Because posts don't count, people would get the impression that it is moderated more lightly.
I do not see this correlation at all, sorry. If 'seds and Hydro continue to moderate the same way they do today and post counts are turned off I would think spam would decrease.
As for making a certain number of charecters nessasary, I doubt that would work. It just leads to. "Wow. That is awesome. Now I will post some charecters: adghbusfyuygsgfafyufysdgfsudfhkshfshffjsdffjd. There, now I have a post."
Because posts don't count, people would get the impression that it is moderated more lightly.
Not for very long.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I've advocated turning posts off since I was an admin here. All it does is let users enlarge their e-***** so they can smack everyone around with it. For some reason users think the higher the post count, the more they can spam or whatever and get away with it (Such as TFE). Most users, note most users, not all, with a high post count are probably 50% if not more spam. Senori usually makes non-spamish posts and leads World Projects, and we know that the Collo is a high-post-count forum. Others, however, such as TFE, have 8,000+ posts, and I guarantee you 70% of his posts are spam.
You have the members who add something to the conversation or thread vs. those who just post irrelevant drivel and are just wasting space on the page. If you turned post counts off, no one would care about how many posts they have, we'd have actual announcements in the Announcement forum besides "OMG X POSTS LOLZ!!!112!!", post counts being off or on in forums wouldn't matter, and you could just straight-out ban people who do nothing but spam all the time.
The funny thing is, I wanted the wole spam issue to be laid back, but now it's so laid back you have the Rumor Mill threads being nothing but spam (of course if we would have done the 'Mill like I wanted to, we wouldn't ever have to worry about spam). The mods are hypocrites in a way, because after the first 5 posts of a card being posted or a new FNM card, everythings going to be the same. How can you give one word posts a spam warning or go through deleting posts past the first page of a Rumor Mill thread where all ANYONE is saying is "Oh wow that is awesome"; Either way, it's all going to be almost one-liners.
Giving people warnings left and right and making people think you're a jerk isn't going to help the spam in the Rumor Mill. If you're so worried about it, find a mod that doesn't let you post in a certain forum unless your post has so many words, rather than going around typing the mod text in a few posts when the rest aren't any better most of the time.
You guys hand out "troll" and flame warnings and crack down on that because someone tells a user what they really think, but you won't do something about a spam-disease that clogs up the entire damn forum. The rumor mill needs to be specifically organized, post counts need to be turned off forumwide, and users who do nothing but spam should just be banned. Drop the spam warning crap in the 'Mill, it's not helping ****.
I like my e-*****, because I know that I've been at 900 or so posts since like, the beginning of December, and I've earned that ****ing e-*****. I have been in this forum since literally the very beginning and I'm not at 1,000 posts yet. LET ME KEEP MY E-***** SO THAT I CAN INTIMIDATE NOOBS WITH IT.
Maybe we should just get rid of discussion threads in the Rumor Mill and move that type of discussion to an IRC channel instead? Or other type of temporary chat format?
Maybe we should just get rid of discussion threads in the Rumor Mill and move that type of discussion to an IRC channel instead? Or other type of temporary chat format?
In order to do that, I think, MTGS would have to have the tab for the IRC channel up...
The problem with eliminating postcounts or making them invisible is this: postcounts are the best way to judge the importance of a member on the site. For new people on the site, the forum has a lot of people and it can feel akward to be posting. Postcounts show who these new people can ask questions to or be guided by. Postcounts simply show experience. In the real world, who do you ask for advice--the nine-year-old kid or the sixty-year-old man? Here too, who does one ask for help navigating the forum--the member with 20 posts or the one with 5,000?
The problem with eliminating postcounts or making them invisible is this: postcounts are the best way to judge the importance of a member on the site. For new people on the site, the forum has a lot of people and it can feel akward to be posting. Postcounts show who these new people can ask questions to or be guided by. Postcounts simply show experience. In the real world, who do you ask for advice--the nine-year-old kid or the sixty-year-old man? Here too, who does one ask for help navigating the forum--the member with 20 posts or the one with 5,000?
That is completely untrue.
Counterexample: At MTGNews, when DotP first joined, he had custom in a little over a month or so. He was a newer member, but had a high post count. Case in point.
It would be more accurate for one to say that Join Date is far more reflective of the quality you describe. A person can be a long-time member of the forums, and have that sort of knowledge, without posting a whole lot.
Counterexample: At MTGNews, when DotP first joined, he had custom in a little over a month or so. He was a newer member, but had a high post count. Case in point.
It would be more accurate for one to say that Join Date is far more reflective of the quality you describe. A person can be a long-time member of the forums, and have that sort of knowledge, without posting a whole lot
I can second that. But it should say time active opposed to join date.
Edit: Example. I join the forum and stay for 5 days, Leave: Year later, I decide to rejoin and it appears I have much experience
I can second that. But it should say time active opposed to join date.
Edit: Example. I join the forum and stay for 5 days, Leave: Year later, I decide to rejoin and it appears I have much experience
This scenario is much more unlikely than the other one, but hey, all of the problems are solved by having the post count and join date in unision No problem with that, unless somebody's been here a long time and has spammed a lot, which is unlikely *coughTFEcough*
However a lot of people joined in January 05, went 'omgomgmurgerlolol' and joined, however they might have hardly ever posted, whereas some new members, who have joined in the last few months, would be very knowledgable about the forums.
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
However a lot of people joined in January 05, went 'omgomgmurgerlolol' and joined, however they might have hardly ever posted, whereas some new members, who have joined in the last few months, would be very knowledgable about the forums.
