Rules?

[Randy]

How do think a set of rules should be? Long and informative or short and simple?

 

[Raven]

Short and simple. I don't believe in loads of rules, I never have done. Most things are common sense anyway.

 

[Alien]

When it comes to a forum, too many rules puts me off. IMO it's mainly about respecting others and we should already be doing that on and offline anyway.

 

[Ashley]

I would say short, simple, and to the point. Although a bit of info never hurts. However, it shouldn't be a practical novel either, explaining what the consequences of each action might be. Consequences should only come up if the problem ever arises, never explained in writing, although this is another thing I used to be bad at.

 

[Naviero X]

Concise. If you need to explain something, go ahead. Conciser rules will get read over longer rules.

 

[Kingmush]

Short... But really most rules are common sense anyway (no spamming, flaming, trolling, etc.).

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Short and sweet.

Doesnt need any threats / consequences for breaking the rules either. Just a simply list of whats not allowed.

If someone breaks the rules, you can refer them to the rules page. If they continue after that, they are knowingly breaking the rules and you can take whatever action needed based on the situation from there.

 

[hotspot]

well i would say a mixture of both, kind of long without being long.

 

[Bluezone777]

I never bothered writing any as I didn't feel like rewriting Invisionfree's tos. A good rule of thumb is if it is pissing people off then it's best that you don't do it. If you can't stop pissing people off then I or a mod is more then happy to assist you in removing your ability to annoy people.

 

[Wayne]

My rules are quite extensive, and I do plan on adding to them. I ended up in a bitter dispute with some members who were unhappy with how I moderated my site. To cut a long story short, their constant excuses for their out of line behaviour was ''well it isn't in the rules, so I'm doing nothing wrong''. From that day, I've operated the philosophy that my site MUST have some ground rules (I don't necessarily enforce them - they're just there to back me up)

 

[Bluezone777]

Someone doing things that is obviously going to piss peopel off and then state it's ok because it's not in the rules is most likely just trolling you and deserves a suspension if anything.



Just because it's not in the rules doesn't mean it's ok to do that. This is where your morals come into play that's assuming you have any of course.

 

[InMyOpinion]

For me I would prefer the rules to be long and informative because that way if someone is breaking the rules I can remind them of the rules and ask them if they understand everything on the rules page and if they agree to it then they have no excuse for breaking the rules. Whereas I've seen in the past on forums that are more short form and simple people seemed to get away with more as the rules weren't so clear.

If the rules are clear but also long and informative the rules seem to be followed more and members seem to know what is expected of them.

 

[PsychoticThoughts]

I think that rules belong to the past now.

When internet forums were in their infancy, it made a lot of sense having long and detailed sections listing all the different rules because those days were literally the Wild West as far as communities were concerned... What was totally cool on one place could --and often was-- be completely illegal someplace else.

Nowadays, though? Common sense is all you really need.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

How do think a set of rules should be? Long and informative or short and simple?

I keep my short but to the point.

A great idea if you need help with this: Create a long rules post and have ChatGPT shorten it up for you.

Unless you like writing rules like me LOL