This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.
Comment: Rather trivial issue being used to air out personal tension between specific users. Clearly this is not an issue which needs a forum, just a bit of BP:UCS. Oh, and I dislike how it is veering towards personal attacks.
Today, Berrybrick banned me on chat for posting a link to one of my MOCpages creations, he said because it was advertising. I think we should allow MOCpages creations, not classing it as advertising, because I just want people to see what I built. What are your thoughts?
NOTE: The chat rule says no WEBSITES, not no PAGES. MOCpages is not my website, so I was perfectly within my rights.
There's no reason that you can't right now. Berry was out of line, simple as that. BF2 Talk 22:22, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah there is, it depends on how you interpret the rule. And I did not ban him for advertising, I only warned him. I banned him for personal attacks. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:23, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
If the link wasn't the problem, why not take down this forum? βʊʛ™Ʈҩƪҡ - Customs 22:28, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be better for somebody who is neutral to do that. But like Drew said, in the current form of the chat rules, we already don't allow this. If we learn anything from this reaction forum, it's that we should change "website" to "website, creation, etc.". But to be fair, if he did it again, that would be his third warning and I would have banned him for that. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Because the link wasn't part of the issue, I'm in favor of allowing links to MOCs. βʊʛ™Ʈҩƪҡ - Customs 22:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Look up the definition, it is advertising. --Berrybrick(Talk) 00:18, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Don't allow[]
Having too many is way too anoying. And you've done this alot. Whenever something goes bad on chat, you either make a forum to de-mod the user or other things --Czech 22:13, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize you created this forum, but we technically can't allow them unless the rule is removed. Drewlzoo
First: Apparently, you wee also banned for personal attacks, although I only know what BB says. Second: Why would we want people to advertise? If it is in context, in tone with the conversation that is going on (say we were talking about MOCpages, or a certain type of creation...) then fine, you can link to your MOCs.. But randomly saying "here, look at this!" in the middle of a conversation is borderline spamming. -CligraJoin the redlink war!
First of all, the conversation was random and erratic. Secondly, the supposed PA was because I said " *Gets into mech and aims at BB". BB's reaction was a bit too much, I wasn't going to add anything to that thought.
Said NOTHING about it being a water pistol. Just shut up and accept your fate. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:26, May 30, 2012 (UTC) 22:26, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
The assumation is that is a gun, armed to kill or injure someone. Guns are considered threatning. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 22:28, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at the conversation, it wasn't random and erratic. It was people saying hi to Cligra. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:37, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Don't allow Unless it is relevant to the conversation. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 22:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Comments[]
What Berrybrick has to say[]
I gave you two warnings for advertising, I banned you for personally attacking me. The chat rules specifically say not to advertise your own personal works, something like "while your work might be cool, not everybody wants to hear about it." Believe it or not, I'm flexible with this rule, as long as it is on topic, whatever, that's fine. But you just give these links in the middle of conversations and seem to try and switch the conversation over to yourself.
And what do you mean that it shouldn't be classed as advertising? It is by definition: "the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising." (From Dictionary.com) --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:14, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
I'm NOT trying to get customers, just showing people what I have made.
Well, you're right, that part isn't relevant, but for the most part, the rest of it is. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:17, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to say, in regard to to NOTE that the rules do say website, but would this really be any different if you linked to your MOC on your own personal website? The way I saw it, website was an example. It said don't advertise, and then "not everybody may want to see your website" which just gives reasons why people wouldn't want to see it. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:33, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
The point is that you aren't supposed to link to your MOC. The way this is going, I'll end up posting a rant about you. Honestly, you are bugging me more than anyone has since JMS left. The world doesn't revolve around you. Not everyone is impressed with you. Not everybody wants to hear about your MOCs, on a a subpage or on a website owned by another party, unless relevant to the conversation, and this was not.--Berrybrick(Talk) 22:36, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
The way the conversation was going, which was totally random, it wasn't irrelevant at all.
