Does this site have an 'ignore' option where you can just not see the posts of a poster you find to be objectionable? That would solve lots of problems, since everyone could just ignore Galvatron and go on their merry way.
I know IMDB has that option, as do other forum sites.
Ignored or not, it's still a broken rule.
Unless you're trying to suggest that we should change the rule to: "If you don't like someone's posts, you think they've broken a rule or otherwise disrupted the forum, ignore them."
Supposedly he was banned for disobeying rules for THREE YEARS. What drove the ban? If it was a continuous offense then he should have been banned THREE YEARS ago. Only now they decide to. Thats the irritating thing
It's irritating that we didn't ban him after the first offense?
The reason it happened now is that Galvatron had earned enough active infractions to warrant a suspension. This led to the discussion of whether to suspend him for many months or just cut our losses at this point.
AND people fail to realize that reading his posts are quite entertaining as it helps understand people who are learning English.
................... wut?
Carrying out rules should not be handled on a random but consistent basis.
I thought Galvatron was a horrible poster and made fun of him for his spelling (or lack thereof) constantly. I'm usually first in line when it comes to making fun of people with bad grammar or being a general ass about it.
All this being said, actually banning someone for this just seems ridiculous to me. While Galvatron's posts could use some work, I doubt they ever hurt anyone. It seems to me like the perfect time to make use of the ignore function, rather than ban someone entirely for something so petty. And it seems like a questionable standard to set where suddenly moderators seem to be subjectively judging the quality or usefulness of someone's posts and then banning them if they're not up to par.
If someone flames me should I put him on ignore too?
Also, from the Forum Rules (might want to read them):
Repeated Bad Spelling and/or Grammar
Continuous bad grammar, "text speak" or bad spelling in posts will not be tolerated. If English is not your first language and you use some words or grammar out of place, or you occasionally make mistakes don't worry. Only members who consistently make no effort to communicate clearly will get an Infraction.
I agree, if then ban was solely based upon his infractions on improper spelling/grammar, it would of been a little excessive. Although, when the moderators bring up that it was actually more based on the fact of constant infractions and blatant disregard to the moderators, it seems like a fair decision.
I will admit at times there seems to be heavy moderation on these forums. If you find yourself thinking the same thing, ask yourself this; Does it seem excessive to the point you don't like being here, or you understand the need for it at times and it is the reason these forums have become what they are. If it is the first, then maybe this isn't the place for you if you want to post(I am not say not a place to come read certain forums, but keep your postings to forums that are more to your mindset).
For me, I understand why they moderator like they do. At times there seems to be double standards(aka no post rotation talk even though half the decks I see on first page of the T2 competitive/DFC stickied have cards that are no longer legal in standard). But, for the most part the moderation is fair and keeps the forums pretty clean from spam. They do seem to also take into consideration the desire of the community and have said they are looking into revamping the standard forums to help with post rotation talks in the future.
If someone flames me should I put him on ignore too?
Also, from the Forum Rules (might want to read them):
The last sentence is pretty clear I think.
Comparing flaming to bad grammar is pretty absurd. Flaming is going out of your way to insult someone. Bad grammar is almost always an innocent mistake that, while annoying, is not doing direct harm to anyone on the forums.
So cool, there's a rule for this. I don't understand why we feel the need to be so harsh on things like spelling/grammar that, in the grand scheme of things, are not a big deal at all. Just mindlessly following these crazy rules is not the way to make this forum better.
A lot of otherwise intelligent people aren't great at spelling/grammar. I think it's pretty unfair to make these people get certain browsers or "work" at their spelling just to post at a forum discussing a collectible card game. I think this forum in general is starting to take itself a bit too seriously -- I don't see why an MTG forum needs to have harsh rules on grammar like this. And I think it's a bit unsettling that potentially intelligent people may get banned just because they don't fit the moderators' specific suggested posting style.
To add on to what CynicalSquirrel said, just where is the line drawn? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I can't find anywhere on the forums where there is a guideline to basic English usage on these forums. Are we soon going to have to cite all our sources and use APA (but not MLA) formatting for everything we write?
I think it's completely absurd to ban a guy for spelling incorrectly, regardless of whether or not the mods ask him to. If people can understand him then they should converse with him, if they find the way he posts to be annoying then simply ignore him. But to start banning people because they spell incorrectly and then refuse to listen to mods asking them to spell correctly (a request I would find completely asinine and blow off a few times myself) just leads down a slippery slope.
