Author Topic: RAWK FAQs & Posting Guidelines: Everything You Every Wanted to Know About RAWK, But Were Too Afraid  (Read 83239 times)

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,156
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #80 on: March 8, 2012, 07:24:46 PM »
So if a banned member has no access to PM how is he/she supposed to know the reason and argue their case during the ban? I agree with farawayred in the previous page, sometimes its just a pissed off mod and there needs to be an avenue of communication rather than shutting the member out altogether during that period.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Maggie May

  • A true Grandmother of Sirs. The Next Vera Lynne. The Pigeon Queen. Lobster Botherer Knockout Champ. RAWK's favourite gog. Belshie Gets Hard For Her. Call that a knife??
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,249
  • Nemo me impune lacessit. Semper Fi
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #81 on: March 8, 2012, 07:43:17 PM »
So if a banned member has no access to PM how is he/she supposed to know the reason and argue their case during the ban? I agree with farawayred in the previous page, sometimes its just a pissed off mod and there needs to be an avenue of communication rather than shutting the member out altogether during that period.

Tell them the reason - fair enough.  But for them to "argue their case" - ridiculous.  The mods have more than enough to do without listening to endless bleating and whining from some disgruntled fool who feels the rules don't apply to him/her.  And "shutting the member out altogether" sounds an excellent idea - one less idiot to monitor, even for a short while.  And of course if they don't like it, well ......... 
Rather a day as a lion than a lifetime as a sheep.

I can only be nice to one person a day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look too good either.
I tried being reasonable.  I didn't like it.  Old enough to know better.  Young enough not to give a fuck.

Offline The Jackal

  • GENESIS 1:1
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,535
  • Form is temporary, class is permanent...
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #82 on: March 9, 2012, 11:31:10 AM »

I understand that no one wants to be seen to be getting slagged off in any form or anyway possible (unless it's playful banter which is accepted and thus not taken to far,) however it doesn't sit right that what you post on another medium will have repercussions onto your RAWK profile for me.


I reckon the easiest solution just keep your RAWK and Twitter/ Facebook profiles separate. I follow and converse with people on Twitter and converse with some of the same people on here, but do it under completely separate accounts/ username/ avatar etc.. Been doing that for ages, long before these 'rules' came in..
Blanco y en botella. Es leche, no?

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,420
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2012, 11:10:29 PM »
That's a good shout mate.  I'll take a look at that.

I think that we have to appeal to users good sense though at the end of the day, writing an exhaustive guide to what is acceptable and what is not would be pretty much impossible as much depends on context. 

BIG RULES: Things deemed to be totally unacceptable:

        Racism, homophobia, sexism

Thanks for above additions, and I agree it's going to have to be open to a certain degree of interpretation by mods in each case to determine if the rules have been broken, and of course the mods can't be expected to pick up on every instance.

However it is surprising to me that you can have an entire thread like this one,

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=184072.0

which seems to be purely based on sexism and nothing else to me.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Is it getting better?
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2012, 11:21:19 PM »
However it is surprising to me that you can have an entire thread like this one,

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=184072.0

which seems to be purely based on sexism and nothing else to me.

Looking at women's breasts is sexist? When did that happen?

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,420
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2012, 11:25:28 PM »
Looking at women's breasts is sexist? When did that happen?

If that is all you think it is then I will repeat one of your favourites,

You haven't read it have you ?
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Is it getting better?
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2012, 11:26:40 PM »
If that is all you think it is then I will repeat one of your favourites,

You haven't read it have you ?

Not recently. Give us some examples, please.

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chamaeleon
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,269
Re: RAWK Posting Guidelines - Some Slight Changes
« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2012, 12:40:19 AM »
I locked it.
Yep.