Grand Prix Rejects

Nuppiz wrote:(e) The authority of the Administrators and Moderators must be respected, and their decisions are not to be challenged. The original job of user moderators was to keep spam from taking over the forums, but it has evolved to take on extra powers of making the forum a nicer place to be. If they decide you've done wrong, then you've done wrong.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

Nuppiz wrote:(e) The authority of the Administrators and Moderators must be respected, and their decisions are not to be challenged. The original job of user moderators was to keep spam from taking over the forums, but it has evolved to take on extra powers of making the forum a nicer place to be. If they decide you've done wrong, then you've done wrong.

Eh, everyone makes mistakes. Even mods. They can't always be right.

dr-baker wrote:Maybe suggest that if one is to run a championship in PMMF, that one would be expected to run it oneself, unless somebody offers without being nominated?

Nuppiz wrote:(c) Before setting up a new series in the Perry McCarthy Memorial Forum, a user should gauge interest for it among other members of the forum, for example in the PMMF Planning Thread. Things can get complicated enough in there without new threads being formed that nobody wants to get involved in. Also, make sure you can run the series in the intended manner before taking in entries: this is to avoid participants being disappointed when a series is cancelled due to poor preparation.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Maybe suggest that if one is to run a championship in PMMF, that one would be expected to run it oneself, unless somebody offers without being nominated?

Nuppiz wrote:(c) Before setting up a new series in the Perry McCarthy Memorial Forum, a user should gauge interest for it among other members of the forum, for example in the PMMF Planning Thread. Things can get complicated enough in there without new threads being formed that nobody wants to get involved in. Also, make sure you can run the series in the intended manner before taking in entries: this is to avoid participants being disappointed when a series is cancelled due to poor preparation.

I think that covers that already.

Nuppiz wrote:Any more comments? If not, Enoch or Jamie can then put this up as a global announcement, to avoid further incidents.

The authority of the Administrators and Moderators must be respected, and their decisions are not to be challenged lightly

The decisions can, however, be challenged in serious cases of misjustice.

Klon wrote:Well, I for my part would highly consider rephrasing those sentences:

The authority of the Administrators and Moderators must be respected, and their decisions are not to be challenged lightly

There I say replace the "must be" with "ought to be" and cut the second part.

The decisions can, however, be challenged in serious cases of misjustice.

"Misjustice"? Really? Even though I am sure that your power will go to your head soon ( ) I think that's a bit over the top. Try something like "If you don't agree with their decision, you are free to post why but if they are not convinced, please do not continue with the criticised behaviour.".

Klon wrote:

Nuppiz wrote:Any more comments? If not, Enoch or Jamie can then put this up as a global announcement, to avoid further incidents.

Well, I for my part would highly consider rephrasing those sentences:

The authority of the Administrators and Moderators must be respected, and their decisions are not to be challenged lightly

There I say replace the "must be" with "ought to be" and cut the second part.

The decisions can, however, be challenged in serious cases of misjustice.

"Misjustice"? Really? Even though I am sure that your power will go to your head soon ( ) I think that's a bit over the top. Try something like "If you don't agree with their decision, you are free to post why but if they are not convinced, please do not continue with the criticised behaviour.".

Nuppiz wrote:"The authority of the Administrators and Moderators should be respected."

"If you still want to appeal, then the public opinion shall decide what action to take."

Better?

shinji wrote:Any more going to be done about these proposals? I suppose the main problem would be adequately implementing them.

Nuppiz wrote:Branching this out into it's own topic, as the Moderator and Subforum Overhaul topic has kind of run its course already. Once we have agreed on a common set of rules, it will be stickied on this subforum so that new members (and why not old ones as well) can then find & read them easily.

Here's the current draft, based mostly on text written by Shinji and me:

1. General Conduct/Etiquette
(a) Many forum members are not native English speakers (though you wouldn't necessarily know it); please write full, clear sentences and do not use txt spk. Use punctuation and capital letters appropriately.
(b) Read back through your post before clicking 'Submit'. Make sure that what you post will contribute positively to the discussion at hand. Do not post anything just for the sake of increasing your post count. Nonsense threads like "word association game" and "count to 1 000 000" never contribute towards any sort of meaningful discussion and shouldn't be started in the first place.
(c) Further to point (b), do not post purely to incite controversy, or otherwise upset your fellow forumites. We're all here with to pursue a common interest - discussing those at the back of the grid, and otherwise taking a slightly offbeat look at Formula One - so there should be no need for conflict! Tensions might arise every now and then, but keep them at a moderate level - don't go into an all-out war that lasts for multiple pages in a topic.
(d) Many forum members are quite young. Therefore, please post only appropriate material with regard to language and content; it has been said countless times that this is a family forum! You should never need to reply in the same thread two-three times in a row within the same day, unless someone else posts there in the meantime.
(e) The 'Edit' function should be used to avoid making several posts in a row when one would function. Even if not done intentionally, to other members this may look like cynical post count boosting and can cause unnecessary conflict.
(f) The authority of the Administrators and Moderators should be respected. The original job of user moderators was to keep spam from taking over the forums, but it has evolved to take on extra powers of making the forum a nicer place to be. If they decide you've done wrong, then you've most likely done wrong. If you still want to appeal, then the public opinion shall decide what action to take.

2. Specific Points
(a) Please take note of the explanation of the purposes of each forum before opening a thread. Make sure you are posting it in the right place. This will prevent confusion and lessen the workload of moderators.
(b) Regular threads in the Paul Stoddart Memorial Forum such as Reject of the Race, Infinite Improbability Drive of the Race and Forum Ratings may only be opened once the race weekend has begun, simply because there usually is nothing to discuss in these topics beforehand. General race discussion threads (only one per race) may be started about a week before the race takes place, if there is interesting news to share considering the participants, race organisation etc.
(c) Before setting up a new series in the Perry McCarthy Memorial Forum, a user should gauge interest for it among other members of the forum, for example in the PMMF Planning Thread. Things can get complicated enough in there without new threads being formed that nobody wants to get involved in. Also, make sure you can run the series in the intended manner before taking in entries: this is to avoid participants being disappointed when a series is cancelled due to poor preparation.
(d) Please adhere to the system of rules established in the Reject World Racing Series (or RWRS) and related series, a universe all of its own to be found in the Andrea Sassetti Memorial Forum. Systems such as waiting lists for getting involved have evolved over time, and should be respected. Adhering to rules is not limited to the world of RWRS - by carefully reading the rules of every series before posting you can make life easier for everyone and others are likely to perceive you better than someone who repeatedly commits mistakes. Series' organisers may even kick members out from their series for repetitive rule infringement or failure to understand even the most simplest of rules.

Comments are welcome!

Nonsense threads like "word association game" ... never contribute(s) towards any sort of meaningful discussion and shouldn't be started in the first place.

apple2009 wrote:

Nonsense threads like "word association game" ... never contribute(s) towards any sort of meaningful discussion and shouldn't be started in the first place.

I disagree with this. Word association can be very fun and can reveal things you never would have guessed about people.

Aerospeed wrote:

apple2009 wrote:

Nonsense threads like "word association game" ... never contribute(s) towards any sort of meaningful discussion and shouldn't be started in the first place.

I disagree with this. Word association can be very fun and can reveal things you never would have guessed about people.

We must keep up with tradition!!!!!

eurobrun wrote:Say whatever you want about the thread itself, it is a good cure for boredom.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

eurobrun wrote:Say whatever you want about the thread itself, it is a good cure for boredom.

I on the other hand agree with what Nuppiz said here.

eurobrun wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

eurobrun wrote:Say whatever you want about the thread itself, it is a good cure for boredom.

I on the other hand agree with what Nuppiz said here.

I said that based off personal experience, It worked for me.

dr-baker wrote:I think it is now just a seasonal tradition of this forum now. If you don't care about how many posts you or others have, then artifically boosting it in a seasonal thread (that you can avoid reading) won't be of any concern to you. And if you do care about post counts, then that thread pulls pointless posts away from other threads. Essentially, the Word Association threads are harmless.

HawkAussie wrote:Too much, not enough I say

Salamander wrote:

HawkAussie wrote:Too much, not enough I say

What does that even mean?