6 minutes early and getting infracted, yeah thats harsh. Its amazing how narrow minded thinking exists in this world. I remember wanting to file a small claims issue at the court house. I had to take a number and stand in line, some lady who was obviously friends with the woman behind the counter chatted it up for a good 40 minutes. During this time they announced that if we were unable to see an attendant that we would have to come back tomorrow. There was 15 minutes left of the clock, and I politely asked the lady if she was done her formal business because I had travelled an hour to file the matter it would be difficult for me to return the next day. The lady pretty much snobbed me off and told me that she had business to attend to.
She left with 5 minutes left of the clock before close, so I stepped up to the counter and the lady behind the counter said she was closed. I said politely that I had a number from lining up, that I had spent a good 2 hours there in line, that I had travelled an hour. She said that she was closed and that some staff were away on holidays that they weren't able to process people as quickly. I told her that she certainly had time to chit chat with her friend and that this was terrible customer service.
So whats the morale of this story?
Some people are gonna power trip, and are far happier being 'right' than being a good neighbour.
The mods are hardly power tripping in this instance. The rule is clearly spelled out, and due to the nature of the rule, the 24-hour between posts rule is in fact, set in stone. As others have said, if you allow people to post early, then the rule becomes meaningless until a hard set number is stuck to. In this case that hard set number is 24 hours. People may consider such hard set rules a bit harsh, but thats simply the way it is. As with my last post, I fail to see the problem or significant issue with the way the rule is set up now.\
EDIT: @ Sykes: Just because the current ratio of people on is that way, doesnt mean that different times or different days, the ratios would be different. 1pm on the pacific coast of the US is going to be a much later time in the UK and europe and thus it makes sense there wouldnt be as many people on at the moment as there would be, in say, 12 hours, or even several hours ago. Just something to keep in mind.
Sykes and Ball Lightning: The 24-hour rule is not the 23 hour and 50 minutes-rule. If you start becoming lenient and make the rule unclear, things are going to get much worse and messier instantly. Is posting after 23 hours okay? Is posting after 22 hours and 55 minutes okay? How about 22 hours and 15 minutes? Can you see where I'm going with this? You have to draw the line somewhere.
Sykes and Ball Lightning: The 24-hour rule is not the 23 hour and 50 minutes-rule. If you start becoming lenient and make the rule unclear, things are going to get much worse and messier instantly. Is posting after 23 hours okay? Is posting after 22 hours and 55 minutes okay? How about 22 hours and 15 minutes? Can you see where I'm going with this? You have to draw the line somewhere.
Then make it the next day obviously.
Why not 24hr and 30mins, why not 25hrs? Why not 35 hrs? Why not infinity hours..
Sykes and Ball Lightning: The 24-hour rule is not the 23 hour and 50 minutes-rule. If you start becoming lenient and make the rule unclear, things are going to get much worse and messier instantly. Is posting after 23 hours okay? Is posting after 22 hours and 55 minutes okay? How about 22 hours and 15 minutes? Can you see where I'm going with this? You have to draw the line somewhere.
This is what I don't understand either - how does changing the rule to midnight change anything at all...? Doesn't your complaint just become: "How is bumping my thread 6 minutes before midnight an infractable offense?"
The mods are hardly power tripping in this instance. The rule is clearly spelled out, and due to the nature of the rule, the 24-hour between posts rule is in fact, set in stone. As others have said, if you allow people to post early, then the rule becomes meaningless until a hard set number is stuck to. In this case that hard set number is 24 hours. People may consider such hard set rules a bit harsh, but thats simply the way it is. As with my last post, I fail to see the problem or significant issue with the way the rule is set up now.\
EDIT: @ Sykes: Just because the current ratio of people on is that way, doesnt mean that different times or different days, the ratios would be different. 1pm on the pacific coast of the US is going to be a much later time in the UK and europe and thus it makes sense there wouldnt be as many people on at the moment as there would be, in say, 12 hours, or even several hours ago. Just something to keep in mind.
You have never traded on these boards so your opinion really has no merit here. But thanks for chiming in.
