Poll: Forum Rules Need a Change

[Grey Day for Elcia]

It's been said before-the rules need to change. For about the forth time this week I just saw someone receive a warning for a low content post (no, I've never received one). In some cases these warnings make sense, such as entering a discussion and leaving "lol" as your contribution. But in the majority of these warnings, the person is being hit with the hammer simply for not saying enough words.

Example: "I agree." Warning. "Yeah, I also agree with you." No warning.

They both contribute an identical amount of input into a discussion as they both mean the exact same thing. I understand wanting to encourage dialog and intelligent discourse, but how can anyone look at that and think it's reasonable?

Thoughts? Feelings? Agree or disagree?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The rules don't need changing, just the consistency of the moderation.

If the only thing you can do in a thread is agree with someone, without posting your own thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

 

[bobmus]

Come on, it's not that hard to avoid moderation, just think if your post actually contributes to the discussion at all.

There's a difference between between voicing your opinion, and posting just to increase your post count.

 

[Dags90]

The rules don't need changing, just the consistency of the moderation.

If the only thing you can do in a thread is agree with someone, without posting your own thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

Should they be creamier or a bit runnier? Or maybe starchy?

If the mods were replaced with robots who scanned every post for infractions and met out justice equally, this forum would probably be filled with the invisible posts of banned members. The lack of consistency can lull people into a false sense of what is and isn't allowed though. Official rules or not, people emulate those around them.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

The rules don't need changing, just the consistency of the moderation.

If the only thing you can do in a thread is agree with someone, without posting your own thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

While I appreciate the idea, when one takes a close look at it, we're turning a fun forum into a formal debate. Why disallow people form simply agreeing? Because what they wish to have said has already been written, they are forbidden from entering the talk? Come now. There's nothing wrong with relaxing a little. What kind of forum punishes you for not taking it so serious as to question your worthiness of trying to talk to other users?

Besides, not to seem like an attack (I rather like you) but I've seen you contribute literally nothing to a discussion many, many times; popping in just to say a joke, to quote someone and say you agree with them and even to post a video or image with just enough words to cover your ass. Now, there's nothing wrong with that (you're usually always funny, helpful or at the very least unoffensive) but if we really want to actually enforce the rule as it is now properly, you'd have well been banned by now.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The rules don't need changing, just the consistency of the moderation.

If the only thing you can do in a thread is agree with someone, without posting your own thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

Should they be creamier or a bit runnier? Or maybe starchy?

If the mods were replaced with robots who scanned every post for infractions and met out justice equally, this forum would probably be filled with the invisible posts of banned members.

It's actually very easy to avoid mod wrath.

Took me a while to figure it out, but I think my posting is better because of it.

 

[bobmus]

]While I appreciate the idea, when one takes a close look at it, we're turning a fun forum into a formal debate. Why disallow people form simply agreeing? Because what they wish to have said has already been written, they are forbidden from entering the talk? Come now. There's nothing wrong with relaxing a little. What kind of forum punishes you for not taking it so serious as to question your worthiness of trying to talk to other users?

There's a difference between talking to another user and posting the word 'THIS' under a quote from someone else. You can joke about being ninja'd or tell someone how well they summed something up, but just saying one word is pretty worthless.

Besides, not to seem like an attack (I rather like you) but I've seen you contribute literally nothing to a discussion many, many times; popping in just to say a joke, to quote someone and say you agree with them and even to post a video or image with just enough words to cover your ass. Now, there's nothing wrong with that (you're usually always funny, helpful or at the very least unoffensive) but if we really want to actually enforce the rule as it is now properly, you'd have well been banned by now.

Though Daystar admittedly gets away with more derailings than anyone else on the forums, he's also got the benefit of being generally well-liked around the site, and of possessing a damn fine sense of humour.

NOTE: I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY, OR AFFILIATED WITH DAYSTAR & CO. MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, AND DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY FAMILY, MY GOVERNMENT OR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

 

[Dags90]

It's actually very easy to avoid mod wrath.

Took me a while to figure it out, but I think my posting is better because of it.

It doesn't necessarily line up well with the rules though. You're much much less likely to get banned for something like: Do the forum rules need a change?

Is it just me or is it purple out?
OT: No.

Than you are for just saying "No", even though you haven't actually contributed anything extra to the discussion.

