New forum rules. Please vote

vanderaj Administrator a suffusion of yellow

3,130 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 14 Mar 2006, 9:34 am

#463868

Hi there,

Over the last week, there has been some discussion about reviewing and simplifying our existing rules, as certain people seem to have difficulty complying with the current ones.

Please read this, make suggestions and vote on if you like it or not. If most people like it by April 1, 2006, we will put the final amended version up for an official vote.

Thank you for joining Aussieveedubbers. We only have a few rules, so please take the time to read and understand them. If you accept, please click the "I accept" button below.

Just like any car club, we are a tightly knit community, with many families, young members and dedicated enthusiasts. Please post friendly and refrain from slagging people off. Enjoy your time here, and don't spoil it for anyone else.

Don't post copyrighted materials or about illegal things, and don't defame anyone.

We have an adults only area for more mature (and often very immature) topics. You can request access to this area if you're interested and are over 18. Please keep all such topics in that area.

If your posts do not adhere to the spirit of the above three rules, we reserve the right to delete or move them without warning, or ban you if you are in our opinion a troublemaker. If banned, we will - without any warning - re-ban any new user you manage to create.

If you find any posts which may breach the spirit of these rules, please use the "Report" button found on the top right of the post. We'll act on these reports as quickly as we can.

The administrators and moderators of the forum can't (and don't) look at every post, so we are not responsible for posts made by our members. If you do not understand or wish to discuss these rules, please use the "Contact Us" feature.

Please enjoy your stay with us, and post often!

If you have suggestions for improvements, please post here. Our existing rules will continue to apply until the final vote is undertaken.

koolkarmakombi enkarmarising

2,078 posts · joined Jun 2003 · 14 Mar 2006, 9:51 am

#463875

reads well mate

This disclaimer does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my dog: don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; this disclaimer is subject to change without notice; text is slightly enlarged to show detail; resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and coincidental; dry clean only; do not bend, fold, or mutilate; anchovies or jalapenos added to this disclaimer upon request; your mileage may vary; no substitutions are allowed; for a limited time only while supplies last; offer void where prohibited; this disclaimer is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied

shaihulud Custom Title Time!

1,448 posts · joined Nov 2005 · 14 Mar 2006, 9:58 am

#463882

That seems OK to me. If asked to, I'll agree to those terms.

Gibbo Custom Title Time!

1,685 posts · joined Jun 2004 · 14 Mar 2006, 10:04 am

#463886

Coolio

Midlife crisis Nartispuddlejumper, Bureau of Toxicity

2,282 posts · joined May 2003 · 14 Mar 2006, 10:33 am

#463898

Sounds fair to us.

Marc & Kathy

If you can't laugh at yourself you can't laugh at anyone else! Because life is to short not to LAUGH

modulus Veteran Volks Folk

2,009 posts · joined Jul 2003 · 14 Mar 2006, 11:40 am

#463912

Whilst I would have no problem with accepting the proposed wording, and I fully understand the ongoing frustration caused by moderating a forum like this, I think this new draft is a retrograde step.

The current rules (with which I also have no problem, and *attempt* to comply) have a number of specific provisions which are missing from the new draft and the atttempt to simplify the rules seems to have resulted in somewhat vague language which I suspect may lead to more problems than it solves. Specifically,

- I'm not sure what "post friendly and refrain from slagging people off" means

- equally I'm not sure what "more mature topics" are

- the wording "or about illegal things" is both simulataneously vague and overly-inclusiveness (I can't post about speeding? - probably not what you intended)

- the current rules specifically prohibit "Nudity, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations.." inter alia. If the intention is to replace the current "Board Rules" with the draft above, it is only a matter of time before someone claims that any one of these is permitted, by not being specifically prohibited.