Why don't we just not have chat. That would solve all the problems like that. If chat is causing a problem, then why should we use it? Chargetalk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 01:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
What SuperSpyX has to say[]
So Berry doesn't want to look at my mocs, fine! I'm not forcing him to. Other people like to look at my mocs, also fine! People are allowed to have their own opinions, just don't try and get rid of something because YOU don't like it and you want things YOUR way. And even if the chat rules give examples, they say NOTHING about links to things like mocpages, that is just what you have interpreted it to say.
THE POINT IS THAT IT IS AGAINST THE RULES! I NEVER SAID I DIDN'T LIKE YOUR MOCS (AND IF I DID, I MISSPOKE). YOU AREN'T SUPPPOSED TO ADVERTISE. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? DO YOU REALLY EXECT THEM TO BE THAT SPECIFIC? IT SAID DON'T ADVERTISE, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? WHO WROTE THE RULES ANYWAY? AJR? JAG? NXT? I'LL CHECK AND ASK THEM, IF THEY DON'T HEAR THE YELLING. --Berrybrick(Talk) 22:47, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
WHY CAN'T I JUST POST A SINGLE SOLITARY LINK??? I WAS NOT CAUSING A DISRUPTION. I'M FEELING LIKE I AM BEING STEPPED ALL OVER BY ADMINS WHO ARE JUMPING ON THE LEAST LITTLE THING. THIS IS NOT MAKING ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT ADMINS.
@ Berrybrick: As a matter of fact, I wrote that rule. @SSX: Someone who doesn't like the admins? Now that's something new... -CligraJoin the redlink war!
What KoN has to say[]
Good grief, I'm glad I wasn't on chat at the time. But here's how I see it: Someone wanted to post a link to a MOC they've made and are proud of to share with others and get CCs from them. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so, this is a LEGO site after all. The problem is when said user continually posts links to said MOC or MOCs, causing others to get annoyed. I think once is enough, (the link shouldn't have to be a Customs page on here. Many of our users host MOCs on different sites, let's not get jealous, that's silly). If the user posts a second link without anyone on chat's specific request, then they should be given one warning. Posting the first link shouldn't have to be relevant to a conversation, as new conversations arise every ten seconds on chat, we're like that here.
So yeah, that's my humble opinion for those interested. Also consider it a new proposal. (saved after SEVEN editconflicts) - 22:56, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
If he had given us a warning that he wanted C&C, fine then, but he didn't as you can see from the screenshots, it was not relevant. It's not like interrupting hellos is a big deal, but he has been warned for this before, so he should know better. --Berrybrick(Talk) 23:01, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
I wrote that post before the multitude of editconflicts so I didn't get to see the screenshots. And yeah, I guess, but we definitely need tougher rules about MOC-linking if things like this forum are going to happen. Thus, my proposal. - 23:08, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
If they specifically say something like "What do you think?" or "C&C please", even though that would be kind of rude in a conversation. If they even just asked to post a link though, I'm fine. But othwise, I wouldn't support that. --Berrybrick(Talk) 23:10, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
What Legend Czech has to say[]
Well, I was there in chat, I may not have been speaking, but I saw what happened. As soon as I joined, I saw SSX posting a link to his MOCpages, then he did it again, Berry warned him (I think) then he continued, attacked Berrybrick and got himself kicked. HOWEVER: Posting a link in chat, more than once, no matter what the subject is SPAM. And lastly, SSX is KNOWN to do these drastic things after having bad chats. I have three examples: When I kicked SSX for being rude to Evanf, who also got kicked, he put a de-mod forum, saying I was a "bad mod". Another time was, when Ajr kicked him for being racist, a talk page war started, then Ajr got very mad, so this is the last straw, really. -- Czech
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO[]
JUST USE COMMON SENSE AND STOP MAKING MASSIVE FORUMS FOR ME TO SKIP THROUGH IN ANNOYANCE AT THE SHEER POINTLESSNESS. OBVIOUSLY ONE LINK ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD AND SPAMMING THEM IS BAD AND SO LETS JUST USE OUR BRAINS AND NOT CREATE A BAZILLION RULES ON HOW TO USE CHAT AND GET ON LIKE CIVILIZED PEOPLES.
