No obvious trolling, where "trolling" is defined entirely by the mod reading your post.

No spamming, no excessive bumping of your own thread with no new content, no imagespamming someone else's thread.

No flare, no edition wars

In Quest threads, do not post a reply that consists of nothing but a reference link and the word "This". You can reference a post for agreement, but please elaborate WHY you are agreeing in your post.

Don't be a tremendous faggot.

Stop that.
Yes, we know what you're doing, so cut it out.

What are you waiting for, sir gatekeeper? Update the rules/faq.

When on IRC don't mention cloacas.

Never give Reaver ideas for acceptable consequences.

Do not post illegal material. That could get the site v&.

Don't be a faggot. That could make the site suck.

Seriously though:
No trolling. Criticism is fine as long as it's serious and productive rather than sarcastic and mean-spirited. It should be okay to say you dislike a quest and give reasons to why but shit actual trolling, and throwing around phrases like "furry shit" or "circlejerk" just to stir up a shitstorm should be bannable.

The point of rules to make something more able to do what it is supposed to be doing. Before we start making rules, we have to decide why this site exists, and what do we want to do with it. What is the purpose of TGchan? (Also, I am the only one who thinks the name kind of sucks?)

I think the names fine myself. However, I do believe that you are correct sir. I think that there is something to be said about the site itself. Just what is TGChan? Is it 4chan lite, or even /tg/ lite? It doesn't seem like either quite honestly. It's a lot more like QuestChan, as that's truly where we get all our activity. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the /tg/ portion of the site updates quite rarely and if it does it's often not /tg/ related at all, more like a separate yet related /quest/. Just look what's been updated recently.

So, is this a lite /tg/? I say no, or if it is it does not do the job well. So should something be done there, and if what?

Regardless, for now I think I am willing to accept the site as it is portrayed, as less of a lite /tg/ and more like QuestChan. If there's a strong effort to move it in a direction other than Quests, that's great, but until then I'd say it makes darn good sense to focus on what's getting the most attention.

I for one wish to put more non-quest content on /tg/- We already have /quest/, /questarch/ and /questdis/, most of the front page of /tg/ doesn't need to be Quest-related too.
The problem is getting people to provide that content, or post that content, and to that I say...

I'm working on it, geez!

>>13
And yes, I am well aware of the irony that one of those threads was in fact started by me.

What >>12 and >>13 said

This chan has become too much Quest, not enough /tg/. I thought you people built it to provide a /tg/ with better moderation, more sensible mods and freedom of discussion. Yet I hear really worrying tales of posts being deleted and people getting banned just because they made people in /quest/ mad. I really don't see how that's better than moderation in 4chan.

You really need to firmly separate quest stuff from the /tg/ portion, since the quest-related threads populate all of the boards and get some normal mods if this ban/deletion stuff is true.

If people are getting their panties in a bunch over /quest/ content in /tg/, might I suggest switching /questdis/ into an image board instead of a normal text board? That way people will have a place to do their one-offs (WeaveReave dressup, SSBB Lineup, art of quest, etc.) and not pollute the actual /quest/ board proper.

Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal and that those complaining are a small minority, but whatever. And as for the bannings, there have only been a few - one was a joke ban that lasted 30 seconds, and the others were for people behaving like antisocial schmucks.

Isn't /tg/ about traditional games and /quest/ was made to separate the /quest/ content? I really like to be able to discuss things like campaign settings, WH40k stuff and assorted topics. So far /tg/ looks like a placeholder for quest spin-offs. Same can be said about /text/.

And what do you mean by "anti-social schmucks". I heard on /tg/ that they joked about railroading and got banned for few days. And few others got banned because they pointed out some of the quests were full of cliches. If that kind of behavior is 'anti-social' then wow, you guys are sure touchy.

>>17
being a faggot is a bannable offense in most small chans. I have never seen a (user canceled browse tgchan) message on a post that was not rife with faggotry. Also, don't trust the banned to give you an accurate accounting of events.

>>18

I've never seen "being a faggot" being a bannable offense on chans other than those ran by trolls or kids with ego problems. Usually it's an excuse to get rid of people that don't suit the mods.

And why I shouldn't trust the banned? People who got banned on /tg/ founded this chan, right? So I shouldn't trust the people that founded and run this chan?

Excuse me but, you sound like a hundred percent 4chan mod.

>>18

I've never seen "being a faggot" being a bannable offense on chans other than those ran by trolls or kids with ego problems. Usually it's an excuse to get rid of people that don't suit the mods.

And why I shouldn't trust the banned? People who got banned on /tg/ founded this chan, right? So I shouldn't trust the people that founded and run this chan?

Excuse me but, you sound like a hundred percent 4chan mod.

