# Café: ACTUAL RULES



## Stealth Tomato (Feb 1, 2008)

Okay, some of you seem to have gotten the idea that a minor news story gives you the freedom to link to it, gloss over it, and then shove your opinion into the Cafe to start a fight.

Sorry, folks, that's a debate post.  Please put it where it belongs.

*NEW CAFE RULES*
*1. No YouTube.*
Youtube videos are not enough to start a topic.  If you have news, post a text story.  If you want to start a debate, please do not tell your opponents to watch an hour-long video first.

*2. Keep Thread Titles Relevant.*
Thread titles should be relevant to the topic.  You can be funny, but please tell people what you are actually talking about so they don't have to go in there to see.  Inappropriately titled threads will be edited.

*3. Don't create debate threads in the Cafe.*
If you want to start a major debate, please put it in the Debate Corner.  Just because a news article in some obscure publication happens to take your side does not mean it deserves a thread in the main Cafe.

*4.  Post News Items in the Cafe, not Blog Posts or celebrity news*

Just because your favorite blogger took an amazing shit or commented about an event doesn't mean you get to post what they wrote here.  Blogs are primarily opinion or editorializing, which makes them inappropriate to start threads with.  This goes for all Gawker-type blogs, io9, etc.  

If a blog you read mentions an interesting story, why not track it down to the source first instead of relying on what other people tell you?

*THE DEBATE CORNER*

*5.  If you're going to create a debate thread, start an argument!*

If you are starting a debate thread about an issue, you must articulate the position you are taking on the issue in your opening post.  If you do not articulate your position, your thread will be deleted

Incorrect way to start a thread:  "Hi.  Let's debate 9-11."
Correct way to start a thread:  "The events of September 11th were committed by government agents because of X, Y, and Z."


*6. Don't make new threads for old topics.* 
A new article about an old debate (see: creation/evolution and minor discoveries) goes in the topic-appropriate Debate Corner thread.  You don't need a new thread for it.  Your opinion is not the most important thing in the world.  

*7. No flaming/personal attacks, stay on topic.* 
Please avoid using personal attacks in debates.  Excessive flaming will earn you a ban.  Also, do not derail debates by bringing up issues that are only tangentially related

*8. Don't be an asshat.* 
The basic rule is don't be an asshat.  This means that we will make subjective rulings based on the situation, and any appeal to technicalities will be met with general laughter from the mods.

*9. Controversial opinions:*
*Having a controversial opinion is not ban-nable.*  We don't ban people because the point they're arguing is "racist".  If you believe it, you have every right to argue your side.  That's what debates are for, people... every opinion has the right to be aired, and censoring opinions goes against everything we stand for.

However if you start calling them a racist in order to discredit or deride them, that's flaming--and makes our ban hammers itch.  That being said, don't throw off-topic opinions out there to provoke people.  That's baiting, and will get you in trouble.


*WHAT THE PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM IS FOR*
10. *No "Ask a ..." Threads, Period* 
Self-explanatory. The Philosophical Forum is a place for discussions, not a question panel.

11. *ABSOLUTELY NO FLAMING.* 
The Philosophical Forum WILL BE HEAVILY POLICED.  No flaming, no flamebaiting, no borderline flaming, no getting angry, no trying to make other people angry.  It's an area for people who want to learn more about religions or philosophies.  Feel free to discuss your viewpoint or pit it against someone else's, but if you want to debate, you're probably looking for the Debate Corner.

12. *Don't argue in Philosophical.* 
If a Philosophical Forum thread becomes an argument, please notify one of the Cafe moderators (Space Cowboy or others) will move it to the appropriate forum.  If we feel that a thread has deteriorated past recovery, we reserve the right to close said thread, and warn the offending parties.

13.  *Overtly Problematic Users will be removed*

Enjoy yourselves!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 1, 2008)

No arguing in Philosophical? 

Oh, come on. That way the Philosophical Forum will turn into some boring, barren place. 

"That's what I think."

"I think something else."

"That's fine, we're all a big, happy family."


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 1, 2008)

I think everyone's going to find something to love about volume 41's cover. 
i started a debate thread to learn what is even debatable!


----------



## mislead (Feb 1, 2008)

So, I applaud the attempt to make the Cafe a more friendly and civilized (if a bit more boring) place with less random idiocy and more ponies and pretty rainbows. I really do. And while I do find the transition from Happy Tree Friends to Alice in Wonderland fairly agreeable, this thing:



Vash said:


> 9. *Don't argue in Philosophical.*
> If a Philosophical Forum thread becomes an argument, please notify one of the Cafe moderators (Vash, Amaretti, or Toby_Christ) and they will move it to the Debate Corner if they find it appropirate.



sounds a little stupid. I mean, traditionally, while the debate corner was the default location for actual debate threads, it didn't hurt anybody to discuss a random news item or philosophical concept where they were originally posted. I mean, what do you envision as the model thread in the philosophical cafe after this rule comes into place? Because I do recall a great majority of threads there containing various arguments. 

So, is this one really necessary? What is it supposed to achieve, anyway? Is there any problem which you plan to solve by implementing the rule?


----------



## unlinkedthunder (Feb 1, 2008)

I don't see how exactly to prevent an argument from forming especially if the persons involved in the discussion shares a difference in opinion...


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Feb 1, 2008)

unlinkedthunder said:


> I don't see how exactly to prevent an argument from forming especially if the persons involved in the discussion shares a difference in opinion...


We're not trying to prevent arguments, but if two people (or more) get into a heated discussion, it is best moved to the Debate Corner so Philosophical threads can continue to be used more for information than anything.


----------



## Asmodeus (Feb 1, 2008)

Vash said:


> We're not trying to prevent arguments, but if two people (or more) get into a heated discussion, it is best moved to the Debate Corner so Philosophical threads can continue to be used more for information than anything.



That makes sense to a point, but it almost feels if your turning the Philosophical forum into a Wiki page. 

I totally agree with the Cafe and Debate rules, though. I'm all for a good debate, but senseless flamebaiting kills a lot of them. 

Now here's to hoping these rules actually get enforced.


----------



## Hell Fire (Feb 26, 2008)

so racisim is ok now?


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Feb 26, 2008)

H3ll F1re said:


> so racisim is ok now?


If you go around abusing racist slang, you will get smacked in the face.


----------



## itachiapprentice (Jun 8, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> No arguing in Philosophical?
> 
> Oh, come on. That way the Philosophical Forum will turn into some boring, barren place.
> 
> ...



Yes im behind you on this one


----------



## wiggely (Jun 14, 2008)

> *9. Don't argue in Philosophical.
> If a Philosophical Forum thread becomes an argument, please notify one of the Cafe moderators (Vash, Amaretti, or Toby_Christ) and they will move it to the Debate Corner if they find it appropirate.
> *


there can be no philosophy without argument.  the mods need to grow up.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jun 14, 2008)

wiggely said:


> there can be no philosophy without argument.  the mods need to grow up.


The problem is more that you guys need to grow up.


----------



## wiggely (Jun 14, 2008)

no you need to grow up!! hehe


----------



## MidnightToker426 (Jun 14, 2008)

rules are le-gay


----------



## The_Great_Kamina (Jun 14, 2008)

Isn't the entire point of philosophy to discuss theory in a variety of subjects? Arguments are inevitable.


----------



## Juno (Jun 14, 2008)

The_Great_Kamina said:


> Isn't the entire point of philosophy to discuss theory in a variety of subjects? Arguments are inevitable.



I'm guessing disagreements are obviously allowed, but not the same degree as in the debate corner.

As in if its a "Subject V Subject" kind of thread, it would belong more in the debate corner than the philosophy section, even if the subject is philosophical in nature. For example: Atheism V Theism now goes in the debate corner, not the philosophy section, which now has more exploratory threads than debate and is, IMO, a better atmosphere for it.

That's the impression I get anyway.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jun 14, 2008)

Seabear said:


> I'm guessing disagreements are obviously allowed, but not the same degree as in the debate corner.
> 
> As in if its a "Subject V Subject" kind of thread, it would belong more in the debate corner than the philosophy section, even if the subject is philosophical in nature. For example: Atheism V Theism now goes in the debate corner, not the philosophy section, which now has more exploratory threads than debate and is, IMO, a better atmosphere for it.
> 
> That's the impression I get anyway.


We <3 people who get it.


----------



## Xion (Aug 13, 2008)

MidnightToker426 said:


> rules are le-gay



Life without rules is anarchy, rules without anarchy is life. 

Think about it.


----------



## Kiana Li (Nov 16, 2008)

Sofa said:


> If you go around abusing racist slang, you will get smacked in the face.



