New Rules

[Mister Mets]

For the first time in five months, I've made amendments to the rules.

As the current rules and regulations thread has gotten less than one percent of the views of the Avatars thread, I considered it appropriate to bring these to your attention.

Feel free to discuss the new rules here. Though I hope not to see a repeat of the "Considering New Rules" thread which resulted in two temporary bannings, multiple warnings and a few dozen deleted posts.

[Mister Mets]

And for the record, the new rules are...

11. ABOUT THIS: :rolleyes:
It may be an option at the rest of CBR, and I have no objection that, but its use is now officially banned here at the Spider-Man forum.

12. PROVIDE LINKS AND SOURCES WHEN POSSIBLE
If you're going to cite something someone has said, please try to provide a link if it was posted online, or let us know where you got the information (if it was a book, magazine article, or something of the kind.)
Related to this, if you're going to quote something someone else said at the forum in another thread, you must provide a link to the thread and the post in question. Otherwise, I reserve the right to just delete your comments, and consider the possibility that you may be flame-baiting.

And some notes on existing rules...

Announcing that someone is on your ignore list is flame-baiting. Don't do it.

Don't announce that you're reporting a post. It further brings conversation to a halt, you may look ineffective if nothing is ever done with the original post, and it may piss off the other guy to be called out for something that has nothing to do with the topic. You would still be free to send a private message to the poster if you wish to not be anonymous regarding the reported post.

[The Shadow]

Just for clarification on #12... if I say "I read that Joe Quesada said he hates Dan Didio's guts" and don't provide either a link or say something like "I read that in the newest issue of CBG..." you reserve the right to delete the post because it's possible flame baiting?

If someone says something (to use me again) I find odd or don't believe and you don't delete it, can we still ask for a source?

[ShaggyB]

Just for clarification on #12... if I say "I read that Joe Quesada said he hates Dan Didio's guts" and don't provide either a link or say something like "I read that in the newest issue of CBG..." you reserve the right to delete the post because it's possible flame baiting?

If someone says something (to use me again) I find odd or don't believe and you don't delete it, can we still ask for a source?

im go go out on a limb and say id still ask for one.....

likewise, Mets: if I were to say "I remember a comiccon panel where JQ says _____ but i cant find a link to it" will that be good enough.... The whole no spider-pregnancy panel comment comes to mind, as its nearly impossible to find that quote 2 years later.... Also, the whole its magic conversation is sometimes hard to find in its entirety.

[ShaggyB]

11. ABOUT THIS:
It may be an option at the rest of CBR, and I have no objection that, but its use is now officially banned here at the Spider-Man forum.

Thank you. Thats an annoying one.

[John Zaleski]

does 11 mean you can't use that smiley? i'm confused

[coconutphone]

does 11 mean you can't use that smiley? i'm confused

You can't use THAT smiley. The sarcastic eye-roll one.

[Jim Thompson]

im go go out on a limb and say id still ask for one.....

likewise, Mets: if I were to say "I remember a comiccon panel where JQ says _____ but i cant find a link to it" will that be good enough.... The whole no spider-pregnancy panel comment comes to mind, as its nearly impossible to find that quote 2 years later.... Also, the whole its magic conversation is sometimes hard to find in its entirety.

I'll second this for needing a little clarification. For example, I'm trying to track down an old thread that was talking about Joe Quesada's comments on some of the changes that were going to happen as a result of the OMD deal, but it doesn't seem to be in existence anymore. Is it enough to say I think I remember the thread and ask for help tracking it down or is such a statement or post now out of bounds?

[oldschool]

You can't use THAT smiley. The sarcastic eye-roll one.

Good. This served no purpose except as an effort to get under someone's skin when you had nothing constructive to say; it was and is just a way to mock someone else by using an emoticon as opposed to an argument.

[coconutphone]

Yep which is why I am also glad it's gone. Good riddance.

As for the sourcing I think it's more "source it when you can and when you can't ask if anyone else knows where to find it."

[Jim Thompson]

Yep which is why I am also glad it's gone. Good riddance.

I don't know -- there have been occasions where I thought the emoticon had a justifiable use. Unfortunately, it was an icon that just got used inappropriately most of the time.

As for the sourcing I think it's more "source it when you can and when you can't ask if anyone else knows where to find it."

That's how I took it, but I just want to make sure.

[whiteshark]

I aprove all the new rules.

But i have to ask how do you provide links?
I don`t have a clue in how to do it...
I am still a bit of a "caveman" in the Internet i guess.

[coconutphone]

I aprove all the new rules.

But i have to ask how do you provide links?
I don`t have a clue in how to do it...
I am still a bit of a "caveman" in the Internet i guess.

The icon in your response window that looks like a globe with a chain link in front of it is where you can enter in a link to another site. It's right below the white smiley face.

[whiteshark]

The icon in your response window that looks like a globe with a chain link in front of it is where you can enter in a link to another site. It's right below the white smiley face.

Cool.
Thanks for the info.

[coconutphone]

I live to give.