You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
A call for flexibility. | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:
4) Do not plagiarize or copy previously submitted entries, including your own. This can mean copying well-known entries that have won before; copying other people’s submissions from previous rounds; or simply resubmitting the same entry (or variations of the same entry) regardless of relevance.
So what if there is an entry, months back, that you don’t even remember – possibly because after 1000+ subs they all start to look the same?
I refer here, of course, to MercWithMouth. He got banned, essentially, for making two jokes -months apart- about flying sharks. I realize that when a new ‘ban-able’ offense is introduced, it helps to have an exemplary ban in order to show people that you are serious.
In the case of Merc, however, I think it could be shown that this was not a test of boundaries but an honest mistake. therefore, I would put forward that the ban be removed. After all, do we all want to fear making an honest submission in incit for fear that it may be close to something we may once have said?
I understand the ideas behind most of these rules, and how they could help make INCIT more fun and challenging for everyone. Without a little flexibility and understanding in the application of these rules, however, do we not run the risk of taking more fun out of the game than what these rules were meant to save?
Jalapeno Bootyhole, I ask you! |
|||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 2:43AM | View IsSoCash's Profile | # | ||||||
|
The thing is that if JB feels like you are cheating, it means you are cheating, and therefore, banned. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 2:52AM | View ChilePepino's Profile | # | ||||||
|
ChilePepino Posted:
Just make this the only INCIT rule. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 2:56AM | View Ricket's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Ricket Posted:
it already is |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 2:57AM | View Adapt's Profile | # | ||||||
|
I’m going to have to agree that it needs to loosen up a little. Log in to see images! |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 2:57AM | View Johnny Mac's Profile | # | ||||||
|
ChilePepino Posted:
And so, Crotch Zombie has embraced the PC Gaming community, just as Gabe Newell and Team Fortress 2 did when they introduced hats at obscenely low drop rates that could only be gotten when playing the game. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 3:28AM | View Master_Troll's Profile | # | ||||||
|
In my honest opinion they should eat a bit of humble pie,take it on the chin like men and decide that the new rules are in fact very ambiguous and convoluted and are not clearing up any issues that incit had. INCIT will always suffer from rubbish submissions,dumpvoting and vote collusion! I think it is indicative of the Forumwaz community. So please revert back to how it was before(for better or worse)and keep what small iota of fun there was alive. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 3:29AM | View Muhammad I m har...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
Master_Troll Posted:
Because they are supposed to be rare? |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 6:22AM | View CrinkzPipe's Profile | # | ||||||
|
CrinkzPipe Posted:
I think he was referring to how they created a situation where lots of people wanted to exploit the system in a way that didn’t break any officially declared rules, then eventually cracked down on the practice, declared it to be cheating, and retroactively punished a whole lot of people.
Replace “hats at low drop rates” with “INCIT wins”, “idle servers” with “dump submissions” and “taking away items” with “banning” and the TF2 situation is a pretty good parallel really. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 6:29AM | View man-man's Profile | # | ||||||
|
man-man Posted:
Well, it was a 3rd party program spoofing data. Hell I used it even knowing VALVe would probably make a backlash.
On-topic: It’s impossible to know that it’s a copy unless you made a previous one yourself. Will ever new user be banned for typing a generic response that won in the past because they didn’t know any better? |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 6:32AM | View CrinkzPipe's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Master_Troll Posted:
You should add me and we should get our hat on. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 7:31AM | View Raepdog's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Please see this post for my explanation of what this rule is all about: http://www.forumwarz.com/discussions/view_post/713508
In the case of Merc, normally a warning might have sufficed. However, if you were in IDC at the time, you would have seen that he was arguing against Phin and I for a pretty good while about why he thought recycling old wins over and over was a great idea to “challenge” newbs.
That’s why I believe his self-plagiarism was deliberate. Jalapeno Bootyhole edited this message on 10/02/2009 4:48PM |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 4:31PM | View Jalapeno Bootyho...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
can we just keep merc banned |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 4:34PM | View Chawin's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:
Haxxorz. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 4:40PM | View CrinkzPipe's Profile | # | ||||||
|
CrinkzPipe Posted:
Whoops, link fixed, thanks. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 4:48PM | View Jalapeno Bootyho...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:
Thanks, I think I understand what’s bannable now. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 5:03PM | View CrinkzPipe's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:
Hmmm.
Wish I saw this sooner.
Jalapeno, for what it’s worth, all other things notwithstanding…
I want you to know that I didn’t deliberately recycle that joke regarding the flying sharks.
The picture did certainly look familiar, yes. But, as regards the caption I used…
It was simply the first thing that popped into my head.
After I submitted it, I think I do remember for a moment thinking that this seemed awfully familiar — but felt at best uncertain about my “flying shark vs flying crocodile” joke that popped into my head after that.
Also, please do remember… those two INCIT submissions were 3months apart.
Now having said that…
Log in to see images!
Please click here.
|
||||||
Posted On: 10/02/2009 6:23PM | View MercWithMouth's Profile | # | ||||||
ChilePepino Posted:
That was always an explicit rule whenever I was in the position of having to make rules for online communities: “It’s cheating if I say it’s so.”
Makes life a lot easier when somebody tries to tell you that you don’t have an explicit rule against it. I mean really, our lives are so full of books full of rules that we need to pay somebody a lot of money in order to argue about the rules on our behalf.
Is that really what we want to happen here? |
|||||||
Posted On: 10/03/2009 5:12PM | View kraigu's Profile | # | ||||||
|
kraigu Posted:
You’ve got to set a precedent somehow. This is how every rule system works, online or off.
Log in to see images!
Signs like this exist not because you can predict every stupid thing that happens, but because something happened and now you’ve got to address it. |
||||||
Posted On: 10/03/2009 5:31PM | View Jalapeno Bootyho...'s Profile | # | ||||||
Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:
Then let me be the first to offer my services as The First Live Forumwarz Lawyer. Will work for peen, flezz, or BPs.
The more rules you have, the more room for arguing there is. “But you banned that and not this explicitly! bwaaaa!” Best response: “So what? banaxe for you.”
I’m not saying you’re doing a bad job, but that at a certain point you’re going to be spending your entire time putting up signs like that instead of enjoying yourself. |
|||||||
Posted On: 10/04/2009 2:39PM | View kraigu's Profile | # | ||||||