In response to the question proposed by the OP, I'd like to believe people would be intelligent enough to make their own decisions rather than let blindly follow what others do without question.
Is that non lulzy enough for you, Memnarch?
Don't double-post.
I was under the assumption that the double post rule exists because we can edit our posts, thereby not needing to repost to add more information. JWolps posted twice in a row, but his second post was after a mod edit on his first post. Clearly he can't edit that post without getting an infraction, so is one just supposed to wait until someone else posts in the thread before adding anything?
I only use this quote as an example because it's the first time I've seen it, I don't actually mean to bring up a discussion of this specific case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
you're allowed to edit your post, just not allowed to edit the mod text, or to edit out whatever you got modded for. It's like wearing the scarelet letter.
I was under the assumption that the double post rule exists because we can edit our posts, thereby not needing to repost to add more information. JWolps posted twice in a row, but his second post was after a mod edit on his first post. Clearly he can't edit that post without getting an infraction, so is one just supposed to wait until someone else posts in the thread before adding anything?
I only use this quote as an example because it's the first time I've seen it, I don't actually mean to bring up a discussion of this specific case.
There's always PMing the mods, if you have something you need to say right away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
you're allowed to edit your post, just not allowed to edit the mod text, or to edit out whatever you got modded for. It's like wearing the scarelet letter.
That's not what the Forum Rules say.
Mod Text and Evading an Infraction
Bold red and the [mod] tag are reserved for moderator use. Using them will result in an Infraction regardless of intent. The only exception is text that is directly quoting a moderator in a post. If you quote a moderator in your signature, remove the red bold from the text. Also, do not edit your post after a mod has done so. Doing so will result in another Infraction being given.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
you're allowed to edit your post, just not allowed to edit the mod text, or to edit out whatever you got modded for. It's like wearing the scarelet letter.
There's always PMing the mods, if you have something you need to say right away.
There is certainly always that. At the very least, if the need to doublepost is so great (which it wasn't here), report your doublepost explaining yourself. There's no guarantee that it'll help you, but it's a fair bit better than just breaking the rules and moving on.
There is certainly always that. At the very least, if the need to doublepost is so great (which it wasn't here), report your doublepost explaining yourself. There's no guarantee that it'll help you, but it's a fair bit better than just breaking the rules and moving on.
Maybe double-posts in response to mod edits should count as person > mod > person. Because that's kind of what's happening. You say something. A mod says something "in response." You should probably get to say something again.
Technically, someone spoke in between your two posts. They just did it inside one of your posts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Maybe double-posts in response to mod edits should count as person > mod > person. Because that's kind of what's happening. You say something. A mod says something "in response." You should probably get to say something again.
Well, if someone wanted to respond to the mod's edit publicly, in the same thread, without breaking a rule, then they could.
I guess I'm thinking more in terms of the slower areas, like Clans. As a site wide rule, I guess it could be bad. Maybe it would just lead to flames, I don't know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Relevantly, I issued an infraction for his existing post because it was (purportedly) nonsensical, on purpose, and the user in discussion has had a record of this style of posting. The next post he made (directly thereafter) was a revision of his existing post, which was more or less unnecessary since he could have simply posted like this originally, and he must have been well-aware of the double-posting rules. If anything, it seemed simply as a rebuke towards me for the infraction, which, as other moderators have stated before, is better done on Helpdesks.
The infraction for the double-post was issued by extremeicon, and I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning behind it. If your post was moderated (in this case, specifically because it seemed purposely written to confuse others), you should probably wait it out or bring it up with the moderator at hand. Doing the extra post, especially in this case, is tantamount to spam, as it does nothing to further the thread.
You wait if this is the case. You broke the rules once. That doesn't let you break the rules a second time.
At the risk of flaming a mod....
That is incredibly pedantic, not to mention idiotic. A given user has something to say in the context of the mod edit it. He has zero mechanism for it to be publicly stated, without waiting for someone else to randomly post? Does that make any sense at all?
If he has something to say in the thread, he can wait for someone else to post. If it's not going to be relevant after someone else posts, it's not going to be relevant enough to break the rules, is it?
If he has something to say to the mod, there's always the Private Message, or the posting in the mod's help thread. Or do what everyone else does and, if he must break the rules, at least break the rule of 'don't post a thread about a ruling you don't like in CI, post it on their help thread instead'.
That is incredibly pedantic, not to mention idiotic. A given user has something to say in the context of the mod edit it. He has zero mechanism for it to be publicly stated, without waiting for someone else to randomly post? Does that make any sense at all?