[HEADING=3]Also, since Mods usually enter these topics at some point, can I get some clarification? These rules are both listed in the Codes of Conduct but are seemingly in conflict:[/HEADING]

Probation (Yellow)
This is your final warning. Once you receive probation, you are always on probation. All penalties after this will be suspensions, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.

After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before.

Which is it? What happens with the unstopable force of amnesty meets the immovable object of probation?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

There's a difference between talking to another user and posting the word 'THIS' under a quote from someone else. You can joke about being ninja'd or tell someone how well they summed something up, but just saying one word is pretty worthless.

But that's the thing; saying "I agree," is exactly as beneficial to a conversation as "this person ninja'd me. I pretty much agree with them," (arguably and unintentionally more so, for in theory that could lead to a more involved discussion). But, the former will get you a warning (depending on which mod is online) and the latter will never.

I see people make a joke or post an image with a single, unimportant sentence, in every thread I visit. How in all fairness is adding nothing better than agreeing? Like you said, Daystar does it in every thread they go to, but because they are liked, it's okay?

Hardly a fair rule if it is unevenly enforced and enforced differently depending on each mod's interpretation of it.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Objection:
Both the examples supplied in the OP would receive a warning given perfect execution of the forum rules. The mods can't be everywhere, and it is your job to help them find posts which might break the rules. The report button is your friend.

I think the low-content rule is fine. Sure, it's annoying to have to fill out your post with meaningful content some times, but I think it's a price we need to pay to avoid devolving into a meaningless rabble of "this"s and dittos.

"Yeah, I also agree with you," or anything like it has never been punished in my experience--and nor should it be, mind.

My point is to ask why it is an offense to agree with someone. I mean, this isn't a formal debate; it's a friendly forum. People post jokes and reply back and forth to one another with little images or memes in most every single thread that's ever existed here, lol. It is very, very rarely punished. It's just a bit of harmless fun, right? So why, then, is simply saying you agree with someone, something exactly as beneficial to the thread as the aforementioned joking, bad?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

NOTE: I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY, OR AFFILIATED WITH DAYSTAR & CO. MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, AND DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY FAMILY, MY GOVERNMENT OR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

You say that Bombus but I don't think I believe you. You two are like peas and carrots, which are delicious. So buttery and good. Healthy too. Plus you can eat them as a side with just about anything... I haven't been eating much lately. I am so hungry.

I've never gotten hit with mod wrath. It really isn't too hard to avoid, just don't post angry (which I still need to learn), erase all those mean words you use when you are posting if they are directed towards people at the site, and open with a joke so there is no way you have too little added to the conversation.

Captcha- hobby-horse
This arts and crafts horse is creeping me the fuck out.

 

[bobmus]

There's a difference between talking to another user and posting the word 'THIS' under a quote from someone else. You can joke about being ninja'd or tell someone how well they summed something up, but just saying one word is pretty worthless.

But that's the thing; saying "I agree," is exactly as beneficial to a conversation as "this person ninja'd me. I pretty much agree with them," (arguably and unintentionally more so, for in theory that could lead to a more involved discussion). But, the former will get you a warning (depending on which mod is online) and the latter will never.

I find it hard to decipher what you're trying to say here. What it seems like you're saying is this:
1. The latter might not start a conversation, but has the chance to.
2. The former will get a warning, but the latter will not.
3. This is wrong.

Seems right to me, one has a chance of starting a conversation. Of course there are different styles of doing this, and I agree that just posting the word 'Ninja'd' or 'I agree with this guy' is equally pointless as the word 'This'.

I see people make a joke or post an image with a single, unimportant sentence, in every thread I visit. How in all fairness is adding nothing better than agreeing? Like you said, Daystar does it in every thread they go to, but because they are liked, it's okay?

A joke contributes to a thread because it makes people laugh.
Some images are funny, but adding a sentence is a set rule to stop people simply spamming images.
Daystar doesn't do it in every thread, and I find his posts to be some of the most amusing things on the forums. If that's not contributing, I'm not really sure what is...

Hardly a fair rule if it is unevenly enforced and enforced differently depending on each mod's interpretation of it.

It is a flexible rule, designed to be used at the discretion of the mods. It's mostly used to discourage people from doing it more than once, and I've seen new users who wouldn't know better simply given verbal warnings.
Also: No rules are perfect.