Also, It makes more sense to have it be once per day than per 24hrs when 85-95% of the users of the market place operate within 4 time zones.
Why not 24hr and 30mins, why not 25hrs? Why not 35 hrs? Why not infinity hours..
Because 24 hours is easy for everyone to figure out. I posted at 3:33 pm yesterday, so I can't post again until 3:33 pm today. That poster can follow the timestamps as he sees them to know when to post, and the mods can follow the timestamps as that mod sees them to know if somebody broke the rule. No need for anybody, not even your estimated 5%, to have to do any math to "fix" their time to somebody else's timezone.
Quote from Sykes »
You have never traded on these boards so your opinion really has no merit here. But thanks for chiming in.
YOU made this a "Community Issue" by posting about it publicly in this forum. That may include parts of the community that disagree with you.
This is what I don't understand either - how does changing the rule to midnight change anything at all...? Doesn't your complaint just become: "How is bumping my thread 6 minutes before midnight an infractable offense?"
Because 24 hours is easy for everyone to figure out. I posted at 3:33 pm yesterday, so I can't post again until 3:33 pm today. That poster can follow the timestamps as he sees them to know when to post, and the mods can follow the timestamps as that mod sees them to know if somebody broke the rule. No need for anybody to have to do any math to "fix" their time to somebody else's timezone.
Then make it so that it's not possible to post on your topic for those 24hrs.
Also, red text is annoying, please do away with it.
By that logic your annoying aswell so can they do away with you ?
You sound like you just want to have a tantrum because you got a warning and rather than appealing it you threw your toys out of the pram and want the rule changed because you think your suddenly more important than rest of the world.
I'm sure they have an ignore button so please feel free to use it
Warning =! Infraction..
As for me thinking that I'm more important than the rest of the world.. well I never said that.. just smarter (although not smarter than everyone else, but smarter than a lot of them).
I'm not even going to touch that one as your intellect in this thread would not cause me to believe you smarter than the average forum goer who can at least read the rules.
Infractions are really meaningless unless you actively go out of your way to accumulate them, it's just a way to inform you you broke the rules and if you read the rules as your supposed to then chances are you won't get them.
Then I shouldn't be needed to be informed that I got them nor should there be an edit to my posts.
Then I shouldn't be needed to be informed that I got them nor should there be an edit to my posts.
Do you understand anything about laws in society? Can you please reread what Belgareth said:
Infractions are really meaningless unless you actively go out of your way to accumulate them
Ok.
... it's just a way to inform you you broke the rules and if you read the rules as your supposed to then chances are you won't get them.
You took his quote out of context by eliminating THIS quote, making it seem like there's no good reason for you to be informed. Well, there is. It's to let you know you did violate something so it doesn't happen again, for your own sake.
Seriously, this idea is actually pretty good.
No one likes getting "infractions"
its actually annoying, causes friction and bad feelings between the poster and mod/forum staff.
No one likes breaking the law and suffering the consequences but people still do stupid crap all the time. You're being just as irrational as Sykes, Ball.
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Provide a reason why the time zone can't be server set?
Just got the location from the first page of the trading forum...
UK 2
USA 42
Canada 4
Hawaii 1
42/49 = 85% from the Continental United states
46/49 = 93.8% from the 4 time zones.
Looks like the "number I pulled out of my ass" turned out to be correct.
Great facts. They are completely accurate for the few minutes in which you looked at them. Look again at 3am CST and see how the distribution falls. In the middle of the day in the US, it makes sense to see a North America skewed distribution of users. Taking your snapshot and extrapolating that data into a picture that is accurate for all times it ridiculous and illogical.
In fact, this whole thread is idiotic. You broke the forum rules as they are laid out by the staff. Instead of dealing with that fact, you have chosen to whine in public like a little girl about how things at MTGS are aren't right and how you are the victim of the system.
Grow up. The mods here have a tough enough job without people like you complaining about how things are unfair because you can't read the rules.