>>18

I've never seen "being a faggot" being a bannable offense on chans other than those ran by trolls or kids with ego problems. Usually it's an excuse to get rid of people that don't suit the mods.

And why I shouldn't trust the banned? People who got banned on /tg/ founded this chan, right? So I shouldn't trust the people that founded and run this chan?

Excuse me but, you sound like a hundred percent 4chan mod.

>>19
>>20
>>21

"No triple posting" sounds like a good rule.

>>22
Triple posting also seems like being a faggot. Funny that.

Or having broken internet and being unable to delete posts, derp.

So, do we want to make a rule about posting repeatedly in quest threads? I don't necessarily mean spamming with intent to spam, but posting 4 different times between each update without it being an actual conversation is a little much. (For reference, see recent activity in The Romanticar - I'd link it, but I don't think cross-board links work between text and image boards.)

Make it required to read all replies before posting, and to write out your own replies in a single post to avoid accusations of samefagging.

Maybe no >this allowed?

No >>This was already an unofficial rule.
Probably should be codified anyway.

Do not 'Necro-bump' quests that are obviously dead or have lack of projected interest.

...

...*cough*

(Although maybe somewhere where they could be moved until someone returns to them might be good?)

/quest/ in particular is making a lot of drama because of the way it's moderated. Detractors are saying anything but praise is stamped out, supporters are saying these people are just trolls.

The only way this can really be solved is by laying down some concrete rules as to what is and isn't allowed.

I think that /quest/ should be mostly for the actions and suggestions themselves, and mods should make it publicly known that any heavy derailing can and will be trimmed out, but I don't think this should be ban-worthy except if repeated numerous times. Because of its tendency to disrupt threads, the line for what defines "trolling" from regular constructive criticism here should be made very clear.
I believe /questdis/ should be much more lenient as to what's allowed, since in a discussion it's likely not all opinions would be favorable (and trying to trim them as such really would be ridiculously oppressive). Still there should be rules for defining trolling here. Further, I would imagine that the people giving criticism on a quest would be concerned as to where it's going, thus implying they care about the thread. So I see most people critiquing a thread as having some interest in it as well, and critiquing it BECAUSE they want to see it improve. Otherwise, there's not much point in going into a thread about a quest you just hate in general or whose premise you dislike just to say I HATE THIS QUEST or THIS QUEST SUCKS. There are quests I dislike, and I dislike them enough that I believe any efforts I made at trying to steer them towards something better would be wasted, so I just stay away from them altogether. I think that's what it boils down to: If you want a quest to take a turn for the better or you see it heading somewhere that will destroy what you like about it, obviously you should critique it as such in an attempt to get it back on track. If you just plain don't like the quest, you could still give an evenhanded critique of what could be improved. If you hate it altogether, you're probably just going to end up flaming it and the people who DO like it.

My own opinions on where the rules should be drawn notwithstanding, they certainly need to be drawn. /quest/ is creating trouble because it lacks a solid foundation of rules and so mods act on their own interpretation. If it's not made clear now, there's only going to be more backlash and more DRAMA, which really is what I know a lot of people came here to avoid.

As for the accusations that /quest/ is choking out /tg/, I think it's ridiculous. /quest/ is not preventing people from posting in /tg/, and you can't fault it just for being active. If /quest/ shut down /tg/ wouldn't suddenly perk up, and even if it did it would probably just be from people trying to run quests there.
/tg/ just needs to find its own groove, like /quest/ did. /quest/ was just as dead (if not moreso) for a long time and then it picked up speed rather fast. I think /tg/ could do the same.

#tgchan on irc.rizon.net is technically the official channel for moderation requests, suggestions, complaints, appeals, and the like. I have next to no initiative, so it's very unlikely for me to delete something, let alone ban someone, without someone else suggesting it first. I think a channel where people can keep track of exactly what the mods are doing, even to the point of suggesting it themselves, would work best, and also fit the community. I'm not sure how much attention it will get here, though, so if someone with a little more initiative (seriously, I have that little, I'm afraid of bringing it up when it wouldn't be relevant) would mention to somewhere where #rq and /quest/ would see it, that would be great.

If the board has an official IRC channel, then why is it not in the sidebar above #rubyquest? It would be great if the sidebar could have some clarification added - #tgchan for official moderation business, #rubyquest for general /quest/ discussion and bullshittery. You might also add a link to Rizon's webchat: http://www.rizon.net/chat.php so that even people who don't know IRC can hop on.

The problem with #tgchan is that almost none of the mods or admins are ever actually in the channel.
At the moment, any real moderation issues are better off being brought up in #rubyquest.

So, there they are - the rules. Compiled by a bunch of people in response to the overall cluelessness of mods and users as well. I expect some controversies, you might as well talk about them here.

