[url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=240][b]Please click here.[/b][/url] This is the first significant modification of the forum rules and guidelines in almost three years. Since 2010, MFGG has grown into a very different community, with a different memberbase and a different moderation team. Besides that, the old rules included several paragraphs of lengthy, confusing explanations that were added in response to long-ago bits of drama, while omitting several guidelines worth noting. The new rules should be more concise and more relevant to the problems that are most likely to occur on the current iteration of MFGG. The new changes shouldn't necessitate any significant changes to your viewing and posting. The main additions are the long-standing (but previously unwritten) prohibitions against: [list][*]Posting excessively graphic violence [*]Bypassing the swear filter [*]Bumping old topics without a good reason [*]Forgetting to use spoiler tags when discussing possible plot spoilers [*]Registering under a throwaway e-mail address (such accounts are frequently used by spambots and troublemakers)[/list] We also added a new reminder to keep criticism constructive in tone. If you have any questions or concerns about the rules, or their application, please feel free to contact one of the forum administrators. We're happy to address any concerns you have, even if you forget to buy us cupcakes like you're supposed to!

The problem with the constructive criticism rule and a lot of your rules is that they are vague on how to follow them. For instance, we had a pretty polarizing argument on constructive criticism so it is important that you define specifically what "keep your critique constructive in tone" means, and perhaps even include examples of what you'll be looking for when enforcing such a rule so that people can adapt and change their behavior without the need for warnings. Explanations don't have to be lengthy, but you shouldn't omit them completely. The problem with vague rules is that it makes posting on the message board a guessing game on whether or not you are posting in a way that is up to the community standards... and that's no good. However, it is good to update the rules as the community standards change, rather than waiting three years to do so. I hope to see that in the future. The addition of previously unwritten rules is a good step in the right direction, however. Let's hope no other unwritten rules exist in the future. :) I am also looking forward to less hostile criticism! :biggrin:

[quote="Pedigree"]The problem with the constructive criticism rule and a lot of your rules is that they are vague on how to follow them.[/quote] The constructive criticism rule is actually just a guideline, hence its vagueness; it's intended as a reminder to not take your C+C too far. I wouldn't be surprised if the other "rules" you're talking about are also merely guidelines, too.

I feel the constructive criticism guideline should belong under General Maturity since the [i]acceptance[/i] of said criticism is also under maturity. Constructive criticism does not have to be nice. Nor is all nice criticism constructive. Just my two cents on that. Otherwise the other changes are okay.

I agree with ZK, if it's too nice on critizm, rookies might ignore them and continuing to make the same mistake. If it's not-so-nice-but-not-like-an-a-hole, then they are more likely to improve and recieve nicer replies.

I don't think Vinny's saying to be nice with criticism, I think he's just saying not to be extremely hurtful with it.

Interesting. I approve of this. [spoiler][s]Now if we could only update the terribly aged main-site rules.[/s][/spoiler]

[quote="Vitiman"][quote="Pedigree"]The problem with the constructive criticism rule and a lot of your rules is that they are vague on how to follow them.[/quote] The constructive criticism rule is actually just a guideline, hence its vagueness; it's intended as a reminder to not take your C+C too far. I wouldn't be surprised if the other "rules" you're talking about are also merely guidelines, too.[/quote] It's under the be nice to each other, no flaming rule, and I see no indication that any of these rules are merely guidelines you don't have to follow so uhh what? And the other rules I'm talking about are pretty much all of the rules. They're all too vague.

[quote="Pedigree"]I see no indication that any of these rules are merely guidelines you don't have to follow so uhh what?[/quote] [quote="VinnyVideo"]We also added a new reminder to keep criticism constructive in tone.[/quote]

Did you read the actual rules?

[quote="Pedigree"]Did you read the actual rules?[/quote] That wasn't the question you asked. You asked for an indication that the criticism note was a guideline and not an enforced rule, and I gave you said indication. If you're trying to start something here, I'd suggest you quit.

