[Kevin S]

Yes I've read them and it's all due to Summer's cute lil' jingle in the pinned topic.

[daniel royle]

Didn't read the rules, don't really plan on it. Survived this long and posted enough to earn a master rank with only sparse warnings here and there, so I must be doing something right.

[Cayal]

I have but I can't remember them.

[Marcin Tomkow]

Yep. On more than one occasion.

[cassy]

Never read the forum rules, and I don't plan too. I know how to behave on a forum, in essence its mostly "Be civil".

[Motionsharp]

I have read the rules. Not when I joined, but I read them in good time.

We must know the rules before we can break them.

I'm just kidding. Don't break the rules. You'll get banned. :stare:

[Alex [AK]]

I did read them when i first joined. I agreed I read. I was actually surprised about how strict it was here then I realized visiting other forums how necessary the rules are here. What id like to know is the kind of things that would get you banned instantly. Because that can happen. I mean starting a forbidden topic, flaming or trolling is one warning. I can't imagine what youd have to do to get banned instantly.

Well, coming here and asking for help getting your torrented copy of Oblivion or Fallout3 running is one way to get an insta-ban. Posting pormography is another. Let's see, from the rules:

If you link to images/sites with inappropriate content, such as swearing and nudity (including nvde mods) your post will be edited and you will receive a warning. Warez/piracy/illegal download and pormography sites will warrant an instant termination of your account here. This includes links to abandonware sites, cracks, and illegal MP3's.

Inciting or organizing attacks against sites will result in the instant termination of your account.

Open admission to pirating copyrighted materials will result in an account ban.

Similarly, posts admitting to drug use, violence, or other illegal activities are not tolerated within the forums. This includes indicating knowledge of or being witness to unreported illegal activities. Such knowledge should be reported to the authorities not posted on a forum.

Most of it is, as people have said, common sense.

I do visit a couple of other forums and I'm fairly sure I annoy the mods at the one forum. I tend to report things. That forum does have forum rules; however most of the posters treat the rules as "suggestions to follow if you feel like it". One of the posts I reported, both with the report button and directly to an admin, would have definitely been an insta-ban here. They may actually have gotten rid of that poster, but others are back in no time. I like the forums here the most, I think.

[clelia vega]

I dont think many people do I haven't, I just caught on to the rules through experience :shrug:

This is pretty much me, though I did give them a very brief skim when my account was first created. However i still voted in the no catagory.

[Petr Jordy Zugar]

Oh wow - one in four members are gonna get banned, according to this poll!

Seriously, though - it's just about being polite and appropriate. The sort of behaviour you'd expect to maintain if you worked in a large corporate office i.e. if you're rude and aggressive, you'd probably be sacked. Hopefully even people who haven't taken the time to read the rules would have picked up on that from the way other people behave towards each other.

[Richard Dixon]

Yes, I read them right after joining.

[LittleMiss]

Yes I have

[Charlotte Henderson]

Oh wow - one in four members are gonna get banned, according to this poll!

Seriously, though - it's just about being polite and appropriate. The sort of behaviour you'd expect to maintain if you worked in a large corporate office i.e. if you're rude and aggressive, you'd probably be sacked. Hopefully even people who haven't taken the time to read the rules would have picked up on that from the way other people behave towards each other.

My biggest problem is that, I, on occasion, post before I think...


I need flood control between my brain and the "Add Reply" button...
^{not now though, I re-read it at last five times!}

[Natasha Callaghan]

No, the rules are just there as a "cover-your-ass" for the moderators. They are there so they can say "you read and agreed to these" if someone doesn't like some moderator action.

[Natalie J Webster]

No, the rules are just there as a "cover-your-ass" for the moderators. They are there so they can say "you read and agreed to these" if someone doesn't like some moderator action.

The moderators don't need rules at all. The forum needs rules, the company who owns the forum and the games needs rules. The members need rules. Rules are in place so that the forum will run smoothly without a bunch of crazy junky spam and folks shouting at one another and just basic chaos. :shrug:

As for covering the moderators rear, one line from the Terms and Conditions takes care of that:

ZeniMax reserves the right to modify or discontinue the Services temporarily or permanently, with or without notice and in its sole discretion.

[Eliza Potter]

The moderators don't need rules at all. The forum needs rules, the company who owns the forum and the games needs rules. The members need rules. Rules are in place so that the forum will run smoothly without a bunch of crazy junky spam and folks shouting at one another and just basic chaos. :shrug:

As for covering the moderators rear, one line from the Terms and Conditions takes care of that:

Moderators need rules just as much as anyone else, and to claim that moderators would behave exactly the same without any sort of guideline seems far fetched. If there weren't rules dictating moderator actions people would be banned due to personal biases, warned because they offended a moderators friend, or no longer be present without any explanation at all. I've seen places where there is no "higher power" watching over the moderating force, and to claim that this sort of drive does not exist here seems unrealistic at best.

As for the rule in the terms and conditions:

Of course moderators have whatever privilege that Bethesda has given them, but to tell a person who you just warned to look for line 5 in paragraph 3 on page 234 and cite the terms and conditions wouldn't work well. It's a summary of the rules that the moderating team has made through use of the power given to them by the terms and conditions meant to be easily accessible to the average person and to cover the moderator's asses.

[Amber Ably]

Moderators need rules just as much as anyone else, and to claim that moderators would behave exactly the same without any sort of guideline seems far fetched. If there weren't rules dictating moderator actions people would be banned due to personal biases, warned because they offended a moderators friend, or no longer be present without any explanation at all. I've seen places where there is no "higher power" watching over the moderating force, and to claim that this sort of drive does not exist here seems unrealistic at best.

As for the rule in the terms and conditions:

Of course moderators have whatever privilege that Bethesda has given them, but to tell a person who you just warned to look for line 5 in paragraph 3 on page 234 and cite the terms and conditions wouldn't work well. It's a summary of the rules that the moderating team has made through use of the power given to them by the terms and conditions meant to be easily accessible to the average person and to cover the moderator's asses.

Moderators don't need to exist without rules. At the same time, moderators are nothing but forum members just like you and thus don't need rules any more than the next member. We are selected because we approach things in a fair and reasonable manner and the rules have little to do with that. It's in our basic personalities to be fair. I'm still not getting why on earth you think moderators need rules any bit more than you do. :shrug: It just does not make sense to me.

And we have had times when te refer folks to the terms and conditions and that is that, but we try very hard to always give the member the best chance and fairness we can. After all, what would a forum be without it's members?

[Kaylee Campbell]

Nope. At least not thoroughly, just a quick glimpse, but I've had my past experiences, so I'm not bound to screw up again.

[Victoria Bartel]

With more functions comes more regulations. It's a simple concept. However, since moderators have trust placed in them, they have a feel for how such things need to be handled; therefore; there are no (to my knowledge) moderator rules, just precedence.

[lolly13]

Moderators don't need to exist without rules. At the same time, moderators are nothing but forum members just like you and thus don't need rules any more than the next member. We are selected because we approach things in a fair and reasonable manner and the rules have little to do with that. It's in our basic personalities to be fair. I'm still not getting why on earth you think moderators need rules any bit more than you do. :shrug: It just does not make sense to me.

And we have had times when te refer folks to the terms and conditions and that is that, but we try very hard to always give the member the best chance and fairness we can. After all, what would a forum be without it's members?

Moderators need rules more so than the average forum member because they have more power, with power comes responsibility and with that comes moderation. What's the worst that I could do as an average forum member? Say a couple political or religious statements, and all that can come out of that is one or two people who read it get offended. In contrast what can the average moderator do? They can ban people because they don't like them or warn someone because of a personal bias instead of basing it 100% of how much it violated the rules, and what comes of this is much more important than offending a couple of people. I wouldn't put it past people to no longer decide to buy games or not recommend the company to their friends because of the above incidents. Think about companies where there forums are terribly regulated and their moderators are ban happy, doesn't that make you respect that group of people and/or company less, maybe even to the point of not supporting their products because you know you won't be able to get much help?

As for the moderators being selected, this isn't going to weed out all the bad eggs. I've been a community where the only way to get in was to be invited, and this didn't stop issues of power abuse from happening. On the issue of the integrity of the moderators here I'm not going to argue it as it is moot, unless I point out specific instances I think it's not worth arguing as it is just a matter of opinion, and if I were to point out a specific instance I would be warned. While the "don't call us we'll call you" system often works to filter out people with bad intentions that doesn't mean it is a perfect system by any means.

Maybe I am referring to a "code of conduct" (It's in quotes as I'm not sure if there is a literal code of conduct in the admin forums) instead of rules, but the bottom line is without some sort of guidelines physically there or just implied, the forums would be a very different place.

[James Baldwin]

Moderators need rules more so than the average forum member because they have more power, with power comes responsibility and with that comes moderation. What's the worst that I could do as an average forum member? Say a couple political or religious statements, and all that can come out of that is one or two people who read it get offended. In contrast what can the average moderator do? They can ban people because they don't like them or warn someone because of a personal bias instead of basing it 100% of how much it violated the rules, and what comes of this is much more important than offending a couple of people. I wouldn't put it past people to no longer decide to buy games or not recommend the company to their friends because of the above incidents. Think about companies where there forums are terribly regulated and their moderators are ban happy, doesn't that make you respect that group of people and/or company less, maybe even to the point of not supporting their products because you know you won't be able to get much help?

As for the moderators being selected, this isn't going to weed out all the bad eggs. I've been a community where the only way to get in was to be invited, and this didn't stop issues of power abuse from happening. On the issue of the integrity of the moderators here I'm not going to argue it as it is moot, unless I point out specific instances I think it's not worth arguing as it is just a matter of opinion, and if I were to point out a specific instance I would be warned. While the "don't call us we'll call you" system often works to filter out people with bad intentions that doesn't mean it is a perfect system by any means.

Maybe I am referring to a "code of conduct" (It's in quotes as I'm not sure if there is a literal code of conduct in the admin forums) instead of rules, but the bottom line is without some sort of guidelines physically there or just implied, the forums would be a very different place.

Without rules, there is no need for moderators. Sorry, I still just don't get why I would need rules anymore than the next member. I am btw, just a member who was asked to help see after the forum. No forum, no members, no rules...I'm not needed to do that and thus, would still be the same without a moderator tag. I needed rules more actually as a regular member because otherwise, folks would have flamed me into oblivion a long time ago. No rules and chaos would be a sure way for me not to be in a forum, moderator or not.

Edti: BTW, the moderators here log each and every action/communication and such we make here for admin review. We usually decide anything iffy with input of several moderators. We are a team.

to cover the moderator's asses.

:unsure: Cover our asses from what? For what? We are volunteers.

[Nicola]

Without rules, there is no need for moderators. Sorry, I still just don't get why I would need rules anymore than the next member. I am btw, just a member who was asked to help see after the forum. No forum, no members, no rules...I'm not needed to do that and thus, would still be the same without a moderator tag. I needed rules more actually as a regular member because otherwise, folks would have flamed me into oblivion a long time ago. No rules and chaos would be a sure way for me not to be in a forum, moderator or not.

Edti: BTW, the moderators here log each and every action/communication and such we make here for admin review. We usually decide anything iffy with input of several moderators. We are a team.



:unsure: Cover our asses from what? For what? We are volunteers.

Well there are guidelines that govern moderator actions I'd assume, whether it is a precedent or otherwise, and admins reviewing moderator action do help to keep moderators in check. Also the moderators seem to hold themselves to following the rules at a higher standard than an average member, because posting something iffy in a position of power can cause problems. I still don't see you can say you have the same sets of rules governing actions than a normal member, especially when you compare the fact that you have more responsibilities than a normal member does.

For covering your asses I am more speaking of an easy out if someone is constantly complaining rather than any real ramification.

I guess it's just time to agree to disagree, as I don't see either of us getting anywhere. :shrug:

[Heather Kush]

Well there are guidelines that govern moderator actions I'd assume, whether it is a precedent or otherwise, and admins reviewing moderator action do help to keep moderators in check. Also the moderators seem to hold themselves to following the rules at a higher standard than an average member, because posting something iffy in a position of power can cause problems. I still don't see you can say you have the same sets of rules governing actions than a normal member, especially when you compare the fact that you have more responsibilities than a normal member does.

For covering your asses I am more speaking of an easy out if someone is constantly complaining rather than any real ramification.

I guess it's just time to agree to disagree, as I don't see either of us getting anywhere. :shrug:

Well there are guidelines that govern moderator actions I'd assume, whether it is a precedent or otherwise, and admins reviewing moderator action do help to keep moderators in check. Also the moderators seem to hold themselves to following the rules at a higher standard than an average member, because posting something iffy in a position of power can cause problems. I still don't see you can say you have the same sets of rules governing actions than a normal member, especially when you compare the fact that you have more responsibilities than a normal member does.

For covering your asses I am more speaking of an easy out if someone is constantly complaining rather than any real ramification.

I guess it's just time to agree to disagree, as I don't see either of us getting anywhere. :shrug:

There are no guidelines, the only thing we have pinned in the Admin/Mod forum is a "New Moderators FAQ" and that is aimed at explaining how and when to use the moderator boards and the various buttons for actions to take. Yes, admin, or more specifically Gstaff and Nick Breckon do review what we do, but I can't think of an occasion recently where they have overturned a mod decision - that is because unless it is a clear cut case we will always confer by IM or PM about what action, if any, to take before it is instigated, and often that is also with admin so they know prior to any actions taken. We work as a team, everything is logged so we all know what the others are doing, what we have said in PMs to members, warnings, bans, I am sure you get the idea. If a moderator were to start abusing their power it would be very quickly jumped on.

I don't see why we need a different set of rules to any one else.

[CxvIII]

There are no guidelines, the only thing we have pinned in the Admin/Mod forum is a "New Moderators FAQ" and that is aimed at explaining how and when to use the moderator boards and the various buttons for actions to take. Yes, admin, or more specifically Gstaff and Nick Breckon do review what we do, but I can't think of an occasion recently where they have overturned a mod decision - that is because unless it is a clear cut case we will always confer by IM or PM about what action, if any, to take before it is instigated, and often that is also with admin so they know prior to any actions taken. We work as a team, everything is logged so we all know what the others are doing, what we have said in PMs to members, warnings, bans, I am sure you get the idea. If a moderator were to start abusing their power it would be very quickly jumped on.

I don't see why we need a different set of rules to any one else.

Man, I really want to see what the mod forums are like. I bet there's a thread called 'Which member do you hate the most' or something.

[jess hughes]

Man, I really want to see what the mod forums are like. I bet there's a thread called 'Which member do you hate the most' or something.

Nope. We don't tend to hate anyone nor take things personal very often. But we do have some trouble makers that have threads all to themselves...at least for a short while.

[lauraa]

Nope. We don't tend to hate anyone nor take things personal very often. But we do have some trouble makers that have threads all to themselves...at least for a short while.

Your mod boards seem akin to the menstrual women in six and the City.