- in attempting to simplify, there are other important provisions in the current rules which appear to be eliminated, such as fencing off the BB developers and administrators from improper postings by members; as has been shown on other forums, there needs to be adequate protection for those folk

- numerous other areas where the current Board Rules are clear and the proposed simplification just looks less effective or substitute a feel-good fuziness for specific provisions

I am not sure what would be gained by watering-down or dumbing-down the rules; those posters who currently disregard the existing rules will no doubt disregard the new set, but you may inadvertently weaken the admin. and moderators' position by simplification and vagueness. My gut feeling is that a combination of greater literal consistency of application of the rules and ruthlessness in that application may be needed, but I can't see that the proposed draft is going to achieve a better outcome than the current clear and more comprehensive rule set.

I've voted "don't like it", but my intent was to question whether it will address the current concerns rather than bag the drafting.

Regards,

Peter Hill
1975 Type 2 Double Cab
modulus.com.au

Scarlet Seriously Crusin Dubber

181 posts · joined Mar 2006 · 14 Mar 2006, 12:02 pm

#463927

I like the simplified idea....even if it makes it a bit subjective...
I think it keeps things friendly and open
thats my fitty sents.... minus the nasty rap lyrics of course
snigger

......-----......
....|:kiss |.....
..(o(_|_)o)......
....U......U.......

baybuscamperkid prince of insufficient light, ruler of heck

4,316 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 14 Mar 2006, 3:31 pm

#463984

i do like the new one for its reader-friendlyness, but after reading modulus' post, maybe it would be necessary/wise to adda "for a more detalied description of this forums rules" button where those who are interested can investigate the more legally correct version of the rules

Reimagined/Recycled/Upcycled Cool

twoguns simply aircooled

4,275 posts · joined Nov 2002 · 14 Mar 2006, 4:44 pm

#464008

modulus wrote:Whilst I would have no problem with accepting the proposed wording, and I fully understand the ongoing frustration caused by moderating a forum like this, I think this new draft is a retrograde step.

The current rules (with which I also have no problem, and *attempt* to comply) have a number of specific provisions which are missing from the new draft and the atttempt to simplify the rules seems to have resulted in somewhat vague language which I suspect may lead to more problems than it solves. Specifically,

- I'm not sure what "post friendly and refrain from slagging people off" means

- equally I'm not sure what "more mature topics" are

- the wording "or about illegal things" is both simulataneously vague and overly-inclusiveness (I can't post about speeding? - probably not what you intended)

- the current rules specifically prohibit "Nudity, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations.." inter alia. If the intention is to replace the current "Board Rules" with the draft above, it is only a matter of time before someone claims that any one of these is permitted, by not being specifically prohibited.

- in attempting to simplify, there are other important provisions in the current rules which appear to be eliminated, such as fencing off the BB developers and administrators from improper postings by members; as has been shown on other forums, there needs to be adequate protection for those folk

- numerous other areas where the current Board Rules are clear and the proposed simplification just looks less effective or substitute a feel-good fuziness for specific provisions

I am not sure what would be gained by watering-down or dumbing-down the rules; those posters who currently disregard the existing rules will no doubt disregard the new set, but you may inadvertently weaken the admin. and moderators' position by simplification and vagueness. My gut feeling is that a combination of greater literal consistency of application of the rules and ruthlessness in that application may be needed, but I can't see that the proposed draft is going to achieve a better outcome than the current clear and more comprehensive rule set.

I've voted "don't like it", but my intent was to question whether it will address the current concerns rather than bag the drafting.

Regards,

these were my first thoughts exactly, but i have less vocabulary to explain it any better.:P.
i also dont see the reasoning for the change.
the new rules are more basic, agreed. but they also seem to lend themselves to more 'interpretation' depending on how/who it suits.
some how this seems to be going back to the rules prior to the existing. i thought they were changed to make everything more defined.

these are obviously teh general rules, but not relating to specific 'buy/sell' and other topic threads? is that still another section?

Simply Cruzin'...

DOUBLECAB Unwanted member

915 posts · joined May 2005 · 14 Mar 2006, 6:56 pm

#464086

My 2 cents worth.....I basically agree with 'modulus'....in otherwords (my words now).... create/have a SPECIFIC BILL of RIGHTS that defines exactly or at least as specific as possible the do s and don'ts and then there is no problem of crucifying the transgressors...and that includes me....if I transgress.

