CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › The Chewers Catch-All › Rules Discussion/ Suggestions/Critiques
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rules Discussion/ Suggestions/Critiques - Page 2

post #51 of 380
6/4/10 at 4:32pm
New rule added.
Reply
post #52 of 380
6/4/10 at 4:43pm
Devin, serious question:

I often am annoyed by replies that are simply memes with no further explanation or commentary on the post they are replying to. So, I definitely welcome this NEW RULE. However, sometimes a well timed face palm is a classy way to touch up a post. If you spend the time to actually write something and reply to what the person had to say but feel that your post could be enhanced by a reasonably sized polar bear facepal, is that alright? Or are all facepalms, regardless of context, no longer acceptable?
Reply
post #53 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:21pm
I really don't think having "unfunny" as a qualifier for what is unacceptable, whether in image or text, is a good idea. It makes it feel arbitrary as to what makes the cut, and I'd think that is the opposite of what laying out the rules is supposed to accomplish. Not to mention that what qualifies as a meme, or a tired one, can so easily change after a post is made. I'd say that for this to feel more objective than "don't piss me off", you have to ban all .jpegs, which is a pretty broad limitation on expression on a MB.

Not that you're under any particular obligation to be more objective than "don't piss me off". Your prerogative and such.
Reply
post #54 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:29pm
It does get a little annoying to see a thread turn into a bandwidth-hogging attempt to one-up someone else's jpg.
Reply
post #55 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Devin, serious question:

I often am annoyed by replies that are simply memes with no further explanation or commentary on the post they are replying to. So, I definitely welcome this NEW RULE. However, sometimes a well timed face palm is a classy way to touch up a post. If you spend the time to actually write something and reply to what the person had to say but feel that your post could be enhanced by a reasonably sized polar bear facepal, is that alright? Or are all facepalms, regardless of context, no longer acceptable?
<resisting the urge to post face palm photo>
Reply
post #56 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:37pm
They're only funny maybe 1/10 of the time, but to me that 1 time makes up for the others. I may be in the minority on this, I don't know, and I realize it's not up to a vote, but I say put an end to the 4 billion frame gifs instead.
Reply
post #57 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:39pm
the .gifs all you got thread pretty much crashes my internet connect..ha ha
Reply
post #58 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I really don't think having "unfunny" as a qualifier for what is unacceptable, whether in image or text, is a good idea. It makes it feel arbitrary as to what makes the cut, and I'd think that is the opposite of what laying out the rules is supposed to accomplish. Not to mention that what qualifies as a meme, or a tired one, can so easily change after a post is made. I'd say that for this to feel more objective than "don't piss me off", you have to ban all .jpegs, which is a pretty broad limitation on expression on a MB.

Not that you're under any particular obligation to be more objective than "don't piss me off". Your prerogative and such.
They're never funny.

They're all tired.

Reply to people with text.
Reply
post #59 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
It does get a little annoying to see a thread turn into a bandwidth-hogging attempt to one-up someone else's jpg.
Oh, absolutely. And maybe it's my Constitutional Law studies showing through, but I see a rule that only applies to things that aren't funny part of it, and my immediate response is "OMG-that's-totally-subjective-you-can't-enforce-that!!!" But beyond that, these memes are a pretty big part of internet culture, and a lot of them are quite funny. You know, the first time.
Reply
post #60 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I really don't think having "unfunny" as a qualifier for what is unacceptable, whether in image or text, is a good idea. It makes it feel arbitrary as to what makes the cut, and I'd think that is the opposite of what laying out the rules is supposed to accomplish. Not to mention that what qualifies as a meme, or a tired one, can so easily change after a post is made. I'd say that for this to feel more objective than "don't piss me off", you have to ban all .jpegs, which is a pretty broad limitation on expression on a MB.