That's a little mean D:
Though  I can see why
But I have one question; how are you going to smack them in the face? o.O


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2008)

^ We ban people. You will be unable to post on the forum and see things with your account when that happens. Plus you can't send or receive Private Messages when you are banned, so it is an unpleasant experience.


----------



## Mashy (Jan 24, 2009)

Q said:


> 9. *Don't argue in Philosophical.*
> If a Philosophical Forum thread becomes an argument, please notify one of the Cafe moderators (Vash, Amaretti, or Toby_Christ) and they will move it to the Debate Corner if they find it appropirate.



Ahaha, dialectical discussion is just a euphemism for argument. This rule is never enforced anyway.


----------



## Aldrick (Jan 24, 2009)

Are we still allowed to call each other cunts in a friendly manner?


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 25, 2009)

Way to bring it up now there gonna address it you stupid stupid person.


----------



## Aldrick (Jan 25, 2009)

Shush, cunt


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jan 25, 2009)

Aldrick said:


> Are we still allowed to call each other cunts in a friendly manner?


Don't make me hurt you.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 25, 2009)

Q said:


> Don't make me hurt you.


ZOMG STAFF MEMBERS ARE ABUSING THERE POWER!!!


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jan 25, 2009)

Hurting you isn't a mod power, it's physical force.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 26, 2009)

Q said:


> Hurting you isn't a mod power, it's physical force.


Now he's using his evil mod logic to confuse me!


----------



## nimblnymph (Mar 11, 2009)

I know I'm new here and all, but I actually think the rules regarding the philosophy section make perfect sense.  Yes, everyone has a different, unique take on philosophy that may or may not coincide with another person's take on that same subject.  However, the purpose of that section (from what I've gathered of my limited time on the forum) is NOT to go, "Noo... you're wrong, I'm right and this is why."  It's more to discuss these differences in a non-debating manner in order to provoke a, "Huh... interesting," response.  Philosophy and theology are very personal, individual things.  Debating about it is basically forcing someone to defend themselves as a person.

These concepts are part of how they were raised, what they believe in intangibly.  It's not a topic like politics or the latest episode of Naruto where it CAN be reasonably debated with facts and physical evidence.  It's completely subjective to the individual and I don't know about anyone else but I don't really wanna debate about myself.  It'd be a one-sided affair that I would win.  Hands down.  Because I'm right about me and you're not.  *grins*

Anyway, just thought I'd say that from my view point, the mods make sense here.  And unlike a few other forums I've poked at, at least THESE mods are trying to make sure everyone has a good time.


----------



## iMPRESTOR (Mar 24, 2009)

No flamebaiting haha that's awesome...

here flamer flamer flamer flamer... jk


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 27, 2009)

> 6. Don't be an asshat.
> The basic rule is don't be an asshat. This means that we will make subjective rulings based on the situation, and any appeal to technicalities will be met with general laughter from the mods.



....

Interesting rule.


----------



## Toby (Mar 27, 2009)

Lucaniel said:


> ....
> 
> Interesting rule.



It's my personal favourite.


----------



## Big Boss (Jul 16, 2009)

Is there still a mod named Vash here?


----------



## Toby (Jul 16, 2009)

Yes, though he is not as actively modding in this section as he used to be.


----------



## Big Boss (Jul 17, 2009)

Ah, cause I was just reading the rules and the only mod written there that's still around is Amaretti, right?


----------



## impersonal (Jul 17, 2009)

Robo-Pope said:


> The problem is more that you guys need to grow up.





> 6. Don't be an asshat.
> The basic rule is don't be an asshat.



Robo-Pope, I've never seen you posting anything of quality in the philosophy forum, so I'm questioning your qualifications in making these rules. The philosophy subforum is not going to become a NF-wikipedia or a NF-answers; the whole idea doesn't make any sense. If you just let people argue their side, things will turn out fine, so far they always did.



			
				Robo-Pope said:
			
		

> We <3 people who get it.





> 6. Don't be an asshat.
> The basic rule is don't be an asshat.



We all get it. We just think the rule is idiotic.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2009)

impersonal said:


> Robo-Pope, I've never seen you posting anything of quality in the philosophy forum, so I'm questioning your qualifications in making these rules. The philosophy subforum is not going to become a NF-wikipedia or a NF-answers; the whole idea doesn't make any sense. If you just let people argue their side, things will turn out fine, so far they always did.


1. The time to question these rules was a year and a half ago.
2. Attack the post, not the poster.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 17, 2009)

Robo-Pope said:


> 1. The time to question these rules was a year and a half ago.