'User friendly' is a 'politically correct copout' that wont face the reality of the fact that 'some people' will always try to get a free ride.....nail the hypocrites and cheats.

:jesus amen brothers & sisters:kiss

PrettyBlueBug Almost over it...

2,032 posts · joined May 2005 · 15 Mar 2006, 1:13 pm

#464331

So we are expected to think of every little thing in order for people to have it in black & white as to what they can/can't do?

There'll always be people who get around that and disrupt things anyway then say " but it doesn't say it in the rules'... I believe in simple things often being the best, so that's my two cents.

vanderaj Administrator a suffusion of yellow

3,130 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 15 Mar 2006, 10:31 pm

#464513

The aims of this rule change are simple: fewer, easier to remember rules makes it easier to comply with them. We're not trying to make this place into the Fourth Reich, and I know many are sick and tired of the bitching and moaning in Buying and Selling.

I think most of us want a (mostly) family-friendly, easy going atmosphere where people can get to know each other and become friends through a common passion for VWs, hook up for drives and events, and find a car or a part or two without grief.

Simpler rules should make this a bit easier. But being simpler, they have to be a bit more vague to allow us some leeway when someone comes on only to shit stir, annoy, spam or defame someone. There's usually only one or two troublemakers spoiling it for the other 4889 of us.

thanks,
Andrew

62deluxe Custom Title Time!

1,718 posts · joined Nov 2002 · 17 Mar 2006, 1:35 am

#464979

I couldn't agree more. What vanderj said is spot on. It should be a place where we can enjoy our common love for VWs. Not a place for for politics and slatting of other members who do not neccesarily agree with our point of view.
The simpified rules make alot of sense- but I do think that we need something more comprehensive to cover our butts at certain times.....
Just my 2 cents.

Schmoburger Baywindow Mafia Godfather and Cement-Shoe Fitter

2,185 posts · joined Oct 2005 · 17 Mar 2006, 1:50 am

#464983

I'd be another on the "agree with Modulus" gravy train... it is the flawed people who ignore the current rules that are the nut of the problem, nothing to do with having flawed rules... anyone who understands basic English should be able to comprehend their meaning and live by them. It's like moving to a foreign country... one chooses to live there, then one is automatically electing to live by that countries federal laws...and if one flaunt the rules, one ends up facing a firing squad...plain and simple.. Same principle applies to a forum.

As has been said already, by simplifying the rules, you immediately give a big stick to the few trolls on here, who say "OOOHOHO BUT IIIII TAKE THIS TO MEAN [insert bullshit here]!... you didnt say I cant blah blah blah bullshit bullshit in the rules so you suck!"

In short... leave em as they are... if the other 98% of decent members on here can comprehend and adhere to the regs, then why should administration be bending to the few scumbags or pains in the ass who cant get it right?...if they break a specific rule continually, why not just boot there sorry ass for good, instead of trying to pussyfoot around them.... obviously they disagree with the rules that were set out before they signed up, so they have no place here.

if it aint broke... why bloody fix it?

Just my 10 bob worth...

1976 Kombi Trakka camper, "Buttercup"... driver.
1976 Beluxe Microbus, "Saphir"... resto.
1974 Kombi panelvan, "George"... shed.
1974 Superbug, "Schmeetle"... resto.
[img]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b366/c

twoguns simply aircooled

4,275 posts · joined Nov 2002 · 17 Mar 2006, 6:27 am

#465001

Schmoburger wrote:I'd be another on the "agree with Modulus" gravy train... it is the flawed people who ignore the current rules that are the nut of the problem, nothing to do with having flawed rules... anyone who understands basic English should be able to comprehend their meaning and live by them. It's like moving to a foreign country... one chooses to live there, then one is automatically electing to live by that countries federal laws...and if one flaunt the rules, one ends up facing a firing squad...plain and simple.. Same principle applies to a forum.

As has been said already, by simplifying the rules, you immediately give a big stick to the few trolls on here, who say "OOOHOHO BUT IIIII TAKE THIS TO MEAN [insert bullshit here]!... you didnt say I cant blah blah blah bullshit bullshit in the rules so you suck!"