Not that you're under any particular obligation to be more objective than "don't piss me off". Your prerogative and such.
I don't mean to sound like a kiss-ass, but with regards to temporarily kicking people, I don't think the guidelines need to be written in stone, because it basically comes down to what Devin thinks is shitting up a thread. So it's just fair warning that posting a gif or whatever may get you kicked for a day or two. If it happens, big deal, lesson learned. He added the rule because one poster was clearly getting out of hand with it.

Perma-bans should be clearly outlined, of course, and I think they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Oh, absolutely. And maybe it's my Constitutional Law studies showing through, but I see a rule that only applies to things that aren't funny part of it, and my immediate response is "OMG-that's-totally-subjective-you-can't-enforce-that!!!"
It's definitely your Constitutional Law showing through. Forums aren't democracies, etc. If the moderation is too draconian then it'll self-correct because it will drive posters away, but honestly I read some heavily moderated boards and that never ever happens. At least, not for anyone who'll be missed.
Reply
post #61 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
They're never funny.

They're all tired.

Reply to people with text.
Will do. I never used the things much anyway. Just saying, the rules will create less drama if you base them in more concrete terms than what you find funny.
Reply
post #62 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:52pm
I don't find ANY of them funny. Using someone else's joke to make your point is NEVER funny.
Reply
post #63 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:54pm
This new rule reminds me how much I miss the Angry Mr. Wayne pic.
Reply
post #64 of 380
6/4/10 at 6:58pm
That one got run into the ground, too.
Reply
post #65 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
I don't find ANY of them funny. Using someone else's joke to make your point is NEVER funny.
I know you have the reins per Nick but this is a bullshit rule and you know it too.
Reply
post #66 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:22pm
He's not saying he's going to decide which ones are unfunny and just delete those. He's going to delete all of them.
Reply
post #67 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:25pm
Look, I'm disappointed my angry Greedo gif never caught on too, but I'll live.
Reply
post #68 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
He's not saying he's going to decide which ones are unfunny and just delete those. He's going to delete all of them.
I understand that, I still think it's a bullshit rule. Especially saying "using someone else's X to make your X is never X."

I hope Devin never needs to draw on something said extremely well or better than he can for a review.

Memes can absolutely be overused but the internet equivalent of Bartlett's happens to be photos in many, many respects.

*EDIT* and the rule change says Time-outs, not deleting the offending post.
Reply
post #69 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:45pm
Maybe, but there's better fights to be had than this one.
Reply
post #70 of 380
6/4/10 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Maybe, but there's better fights to be had than this one.
Oh, absolutely. The first post also says "Please feel free to offer your comments/thoughts/suggestions below."

Just bitchin'.
Reply
post #71 of 380
6/4/10 at 8:03pm
IMHO, the polar bear facepalm is not a joke, it's just shorthand for an emotion. Like an LOL or a winking face. The point is to get across how you feel nonverbally, not to inspire laughter with a frustrated looking bear

That is just my take.
Reply
post #72 of 380
6/5/10 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
They're never funny.

They're all tired.

Reply to people with text.
*wailing sax*
Reply
post #73 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:26pm
Wasn't it Devin or Nick who specifically requested the creation of what turned into the (short-lived) Old Bruce meme?
Reply
post #74 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:38pm
K wait, So can people use images that aren't memes? I don't give a shit about old bruce wayne/bodysnatchers guy/whatever, but I've seen a lot of replies that have used single images quite cleverly. It's a specifically "internet" thing, and I kind of enjoy it.
Reply
post #75 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post
K wait, So can people use images that aren't memes? I don't give a shit about old bruce wayne/bodysnatchers guy/whatever, but I've seen a lot of replies that have used single images quite cleverly. It's a specifically "internet" thing, and I kind of enjoy it.
From what I understand, you can use images, just not images that are part of a meme. (So you could post a picture of Batman in a thread about BATMAN, but you couldn't use the old Bruce Wayne image to show you are displeased with someone's post in a BATMAN thread)

However, I'm still waiting on a verdict for Facepalms used in conjunction with a full and fair reply to someone's post
Reply
post #76 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:45pm
I for one love the Homer Simpson eating popcorn image. It says all you need to say
Reply
post #77 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:47pm
Are facepalms really that important to you, Kate? Facepalms?!
Reply
post #78 of 380
6/5/10 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post
Are facepalms really that important to you, Kate? Facepalms?!
Look, obviously in the grand scheme of things they're pretty minor, but I just happen to think that some memes are not so much about jokes as they are just about developing a recognizable non verbal image based vocabulary for conversation. The facepalm is a way to say "I am annoyed/exasperated by the post I'm responding to". The Homer Popcorn Image is another good example. You use it to get across a sentiment, not to make people laugh. I think people who use facepalms know that they're not in and of themselves hilarious.

I think there is a difference between a image being used to express a non verbal sentiment and when someone posts a meme only reply. The other day in response to one of my posts, someone posted a gigantic gif that took like 3 minutes to load. I sat dumbfounded as I waited for it to load, trying to figure out what I was seeing. It was of a woman shoplifting and then running into something. IMHO, that's pointless. It's not part of a non verbal board vocab, it's just a random unfunny gif that ads nothing to the conversation

That's my take, anyway
Reply
post #79 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:01pm
I'll miss a couple of the pics (and yes, the Homer Simpson meme is one of them), but I don't see why forcing people to at least pretend like they have original thoughts and express them verbally is a bad thing.
Reply
post #80 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
I'll miss a couple of the pics (and yes, the Homer Simpson meme is one of them), but I don't see why forcing people to at least pretend like they have original thoughts and express them verbally is a bad thing.
I said that if you typed up a response to someone, but thought it would be good to augment your post with an additional facepalm, then that seemed in my mind to be ok. I agree that you shouldn't just use memes instead of words
Reply
post #81 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:18pm
I'm partial to the ever-expanding series of 'green box for you' images, and that's something I believe is unique to these boards.
Reply
post #82 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
I said that if you typed up a response to someone, but thought it would be good to augment your post with an additional facepalm
So take up bandwidth to express the same though twice. Nice.
Reply
post #83 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:22pm
There are only two or three folks - the ones who use this place like an imageboard, blog, or chat room - that this rule will really matter for. It will cut the number of their useless, unfunny posts in half. What's the downside?
Reply
post #84 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
I'm partial to the ever-expanding series of 'green box for you' images, and that's something I believe is unique to these boards.
Those are not memes, they are gifts!

It's my understanding that they are inspired by a system of "rep" that used to be in place on the board. I really like the green boxes, and had previously asked on the CHUD SLANG thread if it was ok to post them. Mattioli told me there was no problem. I have a good time searcing for special green boxes(such as green x-mas presents), or if I'm being sarcastic with my green box I can use a green trash dumpster.
Reply
post #85 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
So take up bandwidth to express the same though twice. Nice.
It's not just a redundant restatement of your sentiments, it's to augment what you've had to say. Using a face palm is like using italics, or putting some words in bold.
Reply
post #86 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:36pm
Oh, Charles Foster Kane clapping, I think I might miss you most of all.
Reply
post #87 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
It's not just a redundant restatement of your sentiments, it's to augment what you've had to say. Using a face palm is like using italics, or putting some words in bold.
For which we already have BB code.

I mean sure, it was funny every once in a while to see an amusing picture, and I've used them from time to time. But I don't feel expressively crippled by not being able to use them, and I certainly don't think it's an issue that deserves two pages of discussion.

Now let's get some sig rules in place to get these giant-fonted multi-colored monstrosities the hell out of here.
Reply
post #88 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:45pm
Holy fuck.
Reply
post #89 of 380
6/5/10 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
For which we already have BB code.

I mean sure, it was funny every once in a while to see an amusing picture, and I've used them from time to time. But I don't feel expressively crippled by not being able to use them, and I certainly don't think it's an issue that deserves two pages of discussion..