 

[DoPo]

The rules don't need changing, just the consistency of the moderation.

If the only thing you can do in a thread is agree with someone, without posting your own thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

This.

[sub]Both the examples supplied in the OP would receive a warning given perfect execution of the forum rules. The mods can't be everywhere, and it is your job to help them find posts which might break the rules. The report button is your friend.[/sub]

[sub]I think the low-content rule is fine. Sure, it's annoying to have to fill out your post with meaningful content some times, but I think it's a price we need to pay to avoid devolving into a meaningless rabble of "this"s and dittos.[/sub]

I agree.

I think OP is saying "Some low content posts receive warnings, others don't, therefore we should remove the low content restriction", while, as explained before, it's a flexible rule. I would hate to scroll through dozens of comments saying "This" and "I agree", the threads are big enough as it is, padding them doesn't serve a purpose. Sparing a word or two to say "Yeah, that guy said it for me" or even saying that, doesn't actually help. Great, we know there is more than one person with the same thoughts...so what?

 

[Jonluw]

Objection:
Both the examples supplied in the OP would receive a warning given perfect execution of the forum rules. The mods can't be everywhere, and it is your job to help them find posts which might break the rules. The report button is your friend.

I think the low-content rule is fine. Sure, it's annoying to have to fill out your post with meaningful content some times, but I think it's a price we need to pay to avoid devolving into a meaningless rabble of "this"s and dittos.

"Yeah, I also agree with you," or anything like it has never been punished in my experience

That is likely because users don't press the report button when people say something that contains more than one word.
If a mod came by, that kind of comment would(should) receive a warning though.

--and nor should it be, mind.

My point is to ask why it is an offense to agree with someone.

It's not an offense to agree with someone. Agree with whomever you like. What is an offense is clogging up threads with useless posts when other people are trying to have a (hopefully) meaningful discussion.

I mean, this isn't a formal debate; it's a friendly forum. People post jokes and reply back and forth to one another with little images or memes in most every single thread that's ever existed here, lol. It is very, very rarely punished.

When the purpose of a post is humor, mods will normally let it slide. To some degree. I have still been punished for posting an "I'll get you next time, Gadget"-video as a reply in a thread where I and Daystar were exchanging humorous comments regarding asparagus.

It's just a bit of harmless fun, right?

Yup, so the mods'll let you do it if you don't push your luck. Even though it's technically against the rules.

So why, then, is simply saying you agree with someone, something exactly as beneficial to the thread as the aforementioned joking, bad?

Because a comment saying "this" doesn't serve the purpose of being fun. It serves the purpose of slightly inflating the ego of the quoted user and taking up space for everyone else. When you're reading through a thread, a spontaneous outbrake of witty comments can be entertaining and rewarding to read; a comment saying "I agree" is not.
Contrary to popular belief, we do not care about your opinion. When I'm posting a question in the form of a thread I'm not interested in finding out what every single escapist's opinion on the question is. If I was, I'd include a poll. No, I'm interested in seeing what the arguments that lie behind each opinion are, and seeing if I can deconstruct them and discuss them.
Saying "I agree" has about as much value as saying "YOU CAN ENLARGE YOUR PENIS 4 FREE!!!!!!

And believe me: If you want to inflate the ego of a poster by agreeing with them, you'll do far better if you elaborate a little further in the post. For example by saying what parts of the post you liked the best and putting your own twist on it, or adding something more.

Also: Why the hell is it so difficult to post in this thread?
I've had three 404's trying to post here.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

There's a difference between talking to another user and posting the word 'THIS' under a quote from someone else. You can joke about being ninja'd or tell someone how well they summed something up, but just saying one word is pretty worthless.

But that's the thing; saying "I agree," is exactly as beneficial to a conversation as "this person ninja'd me. I pretty much agree with them," (arguably and unintentionally more so, for in theory that could lead to a more involved discussion). But, the former will get you a warning (depending on which mod is online) and the latter will never.

I find it hard to decipher what you're trying to say here. What it seems like you're saying is this:
1. The latter might not start a conversation, but has the chance to.
2. The former will get a warning, but the latter will not.
3. This is wrong.

Seems right to me, one has a chance of starting a conversation. Of course there are different styles of doing this, and I agree that just posting the word 'Ninja'd' or 'I agree with this guy' is equally pointless as the word 'This'.

