I think you misread my post. I was repeating the existing rule because if I didn't repeat it it would look like my rule set didn't include the rule.
I've read all of your posts pretty closely. In the post I quoted, you "example" of the current rules was VERY fair off the the mark from what is actually written. I think either you did not read the rules, or were purposely trying to make the current rules look stupid.
Much of what you've said supports the theory that you did not read the rules prior to making your first post. I could go over them in more detail, and point out where you showed your misunderstanding of the rules, if you would like.
Well, we can just agree to disagree in this case. I see advantages to either side. Editing posts, as a way to add more to a thread, has numerous disadvantages such as the fact that someone who has already read your post prior to the edit would not normally go back and reread it, and in an active thread where a response is posted to your unedited post while you are editing it it can be very confusing, especially if the editing involves removing statements that are responded to. "Spam" is relative, are two separate posts really that much worse than one edited post that is just as big as those two posts would have been? Spammers as a rule generally ignore the rules of the forum anyway, so I completely disagree that changing the rule would increase spam.
But, that's just it. If you feel the need to edit your post (I know I do quite alot) but no one is posting after you, then no one cares. This example you have here is just the person bumping his thread, new information or no.
I would like to know what would be so mind-numbingly awesome that you need to make a new post on a dead thread, yet not important enough that it could be its own thread.
I do agree that the endless "bump" posts you see on some forums are annoying. However, there are ways to handle that issue without a strict ban on double-posting. I could care less about post count and if you want to discourage useless posts used to boost it I'd simply disable it from being displayed.
There are, most of which require more work on the part of the mod staff.... or having people complain about what a legitimate "bump" is or is not.
I've read all of your posts pretty closely. In the post I quoted, you "example" of the current rules was VERY fair off the the mark from what is actually written. I think either you did not read the rules, or were purposely trying to make the current rules look stupid.
Much of what you've said supports the theory that you did not read the rules prior to making your first post. I could go over them in more detail, and point out where you showed your misunderstanding of the rules, if you would like.
I would like, because my post was not based on any written rules, rather it was based on the rules as they are expressed in this thread by the moderators. If those rules were incorrectly understood by me I'd like to know.
But, that's just it. If you feel the need to edit your post (I know I do quite alot) but no one is posting after you, then no one cares. This example you have here is just the person bumping his thread, new information or no.
I would like to know what would be so mind-numbingly awesome that you need to make a new post on a dead thread, yet not important enough that it could be its own thread.
You say this like this is some super serious forum where every single post needs to be full of 100% critical important information. Yet there are entire sections dedicated to forum games, off-topic discussion, etc. If you have room for pointless word association threads, I don't really think the importance of any given post should ever called into question. If no one cares, then no one will respond to the double post. Who cares?
There are, most of which require more work on the part of the mod staff.... or having people complain about what a legitimate "bump" is or is not.
A ban is easier.
Not having a forum at all is even easier, and not having any enforced rules at all is also easier. Poor moderators have to do a little bit of work
But in all seriousness, I can't agree. Is it easier to ban all double-posting than it is to ban the excessive double posting and leave the rest of it alone? Banning all double posting requires a moderation of every single double-post, while restricting the more excessive cases will require moderation of a small fraction of the double posts. Or to put things simply, the hypothetical situation under my suggestion would require a SUBSET of the existing workload, which will be significantly less than the current workload.
I would like, because my post was not based on any written rules, rather it was based on the rules as they are expressed in this thread by the moderators. If those rules were incorrectly understood by me I'd like to know.
Perhaps a good first step, then, would be not arguing with the moderators about what the rules are - as you did with me - and instead to go read them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I would like, because my post was not based on any written rules, rather it was based on the rules as they are expressed in this thread by the moderators. If those rules were incorrectly understood by me I'd like to know.
So, are you saying you have NOT read the rules?
It would take me a bit to pick apart everything you've said in all of your posts here, but if your admitting you DID NOT read the rules prior to you first post, I don't see why should brother.
It would be just me wasting my time coming to a conclusion we both already know is true.
