Official Everybody Edits Forums

Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?

You are not logged in.

Advertisement

Hello, visitor! These forums are run off of the revenue generated from these ads. If you'd like to support us, please whitelist us or consider donating:

#76 2017-01-09 03:52:25

Kefka
Formerly Itsmeandersonlol
From: :ɯoɹℲ
Registered: 2015-02-16
Posts: 2,152
Website

Re: less moderation

I agree with Hummerz5. He loves smacking his banhammer at me ;_#

Offline

#77 2017-01-11 14:27:27

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,462

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

Minimodding
"Attempting to do the mod's job for them. For example "You're going to get warned for that" or "That post is spam please stop." While the thought is appreciated, if you see a post breaking the rules you should report it and let us handle it."

This rule is stupid. It shuts down any self governing that could take place. There is no reason someone should be punished for giving a friendly "you guys are getting off topic". If someone is impersonating a mod,  they should be warned. Or if they keep telling everyone they're off-topic/spamming/whatever and they really aren't.

This forum isn't self governing. But I don't see why your changes couldn't be made here since the spirit of the rule is to prevent people who are harming the forums by telling people they're breaking the rules or going to be banned when they're not.

Spam (minor)
"Posting in the wrong topic, or posting something that doesn't add to the disussion."
Why would someone be warned for posting in the wrong topic? That could easily be resolved by sending the user a message, and letting them know they made a mistake.

The second part of this rule is semi-vague. Just let people post in the topic. If it doesn't add to the discussion, it will be ignored.

Ideally they'd only be warned only after a polite request to stop, like the Off-Topic warning below. That isn't mentioned anywhere here. But if someone is repeatedly posting whatever they feel like in whatever topic then something needs to change.

Inappropriate (Language)
Swearing and using vulgar language while evading the censor. In general, any language that isn't appropriate around children.
Censor evasion should be its own rule.

The second half basically means anything explicit, and that's already covered in the "Inappropriate" warning.

This essentially is that rule.

Inappropriate (Minor)
Posting content that may not be appropriate for children.
This is basically ****/drugs, and should be 3 points.

Just get rid of this rule and warn them with the "Inappropriate".

No, there's a purpose to the minor warnings that you seem to be completely missing. There's a large variety covered by each rule. Do you think something posting **** or gore should get the same punishment as someone who makes a drug reference?

Inappropriate
For nsfw links, sexual imagery, or explicit language.
Why are there two inappropriate warnings when this one covers the same thing as the others.

Because they don't.

Personal Info (Minor)
Posting the personal information of another person without their consent. For example, real name, email, picture, stuff like that.
No, why is there two separate warnings for this? Just warn them with "Personal Info".

Look at the actual text of the warning, do you think posting their email is as bad as posting their physical address? That's why this warning exists. One warning to rule them all is dumb.

Nub
General purpose warning for things that aren't technically against the rules, but are disruptive to the forums. Typically you'll be asked to stop whatever it is you're doing, and if you don't that's where this warning comes in.
This rule is so **** dumb. This is basically just an open warning that can be handed out for anything a mod doesn't like.

The rules can't cover everything. For everything else, there's this warning. It's been handed out twice, it's not being abused. You're the proud owner of the first one for breaking copyright and being a massive **** doing it, and the second was handed out to someone who made a bot that steals passwords, which isn't in the rules either.

Flaming (Minor)
Like flaming but minor
****' what?
No, just warn them for flaming.

"ur dumb" is not the same as "I hope you die you filthy tranny scum."

Flaming
Verbally (textually?) attacking another forum member. For example "I hope you die" or "You're bimpsing retarded."
I can post **** on this site and get in less trouble than calling someone "**** retarded."

That's a bit shocking since we seem to be trying to cater to 9 year old kids.

One has caused people to commit suicide. What has **** ever done to you?

Illegal
Posting illegal content.
Is this a joke? Just a 3 day ban for posting something illegal? **** permaban them!

"You can get adobe photoshop for free by clicking right h-*permabanned*.

Yeah that seems appropriate. And it's not a three day ban. Quit looking at this in terms of ban lengths, that's not how this system works. Like I mentioned in the other topic, this system is completely unrelated to the current one.

Personal Info
Posting the personal information of another user such as facebook or address with malicious intent.
How often is personal info released without there being malicious intent? Permaban.

Address or facebook? Never. Someone's name or email? Easily possible.

Offline

#78 2017-01-11 15:07:01

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

Different55 wrote:

Do you think something posting **** or gore should get the same punishment as someone who makes a drug reference?

Maybe not.

Different55 wrote:

do you think posting their email is as bad as posting their physical address?

This is one of those things that I would say "it is what it is." Posting an email is still posting info.

Different55 wrote:

You're the proud owner of the first one for breaking copyright and being a massive **** doing it

Except I hadn't done anything illegal. Tomkazaz is just a sour puss.

Different55 wrote:

the second was handed out to someone who made a bot that steals passwords, which isn't in the rules either.

Would that not fall under illegal? I'm not sure what law it would be breaking, but it sounds illegal.

Different55 wrote:

"ur dumb" is not the same as "I hope you die you filthy tranny scum."

I think context is usually important, but no matter what if you're warning people for "ur dumb" then...
The second is just blatant hatred.

Different55 wrote:

"You can get adobe photoshop for free by clicking right h-*permabanned*.

If you could do jail time for it (or at least have to deal with the courts) I feel like it shouldn't be allowed here.

Different55 wrote:

this system is completely unrelated to the current one.

wut?

Different55 wrote:

Someone's name or email? Easily possible.

Sure. But then why are we punishing them? Couldn't it be easily resolved without tossing out warnings/bans? Couldn't most of the **** that happens on here be resolved that way?


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#79 2017-01-11 20:50:01

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,462

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

This is one of those things that I would say "it is what it is." Posting an email is still posting info.

"ur dumb" and "drink bleach and die" are both still flaming. IMO the same distinction can be made between a physical address and an email address.

MrJaWapa wrote:

Except I hadn't done anything illegal. Tomkazaz is just a sour puss.

Believe it or not copyright law is still law.

MrJaWapa wrote:

Would that not fall under illegal? I'm not sure what law it would be breaking, but it sounds illegal.

idk I'm not a lawyer.

MrJaWapa wrote:

I think context is usually important, but no matter what if you're warning people for "ur dumb" then...
The second is just blatant hatred.

hyperbole

MrJaWapa wrote:

If you could do jail time for it (or at least have to deal with the courts) I feel like it shouldn't be allowed here.

It isn't allowed here, but it's not worth a permaban either. Generic warnings are too generic. Especially one like "illegal" where it covers everything from posting a link to an illegal download for a movie to posting cheese pizza.

MrJaWapa wrote:

wut?

"This system" is talking about the system you made your post in. The topic that's in off-topic. Totally unrelated to the one we have on the forums here.

MrJaWapa wrote:

Sure. But then why are we punishing them? Couldn't it be easily resolved without tossing out warnings/bans?

Yes, I'm glad to see you've discovered the purpose of the "with malicious intent" bit.

Offline

#80 2017-01-11 21:27:43

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

Different55 wrote:

"ur dumb" and "drink bleach and die" are both still flaming. IMO the same distinction can be made between a physical address and an email address.

Then why not can the minor/major and just have one all encompassing warning?

Different55 wrote:

Believe it or not copyright law is still law.

I never said it wasn't.

Different55 wrote:

to posting cheese pizza.

I don't know of any laws against this.

Different55 wrote:

Yes, I'm glad to see you've discovered the purpose of the "with malicious intent" bit.

Then isn't it being done that way?


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#81 2017-01-12 03:04:10

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,462

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

Then why not can the minor/major and just have one all encompassing warning?

That's exactly the reason why it can't. There's too much difference between the two to try a one-size-fits all thing here. Either it'll be way overblown or not nearly severe enough, so it's split into two.

MrJaWapa wrote:

I never said it wasn't.

Alright, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. You weren't given an Illegal warning anyway. You were given a catch-all warning for disrupting the forums after being *repeatedly* asked to stop.

MrJaWapa wrote:

I don't know of any laws against this.

cheese pizza is child ****. There's a massive difference between posting a download link for a movie and posting child ****. Both are illegal, but you cannot expect to properly cover both with the same warning.

MrJaWapa wrote:

Then isn't it being done that way?

That's the idea, anyway.

Offline

Wooted by:

#82 2017-01-15 02:22:44

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,902

Re: less moderation

You all have let the discussion simmer down, which seems to happen all too much with things that should happen (or at least be considered).

a few things make sense in this situation. We know this forum, as it is, aims to represent the EE fanbase. We know EE tries to be open to the younger audiences with considerable effort against rude or inappropriate behaviors.

If you want a place that condones "toxic" behavior, that seems entirely a choice we could make as a forum. However, at that point it seems arguable that this forum should remove its ties from EE, as far as "official" is concerned.

It doesn't make sense to try for a "wholesome" environment in the game and then offer a polar opposite on the side. Even if you all think it would be a great idea.

Arguments of "but then the community is split" or "but then the community is small" are valid. However, they don't overcome simple expectations of decency. (something something fail forums)


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#83 2017-01-15 02:32:41

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

You all have let the discussion simmer down, which seems to happen all too much with things that should happen (or at least be considered).

Because "stop whining u lil ****" is pretty much the mentality around here.

hummerz5 wrote:

If you want a place that condones "toxic" behavior

No one's asking for anarchy.

hummerz5 wrote:

However, at that point it seems arguable that this forum should remove its ties from EE, as far as "official" is concerned.

Can't say I'm really for, or against this. Like I said, we're not striving for chaos and total immunity.

Y'all just need to chill with the topic locking, and the random **** warnings.


I know Reddit is far from being the same thing as a smiley face forum, but I'd suggest letting the forums work more like that.


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#84 2017-01-15 02:37:07

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,902

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

Because "stop whining u lil ****" is pretty much the mentality around here.

Hmm. I always had the impression that any fixes someone wanted to propose were welcome in the forum discussion area. Then, if people agreed (if people actually read the section and cared) there would be a drive to resolve whatever problems have been brought to light. Is that not your impression?

MrJaWapa wrote:

No one's asking for anarchy.

you wrote off my generalization with a generalization. Guess that's on me.
swearing isn't really appreciated in EE
but this ambiguous "flaming a lot is bad, but regular flaming is your own problem" is another aspect.

Frankly, how many differing aspects need be considered?

whoops hit send before finishing

Y'all just need to chill with the topic locking

On occasion it feels like the topics that are proposed, and the responses generated, veer away from useful discussion. This is somewhat distanced, but it does feel like another point that needs to be discussed and one that cannot be simply resolved by consulting with EE rules. How much useless "LOL YOU ROAST" does it take to be incomprehensible spam? Does it fall under "let us allow more spam"? Now we go beyond the actual black-and-white argument to the one of values. Do we want to associate EE with somewhat reasoned discussion or that blab?

pretty sure his reddit thing was "posts that are downvoted get hidden" both in the general sense and the literal negative votes disappear thing

Last edited by hummerz5 (2017-01-15 02:42:00)


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#85 2017-01-15 02:37:14

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,462

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

I know Reddit is far from being the same thing as a smiley face forum, but I'd suggest letting the forums work more like that.

Going to need some clarification here unless you mean "let topic owners have absolute control over everything in their topics and have the site staff sit back and do nothing unless one of the topics get out of control."

Offline

#86 2017-01-15 04:45:46

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

On occasion it feels like the topics that are proposed, and the responses generated, veer away from useful discussion.

I don't see anything wrong with making a **** post. It's completely useless, but it's going to generate more posts.

hummerz5 wrote:

How much useless "LOL YOU ROAST" does it take to be incomprehensible spam?