Sooo...taking into consideration both post count and join date and doing with that info what you will should net the desired result
I don't know why you should be judging people by anything other than the content of their posts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
For new people on the site, the forum has a lot of people and it can feel akward to be posting. Postcounts show who these new people can ask questions to or be guided by. Postcounts simply show experience. In the real world, who do you ask for advice--the nine-year-old kid or the sixty-year-old man? Here too, who does one ask for help navigating the forum--the member with 20 posts or the one with 5,000?
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
Actually, post count is a good, though by no means perfect, indicator of experience. I didn't say someone with a high post count would be the most productive member or the most knowledgeable--but someone with 2,000 posts will know his or her way around the entire forum, while someone with 10 posts will not.
Actually, post count is a good, though by no means perfect, indicator of experience. I didn't say someone with a high post count would be the most productive member or the most knowledgeable--but someone with 2,000 posts will know his or her way around the entire forum, while someone with 10 posts will not.
That is an incorrect, and uninformed, generalization. There are many people who read and choose to post when they have much to say on a topic, and are far more informed about the forum itself than someone who takes time out of their day to post like a madman.
So, what would it take the higher powers of this forum to turn off post count? I think if members are posting for the sake of upping their count, it's sad. Personally, I'd prefer less people in a forum if it means less spammers and nonsense threads.
This topic was created for the wrong reason.
There isn't so much trouble with spam in the rumor mill.
It is a trouble with posts that clog threads.
We have to delete posts that add nothing, so people won't have to wade through 50 garbage posts to find a good one.
It keeps the discussion good, and prevents it from turning sour.
I am very much against making posts not count in the rumor mill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Do you have any evidence to support such a claim?
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
How is that so? Posts not counting does not imply lighter moderation (though, the opposite may be true).
For example, on MTGNews, posts in the Colosseum do not count, yet, it is possibly held up to the highest standards of any forum on the site.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
I do not see this correlation at all, sorry. If 'seds and Hydro continue to moderate the same way they do today and post counts are turned off I would think spam would decrease.
As for making a certain number of charecters nessasary, I doubt that would work. It just leads to. "Wow. That is awesome. Now I will post some charecters: adghbusfyuygsgfafyufysdgfsudfhkshfshffjsdffjd. There, now I have a post."
Not for very long.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You have the members who add something to the conversation or thread vs. those who just post irrelevant drivel and are just wasting space on the page. If you turned post counts off, no one would care about how many posts they have, we'd have actual announcements in the Announcement forum besides "OMG X POSTS LOLZ!!!112!!", post counts being off or on in forums wouldn't matter, and you could just straight-out ban people who do nothing but spam all the time.
The funny thing is, I wanted the wole spam issue to be laid back, but now it's so laid back you have the Rumor Mill threads being nothing but spam (of course if we would have done the 'Mill like I wanted to, we wouldn't ever have to worry about spam). The mods are hypocrites in a way, because after the first 5 posts of a card being posted or a new FNM card, everythings going to be the same. How can you give one word posts a spam warning or go through deleting posts past the first page of a Rumor Mill thread where all ANYONE is saying is "Oh wow that is awesome"; Either way, it's all going to be almost one-liners.
Giving people warnings left and right and making people think you're a jerk isn't going to help the spam in the Rumor Mill. If you're so worried about it, find a mod that doesn't let you post in a certain forum unless your post has so many words, rather than going around typing the mod text in a few posts when the rest aren't any better most of the time.
You guys hand out "troll" and flame warnings and crack down on that because someone tells a user what they really think, but you won't do something about a spam-disease that clogs up the entire damn forum. The rumor mill needs to be specifically organized, post counts need to be turned off forumwide, and users who do nothing but spam should just be banned. Drop the spam warning crap in the 'Mill, it's not helping ****.
(Also known as Xenphire)
In order to do that, I think, MTGS would have to have the tab for the IRC channel up...
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
i've always held the belief that the rumor mill was the most spammy forum which still counted towards posts. if it's not it's hundreds of i agrees
That is completely untrue.
Counterexample: At MTGNews, when DotP first joined, he had custom in a little over a month or so. He was a newer member, but had a high post count. Case in point.
It would be more accurate for one to say that Join Date is far more reflective of the quality you describe. A person can be a long-time member of the forums, and have that sort of knowledge, without posting a whole lot.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
I can second that. But it should say time active opposed to join date.
Edit: Example.
I join the forum and stay for 5 days, Leave:
Year later, I decide to rejoin and it appears I have much experience
This Awesome signature by R&Doom and Nex3.
This scenario is much more unlikely than the other one, but hey, all of the problems are solved by having the post count and join date in unision No problem with that, unless somebody's been here a long time and has spammed a lot, which is unlikely *coughTFEcough*
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
Sooo...taking into consideration both post count and join date and doing with that info what you will should net the desired result
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
Word that yo.
I'll take the words of Senori or Loonook or T2 over those of some other individuals... who shan't be named.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
What, posts per day?
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
That is an incorrect, and uninformed, generalization. There are many people who read and choose to post when they have much to say on a topic, and are far more informed about the forum itself than someone who takes time out of their day to post like a madman.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
There isn't so much trouble with spam in the rumor mill.
It is a trouble with posts that clog threads.
We have to delete posts that add nothing, so people won't have to wade through 50 garbage posts to find a good one.
It keeps the discussion good, and prevents it from turning sour.
I am very much against making posts not count in the rumor mill.
Twitter