I've been around a few forums and the vast majority simply disable editing of moderated posts, which is a cleaner solution than making it a rule and hoping people follow it.
it really took 4 pages for someone to mention this? seriously, why is this not already the case? the easiest solution is that after a mod edits a post, the post is locked. the thread lives on. frankly, after that, if the OP double posts, or "spams" as it were, then the mod could just lock the thread and done.
but no, the mods would just prefer to diddle around with a bunch of goofy rules and hand out infractions.
MTGS is a great community of magic players, an unimpressive group of mods and a whole bunch of stupid rules.
It's not already the case because this isn't something that can easily be done with vBulletin. You can't lock individual posts in a thread, it's pretty much all or nothing.
We are looking into whether third party add-ons could be acquired (or written) to do something like this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
it really took 4 pages for someone to mention this? seriously, why is this not already the case? the easiest solution is that after a mod edits a post, the post is locked. the thread lives on. frankly, after that, if the OP double posts, or "spams" as it were, then the mod could just lock the thread and done.
but no, the mods would just prefer to diddle around with a bunch of goofy rules and hand out infractions.
MTGS is a great community of magic players, an unimpressive group of mods and a whole bunch of stupid rules.
Have you ever considered that the reason this is such a great community is because of the rules and the work that the mods do? I'm sure we've all had situations where we've felt wrong by, or disagreed with, a mod's decisions, and sometimes yes, it does feel a tad strict. By and large though, I have to credit the mods and their rules for being the reason the community is as strong as it is. This might be the least crap-filled board i've ever been a member of, and I really enjoy that about MTGS.
If your post gets edited, and you would want to post more, then you have to wait until someone other posts. If nobody other posts, then nobody would've been intrested in seeing your new text anyway, and in case you think somebody would've been, then you can PM the mod.
If your thread breaks the rules, it gets locked. Then you cannot post into it. And nobody else can post into it. So you will never have a chance to post more to that topic again (unless, of course, it gets unlocked), nothing useful either. And still nobody here complains about locking threads that break the rules. If your message breaks the rules, it "gets locked" as well, but if your post would've been useful, you can post it and we have 6 pages of completely irrelevant discussion here.
My feeling is that it's the thread OP's responsibility to keep the first post on page 1 updated with relevant information. Obviously this doesn't have much of an effect if the thread doesn't take off, but in the event that the thread goes on for say, 15 pages, I think it's their responsibility to append information to the first post so a) people don't have to read every page to determine if someone else has already posted what they were about to bring up, and b) the thread stays on topic, and discussion continues to be fruitful.
Because of that, if the OP's post gets infracted for something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (i.e. language or something), then I see no reason to not allow the person to edit their post. In that scenario in fact, if the idea of moderators is to ensure fruitful discussion that doesn't violate already existing rules (looking at the rumor mill here where for some time, every blue card posted resulted in "BLUE SUCKS THIS CARD SUCKS" discussion, etc), preventing the op from editing the first post hinders users ability to obtain information quickly. I for one several times have just avoided topics that go on for 20+ pages for that reason; It's just too much work to bother to go in and read all of it.
Specifically, the decklists posted in their respective forums could severely benefit from something like this. Usually I see the thread OP posting info about his/her decklist, but not about other cards already discussed. (i.e.: Say someone has posted about running Inquisition of Kozilek over Duress in either their 60 or 15, and general consensus was not to. The thread OP should edit that info into the first post.)
If you want to call that a corner case, I'll agree with you, but the current rules do not allow for any exception other than "PM a Mod", and I've said in other threads (about no one specific), that that's a pretty poor system, since I'd argue that replies given to most PM's should be anywhere from 90% - 100%, and in a matter of 2-3 days, unless it has been noted by the receiver about some extended absence, and In my experience (or expectation) is not, based on conversations with other people. (which would really only apply to things like trade [etc] related PMs, or PMs about infractions; I'm not implying everyone tell everyone their business, but I don't think 2-3 days is an unreasonable amount of time to reply to a request to edit a post or doublepost due to an infraction.)
Anyways, TLDR, the blanket statement of No editing after mod text + No doubleposting + Apparently poor PM response rate = Dead thread, regardless of the severity of the warning/infraction.