I was under the impression incomprehensible spam would be long strings of characters meant to just take up space/annoy.

hummerz5 wrote:

pretty sure his reddit thing was "posts that are downvoted get hidden" both in the general sense and the literal negative votes disappear thing

Completely useless posts would be ignored. No need to warn some one for spam because, "LOL YOU ROAST." If they post it over and over again just to be an annoying ****, then I would consider it spam.

Different55 wrote:

let topic owners have absolute control over everything in their topics

No. I'd like for the ability to lock our own topics to be removed. And not have the ability to report the topic to be locked. Stop locking topics (y'know unless there's some **** posting something he shouldn't be... that should be obvious).

Different55 wrote:

have the site staff sit back and do nothing

already partially implemented

Different55 wrote:

do nothing unless one of the topics get out of control.

I think this is what I was getting at.


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#87 2017-01-15 05:03:42

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,902

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with making a **** post. It's completely useless, but it's going to generate more posts.

Completely useless posts are useless, no matter how many you have. What redeeming aspect of your many useless posts do you value?

MrJaWapa wrote:

I was under the impression incomprehensible spam would be long strings of characters meant to just take up space/annoy.

me too, but long strings of senseless words that border on grammatical coherency meant just to take up space do annoy me. so there is that avenue


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#88 2017-01-15 05:38:13

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

What redeeming aspect of your many useless posts do you value?

I can't say I have any. Still don't agree people should be warned/banned for it.

hummerz5 wrote:

me too, but long strings of senseless words that border on grammatical coherency meant just to take up space do annoy me. so there is that avenue

shajxgfajkshdgfkasjdfghjkadf

is the same as


LOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROASTLOL YOU ROAST

but is completely different from

LOL YOU ROAST

at least, in my mind.


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#89 2017-01-15 05:43:36

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,902

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:

at least, in my mind.

no I agree. But I also believe there's no use in those posts that take the standard of discussion and try to lower it to that level.

MrJaWapa wrote:

I can't say I have any. Still don't agree people should be warned/banned for it.

if there's no use for it, then we could just as well have them not do it. If we want them to not do it, we have a system to prevent it.

these two issues are merging... how fun should we let funposting be? or something. This thread generally calls for the useless post variety, which I find disagreeable


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#90 2017-01-15 06:48:11

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

If we want them to not do it

If by "we" you mean the normal forum users: I think most of the *active* people would agree useless posts should be allowed, unless they turn into spam.

hummerz5 wrote:

if there's no use for it, then we could just as well have them not do it.

Only warn/ban people when their posts become a problem. There's no need to have a moral debate over what's acceptable and what's not, because you got this **** rit her:
8a69ff1b.png

Get a few of those on a post... it's probably an issue. Otherwise, just don't.

Last edited by hummerz5 (2017-01-17 22:02:52)


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#91 2017-01-15 10:26:01

Doomsdaytoy9000
Member
From: Locating location...
Registered: 2015-03-16
Posts: 475

Re: less moderation

People are being banned left and right, I seriously think something has to be done

(I bet Hummerz banned the most people so far)

Offline

#92 2017-01-15 11:39:46

Era
Member
From: :::::1
Registered: 2015-05-06
Posts: 770

Re: less moderation

Different55 wrote:

as someone who makes a drug reference?

how would you even judge this? coffee is clearly a drug, though it would be allowed.
stuff like weed or something would probably get a warning (though it is completely legal in some contries, this is a forum with more then native english speakers, right?)

Different55 wrote:

do you think posting their email is as bad as posting their physical address?