You are correct, the rules here are flawed. While unlikely, it is perfectly possible for a situation to exist whereby a poster could contribute to the thread, but can't because of a rules reverse-loophole. Yes, most of the time someone else will post soon. However, you'll never get nai to admit this, because as far as I can tell he never says anything bad about mtgsalvation moderation policies - defends every single detail of them rather than admitting that there are some flaws. I guess this is an admirable trait in a moderator, but it makes it pretty annoying trying to get any positive changes instituted on this website.
You are correct, the rules here are flawed. While unlikely, it is perfectly possible for a situation to exist whereby a poster could contribute to the thread, but can't because of a rules reverse-loophole.
That would be a case where PMing the mod can help you. I know I've 'bent the rules' for posters in such unlikely circumstances. But don't kid yourselves, such situations are incredibly rare, which is why our rules don't technically allow for them.
Once upon a time, the Forum Rules attempted to incorporate the verbiage to account for as many corner cases and rare situations as they could. It was a mess and led to more confusion than it solved. So we streamlined the rules. We could try to address the flaws caused by generalized rules, but we've been down that road before. Instead, we've found it better to trust ourselves to respect the spirit and not the letter of the rules in such rare corner cases as you're describing.
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
Perhaps they should be allowed to edit there post then? Maybe they should be able to do what morrissey thought was the proper procedure
Originally Posted by Morrissey
you're allowed to edit your post, just not allowed to edit the mod text, or to edit out whatever you got modded for. It's like wearing the scarelet letter.
This way the moderator notes are left in tact and the user is still able to add anything relevant to the post that they may feel the need to say without having to double post or wait for another user to post something else.
Perhaps they should be allowed to edit there post then? Maybe they should be able to do what morrissey thought was the proper procedure
This way the moderator notes are left in tact and the user is still able to add anything relevant to the post that they may feel the need to say without having to double post or wait for another user to post something else.
No, the reason users can't edit posts after a mod at all is to preserve clarity in terms of what was moderated. If a user is infracted for spam and they go back and edit constructive content in, another user happening upon that post would wonder why it was moderated.
It's important that a mod has the final edit because that way, everyone looking at the post can be reasonably sure of what transpired. Allowing users to make post-moderation edits of their own only leads to confusion, and often insolence. It's just not worth it, honestly.
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
1: User says something
2: Mod edits his post
3: User has something else to say in the discussion. Whether it would be directed at the mod or not is all but irrelevant. He is prevented from posting until someone else does?
I don't understand how you fail to see how asinine that is.
Because you are no longer allowed to edit the original post, so if there is relevant content to add, you cannot do as the procedure describes. For example, if you post a deck for discussion in the main standard forum, and it then gets moved to the relevant forum for discussion, including a nice little "moved" sign, then you would have to wait an arbitrary amount of time, possibly infinite, before making changes to the deck or adding decktesting results.
Again, the user is certainly allowed to PM the mod and ask about adding additional content. I personally wouldn't allow the edit by the user, but if the content was important enough, I'd add it in myself.
Users need to get out of the "the rules keep me from doing what I want directly, aw ☺☺☺☺ it I'll just break the rules and do what I want" and start considering alternative ways of getting what they want done.
1: User says something
2: Mod edits his post
3: User has something else to say in the discussion. Whether it would be directed at the mod or not is all but irrelevant. He is prevented from posting until someone else does?
I don't understand how you fail to see how asinine that is.
A) If the user has something he wants to say to a mod, he can do it via PM or direct it to a helpdesk. Edit ways are stupid and childish, which is part of the reason we don't allow post-moderation edits by users.
B) If the user has content to add to the thread that's important enough, talking to the mod will probably yield better results than just posting it and breaking the rules.
C) The staff's need to have our moderation be transparent to the community is greater than a random user's need to update a decklist or add a sentence to a post himself.
Again, the user is certainly allowed to PM the mod and ask about adding additional content. I personally wouldn't allow the edit by the user, but if the content was important enough, I'd add it in myself.
Users need to get out of the "the rules keep me from doing what I want directly, aw ☺☺☺☺ it I'll just break the rules and do what I want" and start considering alternative ways of getting what they want done.
A) If the user has something he wants to say to a mod, he can do it via PM or direct it to a helpdesk. Edit ways are stupid and childish, which is part of the reason we don't allow post-moderation edits by users.
B) If the user has content to add to the thread that's important enough, talking to the mod will probably yield better results than just posting it and breaking the rules.
C) The staff's need to have our moderation be transparent to the community is greater than a random user's need to update a decklist or add a sentence to a post himself.
How does exercising rationality when enforcing the rules decrease transparency?
How does exercising rationality when enforcing the rules decrease transparency?
When the average user looks at a post and may no longer understand why it was infracted. This may not be the case every time a user edits a moderated post, but it's enough of a risk that we ruled against such edits. And when there are alternatives, such as the ones I've repeated several times now, the staff is okay with such a blanket rule - even if it isn't in every single case rational. The trouble it saves vastly outweighs the rare inconveniences it causes.
When the average user looks at a post and may no longer understand why it was infracted. This may not be the case every time a user edits a moderated post, but it's enough of a risk that we ruled against such edits. And when there are alternatives, such as the ones I've repeated several times now, the staff is okay with such a blanket rule - even if it isn't in every single case rational. The trouble it saves vastly outweighs the rare inconveniences it causes.
So basically, you don't want to create the kind of circumstances where someone like Syphon will see a post, and then immediately make a thread here to try and troll the staff?
I can, to an extent, understand that. But it is still totally ridiculous that users are required to wait for someone else to post before they say something if a mod touched their previous post. Its a staggeringly arbitrary distinction.
So basically, you don't want to create the kind of circumstances where someone like Syphon will see a post, and then immediately make a thread here to try and troll the staff?
That, certainly, but also the dozens of posters we will never hear from that could potentially otherwise learn from a previous poster's mistake. Users who can clearly see what behavior results in what punishment are more likely, one hopes, to not repeat that behavior.
I can, to an extent, understand that. But it is still totally ridiculous that users are required to wait for someone else to post before they say something if a mod touched their previous post. Its a staggeringly arbitrary distinction.
Except they don't have to wait. I've described several ways in which they don't have to. They can't edit the post, sure, but they doesn't mean they have no options.
So a Moderator infracts me for something, likely evading the censor or something of that general nature. If a post that happens during my posting happens to interest me i have a few options and the options are:
1. Wait for another individual to post
2. PM a mod with no guarantee of the ability to post.
3. Let the thought die with no resolution
I'm not sure if that adequately covers the case. Couldn't the user simply quote the user (assuming that's the case) and have the implication of the moderator's post be the notable exception? It would seem evident that the posts were made at the same time, and given the moderation editing is impossible, so that seems like a fair judgment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was under the assumption that the double post rule exists because we can edit our posts, thereby not needing to repost to add more information. JWolps posted twice in a row, but his second post was after a mod edit on his first post. Clearly he can't edit that post without getting an infraction, so is one just supposed to wait until someone else posts in the thread before adding anything?
I only use this quote as an example because it's the first time I've seen it, I don't actually mean to bring up a discussion of this specific case.
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
There's always PMing the mods, if you have something you need to say right away.
That's not what the Forum Rules say.
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
No you're not. Or at least I've never allowed it.
There is certainly always that. At the very least, if the need to doublepost is so great (which it wasn't here), report your doublepost explaining yourself. There's no guarantee that it'll help you, but it's a fair bit better than just breaking the rules and moving on.
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
Maybe double-posts in response to mod edits should count as person > mod > person. Because that's kind of what's happening. You say something. A mod says something "in response." You should probably get to say something again.
Technically, someone spoke in between your two posts. They just did it inside one of your posts.
Why?
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
My helpdesk should you need me.
Well, if someone wanted to respond to the mod's edit publicly, in the same thread, without breaking a rule, then they could.
I guess I'm thinking more in terms of the slower areas, like Clans. As a site wide rule, I guess it could be bad. Maybe it would just lead to flames, I don't know.
I can't think of a single place where a user doing what you describe amounting to anything more than spam.
We don't want people cluttering threads complaining about their warnings. That's one of the reasons why we have helpdesks.
The infraction for the double-post was issued by extremeicon, and I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning behind it. If your post was moderated (in this case, specifically because it seemed purposely written to confuse others), you should probably wait it out or bring it up with the moderator at hand. Doing the extra post, especially in this case, is tantamount to spam, as it does nothing to further the thread.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
At the risk of flaming a mod....
That is incredibly pedantic, not to mention idiotic. A given user has something to say in the context of the mod edit it. He has zero mechanism for it to be publicly stated, without waiting for someone else to randomly post? Does that make any sense at all?
If he has something to say to the mod, there's always the Private Message, or the posting in the mod's help thread. Or do what everyone else does and, if he must break the rules, at least break the rule of 'don't post a thread about a ruling you don't like in CI, post it on their help thread instead'.
My helpdesk should you need me.
You are correct, the rules here are flawed. While unlikely, it is perfectly possible for a situation to exist whereby a poster could contribute to the thread, but can't because of a rules reverse-loophole. Yes, most of the time someone else will post soon. However, you'll never get nai to admit this, because as far as I can tell he never says anything bad about mtgsalvation moderation policies - defends every single detail of them rather than admitting that there are some flaws. I guess this is an admirable trait in a moderator, but it makes it pretty annoying trying to get any positive changes instituted on this website.
That would be a case where PMing the mod can help you. I know I've 'bent the rules' for posters in such unlikely circumstances. But don't kid yourselves, such situations are incredibly rare, which is why our rules don't technically allow for them.
Once upon a time, the Forum Rules attempted to incorporate the verbiage to account for as many corner cases and rare situations as they could. It was a mess and led to more confusion than it solved. So we streamlined the rules. We could try to address the flaws caused by generalized rules, but we've been down that road before. Instead, we've found it better to trust ourselves to respect the spirit and not the letter of the rules in such rare corner cases as you're describing.
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
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
My helpdesk should you need me.
Perhaps they should be allowed to edit there post then? Maybe they should be able to do what morrissey thought was the proper procedure
This way the moderator notes are left in tact and the user is still able to add anything relevant to the post that they may feel the need to say without having to double post or wait for another user to post something else.
No, the reason users can't edit posts after a mod at all is to preserve clarity in terms of what was moderated. If a user is infracted for spam and they go back and edit constructive content in, another user happening upon that post would wonder why it was moderated.
It's important that a mod has the final edit because that way, everyone looking at the post can be reasonably sure of what transpired. Allowing users to make post-moderation edits of their own only leads to confusion, and often insolence. It's just not worth it, honestly.
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
1: User says something
2: Mod edits his post
3: User has something else to say in the discussion. Whether it would be directed at the mod or not is all but irrelevant. He is prevented from posting until someone else does?
I don't understand how you fail to see how asinine that is.
Again, the user is certainly allowed to PM the mod and ask about adding additional content. I personally wouldn't allow the edit by the user, but if the content was important enough, I'd add it in myself.
Users need to get out of the "the rules keep me from doing what I want directly, aw ☺☺☺☺ it I'll just break the rules and do what I want" and start considering alternative ways of getting what they want done.
A) If the user has something he wants to say to a mod, he can do it via PM or direct it to a helpdesk. Edit ways are stupid and childish, which is part of the reason we don't allow post-moderation edits by users.
B) If the user has content to add to the thread that's important enough, talking to the mod will probably yield better results than just posting it and breaking the rules.
C) The staff's need to have our moderation be transparent to the community is greater than a random user's need to update a decklist or add a sentence to a post himself.
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
How does exercising rationality when enforcing the rules decrease transparency?
When the average user looks at a post and may no longer understand why it was infracted. This may not be the case every time a user edits a moderated post, but it's enough of a risk that we ruled against such edits. And when there are alternatives, such as the ones I've repeated several times now, the staff is okay with such a blanket rule - even if it isn't in every single case rational. The trouble it saves vastly outweighs the rare inconveniences it causes.
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
So basically, you don't want to create the kind of circumstances where someone like Syphon will see a post, and then immediately make a thread here to try and troll the staff?
I can, to an extent, understand that. But it is still totally ridiculous that users are required to wait for someone else to post before they say something if a mod touched their previous post. Its a staggeringly arbitrary distinction.
That, certainly, but also the dozens of posters we will never hear from that could potentially otherwise learn from a previous poster's mistake. Users who can clearly see what behavior results in what punishment are more likely, one hopes, to not repeat that behavior.
Except they don't have to wait. I've described several ways in which they don't have to. They can't edit the post, sure, but they doesn't mean they have no options.
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
1. Wait for another individual to post
2. PM a mod with no guarantee of the ability to post.
3. Let the thought die with no resolution
I'm not sure if that adequately covers the case. Couldn't the user simply quote the user (assuming that's the case) and have the implication of the moderator's post be the notable exception? It would seem evident that the posts were made at the same time, and given the moderation editing is impossible, so that seems like a fair judgment.