Whatever the former half of that equation, the result driven for should always be "Fruitful Discussion" (key word, driven, meaning, that I'm aware that sometimes that just won't happen).
I speak for myself here when I say I'm not in favor of changing the rules to address every single corner case if it means layering on more complexity than our membership is overall capable of handling.
I hardly see how altering the rules explicitly would be necessary; simply use moderator's discretion to recognize when the purpose behind a particular rule isn't implicated by the scenario.
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?
The question shouldn't be whether something makes breaking the second rule okay. The better question is whether the violation of the second rule creates any cause for concern. Rules are meant to prevent harms. Not to serve as ends unto themselves.
Again, the wider issue at stake here is that certain users on this forum do not appreciate mechanistic applications of the forum rules.
Context matters. The purpose behind the rule matters. The expectations, feelings, and interests of the persons involved, matter.
When the staff fails to apply the rules to balance the interests of the rules-breaker against the interests of the forum at large, you're going to continue to bruise egos and provoke far more frustration than you'll prevent by indiscriminate application of the rule.
Almost every post within this thread objecting to this policy makes the same essential point: the ends that the rules serves are what matters, not the rule itself. When people feel that their interests are being discounted, they will feel the need to 'speak their minds'.
If you'd like these forums to run more smoothly, simply use a little more empathy and understanding in dealing with your fellow posters. The forums won't descend into chaos if you decline to infract a double-post here and there. *shakes head*
And we're happy to ignore that double post if you check with us first. That way a mod can sign off on it. And the other mods know 'Okay, this double post was allowed.'
And we're happy to ignore that double post if you check with us first. That way a mod can sign off on it. And the other mods know 'Okay, this double post was allowed.'
I was not aware of that, and that's certainly encouraging to know.
On the other hand, I'm not certain that expecting a player who was just infracted/warned to go to the mod hat in hand and request permission to double-post is a realistic expectation, assuming that they're even aware of that exception.
If you're already willing to ignore these types of posts at times, I don't see an urgent rationale to hold that preemptive clearance is necessary.
It's something that probably should be put in the rules. But, basically?
Someone coming to us to ask permission to break that rule so they can add new information to a thread shows that the person respects the rules. That they're willing to follow them, and willing to work with the moderators. This is helpful. Its especially nice for the mods, since they've broken the rules before.
We don't want double posts as they lead to an unclean look to the forums. It makes the forums look unprofessional, and also makes threads much longer than they need to be. And adding 'unless you were infracted for the preceding post' to the double-posting rule bypasses that whole 'respect for the rules' thing..
If your post gets edited, and you would want to post more, then you have to wait until someone other posts. If nobody other posts, then nobody would've been intrested in seeing your new text anyway, and in case you think somebody would've been, then you can PM the mod.
If nobody posts, than nobody would care about the doublepost (or edited post mod edit post) either. It's just a rule for the sake of having a rule, the best reason why it's a rule is because people need to follow the rules. Nobody has given any legitimate reason for it's existence beyond that.
Flawed argument. You might as well say that people wouldn't care even if they did post. The added information from a doublepost (or edited post after mod-edit) could give your point added relevance or interest.
And it has already been stated that if the post is likely to jumpstart the debate/conversation, if you PM a mod that you would like to double post and your reasons why/ transcipt of the post you want to add they will likely Rubberstamp it and allow you the double post.
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
And it has already been stated that if the post is likely to jumpstart the debate/conversation, if you PM a mod that you would like to double post and your reasons why/ transcipt of the post you want to add they will likely Rubberstamp it and allow you the double post.
In this very thread you have moderators complaining about users don't read the rules and make extra work for them. Now we have suggestions from moderators (and you) that the solution to the problem, instead of changing a rule, involves creating extra work for the moderators. Does this make sense to anyone?
Flawed argument. You might as well say that people wouldn't care even if they did post. The added information from a doublepost (or edited post after mod-edit) could give your point added relevance or interest.
Yes, it is flawed. I was responding to the guy who said "If nobody other posts, then nobody would've been intrested in seeing your new text anyway,". I was making an analogy to show how flawed the thinking was.
