New Sitewide Rules

[qqwref]

c. Worthless Replying
Don't reply to a post unless you have something of value to add to it. Replying with "+1" or "go search for it" is not allowed, as it does no good for the topic creator or the community. If you see this behavior and would like to respond to it, see: 1e. "Regarding Backseat Moderation".

As a reminder, this includes using Let Me Google That For You.

Bawww. Why? As long as it's done properly (i.e. the google results are helpful), I find that ok. And much better than giving them a direct link, teaching them nothing.

Strong disagree. LMGTFY is little better than linking to a page with the text "YOU ARE AN IDIOT LOLOL" in a large flashing font with bright colors. If you want to tell people to use Google, why can't you link to the Google search itself? It sends the same message without being an ass about it. Here's the thing: sometimes people other than the intended recipient (for example, I) will click on a link to see if someone has found an cool site that they didn't know about. I don't want to be treated like a moron just for believing in good faith that someone like you might actually have an interesting link to post.

Besides, how is posting a LMGTFY link any better (or any different, even) than just saying "check Google for it" or "use the search function"? Again, same message, but you are being an ass about it. If you honestly think that a worthless reply is made less worthless by also being condescending, I do not know what to tell you.

 

[uberCuber]

Can we get a rule against excessive quoting? Like quote trees and annoying full-quotes?

I second this. I am tired of having to search through ridiculously long quotes to find the one or two sentences that the reply is actually referring to. And even if the entire quoted post is relevant to the reply, there is absolutely no need to repost the entire thing. When you quote something, the quote box links back to the original post.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Can we get a rule against excessive quoting? Like quote trees and annoying full-quotes?

I second this. I am tired of having to search through ridiculously long quotes to find the one or two sentences that the reply is actually referring to. And even if the entire quoted post is relevant to the reply, there is absolutely no need to repost the entire thing. When you quote something, the quote box links back to the original post.

If quote trees get excessive, they will be included under rule 2a(spam) and either be modified or deleted. The first thread provided by Stefan was previously closed. I've edited the other link just to be consistent.

 

[uberCuber]

Can we get a rule against excessive quoting? Like quote trees and annoying full-quotes?

I second this. I am tired of having to search through ridiculously long quotes to find the one or two sentences that the reply is actually referring to. And even if the entire quoted post is relevant to the reply, there is absolutely no need to repost the entire thing. When you quote something, the quote box links back to the original post.

If quote trees get excessive, they will be included under rule 2a(spam) and either be modified or deleted.

I figured that quote trees would already be targeted by the rules; my comment was more directed at the annoying full-quote part, when someone quotes a single, long post when it isn't at all necessary to make people look at the entire post again.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Can we get a rule against excessive quoting? Like quote trees and annoying full-quotes?

I second this. I am tired of having to search through ridiculously long quotes to find the one or two sentences that the reply is actually referring to. And even if the entire quoted post is relevant to the reply, there is absolutely no need to repost the entire thing. When you quote something, the quote box links back to the original post.

If quote trees get excessive, they will be included under rule 2a(spam) and either be modified or deleted.

I figured that quote trees would already be targeted by the rules; my comment was more directed at the annoying full-quote part, when someone quotes a single, long post when it isn't at all necessary to make people look at the entire post again.

There are many examples of what is considered spam in the appendices of the rules. These are mere examples. As PJK stated before, intuition should guide you and everyone else on the forum. It's all about severity. If the post is huge, then sure, we can edit/PM the user/give infractions if it is extreme.

If PJK wants to add a specific example about quote trees/annoy quotes, that's fine. But we won't start adding every single thing that you could possibly do wrong. That would be quite a long list that would never be complete.

 

[Stefan]

LMGTFY is little better than linking to a page with the text "YOU ARE AN IDIOT LOLOL" in a large flashing font with bright colors.

Alright, won't use lmgtfy anymore and only use direct google links, but only for the sake of the bystanders. I see no problem with making someone aware that he's an idiot.

how is posting a LMGTFY link any better (or any different, even) than just saying "check Google for it" or "use the search function"?

1. It makes sure that a reasonable search exists and works (sometimes people say "search!" and even I have trouble actually finding it even when I know what they mean).
2. It makes sure they see that this reasonable search exists and works.
3. It answers their request.

Again, same message, but you are being an ass about it. If you honestly think that a worthless reply is made less worthless by also being condescending, I do not know what to tell you.

What is your solution then? How would you reply?

 

[Kirjava]

What cube should I get? What's the best method? Should I get the LanYan or wait for the Guhong6? Should I get it assembled or DIY? What lube is the best? What tension should I set my cubes to?

A disturbing amount of questions that can simply be answered with "whatever lol". This happens all too frequently.

Is this not obvious? Does anyone else feel these threads dilute information and lead to a complete lack of substance? Maybe I'm just annoyed by the poor wording of these questions hiding the true intentions the author had in mind to ask. On the other hand, maybe they actually think a best cube exists.

I doubt rules changes could cover questions that have no real answer. I don't know if I even want them to. I'm just ranting.

 

[BluePi1313]

Wait, if we are not allowed to talk about KO cubes, that means we can't talk about the maru 4x4, and 3x3s, right? (if that is right, please make this as an exception, I was just asking a question)

 

[senopath]

Exception? NO.
The rules has to be consistent.
If we are not allowed talk about KO that means including all 3x3, except rubiks brand, and this forum will become like twistipuzzle, which is 'not speedsolver orientation' but 'inventor orientation'.
That's su*k for speedsolver.

P.s.: My english is su*k, is it better if I'm not posting?

EDIT: Why vcubes KO got cencor but the others not? just wonder..

 

[qqwref]

Maybe we should just say "don't discuss V-Cube knockoffs" as the rule, if the exception in practice is going to be "anything but V-cube". It would be a lot more clear that way. I think nobody wants this forum to be as restricted as twistypuzzles is.

 

[hawkmp4]

Exception? NO.
The rules has to be consistent.
If we are not allowed talk about KO that means including all 3x3, except rubiks brand, and this forum will become like twistipuzzle, which is 'not speedsolver orientation' but 'inventor orientation'.
That's su*k for speedsolver.

P.s.: My english is su*k, is it better if I'm not posting?

EDIT: Why vcubes KO got cencor but the others not? just wonder..

Knockoffs are puzzles that infringe patents. Not all 3x3s besides Rubik's brands are knockoffs.

 

[senopath]

Maybe we should just say "don't discuss V-Cube knockoffs" as the rule, if the exception in practice is going to be "anything but V-cube". It would be a lot more clear that way. I think nobody wants this forum to be as restricted as twistypuzzles is.

Yuph..
Then why vcube got cencor but the other not?

Exception? NO.
The rules has to be consistent.
If we are not allowed talk about KO that means including all 3x3, except rubiks brand, and this forum will become like twistipuzzle, which is 'not speedsolver orientation' but 'inventor orientation'.
That's su*k for speedsolver.

P.s.: My english is su*k, is it better if I'm not posting?

EDIT: Why vcubes KO got cencor but the others not? just wonder..

Knockoffs are puzzles that infringe patents. Not all 3x3s besides Rubik's brands are knockoffs.

Ask Ton for that.