Guest Posted February 19, 2003 As you might have noticed we have revised the current forum rules. If you have any questions about the new rules, post them in this thread and we'll try to answer them to the best of our abilities. Please keep this thread civilized and without flaming and personal attacks. We'll leave it pinned for a week or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted February 19, 2003 Do 100kb images mean: 1. 100,000 bytes or 2. 102,400 bytes (100 * 1024) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iNeo 0 Posted February 19, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 20 2003,00:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do 100kb images mean: 1. 100,000 bytes or 2. 102,400 bytes (100 * 1024)<span id='postcolor'> Probably 102,400 bytes. 2,400 more or less probably doesn't matter that much, just remove a pixel or two Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted February 19, 2003 So there haven't been any real changes? If it ain't broke don't fix it, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iNeo 0 Posted February 19, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there haven't been any real changes? If it ain't broke don't fix it, I guess.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have updated the board rules to include a number of rules that have been in practice, but never written down. We have also provided more detailed descriptions of each rule.<span id='postcolor'> - http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=27348 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted February 19, 2003 They're all basically the same. Just with an explination beneath them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 19, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there haven't been any real changes? If it ain't broke don't fix it, I guess.<span id='postcolor'> No dramatic changes. We've written down some rules that were enforced before but never written down. There is a new regulation for the signature size (§3.9). We've intruduced a maximum width for signatures (600 pixels). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 20, 2003 I might add that one change that might seem superficial is actually very important. We've numbered the rules as paragraphs. The reason for this is that we've noticed that a suprisingly large number of members have never seen the board rules. This revision's purpose is to raise awareness of the rules and to get people to actually read them. By the time we are through, you'll know all the sections and paragraphs by heart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 20, 2003 Good, no "No FSPilots" rule. Paragraph 4, can you define "disgusting images"? It's not that important but it might come up. I mean, pictures of someone throwing up might be disgusting to different people. Or maybe I should just be a lawyer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,01:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good, no "No FSPilots" rule. Paragraph 4, can you define "disgusting images"? Â It's not that important but it might come up. Â I mean, pictures of someone throwing up might be disgusting to different people. Or maybe I should just be a lawyer. <span id='postcolor'> On a similiar note... No explicit pictures or what not. If we link to a site that may contain pictures of dead soldiers or something similiar, and the link is in direct relevance to the subject at hand, AND a warning is posted before the link about the pics, and their EXPLICIT nature...is that still unacceptable or is that ok? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">102,400 bytes <span id='postcolor'> So 100KB not 100kb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Rules of Format regulate the appearance of what is posted and of user profile.<span id='postcolor'> Really? Fix, fix... Also, how about a new rule for the moderators: If you PR someone you should provide them with a way to contact you. Or how about all moderators provide a means of contact for PR'd or banned personnel other than PM(which they can't do). I ask for this because it's possible that someone might want to apoloize or explain something after they get their butt whooped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 20 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No explicit pictures or what not. If we link to a site that may contain pictures of dead soldiers or something similiar, and the link is in direct relevance to the subject at hand, AND a warning is posted before the link about the pics, and their EXPLICIT nature...is that still unacceptable or is that ok?<span id='postcolor'> It's still unacceptable. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, how about a new rule for the moderators: If you PR someone you should provide them with a way to contact you. Or how about all moderators provide a means of contact for PR'd or banned personnel other than PM(which they can't do).<span id='postcolor'> Obviusly you have not been PR:ed. When you are post restricted you can send and recieve PM:s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 20, 2003 How about a ban then, let them PM a moderator when banned? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 20 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about a ban then, let them PM a moderator when banned?<span id='postcolor'> Bans are only issued when they are permanent. A permanent ban means a full termination of all future contact with the forums. After somebody has been perm banned there is no turning back so there is no need for contact with moderators. Bans are seldom issued but when they are they are permanent and irreversible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted February 20, 2003 Uh you forgot that Americans be exempt from all rules J/k. My attempt at humour with my euro buddies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted February 20, 2003 9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 20 2003,029)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 20 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No explicit pictures or what not. If we link to a site that may contain pictures of dead soldiers or something similiar, and the link is in direct relevance to the subject at hand, AND a warning is posted before the link about the pics, and their EXPLICIT nature...is that still unacceptable or is that ok?<span id='postcolor'> It's still unacceptable. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, how about a new rule for the moderators: If you PR  someone you should provide them with a way to contact you.  Or how about all moderators provide a means of contact for PR'd or banned personnel other than PM(which they can't do).<span id='postcolor'> Obviusly you have not been PR:ed. When you are post restricted you can send and recieve PM:s.<span id='postcolor'> I think it should be taken into consideration because that time the ac-130 thread got closed it was on plenty of other mainstream forums being discussed. I think with respect to that rule it should be normal stuff is ok but pictures which fall into the grey area should be linked. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">§2)No bigotry Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome to these forums. <span id='postcolor'> calling someone gay is an insult in itself these days Therre wasn`t any mention of goiing off topic in a thread? S is what is the position on that. I think if there was going to be a rule it should be any thread that has been answered succesfully or has run its course and has started a few meaningful discussion within it should be allowed to continue rather than being locked like they used to Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 19 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">§2)No bigotry Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome to these forums. <span id='postcolor'> calling someone gay is an insult in itself these days <span id='postcolor'> My advice is don't worry about that, if you are well intentioned there is little or no chance if you say "gay" that it will be misinterpreted. Yes calling someone gay for saying something or disagreeing with you can be considered homophobic, that's because it's is meant as an insult. Same goes for one member calling another member Einstein, it can be a weird/funny complement, or a pretty big insult. (speaking from experience...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted February 20, 2003 Which forum could I post a picture like this in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted February 20, 2003 there's a thread in general called ofp combat photos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted February 20, 2003 OK. I was thinking of starting a thread in this forum about "How many times can you die?" and we could have a contest but I'll post it in the OF Combat Photography Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted February 20, 2003 edit: nevermind, question answered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 20, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 20 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Therre wasn`t any mention of goiing off topic in a thread? S is what is the position on that.<span id='postcolor'> That one is still on a case-by-case basis. It's difficult, if not impossible to define a specific rule. You have to have some freedom to discuss things related to the topic. On the other hand, there is a limit to that too so we don't get people discussing gardening in a troubleshooting thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted February 21, 2003 Alright, no single element in a sig over 100 pixels in height. So if I have a logo that's 150 pixels, what if I chop it into two parts at 75 pixels, then combine them. Would that be okay? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
