Rule suggestion

[suzannelgnz]

I know i'm not the only one that us fed up of seeing spoilers posted that seem far too good to be true, and I was just wondering if it had been considered in Staffghanistan wether or not it is feasible to have a No Wikipedia or Yahoo7 message boards spoiler rule?

Members- If you believe that such a rule would work on BTTB, please post here

Staff- It would be great if this could be considered if it hasn't been already.

Thanks, Suzannelgnz

[Barbara]

There is a message concerning spoilers in the Spoilers Forum (click me). It says we shouldn't trust Wikipedia and have a valid source when we post spoilers but it looks like some members just don't understand the fact that anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia. Maybe some of them really don't know that but I've noticed some people posting spoilers they've read on Wikipedia even though they've already been told that Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source.

I'd love to have a rule like that but I don't know if it's possible though.

[Symphony]

I would love a rule like that! Put up a thread here myself about a month or so ago, but I'm not sure if the staff can enforce something like that - as in, like, how to reprimand people etc.

Support this idea so much though

[Cerise]

I'm pretty sure we do have a rule - the mods have posted numerous announcements and messages in the soiler forum and wikipedia threads. Generally I think Wikipedia-sourced threads are closed but I don't go into the spiler section really so I wouldn't know.

[Ashleigh <3 Lincoln]

I agree e are all sick of hearing Wikipedia rubish!

[--HomeAndAway--]

I agree, a no Wikipedia rule would be fantastic! Maybe we should have a Wiki thread for people to post in there if something is on it? So people who don't like seeing Wiki on the forum don't have to see it all the time? Or is there already a thread for that? Same goes with Yahoo!7 Message Board spoilers.

EDIT: Just re-read, Cerise's post above! Never mind

[Cerise]

I think a Wikipedia thread would be more trouble than it's worth, IMO. It'd have to be moderated very, VERY carefully. People will be going into wikipedia and posting in that thread whatever spoilers they may come across - even if it's totally unfeesable. I can see something like that breaking out in a little argument, as it may contradict another spoiler. Tehn again we have very little members who actually DO provoke an argument based on something unreliable, but that would just be my concern.

I think the few members who would post wikipedia-sourced spoilers should just undersatnd that wikipedia is not a reliable source. While it is good for general information, historical, nutritional, scientific, mathematical and geographical facts, it isn't the best source for anything to do with television, films or personal lives of actors etc. (That being said, I do remember the time somebody thought it was funny to mix up some of the facts on a page that I tried to use to help me with course work - thank god I'd double checked! )

[adellejefferiesxox]

Rule Suggestions

Suggestion 1:

My signature got removed...

over the 5 line max

no warning, no asking to remove something, just removed and got a pm about it...

I think that we should we a warning before action is taken by a mod, if we know about the issue/situation we should have the chance to take action ourselves, if the member doesnt then its up to the mod.

Suggestion 2: I also think if someone breaks the same rule three times you get a PM warning, then if you chose to ignore that PM action should be taken.

[Symphony]

^ this should probably get its own thread as it's not related to the OP's thread

As for the signature being removed, that's odd, because mine was over the 5 line thing once [or 4 lines or whatever it is] and I got a PM from a mod asking me to narrow it down, which I did.

[HAA Girl 08]

I think the spoiler rule would be great. It would most probably stop all the pointless threads from popping up in the spoiler forum.