The line is drawn when you get warned SIXTEEN TIMES over the course of three years and you do nothing.
He wasn't banned because of one offense. You worry that you are going to get banned for not citing sources professionally... I don't think you will. But if they did, they would warn you for awhile before banning you.
It just seems way too easy to sit back and say "he broke the rules 16 times, he should be banned."
The point is, it's a horrible, unnecessary, arbitrary rule. This is a forum geared towards mostly young people who play a fantasy card game. I don't understand why the mods have to be so uptight about a completely minor issue. Bad spelling/grammar is like a minor inconvenience at the most to the reader, and the site has an ignore function specifically designed to use on posts that you don't want to read such as galvatron's.
The point is, it's a horrible, unnecessary, arbitrary rule.
The forum is a written medium and as such there needs to be some sort of standard when it comes to readability. When the primary means of communication is your writing, it had better be understandable or else your posts end up being messes that require unnecessary amounts of work to decipher. That sort of thing is a disruption, I agree an incredibly minor one, but a disruption all the same.
The staff recognizes that it's not a major issue, that's why we warn for it only in truly terrible cases and infract for it in only a rare few cases (Galvatron here was one of only a handful to ever be infracted for it). That said, I view it as nearly the same as spamming. Spam doesn't intrinsically hurt anyone, it's typically only a minor disruption, and yet we police it. Partly to maintain order and reduce disruptive activity, but also because even though this is "a forum geared towards mostly young people who play a fantasy card game", we strive to keep things looking as clean, mature and professional as we can.
As someone who complained about poor posting in the Rumor Mill for exactly that reason, I'm sure you can understand.
To add on to what CynicalSquirrel was saying what is the definition of bad spelling?
What's the definition of spam?
How long is too long before a late post is a necro?
Is there a lie between friendly teasing and outright flaming?
When does an argument become considered trolling?
But to answer your question, for our purposes, bad spelling and grammar is any where it leaves your post nigh-unreadable at first glance. I know that's too ambiguous for you but the truth is that almost all our rules have some level of ambiguity and judgment calls are made by the staff every day.
Well, I'm guessing here that he was simply warned the first few times. All subsequent times, after he specifically said that he would ignore the warnings were when the infractions started coming in. Spelling badly isn't the main part that got him banned; disobeying a mod's request most likely is a greater part than the bad spelling/grammar alone.
I'm usually first in line when it comes to making fun of people with bad grammar or being a general ass about it.
Does that ever backfire on you? Because the one time I did that, I got infracted and it turned out the guy was dyslexic.
More on topic, it seems perfectly fair to me that Galvatron was banned, and I'm glad of it. If you don't make an effort, why have other people hold you up, right? Or maybe he did make an effort, but in the wrong direction. Who knows? (except for him)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Modern: GRB Jund BRG RBU Grixis Delver UBR Legacy: W Death & Taxes W GRB Punishing Jund BRG GUR Canadian Threshold RUG Commander: RUG Maelstrom Wanderer GUR
The forum is a written medium and as such there needs to be some sort of standard when it comes to readability. When the primary means of communication is your writing, it had better be understandable or else your posts end up being messes that require unnecessary amounts of work to decipher.
This is it. This is a written medium, and when it takes an unnecessary amount of effort to try and decipher what someone is saying, in what is meant to be their native tongue, then you offer a means for them to improve it. The mods did this. Galvatron turned his nose up at this, and the unintelligible posts continue. Then the rule about legible writing is enforced and the means to help correct the problem are offered again, and again. Galvatron takes umbrage with this, and nothing changes. Then he becomes offensive. The former issue may have been the impetus for most of the infractions, but the metaphorical straw to the camel's back was his insulting and stubborn nature. And so, off he goes. I don't see what the problem is.
I don't understand why the mods have to be so uptight about a completely minor issue. Bad spelling/grammar is like a minor inconvenience at the most to the reader, and the site has an ignore function specifically designed to use on posts that you don't want to read such as galvatron's.
Higher standards. Why can't this forum demand posters write in a legible, understandable fashion? Why is accepting awful grammar fine? "Net-speak" is one thing, and as Nai pointed out it has become part of the digital lexicon now, but when someone is as indecipherable as Galvatron, what is the point of having him here when you can barely understand him. Also...
I thought Galvatron was a horrible poster and made fun of him for his spelling (or lack thereof) constantly. I'm usually first in line when it comes to making fun of people with bad grammar or being a general ass about it.
So it's acceptable for you to flame another poster for their bad grammar, but it is unacceptable, after 16 infractions for such an issue, for the moderators of these forums to remove the problem? Interesting...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Comparing flaming to bad grammar is pretty absurd. Flaming is going out of your way to insult someone. Bad grammar is almost always an innocent mistake that, while annoying, is not doing direct harm to anyone on the forums.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was trying to point out the flaw in Atobe's "Where is the line drawn?" argument. Where is the line drawn in regards to tolerating annoying behaviour (assuming bad spelling annoys you). Obviously nobody expects you to ignore a flame but just as obviously we aren't going to have to "cite all our sources and use APA (but not MLA) formatting for everything we write".
In regards to Galvatron, according to the existing rules he was definitely justly banned, if you want to argue that the rule shouldn't exist in the first place then OK.
Also I find it humourous that you call bad spelling "almost always an innocent mistake that, while annoying, is not doing direct harm to anyone on the forums" when in the case in question it was most certainly not an innocent mistake.
Also, Cynical Squirrel, do you support the fact that in many of the subforums pertaining to deck building that using Card Tags is a must and not doing so can result in a Warning? It seems to me to be the same issue: Not wasting people's time/making it hard for them to understand what you are talking about because you are lazy.
You guys act like his posts were in braille or something. There was poor grammar and spelling, but they were almost always intelligible. I'm sure most smart people in the world would tell you that assuming someone is stupid because of their grammar and spelling is a poor choice.
I mean if we're going to ban Galvatron for this, I don't see where it stops. I could easily complain that ElricJC's previous posts had paragraphs that were too long and used too many big words that I don't understand. Should we ban people from speaking too intelligently or arguing incoherently? I think this is just a bad precedent to be setting.
I'm not saying this forum needs to "accept" bad grammar. But banning someone is the ultimate price on MTGS. Lumping someone like galvatron - who I don't think meant any harm - in with guys who flamed the hell out of others or ripped people in trades seems wrong. If you don't like his posts, ignore him, but to remove someone's posting rights entirely over such a minor issue makes no sense to me.
On a more general note, it seems to be a common attitude around the forums that we should ban people for "being stupid" or not meeting some mythical standards that apply to this forum about card games. I used to think this way all the time too. I don't know if I'm comfortable posting at a site where the mods are allowed to ban people for arbitrary reasons like this, or where people are no longer allowed to post because they don't feel the need to have impeccable grammar all the time. It seems like Einstein could walk into this forum and post the theory of relativity, and most of you would instantly dismiss it if the grammar and spelling wasn't accurate.
If you think someone is stupid, put them on your ignore list. That is what the ignore list is for. The ban list should be reserved for people who actually antagonize others or break serious rules, not people who got into petty squabbles over something as trivial as their grammar on an MTG forum.
EDIT: Also, this post was pretty long and rambly. Am I going to get a warning?
EDIT: Also, this post was pretty long and rambly. Am I going to get a warning?
You usually get warnings if posts are too short, don't you? I had that happen and got infracted for spam because we were talking about codes and mine was like two words.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Modern: GRB Jund BRG RBU Grixis Delver UBR Legacy: W Death & Taxes W GRB Punishing Jund BRG GUR Canadian Threshold RUG Commander: RUG Maelstrom Wanderer GUR
It just seems way too easy to sit back and say "he broke the rules 16 times, he should be banned."
I think it would be BS to ban someone for bad grammar/spelling. However, you warn someone 16 times for ANYTHING, and if they refuse to change then what can you do? Just sit back and let him keep doing it?
The only good argument would be to say that he shouldn't have been warned the 16 times in the first place. Perhaps you are right.. we can argue whether or not mods should be able to give infractions for bad spelling/grammar. But the point is, it's a rule (otherwise he wouldn't have gotten all the warnings). He had to have known what was going to happen. He had plenty of chances to stop but didn't.
I don't really see where the controversy is.
Edit:
I mean if we're going to ban Galvatron for this, I don't see where it stops.
