Update the rules

[~Niko~]

In the section Rules it's still like this:

•    1.  Warning (via PM and in topic violation of rules took place) with possible post-count removal - minimum 100.
•    2. Second Warning (as above)
•    3. A 2 day ban.
•    4. Permanant Ban.

We all know it has changed since the new forums came up, so, I think someone should update it.

[croat1gamer]

And dont forget the avatar rule.
The header says 20kb, the whole rule says 50kb.

[~Niko~]

yeah, some updating wouldn't hurt, though I bet that only 10% of the people in forums even gets in the rules section

[jrgp]

I'll get to revising the necessary parts this weekend, if not tonight/tomorrow.

[~Niko~]

No need to fix them at this time, just letting you know that it should be updated.

[F4||3N]

I skipped all that and went straight to a two month ban - courtesy of EnEsCe! ^___^

[echo_trail]

He probably wasn't far off either.. The thing is, the rules in terms of warning/banning has always been bent a little to fit the moderator handing out said punishments. But with the new system it should definitely be updated.

[pavliko]

Rules? What rules?
just don't be a feck and you won't need them.

[echo_trail]

You do realise this is the soldatforums, right?

[numgun]

Those rules suck. I mean seriously, -100 from your post count?

The admins/mods here do a good job, they are using common sense and it stuff works fine.

[pavliko]

But i dont understand..
Why do people care about the post count?

[~Niko~]

I lost my interest on my postcount since my 500th post, and after the 1000th you won't ever care once again.

[Centurion]

You won't care because after 500th post you will turn into a forum w***e and after 1000th postinto a  nolifing forum w***e.

[~Niko~]

You won't care because after 500th post you will turn into a forum w***e and after 1000th postinto a  nolifing forum w***e.

you will become that soon too.

[xurich]

Those rules suck. I mean seriously, -100 from your post count?

The admins/mods here do a good job, they are using common sense and it stuff works fine.

Word.

I don't think there should be any list of static punishments. The moderators are entirely capable of deciding appropriate punishments and solutions for problems as they arise. A list of "potential" punishments would be better.

[bxn]

•    1.  Warning (via PM and in topic violation of rules took place) with possible post-count removal - minimum 100.

what happens if someone doesnt have 100 posts? negative numbers?

[F4||3N]

I doubt admins would even take off post counts.
And if they do, they probably shouldn't be admins. (I mean if they abuse that power).
(Not that I really care about post counts, but some people do. It does give you some respect, I guess)

[jrgp]

I doubt admins would even take off post counts.
And if they do, they probably shouldn't be admins. (I mean if they abuse that power).
(Not that I really care about post counts, but some people do. It does give you some respect, I guess)

How is reducing someone's post count an abuse of power? A post count is just a useless statistic people love to whore, and by doing so spill the forums with crap. I'm all for decrementing post count, and if I ever do it will not be abuse of power.

[F4||3N]

I didn't say doing at all is abusing powers.
I mean if someone accidentally breaks a rule, and you half there post count!

I've never broke the rules on purpose. (Well, once! xP)
I'd actually love to have -500 posts. I'd be the coolest kid in Australia then!

And you can't tell me post counts aren't important to anyone.
At some stage everyone wants to have a high post count!



While we're talking about rules:
Rule 10; do not abuse the swear filter.

What happened to that rule? xP

[jrgp]

've never broke the rules on purpose. (Well, once! xP)
I'd actually love to have -500 posts. I'd be the coolest kid in Australia then!

Well...I actually just tried setting your postcount to -500 to see if it'd work. It stuck you at 0. (I changed it back to 122)

@Swear filter: Once I find out how to make it so normal members cannot turn the swear filter off, that rule will be making a hell of a comeback.

edit: hmm...swear filter is now force enabled for everyone. That rule is back in effect.

[Wraithlike]

test: f**k f**k f**k!

Edit: Aww, really? Us too?

[jrgp]

test: f**k f**k f**k!

Edit: Aww, really? Us too?

'fraid so. SMF doesn't let you choose who can't enable/disable it. It applies to everyone.

[chutem]

Wait, what?

I thought that was more slanted towards people using tricks to get around the swear filter, thus making people who wish not to be, subject to 'vulgar' words. Those who didn't give a rats ass about it turned off the check box in their account settings.

The rules aren't very clear on that matter, but I think most people would prefer to have the option...

