Just a bit of common sense by the moderators is far superior to any detailed set of rules.
Do people really perceive this to be the case?
I’m not saying that anything should be banned, or that anything goes. I just think there’s a weird disconnect between the help and support that developers like you offer, and the fault-finding inclination of many if not most critics.
A first-time author can expect a lot of hand-holding up until the point that he releases a game, at which point he gets thrown to the wolves. Keeping the nastier comments out of sight may foster the illusion that there are no bad apples around, but I’m not convinced that is a kindness.
I may be wrong; IFDB may have policies that allow it to delete an offensive or egregious review. That’s certainly not my sense, and absent such a policy, I don’t see why this board should hold its members to a higher standard.
I’ve actually very rarely seen it used for FAQs. More often for things like: calls for collaborators (where obviously it’s nice to update the request when the roles are filled), long-lasting threads for posting news/submissions of a certain type (where there might be clarifications or changes as to what should be posted, or submissions might be closed while discussion is allowed to continue), or feedback posts on games (where you don’t want people reporting bugs from the version in the first post, when there’s a new version on page 4 of 6).
It’s all very well to say that the latest additions to the thread should be at the end, but it’s quite another when something important to the very nature of the discussion gets buried in the middle somewhere.
I am thinking specifically of Conrad Cook and the critical response to LAIR of the Cybercow. These days he’s off in Cambodia or some such faraway land, but he struck me as a thoughtful and promising IF newcomer who was traumatized by the reaction to his IFComp entry. Thereafter his blog postings and commentary on RAIF were marred by a reflexive defensiveness that served no real purpose.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be nice to each other or that respect is an outmoded concept. I’m saying that there are a lot of players and critics who are in it for themselves, and who will angrily skewer any work that falls short of their lofty standards. I don’t think it’s fair for someone to spend a significant chunk of his life working on an IF game, only to learn the hard way that an appreciable measure of the community feedback will be nasty, brutish, and short-tempered.
I guess I was strictly talking about flame-bait topic titles, but you’re right; one could easily devine a topic title that’s offensive to some and simply controversial to others. I still think there’s a type of topic, like the “racist” one, that we should strongly disuade.
I’ve already made it clear that my Textfyre and business stuff will be done through my blog and not here nor on usenet. These rules have nothing to do with Textfyre. Maybe they have to do with the fact that I’m 46 years old and I expect people to behave a certain way. I’ve turned into an old fogey. I have kids and I am constantly on them about speaking clearly, asking well-thought-out questions, and listening respectfully. My question is, why is this unattainable in a discussion forum? Here’s my rule. If you’re writing your post, imagine that your boss, your girlfriend/boyfriend, your favorite high school teacher, and Mr. Rogers are all reading it afterwards. How would you wordsmith your posts if that were the case? Is it impossible to express yourself clearly without inflaming the situation?
I have no problem with people expressing themselves about my business and my goals. I’ve never once attacked anyone in retaliation for saying anything about Textfyre. I believe I’ve always responded to the harsher posts with complete diplomacy. If you find otherwise, please point it out.
I agree on the first part. More posts about IF will generate less static like this.
On the second part, in a perfect world, sure, this is great. But a lot of people growing up with the Internet or that are new to text-based conversations seem to not have a reasonable set of filters. They seem not to have any filters at all. I guess we used to call this netiquette. So in my mind the best way to help people without filters integrate is to lead. Leadership is hard. It sometimes requires a jackboot, but most of the time it simply requires a reasonable set of rules and someone to back those rules up. It’s not authoritarian. It’s just leadership. Here’s a metaphor. If you go golfing and find yourself with seasoned golfers, you’re going to get tasked almost immediately on golf ettiquette. Where to stand, which clubs to keep in hand, when it’s your turn, when you can drop your ball without a penalty, etc. Without ever having played golf, you’re highly unlikely to know any of these rules. If no one said anything, you’d probably break at least one of these rules without even knowing it. So the answer to me is, if we’re the seasoned IF folk, we should lead. We should show the new people how we think its best to communicate and that unfiltered diatribe is unwelcome.
I would rather we train ourselves to criticize constructively and do away with throat-cutting. There’s a very common saying. “We agree to disagree.” It’s short, sweet, and it makes a point. If people would use that instead a profanity laced rant, we would be better off. If you want to add why you disagree, that’s fine too. But if it’s very clear that your disagreement isn’t actually going to change anything, simply saying “We agree to disagree” is probably the best ending to the discussion.
Suggesting that the rules you propose would serve your interests as a purveyor of commercial IF is not the same as suggesting that you are a hypocrite. I agree that you are diplomatic and reserved in dealing with your critics. To the best of my knowledge, you have always adhered to the rules you propose.
I did not say that you intended this forum to be a vehicle for promoting Textfyre. I only meant that a forum that followed your rules would be one that you could promote to customers and players without embarrassment. I can see the value in that from a business perspective, I just don’t approach IF with that perspective and I’m not persuaded that it is valuable as a hard and fast guideline.
I agree that leading by example is a good practice. But I would like to be able to tell newcomers that a certain person is a known troll, and that his remarks should be taken with a heap of salt, even if that amounts to a personal attack and even if the troll’s conduct hews to a strict interpretation of the rules. It seems far more straightforward to say “so and so is a jerk, just ignore him” then to try to stifle or ban the jerks outright.
That just drives them to the blogs where they can say what they please. I can see why that outcome would seem preferable but ultimately it can cause more damage to the community. On the forum we can apply social pressure and identify repeat offenders. On a private blog, we can only say what the owner allows, which is not likely to be anything that calls his powers of discernment into question.