It's something that probably should be put in the rules. But, basically?
Someone coming to us to ask permission to break that rule so they can add new information to a thread shows that the person respects the rules. That they're willing to follow them, and willing to work with the moderators. This is helpful. Its especially nice for the mods, since they've broken the rules before.
We don't want double posts as they lead to an unclean look to the forums. It makes the forums look unprofessional, and also makes threads much longer than they need to be. And adding 'unless you were infracted for the preceding post' to the double-posting rule bypasses that whole 'respect for the rules' thing..
I disagree with most of that. While it might show a respect for the rules to YOU when someone PMs you and asks permission to double post, to everyone else it just looks like someone went and double posted and didn't get infracted for it. Or if you explicitly post in the thread saying person X can double post, then it just looks like that person is getting some sort of special privileges and/or favortism. It certaintly doesn't give the impression of a professional forum.
On the other hand, having a clear exception in the rules (or changing the rules slightly to make it unneccesary) doesn't look unprofessional at all. Have you ever seen a legal document? They are loaded with exceptions and special clauses, that is just how important professional documents must be written to cover every situation. Perhaps you meant it would make the rules overly complicated, I just can't see how it would look unprofessional by any definition of the word.
Have you ever considered that the reason this is such a great community is because of the rules and the work that the mods do? I'm sure we've all had situations where we've felt wrong by, or disagreed with, a mod's decisions, and sometimes yes, it does feel a tad strict. By and large though, I have to credit the mods and their rules for being the reason the community is as strong as it is. This might be the least crap-filled board i've ever been a member of, and I really enjoy that about MTGS.
I have certainly considered it, and every time I do I come to the answer "Absolutely not". Yes, this is a great community, but time and time again stuff like this comes up and shows that the rules are NOT the reason for it.
To all the moderators saying people should just PM you if they want to post again in a thread where you've recently mod-edited their last post, that's absurd. You are MODERATORS. That means you moderate, not that you are the supreme overlords of the entire website. People shouldn't have to ASK YOUR PERMISSION to make a post, and then wait who knows how many hours to get a response.
I respect a great deal of what some of the mods do on this site, but this particular case is silly... There is absolutely no harm done to anybody by changing the rules slightly so that another post after a mod-edit is fine, or just giving a blanket statement to such effect.
Rules are supposed to help the community, and this particular one is not doing so by any stretch of the imagination.
I have certainly considered it, and every time I do I come to the answer "Absolutely not". Yes, this is a great community, but time and time again stuff like this comes up and shows that the rules are NOT the reason for it.
Time and again, stuff like this is brought up by the vast,vast,vast minority of the community. If it were really as bad as you seem to think, there would be more users complaining about it. Out of ~51,500 users, there are maybe 100-200 *****ing about the rules. Apparently the rules work just fine for everyone else.
To all the moderators saying people should just PM you if they want to post again in a thread where you've recently mod-edited their last post, that's absurd. You are MODERATORS. That means you moderate, not that you are the supreme overlords of the entire website. People shouldn't have to ASK YOUR PERMISSION to make a post, and then wait who knows how many hours to get a response.
Asking permission to do something against the rules is what they are talking about. The mods' job is to enforce the rules. So yeah, I think asking a mod if you can do something they are specifically here to stop is probably a good idea.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I think the real problem here is a technical limitation. Yes, the rule as it is now isn't perfect. No, there is no viable change that could be offered to make it better. And lets be honest here, if you were infracted, you probably werent offering anything to the thread anyway, and no one would have paid any attention to your edit/double post. Though, to be fair, people probably wouldn't have paid any attention in the first place.
I can see that the issue is more important for the original posters on threads, but, how often does an OP get an infraction for his/her post without the thread being closed?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
I think the real problem here is a technical limitation. Yes, the rule as it is now isn't perfect. No, there is no viable change that could be offered to make it better. And lets be honest here, if you were infracted, you probably werent offering anything to the thread anyway, and no one would have paid any attention to your edit/double post. Though, to be fair, people probably wouldn't have paid any attention in the first place.
I can see that the issue is more important for the original posters on threads, but, how often does an OP get an infraction for his/her post without the thread being closed?