You say this like this is some super serious forum where every single post needs to be full of 100% critical important information. Yet there are entire sections dedicated to forum games, off-topic discussion, etc. If you have room for pointless word association threads, I don't really think the importance of any given post should ever called into question. If no one cares, then no one will respond to the double post. Who cares?
They don't contribute to post count.
Also, parts of the forum have different rules. In some parts, people ARE expected to think out what they are saying. In others, there is less expectation.
We are NOT talking about subforums, some of which you CAN double post in, we are talking about the forum as a whole.
But in all seriousness, I can't agree. Is it easier to ban all double-posting than it is to ban the excessive double posting and leave the rest of it alone?
Yes. Because "excessive" is a subjective term. The less subjective terms you have in the rules, the less arguing you have.
Mods don't want to have to go through every case with every member. For example, this argument you and I are having? I have already had it, several times, with other members. The first time I had it, I was even on YOUR side of it. What one mod or member think is "excessive" someone else might not, so it increases the number of arguments in SYM.
And before you throw another one of your slippy slope arguments in my face, I'm saying we should "minimize" the number of subjective terms, not eliminate.
Banning all double posting requires a moderation of every single double-post, while restricting the more excessive cases will require moderation of a small fraction of the double posts.
Or it requires people to just read the rules. If they read your version of the rules, they might still break them, having a different understanding of the definition of "excessive."
Or to put things simply, the hypothetical situation under my suggestion would require a SUBSET of the existing workload, which will be significantly less than the current workload.
Your assuming everyone would agree on what is "excessive" and what is not. I find this assumption unjustified based on my experiences with people.
It would take me a bit to pick apart everything you've said in all of your posts here, but if your admitting you DID NOT read the rules prior to you first post, I don't see why should brother.
Maybe you should "bother" because you offered to do it, and I asked you to do it? Don't say you will do something if you have no intention to follow through.
Yes. Because "excessive" is a subjective term. The less subjective terms you have in the rules, the less arguing you have.
Mods don't want to have to go through every case with every member. For example, this argument you and I are having? I have already had it, several times, with other members. The first time I had it, I was even on YOUR side of it. What one mod or member think is "excessive" someone else might not, so it increases the number of arguments in SYM.
And before you throw another one of your slippy slope arguments in my face, I'm saying we should "minimize" the number of subjective terms, not eliminate.
Or it requires people to just read the rules. If they read your version of the rules, they might still break them, having a different understanding of the definition of "excessive."
Your assuming everyone would agree on what is "excessive" and what is not. I find this assumption unjustified based on my experiences with people.
You are creating an argument out of things that are irrelevant. I agree, excessive is subjective. No matter how subjective it is, the number of excessive double posts NEVER exceeds the number of total double posts. It is always going to be less work to moderate the excessive double posts rather than moderating every double post, excessive or not.
You are arguing about what "excessive means" when it doesn't really matter what it means.
Or it requires people to just read the rules.
What exactly is the goal here? I thought it was to discuss magic cards? Why are you so focused on rules that don't even really matter? It's not like the forum is going to implode and fail if people double post a few times. We both know it already happens. You can work with some exotic set of rules and restrictions unlike any other web forum if you want, and spend a lot of time moderating and driving people away from your forums, but why would you want to do that? I'm not say the rules here are bad, but there is always room for improvement.
And really, read the rules? Kids these days buy $50 games and don't even bother to read the rules because they don't care, I doubt many of the first time posters here spend any time reading the rules when accounts are created freely with no effort. You can have a big restrictive list of rules and force people to read them through moderator enforcement, but it's really just making more work for yourself and driving away people who might actually have some useful insight on some cards or decks.
Maybe you should "bother" because you offered to do it, and I asked you to do it? Don't say you will do something if you have no intention to follow through.
I have read through the entire thread and I have to say I generally agree with the view of the OP, despite all the arguments against it.
The main complaint about fixing this problem is that it would make the rules more complex. I disagree with that complaint.
Normally, any post you make can be edited, if you need to respond to a simultaneous post that just happened to post before yours, for example. Why would being moderated change that?
If you want to punish a person for making a mistake, the moderator could temporarily ban that account, but this arbitrary rule of "you can't post in the thread you were moderated in until another poster posts, if they do, which they might not, or you can PM a mod, but that may or may not do anything..."