This is where most people seem to go, but it's flawed logic because Gal had plenty of warnings and chances before he was finally banned. You make it sound like people are suddenly going to get banned for this without warning and this will turn into some Nazi forum. If you are for the most part cooperative with the mods and not a dick in general, you aren't going to get banned for this. You'll get plenty of warnings and I'm sure if you are nice and make the effort then you'll be fine.
I agree with the guy that brings up the deck tags issue. Thats a rule. Say you break that rule over and over again. You keep breaking it. The mods keep giving you warnings, but you don't change. You don't make an effort to change and keep breaking the same rule over and over again. What else do you want mods to do? If they just keep giving him warnings, and never actually do anything actionable, then whats the point of the rule?
Alright, you guys got me. This isn't Mikey's fault. Of course, that part wasn't actually important, and you did a great job of ignoring the part(s) that were. Nice strawman.
Incidentally, pointing out that Annorax spearheaded this is a great way to weaken your own case. Has he ever made a good decision? Not that I remember. I remember him defending JayC to the teeth. How did that work out? Oh right. I'm sure I could find more if I cared enough to look.
The point that I was obviously trying to make, which has been echoed repeatedly by others, is that Galvatron should not have been banned for poor spelling/grammar. It doesn't matter that he got 16 warnings for it, because he never should have gotten those either. Infracting someone for poor grammar/spelling is an absolute joke, especially in regard to the English language. No one that speaks English, particularly through the Internet, actually speaks it correctly. People use 'u', 'r', 'lol', 'rofl', etc etc on here an uncountable # of times per day. Including Staff. This annoys me. Do I get to report them as recourse now? Obviously not. But why not? If Galvatron can get banned because of this, why isn't everyone held to the same level of accountability?
Or how about articles? I've read many of them that appeared to never have been proofread, if grammatical and spelling errors are any indication. Are you going to start putting writers(and editors!) on probation because of things like this?
The answer is, quite obviously, you're not. And you shouldn't. Because being disciplined for something like this is patently ridiculous. *Especially* in the case of someone that could not do anything about it. Galvatron was not willfully violating the rules. He simply could not help it. And saying 'he could have used Firefox' is simply not fair. Maybe he uses IE. Or Safari. Or whatever. Nevermind that, as has been stated repeatedly, if people just absolutely couldn't read through his posts, they could just put him on their Ignore List.
I think that the Staff really needs to take pause here. For anyone to defend Galvatron, of all people, says alot. For multiple people to do so should make you take serious consideration. This action was an injustice, pure and simple.
Firstly, who determines these standards of proper grammar? You yourself say he is understandable, and if that is the case then what exactly is the issue here?
*Looks at his post again just to make sure he's not insane*
Um, actually, no I didn't. I said:
Why can't this forum demand posters write in a legible, understandable fashion?
^ Galvatron did not do this, that's one problem.
and
...someone is as indecipherable as Galvatron
^ this means I could barely understand what he was bloody well saying without restructuring his sentences.
So I'm not sure where you got this idea that I said Galvatron was understandable.
I mean if we're going to ban Galvatron for this, I don't see where it stops. I could easily complain that ElricJC's previous posts had paragraphs that were too long and used too many big words that I don't understand. Should we ban people from speaking too intelligently or arguing incoherently? I think this is just a bad precedent to be setting.
Cute.
Or how about articles? I've read many of them that appeared to never have been proofread, if grammatical and spelling errors are any indication. Are you going to start putting writers(and editors!) on probation because of things like this?
That sounds good to me. Fair is fair, after all. Especially in more professional writing.
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
It doesn't matter that he got 16 warnings for it, because he never should have gotten those either. Infracting someone for poor grammar/spelling is an absolute joke, especially in regard to the English language.
Now we are getting into opinion. I could go either way on this. On the one hand, it's not that big of a deal. But then on the other hand yadayada all that stuff about needing to understand people and that nonsense. The point is... it's a rule. Some people think it shouldn't be a rule, some people think it should. What rules this site decides to have is up to the people that run it. Of course the people that log in can protest (like we are now) if they don't like the rule.
Rarely is the question asked "Is our children learning?"
Let me cut to the chase. Was Galvatron hurting anyone? No. At most, he was only hurting his own credibility. Had he been saying racist, sexist, or threatening things, then I'd agree with a ban.
