inconsistent linux forums rules

[seandiggity]

I've just glanced over the Linux Forums Rules and I found this section inconsistent:

NO images in signatures - Seeing large flashing images in between every other sentence is the most annoying thing in the world, therefore absolutely NO images are allowed in forum signatures. You may include one (1) non-animated Emoticon in your signature.

And also this section:

No animations - Regardless of how small the animation is. Some people find animations distracting when reading a thread. Because of the issues that would arise if we allowed some animations but not others, the policy is no animations at all.

The reason is that there are three animated smilies available for users: :drown:

Whatever the moderators decide for rules, they should be consistent. The explanations quoted above don't make sense if there are animated smilies available.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

well, the bananas are just cool. that reminds me, we need to give more bananas to people

[oz]

The rules don't seem inconsistent to me when they are read in the proper context:

Forum Signatures

NO images in signatures - Seeing large flashing images in between every other sentence is the most annoying thing in the world, therefore absolutely NO images are allowed in forum signatures. You may include one (1) non-animated Emoticon in your signature.

Maximum length - The maximum length of a forum signature is 4 lines.

Font size - Please don't increase font size beyond the default text size.

Links - You may link to your site, but no affiliate, drug, gambling, pornographic, hacking, warez, or otherwise offensive links allowed.

Language - All forum signatures must be in English.


Avatar Guidelines

Sizes - Width can be no greater than 80 pixels, height no greater than 80 pixels, and the file size no more than 19.5KB.

Nature of content - No avatars containing nudity, or other content that is likely to cause offense.

No animations - Regardless of how small the animation is. Some people find animations distracting when reading a thread. Because of the issues that would arise if we allowed some animations but not others, the policy is no animations at all.

[seandiggity]

I'm not sure what you mean, unless you're implying that I'm taking the rules out of context. I'll be specific, then:

From the section "Forum Signatures":

NO images in signatures - Seeing large flashing images in between every other sentence is the most annoying thing in the world, therefore absolutely NO images are allowed in forum signatures. You may include one (1) non-animated Emoticon in your signature.

From the section "Avatar Guidelines":

No animations - Regardless of how small the animation is. Some people find animations distracting when reading a thread. Because of the issues that would arise if we allowed some animations but not others, the policy is no animations at all.

When I say consistency I don't mean just that the rules are clear. I mean that the justifications for the rules that have been given make no sense when other data is considered (i.e. the animated smilies). The justifications given are:

Seeing large flashing images in between every other sentence is the most annoying thing in the world

and

Some people find animations distracting when reading a thread.

Clearly, readers might be annoyed or distracted by smilies if they might be distracted by any animation "regardless of how small the animation is".

[oz]

You read too much into the rules. The animated smilies you refer to are not allowed to be used as avatars or in forum signatures. The rules don't state that they can't be used as "smilies".

It seems very clear to me.

[oosterhouse]

Ozar is right.

[seandiggity]

ozar, I'm not denying the clarity of the rules. I already stated that clarity isn't the issue. Authority, by its very nature, needs to be justified. Those justifications don't hold up.

I don't think it's an incredibly important issue; if you'd rather not talk about it, that's your decision. I thought it was worth writing a post about it. That's my decision.

Also, I missed this smiley:

[techieMoe]

ozar, I'm not denying the clarity of the rules. I already stated that clarity isn't the issue. Authority, by its very nature, needs to be justified. Those justifications don't hold up.

The rules are the rules. They need no justification. If you don't like them, you're welcome to post somewhere else.

[oz]

You see, the avatars and forum signatures are under the control of and inputted by the individual "user", whereas smilies are under total control of the admins. In addition to being distracting, opening up avatars and signatures to animated images can cause lots of grief for admins and moderators due to the nature of the images that could/would be posted.

On the other hand, the smilies you refer to are miminal in nature and animated features, and they really aren't used all that often in posts. Compare that to seeing an 80x80 flashing avatar in every other post, or a flashing signature at the same frequency can be some troublesome and distracting. In addition, many users would be especially upset if the dancing banana were to go away.

Hope this helps you to better understand the situation and the rules. I can't really explain it any better so I'll leave any further explanation to the forum admins.

oz

[seandiggity]

"If you don't like it, git out", eh?

I'm surprised that criticism about such a small issue is unwelcome.

A mental exercise: If rules are "just rules" and shouldn't be questioned, than why do this forum's rules give any justifications at all?

Also: Why do lawmakers have to justify new rules? Why are established rules rarely questioned?