I recommend to make it official (instead of inofficial) and to update your Terms of Use if you want people to follow your new set of rules. Otherwise why should anyone, including me, follow them if they are not officially stated? We certainly don’t have to be bound to double standards where some users are being sent warning by the administrator/moderator that they should follow rules which hasn’t been officially stated in the terms yet.
For the record, the Terms of Use of this forum which we, as users, have all agreed on when registering to this forum:
I agree with these Terms (marked in bold letters), as I have agreed upon when registering an account to this forum.
I disagree with any set of rules or terms which are not explicitly stated or updated in these Terms, because they are regarded as “ideas” or “not official” by the administrator and/or moderator of this forum.
We’re still in the ideas-throwing stage (or maybe the decision stage). None of the terms proposed here are yet in effect, which is fairly obvious from pretty much every post in this thread. When Merk makes a final decision, I’m pretty sure he’ll update the Terms. Until then it’s only suggestions and ideas.
Also, chill out some. 
You’re talking as though everyone’s decided these new rules have been accepted and should be followed despite the original Terms not having been updated. Which is not the case. Merk’s still feeling around.
Merk has sent me a warning that I should follow these “inofficial” set of rules. I ignore these rules, as long as they are not officially stated in the Terms of this forum.
I agree. It would be wise for some hyprocrites to chill out and not to make this “Aina Grey event” an international scandal. As I wrote before, I do not see any sense why this topic exists in the first place. This topic should be closed, because the issue has already been solved: Aina Grey violated the Terms of this forum by posting something abusive and his/her post was deleted by the board administrator. Period.
Now let us go with our usual business and not make an elephant out of a One Dollar Bill… In other words: Get a life. 
My final thoughts on this subject:
Anyone who has enough experience with the internet, and I certainly have, knows that the internet is just called a “world wide web” and “international net”, but it doesn’t have any international laws actually to secure the rights of everyone. People usually believe that, but it’s an illusion none of the less. That’s because every nation and every privately-owned forum, blog and website sees itself as a place with its own terms of use.
For example, posting anti-chinese material on a server located in China, may result in instant censorship. Chinese Internet is surely a prime example for a totalitarian internet. And the previous sentence I’ve just made would probably get me banned if this was a forum located on a server in China. Posting the same anti-chinese material on a server located in North America may result in no censorship at all. And doing the same on a server located in Germany may result in a different reaction aswell.
This privately-owned forum, as most other forums on the internet, is bound to the laws of the nation which the server, on which this forum runs on, is located. Thus it can be regarded as privately-owned “land”. The terms of an internet forum usually incorporate basic laws from the nation its server is located on and adds own set of rules to the terms. It morphs from a government-run internet forum to a privately-owned forum.
A good example of privately-owned “land” or “space” is the Area 51 military installation in Nevada. Actually they have the clearest terms one can ever imagine. Every kid knows the famous Area 51 signs. See this picture.
It reads: “Warning! Restricted Area. It is unlawful to enter this area without the written permission of the Installation Commander. Use of deadly force authorized. No trespassing! Photography of this area is prohibited.”
It’s clear and simple. No misunderstandings here. The man in this YouTube video demonstrates in a very skilled way how to behave when being at the entrance of privately-owned space. For example, he shows that photography is allowed as long as you don’t pass the warning signs.
Why is that, one might ask? That’s because the signs state nothing about prohibited photography of the signs itself. They only state that photography INSIDE the installation is prohibited. But since he has not entered the installation or set foot on it, he has not violated any of the rules of the Area 51 Installation Commander. At the end of the video you can see that the cammo dudes don’t interfere when he drives his truck in front of the Area 51 signs and returns, while clearly filming that event. His camera is not being seized by the cammo dudes at all.
So you can see, this method applies to privately-owned internet forums aswell. You are allowed to do whatever you want on such private forums unless it is explicitly prohibited in a written form by the owner of the private forum.
Let’s say I make a trip with a few friends to the location of Area 51 installation in Nevada, Texas. Let’s assume that my friends and I are located outside the Area 51 installation and we photograph a UFO ascending from the Groomlake Mountains. Since we have a) not entered their private property and b) they have not stated that photography outside Area 51 was prohibited, they can’t stop us from doing so unless we photographed the UFO on their public land, even if the UFO was located in Area 51. This may sound weird to some people, but this is how private laws work. Ofcourse it may be possible that the Area 51 military installation has special laws given by the American government which extend outside the area. Let’s hope not or thousands of UFO hunters and photographers will be doomed in a second. 
Same here. A post has been made inside the private forum and I quoted the post. If I quoted the post outside this private forum I could do it anyway without prohibition. I quoted the post while being inside this private forum though. HOWEVER, since the board administrator/moderator (“The Area 51 installation Commander” ) has not prohibited quotation (which is a form of photography, if you will) on this forum by clearly stating it in a written form in his Terms of Use I have done nothing illegal. The administrator may officially change the rules while I’m being on his private forum and play a little trick on me in order to have the right to confiscate my camera, although I am not a lawyer, so I can’t say if such a operation is even legal within private property. But if he doesn’t do it then the owner of the private land is acting illegally!
Privately-owned space is not anarchy, you know. If you don’t state your private terms in a written form, so people who enter your forum know how to behave and what to expect, they can do whatever they want unless they don’t violate your terms. Like it or not.
Emilian K.
Why does it have to be a big sign? Surely the default should be to try and behave nicely regardless, and so on.
Yes, some official rules may be good, I don’t know, but the risk with having detailed rules is that some people will start to nitpick them and say “that’s not in the rules, so I behave however I want”. (There’s a reason language of laws and layers is strange and complex.)