linking to rs

Warren · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 1:59 pm

Why is linking http://www.runescape.com/ against the rules?

Adbot · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 1:59 pm

Reventon42 · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 2:00 pm

I don't know but you shouldn't do it because I got warned for it

You should quickly edit your post before the mods see this

Mercifull · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 2:01 pm

linking in-game or on this forum?

Shane · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 2:35 pm

Linking to it casually is not against the rules.

If you are concerned with something you got warned with please send the person who warned you (or Mike/myself) a message. Questioning moderator decisions in public is not allowed.

Chief Snake · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 5:22 pm

The posts in question were spam and had nothing to do with the fact that RuneScape was linked to. The first was deleted (not by me) and I issued a warning for the second one after it was reposted. After having already received two unofficials in the past for spam and OT posting I don't expect that it should continue. In future you will receive a warning for the first post.

It's also worth noting for those reading this topic who might be newer to the forums that those who post sensibly and without malicious intent don't ever need to worry about receiving any warnings or having their posts deleted. Don't be put off by topics that are posted with the intention of making out the staff to be corrupt.

I'm going to leave this open for a bit just because I want to see if anyone else cares.

Warren · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 5:53 pm

Huh given the fact there was no explanation for the warning and that the only conclusion I could come to of why the post would be removed would be the link. I felt the post was entirely on topic... but I am careful to not format this as a question sorry if it is I'm not trying to be questioning just seems odd that it would be the posts content not the link.

I wasn't trying to make out the staff as corrupt lol I know I link to rs.com and don't want to be warned for it.

Adbot · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 5:53 pm

Reventon42 · **Posted:** October 23rd, 2010, 6:28 pm

If you considered "I still enjoy www.runescape.com" spam to a thread asking if Runescape was declining then a mod could have pmed me the reason why it was an unwanted and pointless message instead of making me think the post somehow failed.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 12:17 am

Reventon42 wrote:

If you considered "I still enjoy http://www.runescape.com" spam to a thread asking if Runescape was declining then a mod could have pmed me the reason why it was an unwanted and pointless message instead of making me think the post somehow failed.

Tbh if that's what you put? I'd have removed it as well. It doesn't add to the discussion in anyway. Explain why you still enjoy it and why you think it's still doing ok. I can't speak for whoever did it but I'd imagine that's your reason why.

Warren · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 9:59 am

Well then it is disappointing that posts are as rigid as they were. I think the forums are a community for RuneScape not an academy or anything.. I don't see why every single post has to be intelligent or an essay that analyzes every topic. I thought that was more lax especially since so many posts like:

Quote:

No.
(I have to have so and so characters to make a post)

get through. Plus it seems like there are so few posts overall I don't know why you would want to try to limit it... yeah it isn't very interesting to see posts that don't inspect and scrutinize the posed topic, but those can easily spark further replies that would be interesting.
In that topic alone, ignoring the whole argument that doesn't address the original prompt at all, there are like four other posts that contribute just as much as saying "I don't believe that RuneScape overall has declined because I still enjoy playing as much as I used to" (if you have to spell it out). :-s

Jay · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 10:37 am

There are tons of short, one sentence posts that have no discussion value here. Just deleting the ones by the people you don't like doesn't seem fair to me.

Shane · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 1:43 pm

The posts in question were spam. That's why they removed. The warning was issued because it was re-posted after the first one was removed.

The post did not add anything meaningful to the discussion. This made it spam, that's why they were deleted. And we don't delete posts of people we don't like.

If there's a post that doesn't fit within the rules, report it. We can't view each post as it comes in, that's what the report feature is for.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 1:50 pm

Jay wrote:

There are tons of short, one sentence posts that have no discussion value here. Just deleting the ones by the people you don't like doesn't seem fair to me.

Don't like? That's an odd jump to make. Moderators are human they can only deal with what they saw.

@Warren the forums are for a discussion about runescape.

Warren · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 2:41 pm

Yeah but if you were to report every post of that caliber and under, that would be
1) Childish
2) Time-consuming on both ends
3) Annoying to the report clearer

I don't think discussion necessarily has to go far in depth and be introspective. Using the same example over and over, the post got across 1) rs was not declining 2) because he still enjoys it. Whether this is rightfully spam under rsbandb parameters or not, I don't care - so rightfully removed or not is irrelevant to me. But I think that it contributes to the discussion enough in terms of a forum [responding to creepy not questioning]. And I think it would be good that what is considered spam overall become less broad.

[this is not situation specific/not even correct maybe] I think there is a certain ambiguity in the rules that allow harsh punishments to be handed out for things but are generally not and not supposed to be. However if there is a person that is causing trouble that isn't necessarily anything about it that can be done, they can be caught on other things and hand out the harshest punishment as a step closer to a banning. This way the eventual ban is justifiable rather than an outright ban in the hopes that it will make the forums/site a better place and more enjoyable for other members. If this is correct, it would seem to make sense but I really don't think it is working at all. It hasn't removed anyone or solved any problems, and if anything, has only intensified and created conflicts.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 3:20 pm

But it's a case by case basis..and it depends who saw it. As i said if i saw that I'd have removed it. You wouldn't have. It's down to the moderators discretion.

To me what he posted is not enough. I want to know why he doesn't think it's declining. I want reasons so i can argue against it. If we all responded in a similiar fashion it'd be a very very boring place. So I'm happy that it was dealt with.

What I'm not understanding is why theres this topic over it. It seems to me people think this was personal. Is there some vital information I'm missing? Seems fairly standard. Moderator doing his job. Removed it once and i presume gave him a friendly heads up, they did it again and he punished them for it. The guy had previous friendlys and then reposted a message that had been removed. I'd have warned him as well?

I certainly don't think there too strict on it. If they was I'd be in a lot of trouble as i post a lot of ******* myself. Most of the time it still adds to the topic though.

Warren · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 3:32 pm

Because there was no explanation for the first time (which I agree there was none needed) but no explanation for the official warning besides the post, when asked what the warning was for I only concluded it was the link vs the advertising rule. As I sometimes link to rs as a synonym of "runescape" I was wondering why or what cases it is against the rules because being warned isn't on the top of my list of things to do. So that is why there's a topic.