The problem isn't really with infractions, it's all mod edits in general. The most common scenario I can think of where this would happen would be if a thread gets moved, and the mod leaves that as an edit in the OP.
Asking permission to do something against the rules is what they are talking about. The mods' job is to enforce the rules. So yeah, I think asking a mod if you can do something they are specifically here to stop is probably a good idea.
Are you not paying attention at all? The argument is for changing the rules so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Stop strawmaning.
Are you not paying attention at all? The argument is for changing the rules so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Stop strawmaning.
Invoking the power of the almighty 'strawman' to dismiss my arguments? Doesn't work that way.
Did I say anything about your overall point to change the rules? No. I was commenting on a specific thing you said, because what you said made no sense. Had I attempted to dismiss your entire argument with that single post, it would be strawmanning. Since I didn't, it wasn't.
Saying you shouldn't need to ask the mods permission to break the rules, after saying it was their job to moderate is a contradiction, which I pointed out. So no, not strawmanning.
Besides, your overall argument is not going to happen anyway. 100 out of 51,000 whining about how unfair the rules are isn't going to change anything. Even if this site was a democracy, your *****ing wouldn't change the rules, because you're in the minority. Fortunately, MTGSally is not a democracy. It's a Modarchy. Trying to change the rules because you personally don't like them isn't going to accomplish anything.
This site has existed for years without double posts. It has continued growing despite all the evil, scary moderators supressing the double posts of those brave few who dare stand up to the mods' draconian rule.
The rules are fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
The problem isn't really with infractions, it's all mod edits in general. The most common scenario I can think of where this would happen would be if a thread gets moved, and the mod leaves that as an edit in the OP.
Good thing the Mods use posts like this when a thread gets moved around. So we don't get into a situatiion where the OP has mod text in it to show is has been shifted around.
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
Asking permission to do something against the rules is what they are talking about. The mods' job is to enforce the rules. So yeah, I think asking a mod if you can do something they are specifically here to stop is probably a good idea.
I'd say it's terrible idea. Rules exist for a purpose. If moderators can arbitrarily allow posters to break the rules, then the rule system as a whole is flawed and the professionalism of the forum goes down.
Can you imagine how that would fly in a real life situation? Write your governor to ask if it's okay if you cheat on your taxes? Call a police officer to ask if it's okay to speed? Call up a judge to ask if murdering someone is okay because the person is really really annoying you?
The mods should be able to clarify the rules for you, if you are confused about them, but changing the rules just because a posted asked is really a backwards way to run a forum.
Just to point out, there's cases where this happens, such as driving someone to the hospital in an emergency.
No, that isn't the same at all. You don't ask a a cop for permission to speed, you simply speed. And in such cases, the exception is specifically covered under your state laws. In fact, the actual law about exceptions for speeding is very close to the change of the rules I have suggested, and not at all like the current "ask" situation.
If you want to double-post and think you have a reasonable excuse to do so, ask a mod. That's the rule, follow it. Simple as that.
No, that isn't the rule.
Here is the rule:
Double Posting, Bumping and Necroing
Please do not post two times in a row on the same topic. Instead, edit the post using the button to add to the first post or the button to respond to several posts at once. Bumping a thread without adding content is not allowed. Also do not post on old and inactive threads which have effectively died and have dropped to the bottom of the forum page or beyond. ("necroing"). For more information about necroing, please read this post, specifically noting the exceptions when necroing is acceptable.
It doesn't say anything about "if you ask a mod and he says it's okay, you can double-post".
Have you ever considered that the reason this is such a great community is because of the rules and the work that the mods do?
not at all. i've never visited a website, forum, bbs or any other community-minded site where i could honestly say that the community- good or bad- was a result of the rules and not the people.
i frequent a community weblog where the only form of policing is by a karma system with all members able to give positive and negative mods to all posts and comments. drop your karma too low and you have to earn some positive karma before you can post. you can always post comments, but as it only takes 5 negative mods to make your comment disappear from view, if someone comes to the site specifically to troll and flame, they'll not get very far when everything they say or do is modded into oblivion.
the system isn't perfect, but at the same time we don't have a cabal of moderators standing over us and rapping us on the knuckles every time we deign to break a rule, which is exactly what MTGS is like.
in the end, if you treat people like children, with endless, persnickety rules and anal and pedantic moderators more than happy to enforce every single one of them, you will always have an undercurrent of unrest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your knowledge consisting of having applied repeatedly for the gutter between bouts of insisting you weren't spouting pointless drama?