However people spell badly online all the time. The internet is comprised of crappy grammar and bizarre abbreviations. LOL! LMAO! To punish one guy for repeatedly spelling badly is like trying to empty out the ocean with a bucket. It solves nothing, especially since it wasn't a big problem to begin with. It's almost silly, like an SNL sketch. I can just see Christopher Walken saying "I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more banning."
Banning someone for poor spelling? We're not in school, we're on a website for a card game! People should be allowed to be themselves here, as long as they're not hurting anyone else with their words or actions. Galvatron was doing neither.
ElricJC - this is what you said ""Net-speak" is one thing, and as Nai pointed out it has become part of the digital lexicon now, but when someone is as indecipherable as Galvatron, what is the point of having him here when you can barely understand him." I was not making anything up, you specifically mentioned being able to understand him right there. It's quite offensive that you are accusing me of lying.
barely understand him. A qualified statement, and in my book barely isn't good enough. You were not lying, you misinterpreted the intent of my statement, which was that barely understandable is insufficient (what is the point -> when he is barely understandable).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
To punish one guy for repeatedly spelling badly is like trying to empty out the ocean with a bucket.
Then whats the point of the rule? I go back to the example with decktags earlier. If someone repeatedly broke that rule, was warned several times but refused to change, what do you do?
The "where does it stop?" argument doesn't work. You aren't going to get banned for doing it once obviously, and yet people seem to imply that this banning is the beginning of the genocide against bad spellers.
The only argument against the banning is that the rule shouldn't be there in the first place. You could make the same argument for virtually every rule. I'm sure if you get most of the mods and a lot of the posters on your side, they might do away with the rule and bring Gal back.
The decktags example is a bad example. Whether or not someone uses decktags is easily tracked. There is no gray area involved. Improper spelling/grammar is almost entirely subject to interpretation.
Then whats the point of the rule? I go back to the example with decktags earlier. If someone repeatedly broke that rule, was warned several times but refused to change, what do you do?
The "where does it stop?" argument doesn't work. You aren't going to get banned for doing it once obviously, and yet people seem to imply that this banning is the beginning of the genocide against bad spellers.
The only argument against the banning is that the rule shouldn't be there in the first place. You could make the same argument for virtually every rule. I'm sure if you get most of the mods and a lot of the posters on your side, they might do away with the rule and bring Gal back.
I'll admit that Galvatron's posts were hard to read at best. But he did have lots of opinions and zeal, and that sure as hell beats being a lurker in my opinion.
However regardless of how I feel, he objectively was not a threat, a spammer or a ripper. He had strong opinions, and didn't articulate them that well, but he did contribute to the forums and discussion is the lifeblood of any forum (obviously).
While his poor spelling is regretful, it's by no means a serious offense. If anything, the mods should give him one last chance. You're going to say "he was given chances before" but consider this: Now that he knows he's one bad post away from a permban, do you really think he'll screw it up? Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but if I knew I was on thin ice I wouldn't mess up one very gracious last chance.
If anything, the mods should give him one last chance. You're going to say "he was given chances before" but consider this: Now that he knows he's one bad post away from a permban, do you really think he'll screw it up? Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but if I knew I was on thin ice I wouldn't mess up one very gracious last chance.
He was to be permanently suspended until he acquired a spellchecker and employed it, but he made it clear that (as we've told you many times in this thread) he wasn't going to do anything to change his ways. So pardon me if I don't think it worthwhile to give someone who has had countless chances just one more chance to tell us he's not going to change.
Ignored or not, it's still a broken rule.
Unless you're trying to suggest that we should change the rule to: "If you don't like someone's posts, you think they've broken a rule or otherwise disrupted the forum, ignore them."
It's irritating that we didn't ban him after the first offense?
The reason it happened now is that Galvatron had earned enough active infractions to warrant a suspension. This led to the discussion of whether to suspend him for many months or just cut our losses at this point.
................... wut?
In what way are we being inconsistent?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
All this being said, actually banning someone for this just seems ridiculous to me. While Galvatron's posts could use some work, I doubt they ever hurt anyone. It seems to me like the perfect time to make use of the ignore function, rather than ban someone entirely for something so petty. And it seems like a questionable standard to set where suddenly moderators seem to be subjectively judging the quality or usefulness of someone's posts and then banning them if they're not up to par.
Also, from the Forum Rules (might want to read them):
The last sentence is pretty clear I think.
