New set of rules.

[Teh Donut]

tweaker said:

Actually they share similar view points, though on slightly different levels of how they think about it... (etc)

Also, if you notice, one is using it as an internal debate method...(etc)

Two similar triangles are identical in shape, yo. They might be different sizes, but the fact remains they're still the same triangle. Using a multiple character reply where all the characters involved are in a general concensus from the very beginning. That's not debating, that's distracting spam, and all-around annoying. If they're all going to say the same basic thing, for the love of whatever god you do or don't worship, just say it yourself...

Using it as an internal debate method is fine. I do it even. However, what is internal does not have to be expressed to the public; I have many internal feelings about several people on this board that I keep to myself, simply because no one wants to read them. The same with multi-character replies. If you want to use them to brainstorm a reply, fine. Delete them when you're done and write what needs to be said.

Now, I will not let you hijack this thread with an off-topic debate on the basis of morals and law. Please, create your own thread or PM me, because I love tearing apart anti-authority arguements. Especially those based around the manic ramblings of an evil sociopathic murderer bent on the annihilation of the human race.

Now, to address the real questions...

This One: Rule three was getting long, and since it's so similar to 3 that I didn't want to make it a seperate rule, so I just split it up. If you guys want, I'll go ahead and turn it into its own rule. Like you said, it was more of an OCD preference anyway. ;D

Flame: I'll look into that; I haven't gone through the roleplay rules yet to see if some exception like that is already there. I think there might be though...not sure...

[The Silent Orator]

If I remember correctly, there were a few lesbian characters, a nymph (I believe Tiggles the Nymph by EJP) who is naked, and Star... who is religious based.

If we're going to ban religion from the boards, either these characters have to be fixed (to fit the rules) or have some kind of "leniency clause" for the RP boards. That's just my suggestion though.



Veros, lol, I never thought I'd see a short-story I wrote quoted just the way you did. Next thing we know, you're going to be quoting my Normality essay.

[Giant Brother]

Yeah, I would say a leniency clause would be good. I mean, for the most part, things like sexual orientation or religion are a side-note, and never really brought into serious light unless another character actually goes out and talks to them about it. Except a few characters, like Flame mentioned, but even then, they are not, what would the word be... oh... fanatically wrong. I think what Donut means though, is just religous discussion in the general board and all, those typically get dangerous. Typically when you have RP characters discussing religion, for some reason it doesn\'t get so.... dangerous.

But then, there SHOULD be limits, of course. I mean, if an Rp starts promoting stuff like anti-semeticism(sp?), gay bashing and islamophobia, it shouldn\'t be here.

[Ninmast]

Islamophobia ... there's a new one ...

However, the rules say, "2. ALL board content is to be no more explicit than “PG-13”, with “R” being the exception for roleplays and literature." Flame, I don't understand your obsession with trying to force these characters to be rewritten, but you said the exact same thing the first time that rule was brought into focus, you or somebody else, and received the exact same answer. This isn't new stuff, these aren't new rules. They're just simplified and loosened a bit.

[The Silent Orator]

I'm not trying to force the characters to be re-written. I'm saying that they should either follow the rules or amend the rules to allow them. What's the sense in having rules if a select few members are allowed to break them in certain circumstances?

Unless there's a clause in the rules that state leniency for the rules, what's to stop a person from breaking the rules in another board and saying, "Well, in the RP boards, *so-and-so* broke this exact same rule in their character!"

I did not say anything about they're bad and need to be re-written. I'm saying they should follow rules. Technically, by rules, religious characters shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, because they break the "no religion" rule... but I guess it came to an unspoken (or untyped) agreement that certain rule-bending was allowed for RP's.

However, a new member may not know about this certain agreement. I'm simply saying to either add a clause to amend the rules to allow some bendings for the RP's or fix the characters to fit the rules. What kind of impression to the new members do we give if our very own RP mod and one of the Triad is breaking a rule simply to fit an RP character? If we are to make the rules, we need to make the strictness consistent, no matter if it is Subtle, Enigma, myself, Veros, Giant Brother, Donut, Ninmast, Kainus, Spectral, This One, Thy Masked Tragedy, EJP... or any other member that posts often.