Yes, absolutely! both schould get a permanent ban if the user whos email/adress was posted did not want that.

hummerz5 wrote:

On occasion it feels like the topics that are proposed, and the responses generated, veer away from useful discussion

IMO that is not for a mdoerator to decide what is considered "usefull" and what is not, if the people in the topic feel like discussing it let them!

hummerz5 wrote:

Completely useless posts are useless, no matter how many you have.

uselessness is entirely subjective, e.g it could be an inside joke between the OP and poster that you did not know about.

hummerz5 wrote:

me too, but long strings of senseless words that border on grammatical coherency meant just to take up space do annoy me. so there is that avenue

sooo, ban all people that are just starting to learn english?


the problem here seems to be that by trying to hold of damage from the forums some mods are causing more damage then they are preventing, yes some people might spam occasionally (or what you consider to be spam anyway)
but if you ban those they will eventually leave, and so will the rest of the forum.

also, i think posts schould be considered on their context, and not if they fit some arbritary rule since it could be the case that
A. that kind of post is totally apropriate but was not though of when making the rule. or
B. that kind of post is totally inapropriate but no rule exists to ban people on.

Last edited by Era (2017-01-15 12:02:21)


~FreeBSD user
~Debian user

Offline

Wooted by:

#93 2017-01-15 14:15:17

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,462

Re: less moderation

Era wrote:

how would you even judge this? coffee is clearly a drug, though it would be allowed.
stuff like weed or something would probably get a warning (though it is completely legal in some contries, this is a forum with more then native english speakers, right?)

Use your brain, clearly I meant illegal drugs. Judging by what I've said before it's safe to assume I mean illegal in the USA. But even then I don't think anyone's ever been warned for a drug reference before.

Era wrote:

Yes, absolutely! both schould get a permanent ban if the user whos email/adress was posted did not want that.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. IMO there's a massive difference between leaking an email which has the potential to be a bit of an annoyance and a physical location which has the potential to cause someone physical harm.

Offline

#94 2017-01-15 16:03:44

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,902

Re: less moderation

Era wrote:

IMO that is not for a mdoerator to decide what is considered "usefull" and what is not, if the people in the topic feel like discussing it let them!

OK, your opinion is noted. What about people who want to have a serious discussion about a topic, but then we have these useless posts come in? It's their inherent right to bog down discussion with their "technically not" spam?

Era wrote:

uselessness is entirely subjective, e.g it could be an inside joke between the OP and poster that you did not know about.

Good point! However, your "it could be" definitely doesn't cover the rule as a whole, so... so what? Do you mean to tell me that every useless post is a "haha inside joke" -- no you don't. Also, if the meaning is between two people, it could just as viably be expressed through PMs

Era wrote:

sooo, ban all people that are just starting to learn english?

No, just the people who show their ability to write english but then turn around and make no sense. One can get a good sense of those trying to get a handle on english and those who decide to (on occasion) throw their grammar books out.

Era wrote:

A. that kind of post is totally apropriate but was not though of when making the rule. or

So you're saying a post has content that the rules say is bad, but somehow you have a situation where it's not actually bad? Then you've raised a problem with the rule, not the situation. You're going from "your opinions are flawed" to "hey your task should involve much more opinion-based decisions!"

Era wrote:

B. that kind of post is totally inapropriate but no rule exists to ban people on.

MrJawapa hasn't gotten back to me on that, but I'd like to stress the idea behind rules. If you want less moderation? Make a topic -- seems bimps took this avenue.  But, if you have a rule that is too expansive or too limited, (A vs B) you should make a topic to discuss it. If others agree with you, the problem could be rectified.


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#95 2017-01-15 18:38:37

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

What about people who want to have a serious discussion about a topic, but then we have these useless posts come in? It's their inherent right to bog down discussion with their "technically not" spam?

If there's a massive wave of **** posted, I would consider that spam (several people start **** posting).

hummerz5 wrote:

One can get a good sense of those trying to get a handle on english and those who decide to (on occasion) throw their grammar books out.

Annoying, for sure; don't think it's bannable though.

hummerz5 wrote:

I'd like to stress the idea behind rules.

I have no problem with rules. Again, not looking for total freedom.

hummerz5 wrote:

But, if you have a rule that is too expansive or too limited

dun


EDIT:

Doomsdaytoy9000's signature wrote:

2017 - Demod Hummerz

Don't hate hummerz for doing his job tongue
as it stands, he's only doing what he's supposed to.