The rule could be vastly SIMPLIFIED (not made more complex, but made more simple) by changing it from "you can't edit a moderated post or double post ever forever" to "you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
Honestly, the idea of punishing the user for posting a moderated post might make some sense, what doesn't make sense is the "punishment" being so completely random and inconsistent in that if another user immediately posts it's as if there is no punishment at all, while if it's a slow thread with no further posts the punishment is basically permanent.
Upon re-reading this post, its clear to me that you did understand the rules as they are written when it comes to this:
"you can't edit a moderated post or double post ever forever"
I had originally read that as a change from the rules. It does, however, make me wounder why you then go on to describe that as:
You are creating an argument out of things that are irrelevant. I agree, excessive is subjective. No matter how subjective it is, the number of excessive double posts NEVER exceeds the number of total double posts. It is always going to be less work to moderate the excessive double posts rather than moderating every double post, excessive or not.
The problem does not come in when you look at the % of double posts compared to the % of normal posts. The problem is every time a mod infracts someone for making a double post the mod feels is "excessive" and the person making the post disagrees, an argument will ensue.
You are arguing about what "excessive means" when it doesn't really matter what it means.
Yes, yes it would. It would matter because unless is spelled out 100% in the rules it would be argued.
For example, I could claim that an "excessive" double post would be any double post at all. In fact, it is my belief that ANY double post IS an "excessive" double post. Its unnecessary to make any double post because you can edit your post. And before you tell me you can't in your moderated posts, read my rebuttal here.
It's not like the forum is going to implode and fail if people double post a few times. We both know it already happens. You can work with some exotic set of rules and restrictions unlike any other web forum if you want, and spend a lot of time moderating and driving people away from your forums, but why would you want to do that? I'm not say the rules here are bad, but there is always room for improvement.
Why do you keep making slippery slope arguments?
The forum would not "implode," however he idea here is to try and maximize the "signal to noise" of the forum.
You seem to be very black and white in your thinking. The idea of the rules is to try and maximize the use of the forum. Doing that is not an on or off switch.
And really, read the rules? Kids these days buy $50 games and don't even bother to read the rules because they don't care, I doubt many of the first time posters here spend any time reading the rules when accounts are created freely with no effort. You can have a big restrictive list of rules and force people to read them through moderator enforcement, but it's really just making more work for yourself and driving away people who might actually have some useful insight on some cards or decks.
Well, running the risk of sounding elitist, I, for one, don't want people on the forums that "just don't care."
Just because some people don't care, it does not mean the forums should cater to those people.
And really, read the rules? Kids these days buy $50 games and don't even bother to read the rules because they don't care, I doubt many of the first time posters here spend any time reading the rules when accounts are created freely with no effort.
'Ignorance is no excuse of the law'. If people can't bother to spend on all five minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy...then I really don't know how they will function irl. The world has alot more rules and legalese styled laws than an online forum. It makes me cringe.
Alternatively, you can argue that irl is different. In that case, my counter argument is 'if they manage fine irl, why should it be any different online?' You got those kinds of things everywhere. EULA anyone?
but it's really just making more work for yourself and driving away people who might actually have some useful insight on some cards or decks.
If people can't bother to spend 5 minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy, then they can't really have any useful insight.
The problem does not come in when you look at the % of double posts compared to the % of normal posts. The problem is every time a mod infracts someone for making a double post the mod feels is "excessive" and the person making the post disagrees, an argument will ensue.
Every time.
Yes, yes it would. It would matter because unless is spelled out 100% in the rules it would be argued.
My example was to limit double posting until after 1 hour has passed. Please explain how this could possibly be ambiguous in any way? Either an hour has passed between the posts, or not. No argument should ever convince anyone that 15 minutes is actually more than an hour.
'Ignorance is no excuse of the law'. If people can't bother to spend on all five minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy...then I really don't know how they will function irl. The world has alot more rules and legalese styled laws than an online forum. It makes me cringe.
Alternatively, you can argue that irl is different. In that case, my counter argument is 'if they manage fine irl, why should it be any different online?' You got those kinds of things everywhere. EULA anyone?
