Poll: Forum Rules Need a Change

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I think so, the current ones can ban people for just pointing out other peoples nonsense.

But i digress. I'm really just waiting till one of the mods has a bad days and finishes off my forum meter.

I totally hard the Mortal Kombat voice-over in my head when I read that final line, lol.

 

[Jonluw]

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

Spoiler: I am intrigued

You must show me this magical method of penile enhancement.[/spoiler][/quote]It's a trick that's easy to do at home. Are you saying you haven't heard of it?

I'm sure you've heard of it. All you need is:
A pen-knife
Three lemons
A bicycle pump
Saline solution
And a sharpie

Ring any bells?
[QUOTE=Grey Day for Elcia]Low content posts will be punished*
*unless the mod likes you or thinks it was funny.[/QUOTE]Not quite. A post can be short but still have content. A funny joke, provided it's more than an image macro will be counted as content since it's an enjoyable addition to the thread. It isn't horribly important that it's 100% relevant to the thread either.

[quote]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.[/quote][u]No one[/u]. Ever. Replies to someone who's quoted them just to say "this".

Unless they're a complete newcomer who just wants to say "thanks" back.
[quote]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.[/quote]The mods aren't punishing you for agreeing with someone. They're punishing you for thinking anyone cares that you agree with someone and padding the thread with shit noone wants to see.
[quote]Have a weekly Best Post, Best Thread and Best Community Member award or something.[/quote]Like that one user up there said: we used to have a community showcase coloumn going on. I think they might've discontinued it because it contributed to the whole "forum celebrity" mentality.
You're fairly new, so you don't know the forum's past, but trust me when I say we have some history.
There were users like Furburt, Neonbob, Pimppeter and MaxTheReaper...
Some of them are even still around... Lurking in the shadows.[quote]Have a mod quote a thoughtful comment and tell them it's a great contribution.[/quote]Actually, when mods join discussions, it's mostly to contribute in a rare derail or to make some humorous comments when someone's made a "Hi, I'm new here"-thread.
Mods don't really post as normal users often, so it's nice to see their human side once in a while. It creates a better atmosphere in the forums.[quote]Have a thumbs up and thumbs down system,[/quote]As with the low-content rule discussion, the "thumbs up" discussion has been had a million times. Let me save you some time:
[center][img height=300]http://plus4chan.org/b/jam/src/133390307138.png
[sub]Just no.[/sub][/center]

There are plenty of arguments explaining why we don't want it, but I won't recite them here. Suffice to say: We don't want that abomination here.

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.

I think the official policy is that the only positive reinforcement a user needs is the reactions of the rest of the users.
We don't need a thumbs up button because if you've made a truly good post, there should be plenty of opportunity for other users to quote you and say something meaningful as a reply.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Sorry but no. You sign up to the site therefore you got to read the rules like most other websites out there. It isn't one of those terms and conditions that you simply click agree just because you can't be bother to read all of it. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[bobmus]

No one. Ever. Replies to someone who's quoted them just to say "this".

Unless they're a complete newcomer who just wants to say "thanks" back.

This.

Have a weekly Best Post, Best Thread and Best Community Member award or something.

Like that one user up there said: we used to have a community showcase coloumn going on. I think they might've discontinued it because it contributed to the whole "forum celebrity" mentality.

Oh, okay ):
I see how it is...

I'm not sure it's a real forum celebrity issue though (aside from best community member) - the best comments section mostly highlighted pretty insightful stuff being said rather than jokey popularity-winning stuff.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Sorry but no. You sign up to the site therefore you got to read the rules like most other websites out there. It isn't one of those terms and conditions that you simply click agree just because you can't be bother to read all of it. Ignorance is not an excuse.

That doesn't mean you cannot wish them changed.

 

[Jonluw]

No one. Ever. Replies to someone who's quoted them just to say "this".

Unless they're a complete newcomer who just wants to say "thanks" back.

This.

Thanks.

Have a weekly Best Post, Best Thread and Best Community Member award or something.

Like that one user up there said: we used to have a community showcase coloumn going on. I think they might've discontinued it because it contributed to the whole "forum celebrity" mentality.

Oh, okay ):
I see how it is...