I was talking about the actual rules themselves, not the summary of changes noted here. Nor does that indicate that the rule on constructive criticism is a guideline you don't have to follow anyways. The only one appearing as if he wants to start something here is you. None of this hostility is warranted and has no place in such a topic. Thank you. I don't even understand why you'd comment to begin with considering I was addressing the staff and not you.

[quote="Pedigree"]I was talking about the actual rules themselves, not the summary of changes noted here. Nor does that indicate that the rule on constructive criticism is a guideline you don't have to follow anyways. The only one appearing as if he wants to start something here is you. None of this hostility is warranted and has no place in such a topic. Thank you. I don't even understand why you'd comment to begin with considering I was addressing the staff and not you.[/quote] Ah yes, but I did ask VinnyVideo himself and he noted it was a merely guideline. As for the summary of changes, it's fairly obvious that what it says is reflective of what is changed, no? Taking things at face value won't get you very far! XD Also, I think it's very strange you say you're addressing the staff and not me when I happen to be staff :)

You are not staff on the forums and have nothing to do with the rules. Vinny can feel free to elaborate on it if it is just a guideline, because including it under the same rule as flaming and such implies otherwise. Definitely badly written and badly placed if that is the case. :biggrin: [quote]I agree with ZK, if it's too nice on critizm, rookies might ignore them and continuing to make the same mistake. If it's not-so-nice-but-not-like-an-a-hole, then they are more likely to improve and recieve nicer replies.[/quote] On another note this is not true. I have never seen someone ignore criticism because it wasn't harsh enough. If anything people ignore harsh criticism. Besides, we do have to remember that our opinions on art are entirely subjective other than very specific things like anatomy (but even then not all styles aim to be accurate when it comes to anatomy. See: Picasso). People don't have to agree or act on your criticism. Should they? It depends on what you're saying, and being ignorant about it isn't going to change anyone's minds.

[quote="Pedigree"]You are not staff on the forums and have nothing to do with the rules.[/quote] I'd like to remind everyone here that I have more of an influence in the inner workings of the forums than you might be lead on by my badge and member bar. Even if I'm not much of one, I am still a staffer, and like all staffers, I have my say. To say that I do not is, in fact, completely wrong. On topic, I do find the rules a lot clearer now! I still think some smaller things should be clarified, but more on that whenever I remember to talk about it in the future XD

That does bring up a question then: I would like to know what the point of the member groups and such is if they do not identify what kind of staffer the staffers are. Where their jurisdiction is. Etc.

Many of the rules are simply guidelines that are worth remembering when posting on an online forum, especially for new members. If we spelled out every conceivable example of "not-nice" behavior, the rules would be dozens of pages long and still wouldn't cover every problem or negative attitude that could rear its ugly head. MFGG is usually a friendly, positive place, so the staff gives users the benefit of the doubt; we don't normally warn people or take any other action unless a rule was clearly broken.

[quote="[url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?p=384176#p384176]Pedigree[/url]"]On another note this is not true. I have never seen someone ignore criticism because it wasn't harsh enough. If anything people ignore harsh criticism. Besides, we do have to remember that our opinions on art are entirely subjective[/quote] So are opinions on what is and isn't "harsh" or "constructive" criticism (for example, I think they are not one and the same, but that they are also not mutually exclusive). Which is why I recommended moving it to the General Maturity section. I feel like this would be a better place for that guideline than under Be Nice since the only implications are that you should be mature when criticizing something, as opposed to being nice (which you don't need to be).

I'm glad to see the rules updated! MFGG seems to be growing a bit and it is certainly a welcome change! Also, do we need to argue over criticism? Last I recall there was already a thread for it and honestly it is a bit pointless to argue over.

I'm just going to say it's pretty obvious when criticism is constructive and when it is not and that the administration is not liable for any lack of sense inherent in the members.