Well, running the risk of sounding elitist, I, for one, don't want people on the forums that "just don't care."
Just because some people don't care, it does not mean the forums should cater to those people.
No you don't have to cater to them, and I didn't mean to imply that lack of reading the rules is any sort of excuse to break them. But if you want to make the job of moderation easier, it's nice to have rules that are reasonable and logical. My belief is that most people won't read the rules. Whether it's right or wrong for them to do so is not part of my argument.
If you think every user signs up, and spends 5 minutes reading the rules before making a post, and always follows those rules, I'd say you live in fantasy-land. If everyone read and followed the rules we wouldn't have any moderators, as your job wouldn't be needed. In reality, I think only a small minority of users fully read the rules before posting. And in such a situation, if you want to make the moderation job easier, it pays to have simpler and more logical rules. And/or to make use of mechanical restrictions rather than rules, for example disable use of the red color for non-moderators instead of making it a rule.
What I actually wrote: You can work with some exotic set of rules and restrictions unlike any other web forum if you want, and spend a lot of time moderating and driving people away from your forums, but why would you want to do that? I'm not say the rules here are bad, but there is always room for improvement.
I wasn't saying the rules here were big and restrictive, I was explaining why big and restrictive rules are bad. And then I said the rules here are not bad, but there is always room for improvement. The particular rule being discussed in this thread is restrictive, IMO.
If people can't bother to spend 5 minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy, then they can't really have any useful insight.
I think that is a simplistic view. Look at how many great artists have spent time in jail, for drugs or whatever. Intelligence and creativity (useful traits for deck building and discussion) are not limited to people with obedience and respect for authority.
My example was to limit double posting until after 1 hour has passed. Please explain how this could possibly be ambiguous in any way? Either an hour has passed between the posts, or not. No argument should ever convince anyone that 15 minutes is actually more than an hour.
Well, first stop moving the goal post on me. What are we taking about? No "excessive" double posting, or no double posting within and hour.
If we are talking about no posting within and hour, you've no seen the threads of people complaining about that "24 hour" double post trading forum rule.
Its a big head ache to have all of those people posting in 23 hours or 22 hours or whatever complaining about their "unjust" infraction.
No you don't have to cater to them, and I didn't mean to imply that lack of reading the rules is any sort of excuse to break them. But if you want to make the job of moderation easier, it's nice to have rules that are reasonable and logical. My belief is that most people won't read the rules. Whether it's right or wrong for them to do so is not part of my argument.
You don't want people editing mod text, you do want people reading the rules, the very LEAST after they break them.
The current rules do just that.
If you think every user signs up, and spends 5 minutes reading the rules before making a post, and always follows those rules, I'd say you live in fantasy-land. If everyone read and followed the rules we wouldn't have any moderators, as your job wouldn't be needed. In reality, I think only a small minority of users fully read the rules before posting. And in such a situation, if you want to make the moderation job easier, it pays to have simpler and more logical rules. And/or to make use of mechanical restrictions rather than rules, for example disable use of the red color for non-moderators instead of making it a rule.
This is a forum not fantasy land.
One doesn't want users spamming the place up either, one DOES want them to think before they post.
They should AT LEAST read the rules after they break them, would you not agree?
You seem to think the rules could be written in such away that everyone could just rely on common sense and never break them, unless they wanted to, without reading them.
Not necessarily. I personally would much rather a user necro if they have a worthwhile contribution to a thread, rather than make a whole new thread that starts the discussion from scratch. And if they don't have a worthwhile contribution, I'd rather they didn't post, because that's spam.
Which is why PM-ing a mod for approval is never a bad idea before posting on a dead thread.
However, the point of this thread is to get a universal and consistent ruling on the site rather than asking people to jump hurdles of red tape in order to do something that differs based on the many moderators on the site.
But there isn't a universal and consistent ruling on this site.
For instance, in the Colosseum, there's many times when doubleposting is okay. Same with the Mafia forum. That's why Moderator Discretion was the by-word in the first place.
However, the point of this thread is to get a universal and consistent ruling on the site rather than asking people to jump hurdles of red tape in order to do something that differs based on the many moderators on the site.
Name one rule (other than 'nothing illegal') that is universal on ALL sub forums. (yes, all)
However, the point of this thread is to get a universal and consistent ruling on the site rather than asking people to jump hurdles of red tape in order to do something that differs based on the many moderators on the site.
I didn't realize that taking 30 seconds to PM a mod qualified as "hurdles of red tape". It's really not that big a deal. I've never turned someone down who wanted to bring up an old thread with relevant information or double post with good reason.
I didn't realize that taking 30 seconds to PM a mod qualified as "hurdles of red tape". It's really not that big a deal. I've never turned someone down who wanted to bring up an old thread with relevant information or double post with good reason.
This is good, but I think there is another issue here.
While it is reasonable to expect people to read the rules before posting, and to exercise common courtesy, the fact that each forum has its own unique rules and this forum's rules are (with good reason) a little stricter than most can result even in well-intentioned users picking up the odd warning.
Also, a typical forum user may not even be aware that there even exists the option of sending a PM to a moderator for permission to bend the rules a little! Or, at least, they would be shy about bothering someone without a very, very good reason.
So, the more that things can be arranged so that in the great majority of cases, knowing if something is allowed or not is a "no-brainer", the better. It means less work for the moderators, and a more satisfying experience for well-intentioned but perhaps less forum-savvy users.
This is good, but I think there is another issue here.
While it is reasonable to expect people to read the rules before posting, and to exercise common courtesy, the fact that each forum has its own unique rules and this forum's rules are (with good reason) a little stricter than most can result even in well-intentioned users picking up the odd warning.
Also, a typical forum user may not even be aware that there even exists the option of sending a PM to a moderator for permission to bend the rules a little! Or, at least, they would be shy about bothering someone without a very, very good reason.
So, the more that things can be arranged so that in the great majority of cases, knowing if something is allowed or not is a "no-brainer", the better. It means less work for the moderators, and a more satisfying experience for well-intentioned but perhaps less forum-savvy users.
Pm a mod is given as on of the options given in the what not to do if you have been warned thread here. Hopefully they will have seen it before they get the warning / infraction.
Also for all the forums that have additional rules they are in stickes at the top of each forum and the fact that each forum/subforum has different rules and requirements is stated several times in the main forum rules thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Much of what you've said supports the theory that you did not read the rules prior to making your first post. I could go over them in more detail, and point out where you showed your misunderstanding of the rules, if you would like.
But, that's just it. If you feel the need to edit your post (I know I do quite alot) but no one is posting after you, then no one cares. This example you have here is just the person bumping his thread, new information or no.
I would like to know what would be so mind-numbingly awesome that you need to make a new post on a dead thread, yet not important enough that it could be its own thread.
There are, most of which require more work on the part of the mod staff.... or having people complain about what a legitimate "bump" is or is not.
A ban is easier.
I would like, because my post was not based on any written rules, rather it was based on the rules as they are expressed in this thread by the moderators. If those rules were incorrectly understood by me I'd like to know.
You say this like this is some super serious forum where every single post needs to be full of 100% critical important information. Yet there are entire sections dedicated to forum games, off-topic discussion, etc. If you have room for pointless word association threads, I don't really think the importance of any given post should ever called into question. If no one cares, then no one will respond to the double post. Who cares?
Not having a forum at all is even easier, and not having any enforced rules at all is also easier. Poor moderators have to do a little bit of work
But in all seriousness, I can't agree. Is it easier to ban all double-posting than it is to ban the excessive double posting and leave the rest of it alone? Banning all double posting requires a moderation of every single double-post, while restricting the more excessive cases will require moderation of a small fraction of the double posts. Or to put things simply, the hypothetical situation under my suggestion would require a SUBSET of the existing workload, which will be significantly less than the current workload.
Perhaps a good first step, then, would be not arguing with the moderators about what the rules are - as you did with me - and instead to go read them.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I was arguing with you about what a "corner case" is, not about any particular rule. Don't put words in my mouth.
The fact that this has gone of for three pages is fairly amazing.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
It would take me a bit to pick apart everything you've said in all of your posts here, but if your admitting you DID NOT read the rules prior to you first post, I don't see why should brother.
It would be just me wasting my time coming to a conclusion we both already know is true.
They don't contribute to post count.
Also, parts of the forum have different rules. In some parts, people ARE expected to think out what they are saying. In others, there is less expectation.
We are NOT talking about subforums, some of which you CAN double post in, we are talking about the forum as a whole.
Your making a slippy slope fallacy here and you know it.
Yes. Because "excessive" is a subjective term. The less subjective terms you have in the rules, the less arguing you have.
Mods don't want to have to go through every case with every member. For example, this argument you and I are having? I have already had it, several times, with other members. The first time I had it, I was even on YOUR side of it. What one mod or member think is "excessive" someone else might not, so it increases the number of arguments in SYM.
And before you throw another one of your slippy slope arguments in my face, I'm saying we should "minimize" the number of subjective terms, not eliminate.
Or it requires people to just read the rules. If they read your version of the rules, they might still break them, having a different understanding of the definition of "excessive."
Your assuming everyone would agree on what is "excessive" and what is not. I find this assumption unjustified based on my experiences with people.
Maybe you should "bother" because you offered to do it, and I asked you to do it? Don't say you will do something if you have no intention to follow through.
You are creating an argument out of things that are irrelevant. I agree, excessive is subjective. No matter how subjective it is, the number of excessive double posts NEVER exceeds the number of total double posts. It is always going to be less work to moderate the excessive double posts rather than moderating every double post, excessive or not.
You are arguing about what "excessive means" when it doesn't really matter what it means.
Or it requires people to just read the rules.
What exactly is the goal here? I thought it was to discuss magic cards? Why are you so focused on rules that don't even really matter? It's not like the forum is going to implode and fail if people double post a few times. We both know it already happens. You can work with some exotic set of rules and restrictions unlike any other web forum if you want, and spend a lot of time moderating and driving people away from your forums, but why would you want to do that? I'm not say the rules here are bad, but there is always room for improvement.
And really, read the rules? Kids these days buy $50 games and don't even bother to read the rules because they don't care, I doubt many of the first time posters here spend any time reading the rules when accounts are created freely with no effort. You can have a big restrictive list of rules and force people to read them through moderator enforcement, but it's really just making more work for yourself and driving away people who might actually have some useful insight on some cards or decks.
Upon re-reading this post, its clear to me that you did understand the rules as they are written when it comes to this:
"you can't edit a moderated post or double post ever forever"
I had originally read that as a change from the rules. It does, however, make me wounder why you then go on to describe that as:
I don't know how that one line becomes two paragraphs in your next description of it.
However, I will award the point to you because you're right. I did misread your first post The problem does not come in when you look at the % of double posts compared to the % of normal posts. The problem is every time a mod infracts someone for making a double post the mod feels is "excessive" and the person making the post disagrees, an argument will ensue.
Every time.
Yes, yes it would. It would matter because unless is spelled out 100% in the rules it would be argued.
For example, I could claim that an "excessive" double post would be any double post at all. In fact, it is my belief that ANY double post IS an "excessive" double post. Its unnecessary to make any double post because you can edit your post. And before you tell me you can't in your moderated posts, read my rebuttal here.
If you want to do that without any rules, you can always post on /tg/ in 4chan.
Try discussing your latest deck idea there.
Also, many users don't even play magic, like {mikeyg} for example.
Why do you keep making slippery slope arguments?
The forum would not "implode," however he idea here is to try and maximize the "signal to noise" of the forum.
You seem to be very black and white in your thinking. The idea of the rules is to try and maximize the use of the forum. Doing that is not an on or off switch.
Well, running the risk of sounding elitist, I, for one, don't want people on the forums that "just don't care."
Just because some people don't care, it does not mean the forums should cater to those people.
'Ignorance is no excuse of the law'. If people can't bother to spend on all five minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy...then I really don't know how they will function irl. The world has alot more rules and legalese styled laws than an online forum. It makes me cringe.
Alternatively, you can argue that irl is different. In that case, my counter argument is 'if they manage fine irl, why should it be any different online?' You got those kinds of things everywhere. EULA anyone?
Really? Big and restrictive? How so?
If people can't bother to spend 5 minutes to read the rules, many of which really come from common sense and basic social courtesy, then they can't really have any useful insight.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
I appreciate it.
My example was to limit double posting until after 1 hour has passed. Please explain how this could possibly be ambiguous in any way? Either an hour has passed between the posts, or not. No argument should ever convince anyone that 15 minutes is actually more than an hour.
No you don't have to cater to them, and I didn't mean to imply that lack of reading the rules is any sort of excuse to break them. But if you want to make the job of moderation easier, it's nice to have rules that are reasonable and logical. My belief is that most people won't read the rules. Whether it's right or wrong for them to do so is not part of my argument.
If you think every user signs up, and spends 5 minutes reading the rules before making a post, and always follows those rules, I'd say you live in fantasy-land. If everyone read and followed the rules we wouldn't have any moderators, as your job wouldn't be needed. In reality, I think only a small minority of users fully read the rules before posting. And in such a situation, if you want to make the moderation job easier, it pays to have simpler and more logical rules. And/or to make use of mechanical restrictions rather than rules, for example disable use of the red color for non-moderators instead of making it a rule.
What I actually wrote: You can work with some exotic set of rules and restrictions unlike any other web forum if you want, and spend a lot of time moderating and driving people away from your forums, but why would you want to do that? I'm not say the rules here are bad, but there is always room for improvement.
I wasn't saying the rules here were big and restrictive, I was explaining why big and restrictive rules are bad. And then I said the rules here are not bad, but there is always room for improvement. The particular rule being discussed in this thread is restrictive, IMO.
I think that is a simplistic view. Look at how many great artists have spent time in jail, for drugs or whatever. Intelligence and creativity (useful traits for deck building and discussion) are not limited to people with obedience and respect for authority.
Well, first stop moving the goal post on me. What are we taking about? No "excessive" double posting, or no double posting within and hour.
If we are talking about no posting within and hour, you've no seen the threads of people complaining about that "24 hour" double post trading forum rule.
Its a big head ache to have all of those people posting in 23 hours or 22 hours or whatever complaining about their "unjust" infraction.
You don't want people editing mod text, you do want people reading the rules, the very LEAST after they break them.
The current rules do just that.
This is a forum not fantasy land.
One doesn't want users spamming the place up either, one DOES want them to think before they post.
They should AT LEAST read the rules after they break them, would you not agree?
You seem to think the rules could be written in such away that everyone could just rely on common sense and never break them, unless they wanted to, without reading them.
Some mods don't agree.
For instance, in the Colosseum, there's many times when doubleposting is okay. Same with the Mafia forum. That's why Moderator Discretion was the by-word in the first place.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I didn't realize that taking 30 seconds to PM a mod qualified as "hurdles of red tape". It's really not that big a deal. I've never turned someone down who wanted to bring up an old thread with relevant information or double post with good reason.
Which subforum can you post pornography on then?
While it is reasonable to expect people to read the rules before posting, and to exercise common courtesy, the fact that each forum has its own unique rules and this forum's rules are (with good reason) a little stricter than most can result even in well-intentioned users picking up the odd warning.
Also, a typical forum user may not even be aware that there even exists the option of sending a PM to a moderator for permission to bend the rules a little! Or, at least, they would be shy about bothering someone without a very, very good reason.
So, the more that things can be arranged so that in the great majority of cases, knowing if something is allowed or not is a "no-brainer", the better. It means less work for the moderators, and a more satisfying experience for well-intentioned but perhaps less forum-savvy users.
Pornography is illegal since we have no 18+ splash page...in certain countries.
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
Pm a mod is given as on of the options given in the what not to do if you have been warned thread here. Hopefully they will have seen it before they get the warning / infraction.
Also for all the forums that have additional rules they are in stickes at the top of each forum and the fact that each forum/subforum has different rules and requirements is stated several times in the main forum rules thread.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Arkay, is that really constructive?
People - this thread should be dead. Why do you all care so much?
However, I could be currently wrong on this point.
I was curious, since he did omit posting pornography as being categorically banned. And how is you being sanctimonious any better at all?
I'll let you know when my infraction expires.
To my knowledge, you are not.