Exceptions to the unofficial Bitcointalk rules.

[Poker Player]

Hi,

I would like to know if there are exceptions to the unofficial rules.

I am especially interested in hearing the opinion of moderators, but also of fellow forum members who remember cases where exceptions have been applied.

I have just requested an exception to Rule 32: "Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed."

I request to the moderators not to merge this post with the previous one, by its lenght to make things clear. These are obviously not shitposts and I do not do it to get paid more because this week I exceed my posting requirements.

I understand that since they are unofficial, there is a certain margin to apply them.

In this case I require it because the user franky1, had accused me of misinterpreting the latest draft on crypto payments approved by two EU commissions. In the first reply I have detailed, quoting the draft, why I reaffirmed what I had said in the OP was correct.

But after a while I discovered that franki1's reasoning was relying on an earlier draft that was not approved.

So, as my previous post is very long and is about the actual approved draft and not about franky1's mistake, I understand that it is much better that those posts are separated.

But in this thread I don't want to focus on that specific case, but in general if there can be exceptions to the unofficial rules and if you remember cases of exceptions.

[Coyster]

But in this thread I don't want to focus on that specific case, but in general if there can be exceptions to the unofficial rules and if you remember cases of exceptions.

Since the rules is more or less an 'unofficial list of BTT rules', then there would always be exceptions, see what Theymos had to say:

But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.

Thus, since there is never going to be anything like a set-in-stone rules on Bitcointalk, then there would always be exceptions, especially based on how the mod who handles the case/issue interpretes the 'rule' pertaining to it.

[RapTarX]

Rules are there for some reasons and they must be followed. However, there are some cases where moderators reconsider but that are very rare.

Plagiarism rules have exception. I don't want to make it controversial but if someone with a very high quality contribution gets trapped into this rule by their mistake or whatever the reason; there should be an exception. Lauda had some sorts mistake like this but wasn’t banned. If I were to vote for whether Lauda should be banned or not, I would vote for NOT TO BAN.

Posting referral links have an exception as well. You can post referral links in a thread if the post is of high quality.

Posting advertisements on threads are allowed as well but that must be a very small portion of place from a very long detailed and high quality post.

These are some exception I can remember. There are more I guess but I can't remember them ATM.

[OgNasty]

I have just requested an exception to Rule 32: "Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed."

I request to the moderators not to merge this post with the previous one, by its lenght to make things clear. These are obviously not shitposts and I do not do it to get paid more because this week I exceed my posting requirements.

I know you said you don't want to comment on this specific case, but I think it's cases like this why the rule exists on an unofficial basis.  Sure, it's not the biggest deal in the world to answer multiple questions with multiple posts.  I'm sure many of us have made this mistake in the past causing a post to be deleted (when maybe merging it would be the right thing to do).  There are plenty of people who abuse this though and bump their own threads this way, which is why it exists.  It isn't that big of a deal to just edit your prior post and add information.  That's what the edit button is for. 

As far as other unofficial rules, I think a case by case basis is what makes them unofficial rules.

[franky1]

Hi,

I would like to know if there are exceptions to the unofficial rules.

I am especially interested in hearing the opinion of moderators, but also of fellow forum members who remember cases where exceptions have been applied.

I have just requested an exception to Rule 32: "Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed."

I request to the moderators not to merge this post with the previous one, by its lenght to make things clear. These are obviously not shitposts and I do not do it to get paid more because this week I exceed my posting requirements.

I understand that since they are unofficial, there is a certain margin to apply them.

In this case I require it because the user franky1, had accused me of misinterpreting the latest draft on crypto payments approved by two EU commissions. In the first reply I have detailed, quoting the draft, why I reaffirmed what I had said in the OP was correct.

But after a while I discovered that franki1's reasoning was relying on an earlier draft that was not approved.

So, as my previous post is very long and is about the actual approved draft and not about franky1's mistake, I understand that it is much better that those posts are separated.

But in this thread I don't want to focus on that specific case, but in general if there can be exceptions to the unofficial rules and if you remember cases of exceptions.

no.. in that specific case. YOU were quoting a report ..not a new draft.. that report you quoted  was just extracts of proposed edits.. without the full context of what those edits are in context of.
emphasis your quotes were just the 'edits' and not the full draft to make sense of those 'edits'

i was quoting the full length draft  where the edits were concerned.

but atleast now you see why i dont split my messages up.. because its a rule to not double post.
sometimes i try to emphasise things multiple times in one post to save having to repeat myself again later due to ignorance. but hey. you will learn the hard way.

dont blame me for the 'wall of text' nor cry about it ever again as of today.. as now you have learned. its a rule

..
and yea i laugh when you cry thinking there is a fault with something due to 'franky'
stop being a social drama queen and spend more time on your research. then you wont have to look like a idiot needing to double post to change your story and insult others..

yep i said it. if you do your research you can learn more. and not have to backtrack your statements and contradict yourself in the very next post, trying to save face

[DooMAD]

and not have to backtrack your statements

Oh yes, the forum definitely needs more people who can't admit when they're wrong.  Let's teach everyone to post like franky1.   

People would have more respect for you if you learned to backtrack.  Don't try to pass off your personality defects as positives.