NationStates

So I filed a GHR to report Drew Durrnil's page for... well... To be honest, the English Language completely fails me in my attempts to describe the horrifying mess on that page, and for the sake of staying within the bounds of the rules, I shall not try. The response I got, however, was that there are no rules against this sort of thing. While I recognize that there is an underlying right to creativity behind that decision, it feels... how should I put this? It feels like there should at least be a responsibility that the userbase must uphold, where others can read and understand what you have entered into these custom fields.

Should NS Moderation consider expanding the rule for custom fields to include legibility, or should the rules be left as is? Let us discuss this.

I think the internet needs fewer busybodies like you.

Where do Drew's custom fields appear, save on their page and their card? Why is this a problem?

Xeknos wrote:I think the internet needs fewer busybodies like you.

Tone down the snark - we're in the moderation forum.

Phydios wrote:Where do Drew's custom fields appear, save on their page and their card? Why is this a problem?

^ as one of the mods who saw the report, this was my reaction. I think it's ugly, but unless it shows up elsewhere, I'll just avoid looking at their nation.

Phydios wrote:Where do Drew's custom fields appear, save on their page and their card? Why is this a problem?

While there are those (me included) who prefer to separate their IC from what they have on their front page, those who don't really should consider having legible custom fields to give a genuine background on their nations. That is where the problem begins. I don't interact with Drew, so I cannot make that assumption, but I still feel like this is a thing that needs to be addressed.

Mackjaracotavon wrote:

Phydios wrote:Where do Drew's custom fields appear, save on their page and their card? Why is this a problem?

While there are those (me included) who prefer to separate their IC from what they have on their front page, those who don't really should consider having legible custom fields to give a genuine background on their nations. That is where the problem begins. I don't interact with Drew, so I cannot make that assumption, but I still feel like this is a thing that needs to be addressed.

Why? If he typed gibberish we wouldn't care. Why is it a problem?

Mackjaracotavon wrote:

Phydios wrote:Where do Drew's custom fields appear, save on their page and their card? Why is this a problem?

While there are those (me included) who prefer to separate their IC from what they have on their front page, those who don't really should consider having legible custom fields to give a genuine background on their nations. That is where the problem begins. I don't interact with Drew, so I cannot make that assumption, but I still feel like this is a thing that needs to be addressed.

Not all nations are made to have a background or roleplay.

Not on my main, so apologies if anyone doesn't recognize me, but this raises an interesting question.

If there was a rule against "illegibility" in custom fields, then how would that function into foreign languages, especially those that don't use a Latin script or are conlangs?

Shunmyo KK wrote:Not on my main, so apologies if anyone doesn't recognize me, but this raises an interesting question.

If there was a rule against "illegibility" in custom fields, then how would that function into foreign languages, especially those that don't use a Latin script or are conlangs?

Foreign languages can, with some semblance, be translated into the appropriate languages (although with somewhat inconsistent results) through Google, so this is not nearly as big an issue as what I am trying to have addressed.

And what about conlangs? All of my customizable fields are in Jedin (my own conlang)

Mackjaracotavon wrote:So I filed a GHR to report Drew Durrnil's page for... well... To be honest, the English Language completely fails me in my attempts to describe the horrifying mess on that page, and for the sake of staying within the bounds of the rules, I shall not try. The response I got, however, was that there are no rules against this sort of thing. While I recognize that there is an underlying right to creativity behind that decision, it feels... how should I put this? It feels like there should at least be a responsibility that the userbase must uphold, where others can read and understand what you have entered into these custom fields.

Should NS Moderation consider expanding the rule for custom fields to include legibility, or should the rules be left as is? Let us discuss this.

hi
umm... last time I checked, there was no rule against aesthetically unpleasing nation pages
so no, my nation page is perfectly fine, rules-wise

Drew Durrnil wrote:so no, my nation page is perfectly fine legal

Fixed that for you. Rule or not, it's one damn ugly page. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who would call it 'fine'.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:so no, my nation page is perfectly fine legal

Fixed that for you. Rule or not, it's one damn ugly page. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who would call it 'fine'.

It actually makes my page lag when I scroll up and down it.

Shunmyo KK wrote:It actually makes my page lag when I scroll up and down it.

There's no reason why it would - it's just extended characters in the UniCode character set. I suspect your lag issues are either imaginary or from another source.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Shunmyo KK wrote:It actually makes my page lag when I scroll up and down it.

There's no reason why it would - it's just extended characters in the UniCode character set. I suspect your lag issues are either imaginary or from another source.

Seeing as I'm in a discord call with ~3 other people and a bot, it's probably the latter. And a bit of hyperbole. Come on, can't I be fun on my puppets, too?

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:so no, my nation page is perfectly fine legal

Fixed that for you. Rule or not, it's one damn ugly page. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who would call it 'fine'.

I realize it's been a looong year, but still:

Frisbeeteria wrote:If I see a lot of Zalgo in custom fields, I'll remove it. It's annoying when it shows up in mottos in Regional and World Census listings.

What's the distinction? Both are annoying.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:Fixed that for you. Rule or not, it's one damn ugly page. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who would call it 'fine'.

I realize it's been a looong year, but still:

Frisbeeteria wrote:If I see a lot of Zalgo in custom fields, I'll remove it. It's annoying when it shows up in mottos in Regional and World Census listings.

What's the distinction? Both are annoying.

I think Zalgo text can actually get in the way of other fields due to the way it appears. I've seen it on a few other websites.

They don't ban ugly flags, so why should they ban ugly nation pages? There is no reason to limit everyone's creative freedom just because you disagree with how one person used it.

Just because a custom field is "illegible" doesn't mean it isn't meaningful and relevant to the owner of the nation. My motto is "illegible" because it is a visual representation of viral particles drifting through the air or the bloodstream.

Not sure why this is being made out to be an issue of any import.

One difference however would be Zalgo text, but it seems to be forumside that Zalgo is clamped down on, by merit of it tending to spill over into the posts of others and generally obfuscating what is being said by others.

Seems like a non-issue. Ugly as it is, you're not forced to look at their nation page.

I mean I rather like the aesthetic to it and don't see what harm it does, but I will say that their population count is slightly misaligned as a result.