1
General Questions and Discussion / Change your board username or delete your account
« on: January 17, 2008, 05:19:19 PM »
Hello! Can my username be changed to just Puff ? Thanks~
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: 1
2
General Questions and Discussion / Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss
« on: November 03, 2007, 09:32:41 PM »
[quote name='Marie' post='218213' date='Nov 1 2007, 06:11 PM'][quote name='Mistress Puff' post='218211' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:49 PM']Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD[/quote]
But this is the exact reason that we don't allow 4+ relationships. The argument that everyone is presenting thus far is for the applicant to provide "proof" that the relationship is meaningful - but those are both variable terms. What is proof for a relationship to one person might be proof against the same relationship for someone else; something meaningful to one is not meaningful to others. Providing "proof" in this kind of situation basically just means "interpretations", and while several may be based on actual fact, they are still a form of opinion. This would put the staff in the position of approving or discrediting someone's opinions/beliefs and that's not fair to any involved. [/quote]
That's true too.. I dunno, maybe it's just the initial fact there is a 3 character cap per relationship. It honestly baffles me, especially when you compare it to TFL's 10 character cap. Now I'm not saying we should open it up to 10, but at least consider 4.. It's as if we don't want TAFL to grow a little bit more. It confuses me a bit too why some might think we would see a surge of spammy relationships.
Even if the original post was anonymous, at least someone voiced their opinions, so kudos to them. I don't think things are ever going to change here as far as rules go. But at least you can tell that somethings around the board have changed a bit. Anyway.. I completely agree with Larissa's point -- I think this is a dead little horsey.. Things are just gonna get repeated more and more..
But this is the exact reason that we don't allow 4+ relationships. The argument that everyone is presenting thus far is for the applicant to provide "proof" that the relationship is meaningful - but those are both variable terms. What is proof for a relationship to one person might be proof against the same relationship for someone else; something meaningful to one is not meaningful to others. Providing "proof" in this kind of situation basically just means "interpretations", and while several may be based on actual fact, they are still a form of opinion. This would put the staff in the position of approving or discrediting someone's opinions/beliefs and that's not fair to any involved. [/quote]
That's true too.. I dunno, maybe it's just the initial fact there is a 3 character cap per relationship. It honestly baffles me, especially when you compare it to TFL's 10 character cap. Now I'm not saying we should open it up to 10, but at least consider 4.. It's as if we don't want TAFL to grow a little bit more. It confuses me a bit too why some might think we would see a surge of spammy relationships.
Even if the original post was anonymous, at least someone voiced their opinions, so kudos to them. I don't think things are ever going to change here as far as rules go. But at least you can tell that somethings around the board have changed a bit. Anyway.. I completely agree with Larissa's point -- I think this is a dead little horsey.. Things are just gonna get repeated more and more..
3
General Questions and Discussion / Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss
« on: November 01, 2007, 05:49:32 PM »
[quote name='Lexa' post='218137' date='Nov 1 2007, 01:27 AM']Also, the rule about approvals and the staffer's "final say": You're right, that rule is in place to make sure that the subjects we're approving are actually worthwhile approvals, and it generally has nothing to do with the person applying. In I/L, for example, I've rejected numerous fanlistings that were just small off-hand things (or strange things, like people's groins). I'm not really sure why you would need an extra box on the application, though, when you could just explain it in the main comments box. XD[/quote]
Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD Personally, I love the "More Info" box in TFL, because I always feel the need to provide a staffer with more information beforehand. I would feel bad if my application made the staffer lose even 5 minutes of her spare time by trying to look up further information. You're the fan, so you're going to know the best resources for the said subject.
I would be perfectly happy with seeing a cap at 4 characters per relationship. It doesn't have to be 5+... Obviously, any amount of characters that can qualify as a group is too much. And for those who argued that a character group could be run instead, that's not fair to the subjects who aren't necessarily considered a group. They could just be friends traveling together -- Like on Pokemon or on Outlaw Star...
Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD Personally, I love the "More Info" box in TFL, because I always feel the need to provide a staffer with more information beforehand. I would feel bad if my application made the staffer lose even 5 minutes of her spare time by trying to look up further information. You're the fan, so you're going to know the best resources for the said subject.
I would be perfectly happy with seeing a cap at 4 characters per relationship. It doesn't have to be 5+... Obviously, any amount of characters that can qualify as a group is too much. And for those who argued that a character group could be run instead, that's not fair to the subjects who aren't necessarily considered a group. They could just be friends traveling together -- Like on Pokemon or on Outlaw Star...
4
General Questions and Discussion / Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss
« on: October 27, 2007, 06:13:23 PM »
I do think that some things need to be discussed between the board members and the moderators of this board... A perfect example is the
upcoming and pending rules -- We never heard back about that.
I definitely agree that the 6 upcoming and 3 pending rule is very low -- Mostly because of the amount of time updates are made. If updates were more frequent like they are on TFL, then maybe it would be "proportional", but when you're waiting 2-6 weeks for your finished form to get processed, that's not exactly fair.
I believe that there should be a way to approve legitimate 4+ character relationships. And if it's about what is legitimate in a staffers eyes because one is unfamiliar with the series, then there should be a 'more information about the subject' section on the application. That way the applicant can prove that the relationship is legitimate...
I am glad that a lot of these things were pointed out... I look forward to hearing how this post will progress!
upcoming and pending rules -- We never heard back about that.
I definitely agree that the 6 upcoming and 3 pending rule is very low -- Mostly because of the amount of time updates are made. If updates were more frequent like they are on TFL, then maybe it would be "proportional", but when you're waiting 2-6 weeks for your finished form to get processed, that's not exactly fair.
I believe that there should be a way to approve legitimate 4+ character relationships. And if it's about what is legitimate in a staffers eyes because one is unfamiliar with the series, then there should be a 'more information about the subject' section on the application. That way the applicant can prove that the relationship is legitimate...
I am glad that a lot of these things were pointed out... I look forward to hearing how this post will progress!
5
General Questions and Discussion / Dead FLs
« on: June 13, 2007, 01:22:20 PM »
Like Genevieve, I hate linking to dead sites.. So I delete them ( especially if they're removed from TFL or here -- Otherwise I try to update the link )!
I try to do a clean up once every couple of months so that it doesn't get too messy. :0
I try to do a clean up once every couple of months so that it doesn't get too messy. :0
Pages: 1