Flame infraction -Rax
To my knowledge (which is presumably better informed than the knowledge 'CXA26483' wields), you are currently wrong on this matter.
Amazing sig by
GobboElysiumKCW,TFE,god_child,Harkius,DalkonCledwin,Arnnaria,Rianalnn, Gaea's Regent our sig main man!Join the EXODUS
No even tasteful nudity?
Ah well, point to you then Arkay.
it really took 4 pages for someone to mention this? seriously, why is this not already the case? the easiest solution is that after a mod edits a post, the post is locked. the thread lives on. frankly, after that, if the OP double posts, or "spams" as it were, then the mod could just lock the thread and done.
but no, the mods would just prefer to diddle around with a bunch of goofy rules and hand out infractions.
MTGS is a great community of magic players, an unimpressive group of mods and a whole bunch of stupid rules.
We are looking into whether third party add-ons could be acquired (or written) to do something like this.
Have you ever considered that the reason this is such a great community is because of the rules and the work that the mods do? I'm sure we've all had situations where we've felt wrong by, or disagreed with, a mod's decisions, and sometimes yes, it does feel a tad strict. By and large though, I have to credit the mods and their rules for being the reason the community is as strong as it is. This might be the least crap-filled board i've ever been a member of, and I really enjoy that about MTGS.
My feeling is that it's the thread OP's responsibility to keep the first post on page 1 updated with relevant information. Obviously this doesn't have much of an effect if the thread doesn't take off, but in the event that the thread goes on for say, 15 pages, I think it's their responsibility to append information to the first post so a) people don't have to read every page to determine if someone else has already posted what they were about to bring up, and b) the thread stays on topic, and discussion continues to be fruitful.
Because of that, if the OP's post gets infracted for something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (i.e. language or something), then I see no reason to not allow the person to edit their post. In that scenario in fact, if the idea of moderators is to ensure fruitful discussion that doesn't violate already existing rules (looking at the rumor mill here where for some time, every blue card posted resulted in "BLUE SUCKS THIS CARD SUCKS" discussion, etc), preventing the op from editing the first post hinders users ability to obtain information quickly. I for one several times have just avoided topics that go on for 20+ pages for that reason; It's just too much work to bother to go in and read all of it.
Specifically, the decklists posted in their respective forums could severely benefit from something like this. Usually I see the thread OP posting info about his/her decklist, but not about other cards already discussed. (i.e.: Say someone has posted about running Inquisition of Kozilek over Duress in either their 60 or 15, and general consensus was not to. The thread OP should edit that info into the first post.)
If you want to call that a corner case, I'll agree with you, but the current rules do not allow for any exception other than "PM a Mod", and I've said in other threads (about no one specific), that that's a pretty poor system, since I'd argue that replies given to most PM's should be anywhere from 90% - 100%, and in a matter of 2-3 days, unless it has been noted by the receiver about some extended absence, and In my experience (or expectation) is not, based on conversations with other people. (which would really only apply to things like trade [etc] related PMs, or PMs about infractions; I'm not implying everyone tell everyone their business, but I don't think 2-3 days is an unreasonable amount of time to reply to a request to edit a post or doublepost due to an infraction.)
Anyways, TLDR, the blanket statement of No editing after mod text + No doubleposting + Apparently poor PM response rate = Dead thread, regardless of the severity of the warning/infraction.
Whatever the former half of that equation, the result driven for should always be "Fruitful Discussion" (key word, driven, meaning, that I'm aware that sometimes that just won't happen).
I hardly see how altering the rules explicitly would be necessary; simply use moderator's discretion to recognize when the purpose behind a particular rule isn't implicated by the scenario.
The question shouldn't be whether something makes breaking the second rule okay. The better question is whether the violation of the second rule creates any cause for concern. Rules are meant to prevent harms. Not to serve as ends unto themselves.
Again, the wider issue at stake here is that certain users on this forum do not appreciate mechanistic applications of the forum rules.
Context matters. The purpose behind the rule matters. The expectations, feelings, and interests of the persons involved, matter.
When the staff fails to apply the rules to balance the interests of the rules-breaker against the interests of the forum at large, you're going to continue to bruise egos and provoke far more frustration than you'll prevent by indiscriminate application of the rule.
Almost every post within this thread objecting to this policy makes the same essential point: the ends that the rules serves are what matters, not the rule itself. When people feel that their interests are being discounted, they will feel the need to 'speak their minds'.
If you'd like these forums to run more smoothly, simply use a little more empathy and understanding in dealing with your fellow posters. The forums won't descend into chaos if you decline to infract a double-post here and there. *shakes head*
My helpdesk should you need me.
I was not aware of that, and that's certainly encouraging to know.
On the other hand, I'm not certain that expecting a player who was just infracted/warned to go to the mod hat in hand and request permission to double-post is a realistic expectation, assuming that they're even aware of that exception.
If you're already willing to ignore these types of posts at times, I don't see an urgent rationale to hold that preemptive clearance is necessary.
Someone coming to us to ask permission to break that rule so they can add new information to a thread shows that the person respects the rules. That they're willing to follow them, and willing to work with the moderators. This is helpful. Its especially nice for the mods, since they've broken the rules before.
We don't want double posts as they lead to an unclean look to the forums. It makes the forums look unprofessional, and also makes threads much longer than they need to be. And adding 'unless you were infracted for the preceding post' to the double-posting rule bypasses that whole 'respect for the rules' thing..
My helpdesk should you need me.
If nobody posts, than nobody would care about the doublepost (or edited post mod edit post) either. It's just a rule for the sake of having a rule, the best reason why it's a rule is because people need to follow the rules. Nobody has given any legitimate reason for it's existence beyond that.
And it has already been stated that if the post is likely to jumpstart the debate/conversation, if you PM a mod that you would like to double post and your reasons why/ transcipt of the post you want to add they will likely Rubberstamp it and allow you the double post.
- 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
In this very thread you have moderators complaining about users don't read the rules and make extra work for them. Now we have suggestions from moderators (and you) that the solution to the problem, instead of changing a rule, involves creating extra work for the moderators. Does this make sense to anyone?
Yes, it is flawed. I was responding to the guy who said "If nobody other posts, then nobody would've been intrested in seeing your new text anyway,". I was making an analogy to show how flawed the thinking was.
I disagree with most of that. While it might show a respect for the rules to YOU when someone PMs you and asks permission to double post, to everyone else it just looks like someone went and double posted and didn't get infracted for it. Or if you explicitly post in the thread saying person X can double post, then it just looks like that person is getting some sort of special privileges and/or favortism. It certaintly doesn't give the impression of a professional forum.
On the other hand, having a clear exception in the rules (or changing the rules slightly to make it unneccesary) doesn't look unprofessional at all. Have you ever seen a legal document? They are loaded with exceptions and special clauses, that is just how important professional documents must be written to cover every situation. Perhaps you meant it would make the rules overly complicated, I just can't see how it would look unprofessional by any definition of the word.
I have certainly considered it, and every time I do I come to the answer "Absolutely not". Yes, this is a great community, but time and time again stuff like this comes up and shows that the rules are NOT the reason for it.
To all the moderators saying people should just PM you if they want to post again in a thread where you've recently mod-edited their last post, that's absurd. You are MODERATORS. That means you moderate, not that you are the supreme overlords of the entire website. People shouldn't have to ASK YOUR PERMISSION to make a post, and then wait who knows how many hours to get a response.
I respect a great deal of what some of the mods do on this site, but this particular case is silly... There is absolutely no harm done to anybody by changing the rules slightly so that another post after a mod-edit is fine, or just giving a blanket statement to such effect.
Rules are supposed to help the community, and this particular one is not doing so by any stretch of the imagination.
Time and again, stuff like this is brought up by the vast, vast, vast minority of the community. If it were really as bad as you seem to think, there would be more users complaining about it. Out of ~51,500 users, there are maybe 100-200 *****ing about the rules. Apparently the rules work just fine for everyone else.
