I'm rather fond of that rule epically because of all the videos on the Escapist, a lot of other sites that lack that rule seem to have nothing but people posting things like "great video" and it's really annoying to go through pages of that when you want to discuss the topic at hand.twohundredpercent said:
Low content posts are posts that consist only of "Lol" or "first" or "oh god" or "this is dumb" or something of that nature. If it's short and adds nothing to the discussion, it counts as low content.twohundredpercent said:
She implied someone was being a crybaby in a post, basically. IMO it was a bit excessive moderation but that happens.Saviordd1 said:
Something along those lines could be cool, but the 8 warning system seems good. The only thing that needs work (at least in my opinion) is being more consistent. But I know Kross and co. are doing their best to do the right things, so I can forgive them for their trespasses.saintdane05 said:
You. I like you. Keep on talking sense!FalloutJack said:Okay, props for that, but the appeal system doesn't work if you're all still riled. You have to decide to discuss it with a cool head yourselves. I know what goes on in an appeal. I've been there for warnings. Sometimes, you guys agree and sometimes you stick with your guns so tight and fast that I'm sure super glue was involved. There's a big difference between other people saying you might be wrong and deciding so yourself, because we both know the first response to other people, especially if they've been banned.Kross said:
She didn't really imply it...so much as flat out say it. Not entirely sure why everyone loved her so much.Zen Toombs said:Low content posts are posts that consist only of "Lol" or "first" or "oh god" or "this is dumb" or something of that nature. If it's short and adds nothing to the discussion, it counts as low content.twohundredpercent said:She implied someone was being a crybaby in a post, basically. IMO it was a bit excessive moderation but that happens.Saviordd1 said:Something along those lines could be cool, but the 8 warning system seems good. The only thing that needs work (at least in my opinion) is being more consistent. But I know Kross and co. are doing their best to do the right things, so I can forgive them for their trespasses.saintdane05 said:You. I like you. Keep on talking sense!FalloutJack said:Kross said:
Okay, props for that, but the appeal system doesn't work if you're all still riled. You have to decide to discuss it with a cool head yourselves. I know what goes on in an appeal. I've been there for warnings. Sometimes, you guys agree and sometimes you stick with your guns so tight and fast that I'm sure super glue was involved. There's a big difference between other people saying you might be wrong and deciding so yourself, because we both know the first response to other people, especially if they've been banned.
Yep! There are different levels to moderation. There's a warning, which is a "hey, buddy, you did this thing and it wasn't a good idea, but you maybe didn't mean it, so this is just a heads up not to do it again." You can still use the forum as usual, you've just been informed that your actions aren't appreciated. After you rack up a few of those, you get banned, which temporarily cuts off your ability to post in the forums. The length of ban increases as you go up the moderation meter. The final ban is permanent.Zen Toombs said:
Yeah, you can discuss concepts/etc, you just can't aid or admit to doing illegal things. Many people seem to find that line extremely difficult to respect, and slide towards things like "I just 'backed up' my files with Napster *wink wink*" (admitting/aiding back when Napster was a thing) or "The following programs all have no legitimate use: *proceeds to list a bunch of programs that make pirating easy*" (aiding)incal11 said:But discussions on why "piracy", for example, should maybe be better tolerated are still allowed, correct?Kross said:
As long as it's not about admitting/enabling.
(Yes, I will screen grab your positive answer)
Then how did Zeel come back after a year? I do understand the warning meter, but I'm confused why (for example) Zeel was banned a year or so ago but recently he came back, trolololololed a bit, and then got "permabanned" or something. Thank you for your clarification.Susan Arendt said:
In Zeel's case, there was some debate as to the final ban - there were some claims that couldn't be proven one way or the other - so Nasrin decided to give him an opportunity to redeem himself. If he waited a year and asked to come back, she'd allow it. He did, she did, and he blew it pretty much immediately.Zen Toombs said:
I also like it. But I'd add a way to heal yourself. You get points for the posts you don't get any infractions for, with a min comment limit and a max limit per month. Say 50 comments trigger a heal of 250hp, but not more than once per month. An active poster would reheal completely in 3 months, while a person who doesn't post anyway will take more time, but that doesn't affect him much. Once you reheal completely, your last ban is forgiven, so even if you had 2 bans, you go back to 1 and are allowed one more again. Rinse and repeat.blackrave said:
Few months before Adblockgate I believe. Doesn't really matter now, the forums have changed so much since thenMr.Pandah said:
That's the thing though - one cannot have a valid discussion if only one side of the argument is allowed to be heard, and acknowledging the other side's points is Debate 101. The rules as they are completely forbid any discussion on the subject unless it's entirely anti-piracy and doesn't acknowledge any counter-points, which undermines the entirely point (and validity) of a discussion in the first place.-Dragmire- said:
Okay, you have a very good point there and for some reason I didn't think of that. I can see why admitting to piracy or helping people pirate would be bannable. However, I still disagree about not allowing pro-piracy arguments at all, as simply agreeing with it or acknowledging why other people might do it is most definitely not a crime and any legal action taken against that would be a massive violation of free speech, which I'm fairly certain this site strongly supports if I recall the SOPA outcry correctly. Considering just how many things piracy and the war on it affects in the not only the gaming industry (particularly how many anti-consumer practices are directly tied to piracy), but to the world at large (once again, SOPA and every other speech / internet limiting bill out there); I do believe that civil discussion on the subject should be allowed so long as people aren't admitting to pirating or teaching others how to do it, due to the legal reasons you mentioned.Kross said:Piracy, or any discussion about enabling/admitting to illegal things is banned because we don't want to have to deal with law enforcement and similar issues.
This avatar is temporary until I find a decent animated one again.
Nice user who didn't mince their words + High post count + Funny posts = Popular and loved user.Mr.Pandah said:
