Questions and Answers (Q&A)

[Hickory]

Make sure you remove the s in https, it won't work any other way.

[Hickory]

@James Gryphon

Do you have a resized version of the Rosehip Players image? The smallest I can get it is this:



And since I don't want it to retract from the FNN advertising I have going on...

[Jetthebinturong]

Where might I be able to find the rules page?

[Groddil]

Where might I be able to find the rules page?

Right here:

Forum Rules

For future reference, it's a pinned page in the Announcements board.

[Jetthebinturong]

Ah. I expected it to have it's own page, so it didn't occur to me to look there. Thank you.

Having read through the rules, I have one more question: did Bonaparte ask to have his gay shipping thread deleted? Because it seems to have disappeared. And as it violates no forum rules there is no grounds for deletion otherwise.

[Matthias720]

I wasn't here to see it, but I assume it fell under Rule 2. While controversial (read as 'might offend somebody') topics aren't forbidden, the Staff reserve the right to remove such topics if they deem it necessary. No judgements being made here; just trying to keep the peace.

[Jetthebinturong]

That would be reasonable. But since there were almost no replies and no comments trying to spark any debate, I don't believe that there was any cause to delete it.

"Everyone is entitled to their own belief in politics and religion, and that must be respected. But because of the volatile nature of these discussion topics, please refrain from posting topics about controversial subjects (ie: politics, religion, etc..). These subjects are not banned in general conversations, however, they will be heavily moderated to ensure that they do not get out of hand."

Is the exact wording. And since the only replies were people suggesting ships, I do not believe that it fell under the jurisdiction of this rule.

Though the exact wording does give staff complete power over anything controversial, whether it actually contains any dissent or not, considering it says this "The forum staff reserves the right to judge to determine whether a topic or discussion falls under this rule." Which basically gives staff carte blanche to delete any topic they find objectionable.

However considering what the rest of the rule says, there appears to be the requirement that the topic "get out of hand" which definitely did not happen in this case.

[Wylder Treejumper]

I have a feeling it was preemptive, designed to stop conflict before it occurred.

It should also be noted that this server actually belongs to James Gryphon- he pays for and administers it- so he can technically do whatever he wants with it.  He is simply charitably donating its use to this community.

[Fatch of Southsward]

+1 Thanks to Wylder - we're on the same page here 

Based on the last few replies, it seems to have been the right move. While the old topic may not have been out of hand, it has already caused this one to get a little out of hand, considering it has caused a political - style debate on the 'powers the mods should have', and the 'jurisdiction of controversial subjects.'

The real world is full of nonstop debates and issues - it just makes my head spin sometimes. I come here to unwind and escape. Seeing this stuff here as well just isn't for me.

[James Gryphon]

As far as that specific thread goes, there were a couple of people that were concerned about it (I got a PM over it) and as the thread seemed to have run its course anyway, I thought it was time for it to move on. That said, if anybody is dying to reread some of their posts there, I'm willing to send them to you.

Regarding rule 2:

Everyone is entitled to their own belief in politics and religion, and that must be respected. But because of the volatile nature of these discussion topics, please refrain from posting topics about controversial subjects (ie: politics, religion, etc..). These subjects are not banned in general conversations, however, they will be heavily moderated to ensure that they do not get out of hand. The forum staff reserves the right to judge to determine whether a topic or discussion falls under this rule.

The underlined sections are the key segments here. This wording means that even if an actual situation hasn't publicly started over a thread yet, the staff can still take it down, if they feel there is reasonable cause to suppose that it and/or people's response to it could get out of hand in the future.

[Jetthebinturong]

Fair enough.

[Rosie Willowwater]

Can moderators and admins see peoples PMs? I'm wondering for privacy sake.

[James Gryphon]

No. The webmaster (which, on this site, is me) can see it, if he goes and looks at the relevant part of the database, but I don't. The most I think I've ever looked at the PM database was to see whether somebody had really sent a joke PM to Matthias, or if they were just kidding.

[Rosie Willowwater]

Okay thanks James 

[Groddil]

Is there a way to restore past edits of a post? Because I just lost a lot of character sheets.