Everything has to be equal and consistent. Just because a character's history and background is well-fleshed, the powers believable, and the weakenss original, doesn't mean they are exempt from the rules. If a rule is broken, a rule is broken. That's my personal thought. Either the rules have to be followed, or the rules have to be ammended to accept the character.

EDIT: And once again, it was not me who made the complaint. I didn't even know Star was a religious based character until about... say... a year ago... and by then I had quit the RP's here (for the most part).

[Giant Brother]

Islamophobia: Irrational fear/hate/distrust of Muslims.

Anyways, by all means, let's ammend the rule then. I would rather remove my characters because they had an "unacceptable" personality trait than re-work them.

However, I still fail to see how "no religous discussion" was translated to "absolutely no trace of religion in any shape or form"....

[Teh Donut]

I understand your point, Flame. Also, I've read over the Roleplay Rules, and there is no rule to make exceptions for roleplay characters like I previously thought.

I'll add in exceptions and all the suggestions made thus far with the next edit coming in...oh...a couple minutes or so.

*Edit*

giantbrother said:

However, I still fail to see how "no religous discussion" was translated to "absolutely no trace of religion in any shape or form"....

Right. It is usually a general unwritten rule that touchy subjects such as religion are allowed exceptions in roleplays. Otherwise, we'd have a completely atheistic multiverse, which is not plausible.

[Teh Donut]

Editation to the Rules, folks.

1. Merged Rule Four (Multiple Characer replies) into Rule One (Spamming/Flooding), and added an exception concerning L33t and Roleplay boards.

2. Added message flooding (aka double posting) to Rule One, which, ironically, I've just broken.

3. Renumbered rules Five and Six to Four and Five, then added an exception clause to the new Rule Four (Religious Discussion)

4. Added a new Rule Six (Plagiarism)

5. Change the Thread Necromancy age requirement for dead threads, giving it a definite time instead of the arbitrary "second/third page".

And lastly, I finished reading over and revising the "Category Specific" rules. Cut lots of redundancy that the General rules already covered.

Enjoy. Have a nice day.

[Giant Brother]

As a suggestion, perhaps we should make an exception to the double posting rule. There are a few ( and only a few) moments where one can turn the other cheek to double-posting. Like the instance right now. So, aren't there a few reasonable limits that should be made known in that rule?

[Teh Donut]

Right, I was kinda thinking that there should be somehting like that. Any suggestions on what to put/ how to say it, though? I'm burnt out from class at the moment...

[Ninmast]

Actually, spamming/flooding isn't allowed on L337, either. It's a place for fun and games, but blatant spam machines are subject to deletion on sight.

[Teh Donut]

Oops, sorry, that was only meant for multiple character replies. I'll fix that to read correctly.

[Subtle]

Donut for new dictator of the eab!

[Ninmast]

Subtle, please don't spam threads.

[Giant Brother]

donut said:

Right, I was kinda thinking that there should be somehting like that. Any suggestions on what to put/ how to say it, though? I'm burnt out from class at the moment...

Hmm, how about this?

"Double posting is prohibited on the boards, except under the very rare instance where it is used for important updates.

An "important update" constitutes as:

A relevant edit or addition to a character profile. (For example, a previously incomplete character finished, or a major flaw fixed)
New information on the subject of the thread. (Not spam or unimportant side details, actual information.)
A notification in a RP discussion thread stating the RP in question has begun.

This type of double posting is also above the necroposting rule, but only on the character edit/update post. Please do not abuse this rule and make up a character edit just so you can bump his/her/its thread. If you have a relevant reason to bump your character profile, and it does not pertain to the double posting exception statement, please contact a staff member."

Suggestions? Those are really the only instances I can think of where it is acceptable.