Dumb reason to get banned.

Luka504 · 2015-09-16 11:40:13

As much as i enforce the rules,i still cant get used to the:One word replies are banned.
Swearing:Understandable
Being a jerk:Understandable
Leaving a one word reply that isnt swearing or very offensive is DUMB.This is a conversation that would NEVER happen:
Me:*calls 911* Um hello is it 911?
911:Yes what is the crime your reporting?
Me:Well um..OH GOD THAT PERSON LEFT A ONE WORLD REPLY
911:OH MEH GED OK SIR BE CALM WE ARE SENDING ALL OUR FORCES!
Me:OH GED HURRY ITS SO EVILE!
See?DUMB!
Now i know your reply:Well just dont leave one worded replies?Well i just cant get used to it.I feels so unatural that i cant leave a one worded reply on website.
The second thing that should be changed is the time being banned.This isnt a prison where you pile up the punishment the more rules you break.Why not have specific ban periods for each rule broken?For example,if someone left a psychopathic one word reply,ban them for a few hours.
If someone swears,ban them a few days.
That way someone isnt overly punished for something as dumb as a one worded reply.

Br0k3n · 2015-09-16 13:23:09

forums are made for discussions not replies only saying "k"
because when you make a post saying "no" and "yes" your answer is irrelevant and unexplained (fx why are you posting yes/no)
if you want to one word post legally somewhere try fail forums.

for the bantime, im not sure if it can be set in hours, only days. but i could be wrong about that.

Falk

Creature · 2015-09-16 14:02:48

Do you want spam to be allowed? One-Word posts are like that.

Do like me, if you're going to post one word, add something to compliment this one-word.

Result in warning wrote:

No.

Dont result in warning wrote:

What about no?

Gosha · 2015-09-16 14:21:15

i got banned for upload image without text

Zoey2070 · 2015-09-16 16:51:13

Luka504 wrote:

This isnt a prison where you pile up the punishment the more rules you break

yes, it is? why shouldn't it be? that is literally how the warnings are set up. The second time you get a 1 point warning -- spam, whatever -- it's a twelve hour ban. If you get another one point warning before your second warning expires, it's a 3 ban. If you can't figure out that one-word posts are against the rules and enjoy getting banned, then you'll keep getting banned. it's as simple as that. You may think it's dumb to get banned for one word posts, but I think it's dumb that you're so against adding literally one extra word to a post to avoid getting banned. you could say "uh, no" and not get banned. it's as easy as that.

Onjit, Pingohits, some woman, Anch, Falk

skullz17 · 2015-09-16 17:01:26

I don't actually like the one-word rule either. A mod should just decide whether a post is spam or not, rather than just use a measurement like that.

iPwner

Anak · 2015-09-16 18:15:45

As Zoey and many others have said before, the forums are to spark discussion. "No." doesn't spark much discussion.
Plus, it's kind of annoying to see a thread and someone just posts something like "Yes" or "No". Like, that's kind of pointless when someone has bothered to type out a whole thread and that's your only answer. One word doesn't say much.

skullz17 · 2015-09-16 18:19:17

Anak wrote:

As Zoey and many others have said before, the forums are to spark discussion. "No." doesn't spark much discussion.
Plus, it's kind of annoying to see a thread and someone just posts something like "Yes" or "No". Like, that's kind of pointless when someone has bothered to type out a whole thread and that's your only answer. One word doesn't say much.

Yeah but that's not always the case. It's like saying "all of bimps' posts are probably gonna break a rule, so let's just permaban him before he registers". One word posts COULD be spam, but not always. So my suggestion is that rather than measuring a post's worth by the number of words, measure it by its actual weight and meaning, and the mod that is judging it should just decide if it's spam or not.

iPwner, Luka504

Anak · 2015-09-16 18:22:11

skullz17 wrote:

Anak wrote:
As Zoey and many others have said before, the forums are to spark discussion. "No." doesn't spark much discussion.
Plus, it's kind of annoying to see a thread and someone just posts something like "Yes" or "No". Like, that's kind of pointless when someone has bothered to type out a whole thread and that's your only answer. One word doesn't say much.
Yeah but that's not always the case. It's like saying "all of bimps' posts are probably gonna break a rule, so let's just permaban him before he registers". One word posts COULD be spam, but not always. So my suggestion is that rather than measuring a post's worth by the number of words, measure it by its actual weight and meaning, and the mod that is judging it should just decide if it's spam or not.

I don't really see how they're not spam unless it's like in the games section

Luka504 · 2015-09-16 18:45:37

Theres no difference beetwen uh no and just no.Both hardly contribute to the topic and have the same meaning
You cant tell me no is a spam and uh no isnt.

Different55 · 2015-09-16 18:47:10

skullz17 wrote:

I don't actually like the one-word rule either. A mod should just decide whether a post is spam or not, rather than just use a measurement like that.

The problem with that is that a concrete line needs to be drawn between what is spam and what isn't, otherwise we'll end up contradicting ourselves eventually and then people get mad and then people mass riot in the streets and it's all just a huge mess.

Swarth100

Abelysk · 2015-09-16 18:48:13

Anak wrote:

skullz17 wrote:
Anak wrote:
As Zoey and many others have said before, the forums are to spark discussion. "No." doesn't spark much discussion.
Plus, it's kind of annoying to see a thread and someone just posts something like "Yes" or "No". Like, that's kind of pointless when someone has bothered to type out a whole thread and that's your only answer. One word doesn't say much.
Yeah but that's not always the case. It's like saying "all of bimps' posts are probably gonna break a rule, so let's just permaban him before he registers". One word posts COULD be spam, but not always. So my suggestion is that rather than measuring a post's worth by the number of words, measure it by its actual weight and meaning, and the mod that is judging it should just decide if it's spam or not.
I don't really see how they're not spam unless it's like in the games section

I was warned for using "wow" once. I don't need additional words to explain the "wow".

Or how about the term "lol"? Lol is technically three words.

Michele · 2015-09-16 18:50:30

I just said "Agreed" and got banned for no reason. I mean, one day.

Creature · 2015-09-16 19:19:59

AntonioS300 wrote:

I just said "Agreed" and got banned for no reason. I mean, one day.

You're lucky it was for just one day.

Swarth100

Badoosh · 2015-09-16 20:18:23

Zoey2070 wrote:

...you could say "uh, no" and not get banned. it's as easy as that.

But doesn't that just defeat the purpose of the 1 word posts being not discussiony enough? If posts like that aren't going to be banned why ban people who just write "no" for contributing the same amount?

Different55 wrote:

The problem with that is that a concrete line needs to be drawn between what is spam and what isn't, otherwise we'll end up contradicting ourselves eventually...

If a post asks me "who is the creator of EE I forget?" and I reply "Benjamensin" I'd be banned for spam? I'm contributing to the topic, so I shouldn't be. But on the other hand I've posted a one word post, which is a bannable offense.

Edit: The reason for the no one word posts is to have posts "of substance." But, why should I be banned for answering some person's question efficiently instead of adding fluff?

Bobithan, Xfrogman43, skullz17, Luka504

Anak · 2015-09-16 20:35:21

I suppose one way to eliminate this would be to have like a minimum 5 word rule or something

Luka504 · 2015-09-16 22:33:15

Anak wrote:

I suppose one way to eliminate this would be to have like a minimum 5 word rule or something

Wait what?I get banned for saying more words?
*flies off in jetpack* Nothing to do here.

Anak · 2015-09-16 22:40:52

Luka504 wrote:

Anak wrote:
I suppose one way to eliminate this would be to have like a minimum 5 word rule or something
Wait what?I get banned for saying more words?
*flies off in jetpack* Nothing to do here.

As in each post must have a minimum of 5 words.

Luka504 · 2015-09-16 22:42:24

i understood.
*still flying*

Different55 · 2015-09-16 23:21:16

Badoosh wrote:

Zoey2070 wrote:
...you could say "uh, no" and not get banned. it's as easy as that.
But doesn't that just defeat the purpose of the 1 word posts being not discussiony enough? If posts like that aren't going to be banned why ban people who just write "no" for contributing the same amount?
Different55 wrote:
The problem with that is that a concrete line needs to be drawn between what is spam and what isn't, otherwise we'll end up contradicting ourselves eventually...
If a post asks me "who is the creator of EE I forget?" and I reply "Benjamensin" I'd be banned for spam? I'm contributing to the topic, so I shouldn't be. But on the other hand I've posted a one word post, which is a bannable offense.
Edit: The reason for the no one word posts is to have posts "of substance." But, why should I be banned for answering some person's question efficiently instead of adding fluff?

Strictly speaking, yeah that's against the rules. If you have a better way of easily determining whether or not a post is substantial or not without subjectivity coming into it, I'm all ears. Ideally, the rules should be as objective as possible.

mrjawapa · 2015-09-16 23:36:05

I agree that "lol" "ha" "wow" stuff like that is spam, and doesn't contribute anything to the topic.

But if my one word post answers someone's question sufficiently, then why am I being punished? Actually, I have been given 2 or three warnings because of one word posts. None of which were spam. They all answered a questioned, there was no need to add extra words to it.

Different55 wrote:

If you have a better way of easily determining whether or not a post is substantial or not without subjectivity coming into it, I'm all ears. Ideally, the rules should be as objective as possible.

Like I said, if a post is completely useless, then it can be given that title of spam. I get that you may not always want to read everything to see what is going on, but that is the responsibility you took up on your own. If you can't handle it, you should try and get more forum staff.

Muftwin · 2015-09-17 01:02:05

Luka504 wrote:

Me:*calls 911* Um hello is it 911?
911:Yes what is the crime your reporting?
Me:Well um..OH GOD THAT PERSON LEFT A ONE WORLD REPLY
911:OH MEH GED OK SIR BE CALM WE ARE SENDING ALL OUR FORCES!
Me:OH GED HURRY ITS SO EVILE!

i dont know how you guys take these topics seriously

Anch, Fastmapler, Evilbunny, Br0k3n

Different55 · 2015-09-17 02:58:23

JaWapa wrote:

I agree that "lol" "ha" "wow" stuff like that is spam, and doesn't contribute anything to the topic.
But if my one word post answers someone's question sufficiently, then why am I being punished? Actually, I have been given 2 or three warnings because of one word posts. None of which were spam. They all answered a questioned, there was no need to add extra words to it.
Different55 wrote:
If you have a better way of easily determining whether or not a post is substantial or not without subjectivity coming into it, I'm all ears. Ideally, the rules should be as objective as possible.
Like I said, if a post is completely useless, then it can be given that title of spam. I get that you may not always want to read everything to see what is going on, but that is the responsibility you took up on your own. If you can't handle it, you should try and get more forum staff.

Nub pls I always do. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the judgement that comes afterwards.

Warnings are black and white. Either the post is warnable or it isn't. There shouldn't be anything subjective about it.

The forums are black, white, and every shade of gray in between. You have black posts that are obviously spam like "lol" and you have posts that are obviously not spam, like Badoosh's example above. But it's not always that clear. Sometimes it's in that in-between space.

We have to draw a hard line somewhere and clearly define what is warnable and what isn't. If we just decide on the fly on a case by case basis, mistakes will be made. Some people will be warned for things that other people won't be. It'll be inconsistent, and that's not good when we're talking about warnings and bans.

That said, I don't know how inconsistent it'd actually be and I don't know if it wouldn't be worth it to do away with the rule. I can't remember the last time that there was a really borderline one-word post.

EDIT: De-walled my text.

hummerz5 · 2015-09-17 03:07:28

Butting in, I really can't see an "objective" way to test post quality. You could write up rubrics to make it more objective, but you're still going to be left with "which words mean more to me?" which can only be subjective. (lovin' those words)

Plus, if you have more than one moderator, you're running the risk of having different finnicky definitions of disallowed conduct.

tl;dr: dunno

Xfrogman43 · 2015-09-17 03:36:20

If I say "lol" I get a ban.
What if I say "Laugh out loud"?
Do i get a ban then? It's the exact same thing, just separated into its parts.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2015-09-16 11:40:13

Dumb reason to get banned.

#2 2015-09-16 13:23:09, last edited by Br0k3n (2015-09-16 13:23:52)

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#3 2015-09-16 14:02:48

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#4 2015-09-16 14:21:15

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#5 2015-09-16 16:51:13

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#6 2015-09-16 17:01:26

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#7 2015-09-16 18:15:45

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#8 2015-09-16 18:19:17, last edited by skullz17 (2015-09-16 18:19:33)

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#9 2015-09-16 18:22:11

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#10 2015-09-16 18:45:37, last edited by Luka504 (2015-09-16 18:45:51)

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#11 2015-09-16 18:47:10

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#12 2015-09-16 18:48:13

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#13 2015-09-16 18:50:30

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#14 2015-09-16 19:19:59

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#15 2015-09-16 20:18:23, last edited by Badoosh (2015-09-16 20:30:41)

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#16 2015-09-16 20:35:21

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#17 2015-09-16 22:33:15

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#18 2015-09-16 22:40:52

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#19 2015-09-16 22:42:24

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#20 2015-09-16 23:21:16

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#21 2015-09-16 23:36:05

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#22 2015-09-17 01:02:05

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#23 2015-09-17 02:58:23, last edited by Different55 (2015-09-17 02:59:06)

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#24 2015-09-17 03:07:28

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

#25 2015-09-17 03:36:20

Re: Dumb reason to get banned.

Board footer