What percentage of UG members have read the rules?

What percentage of UG members have read the rules? Part 2: and understand the rules?

  • Less than 5% read

    Votes: 18 27.7%
  • more than 5% but less than 10% read

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • more than 10% but less than 25% read

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • more than 25% but less than 50% read

    Votes: 19 29.2%
  • more than 50% but less than 75% read

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • more than 75% read

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Less than 5% understand

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • more than 5% but less than 10% understand

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • more than 10% but less than 25% understand

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • more than 25% but less than 50% understand

    Votes: 13 20.0%
  • more than 50% but less than 75% understand

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • more than 75% understand

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#21
Originally posted by Dondee
Slinky, is there a way that you can "force" a newbee at the time of registration to check off that he/she has read the rules? I know that they can "scroll" right through them without reading them at all, but you can state beforehand that they will be banned for non-compliance of the rules.
Try registering today.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#22
Originally posted by JackT
Good point. Why would anyone who never posts waste his/her time reading through all of those rules?
Agreed, but I think that's setting up a straw man to knock down WRT the real topic here.
 
#24
I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

14 (with added language prohibiting the REposting of something already deleted)

15 (but making it clear that there is an exception to this rule for advertisers) (also, here is where it may be worthwhile to include examples (like 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, etc.)

18

The other "Rules" are more like posting guidelines really: be nice, avoid flaming or useless fluff.



Maybe this (along with some explanations of bannings and other punishments every now and then) is a way to get better compliance?
 

justme

homo economicus
#25
I think instead you should install a fuckhead detector. If every fuckhead were prevented from being assigned a UG password, I think that the number of people that didn't follow the rules would be decimated.
 
#26
Originally posted by JackT
I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

14 (with added language prohibiting the REposting of something already deleted)

15 (but making it clear that there is an exception to this rule for advertisers) (also, here is where it may be worthwhile to include examples (like 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, etc.)

18

The other "Rules" are more like posting guidelines really: be nice, avoid flaming or useless fluff.



Maybe this (along with some explanations of bannings and other punishments every now and then) is a way to get better compliance?
wow someone here with the same views as I....I'm in shock ;)

a classic UG ....DITTO !! is in order here lol

my after thought ....... I see posters here with a very high post count because they post one statement at a time , numerous times in the same thread , back to back, for example my post here would be divided into 3 diffrent post without any replys in between , lol if I did that my post count would be in the thousands . ...IMHO is cheating to achieve a higher post count
why not say what ya got to say in one post ?

xoxo GREAT topic SB
 

Wwanderer

Kids, don't try this at home
#28
I have to agree. If there is anything about my hobbying activities I find sad, embarrassing, regretable, pathetic etc, it is surely my post count on PMBs (in general, not just UG). It is entirely inconceivable to me that any more than a tiny fraction of those posts were actually worth writing or reading.

-Ww
 
#29
Let's be honest and upfront about this Slinky. Is this really a problem that it's made out to be? Seems like your recent banned users are up to what, about 20 or 21 now, how many new users came on board in that time? Considering that you have thousands of registered users, is it (banned users) that high of enough percentage of screw ups to waste your time on it, or do you believe that if they get away with it then everyone will start doing shit. If that's the case then you should be concerned, however I don't really think that the board will run "wild" if you didn't ban stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, you know better then I do, but it seems like some of the banned users were just trying to maybe post what they thought were legitimate reviews or legitimate questions without really knowing they were breaking the rules based on others posts. Why not just delete objectionable posts rather then banning the users. I've had posts deleted by you in the past, and I got the hint and didn't repost the stuff. Is it really that bad?

BTW, do you issue warnings before you ban someone. I didn't get a warning when I got banned (once). Maybe you could do that.
 
Last edited:
#30
Originally posted by JackT
I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

I don't think 0.10 makes sense the way it is as I stated above. I think 0.10 should apply to personal backchannel communication via maybe e.mail which is turned off anyway. I don't see how you could enforce no personal comm, you'd have to delete three quarters of the posts on this board because we use it much more like instant messaging rather then postings. How the hell do you enforce that, no replys to a post?
 
#31
Originally posted by FoxyMonica
my after thought ....... I see posters here with a very high post count because they post one statement at a time , numerous times in the same thread , back to back, for example my post here would be divided into 3 diffrent post without any replys in between , lol if I did that my post count would be in the thousands . ...IMHO is cheating to achieve a higher post count
why not say what ya got to say in one post ?
You can only respond to one person at a time (unless you do some fancy editing).
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#34
Originally posted by jp1064
but it seems like some of the banned users were just trying to maybe post what they thought were legitimate reviews or legitimate questions without really knowing they were breaking the rules based on others posts
A) No one has ever been banned pst posting anything the remotely resembled a legit review

B) If a "legit question", is placed somewhere where there's a thread at the top of that section titled "Board Form/rules Changes –all Members Must Read:" informing them that they shouldn't be posting that question there, is it a legit question/honest mistake? (actually we're getting at the entire purpose of this poll).

Originally posted by jp1064
Just a thought...


If we followed all the rules, there just wouldn't be any posts...

ie: 0.10) Do not use threads as a means of "personal communication" with other members.

Aren't all our posts our personal communication with the other member's post above us in the thread or also placing a "quoted" post as the next post?

I know what Slinky really means by this rule, but how can you possibly avoid doing this?

Isn't this the most broken rule?
There's a big difference between responding to someone's post and saying "meet me at that spot we go to at Saturday 1PM", or "you friend Jack wants t speak to you, send him an e*mail", or "I left my e*mail addy on the Canine Board so you can write to me" or .........................
 
#35
Can someone give me the short version of why it's a bannable offense to post one's e_mail address here? I know not to do it, but have never quite gotten what damage would be done if people did.

I think most people read the rules, and understand them in principle. Having been a moderator elsewhere, I can tell you that a lot of people have an incredible talent for thinking that the rules don't apply to them for one reason or another.
 

justme

homo economicus
#37
To expound:

In the past, certain potential advertisers avoided paying advertising, but still used the board as a marketing device by culling ****** addresses.
 
#40
Ban 'em all and let Allah sort it out

Why were travlnman and bigbucks banned?
I don't recall anyhing offensive in their posts.
Alot of the banned members were valuable contributors.
Historically most purges, result in a weakened society. I.e., joe stalin, khmer rouge, etc.

I havn't seen any decent reviews on this site in ages - and I'm reluctant to post, because the rules seem so comlicated (I need to hire Hvb to interpret, and then get a "no action" letter from the Information Ministry, before posting).

Trust me I KNOW how it feels to have freeloading whore/johns trying to get free ads/publicty. But these shills are soon outed by market forces.

Give free speech a chance.

Bottom line: it WILL result in more ad$, and you'll be able to get those 48" chrome rims for your Escalade.
 
Top