Seems to me that this rule is still just as questionable now as it used to be. Just because this rule is old, in addition to being nonsensical, doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Besides, in general, it is good practice to only keep rules that are actually enforced, if we're going to have any rules at all. Otherwise everything becomes arbitrary, which is a type of moderation policy (why not?). 

It's what happening right now, so, all right, that makes the whole discussion about this particular rule a bit weird, and seemingly useless. But in that case, why have rules in the first place ? If the rules start to make sense again, perhaps they will be respected.



Robo-Pope said:


> 2. Attack the post, not the poster.


That was my point. You're attacking posters ("immature", suggesting they are incapable to "get it") while failing to defend properly the useless rule.

As for attacking your qualifications as a "philosopher"... Well, those who actually contribute to the philosophy forums have expressed their opinion. And you have expressed yours. And you seem to avoid discussion for the most part. So it boils down to opinion vs. opinion, in which case all that's left to compare is the authority of the authors of each opinion.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2009)

impersonal said:


> Seems to me that this rule is still just as questionable now as it used to be.


Yes, a rule amounting to "Be nice" is such a horrible concept.  Why ever did we create that.

Also, my point of contention is, why are you saying this now, instead of a year and a half ago when the rules were still new, so it mattered?  Now I don't really care, which is why I'm being short with you.



> As for attacking your qualifications as a "philosopher"... Well, those who actually contribute to the philosophy forums have expressed their opinion. And you have expressed yours. And you seem to avoid discussion for the most part. So it boils down to opinion vs. opinion, in which case all that's left to compare is the authority of the authors of each opinion.


"I don't like you, and neither do my friends" isn't exactly a compelling argument.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 19, 2009)

Robo-Pope said:


> Yes, a rule amounting to "Be nice" is such a horrible concept.  Why ever did we create that.


You could show us a good example of "being nice" by answering my objections, instead of ignoring them altogether and fighting back with empty irony... (Plus the rule _does not_ amount to "Be nice").


Robo-Pope said:


> Also, my point of contention is, why are you saying this now, instead of a year and a half ago when the rules were still new, so it mattered?  Now I don't really care, which is why I'm being short with you.


I have already explained that, I don't see why I should do it again. 


Robo-Pope said:


> "I don't like you, and neither do my friends" isn't exactly a compelling argument.


Indeed, that's why I never used it. I had nothing against you.


----------



## Big Boss (Jul 26, 2009)

impersonal said:


> Plus the rule _does not_ amount to "Be nice"


That's exactly what it amounts to. 

Read a book. Broaden your knowledge. Do some volunteering. It'll make you tolerable to the people around you.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 6, 2009)

Big Boss said:


> That's exactly what it amounts to.
> 
> Read a book. Broaden your knowledge. Do some volunteering. It'll make you tolerable to the people around you.


I don't think being a philosopher consists in being nice. It consists in sharpening every aspect of one's mind, perfecting each one of its movements, until it can cut right through crappy arguments.

You don't gain such abilities without polishing your skills in debates. Books will give you ammo - an endless supply of subjects to talk about - but only a direct confrontation with other thinkers will give you power and agility. A lone philosophy student, never engaging in a heated debate, can never be a philosopher. He doesn't have his own mean of propulsion; all his amassed ammo stays still. He can't move past what others have thought for him.

...Enough with the metaphors. _"Being nice"_ and _"arguing"_ are not mutually exclusive. However, defending the precept _"be nice"_ and then suggesting other posters are _"[intolerable] to the people around [them]"_ are incompatible attitudes. That is, if we assume the person displaying these attitudes is coherent.


----------



## Psycho (Sep 17, 2009)

Merlin said:


> ^ We ban people. You will be unable to post on the forum and see things with your account when that happens. Plus you can't send or receive Private Messages when you are banned, so it is an unpleasant experience.



you could ban people until they give you a link of a youtube video which features them getting smacked in the face by themselves or by someone else


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Sep 17, 2009)

Psycho said:


> you could ban people until they give you a link of a youtube video which features them getting smacked in the face by themselves or by someone else


What confuses me most about this statement is what on God's green earth makes you believe you're funny.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 18, 2009)

Robo-Pope said:


> What confuses me most about this statement is what on God's green earth makes you believe you're funny.


EVIDENCE FOR THIS GOD PLEEZ!!111



((it had to be done.))