Last edited by MrJaWapa (2017-01-15 18:44:02)


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#96 2017-01-15 20:23:07

Era
Member
From: :::::1
Registered: 2015-05-06
Posts: 770

Re: less moderation

hummerz5 wrote:

What about people who want to have a serious discussion about a topic, but then we have these useless posts come in? It's their inherent right to bog down discussion with their "technically not" spam?

flag button exists, if its not beeing used there doesnt seem to be any annoyance.

Different55 wrote:

Use your brain, clearly I meant illegal drugs. Judging by what I've said before it's safe to assume I mean illegal in the USA. But even then I don't think anyone's ever been warned for a drug reference before.

i don't know any laws of the USA, so bans on referencing drugs which are illegal in the usa will seem totally unprovoked to me. nice, one user less in that case.

Different55 wrote:

IMO there's a massive difference between leaking an email which has the potential to be a bit of an annoyance and a physical location which has the potential to cause someone physical harm.

An email is not just a little annoyance but a gateway to hack about 90% of accounts of most people since most still secure it by email only (aka hack their email and then send "forgot my password" and you have control of pretty much all their accounts) --> which in turn makes you able to impersonate someone, etc..

hummerz5 wrote:

Good point! However, your "it could be" definitely doesn't cover the rule as a whole, so... so what? Do you mean to tell me that every useless post is a "haha inside joke" -- no you don't. Also, if the meaning is between two people, it could just as viably be expressed through PMs

if it is of annoyance people will ust the flag button, if its not you are just banning people on a some-people-think-this-could-be-considered-spam basis


As for A,B, i don't think that there can ever exist a ruleset which covers all possible acceptable and not acceptable situations at once while still beeing human-readable (aka readable for the usual casual user of the forum)

hummerz5 wrote:

No, just the people who show their ability to write english but then turn around and make no sense. One can get a good sense of those trying to get a handle on english and those who decide to (on occasion) throw their grammar books out.

i'm pretty sure that most people will understand me most of the times when i write in english, though sometimes not, which could fall under this... since it also is totally subjective.


~FreeBSD user
~Debian user

Offline

#97 2017-01-15 21:09:39

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

How about instead of having a list of things our posts can't be, we create a list of things our posts should be.

Kinda like what them bigger businesses do.

You will be kind and courteous to fellow employees
You will respectful to the property of others

that sort of thing, but obviously targeted towards forum behavior.


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#98 2017-01-15 21:32:00

Doomsdaytoy9000
Member
From: Locating location...
Registered: 2015-03-16
Posts: 475

Re: less moderation

MrJaWapa wrote:
hummerz5 wrote:

What about people who want to have a serious discussion about a topic, but then we have these useless posts come in? It's their inherent right to bog down discussion with their "technically not" spam?

If there's a massive wave of **** posted, I would consider that spam (several people start **** posting).

hummerz5 wrote:

One can get a good sense of those trying to get a handle on english and those who decide to (on occasion) throw their grammar books out.

Annoying, for sure; don't think it's bannable though.

hummerz5 wrote:

I'd like to stress the idea behind rules.

I have no problem with rules. Again, not looking for total freedom.

hummerz5 wrote:

But, if you have a rule that is too expansive or too limited

dun


EDIT:

Doomsdaytoy9000's signature wrote:

2017 - Demod Hummerz

Don't hate hummerz for doing his job tongue
as it stands, he's only doing what he's supposed to.

People hated Koya for doing his job too tongue

Offline

#99 2017-01-15 22:33:16

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,822
Website

Re: less moderation

First of all, there was no need to quote the entire post.

Secondly, it wasn't justified for him either.


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#100 2017-01-15 23:56:24

Onjit
Member
From: Batmania, Australia
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 6,259
Website

Offline

N1KF1484676064643444

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

[ Started around 1488228062.9246 - Generated in 0.107 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.47 MiB (Peak: 1.76 MiB) ]