In short... leave em as they are... if the other 98% of decent members on here can comprehend and adhere to the regs, then why should administration be bending to the few scumbags or pains in the ass who cant get it right?...if they break a specific rule continually, why not just boot there sorry ass for good, instead of trying to pussyfoot around them.... obviously they disagree with the rules that were set out before they signed up, so they have no place here.

if it aint broke... why bloody fix it?

Just my 10 bob worth...

yeah but i wonder if making them simplier makes them more bendable by both sides.
it seems andrew that some mods have a hard time with teh rules also.

Simply Cruzin'...

Schmoburger Baywindow Mafia Godfather and Cement-Shoe Fitter

2,185 posts · joined Oct 2005 · 17 Mar 2006, 10:17 am

#465072

Good point... I agree with that also.

1976 Kombi Trakka camper, "Buttercup"... driver.
1976 Beluxe Microbus, "Saphir"... resto.
1974 Kombi panelvan, "George"... shed.
1974 Superbug, "Schmeetle"... resto.
[img]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b366/c

h fractals - an ever changing lifestyle

7,671 posts · joined Feb 2005 · 18 Mar 2006, 12:24 am

#465369

hey.. look i liked the 'dumb it down' version, its fairly straight forward and even a 'less than fortunate' could figure it out and not get bogged down in the reading of it..
although it may be constude as 'politically correct' and 'open to interpretation' its still fairly nice and basic..
my 2 bob anyways,
i gave it a tick.. cheers

[ Edited on 17-3-2006 by h ]

fractal geometry; the inner most limits of mind altering abuse

Fantasy http://seventhchronicle.com

Z = Z2 + C1/r = 1/0 = infinity

Barrels www.barrelman.com.au

VW Workshop - aircooledgarage.com.au
allcooled.com.au

DOUBLECAB Unwanted member

915 posts · joined May 2005 · 18 Mar 2006, 12:52 am

#465374

vanderaj wrote:The aims of this rule change are simple: fewer, easier to remember rules makes it easier to comply with them.

:o Isnt that like saying....'no rules makes it a breeze'?

We're not trying to make this place into the Fourth Reich,

:o Just curious....and just stop and think about it for more than 2 secs....'whats wrong with defining the paramaters?'

and I know many are sick and tired of the bitching and moaning in Buying and Selling.

:o Is that where the problem lies?

I think most of us want a (mostly) family-friendly, easy going atmosphere where people can get to know each other and become friends through a common passion for VWs, hook up for drives and events, and find a car or a part or two without grief.

:o yep.......but dont get that confused with the ideology/pricipals of BA!

Simpler rules should make this a bit easier. But being simpler, they have to be a bit more vague to allow us some leeway when someone comes on only to shit stir, annoy, spam or defame someone.

:o As I said ....BA and ..."I think most of us want a (mostly) family-friendly, easy going atmosphere where people can get to know each other and become friends through a common passion for VWs, hook up for drives and events, and find a car or a part or two without grief' are two different things.....thats why there is BA!

:oKindly dont confuse the two.

There's usually only one or two troublemakers spoiling it for the other 4889 of us.

:o Don't know whether this is specifically directed/pointed at me.................or whether the shoe fits and I should wear it..........however as this forum has BA and most of my time on this forum is spent in BA, I believe BA fills a integeral part of AVD as a considerable no of members avail/participate in the antics of BA......for whatever reason.

There's usually only one or two troublemakers spoiling it for the other 4889 of us.

:o.. As U have gone this far....why not go all the way and be totally specific and tell us who they are (in your opinion) and why?

thanks,
Andrew

Thanks ..doublecab.

buzzbox Seriously Crusin Dubber

149 posts · joined Dec 2005 · 18 Mar 2006, 7:11 pm

#465516

A vote for.
I doubt that I personally will have any difficulty complying with these rules..as there is always BA.
However, simple rules will always be open for broad interpretation.
So I like the idea of keeping the old ones as a more defined subset of rules to fall back on if 'hair splitting' must come into play, after all they have evolved out of experience.
Just look at how many bookshelves a lawyer needs.

bog'n'grumble

Volkswagenboy Staggers Automotive.

2,437 posts · joined Jul 2005 · 18 Mar 2006, 7:18 pm

#465519

Adults Only Area? Huh?
-Staggers.

STAGGERS AUTOMOTIVE - Heavy Vehicle Diesel Specialist

JB CUSTOMS & CLASSICS - Car Builders

2/53 Tradelink Drive, Browns Plains

twoguns simply aircooled

4,275 posts · joined Nov 2002 · 20 Mar 2006, 8:50 pm

#466266

understanding the need for simplier rules... when even the best of them can not abide by the exisiting! :duh

Simply Cruzin'...

helbus Administrator Mad fabricator, paint and body

7,386 posts · joined Sep 2002 · 20 Mar 2006, 9:39 pm

#466306

I agree with the simpler rules. The most important thing to remember is that at the end of the day the forum is made of the people that frequent it.

I hear the bit about simpler rules make it easier for them to be swayed by members and/ or mods. There is a pretty democratic process in what the mods do when it comes to mod's functions and processes on this forum. Remember there is a "Report" button in the top right hand corner of every post. It is the members that are bringing certain things to our attention and that is what we act on. So in actual fact it is more so the members running the forum. Mods and admin only operate on what the majority of members want/need.

Positive posts help the forum grow. Negative comments are certainly not favourable. The concensus based on what gets reported proves this.

In my own opinion, I suggest everyone makes their next twenty posts as positive as possible and those that do will see the difference in forum atmosphere and will continue to do so. Even if you are already doing it, go even further with the feeling good posts.

Ohmmmmmmmmmm. I must have my Chai tea now.

Hippy in a Helbus 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

EJ22 into Bay Microbus - Finished project build thread- click on this spot here for info

vanderaj Administrator a suffusion of yellow

3,130 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 20 Mar 2006, 10:39 pm

#466335

Volkswagenboy1 wrote:Adults Only Area? Huh?
-Staggers.

Yep. It's called Bad Attitude, and it's at the bottom of the forum listings. If you want the password, U2U me or any of the mods and tell us (honestly) that you're over 18.

Andrew

Stealth Ich Leibe mein Kastenwagen!

1,021 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 24 Mar 2006, 10:19 am

#467355

Let's go Andrew, make the rules active. Then we can start to rid the forum of the shit on ths forum and make this forum back to talking about VW's, not non related crap that is taking up valuble band width.

Clean up time.

STEALTH

Spook Driving the 64 wheeler

1,168 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 25 Mar 2006, 6:40 pm

#467878

A while back we thrashed out a set of rules, each member put in a bit & I even recall giving you the proverbial pat on the back for the final draft Andrew.

Then the rules got bent slightly to create "bad attitude"
From memory the excuse was"people sailing to close to the rules". I still don't agree with that decision & don't go near it on principle.

Now this. A complete backflip.
And the reason; "......as certain people seem to have difficulty complying with current ones"

Under the current ones - the ones newbies agreed to before they wrote their first post -the ones existing members agreed to before they wrote their next post- shouldn't they be banned??
So now we are going change the rules to acommodate "certain people".
This is cowardice at best, corruption at worst.

So I'll ask a direct question; Who are you afraid to ban or which of your friends don't you want to ban??

Then there's this gem:

vanderaj wrote:Simpler rules should make this a bit easier. But being simpler, they have to be a bit more vague to allow us some leeway when someone comes on only to shit stir, annoy, spam or defame someone. There's usually only one or two troublemakers spoiling it for the other 4889 of us.

thanks,
Andrew

That's a contradiction in terms Andrew.
You can't have vague rules. The english language doesn't allow it.
You can have guidelines or you can have rules. A guidline is exactly that, but a rule, by definition is set terms.

Of couse the other bit- is it 'certain people' or 'one or two trouble makers' ? And the question still remains why haven't either or both groups been banned?

But I must say, what pisses me off the most is the arguement that you, yourself, put up about needing rules. Then the ensuing debate about how the rules should be set out (6 pages from memory).
Now, because it no longer suits you, your gunna go F#CK IT.