Finally, before you go off about how I don't trade here and therefore have no experience - I do trade here, have a thread in the Trading Post, and I have received a warning from Galspanic for spam in a trade thread. I thought the warning was a little harsh, but I did break the rule and I accepted the consequences of that. You need to accept the consequences as well.
I would hope that the staff would be lenient if someone accidentally bumped their thread like a minute early (I almost did that once). Any more than that should be moderated, for reasons already brought up by the staff.
I would hope that the staff would be lenient if someone accidentally bumped their thread like a minute early (I almost did that once). Any more than that should be moderated, for reasons already brought up by the staff.
Why should one minute be allowed but not two minutes?
Why should one minute be allowed but not two minutes?
It just seems extremely easy to slip up and bump a few seconds early (and since the forum doesn't show time down to the exact second, it would show you as bumping your thread a minute early if you accidentally bumped it ten seconds earlier).
I know there was one instance where my computer clock was apparently running just a bit behind. Of course, it's easy to notice if your computer clock is several minutes behind, but apparently mine was just a few seconds.
Let's say you last bumped your thread at 12:59 AM
At 12:58 AM, you're lurking in your thread, ready to bump it. Your computer clock says 12:58, but you check the time on your TV just to make sure. Your TV also says it's 12:58, so you assume your computer clock time is correct.
Your clock on your computer rolls over to 12:59, so you bump your thread. When the page loads, you see that your post is shown as being posted at 12:58. You check your TV clock and see it change from 12:58 to 12:59.
You just got an infraction for your computer clock being a few seconds slow, and you even double-checked to make sure! I had that happen to me once in the past. I didn't get an infraction, but I thought for sure the time was correct, but when I posted it showed up as me having bumped my thread a minute early. That would be pretty horrible to get an infraction for such a tiny mistake.
So that's why I say a one minute buffer shouldn't warrant an infraction. The further you get away from that minute buffer, the harder it is to argue that "my time was just off by a few seconds", so that's why one minute is fine, but not two, IMO.
It just seems extremely easy to slip up and bump a few seconds early (and since the forum doesn't show time down to the exact second, it would show you as bumping your thread a minute early if you accidentally bumped it ten seconds earlier).
I know there was one instance where my computer clock was apparently running just a bit behind. Of course, it's easy to notice if your computer clock is several minutes behind, but apparently mine was just a few seconds.
Let's say you last bumped your thread at 12:59 AM
At 12:58 AM, you're lurking in your thread, ready to bump it. Your computer clock says 12:58, but you check the time on your TV just to make sure. Your TV also says it's 12:58, so you assume your computer clock time is correct.
Your clock on your computer rolls over to 12:59, so you bump your thread. When the page loads, you see that your post is shown as being posted at 12:58. You check your TV clock and see it change from 12:58 to 12:59.
You just got an infraction for your computer clock being a few seconds slow, and you even double-checked to make sure! I had that happen to me once in the past. I didn't get an infraction, but I thought for sure the time was correct, but when I posted it showed up as me having bumped my thread a minute early. That would be pretty horrible to get an infraction for such a tiny mistake.
So that's why I say a one minute buffer shouldn't warrant an infraction. The further you get away from that minute buffer, the harder it is to argue that "my time was just off by a few seconds", so that's why one minute is fine, but not two, IMO.
Thanks for taking the time to post a reasonable answer. However, if a one-minute-early bump is always allowed, then why couldn't a poster use the exact same logic to justify a two-minute-early bump?
Hmm. The way I see it is if you can be one minute early or six minutes early, be one minute late or six minutes late. Better to play on the safe side of the fence then to butt against a rule that has no real reason to change.
Thanks for taking the time to post a reasonable answer. However, if a one-minute-early bump is always allowed, then why couldn't a poster use the exact same logic to justify a two-minute-early bump?
As I said, a one minute early bump is easy to justify (Keep in mind I'm arguing that if you're bumping a minute early, it should only be because your clock is a few seconds behind). Will it happen often? No. Has it happened? Well, it did to me once.
Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a big difference between one and two minutes. It's something that's very hard to moderate, and like other rules, I would think that a user's past infraction history would come into play in deciding whether or not to just let them off with a warning for an accidental 1 minute early bump or whether to actually infract them anyway (have they already been warned recently for an early bump? Does it look like they have been abusing it by bumping their thread a minute earlier every day?).
Just throwing it out there. I always try to make sure I bump on time, as do most others and it's not a hard rule to follow. I'm just saying that every now and then someone will slip up and I would think that, if there was only a minute or less between when they bumped and when they were supposed to (again, I'm using minute as a blanket statement because the forum doesn't show specific time down to the second, so you can't really tell if it was a minute or five seconds early), they should only get a warning at most the first time it happens. If it keeps happening after the warning? Go ahead and infract them, because it then becomes obvious that either they're doing it on purpose or that they know their clock is slow but are just too lazy to pay attention or double-check the time before they post.
@ShadowFenril: I completely agree with you, because I know my computer's clock is off by a few random seconds... Seriously, I'm glad I don't go on market street with this computer. It'd get me into so much trouble! (Not helped by the fact I'm impatient as it is. >_>)
My have/wants trade list.
The mods are hardly power tripping in this instance. The rule is clearly spelled out, and due to the nature of the rule, the 24-hour between posts rule is in fact, set in stone. As others have said, if you allow people to post early, then the rule becomes meaningless until a hard set number is stuck to. In this case that hard set number is 24 hours. People may consider such hard set rules a bit harsh, but thats simply the way it is. As with my last post, I fail to see the problem or significant issue with the way the rule is set up now.\
EDIT: @ Sykes: Just because the current ratio of people on is that way, doesnt mean that different times or different days, the ratios would be different. 1pm on the pacific coast of the US is going to be a much later time in the UK and europe and thus it makes sense there wouldnt be as many people on at the moment as there would be, in say, 12 hours, or even several hours ago. Just something to keep in mind.
Then make it the next day obviously.
Why not 24hr and 30mins, why not 25hrs? Why not 35 hrs? Why not infinity hours..
My have/wants trade list.
This is what I don't understand either - how does changing the rule to midnight change anything at all...? Doesn't your complaint just become: "How is bumping my thread 6 minutes before midnight an infractable offense?"
My Cube
You have never traded on these boards so your opinion really has no merit here. But thanks for chiming in.
Also, It makes more sense to have it be once per day than per 24hrs when 85-95% of the users of the market place operate within 4 time zones.
My have/wants trade list.
Because 24 hours is easy for everyone to figure out. I posted at 3:33 pm yesterday, so I can't post again until 3:33 pm today. That poster can follow the timestamps as he sees them to know when to post, and the mods can follow the timestamps as that mod sees them to know if somebody broke the rule. No need for anybody, not even your estimated 5%, to have to do any math to "fix" their time to somebody else's timezone.
YOU made this a "Community Issue" by posting about it publicly in this forum. That may include parts of the community that disagree with you.
Don't like it? Keep it to PMs next time.
You can't be serious.
My have/wants trade list.
Then make it so that it's not possible to post on your topic for those 24hrs.
Also, red text is annoying, please do away with it.
My have/wants trade list.
Not possible with the current forum software, from what I've heard from the staff.
If you getting infracted in bold green means we wouldn't have had this thread in the first place, then yes, that would be worth changing it.
Probably. So we can do away with it?
Actually can you make infractions in rainbow colors? That'd be awesome.
My have/wants trade list.
I'm sure they have an ignore button so please feel free to use it
Warning =! Infraction..
As for me thinking that I'm more important than the rest of the world.. well I never said that.. just smarter (although not smarter than everyone else, but smarter than a lot of them).
My have/wants trade list.
Then I shouldn't be needed to be informed that I got them nor should there be an edit to my posts.
My have/wants trade list.
Seriously, this idea is actually pretty good.
No one likes getting "infractions"
its actually annoying, causes friction and bad feelings between the poster and mod/forum staff.
Ok.
You took his quote out of context by eliminating THIS quote, making it seem like there's no good reason for you to be informed. Well, there is. It's to let you know you did violate something so it doesn't happen again, for your own sake.