I will admit at times there seems to be heavy moderation on these forums. If you find yourself thinking the same thing, ask yourself this; Does it seem excessive to the point you don't like being here, or you understand the need for it at times and it is the reason these forums have become what they are. If it is the first, then maybe this isn't the place for you if you want to post(I am not say not a place to come read certain forums, but keep your postings to forums that are more to your mindset).
For me, I understand why they moderator like they do. At times there seems to be double standards(aka no post rotation talk even though half the decks I see on first page of the T2 competitive/DFC stickied have cards that are no longer legal in standard). But, for the most part the moderation is fair and keeps the forums pretty clean from spam. They do seem to also take into consideration the desire of the community and have said they are looking into revamping the standard forums to help with post rotation talks in the future.
Comparing flaming to bad grammar is pretty absurd. Flaming is going out of your way to insult someone. Bad grammar is almost always an innocent mistake that, while annoying, is not doing direct harm to anyone on the forums.
So cool, there's a rule for this. I don't understand why we feel the need to be so harsh on things like spelling/grammar that, in the grand scheme of things, are not a big deal at all. Just mindlessly following these crazy rules is not the way to make this forum better.
A lot of otherwise intelligent people aren't great at spelling/grammar. I think it's pretty unfair to make these people get certain browsers or "work" at their spelling just to post at a forum discussing a collectible card game. I think this forum in general is starting to take itself a bit too seriously -- I don't see why an MTG forum needs to have harsh rules on grammar like this. And I think it's a bit unsettling that potentially intelligent people may get banned just because they don't fit the moderators' specific suggested posting style.
The line is drawn when you get warned SIXTEEN TIMES over the course of three years and you do nothing.
He wasn't banned because of one offense. You worry that you are going to get banned for not citing sources professionally... I don't think you will. But if they did, they would warn you for awhile before banning you.
The point is, it's a horrible, unnecessary, arbitrary rule. This is a forum geared towards mostly young people who play a fantasy card game. I don't understand why the mods have to be so uptight about a completely minor issue. Bad spelling/grammar is like a minor inconvenience at the most to the reader, and the site has an ignore function specifically designed to use on posts that you don't want to read such as galvatron's.
The forum is a written medium and as such there needs to be some sort of standard when it comes to readability. When the primary means of communication is your writing, it had better be understandable or else your posts end up being messes that require unnecessary amounts of work to decipher. That sort of thing is a disruption, I agree an incredibly minor one, but a disruption all the same.
The staff recognizes that it's not a major issue, that's why we warn for it only in truly terrible cases and infract for it in only a rare few cases (Galvatron here was one of only a handful to ever be infracted for it). That said, I view it as nearly the same as spamming. Spam doesn't intrinsically hurt anyone, it's typically only a minor disruption, and yet we police it. Partly to maintain order and reduce disruptive activity, but also because even though this is "a forum geared towards mostly young people who play a fantasy card game", we strive to keep things looking as clean, mature and professional as we can.
As someone who complained about poor posting in the Rumor Mill for exactly that reason, I'm sure you can understand.
What's the definition of spam?
How long is too long before a late post is a necro?
Is there a lie between friendly teasing and outright flaming?
When does an argument become considered trolling?
But to answer your question, for our purposes, bad spelling and grammar is any where it leaves your post nigh-unreadable at first glance. I know that's too ambiguous for you but the truth is that almost all our rules have some level of ambiguity and judgment calls are made by the staff every day.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
Does that ever backfire on you? Because the one time I did that, I got infracted and it turned out the guy was dyslexic.
More on topic, it seems perfectly fair to me that Galvatron was banned, and I'm glad of it. If you don't make an effort, why have other people hold you up, right? Or maybe he did make an effort, but in the wrong direction. Who knows? (except for him)
Modern:
GRB Jund BRG
RBU Grixis Delver UBR
Legacy:
W Death & Taxes W
GRB Punishing Jund BRG
GUR Canadian Threshold RUG
Commander:
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer GUR
Higher standards. Why can't this forum demand posters write in a legible, understandable fashion? Why is accepting awful grammar fine? "Net-speak" is one thing, and as Nai pointed out it has become part of the digital lexicon now, but when someone is as indecipherable as Galvatron, what is the point of having him here when you can barely understand him. Also...
So it's acceptable for you to flame another poster for their bad grammar, but it is unacceptable, after 16 infractions for such an issue, for the moderators of these forums to remove the problem? Interesting...