Ok, well, we can agree to disagree but I'm just saying that I don't think that facepalms are a kind of humor. It's not that they're a joke that is not funny, it's that they're not funny because they're not supposed to be humorous. If we are now against facepalms we should remove the "smiley selector" thing and refuse to allow people to use smily faces... or at least come up with a face palm face and add it to the smiley selector
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Now let's get some sig rules in place to get these giant-fonted multi-colored monstrosities the hell out of here.
I am proud of my sig, I think it's extremely classy (not to brag). I think it's important to allow people the freedom to design their sig, but at the same time as part of the CHUD-munity(c) one would hope that people would steer clear of sigs that could be described as "monstrosities" (the kind that draw too much attention to themselves). Self policing seems like the way to go for that one
Reply
post #90 of 380
6/5/10 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post
It's a specifically "internet" thing, and I kind of enjoy it.
The comments and the AICN Talkbacks are pretty specifically "internet" as well. We should try and transcend that. Hold ourselves to a bit of a higher standard, don't ya think?
Reply
post #91 of 380
6/5/10 at 3:58pm
Are we really expecting a leap up in the level of discourse by telling unfunny people they have to use unfunny words instead of unfunny pictures? Seems a bit optimistic to me.
Reply
post #92 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:00pm
It's a start. If you can't rely on ridiculous pictures you might (MIGHT) be more inclined to think about what you say. Or, ya know, not post anything at all. Optimistic? Sure - why not. I've been called worse.
Reply
post #93 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:04pm
In all fairness we shouldn't even need to discuss it. We all agree to abide by the rules when we come here, it's not going to harm anyone, case closed.

And yes, Richard is Right we need to sort out the signatures next.
Reply
post #94 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:06pm
I support this. The more rules against stupidity there are, the more likely that Princess Kate will eventually be banned.
Reply
post #95 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:09pm
Doesn't the repetitive use of:
Quote:
CHUD-munity(c)
fall into the "Repetitive posting of unfunny catchphrases" new rule?
Reply
post #96 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
In all fairness we shouldn't even need to discuss it. We all agree to abide by the rules when we come here, it's not going to harm anyone, case closed.

And yes, Richard is Right we need to sort out the signatures next.
KS,

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we should willfully break the rules. We're just engaging in suggesting and commenting, like this thread says it's cool for us to do in it's charter.
Quote:


Please feel free to offer your comments/thoughts/suggestions below. We may also be opening a Suggestions/Complaints forum or thread.
Reply
post #97 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post
Doesn't the repetitive use of: fall into the "Repetitive posting of unfunny catchphrases" new rule?
It's not a "catchphrase" because it's not a phrase, it's a word.

This is where I'd use a polar bear facepalm photo, if I knew it were OK to do so
Reply
post #98 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGButler View Post
The comments and the AICN Talkbacks are pretty specifically "internet" as well. We should try and transcend that. Hold ourselves to a bit of a higher standard, don't ya think?
Not that I disagree, but aren't the comments and AICN talkbacks two places where one can't post graphics? (Haven't been to the talkbacks in a while... maybe that's changed)
Reply
post #99 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:16pm
Yes, the limiting confines of the English language, with no hope for the use of image tags, is what's killing the discourse at AICN. Jeremy is suggesting we should be rising above "internet bullshit" in general.

EDIT: I'm frankly terrified of the frequent addition of rules. One day I'ma come in here and see "Don't be Phil." Then I'll get all indignant and post "When they came for the facepalm jpgs, I did nothing, because I didn't use facepalm jpgs..." etc. etc.
Reply
post #100 of 380
6/5/10 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
Not that I disagree, but aren't the comments and AICN talkbacks two places where one can't post graphics? (Haven't been to the talkbacks in a while... maybe that's changed)
...and? Listen, really, I know Devin said it was cool to discuss things, and yeah, it is, but goddamn.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Chewers Catch-All
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › The Chewers Catch-All › Rules Discussion/ Suggestions/Critiques