3. Shock-images ( ie. guro, scat, cp, loli/shota pornography, bestiality ) drawn or real will be removed and are grounds for a ban.
Ok, so using these types of things as shock images is banned.

What about as actual fanart? There's a couple in the fanart thread of Alice. For that matter, if someone draws alice missing a foot, is that bannable? If a quest has an ogre getting his head blown off, is that guro? If a quest has a tiny sheepgirl and she is shown half naked, is that loli?

Is Demesi/Tav bestiality, since they aren't the same species?

Is Mudy porn shota? He looks the part.

Janine was naked in Romanticar for a panel or two. Is that loli?

A couple problems with the rules:

First off, tgchan users are a lot more mature than you're giving credit for. We are not a bunch of 13 year olds that will get our mommy to sue the mean site if someone told us our quest could be better.

Also, rule 3 is gay. It limits stuff which could legitimately happen for good reason in /quest. fanarts which could go down in /questdis/ and plenty of other legitimate applications.
(and loli/shota and cp aren't shock, just so you know)

/tg/chan

1. Do not post any of the following: Flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text.

3. Shock-images ( ie. guro, scat, cp, loli/shota pornography, bestiality ) drawn or real will be removed and are grounds for a ban.

4chan

Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry"), grotesque ("guro"), or loli/shota pornography.

It's not far off from actual 4chan rules.

I'm just gonna say this: A lot of rules seem to be carbon copies of the rules from 4chan with few modifications.

And wasn't /tg/chan's catchphrase "/tg/ with mods"?

(and loli/shota and cp aren't shock, just so you know)
Could someone explain this statement to me.
I mean at least cp is rather shocking to most people.

>>39
It is never intended as shock, it's intended as porn. Stuff of thagt nature which is intended as shock also contains violence, at the very least. Not that cp should be allowed, it's a bit on the illegal side for that, but it should at least be categorized correctly.

>>37
You may notice that those rules are never enforced on 4chan. That's because in general that rule sucks. Obviously, if that sort of thing gets excessive, it's bad, but in moderation there's no reason it can't have a place in our boards.

To most people kids fucking (Drawn or real) is shock imagery. As I recall the target audience (/tg/) wasn't so fond of loli/shota. So it's not really a big loss for the target audience.

The rules are never enforced on 4chan not because they suck. It's because the mods themselves don't follow them. No rules didn't work as intended.

Um
so reaction images are apparently bannable? What the fuck, tgchan.

>>41
As I recall the target audience (/tg/) wasn't so fond of loli/shota This is news to me.

>>43
Apparently you aren't the intend target audience.
Makes me wonder where all the new people come from, was tgchan advertised on furry and anime boards or something?

Most likely on furry boards given some of the replies in this thread

>>44
I came from /tg/ and love shota and like loli. :I

>>46
As did I, and I also like shota and loli. 90% of 4chan likes loli and shota, /tg/ included. Trying to pretend otherwise is delusional.

>>45

A couple problems with this statement. First, there's not actually a rule against furry. That's not really a bad thing, because who's to say what is or isn't furry? Rubyquest fit the definition, does that mean RubyQuest should be bannable from here?

The more relevant issue is that you're just trolling anyway.

Also, I'll add myself to the count of fa/tg/guys who like shota and loli just fine.

I was linked here from tvtropes.org, the article on Mudy Quest to be particular.

I am actually a /co/mrade, who likes to browse /tg/ from time to time (and is very fond of the quests, obviously).

I think banning drawn furry/bestiality, drawn loli/shota, drawn guro is ridiculous and counterproductive. E.g., Ruby Quest fanart may contain furry and guro, because of the nature of Ruby Quest itself.

I suggest replacing those laws with the following statement: Photo/video pics of furry, bestiality, loli, shota, guro and scat will be removed and are grounds for ban. Drawn pics of furry, bestiality, loli, shota, guro and scat are allowed only in "NSFW fanart" threads and only if their f/b/l/s/g/s nature is dictated by the nature of the fanarted quest. All other instances of drawn f/b/l/s/g/s pics will be dealt the same as instances of photo/video f/b/l/s/g/s pics. Something like that. Maybe also make spoilered images (like in /co/ or /v/) available on this board and restrict posting drawn f/b/l/s/g/s pics only as spoilered images.

I personally don't fap to loli/shota/furry/all other fetishes from that list. However, I'm not against others fapping to them, either. I prefer to fap to hawt sexay wimminz nekkid (preferably, with hueg tittayz lawlz) or having steameh secks wiv mans or other hawt sexay wimminz :3 Sometimes I fap to futa <-- Don't quote me on that.

from tvtropes.org If you've managed to come FROM tvtropes that must mean you've spent a good 20 hours there already, right?