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Sep 18, 2009)

Tokoyami said:


> EVIDENCE FOR THIS GOD PLEEZ!!111
> 
> 
> 
> ((it had to be done.))


In short, no it didn't.


----------



## impersonal (Sep 23, 2009)

Naruko said:
			
		

> if you dont like the rules of a section, dont post there


If you don't like this debate, stop participating.
]-)


----------



## Toby (Sep 23, 2009)

impersonal said:


> If you don't like this debate, stop participating.
> ]-)



Stop beating the dead horse.


----------



## subripon (Oct 17, 2009)

I accept with information new cafe rule:
1. No YouTube.Youtube videos are not enough to start a topic.
2. Keep Thread Titles Relevant.Thread titles should be relevant to the topic. You can be funny, but please tell people what you are actually talking about so they don't have to go in there to see.
3. Don't create debate threads in the Cafe.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 21, 2009)

Lol spam bots know how to follow rules better than we do.


We need to remind the mods to reput the old unspoken rule of always linking to an article back up as well as quoting said article.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (May 3, 2010)

As an extension of the no youtube rule I'd like to add another general guideline

4)  Avoid posting articles sourced entirely from blogs.
Citizen journalism is all very well and good, but let's face it--any idiot with an axe to grind or a product to sell can write something on a blog.  

Blogs themselves are generally discussion of current events, not reports about the events themselves.  Thus they are not newsworthy in and of themselves.  So don't go starting a thread with an article you found on FreeRepublic, Dailykos--or some other site. 

There are thousands of real news outlets with real journalists asking real people real questions.  Weblogs are -commentary-


----------



## dr_shadow (May 25, 2010)

I don't know if it should be made a "rule", but can the mods issue a recommendation somewhere that *Topics be focused towards an international audience*.

I don't hang out in all areas of Naruto Forums, but at least in the caf? it seems the "default" nationality is United States of America. Threads are made on topics mostly (somtimes exclusively) relevant to Americans, and the discussion climate seems to take for granted that all present are residents of said country. For instance, "we should..." mostly means "the U.S should".

Am I out to prevent Americans from talking about their own country? Of course not. With it being both the dominant superpower, and I think homeland of a majority of NF, it's bound to show up in the news here. But can we please, *please* try to consider that there are other nationalities present?

Surprisingly enogh, even thoug English is not my first language, I'm quite capable of communicating in said language on a wide range of topics, althoug I speak with an accent in real life and make the occational typo in writing. But I did not grow up in an Anglo-Saxon culture, and get annoyed when non-AS cultures are talked about mostly in the third person.


Leaving it up to the mods to decide how such a policy should be enforced.


----------



## Black Wraith (May 25, 2010)

It's not going to really work.

I've posted many threads to do with England and hardly any of them get many posts. Hell even the election thread didn't garner much.


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (May 25, 2010)

It will always be USA dominated, just like anything else.

Besides, USA just dominates the news.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (May 25, 2010)

mr_shadow said:


> and get annoyed when non-AS cultures are talked about mostly in the third person.


It's pretty difficult to refer to a culture you don't belong to as "we".


----------



## dr_shadow (May 25, 2010)

Stealth Tomato said:


> It's pretty difficult to refer to a culture you don't belong to as "we".



But you did get the spirit of what I was trying to say?


----------



## Toby (May 25, 2010)

What do you suggest we do to create that international approach? I presume you want members to be mindful of the different nationalities, and that they explain the significance of what they are posting, but I don't know how I could enforce that rule short of asking people to be well informed about how their politics affects others.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (May 25, 2010)

mr_shadow said:


> But you did get the spirit of what I was trying to say?


Yes, and it's a bit ridiculous.  We're not reporters.  People throw up whatever news stories interest them personally.

If you want more international coverage, put it there!


----------



## Razgriez (May 25, 2010)

impersonal said:


> I don't think being a philosopher consists in being nice. It consists in sharpening every aspect of one's mind, perfecting each one of its movements, until it can cut right through crappy arguments.
> 
> You don't gain such abilities without polishing your skills in debates. Books will give you ammo - an endless supply of subjects to talk about - but only a direct confrontation with other thinkers will give you power and agility. A lone philosophy student, never engaging in a heated debate, can never be a philosopher. He doesn't have his own mean of propulsion; all his amassed ammo stays still. He can't move past what others have thought for him.
> 
> ...Enough with the metaphors. _"Being nice"_ and _"arguing"_ are not mutually exclusive. However, defending the precept _"be nice"_ and then suggesting other posters are _"[intolerable] to the people around [them]"_ are incompatible attitudes. That is, if we assume the person displaying these attitudes is coherent.



Debating isnt about the sake of arguing but another method to share differing ideas to gain a greater grasp of reality. If you dont associate yourself with those with different opinions on subjects you wont fully grasp the situation. Sure, you may end up cursing out each other at the end but the next day after you thought about it you might just think somethings that guy said may just be true.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 8, 2010)

*Notice*
Given a few exceptions listed below, news items will not be censored for content.  I don't give a damn as to whether or not you hate Glenn Beck and the Tea Party, Vegans, Muslims, Israelis, or your mother.  

What* not* to post


  Articles sourced from blogs:   post.  That doesn't mean you get to post it.
  Top 10 lists, or any similar list:  These are related to search engine optimization practices and aren't really news.  NF is not a spam repository.  We also ain't Cracked
  Excessively "old" news.  
  Wholly unsourced OPs.  Link or be deleted
  No basing threads solely on videos.


----------



## cutesakura (Mar 7, 2011)

ok sir hehe


----------



## Zeven (May 4, 2011)

Doesn't seem like I broke any rules and yet I am getting trolled to hell.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 2, 2011)

A rule that should be put int he books here in the cafe.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Can we set a rule in the cafe that titles have to actually reflect the article in question?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 2, 2011)

That should already be a rule and the title should be at least close to the original or if its a joke, the joke should have to do with the title. No more of them bias BS in titles that doesn't appear in the actual article.


----------



## mr shahzaib (Aug 3, 2011)

Is it the same old jargon that you are hearing time and time again?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 22, 2011)

What the fuck?


----------



## Xyloxi (Aug 22, 2011)

At least there's no hentai, be thankful for that.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 6, 2011)

What's the language policy on sources for the caf?? Do they have to be in English, or is it ok to post source link and then an English translation if the OP speaks both the source language and English fluently?

If you are for instance discussing the elections in some non-anglophone country, it might be interesting to know what the native media of that place is saying about it rather than quoting the outside perspective of anglophone reporters.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Dec 6, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> What's the language policy on sources for the caf?? Do they have to be in English, or is it ok to post source link and then an English translation if the OP speaks both the source language and English fluently?
> 
> If you are for instance discussing the elections in some non-anglophone country, it might be interesting to know what the native media of that place is saying about it rather than quoting the outside perspective of anglophone reporters.



There is no particular language policy.  However it is considered courteous to provide translations in English in order to spur user participation and discussion.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 29, 2012)

We need to update the rules where if people want to post blogs as news sources, it needs to go into the debate section instead.


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (Jan 30, 2012)

Or we can Ban.

Maybe even perma


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Nov 26, 2012)

Mael has finally gotten banned, about time. He always insults  and racially abuse me.


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 9, 2013)

What's the limit for "necromancing"? I saw a thread from 2011 get closed, but the Caf? thread directory runs all the way back to 2005. So at what point does posting in an old thread become necroing?

Why not just lock/delete all threads that are, say, more than 1 year old?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Aug 9, 2013)

I think the rule probably should be a week or so of inactivity unless you have something new to add (i.e. an update on the story) or if its a megathread (see: Syria, North Korea, etc) and adding the new addition.

What with this forum being for news. And after about a week, its not really new.

But no limit really to bumps in the philosophy or debate. If you want to pick up the argument, why not? Go nuts.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 19, 2013)

So basically stop Saishin from posting articles. Roger.


----------



## BashFace (Dec 31, 2013)

*Spoiler*: __ 





Stealth Tomato said:


> Okay, some of you seem to have gotten the idea that a minor news story gives you the freedom to link to it, gloss over it, and then shove your opinion into the Cafe to start a fight.
> 
> Sorry, folks, that's a debate post.  Please put it where it belongs.
> 
> ...






What no flaming, baiting or irrelevance than what the fuck am I doing!!! (think about that one).



Saufsoldat said:


> No arguing in Philosophical?
> 
> Oh, come on. That way the Philosophical Forum will turn into some boring, barren place.
> 
> ...



It's gonna be like Socrates  
No debates you get that?


----------



## SLB (Jan 7, 2014)

This place really ought to get archived if it hasn't already.

Bashface, the rules are one thing, they are practiced entirely differently


----------