I'm not sure it's a real forum celebrity issue though (aside from best community member) - the best comments section mostly highlighted pretty insightful stuff being said rather than jokey popularity-winning stuff.

Yeah, maybe.
Perhaps it just ended when Russ left and noone wanted to take the job.
[sub]Russ was the one who left, right?[/sub]

 

[Qitz]

I'm fine with the low content rule. If you don't have much to say other than "This" "+1" or "Agree" then you don't really need to post anything.

I would change the "You talk about this your auto-banned" things because it kills any attempt to have a valid discussion.

Go to any "Is Piracy [Whatever]?" thread, you wont find anyone who says "Yes, I do it myself because [X]" because they'll be banned / warned. Same with any attempt to discuss AdBlock or the Pedophilia craze that came over the forums for a bit.

If the threads are degrading into flame wars then yeah lock them down (which is why I'm assuming the rules are there anyways for) but preemptive locking / banning is pretty weak.

 

[Aeshi]

Mods are like Teachers in that they both seem to believe that a short post/essay/whatever is worse than the same post/essay/whatever with added bullshit padding.

 

[Esotera]

No, but I think we should have stricter moderation on absolutely useless topics that have no discussion value, obvious trolling/flamebaiting, and ban-jumping (which it looks like one recently banned user has done). The low content rule works well.

 

[evilneko]

Considering you can get modded even if you didn't break any rules in your post, I think there's more wrong than just the low content rule. This is the only forum I'm on with captchas and a low content rule, and it's also the one with the most spambots and low-content/low-discussion-value posts. Hmmmm...

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Mods are like Teachers in that they both seem to believe that a short post/essay/whatever is worse than the same post/essay/whatever with added bullshit padding.

Ha. Gave me a chuckle. Is also kind of accurate.

So the low-content thing is to stop people from wanting to increase their post count?...

...who the bloody fuck cares about post count?

People who have small penises or can't get a date? Silly people?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Considering you can get modded even if you didn't break any rules in your post, I think there's more wrong than just the low content rule. This is the only forum I'm on with captchas and a low content rule, and it's also the one with the most spambots and low-content/low-discussion-value posts. Hmmmm...

Oh I don't know about that. Have you ever been to GameFaqs? *shudder*

 

[Crazy Zaul]

The trick to avoid low content warnings is just do that thing people do where they type the captcha into the post. (Why the hell else do they do it?)

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

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.

Oh, goodness no! No forum celebrities! Fame makes people craaaaaazy! And it usually just ends up with idiots being revered by other idiots simply because they have a higher post count/more colourful history with the mods.

I steer clear of every thread and every opportunity for self-aggrandising. All I want to do here is read some topics, have some discussions and enjoy some laughs. I do not come here to wave e-peens around. And that is what I am afraid a "Best Community Member"-type award would promote: post-spamming and self-promotion, as everyone tried to make their voice heard above the rest, so that, they too, can be "Best Community Member"...

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Yeah, pretty much this. Low content posts are pointless. It's easy to pad out a post enough to avoid it and well, it's a forum, not a poll. You express your thoughts and opinions and show the different variations rather than a simple yes, no or agree/disagree. If that's all you can offer, then your post really wasn't needed in the slightest. Moving on.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

You're wrong. Both would receive warnings because it isn't based on words, it's based on content. As long as you have something worth reading in your post then you're fine. It isn't difficult, I've managed to have 2,600 posts that haven't succumbed to the low content rule.

 

[Promethax]

Hey guys. Have any of you ever heard of mandatory character requirements? Because getting banned for posting something one word too short is actually pretty fucking stupid if you actually think about it.

 

[Elate]

I also think the rules of ad-blocking need to be changed.. they have them under things like piracy.. Last I checked, using an ad-blocker wasn't committing a crime escapist, you just don't like it.

captcha: Downward slope, quite captcha.. quite..

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I agree with losing the low content rule. Unless you say something like "first" you shouldn't
be punished.

Also, if we're to keep the rule, then coming into a thread and saying something about food or some other nonsense which has nothing to do with the thread simply to derail it should be punishable as well. It has just as little value, and besides that is disruptive.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

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?

What it means is that while your health meter is at the level of probation, people will always be able to see that it's the case.

There are ways to heal your health meter, effectively undoing the probation, but until that happens your profile will be marked.