I've said it before Andrew; you don't do anything to change my opinion.

Well my friends are gone & my hair is grey, I ache in the places where I used to play.

twoguns simply aircooled

4,275 posts · joined Nov 2002 · 25 Mar 2006, 6:47 pm

#467883

Spook wrote:A while back we thrashed out a set of rules, each member put in a bit & I even recall giving you the proverbial pat on the back for the final draft Andrew.

Then the rules got bent slightly to create "bad attitude"
From memory the excuse was"people sailing to close to the rules". I still don't agree with that decision & don't go near it on principle.

Now this. A complete backflip.
And the reason; "......as certain people seem to have difficulty complying with current ones"

Under the current ones - the ones newbies agreed to before they wrote their first post -the ones existing members agreed to before they wrote their next post- shouldn't they be banned??
So now we are going change the rules to acommodate "certain people".
This is cowardice at best, corruption at worst.

So I'll ask a direct question; Who are you afraid to ban or which of your friends don't you want to ban??

Then there's this gem:
vanderaj wrote:Simpler rules should make this a bit easier. But being simpler, they have to be a bit more vague to allow us some leeway when someone comes on only to shit stir, annoy, spam or defame someone. There's usually only one or two troublemakers spoiling it for the other 4889 of us.

thanks,
Andrew
That's a contradiction in terms Andrew.
You can't have vague rules. The english language doesn't allow it.
You can have guidelines or you can have rules. A guidline is exactly that, but a rule, by definition is set terms.

Of couse the other bit- is it 'certain people' or 'one or two trouble makers' ? And the question still remains why haven't either or both groups been banned?

But I must say, what pisses me off the most is the arguement that you, yourself, put up about needing rules. Then the ensuing debate about how the rules should be set out (6 pages from memory).
Now, because it no longer suits you, your gunna go F#CK IT.

I've said it before Andrew; you don't do anything to change my opinion.

i feel good, taht i am not the only person seeing the double standards that do exist.

thanks spook.

Simply Cruzin'...

Spook Driving the 64 wheeler

1,168 posts · joined Aug 2002 · 25 Mar 2006, 7:21 pm

#467888

Bad attitude was double standards, this is something different.

But it makes the entire debate we had the first time a joke.

How can the administrator justify making his own arguements null & void??

[ Edited on 25-3-2006 by Spook ]

Well my friends are gone & my hair is grey, I ache in the places where I used to play.

lobus Wolfsburg Wizard

618 posts · joined Dec 2002 · 25 Mar 2006, 8:06 pm

#467896

Spook wrote:Bad attitude was double standards, this is something different.

But it makes the entire debate we had the first time a joke.

How can the administrator justify making his own arguements null & void??

[ Edited on 25-3-2006 by Spook ]

because he has his hand on the button that switches the whole shebang off.
"certain people" and "one or two individuals" is just ambiguous double speak.
name names or ban names I reckon, but then "certain people " wou;d miss out on all the fun of playing super duper power bullshit games

.

The_Bronze. Minister of Volkswagenism

1,922 posts · joined Sep 2002 · 26 Mar 2006, 9:48 am

#467987

...and around it goes. 🙄

Hi everyone.

Bronze.

Rathmines, Lake Macquarie, NSW.

bugbrained Officially Full-On Dubber

368 posts · joined Apr 2006 · 25 Apr 2006, 8:09 am

#480096

wow im only new to AVD and i think i might have broken the rules allready ,i posted on general chit chat ( guy wants to go to valla ) now am i just getting paranoid should i have posted that in the adult section even though it was only meant to be a light hearted dig at how hard it is being a guy and getting places . does that mean i might be voted off of AVD or am i just a paranoid new member . so far ive enjoyed my experience on here and look forward in reading other people points of views ( we are all different ) and dont allways aggree with other peoples views . i hope i havnt broken the rules and i do aggree there is a standard we should all try and stick to . now ive got that off my chest i just want to say id still love to go to valla and i hope i havnt offended anyone in any way shape or form .
regards bugbrained ( am i just being paranoid now let me know )