[pavliko]

Fuck the rules!!
We go wild!!!!

hehe i want to see atleast 1 person that cares about his post count (he needs to have +500 posts)
and ask him if he cares or not.
same with +2000 posts.

[Blue-ninja]

Can swear filters at least be enforced to people of age 16 and under? Though I don't exactly know how you're going to have to go around pulling that off.

[pavliko]

soldatforum swear filters are nice unlike other soldat related websites that i need to make it all ***

* pavliko says that the forum rules and the swear filter are nice!

[jrgp]

One of the main reasons behind the swear filter is us using it to block and filter out the names of hacking sites and other things which the common people have no business reading. Surely you people'll find that understandable.

[STM1993]

Then what if there are legitimate links that so happen to have a vulgarity in the link? The link will no longer work and will cause problems. Example, I have a link that is www.<vulgarity>.com, but due to the swear filter, it'd just make it www.<stars>.com.

I mean, I don't see a need to block out certain words. The only things that do need blocking are just the sites you're referring to.

[jrgp]

Then what if there are legitimate links that so happen to have a vulgarity in the link? The link will no longer work and will cause problems. Example, I have a link that is www.<vulgarity>.com, but due to the swear filter, it'd just make it www.<stars>.com.

I mean, I don't see a need to block out certain words. The only things that do need blocking are just the sites you're referring to.

If you must use a web url with profanity in it, dodge the swear filter for exclusively that purpose (feel free to quote me on this ), provided the site you're linking us to contains no bad content.

[a-4-year-old]

test: f**k f**k f**k!

Edit: Aww, really? Us too?

'fraid so. SMF doesn't let you choose who can't enable/disable it. It applies to everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYc05gZFly0

Why exactly is it back?

[jrgp]

test: f**k f**k f**k!

Edit: Aww, really? Us too?

'fraid so. SMF doesn't let you choose who can't enable/disable it. It applies to everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYc05gZFly0

Why exactly is it back?

Because it was never intended to be removed; EH and FLAB just didn't have time to find where the option was to permanently enable it when we switched over to SMF 2.0. I, on the other hand, have virtually unlimited free time for minor and mundane things such as this.

[Shard]

f u c k. Hmmm, what swear filter?

Personaly I like the idea of it being enable for younger members, say like under 14's or w/e. Or being able to be disabled in the profile box thingy(haven't ever looked for it so I dunno if its there already).

[a-4-year-old]

How about everybody grows a pair and stops being so offended by expletives.

[jrgp]

That wouldn't work since pretty much everyone under 21 lies about their age on the Internet.

And the option to disable the filter is not in your profile.

[LtKillroy]

Besides, COPPA or whatever.

Because little Timmy can shoot people, cut their head off, saw their bodies into dozens of tiny pieces, shower himself in the blood of his enemies, and blast apart hundreds of people, but if he hears an F word he might shoot up a school.

[~Niko~]

f u c k. Hmmm, what swear filter?

Personaly I like the idea of it being enable for younger members, say like under 14's or w/e.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

By far.

[tehsnipah]

Man what the fuck, -_- swear filter rule should be discussed before determining you know jrgp. Let's take a vote and reason why (although the reasons are probably very obvious).

And seriously, who gives about vote count? It just means that either you're a great supporter of soldat or simply no life and adding worthless posts to make new comers take them seriously.

[jrgp]

*epic sigh*

I readded the word filter because that's what FLAB and ElephantHunter wanted.

[tehsnipah]

*epic sigh*

I readded the word filter because that's what FLAB and ElephantHunter wanted.

*epic moan* any chance to remove the filter?

[F4||3N]

Get over it.

Do you need to swear to feel like a tough guy?

What next! Bashing your wife, and saying she made you do it!

[jrgp]

*epic sigh*

I readded the word filter because that's what FLAB and ElephantHunter wanted.

*epic moan* any chance to remove the filter?

It isn't my decision; it's their's. I'll ask them the next time either is online.

[FliesLikeABrick]

We removed the option because we rely heavily on the swear filter to
- Hide hacker information/names/URLs automatically
- Fix links in old posts, e.g. replacing forums.soldat.pl with forums.soldat.pl and many others as the forum gets updated/changed/moved

This is how it was always supposed to be, jrgp just flipped the option because he noticed it was incorrectly set for some reason.

[tehsnipah]

All right, if that's the reason, I won't protest.

Get over it.

Do you need to swear to feel like a tough guy?

What next! Bashing your wife, and saying she made you do it!

Why don't you go back and play with your little pew pew toy gun.