No one likes breaking the law and suffering the consequences but people still do stupid crap all the time. You're being just as irrational as Sykes, Ball.
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
You know that little button that when highlighted says report or just says report? Thats what you should of done instead. Or maybe PMed.
Great facts. They are completely accurate for the few minutes in which you looked at them. Look again at 3am CST and see how the distribution falls. In the middle of the day in the US, it makes sense to see a North America skewed distribution of users. Taking your snapshot and extrapolating that data into a picture that is accurate for all times it ridiculous and illogical.
In fact, this whole thread is idiotic. You broke the forum rules as they are laid out by the staff. Instead of dealing with that fact, you have chosen to whine in public like a little girl about how things at MTGS are aren't right and how you are the victim of the system.
Grow up. The mods here have a tough enough job without people like you complaining about how things are unfair because you can't read the rules.
Finally, before you go off about how I don't trade here and therefore have no experience - I do trade here, have a thread in the Trading Post, and I have received a warning from Galspanic for spam in a trade thread. I thought the warning was a little harsh, but I did break the rule and I accepted the consequences of that. You need to accept the consequences as well.
Again.
Warning =! Infraction.
Augie, just for you, I will check the trade forum at 10am EST which is 3pm UK and 4-7pm Europe and I'll give you the stats then.
Until then, I'm done with this thread. The only logical person is ball lightning.
Also please do rainbow color infractions. That'd be sweet.
My have/wants trade list.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
Why should one minute be allowed but not two minutes?
It just seems extremely easy to slip up and bump a few seconds early (and since the forum doesn't show time down to the exact second, it would show you as bumping your thread a minute early if you accidentally bumped it ten seconds earlier).
I know there was one instance where my computer clock was apparently running just a bit behind. Of course, it's easy to notice if your computer clock is several minutes behind, but apparently mine was just a few seconds.
Let's say you last bumped your thread at 12:59 AM
At 12:58 AM, you're lurking in your thread, ready to bump it. Your computer clock says 12:58, but you check the time on your TV just to make sure. Your TV also says it's 12:58, so you assume your computer clock time is correct.
Your clock on your computer rolls over to 12:59, so you bump your thread. When the page loads, you see that your post is shown as being posted at 12:58. You check your TV clock and see it change from 12:58 to 12:59.
You just got an infraction for your computer clock being a few seconds slow, and you even double-checked to make sure! I had that happen to me once in the past. I didn't get an infraction, but I thought for sure the time was correct, but when I posted it showed up as me having bumped my thread a minute early. That would be pretty horrible to get an infraction for such a tiny mistake.
So that's why I say a one minute buffer shouldn't warrant an infraction. The further you get away from that minute buffer, the harder it is to argue that "my time was just off by a few seconds", so that's why one minute is fine, but not two, IMO.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
Thanks for taking the time to post a reasonable answer. However, if a one-minute-early bump is always allowed, then why couldn't a poster use the exact same logic to justify a two-minute-early bump?
As I said, a one minute early bump is easy to justify (Keep in mind I'm arguing that if you're bumping a minute early, it should only be because your clock is a few seconds behind). Will it happen often? No. Has it happened? Well, it did to me once.
Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a big difference between one and two minutes. It's something that's very hard to moderate, and like other rules, I would think that a user's past infraction history would come into play in deciding whether or not to just let them off with a warning for an accidental 1 minute early bump or whether to actually infract them anyway (have they already been warned recently for an early bump? Does it look like they have been abusing it by bumping their thread a minute earlier every day?).
Just throwing it out there. I always try to make sure I bump on time, as do most others and it's not a hard rule to follow. I'm just saying that every now and then someone will slip up and I would think that, if there was only a minute or less between when they bumped and when they were supposed to (again, I'm using minute as a blanket statement because the forum doesn't show specific time down to the second, so you can't really tell if it was a minute or five seconds early), they should only get a warning at most the first time it happens. If it keeps happening after the warning? Go ahead and infract them, because it then becomes obvious that either they're doing it on purpose or that they know their clock is slow but are just too lazy to pay attention or double-check the time before they post.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios