Page 2 of 17
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:51 pm
by BAD
Jamey wrote:JWPlatt wrote:It's a supposedly clever response by some in the GoW to the misperception of the recently revised rules on the MOUL forums that the Guild of Writers cannot talk about the Guild of Writers or link to its website - when in fact they can. It's probably clever and cute enough that, although the reality does not support its use, some members cling to their rebelious nature simply out of habit.
I have to say that I agree with JWPlatt here. There was a misinterpretation.
Indeed. Instead of addressing the problem, tell us we don't know what we are talking about. Perhaps the next excuse will be it's a language barrier problem.
I guess we are supposed to just accept whatever excuse is given to us and abide by an interpretation of a rule instead of asking that the rule be made more clear.
I have an idea. New rule for the GOW. From now on anyone who shows or discusses an age that has blue in it will be banned. That's unfair you say? Well just don't call the things that are blue, blue. "Oh the sky in my age? It's periwinkle.", "Do you like that shade of ultramarine I used?"
Were not banning the use of blue, it's just not allowed to be shown or discussed on the forum. What's the problem?
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:54 pm
by Tsahl
I understood that it was intended to be clever, and I honestly laughed when I read it; the only thing that's bothering OCD-me is the fact that it doesn't line up with the rest of the banner!
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:16 pm
by Paradox
Tsahl wrote:the only thing that's bothering OCD-me is the fact that it doesn't line up with the rest of the banner!
*waves hand* You see nothing.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:21 pm
by D'nial
Jamey wrote:Mystdee wrote:The new policies do not say that you can't link to the GoW or GoM or other website in general
the linking rule
VI. LINKS - Linking to webpages that break these forum policies for the purposes of getting around the forum policies is not allowed.
states that you should not link to a webpage, this basically means that you should not link to a specific post or topic in another forum or a blog entry on someone's site that specifically breaks the MOUL forum rules.
Ian Atrus wrote:What MystDee said: the rule is about single pages, not whole websites.
Note that the rule also specifies "for the purposes of getting around the forum policies", so there is also a matter of intention ("I know this topic is off limits here, but I made a post about it on my blog and I would like your opinion: [link]" "I can't link you to that page directly because it's against the rules, but follow this [link] then click the second link on the left, and then the second on the right to get there").
edit: and also, as others have said, Cyan never made explicit how much of the code will be made open source, but they *did* say the game assets would not be among it. Some game assets will be made available under a different license, for the purpose of making fan content.
RAWA wrote:Yeah, what Mystdee and Ian said.
Note: The mods and I have been in discussion about the new forum policies while they were being developed, and we're on the same page. If there is a question about the interpretations of the new policies, and a mod answers the question, please consider their answer to be the answer that I would give, because we're continuing to discuss these issues and others behind the scenes. That way, if there is a problem, I can post a clarification rather than posting "Yeah, that..." every time a question is answered.
Thanks!
This is the second time I've quoted these 3 posts...I don't know why it is still an issue to create drama over, especially since it is a misunderstanding.
And this is the second time I've quoted your post to tell you that the GoW is already well aware of the facts you have presented, and that the new freedoms Cyan has granted us are so arbitrary that it is quite accurate to say that nothing has really changed.
The whole (or very near the whole) of GoW testing has taken place offline or using data that has been taken from the offline source. Therefore, the new leeway given in the rules applies to a negligible amount of the GoW's discussion on this forum. Practically the only advantage that the rule change has given the community is that new members are allowed to "find" the GoW forum through the MOUL forum.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:25 pm
by Goofy
I'm not sure what all the hub bub is about it anyway. If someone wants to know all they have to do is ask in cavern or if a post gets locked just PM them the GOW address. Also does it say anywhere in the Moul forum rules that one cannot have a sig that have info in it?
if people want to know they should be savvy enough to find this site or the other sites out there.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:38 pm
by D'nial
Goofy wrote: Also does it say anywhere in the Moul forum rules that one cannot have a sig that have info in it?
Yep. When they say no links, they mean no links.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:35 pm
by griffinps3
Wow. Thank you. This has been sucessfully cleared up in many different shapes, forms, and personality. I mean when I first saw that thing I was convinced that it was something scary or something compleatly vauge to me. I'm also teared to hear that Cyan apparently treats us like little scum covered bugs. Why Cyan! You were my inspiration!!!!! Sortof...
Anyway thanks. I might have to check out these forums myself to see the OPPRESSION in action.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:41 pm
by Jamey
BAD wrote:Jamey wrote:JWPlatt wrote:It's a supposedly clever response by some in the GoW to the misperception of the recently revised rules on the MOUL forums that the Guild of Writers cannot talk about the Guild of Writers or link to its website - when in fact they can. It's probably clever and cute enough that, although the reality does not support its use, some members cling to their rebelious nature simply out of habit.
I have to say that I agree with JWPlatt here. There was a misinterpretation.
Indeed. Instead of addressing the problem, tell us we don't know what we are talking about. Perhaps the next excuse will be it's a language barrier problem.
I guess we are supposed to just accept whatever excuse is given to us and abide by an interpretation of a rule instead of asking that the rule be made more clear.
Did I ever say you could not ask for a clarification of a rule in my post? No I did not.
If you want to have a rule explained, then ask. It's that simple.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 12:13 am
by Trylon
Jamey wrote:Did I ever say you could not ask for a clarification of a rule in my post? No I did not.
No one said or implied that you did.
Jamey wrote:If you want to have a rule explained, then ask. It's that simple.
It was asked. An explanation was given. That's not the point in question anymore.
The point is that the explanation/interpretation of the rules is uncomfortable at best, and highly problematic at worst.
However, it's quite pointless to discuss the same topic in two different threads. This topic is about the [MESSAGE REDACTED] sticker on the GOW banner.
Re: Message Redacted
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:25 am
by Whilyam
JWPlatt wrote:It's a supposedly clever response by some in the GoW to the misperception of the recently revised rules on the MOUL forums that the Guild of Writers cannot talk about the Guild of Writers or link to its website - when in fact they can. It's probably clever and cute enough that, although the reality does not support its use, some members cling to their rebelious nature simply out of habit.
This ignorant bashing of this forum more than shows why the rules need to be changed. There is no misperception of the rules. Cyan's rules say:
HACKING any other Cyan product - Discussions of or links to or the presenting of reverse engineering or exploits of any Cyan game (MO:UL and its variants expressly excepted) are not allowed.
This means no one can talk about the GoW on the forums. JWPlatt, you've said to me that you want civil discussion. How civil is your post, then? You have still not responded to me about why you use passive aggressive tactics in your posts.