Page 4 of 6
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:59 am
by NikNak
mmmm mmm mmm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmm
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:15 am
by Rakuen Growlithe
This is the appropriate area for random comments.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:18 am
by NikNak
Sorry...
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:55 am
by Leeward
And here I was thinking all I did was bump the topic to see if anything had happened since last time.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:01 pm
by Rakuen Growlithe
You were fine, others not.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:59 am
by Sev
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:You were fine, others not.
It's not my fault Ms Lee reminded me of the hamster dance. Besides bumps are generally discouraged on forums. I was going to share her blame.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:57 am
by Leeward
I only bumped this because I wanted (and still do) to find out what, if anything, has happened on this fairly important matter. Also that was supposed to be zip-a-dee-doo-dah.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:41 am
by Rakuen Growlithe
Valerion said he'd go through it in detail. I only had a problem with one section of your changes (although I'm not sure what was actually changed except for the wording. It all looked the same to me.).
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:02 am
by Sev
Leeward wrote:I only bumped this because I wanted (and still do) to find out what, if anything, has happened on this fairly important matter. Also that was supposed to be zip-a-dee-doo-dah.
I am fully aware of that.
My only request would be introducing a mobile friendly site. It's an absolute pain in the ass to use on my S6.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:30 am
by Rakuen Growlithe
We discussed this before. Some people said mobile didn't and others said it worked perfectly. I think the only consistent comment was that the page doesn't zoom automatically.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:47 am
by Leeward
Sev wrote:My only request would be introducing a mobile friendly site. It's an absolute pain in the ass to use on my S6.
That has nothing even remotely to do with the forum rules.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Valerion said he'd go through it in detail. I only had a problem with one section of your changes (although I'm not sure what was actually changed except for the wording. It all looked the same to me.).
Well isn't this the perfect place to discuss it?
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:33 pm
by Fluke
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:We discussed this before. Some people said mobile didn't and others said it worked perfectly. I think the only consistent comment was that the page doesn't zoom automatically.
Depends on browser, that's why. The effort put into doing a mobile site doesn't seem like it's worth it to me. The site is very usable on my LG G4 w/FireFox browser.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:36 pm
by Helios_phi
Sev wrote:Leeward wrote:I only bumped this because I wanted (and still do) to find out what, if anything, has happened on this fairly important matter. Also that was supposed to be zip-a-dee-doo-dah.
I am fully aware of that.
My only request would be introducing a mobile friendly site. It's an absolute pain in the ass to use on my S6.
Nope. I use an S6 and it's better than using Zafur on a PC.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:15 pm
by Sev
Leeward wrote:That has nothing even remotely to do with the forum rules.
I'll blame that one on lack of sleep. Yes, the site "works" on mobile, but it's an absolute pain to use.
With regards to rules, I'm not too fussed. It's not like there's anarchy on the forum or something. This seems like one big nit pick.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:33 pm
by Randall
I'll blame that one on lack of sleep. Yes, the site "works" on mobile, but it's an absolute pain to use.
That has not been my experience... more than 1/2 of the time I am posting here from my phone or other devices, NOT my desktop.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:47 pm
by Sev
I don't want to get into an argument. I'm only half way through my 11 hour layover, and I am grumpy as funk.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:48 pm
by Rakuen Growlithe
I have updated the rules. Most changes are just making certain things more specific rather than actual changes in procedure.
Also I've set the signature image limits into the forum itself. Hopefully no one will be affected.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:09 pm
by Leeward
Looks good, but there are still a few typos and inconsistencies.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:10 pm
by Rakuen Growlithe
Such as?
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:15 pm
by Leeward
Images must be static, and not animated.
Pointless.
LiveLeak videos may be embedded, using the provided tags.
No longer applicable.
No embedded video may autostart, even just to buffer itself. User interaction must be required to start it.
Redundant, enforced by tag.
To display images through a URL, use the [ image] BBCode.
Space in tag, removing it does not break the post since there is no closing tag.
During such exceptions the following are not permitted:
There should be a "to" before the colon for the subsequent list to make grammatical sense.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:21 pm
by Rakuen Growlithe
Well that's what happens when you're tired and merging different rule sets together. You should find it a bit nicer now.
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:26 pm
by Leeward
Awesome, thanks, but I had a brainfart on the one correction...
During such exceptions the following are not permitted to:
Should read:
In the case of such exceptions you are not permitted to:
Sorry, my bad. *Hides face.*
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:33 pm
by Rakuen Growlithe
And fixed again...
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:48 pm
by Leeward
Thank you! Looks great! Hopefully that won't need to be edited again for a good few years now. XD
Re: Rules discussion
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:58 pm
by Valerion
There's now a rules button on each page of the forum, as well as a notification on new user creation.
Re: Dissapointed with UCT
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:00 am
by Fluke
Randall wrote:It is not a conspiracy theory. More accurately we can say that Orwell was pretty good at predicting the exact way the demise of the human race would occur.
I have read the article. The reality is that freedom of speech is under serious threat. Here we are in 2016 and people like myself don't have social media because it's too risky, one's innocent thoughts might just push some religious nut job into jihad, or worse, be construed as hate speech by the ruling faction. Once that freedom is gone, they will start with freedom of thought. And then the rest is pretty much going to fall into place as per the novel.
Things linked to a 'thought crime' are already punishable in places like the one we live in. Please don't further the discussion here though, it's against ZAFur ToS, I believe.
Re: Dissapointed with UCT
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:55 am
by Leeward
Fluke wrote:Randall wrote:It is not a conspiracy theory. More accurately we can say that Orwell was pretty good at predicting the exact way the demise of the human race would occur.
Things linked to a 'thought crime' are already punishable in places like the one we live in. Please don't further the discussion here though, it's against ZAFur ToS, I believe.
Sorry, what? How is discussing freedom of expression against the ToS?
Re: Dissapointed with UCT
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:04 am
by Cape_F0X
I think Fluke could be referring to the rule where you should avoid attacking someone or something on the forum that cannot fight back.
Re: Dissapointed with UCT
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:09 am
by Leeward
That only goes for things that could in theory defend themselves (e.g. people and organisations), which is not applicable to abstract concepts.
Re: Dissapointed with UCT
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:20 am
by Fluke
Im referring to the rule which is it not allowed to discuss South African laws being utter BS or taboo matters.