• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Tentative Rule Vote

Which Rule Would You Like?

  • Tentative A

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tentative B

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Rule

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.

ChargewithSword

Zelda Dungeon's Critic
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Location
I don't want to say.
I chose rule A, but I agree with Axle on that it needs changing.

My suggestion is to follow the three act structure in order to determine what spoilers are.



In a story, there are three acts. The first one is made to introduce characters and conflicts. This is normally the part of Link's quest where he is living out his normal life until it is changed by etc. villain's actions. This part is usually the one most talked about, and the main characters that appear here will most likely be the ones talked about the most. All events that occur here are the ones that are meant to shape the form of the story as a whole, thus making it nearly impossible not to mention it.

Act 2 is basically the bulk of the story and will definitely be the spot for a lot of gameplay items, environments, and characters. This is the trickiest part to talk about as this is the bulk of the game basically and thus it is very difficult to get through to discuss many of these points as the system is now. However, there may be a way to find what particular plot points are worth hiding from the non-finishers.

Act 3 comes in and this is basically the climax of the entire story. Every plot point should have been resolved by this point, and Link is about to face the main villain. Once that ends we get our ending credits and our last surprises come in. Under no circumstance should this part of the game be spoiled without tags.

Now, during Act 1 and 2, there are multiple miniature crises that will either further the story or just get you neat stuff. In a game like Zelda, most of the miniature crises are the latter, we normally call these sidequests, but they can also be inner conflicts occurring in the main story as well.
—The sidequests should be allowed to be spoken of as they in particular are not important for advancing the plot, but there are still circumstances where they could be put down as spoilers*, but this also relies on reward. If the reward is anything that can affect the outcome of Act 3 then the sidequest should be put into spoilers.
—The inner conflicts are more-o-so the breaks from the main story to focus on another objective. If these objectives affect the outcome of Act 3 or involves changing a character from the first act to fit the rest of the story.

It basically boggles down to affecting Act 3 in a way that is profound and is also main-character changing. For examples:
Illia's Memory loss quest in TP is one of those situations where you are focusing on fixing her memory back, but the fact that she has memory loss is already spoiler enough as it has changed who she was in the first act.
Saving Midna's life is one where you must save Midna from death; this entire questline involves a main character (supposedly) dying and a new objective that will outcome the 3rd act (usage of the mirror's)
Byrne's betrayal by Cole and his eventually turn around will affect the outcome of Act 3 and acts as changing the

Examples of non-important inner conflicts:
The Yeto and Yeta conflict which only acts as a small objective that could be easily done away with.
The trading sidequest in OOT.

What's special about most Zelda games though, is that sometimes they have an Act 1.5. These would be situations like in Ocarina of Time where we are given our first objective to obtain the Triforce from the temple. Suddenly however, Ganondorf steals the Triforce and we are forced to find another objective. Whenever a Zelda game has an Act 1.5, it must be treated as two games to a certain respect. The Act 1 to the main game is still act 1, but Act 1.5 is the bigger act 1 to set up the final objectives. Act 3 of Act 1.5 is also the end of the entirety of the whole Act 1 of the game. However, it must be noted that not all the characters present in Act 1.5 are main.

Now then, I think it's also about time to talk about how long should something be a spoilers. Well it really depends on how long the game has been out. No one can stop the flow of spoilers across the internet, and they won't stop just because a website says no. I'd say that it should be a 4-12 month limit for a game to contain spoilers as that game should have been played by the majority of the Zelda populace or spoilers from outside sources should become near impossible to miss unless you live under a rock.
If a game is a sequel to a particular game that someone has not played yet, then it really shouldn't matter. Chances are that the Zelda populace will also know what games are sequels to others and should expect spoilers to the previous games.

That is basically my way of understanding on how to exactly figure out what a spoiler should be. If anyone notes any flaws, say so immediately and I shall do my best to revise this plan until near perfection.

If any Zelda game attempts to employ a game experience like Majora's Mask, which relies a lot on sidequests to strengthen the story, then many of those sidequests could be put under spoilers.
--

Now, onto the subject of the infractions. I believe that a warning should be there for first time offenders and that they should be given the option to revise their mistakes. If they are a repeating offender that's when they should be given infractions.
It's mostly a matter of familiarizing with the rules.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Charge, I would agree except I switched back to my original stance, which is that I believe there's shouldn't be rules on spoilers at all. No spoiler policy. Read some of my previous posts other than my first one for my explanations of why.

Aside from that, if B is implemented, and we don't enforce it at all, I guess I'm fine with that. Little harm can be done with a suggestion policy that doesn't involve a rule that's enforced. I wouldn't call that a rule though. It's more like our quality control policy thing we did for a while, of trying to guide people towards being better posters without enforcing any rule.

So yeah, I still stand by no rule, but I'm not that resistant to B then, if that was its intention.
 

ChargewithSword

Zelda Dungeon's Critic
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Location
I don't want to say.
Charge, I would agree except I switched back to my original stance, which is that I believe there's shouldn't be rules on spoilers at all. No spoiler policy. Read some of my previous posts other than my first one for my explanations of why.

Aside from that, if B is implemented, and we don't enforce it at all, I guess I'm fine with that. Little harm can be done with a suggestion policy that doesn't involve a rule that's enforced. I wouldn't call that a rule though. It's more like our quality control policy thing we did for a while, of trying to guide people towards being better posters without enforcing any rule.

So yeah, I still stand by no rule, but I'm not that resistant to B then, if that was its intention.
That's alright, I've changed my stance as well. I'm on the B side of the situation now. I feel spoilers should be watched out for but no punishment. A punishment for such an easily missed policy is probably not a good idea. But I still stand on the idea that there should be some sort of policy of sorts just for the sake of politeness and information. If there is nothing there then should our members just avoid every thread on the particular page even though they want to chat about that subject?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Location
Cali For Nuh
I agree...

85% of ZDers say they shouldnt be punished for spoilers being posted. I think that's a safe majority. 58% still believe that we should have the suggestion present that people use common courtesy though within their posts, which means it would be nice for the mods to send a friendly PM asking people to be careful of the spoilers they post out of respect for other members.

Justin, lets get this a-moving
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
This has been decided and updated. If you check our rules thread you'll notice the edit to it. Also I edited the infraction itself. It is 0 points without warning.

Anyways, I hope that this will become part of our past. However, if this comes up again in discussion and concern, we may consider changing it.

I want to give my thanks to everyone for participating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom