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.
Pages: 1
Apart from the really spammy ones that can be moved to graveyard, I don't see the reason to lock most of the topics. You have power, there is no need to be using it when it doesn't have to be used.
Offline
there WAS the reason for like unnecessary gravedigging and the repetitive topics that they were like already used for the most of time.
this is the part where diff comes down and gives tomohawk the big succ
>Locked.
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
☆ ★ ★
Offline
I mean, tell the people who actually report it, to stop firstly. I’ve been reporting some topics to be locked with a reason.
Some topics may also be locked by the OPs.
But actually, thanks to the guy for keeping the forum clean.
Offline
We need to maintain a reasonably consistent average thread quality or the forums turn into a ****.
If I leave low-effort and spammy threads unlocked, they become a baseline for what’s allowed. The next set of threads then toe the line, and I’ve just lessened my ability to lock those because people can point to recent examples that have stayed open.
It’s not necessarily a slippery slope, because the baseline I help enforce can and should be changed - day-to-day if necessary - to account for fluctuating forum activity, ratio of spam to non-spam and the number of new active users.
Some subforums need to be stricter. Game Business and Game Discussion are the most visited; modding there is seen by the most users and so must be representative always. Q&A needs to stay helpful. Off-Topic is spammier, but the funposting there (as with everywhere else) still should add entertainment-value.
So if you’re asking to spam freely, the answer’s no. If you want the baseline changed, then put some effort into a rational argument for it.
Speaking from experience, reporting anything is pretty much useless now
>90% of reported posts haven’t broken any rules.
One bot to rule them all, one bot to find them. One bot to bring them all... and with this cliché blind them.
Offline
Offline
No, it's still a rule, but if the minimodding is part of a bigger post or is done in a more nuanced way that conveys the poster's opinion about the topic, it's either OK or too trivial for a warning.
If you're gonna link some recent examples, I'll reconsider but I won't warn them. The statute of limitations for 0-point warnings kicks in pretty quick, provided that very regular modding occurs - which it does.
One bot to rule them all, one bot to find them. One bot to bring them all... and with this cliché blind them.
Offline
Lock this topic Tomahawk, come on i know you want to.
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
☆ ★ ★
Offline
Lock this topic Tomahawk, come on i know you want to.
No, it's still neccessary for a discussion
Lock this topic Tomahawk, come on i know you want to.
Banned for minimodding.
One bot to rule them all, one bot to find them. One bot to bring them all... and with this cliché blind them.
Offline
Based on your logic:
If I leave low-effort and spammy threads unlocked, they become a baseline for what’s allowed. The next set of threads then toe the line, and I’ve just lessened my ability to lock those because people can point to recent examples that have stayed open.
We’re allowed to overdramatize the ownership of everybody edits.
Ehrenman! EHRE!
tomahawk: ok, ill stop
spammers: *makes spammy threads all over the place whcih stays openened and gets repleid to graving the usefull threas tho the bottom*
thanks hg for making this much better and ty for my avatar aswell
Offline
it's more like:
kira: stop locking topics
tomahawk: see I didn't lock this one.
*locks all other topics*
Pages: 1
[ Started around 1738280406.0471 - Generated in 0.077 seconds, 13 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.56 MiB (Peak: 1.73 MiB) ]