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was trying to point out the flaw in Atobe's "Where is the line drawn?" argument. Where is the line drawn in regards to tolerating annoying behaviour (assuming bad spelling annoys you). Obviously nobody expects you to ignore a flame but just as obviously we aren't going to have to "cite all our sources and use APA (but not MLA) formatting for everything we write".
In regards to Galvatron, according to the existing rules he was definitely justly banned, if you want to argue that the rule shouldn't exist in the first place then OK.
Also I find it humourous that you call bad spelling "almost always an innocent mistake that, while annoying, is not doing direct harm to anyone on the forums" when in the case in question it was most certainly not an innocent mistake.
Also, Cynical Squirrel, do you support the fact that in many of the subforums pertaining to deck building that using Card Tags is a must and not doing so can result in a Warning? It seems to me to be the same issue: Not wasting people's time/making it hard for them to understand what you are talking about because you are lazy.
I mean if we're going to ban Galvatron for this, I don't see where it stops. I could easily complain that ElricJC's previous posts had paragraphs that were too long and used too many big words that I don't understand. Should we ban people from speaking too intelligently or arguing incoherently? I think this is just a bad precedent to be setting.
I'm not saying this forum needs to "accept" bad grammar. But banning someone is the ultimate price on MTGS. Lumping someone like galvatron - who I don't think meant any harm - in with guys who flamed the hell out of others or ripped people in trades seems wrong. If you don't like his posts, ignore him, but to remove someone's posting rights entirely over such a minor issue makes no sense to me.
On a more general note, it seems to be a common attitude around the forums that we should ban people for "being stupid" or not meeting some mythical standards that apply to this forum about card games. I used to think this way all the time too. I don't know if I'm comfortable posting at a site where the mods are allowed to ban people for arbitrary reasons like this, or where people are no longer allowed to post because they don't feel the need to have impeccable grammar all the time. It seems like Einstein could walk into this forum and post the theory of relativity, and most of you would instantly dismiss it if the grammar and spelling wasn't accurate.
If you think someone is stupid, put them on your ignore list. That is what the ignore list is for. The ban list should be reserved for people who actually antagonize others or break serious rules, not people who got into petty squabbles over something as trivial as their grammar on an MTG forum.
EDIT: Also, this post was pretty long and rambly. Am I going to get a warning?
You usually get warnings if posts are too short, don't you? I had that happen and got infracted for spam because we were talking about codes and mine was like two words.
Modern:
GRB Jund BRG
RBU Grixis Delver UBR
Legacy:
W Death & Taxes W
GRB Punishing Jund BRG
GUR Canadian Threshold RUG
Commander:
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer GUR
I think it would be BS to ban someone for bad grammar/spelling. However, you warn someone 16 times for ANYTHING, and if they refuse to change then what can you do? Just sit back and let him keep doing it?
The only good argument would be to say that he shouldn't have been warned the 16 times in the first place. Perhaps you are right.. we can argue whether or not mods should be able to give infractions for bad spelling/grammar. But the point is, it's a rule (otherwise he wouldn't have gotten all the warnings). He had to have known what was going to happen. He had plenty of chances to stop but didn't.
I don't really see where the controversy is.
Edit:
This is where most people seem to go, but it's flawed logic because Gal had plenty of warnings and chances before he was finally banned. You make it sound like people are suddenly going to get banned for this without warning and this will turn into some Nazi forum. If you are for the most part cooperative with the mods and not a dick in general, you aren't going to get banned for this. You'll get plenty of warnings and I'm sure if you are nice and make the effort then you'll be fine.
I agree with the guy that brings up the deck tags issue. Thats a rule. Say you break that rule over and over again. You keep breaking it. The mods keep giving you warnings, but you don't change. You don't make an effort to change and keep breaking the same rule over and over again. What else do you want mods to do? If they just keep giving him warnings, and never actually do anything actionable, then whats the point of the rule?
Incidentally, pointing out that Annorax spearheaded this is a great way to weaken your own case. Has he ever made a good decision? Not that I remember. I remember him defending JayC to the teeth. How did that work out? Oh right. I'm sure I could find more if I cared enough to look.
