all, just moved around a bit.
Likewise, I am very busy with college, work, and other projects.
However, if nobody else is willing, then I can try to find time soon to create a draft of a more organized rule page.

I can create a new thread for that, so this one may be closed if you'd like.
 
That seems good to me. Just remember to start the new thread in our staff forum, since it concerns policy page revisions.

Also, I will close this thread then. Thank you to everybody who helped out here. 🙏
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top