Forum Posting Requirements

Mudbug

Administrator emeritus
Original poster
Jun 28, 2002
3,809
1
North Central Colorado
Hello again and welcome back to the Political Discussions & War Discussion forum at MacRumors. All of the admins and mods appreciate your being patient with us while we took a time out. After much deliberation, we decided as a group that the best thing to do in order to protect our users and the community as a whole was to temporarily close down this forum. We all appreciate your understanding of this.

Now that we've reopened it, a few new ground rules are in place. As usual, the normal forum rules of the site FULLY apply in this subforum, so personal attacks of any kind will be dealt with swiftly. All registered forum members are allowed to view the forum, but only posters with 100 posts or more in other areas of the site, and a minimum of being registered for 10 days will be allowed to participate in political discussions in this forum. This is for your protection, and should cut down severely on the trolling issues.

We thank you for your cooperation and understanding, and hope that this forum can return to the open, friendly debate that recently existed.

the Moderators
c/o Mudbug
 

Lyle

macrumors 68000
Jun 11, 2003
1,874
0
Madison, Alabama
mactastic said:
Sounds good. Poor 'Rat though. Thanks guys.
Yeah, I like the intent of the guideline but I wonder if some long-time, non-troll participants should be "grandfathered" in (Desertrat being one obvious choice).
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
mactastic said:
Sounds good. Poor 'Rat though. Thanks guys.
And Diamond Geezer...I was aware of these new rules thanks to IJ, and find them to be an excellent compromise.

Nice to be back with all you friendly faces...erm...names.

Excellent job as always Mods. Thanks.
 

Rower_CPU

Moderator emeritus
Oct 5, 2001
11,111
0
San Diego, CA
We will definitely take a look at grandfathering in some regulars who don't meet the 100 post limit on a case-by-case basis. Just send me a private message and we'll inflate your post count to meet the minimum.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Rower_CPU said:
we'll inflate your post count to meet the minimum.
That's just gonna piss off other members who are slowly working their way to a 'tar. Why should some get a boost just because they talk politics all day?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
edesignuk said:
That's just gonna piss off other members who are slowly working their way to a 'tar. Why should some get a boost just because they talk politics all day?
The ones we are talking about have no interest in a 'tar. They have been here for a long time without posting anywhere else, I see no reason any of them would suddenly decide that with a 100-post boost that they suddenly want to get 400 more.
 

wordmunger

macrumors 603
Sep 3, 2003
5,125
2
North Carolina
edesignuk said:
That's just gonna piss off other members who are slowly working their way to a 'tar. Why should some get a boost just because they talk politics all day?
I don't think desertrat is in any danger of getting a 'tar. He has zero posts outside of the political forum, and probably hundreds there. It's really not that big of a deal if used judiciously.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
mactastic said:
The ones we are talking about have no interest in a 'tar. They have been here for a long time without posting anywhere else, I see no reason any of them would suddenly decide that with a 100-post boost that they suddenly want to get 400 more.
I'm not saying that the people who this is aimed at are gunning for a 'tar, I'm saying that those who don't post in there will be a little ticked off that others are getting significant boosts just because of where they post.

Anyway, I couldn't really care less, just pointing out a possible problem meh...
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
mactastic said:
I suppose we could bar anyone with inflated post counts from having a 'tar. :p
Is this really such a big deal? I've been eligible for a year at least, but never bothered to add one. In fact I've turned off avatar viewing in my preferences. Too many of them are just plain annoying (with apologies to those who seem to be really proud of their avatars).
 

kettle

macrumors 65816
edesignuk said:
That's just gonna piss off other members who are slowly working their way to a 'tar. Why should some get a boost just because they talk politics all day?
Something tells me that you'll only get a boost if you talk the the right kind of politics. Which is about par for the course.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
kettle said:
Something tells me that you'll only get a boost if you talk the the right kind of politics. Which is about par for the course.
That is patently unfair. And untrue.

Desertrat, who is mentioned in this thread is a conservative, for example.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
kettle said:
Something tells me that you'll only get a boost if you talk the the right kind of politics. Which is about par for the course.
If you want to trash the moderation of this site, why not go a little further and get yourself banned in the process? :rolleyes:

Or better yet, just go away.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
How much of an inflation are we talking about here? Is adding a few going to make that much of a difference?

I guess to some, but in the end it shouldn't really matter that much should it?

What is the minimum number now, I have already posted a thread or two, am I ineligible now?

Things will work themselves out eventually I guess, but hopefully the ground rules have been well defined now and everybody knows where they stand.

Just one week of good will would be nice, there are things that are much more important to get upset about, getting a few free posts added to your total cannot be that bad.
 

kettle

macrumors 65816
blackfox said:
That is patently unfair. And untrue.

Desertrat, who is mentioned in this thread is a conservative, for example.
pseudobrit said:
If you want to trash the moderation of this site, why not go a little further and get yourself banned in the process? :rolleyes:

Or better yet, just go away.
Sorry if that came across in a way that resembles intentional offence, it was really intended as a comment on "People who talk politics all day" like "politicians" in general, rather than the perceived attack on forum moderation.

What we need is a way of simplifying the english language so that I or any other person wouldn't risk the use of words that could possibly be contrived as an attack on the establishment. Again, my sincerest appologies for any misunderstanding.

Being an "unperson" would be "double plus ungood"

bye fer now comrades
 

Mudbug

Administrator emeritus
Original poster
Jun 28, 2002
3,809
1
North Central Colorado
I believe I've set it so Desertrat can get back in - if he would do me the honor of posting in here just to be sure, I'd appreciate it.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
IJ Reilly said:
Is this really such a big deal? I've been eligible for a year at least, but never bothered to add one. In fact I've turned off avatar viewing in my preferences. Too many of them are just plain annoying (with apologies to those who seem to be really proud of their avatars).
You were saying? :rolleyes:
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
IJ Reilly said:
And I was doing. Are you saying that my new avatar is annoying? Ugly, to be sure, but annoying? :eek:
No, no! It's "jolie-laide". And that's nothing to to with Angelina. Just amused to see your "volte-face", especially with the ironic back-dating of your avatar, placing it next to a post in which you disavow them... :)
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
skunk said:
No, no! It's "jolie-laide". And that's nothing to to with Angelina. Just amused to see your "volte-face", especially with the ironic back-dating of your avatar, placing it next to a post in which you disavow them... :)
I could hardly have done otherwise, since the avatar and the sig line for all posts are retrieved from current preferences settings. I'll stand by my original opinion that animated avatars are generally pretty annoying (the cause of my disavowal).

Anyway, beautifully ugly -- I can live with that (some might say I have all my life).
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
Oh, it's you, is it? In that case I have no hesitation in saying you're a handsome devil: must be the lighting! ;)

I agree, most of the animated avatars get pretty tedious after a while, but then again, that might be because I haven't worked out how to animate mine...