I see people make a joke or post an image with a single, unimportant sentence, in every thread I visit. How in all fairness is adding nothing better than agreeing? Like you said, Daystar does it in every thread they go to, but because they are liked, it's okay?

A joke contributes to a thread because it makes people laugh.
Some images are funny, but adding a sentence is a set rule to stop people simply spamming images.
Daystar doesn't do it in every thread, and I find his posts to be some of the most amusing things on the forums. If that's not contributing, I'm not really sure what is...

Hardly a fair rule if it is unevenly enforced and enforced differently depending on each mod's interpretation of it.

It is a flexible rule, designed to be used at the discretion of the mods. It's mostly used to discourage people from doing it more than once, and I've seen new users who wouldn't know better simply given verbal warnings.
Also: No rules are perfect.

Low content posts will be punished*

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

*unless the mod likes you or thinks it was funny.

It just really bums me out that something in no way harmful is seeing people warned/suspended/banned. Best case scenario: the person you agreed with replies, a discussion develops and you make a friend. Worst case scenario: you take up a tiny, tiny ounce of bandwidth temporarily and no one cares what you said.

This is easily the best forum I've been a part of, but at a certain point it just seems spiteful. Encourage discourse and intelligent debate, yes. But don't punish people for just agreeing with someone. It's almost petty and condescending in some light.

Have a weekly Best Post, Best Thread and Best Community Member award or something. Have a mod quote a thoughtful comment and tell them it's a great contribution. Have a thumbs up and thumbs down system, so people are rewarded for behavior the community enjoys. Positive reinforcement is always better than negative reinforcement--especially when the rule being broken is mala prohibita.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Also: Why the hell is it so difficult to post in this thread?
I've had three 404's trying to post here.

It's a conspiracy theory; the mods are trying to stop our discussion, maaaan!

(I feel I addressed your points in the post I just made after yours. I'll point to it ^ rather than copy and paste it to reply to you.)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

YOU CAN ENLARGE YOUR PENIS 4 FREE!!!!!!

Spoiler: I am intrigued

 

[bobmus]

Low content posts will be punished*

*unless the mod likes you or thinks it was funny.

It just really bums me out that something in no way harmful is seeing people warned/suspended/banned. Best case scenario: the person you agreed with replies, a discussion develops and you make a friend. Worst case scenario: you take up a tiny, tiny ounce of bandwidth temporarily and no one cares what you said.

This is easily the best forum I've been a part of, but at a certain point it just seems spiteful. Encourage discourse and intelligent debate, yes. But don't punish people for just agreeing with someone. It's almost petty and condescending in some light.

Have a weekly Best Post, Best Thread and Best Community Member award or something. Have a mod quote a thoughtful comment and tell them it's a great contribution. Have a thumbs up and thumbs down system, so people are rewarded for behavior the community enjoys. Positive reinforcement is always better than negative reinforcement--especially when the rule being broken is mala prohibita.

Low content posts typically aren't funny, because they have low content...


It's not harmful for one person to do it, but a full thread of people doing it would bloat fast and get annoying. So those acting against the rule are warned against it to stop the forums becoming like that.

I do miss the Editor's Choice comments that Russ did a while back. I thought they were a really good idea in terms of encouraging good commenting.
You should suggest that around though, someone could independently take it up and run it themselves, like the user review of the month. Heck, I'd do it if I had the time.


Thumbs up, thumbs down doesn't work out so great. People'll thumbs down you for no reason other than a long post, and it stops discussion as people don't reply to disagree with you.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

posting just to increase your post count.

>.>

<.<

[sub]Well, don't look at me . . .[/sub]

Spoiler: I'm here Topaz. Watching. Always. Watching.

 

[repeating integers]

Yes, definitely - but not in the way you suggest. I really dislike the rules on posting images. You know the phrase "A picture paints a thousand words"? Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes, a single picture is all a post needs, and words can ruin the effect - yet posting a single picture without any words will get you warned every time. Hell, I once saw a post consisting entirely of images that said more than most of the rest of the posts in the thread, clearly had a lot of effort put into it and was not in any way low content(it was an MLP argument thread, IIRC) - yet the guy got a warning.

If a guy just posts a "TL;DR" image or trollface, then sure, punish the hell out of him. But in most cases I've seen, I think the posts should have been allowed to stand.