bigbadron:
Or, you know, they could just ask the people who created the rules, and then they wouldn't have to worry about making their own interpretations.
Perhaps "nebulous" was the wrong word. My apologies.
What I mean to say is that it creates a blank space where people can fill in their own answer. They may do this instantly, or they may do it slowly, but your response assumes that people will even think they need to ask at the end of that process. Why would they if their interpretation doesn't leave room for questions? "This is the Adult games policy section. I'm not running an Adult game. I'm not in an Adult game. The policy doesn't explicitly say I have to know it if I'm not in an Adult game." There's no question there, so no question gets asked. If people asked about every lack of affirmation for, let's say, the next six months straight, then we'd quickly get into the "We need to explain everything explicitly" territory, which then defeats (in some eyes) the need to ask questions after those six months. Not for nothing, many newcomers, and some old-timers, would assume anything that is
then not listed is fine until, surprise, it's not because someone didn't ask about it at an earlier time and so no one thought to add it in (as a ridiculous example: ARGH! Why didn't anyone add in a FAQ about how to properly make change for a dollar?!).
Change is the only constant in the universe, or so they say, so we can never expect all the questions to be/get answered definitively, or even to come up again despite them still being unanswered to someone. You can't expect people to ask about everything, and even if they do you can't expect everyone to see the response. And that's before we take into account people who might not want to bug the mods with "obvious" questions, or who panic at the thought of contacting the mods, or who never question authority for some other reason, or who forget to ask because it slipped their mind, or thought they asked and actually didn't, or did and remember the answer incorrectly, or..., or..., or...
My point is that it's never
just that easy and that's the end of the story. It can be easy for most. It can be plain as day to you and to a hundred million others. But no site should assume everyone thinks and acts in the way they want, which is why we have rules in the first place (duh, Tyr). So making those rules clear to everyone in as many avenues as possible (whether that's a single step avenue like reading the rules, or a second step one like doing more research, or even a third like asking the mods after doing the first two) should, in my opinion, be encouraged rather than dismissed (which "they
could just ask" is an indicator of,
to me). If people have questions that they're voicing and debating, then it's not as clear-cut as it could be, maybe not even as clear-cut as it
should be. Then again, and take this as you will, I'm also a big proponent of
Universal Design.
Now, as I said, the mods made an excellent move by stickying the thread, and I'm glad it happened. I'm clear on the policy, because I run Adult games (that maybe don't need to be rated that way, but I'm overcautious), and I'm fine with them. But I'm also the type to speak up when I see, what seems to be, a bit of miscommunication/misunderstanding. Sorry for rambling. I get... passionate about clearing up confusion. I'm, obviously, not perfect at it, but if I were I'd probably have a better-paying job. ;)
steelsmiter:
Not replying to the irrelevant parts is no indicator of not reading them.
That's a perfectly legitimate point. Unfortunately, when I say...
Tyr Hawk:
Even with giant flashing signs on their TV screens that say things like "We are aware of the issue, please don't call. Your programming will resume shortly." I would get calls from people when I worked Tech Support.
And you respond with...
steelsmiter:
I'm not even talking about an ability to read everything, I'm talking about the very narrow topic of some GMs not knowing explicitly stated expectations from the site, and how that is dumbfounding.
That's either you not reading what I said, or you not being as good at explicitly stated phrases as you seem to think. ;)
My example is a very explicit one (in that it's right there for everyone to read) of an explicit expectation (the screen message) that people still somehow come up short on (by calling in). Now, admittedly, I could've also added that some people called who hadn't read their own screens before contacting me (or during their five minutes of wait time) but, like the Adult Game Policy line that was quoted earlier, I sort of assumed that it was clear I was including those people too (which would be the only other type of person you could've been referring to that I can imagine). That would make your response of "I'm not talking about" to be, in your own words, "irrelevant" because your initial negation wouldn't have been a negation at all (since I was talking about those people too and never claimed you weren't). This, then, makes your follow-up a stand-alone point, and that stand-alone is a repeat of something I'd already implied/said. So, you're either addressing irrelevant things, or the things you think aren't relevant are (because you're saying them yourself in a different way).
Do you maybe see how it would seem like there's a double standard here that I was poking fun at? ;)
The rest of your post I already addressed in my larger one (is it still larger at this point?), but, to be clear...
my example doesn't actually say "any device" (to continue the metaphor). It says "car." And just because you equate the two in a different way than the many interpretations I gave doesn't mean you're more correct in your reasoning than anyone else. You
are right in this case, and may be in others, but the act of assuming what you did doesn't automatically guarantee you are or will be. Just like the "Truck Speed Limit" signs (on American highways. I don't know if they have such things elsewhere) doesn't apply to the Ford F150, though people call it a truck. Yes, "Truck Speed Limit" is defined elsewhere in driving manuals and other laws, but if you only see the sign (or, in this case, the title of the thread and the introductory sentences) there's a possibility you assume otherwise. That
possibility is the source of this whole thing, and I'd just like to get you to see that it, perhaps, shouldn't be "dumbofunding" that people think a different, but entirely reasonable, way. Yes. They should have already known that if they passed their driver's test, but some people do drive before passing that test. The metaphor isn't perfect. But if you require the metaphor to be perfect then you might want to brush up on how metaphors are used.
Or, put back into the direct terms of this discussion: If it should be universally applied, why not just say "This is a policy for everyone" instead of "This is the Adult Games Policy"? Do you see how the first one doesn't require "seeing" things differently than they're
actually written? And how needing to see things
not as they're written might cause problems? I'm not trying to solve the English language here, but... does this make sense?