|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2008, 6:05 PM
Post #1 of 16
(6254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Hi all,
I've made some minor changes to the Forum Rules. I want to stress the word "minor." This isn't so much anything new as it is a couple tweaks and a couple clarifications. For the time being, I'll leave the new stuff red, so you can easily see what it is.
Thanks a ton.
J
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 22, 2008, 6:38 PM
Post #2 of 16
(6241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth.
Would you?
|
|
|
|
|
GeneralZon
Dec 22, 2008, 6:57 PM
Post #3 of 16
(6235 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2008
Posts: 273
|
Your climbing partner thread is being threatened!!!!
Damn you dictators of moderation!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2008, 7:05 PM
Post #4 of 16
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I wouldn't. It's just there to cover us if it's ever needed. Your partner thread, the BET, blah, blah... they're all safe.
|
|
|
|
|
churningindawake
Dec 22, 2008, 7:07 PM
Post #5 of 16
(6231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2007
Posts: 5292
|
sungam wrote: In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth. Yh...You... you wouldn't! Would you?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 22, 2008, 8:01 PM
Post #8 of 16
(6210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
sungam wrote: In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth. Yh...You... you wouldn't! Would you?
Doesn't sound so minor after all, does it? *gulp* 
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Dec 22, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #9 of 16
(6175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: sungam wrote: In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth. Yh...You... you wouldn't! Would you? Doesn't sound so minor after all, does it? *gulp*
That part isn't red, so I have to presume it isn't new. Sungam just chose (for some reason) to post about that part in this thread. It would easily suggest to anyone who doesn't actually click on the link that it is one of the changes to which J_ung refers, but, if red = new as indicated, it is not.
(This post was edited by htotsu on Dec 22, 2008, 9:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 22, 2008, 9:20 PM
Post #10 of 16
(6169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
htotsu wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: sungam wrote: In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth. Yh...You... you wouldn't! Would you? Doesn't sound so minor after all, does it? *gulp* That part isn't red, so I have to presume it isn't new. Sungam just chose (for some reason) to post about that part in this thread. It would easily suggest to anyone who doesn't actually click on the link that it is one of the changes to which J_ung refers, but, if red = new as indicated, it is not.
AHHHH!!!
Makes me wonder how he got that in there to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #11 of 16
(6168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
htotsu wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: sungam wrote: In reply to: Bandwidth and Performance Saving Threads that have more than 1,000 posts or 10,000 views may be locked to maintain optimal system performance and preserve bandwidth. When this is done it will be indicated as such and you're welcome to start a similar discussion again. Posts made with the explicit goal of soliciting multiple short responses ("Post Whoring") may be locked or removed to preserve bandwidth. Yh...You... you wouldn't! Would you? Doesn't sound so minor after all, does it? *gulp* That part isn't red, so I have to presume it isn't new. Sungam just chose (for some reason) to post about that part in this thread. It would easily suggest to anyone who doesn't actually click on the link that it is one of the changes to which J_ung refers, but, if red = new as indicated, it is not.
You presume correctly! It's not one of the changes. Been that way all along.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 23, 2008, 4:48 AM
Post #12 of 16
(6067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
It's pretty basic, really. I had never read the rules before.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 24, 2008, 3:07 PM
Post #13 of 16
(5876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I'm shocked. 
Funny thing is, take a look at the page-view count on the forum rules page. We have tens of thousands of people who have posted in the forums since that page went live.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 24, 2008, 3:53 PM
Post #14 of 16
(5872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
minus there number of times you've viewed it while editing, and the two times I've seen it, and the mods seeing it, and we can see that wolfgang is actually the only person to have read them.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Dec 25, 2008, 9:24 PM
Post #15 of 16
(5767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
"No pedophilia.
References to pedophilia can only be made in a factual context or in discussion of certain political and social issues. Outside of those limited contexts, Rockclimbing.com will have a zero-tolerance policy to pedophilia and any reference thereto will be removed without explanation. This may include jokes that we deem to be in exceptionally poor taste."
I guess my name for a grainy climb up around Sonora Pass, "Pet a File" is out the window then. Not to mention this post...
never mind... I was never here...
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 26, 2008, 12:22 AM
Post #16 of 16
(5749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
brutusofwyde wrote: "No pedophilia. References to pedophilia can only be made in a factual context or in discussion of certain political and social issues. Outside of those limited contexts, Rockclimbing.com will have a zero-tolerance policy to pedophilia and any reference thereto will be removed without explanation. This may include jokes that we deem to be in exceptionally poor taste." I guess my name for a grainy climb up around Sonora Pass, "Pet a File" is out the window then. Not to mention this post... never mind... I was never here...
I specifically changed the forum rules to what they are so they'd be more relaxed and posts like yours would not be against them. I felt the previous wording left too little room for interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
