Rules

[Ancient Dragon]

I just discovered that you have re-written the Member Rules. I like that :) Very brief, clear, and to the point. I don't know how long its been posted, but all members, both old and new, should be encouraged to read them again.

[Dani]

It has been a work in progress among the moderators for about a month now. It just went live yesterday, with some ammendments today, so I want to wait until it's settled and agreed upon behind the scenes before encouraging everyone to read them.

[VernonDozier]

I don't see anything in the rules where it explains how/why to use code tags and other BB-Code correctly. That should be added IMO.

[Dani]

Yes, I'm going to link to our Code Explanation page. :)

[happygeek]

Thanks for the vote of confidence AD, a lot of work went into boiling the rules down into the new shortened version. However, we are hopeful that we have managed to achieve clarity in brevity.

I just discovered that you have re-written the Member Rules. I like that :) Very brief, clear, and to the point. I don't know how long its been posted, but all members, both old and new, should be encouraged to read them again.

[Narue]

I like the explicit nature of the new rules. They should be much easier to enforce as well as making more sense to regular members.

[Dani]

I readded the rule "Do not post articles that you have already published on another website" that seemed to have gone away amongst the rule redesign.

[Nick Evan]

I readded the rule "Do not post articles that you have already published on another website" that seemed to have gone away amongst the rule redesign.

It got kinda covered by :
# Do ensure you own the intellectual property rights to everything that you post
# Do not post copyright-infringing material

I like the explicit nature of the new rules.

Yes :) Especially this one is my new favorite:
# Do ensure that all posts contain relevant content and substance and are not simply vehicles for external links, including signature links

[Dani]

Those two rules didn't cover it because someone can write an article and then post it on 10 different sites. We only want content that is unique to DaniWeb :)

[happygeek]

The only problem I can see with "Do not post articles that you have already published on another website" is that it means someone could get a warning/infraction for asking the same question here that they have asked on another site.

Unique content yes, but do we want to penalise someone for coming to DaniWeb if they have not found the answer/help they are looking for somewhere else?

[Dani]

That's why I used the word "articles" instead of "posts". Asking a question isn't an article.

[happygeek]

Aha! That's true. :)

[Ancient Dragon]

I'd like to see you change the rules on PFO like they are here so that they are consistent. That would make my life a little easier on PFO too.

[Lusiphur]

>> Do not ask anyone (member or moderator) for help by email or PM

THANK YOU!!!! (Sorry for the all-caps :twisted: )

[WaltP]

Could the bullets on the rules be changed to numbers? That way we can reference exactly which rule was violated.

In SPAM-FREE:
Do not mention, plug or refer to any product, service, or website you are affiliated with anywhere outside of Business Exchange forums which are specifically designated for this purpose
Would the above bold make this clearer? Or is there something else to make the last part less confusing?

In PLEASANT, "DaniWeb inappropriate language filter" is a thing and should probably be in italics or quotes.

[happygeek]

How about:

Do not mention, plug or refer to any product, service, or website you are affiliated with anywhere outside of those specific Business Exchange forums which are specifically designated for this purpose

[Geekitygeek]

Definitely like the new rules :) Much easier.
I agree that numbering the sections would help to point rule breakers to the relevant section..but at the same time, the rules are concise enough that it isn't a major issue; they should really read them all anyway :p
What would that last rule about mentioning affilaite websites apply to? Take happygeek's sig for instance; does that count as a plug to an affiliated website?
And how about
"Do not mention, plug or refer to any product, service, or website you are affiliated with anywhere outside of the Business Exchange forums, which are specifically designated for this purpose"

[happygeek]

You are allowed to advertise in your sig, that's what it is for. The rule you refer to applies to post content, rather than sig content :)

What you are not allowed to do is just post rubbish which has nothing to do with the thread you are posting in, just to publicise your sig.

[Geekitygeek]

Good to know..when i eventually find the time to improve my web design and find a host i will be adding my website to my sig :p Dont hold your breath though!

[Dani]

Ryshad, affiliate links are when you sign up with CPA based programs and try to resell other people's products.

[Geekitygeek]

Aah, I wasn't really thinking in context I guess :p And for the record, it wasn't meant as a direct attack on happygeek's sig...his was just the last sig I had seen with a link to external sites :D