GUILD REGISTRY

The goal of this forum is to provide a place for guilds to explain to the world who they are, what they do and stand for.

You can describe your guild, give news of your guild (for example, you are now in war with another guild, you changed your faction...).

• One guild = one Topic. In the Topic, you can reply as much as you want (like a sort of blog).
• The subject of the post must be the Guild Name, nothing less, nothing more.
• No bumping (Don't post just to become in first page).

For all, who do not understand the sentences above:
They basically say: If you are not a member of the guild you are not allowed to post in its thread

/Boar
Senior Game Master

i would like to formally request that all posts made by non members of a guild be deleted from all posts then, to enforce a rule properly, it must be equal to everyone.

I agree with Talkirc, if this is the rule, then all non-members post should be deleted.

Regards Oz

Talk -- to quote verbatim from another post: "I hope you are not going to be considering 'I want to join' or 'welcome back xxxx guild." as an actionable post. That would be just silly.

--B

sad to say it but yes, the rules are very plain, as it was pointed out to me.

"i want to join" can be done via the contacts listed on the registry. no post required.

"welcome back xxxx guild" from a non guild member would also be a violation of the rule if the player is not in the guild an announcing the return of the guild.

if rules are going to be iron clad when so many players are all on the same topic of addressing an issue with a guild via the registry, then yes, they need to be absolute for everyone regardless of content or reason for post.

there can be no slack one way or the other for this to be a fair rule.

i'm saying that if one thing is wrong to do, so it shall be for anything that fit's the rule. if a rule is to be enforced, do so with equality in mind. (remember csr's are not to show favoritism's because that would be against their CoC)

Zero Tolerance ==> Zero Sense.

Common sense should apply here, as it most certainly has in the past. Long critiques of a guild's playing style do not belong in the guild registry. Easy answers and quick questions most certainly do.

With all due respect to Boar, I think he over-reacted, just as you and Rollocks are doing.

yomv* bittty, but on this one, i'm standing firm, either it's all right, or it's not, there is no gray area here.

the gray area is that if this isn't enforced equally thought the reg, then the rule is not valid because it's not a selective thing that someone can say, "your right to say this" or "you can't say that"

i did not quote a rule, i did not name a single player, i asked for the leadership to attempt to strike change into a less then favorable activity that one or more players may be taking part in, that's not out of line, it was also a warning to potential new players that perhaps they may be tough less then favorable ways to play ryzom by said guild because of their lack of willingness to join the more typical spirit of the game.

had CSR boar not deleted my content on the last post i did make, it would have shown MY reaction and actions i took when I was accused of camping pei-ruz, but since it was deleted, it's now lost, though i'm sure google may have a snapshot of it in it's seemingly endless cache. (i'll get back to you with that as well)
***edit*** bless google for it's thoroughness, because i have a copy of said post.

the bottom line, if you want to quote a rule to someone, be sure you will enforce said rule with out prejudice.

*=your opinion may vary (for anyone that didn't know)

Bitty --

If Boar has over-reacted, then let's start there, since he's not a regular player. He gives a stringent interpretation of the rules, although in the past there has been a lot of leeway regarding who posts where.

((and i'm deliberately ignoring the harsh phrasing that calls everyone stupid for not seeing a supposedly clear meaning, whereas there is no such thing; I can chalk it up to a lot of things))

Had he not intervened publicly, and instead silenced the repeated offenders in the SA thread, all would be well. He instead chose to post in public effectively making a new rule, and I believe it's within any player's right to react to a new rule. Don't want trouble, don't hastily make laws, rules and regulations, especially over petty and temporary situations.

Ontopic: I'm going to post wherever I please.

I fail to see that Boar has overreacted. And btw., the CSR make and enforce the rules, they are entitled to interpret them more strictly or loosely. Read the EULA and the forum rules.

Given the constant abuse by trollers and slanderers in this and similar threads, a harsh reaction would be a lifetime forum ban for the main offender (not for Talk ofc)

That's my point - if there are a few people fixated on a perceived issue, deal with said people by warning them, deleting their posts, silencing or temporarily banning the accounts, etc.

Obviously the GMs are free to pick and choose when to be strict or lax in interpreting the rules, but I believe coherence and continuity are still implied requirements for any law-maker (which a forum moderator is, subset of a subset).

Reinterpreting vague language to broaden "rules", rules that were never in effect is simply bad form. You can see lots of chatter that was never punished in any way: Congratulations for X days of existence, congratulations for promotions within a guild, even heated discussion sometime (the Wrath of Atys topic, regarding their Silan recruitment policies). The incident with Spiritus Artificis could've been nipped in the bud by giving the heated individuals time to cool off.

Let's not forbid everyone from talking, just because of loud mouths.

i plan to let this rest a while, and see what happens.

perhaps we're all too worked up right now to think clearly.

let us ALL (myself included) take a moment to think and then continue this in a more proper setting.

talkirc