Forum Rules

[timbp]

Did you miss this paragraph in the rules?

I did see it on my first browse through the rules, but missed it when I made my post.

But I think it illustrates my point -- that paragraph ought to be all the rules we need. Everything beyond that becomes legislation and disputable. That para says post according to community rules as defined by moderators, complain if you don't think a moderator is fair.

[Andy McGregor]

However, as Anti-Dullness Moderator I find myself boring and am now giving myself an infraction for being dull.

YIPPEE!!! My 5 days self-imposed ban for dullness are now expired.

As self-appointed dullness moderator I will be giving further notices of Infractions to other Forumites. In my version of the rules being rude is not an offence, the other, boring, moderators can handle that difficult chetnut. Also, I will be making notices of infractions public. Just so you know, infractions will be given for the following;

1. Being boring or dull
2. Being too luvvified
3. Being arrogant (note to self: be careful on this one )
4. Being thick
5. Persistent and annoying bad spelling
6. Giving bad dance advice as if you know it all

Of course some of the 'official' moderators may view the giving of these infractions as breaking one of their many rules. Time will tell.

[David Bailey]

...chetnut...
... 5. Persistent and annoying bad spelling...
.

I feel duty-bound to report that one to you

And what's your position on multiple exclamation marks?

[fletch]

4. Being thick
5. Persistent and annoying bad spellin

.

Guilty as charged your honour

Still not going anywhere though

[Andy McGregor]

I feel duty-bound to report that one to you

And what's your position on multiple exclamation marks?

I will be making allowances for typos

My position on exclamation marks is that, in normal discourse, three is the maximum. Of course there will be exceptions and I will use my judgement and will not apply the rules like sweeties, my name's not David James