Asking permission to do something against the rules is what they are talking about. The mods' job is to enforce the rules. So yeah, I think asking a mod if you can do something they are specifically here to stop is probably a good idea.
{Magic: The RPG}
I can see that the issue is more important for the original posters on threads, but, how often does an OP get an infraction for his/her post without the thread being closed?
The problem isn't really with infractions, it's all mod edits in general. The most common scenario I can think of where this would happen would be if a thread gets moved, and the mod leaves that as an edit in the OP.
Are you not paying attention at all? The argument is for changing the rules so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Stop strawmaning.
Invoking the power of the almighty 'strawman' to dismiss my arguments? Doesn't work that way.
Did I say anything about your overall point to change the rules? No. I was commenting on a specific thing you said, because what you said made no sense. Had I attempted to dismiss your entire argument with that single post, it would be strawmanning. Since I didn't, it wasn't.
Saying you shouldn't need to ask the mods permission to break the rules, after saying it was their job to moderate is a contradiction, which I pointed out. So no, not strawmanning.
Besides, your overall argument is not going to happen anyway. 100 out of 51,000 whining about how unfair the rules are isn't going to change anything. Even if this site was a democracy, your *****ing wouldn't change the rules, because you're in the minority. Fortunately, MTGSally is not a democracy. It's a Modarchy. Trying to change the rules because you personally don't like them isn't going to accomplish anything.
This site has existed for years without double posts. It has continued growing despite all the evil, scary moderators supressing the double posts of those brave few who dare stand up to the mods' draconian rule.
The rules are fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
{Magic: The RPG}
Good thing the Mods use posts like this when a thread gets moved around. So we don't get into a situatiion where the OP has mod text in it to show is has been shifted around.
- 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
I'd say it's terrible idea. Rules exist for a purpose. If moderators can arbitrarily allow posters to break the rules, then the rule system as a whole is flawed and the professionalism of the forum goes down.
Can you imagine how that would fly in a real life situation? Write your governor to ask if it's okay if you cheat on your taxes? Call a police officer to ask if it's okay to speed? Call up a judge to ask if murdering someone is okay because the person is really really annoying you?
The mods should be able to clarify the rules for you, if you are confused about them, but changing the rules just because a posted asked is really a backwards way to run a forum.
Just to point out, there's cases where this happens, such as driving someone to the hospital in an emergency.
Also, comparing double-posting to murder or tax evasion? Yeah, that makes sense.
If you want to double-post and think you have a reasonable excuse to do so, ask a mod. That's the rule, follow it. Simple as that.
No, that isn't the same at all. You don't ask a a cop for permission to speed, you simply speed. And in such cases, the exception is specifically covered under your state laws. In fact, the actual law about exceptions for speeding is very close to the change of the rules I have suggested, and not at all like the current "ask" situation.
No, that isn't the rule.
Here is the rule:
Double Posting, Bumping and Necroing
Please do not post two times in a row on the same topic. Instead, edit the post using the button to add to the first post or the button to respond to several posts at once. Bumping a thread without adding content is not allowed. Also do not post on old and inactive threads which have effectively died and have dropped to the bottom of the forum page or beyond. ("necroing"). For more information about necroing, please read this post, specifically noting the exceptions when necroing is acceptable.
It doesn't say anything about "if you ask a mod and he says it's okay, you can double-post".
Oh, and:
not at all. i've never visited a website, forum, bbs or any other community-minded site where i could honestly say that the community- good or bad- was a result of the rules and not the people.
i frequent a community weblog where the only form of policing is by a karma system with all members able to give positive and negative mods to all posts and comments. drop your karma too low and you have to earn some positive karma before you can post. you can always post comments, but as it only takes 5 negative mods to make your comment disappear from view, if someone comes to the site specifically to troll and flame, they'll not get very far when everything they say or do is modded into oblivion.
the system isn't perfect, but at the same time we don't have a cabal of moderators standing over us and rapping us on the knuckles every time we deign to break a rule, which is exactly what MTGS is like.
in the end, if you treat people like children, with endless, persnickety rules and anal and pedantic moderators more than happy to enforce every single one of them, you will always have an undercurrent of unrest.