Ahem

[Hellfighter 17]

Originally posted by Gohan
Wanna know what'd make things alot more damned simpler. If the main rules page was kept up to date, and people actully just read that bloody thing.

And yeah, I'm a damn hypocrite. Who the hell isn't?

You should also read rules for a specific forum if they are there. =/ Saying 'everyone else is a hypocrite' isn't a proper defense, y'know, whether they are or are not.

[Rem-13]

Originally posted by Violet
I know I'm new here, but wow, helping others shouldn't give the mods a stroke because look at it this way: its one less thing you have to break your balls over. If someone helped a fellow player and was wrong on information, simply correct them. Warning someone for helping out another player is just plain anal. Just correct the wrong information and get over with it, reserve the warnigns for more serious offenses. That's my opinion.


-Violet

But as it was stated, they are not warning for helping but for disobeying staff orders. If someone wants staff specific attention why should we deny them that? What does the question tag and all its limitations hurt if everyone knows what it stands for? It is optional.

[Kazuya]

Why not have an option for people posting questions, whether they want it specifically for staff or for anyone to answer?

[Rem-13]

thats what a tagless thread is for.

[Kaden]

I haven't actually read through every post in this thread, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm being a bit redundant.

If someone puts the "Question" tag on their thread, they are saying, of their own accord, that they would prefer that only staff answer their question. Other people posting simply disrespect that request and, more often than not, complicate things for the staff members. No one forces people to use that tag, its a choice they make on their own. If you can't understand that and stay out of the thread, despite the dozens of times we've said not too, then you deserve the warning on principal.

That said, warnings should not be given out to people posting in topics without tags. If that has been done, and someone was warned simply for posting, then the warning will be revoked.

Frankly, I think this whole conversation is kinda dumb. If people use the tag, they want the staff to answer, if they don't then its free reign.

[Broli]

I didn't include the Turles warning in my initial post because, as HF17 pointed out, I misrecalled his warning.

Sorry about the confusion in the other thread.

Anyway, point being, I just don't understand why staff would want to warn people for helping. I suppose I can understand a warning for incorrect information (understand, not agree), but warning someone who is correct and simply trying to help? I don't know about that. =\

[Kaden]

The warning is not for helping. The warning is for specifically and deliberately disregarding a ruling that has been posted time and time again. Its been said authoritatively, respectfully, aggressively, and any other way we could think of.

I just don't understand why people insist on disregarding a ruling.

[Belle Hibiki]

All I can say is that I'm sorry for what I did, and that I wasn't really thinking when I was posting. There are, however, no real excuses to be made considering the dozens of verbal warnings that I HAD READ (and Hell I STATED in my post that I knew staff preferred to answer) and had gone and done it anyway. It just slipped my mind that I would get warned for it, I suppose.

So I'm sorry, staff. I'll try not to make any more mistakes in the future.

[Kaden]

Originally posted by Nappa
There are, however, no real excuses to be made considering the dozens of verbal warnings that I HAD READ (and Hell I STATED in my post that I knew staff preferred to answer) and had gone and done it anyway.

Goes a long way in my book for someone to be so pragmatic about their situation. Especially when that situation involves them being in the red.

Its really not asking much when we tell members not to post in threads marked with a tag. Hell... we're asking them to do one less thing. One would think that that kind of request would be answered with abundantly enthusiastic lethargy.

[Super Buu]

To an extent, I agree. The general idea is that people don't get confused, and that's valid. However, if staff have already stated their answers and they've missed out something useful, I think it should be okay for members to add that in. If staff forget something and a member remembers it, it would seem stupid to warn them for it. Which is why this occured. Basically I'm saying keep the rule, but have some flexibility with it. Other than that, I stick to the rules like a piece of well-chewed gum.

[Hellfighter 17]

Then you could always just contact a staff member. When I screw something up, members have PMed me telling me, and then I fix it.

[Kaden]

Originally posted by Raditzu
The warning is not for helping. The warning is for specifically and deliberately disregarding a ruling that has been posted time and time again. Its been said authoritatively, respectfully, aggressively, and any other way we could think of.

I'm saying this again because it looks like people really aren't understanding why people are being warned.

[Super Buu]

Originally posted by King Cold
I think the Question tag should be changed to something like [Question - Staff Only] and when you want all members just use the normal [Question]

That is because new members don't know that [Question] tags aren't needed.

That's a good idea, IMO. It would stop a lot of this debate.

[Hellfighter 17]

Originally posted by Super Buu

Originally posted by King Cold
I think the Question tag should be changed to something like [Question - Staff Only] and when you want all members just use the normal [Question]

That is because new members don't know that [Question] tags aren't needed.

That's a good idea, IMO. It would stop a lot of this debate.

I agree. Any way that can be done, Rad or Rei?

[Hellfighter 17]

Originally posted by Koola
It is the rules, they are there for a reason... nuff said..

O posted in Janembas topic stating that there was no human form, I did not try to answer any of his questions.

Later on when reading the next posts I had an idea for him to learn shapechange to accomidate his idea..

so I pmed him..

Without the staff this rpg wouldn't exist anyways... so why argue?

Quoted for him being pretty much on target. I suggest in the future though that you even PM what you did say, for I wouldn't want yea to get a warning. BTW, I updated your title. ;)

[Super Buu]

Originally posted by Majin Buu
he same can be said about the members. With out them who would the staff be in charge of? The members are just as important as the staff is.

Something I remember saying in a PM at one point, and so very true.

However, on the topic of Janemba's topic, staff have been somewhat contradictory. I believed my post there was valid because it was not answering the question, but adding something in that Jan might want to know (as was Koola's post). However, unlike Koola's, my post was described as spam. I'm not trying to start a dispute here or have a go at anyone, but that's pretty nonsensical if you ask me.

[Hellfighter 17]

Originally posted by Super Buu

Originally posted by Majin Buu
he same can be said about the members. With out them who would the staff be in charge of? The members are just as important as the staff is.

Something I remember saying in a PM at one point, and so very true.

However, on the topic of Janemba's topic, staff have been somewhat contradictory. I believed my post there was valid because it was not answering the question, but adding something in that Jan might want to know (as was Koola's post). However, unlike Koola's, my post was described as spam. I'm not trying to start a dispute here or have a go at anyone, but that's pretty nonsensical if you ask me.

It was never defined as spam and I recommend that that be said in PM. if it is not answering the question or shedding light on an answer, then why would it belong in a question threa din the first place? I admit I would advise the person to do so, too, but not if I was not supposed to post there.

Also, you members who claim to answer questions because it would help staff, chances are we are going to be reading it anyways, and posting take slike no time, I don't think posting really takes any effort, it's the reading. Staff are here to do that stuff, and we would prefer if you only posted on topics that had no tag, so why is it so hard to follow? I find it very reasonable, if you ask me.

[Super Buu]

... Which is why seperating [Question] and [Question - Staff only] would be an awesome idea. It would let members specify if they wanted other member's input or not. Some threads I see people saying 'only staff answer please', others might appreciate the help of over-helpful normal members. I know nobody has actually disagreed with this idea yet, just throwing out some more support for it

[Kaden]

Originally posted by King Cold
I think the Question tag should be changed to something like [Question - Staff Only] and when you want all members just use the normal [Question]

That is because new members don't know that [Question] tags aren't needed.

Frankly, I feel little sympathy for people who don't check the sticky threads labeled "Rules" before posting randomly.

[Android-18]

I just want to point out...We have 10 staff. We have our jobs, and when members answer questions, which is our job, there ends up being a few Mods with nothing to do. It is our job to update, and to answer specific things.

Now, I'm not against members helping IF the person posting the question wants it. Often times they want a staff member to answer. It is just easier to get the right answer instead of chancing confusing the poor guy.

Anyway, I'm tired and cold, but I do think just making new tags will make everyones life easier.