The point that I was obviously trying to make, which has been echoed repeatedly by others, is that Galvatron should not have been banned for poor spelling/grammar. It doesn't matter that he got 16 warnings for it, because he never should have gotten those either. Infracting someone for poor grammar/spelling is an absolute joke, especially in regard to the English language. No one that speaks English, particularly through the Internet, actually speaks it correctly. People use 'u', 'r', 'lol', 'rofl', etc etc on here an uncountable # of times per day. Including Staff. This annoys me. Do I get to report them as recourse now? Obviously not. But why not? If Galvatron can get banned because of this, why isn't everyone held to the same level of accountability?
Or how about articles? I've read many of them that appeared to never have been proofread, if grammatical and spelling errors are any indication. Are you going to start putting writers(and editors!) on probation because of things like this?
The answer is, quite obviously, you're not. And you shouldn't. Because being disciplined for something like this is patently ridiculous. *Especially* in the case of someone that could not do anything about it. Galvatron was not willfully violating the rules. He simply could not help it. And saying 'he could have used Firefox' is simply not fair. Maybe he uses IE. Or Safari. Or whatever. Nevermind that, as has been stated repeatedly, if people just absolutely couldn't read through his posts, they could just put him on their Ignore List.
I think that the Staff really needs to take pause here. For anyone to defend Galvatron, of all people, says alot. For multiple people to do so should make you take serious consideration. This action was an injustice, pure and simple.
Um, actually, no I didn't. I said:
^ Galvatron did not do this, that's one problem.
and
^ this means I could barely understand what he was bloody well saying without restructuring his sentences.
So I'm not sure where you got this idea that I said Galvatron was understandable.
Cute.
That sounds good to me. Fair is fair, after all. Especially in more professional writing.
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
Now we are getting into opinion. I could go either way on this. On the one hand, it's not that big of a deal. But then on the other hand yadayada all that stuff about needing to understand people and that nonsense. The point is... it's a rule. Some people think it shouldn't be a rule, some people think it should. What rules this site decides to have is up to the people that run it. Of course the people that log in can protest (like we are now) if they don't like the rule.
Let me cut to the chase. Was Galvatron hurting anyone? No. At most, he was only hurting his own credibility. Had he been saying racist, sexist, or threatening things, then I'd agree with a ban.
However people spell badly online all the time. The internet is comprised of crappy grammar and bizarre abbreviations. LOL! LMAO! To punish one guy for repeatedly spelling badly is like trying to empty out the ocean with a bucket. It solves nothing, especially since it wasn't a big problem to begin with. It's almost silly, like an SNL sketch. I can just see Christopher Walken saying "I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more banning."
Banning someone for poor spelling? We're not in school, we're on a website for a card game! People should be allowed to be themselves here, as long as they're not hurting anyone else with their words or actions. Galvatron was doing neither.
barely understand him. A qualified statement, and in my book barely isn't good enough. You were not lying, you misinterpreted the intent of my statement, which was that barely understandable is insufficient (what is the point -> when he is barely understandable).
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
Then whats the point of the rule? I go back to the example with decktags earlier. If someone repeatedly broke that rule, was warned several times but refused to change, what do you do?
The "where does it stop?" argument doesn't work. You aren't going to get banned for doing it once obviously, and yet people seem to imply that this banning is the beginning of the genocide against bad spellers.
The only argument against the banning is that the rule shouldn't be there in the first place. You could make the same argument for virtually every rule. I'm sure if you get most of the mods and a lot of the posters on your side, they might do away with the rule and bring Gal back.
I'll admit that Galvatron's posts were hard to read at best. But he did have lots of opinions and zeal, and that sure as hell beats being a lurker in my opinion.
However regardless of how I feel, he objectively was not a threat, a spammer or a ripper. He had strong opinions, and didn't articulate them that well, but he did contribute to the forums and discussion is the lifeblood of any forum (obviously).
While his poor spelling is regretful, it's by no means a serious offense. If anything, the mods should give him one last chance. You're going to say "he was given chances before" but consider this: Now that he knows he's one bad post away from a permban, do you really think he'll screw it up? Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but if I knew I was on thin ice I wouldn't mess up one very gracious last chance.
He was to be permanently suspended until he acquired a spellchecker and employed it, but he made it clear that (as we've told you many times in this thread) he wasn't going to do anything to change his ways. So pardon me if I don't think it worthwhile to give someone who has had countless chances just one more chance to tell us he's not going to change.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains