Rules & FAQ changes

[Commander Urdnot 2,680]

I disagree with nearly everything, and I'm really starting to hate how members are just agreeing to the mods because of their superiority over them, I'm not gonna go in a full on rant mode, since I know I'll most likely get ignored, or receive my first warning points, which I'd hate to earn in such a thread.

 

I'll just say that we really need to make sure the members enter a valid age, I'm pretty sure certain members aren't over the age, they just never entered an age, but with my lack of solid evidence, I cannot prove as so, but if the mods tried to look into it a bit more, they'd realize who I'm talking about, and as much as I hate to admit so, I'd prefer them gone to restore some sort equality, because when Crazy Misty, and age old member who was incredibly mature for his age, and joined since the beginning, left, the only thing we said was that we were gonna miss him.

 

Now, as for the no complaining thing, I'd understand if it was a common thing between one user, such as making 6 statuses in a row complaining about it, but can't someone say "Got some warning points over posting _______" on a status update? Those are easy to ignore, and I'm sure not many will mind those. :L

 

Seriously. I've been here for a couple months, but I was instantly annoyed by the character limit. As soon as I got here. I didn't say anything because I thought I should wait until I've been here for a little bit. Maybe I'd get used to it. Plus, nobody would listen to me if I was just a n00b whining about the character limit.

 

I was wrong. It's getting worse for one. The fact that I can't complain about getting warning points is bull crap. Why not? Does the staff not like it when I disagree with their decisions? It's perfectly normal to be pissed off when you get warning points. The fact that I can't even talk about it is just a middle-finger from the staff. For two: It doesn't matter how long you've been here. If you disagree with the rules, your balls will be busted. I'm not talking about the staff, I'm talking about members here too. So many members just blindly follow the rules, and refuse to give them any thought. People are afraid to speak up and offer suggestions, because so many members will scorn them just for thinking differently. It's crap.

 

How is the site supposed to get any better if suggestions and criticisms aren't valuable? There are many members here with great suggestions, I've talked to them. But they all feel like that their opinion isn't valuable, and their suggestions will never be implemented or taken seriously. So they keep it to themselves. Not only that, but it also frustrates members and can create animosity. Which will also damage the forum.

Edited January 29, 2013 by UrdiePie

[Pinkazoid 3,493]

 

  Everything you've listed as being a point of annoyance has been completely and utterly vital to our continued growth. The age limit was necessary to prevent us from being a potential target of legal action (even as far-fetched as it that may sound, I do not want Feld0 shouldering any unnecessary legal liability for anything), the character limit was necessary to keep this place from turning into Twitter (and, I might add, has helped to stave off a lot of complaints we were seeing elsewhere about the quality of discussion here plunging into the depths of the ocean).    Speaking specifically on the warning system, it was necessary beyond words or measure - the old "system" may have worked when we were able to keep track of nearly every member, and when we personally knew almost every member, but as the forum grew and that turned out to be completely and utterly impossible, it became completely and utterly necessary to have a means by which we could keep records of rule infractions and have a general baseline for when some manner of punishment was necessary. The old "system" was good only for allowing trolls and people with malicious intent to linger longer than they should have honestly been allowed to, due to a lack of collective awareness on the part of the staff brought on by a lack of a means by which we could keep records and notes regarding member behavior. If we were to dump the present system at this point, I would resign, leave, spit in the general direction of the server, and never look back.     Pinkazoid, on 28 Jan 2013 - 22:23, said: As for the Under 13 rule, the biggest cause of it is an old thread, and when it occurred, it affected all of the forums, having anyone under 13 removed, the rule just became official, but the filter has been here for months now, and since we used to have an option to skip adding an age, certain underage members still remain here, and I got good idea on who they are, although for the sake of them and the others, I won't mention their names, but I think requiring that every member enters a valid age would be best.   The age verification used by IP.Board comes in the form of a pre-registration check; once that check is passed during registration, users are able to enter whatever they like in the age field. Requiring people to enter some random numbers wouldn't keep anyone from lying about anything unfortunately.     Pinkazoid, on 28 Jan 2013 - 22:23, said: I've never gotten a warning before, nor do I plan to, my friends on the forums have said why they've gotten warnings, I don't see much problem with that, but I think it's unreasonable if they say so in a status update and receive more warning points for it, especially if they remain a calm tone at it.   While we do not have any established warning levels for this rule (this could change depending on how things go), so far all of the warnings given for breaking the new rule have been extremely light in terms of points given. Our goal is not to slap eleventy zillion points onto someone for every little off-hand mention of warnings; it is more to give them a reasonably gentle (depending on the context) prod to the shoulder as a general reminder that some things are not appropriate to be discussed in open sight.   None of us are trying to be dicks or evil tyrants; rather, we're just trying to do what we can to keep this place comfortable and enjoyable for everyone here. You might be surprised at how many reports "I got a warning!" status updates and threads bring in, with the most common report comment being some manner of request that the drama being created through them be stopped.   If we did not truly believe that this change would be beneficial to the community as a whole, it would not have been suggested internally or implemented in any capacity.    That said, even if people disagree with the rule, I hope that they will at least give us credit for being willing to discuss and debate it and its merits openly and candidly, and for not attempting to put an end to any and all criticism.

 

 

I understand ya'll are trying to do this for the best, my first part of the second post wasn't complaining about those things, more like pointing out they weren't there when I first joined, and that's why they seemed so foreign to me, thanks for taking time to respond back, I truly appreciate it. While I don't agree wholeheartedly on this, it's not my forum. x)

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

Seriously. I've been here for a couple months, but I was instantly annoyed by the character limit. As soon as I got here. I didn't say anything because I thought I should wait until I've been here for a little bit. Maybe I'd get used to it. Plus, nobody would listen to me if I was just a n00b whining about the character limit.

 

I was wrong. It's getting worse for one. The fact that I can't complain about getting warning points is bull crap. Why not? Does the staff not like it when I disagree with their decisions? It's perfectly normal to be pissed off when you get warning points. The fact that I can't even talk about it is just a middle-finger from the staff. For two: It doesn't matter how long you've been here. If you disagree with the rules, your balls will be busted. I'm not talking about the staff, I'm talking about members here too. So many members just blindly follow the rules, and refuse to give them any thought. People are afraid to speak up and offer suggestions, because so many members will scorn them just for thinking differently. It's crap.

 

How is the site supposed to get any better if suggestions and criticisms aren't valuable? There are many members here with great suggestions, I've talked to them. But they all feel like that their opinion isn't valuable, and their suggestions will never be implemented or taken seriously. So they keep it to themselves. Not only that, but it also frustrates members and can create animosity. Which will also damage the forum.

Okay, before I make yet another post trying to justify this to people, I just want to say that I really don't think the staff needs to hear this same complaint a hundred times. I'm sure they have better things to do. Fortunately I don't, so I'll continue scolding you people until you stop.

 

First of all, I think the character limit has been explained more than enough times already. People don't like it, but it helps to ensure the quality of posts, and really 100 character's isn't much. I haven't even been here as long as you have, and not only have I completely gotten over the character limit being an issue, but I've also gotten sick of hearing people whine about it. Give it a rest, seriously.

 

Second of all, you can disagree with the rules, you just have to do it properly. The staff members don't want to punish you, it's their job. If you go through the correct process of disputing a warning, they'll listen to you. In regards to venting your frustration, I repeat what I said in an earlier post: go buy a punching bag or something, it's just as effective and you don't have to bother anyone else.

 

Third of all, speak for yourself, don't insult people by assuming they must just be blindly following the rules without really thinking about them. There's a difference between blindly following the rules and agreeing with them because you understand their importance.

 

Fourth of all, if suggestions and criticisms weren't valued by the staff, why would they have an entire section of the forums dedicated to feedback and suggestions. If people have what they believe are great suggestions, but aren't sharing them with the staff because they think they'll be ignored, it's their loss.

 

Fifth of all, stop treating this like your trying to raise the masses to overthrowing their tyrant overlord or something. Being rebellious doesn't make you cool.

[Zoop 8,384]

 

Seriously. I've been here for a couple months, but I was instantly annoyed by the character limit. As soon as I got here. I didn't say anything because I thought I should wait until I've been here for a little bit. Maybe I'd get used to it. Plus, nobody would listen to me if I was just a n00b whining about the character limit.

 

 

Guess what? I don't much care for it either. A lot of people on the staff don't... so why do we have it? Because without it, this place was being overtaken by image macros and posts that lacked content what-so-ever, to the point that many folks that were making good and thoughtful posts were moving to other forums, and specifically talking about the crap quality of discussion here.

 

I don't like the character minimum. I like that reputation even less.

 

Since you're admittedly a bit new to the forum (and there's nothing wrong with that!), you missed the firestorm of discussion that occurred when the minimum was implemented. With that in mind, even though it probably won't do anything to change your mind, here are a couple of staff posts on the matter that might help to shed some light on the situation. They're big, but I would recommend reading them for the sake of gaining a full understanding as to why things were done in the way that they were.

 

Post one: Feld0

 

 

 

My ability and time to deal with sitely stuff is limited, as I'm currently in Zurich and likely won't be staying in our apartment to spend 14 hours on MLP Forums every day. There are some assumptions that have come up in this thread, however, which absolutely need to be clarified and dispelled.

Reading through this post before making any further replies to this thread will avoid us going in circles, so I kindly ask that you do that. It's a lengthy 12,000-character post; but if you don't feel it's worth paying attention to the site owner's opinion on the character limit, you're not exactly in a position to make a case against it and I don't want to hear you complaining about it.

Part of the reason for implementing the limit was to lower server load/bandwidth usage/{some technical limitation}.

The first mention I can find of this was this post by Blue. MLP Forums runs on a top-tier dedicated server and makes use of a content delivery network. As far as hardware or bandwidth constraints go, they're virtually limitless for all intents and purposes.

To my knowledge, no staff member has claimed that a technical limitation had anything to do with the decision to implement the character minimum. If they have, they did so in error. 

By f

orbidding any and all posts that are fewer than 100 characters in length, you are unfairly assuming that any and all posts of that length are spam and don't deserve to exist.

I'll have to be blunt here: I'm not bigoted or stupid enough to think that it is impossible to formulate a decent post in fewer than 100 characters. Introducing a hard ban against posts based on a counter is the last thing I wanted to do, because I am absolutely aware that not all short posts are spam. But our efforts to improve post quality without introducing a character minimum have not been received very well.

The introduction of ten new moderators dedicated to proactively monitoring the forums for spam was received badly, to say the least. Sometimes, when a moderator removes a post, we get a magma-hot accusation of "zomg, [moderator name] is out to get me! PERSONAL BIAS!! ABUSE OF POWER!!" when all they were doing was a completely routine deletion of a crappy post. I've personally inspected a good bunch of these reported cases, and not once have I found that a moderator has been taking action against someone because they have something personal against them.

Having to write several paragraphs to explain why a post was removed is tiring, especially when it has to be done multiple times a day. As the majority of removed posts are removed for being pointless, and the majority of said posts are relatively short, introducing an automated hard ban on posts of a certain length with absolutely no exceptions was a way to cut our losses and let my team refocus their energy and efforts on something more productive than justifying perfectly legitimate removals of spam.

I am very well aware that good posts that are shorter than 100 characters are possible and do, in fact, exist. The reason we do not have any facility or lenience to accommodate them in sections that enforce the minimum is because that would require a human being to judge what is and isn't worthy of existing. Pretty soon, we'll be flooded in "Why did you approve that post and reject mine?" messages instead of "Why did you let that post stay up and delete mine?" messages. It'll reintroduce the exact same issue that we hoped to resolve.

I'll post an excerpt from a personal conversation with a member here to illustrate the issue with the limit, and precisely why I was hesitant to implement it at all.

If we let too much of that through, other people who truly don't have any kind of point to make will think it's okay to pad their posts like that to make them pass, which will result in more moderating, more warnings, more accusations of unfair treatment, and will ultimately render the entire limit pointless. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil when implementing a character minimum, and it is going to be easier on both users and moderators if everyone simply makes an effort to write 100+ characters of legitimate content in every post, rather than deeming "spam padding" okay for some posts and not okay for others. How do we decide which short posts deserve to exist and which don't? It introduces an unneeded degree of ambiguity if we allow that, which is exactly what we wanted to reduceby forcing an automated 100-character barrier on everyone.

This is like the reason that that most online communities bar children under 13 from membership. While some rational and mature children exist in that demographic, the vast majority of them simply lack the rationale and maturity that is necessary to understand what is and isn't right, and what they should and should not allow themselves to be influenced by. Past that age, teenagers are generally a lot smarter and more resilient to negative influence, so the Internet is happier to accept them. Likewise, the vast majority of pointless spam is less than 100 characters long, so it's easier to simply bar everything that is shorter than 100 characters than to judge on a case-by-case basis whether we should allow some posts to be padded to circumvent the limit and not others. Past 100 characters, the proportion of spammy posts falls quite drastically, and we would be filtering out more good posts than bad ones at that point. Compromises have to be made; and with a forum of this size, nothing we do is going to be a perfect solution for everyone. The best we can do is minimize how much of the good stuff we sacrifice.

To tell you the truth, we have been discussing the idea of introducing character minimums among the staff for several weeks, but I was extremely hesitant to greenlight it because I acknowledge that it is indeed possible to make existence-worthy posts that happen to be quite short.

This is an Internet forum. I'm here to enjoy myself and post what I like, how much of it I like, and when I like. Leave "challenging" myself to write two full sentences for English class.

Please read this published conversation word for word. The idea and issue of controlling content quality is discussed thoroughly to great depth there.

Short answer: I care about post quality to begin with because the community's long-term health is dependent on it. If that sounds ridiculous, please read the conversation.

The issue of post quality is a non-issue. The problem isn't affecting the community as much as you make it out to be, and there's no need to take any direct action against it.

I've tracked down multiple members who:

• left MLP Forums
• joined another pony forum
• specifically cited on their new forum that posts on MLP Forums are short, boring, and not conducive to discussion
• explained on their new forum that no one on MLP Forums pays much attention to posts that are a paragraph or two long (let alone multiple paragraphs)

It is indeed a very, very real issue if people are leaving MLP Forums for other sites and specifically pointing out that the discussions here suck. This makes MLP Forums look bad and gives it a reputation among the greater pony community that it's a spampit cesspool. This results in our losing members who write some of the best posts in the community. This results in a negative feedback loop of:

• members who routinely read and write great posts leave MLP Forums
• fewer members writing great posts dilutes the concentration of great posts on MLP Forums
• fewer great posts relative to average and crappy posts encourage the remaining members to write short posts like "everyone else" is doing
• members who take the time to write great posts feel less motivated to do so
• rinse and repeat

Anyone who has been here for some time will know that MLP Forums meteorically gained its reputation and popularity precisely because we had a lot of really high-quality content being posted here.

Take a look at this page of a discussion in February to see what a good discussion looks like: http://mlpforums.com...p/page__st__200

There's nothing on that page that qualifies as a "wall of text" (those have their time and place, but we are not trying to turn every post into an academic essay). A good number of the posts there are one to several paragraphs long, and you can see members replying directly to each other to acknowledge and criticize each other's points and observations. We've got a few short posts as well, however; while they don't add too much to the discussion, some of them add some comic relief to the thread. Notice, however, that there are a few posts in there that you simply could not formulate much of a reply to as well.

We were extremely lax on what we moderated back then, because a relatively good balance of image/video macros, jokes, and lively discussion existed without much intervention from us. The concentration of "this is awesome" and "I like this" posts was small enough that we could easily accommodate them without compromising the quality of discussions very much. However, when the waves began to shift that balance greatly and noticeably in the direction of the one-liners and macros, we had to grab the helm and steer the ship back on course.

The first written record I have of a noticeable decline in content quality is when I brought it up in the admins' Skype group in March. It was brought in for discussion among the entire team in June. It was at that point that the proposal of a character minimum came up, but I was very hesitant to introduce it because I foresaw that people looking for ways to circumvent the limit and arguing that it is possible to write good posts that happen to be shorter than 100 characters would be a major issue with it.

The statistical analysis was performed to determine exactly how bad the issue was, how it has escalated over time, and to arrive at an idea of how many characters would be an ideal limit. Scootacool took the time to explain the results of that analysis right here.


You cannot objectively claim that we did not do our homework.

The MLP Forums staff are only looking for excuses to click those "delete" and "ban" buttons more often.

If my goal was to delete and ban posts and members as much as possible, I can click a few buttons to wipe MLP Forums off the face of the Internet in about seven seconds, at any given point in time. That would be a much more efficient way to achieve that goal than seeking out, hiring, training, mentoring, and managing 19 volunteers.

Case closed.

Members should get a say in the site's operations and things like the introduction of a character minimum. It's unfair and reckless that the staff make important decisions without consulting anyone from the community.

I don't like saying this, but MLP Forums is not a political state. It is not a democracy. It is my privately owned property. A membership in MLP Forums is not a citizenship, and it does not grant you any rights. It is a name tag you stick to your shirt as a guest at my party, so everyone else at my place knows who you are. I reserve the right to choose the music, the colour of the wallpaper, to kick you out, and to stop the party at any time. If I want to have a trance party, but everyone wants rock-and-roll, I'm not obliged to turn it into a rock-and-roll party.

Your friend doesn't get to decide what you install on your computer just because you let him use it to check his email, right? He's welcome to suggest that you replace Internet Explorer with a better browser, but the decision to actually do so lies with you.

You have as much control as a member of MLP Forums as you do as a guest at a party, or a guest in your friend's computer. In other words, you have none, and expecting otherwise means you failed to read the terms of use, the terms of service, and the global rules. These are things you should read before registering on any site you go to, but I've gone to the extent of sending you an automated message when you sign up and forcing you to stay on the ToS page for 30 seconds and then explicitly check a box to document your agreement with the terms before you can even do anything on the site.

So... it is, in fact, perfectly fair and allowable for the staff (or even just I on my lonesome) to make decisions without consulting the members directly. By activating your account and checking the box on the ToS page, you stated that you're cool with this.

---

I just arrived at our apartment in Zurich after about 24 hours of travel. I've got to be honest here that I was disappointed with what I saw when I got online this morning. If anything, it speaks volumes about some sociopsychological changes I've been suspecting in this community over time, which have not been for the better.

I'm here in Europe to spend time with family members, many of whom I see less than once a year. I won't be online for 14 hours a day like usual to keep tabs on everything that happens. But this is an issue that I want to bring to a resolution before season 3 begins. I won't back down from making some rather aggressive changes to the site, or authorizing the other staff to do so, if it's necessary, because you must believe me when I say that the last thing I want is for MLP Forums to turn to crap.

 

Post two: Key Gear (Scootacool)

 

 

 

 

Why not just crack down on the people who post picture and two word responses rather than forcing everyone to maintain a minimum. Is 17 moderators not enough to crack down on a few meme posters?

We have nearly100,000 posts per month. That amount is increasing at a ridiculous rate each month. Take a look at this chart:



The amount of images, one word, and two word responses was rising at a clip of around 1% each month. Next month, with no change, it was projected to be over 10%. 10% of 100,000 posts is 10,000 posts.

That is 10,000 posts that a moderator would have to try to find in this sea of 100,000 posts that are posted monthly. Looking for a needle in a haystack is a funny joke compared to trying to pick out those posts from one of the over 27,000 threads on this site.

17 mods would have to sort through roughly 6800 posts a piece and try to pick out about 680 posts that were not of value. You do realize that we are volunteers?

We volunteer our time and effort to help keep this site a great place because we love this community. I know that sounds cheesy, but it's true. We do everything we can, but we are only human - we make mistakes, we get upset, and we get tired.

We are not robots that are mindlessly wandering around enforcing rules. Confrontations like this, those tire us out dramatically. You may not care about this, but the energy and the effort that we spend retracing this ground over and over again is energy and effort that we are not able to spend elsewhere responding to member reports and interacting with the community.

Look, we understand and we really, honestly do value your opinion and we will keep it mind when evaluating the character limit in the future. We also understand that many members have just as much of an emotional investment into the site as we do and that is the reason that you all fight so hard, because you want the best for this site. We understand that.

All that we are asking is that you trust Feld0 and the staff now just as you've trusted us in the past to make the decisions that are best for the overall health of the community. Just give it a chance, see what happens within a few weeks.

Is that really too much to ask? 

 

Post three: Key Gear (Scootacool)

 

 

 

 

No one so far has answered my inquiry. Prove that short posts are bad posts.

 

Before we set out to look at whether or not short posts are bad posts, it is necessary to qualify what is meant when you say “bad”. A post can be bad for several reasons. On this site, I would say that short posts were bad for a few key reasons:

•  

• They fall significantly below the average post size on this site.

• They were becoming remarkably more common, thus dragging down the average size of a post on the site.

 

Now that I've enumerated the specific reasons why small posts are bad, I will provide you with statistical evidence that I hope you will find persuasive. Please note, there are other reasons that small posts can be construed as “bad”. However, those reasons are subjective and cannot be explained or evaluated efficiently with the statistical data that we currently have.

 

 

Take a look at the image that I've included above. In this chart,  sample size is the number of posts sampled from that month. Average L is the average size of each post in terms of how many letters it has. Standard D is the standard deviation for that month. Then, the remaining rows are the percentage of posts from the sample with less than a certain number of words.

 

Feel free to reference the picture as you read through the rest of my post. That picture tells a story, and it is this story that holds the secret to answering your question. Before I tell that story though, I would like to give you a few caveats regarding this information:

•  

• These statistics are summary statistics and are based on a sample that was collected from the site at random. However, the sample size was sufficiently large to avoid unnecessary bias in the data.

• The Colosseum and the RP areas were excluded from this sample because RP have a tendency to be longer than average and CDC posts have a tendency to be shorter than average.

• Standard deviation can be considered a measure of how “spread out” the data is. The larger the standard deviation, the more extremes. In other words, as the standard deviation increases the number of posts that are close to the minimum and close to the maximum also increase. A comparatively large standard deviation is a sign of a lack of consistency in quality.

 

Now, look at the 1st line of that chart. What you see is that the average post size was around 200 characters, the standard deviation was fairly reasonable, and only about 6% of the posts consisted of one or 2 words.

 

Now, look at what happens over time. While the average post size remains relatively consistent, both the standard deviation and the number of posts with only one or 2 words increases. In fact, the standard deviation rises quite dramatically.

 

What does all of this mean? Well let's step through the information and get to the bottom of things:

•  

• The number of tiny posts has been growing. We can see that by looking at the last column in the picture.

    

• The standard deviation has been increasing dramatically. Earlier on in this post, I explained what standard deviation is. So, what this means is that we are seeing more “extremes” in the post sizes.

    

• The average post size has remained about the same. How could this be possible? Isn't the number of small posts increasing? Well, it turns out that the average has stayed the same because more walls of text are also being written.

    

• So, we have more walls of text, more small posts, and the average has stayed the same... So, doesn't this mean that we have the same number of posts in the middle? No, because if we had more posts of average size then the standard deviation would not be so large. Instead, we have a huge standard deviation.

 

Now we come to the conclusion. We have more really large posts and more really tiny posts. What we have here is a site that is threatening to divide itself into 2, completely separate levels of quality - those that write really big posts and those that write posts with nearly nothing in them. This is a problem.

 

I know what you're thinking, “why is this a problem? I don't see any issue!”. Well, let me explain. When you have 2, dramatically different, levels of quality on your site, then what you have is a situation that is pleasing to no one. Members that prefer long and drawnout discussions will be annoyed by lots of small posts, and members that prefer lots of small posts will be annoyed by walls of text.

 

There is the problem of inconsistent discussion quality. A member may type a large original post to start a thread. Then, that member may become disappointed when lots of tiny responses are posted. In threads that involve a debate, members will sometimes take a shortcut and post just a handful of words rather than addressing the issue; this leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

 

There is the search engine angle. The great majority of the members that found this site located it through a search engine. All of the prominent search engines penalize sites that have inconsistent quality levels within their pages. From this perspective, the increasing amount of tiny posts was becoming a threat to the continued growth of the site.

 

Finally, there is the issue of administration. Last month alone, nearly 100,000 posts were made on this site in total. If you look at the chart posted above, and you can see that, at the current rate of increase, it would not of been too long before 10% of all posts were of 2 or less words. If 10% of those posts are 2 words or less, then that equates to approximately 10,000 tiny posts.

 

Right now there are only 19 moderators and administrators on the site. For each moderator, that it is about 5260 micro posts spread all throughout the forum. For all of those that have said we should just moderate the small posts, this should be a wake-up call. It is completely and totally impossible to moderate the quality of that many posts without requiring a small army of moderators.

 

Faced with this situation, I'm sure you can understand why Feld0 believed that a minimum character limit would be the best possible compromise in a rather difficult situation. I hope that I've been able to successfully illustrate you why we considered this increasing tide of small posts to be something that warranted both concern and action. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

 

 

 

I was wrong. It's getting worse for one. The fact that I can't complain about getting warning points is bull crap. Why not? Does the staff not like it when I disagree with their decisions? It's perfectly normal to be pissed off when you get warning points. The fact that I can't even talk about it is just a middle-finger from the staff. For two: It doesn't matter how long you've been here. If you disagree with the rules, your balls will be busted. I'm not talking about the staff, I'm talking about members here too. So many members just blindly follow the rules, and refuse to give them any thought. People are afraid to speak up and offer suggestions, because so many members will scorn them just for thinking differently. It's crap.

 

I'm going to try a slightly different tactic this time.

 

Yes, you can complain about warnings. We have an entire system by which you can complain about warnings until you're blue in the face - not only that, but you'll be complaining about the warnings directly to people that can actually do something about them, and/or explain to you why you were given the warning, rather than to people that cannot do anything at all about it. The only restriction on complaining about warnings is where you can complain about them.

 

Complaining about a warning and getting pissed off over a warning in a status update is about as effective a means of dealing with the core issue at hand as banging ones own head upon a brick wall; it does nothing for anyone. If you're not happy, file a dispute and get information - if it isn't overturned you will at least find out why it was valid, and why it was given. If you don't care why it was valid and why it was given and are interested only in being pissed off for the sake of being pissed off... well, I'm sorry to say, that isn't my problem.

 

And I honestly don't see your point about it not mattering how long someone has been here with regards to the rules. Why would it matter? Why should it matter? Everyone here is equal, and the rules apply to everyone equally. There will never come a day here where certain members are given preferential treatment because they registered earlier than another, or because they've donated money to the site. Everyone is equal, across the board.

 

People follow the rules because the rules are the rules, and if you read my previous post you'll see what Feld0, the owner of this website, has to say about the rules. You don't have to like them, but as long as you are going to be a guest here, you have to follow them. You can provide feedback regarding the rules in our feedback board, as many people have done in the past, but you have to follow them no matter how much you may hate them.

 

 

How is the site supposed to get any better if suggestions and criticisms aren't valuable? There are many members here with great suggestions, I've talked to them. But they all feel like that their opinion isn't valuable, and their suggestions will never be implemented or taken seriously. So they keep it to themselves. Not only that, but it also frustrates members and can create animosity. Which will also damage the forum.

 

If suggestions and criticisms weren't valuable I wouldn't be spending several hours out of my night right now attempting to address every individual bit of criticism we have received about everything having to do with everything regarding everything involving everything about everything specified in the opening post. 

 

As for suggestions never being implemented... I cannot tell you how many times someone has suggested something that I would have loved to have implemented the second I saw it, only to realize that the suggested feature cannot possibly exist on this website without many hours of custom development by Feld0 and/or Scootacool; both of whom already put in countless hours into implementing a lot of stuff here; much of which was originally borne out of suggestions made by members here.

 

Does it take a while? Yes. Is there anything we can do about it? Nope.

 

Honestly, I really hate to say it, but... 

 

This is not the only pony forum on the internet. If you believe that the way we do things here is miserable, there may very well be another forum elsewhere that operates more to your liking, and has rules that are more to your liking. 

 

I'm sorry if I seem overly blunt, but it honestly seems like people just aren't reading my responses to this thread sometimes.

[Prismatic 49]

 

To be technical, the warnings themselves remain on record though the point values decay. One of the primary reasons that we moved to a warning oriented system was to ensure that we had records of all infringements associated with a specific account, complete with notes and other information. Promotes good communication, which has proven on many occasions to be absolutely vital so far as we've continued to grow

 

Of course.  I was referencing that the only way the warnings outside of the logging would be influential is if there as a multiplier (i.e. repeated offenses have a 1.5X point value so ponies don't keep 'breaking the same rule per X weeks' ).

[Commander Urdnot 2,680]

 

Okay, before I make yet another post trying to justify this to people, I just want to say that I really don't think the staff needs to hear this same complaint a hundred times. I'm sure they have better things to do. Fortunately I don't, so I'll continue scolding you people until you stop.

First of all, I think the character limit has been explained more than enough times already. People don't like it, but it helps to ensure the quality of posts, and really 100 character's isn't much. I haven't even been here as long as you have, and not only have I completely gotten over the character limit being an issue, but I've also gotten sick of hearing people whine about it. Give it a rest, seriously.

Second of all, you can disagree with the rules, you just have to do it properly. The staff members don't want to punish you, it's their job. If you go through the correct process of disputing a warning, they'll listen to you. In regards to venting your frustration, I repeat what I said in an earlier post: go buy a punching bag or something, it's just as effective and you don't have to bother anyone else.

Third of all, speak for yourself, don't insult people by assuming they must just be blindly following the rules without really thinking about them. There's a difference between blindly following the rules and agreeing with them because you understand their importance.

Fourth of all, if suggestions and criticisms weren't valued by the staff, why would they have an entire section of the forums dedicated to feedback and suggestions. If people have what they believe are great suggestions, but aren't sharing them with the staff because they think they'll be ignored, it's their loss.

Fifth of all, stop treating this like your trying to raise the masses to overthrowing their tyrant overlord or something. Being rebellious doesn't make you cool.

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. I try to talk about what I think is wrong with the forums (Which I seldom do), and MEMBERS, not staff members, other members just immediately rally support the rules. I'm sorry that my post offended you, I said "Many members," not all members, and I used no names. If you're offended by it, sorry but, that's on your end. The intention of the post wasn't to offend anybody.

You tell me not to assume, and then turn around and assume that I disagree with the staff to be "Cool?" Seems like a fallacy to me.

 

@@Zoop,

Sometimes people post their replies while I'm typing mine, and I don't see them until after I post mine. I'm not the fastest typer in the world, I apologize.

Edited January 29, 2013 by UrdiePie

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

 

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. I try to talk about what I think is wrong with the forums (Which I seldom do), and MEMBERS, not staff members, other members just immediately rally support the rules. I'm sorry that my post offended you, I said "Many members," not all members, and I used no names. If you're offended by it, sorry but, that's on your end. The intention of the post wasn't to offend anybody.

 

You tell me not to assume, and then turn around and assume that I disagree with the staff to be "Cool?" Seems like a fallacy to me.

 

@@Zoop,

Sometimes people post their replies while I'm typing mine, and I don't see them until after I post mine. I'm not the fastest typer in the world, I apologize.

First of all, I had a feeling that you would misinterpret my last statement. I don't mean to say that you're doing it just to be cool, and indeed that was a very poor choice of words on my part. What I meant is that I felt you were being overdramatic. If you interpreted it in any other way, I apologize, it was simply a matter of poor wording.

 

Second of all, you apologized for if your post offended me, because you weren't targeting anyone individually, but immediately before that, you basically say the same thing, this time targeting me directly. Honestly, I don't care, you have to try pretty hard to offend me, but I would appreciate it if you could just pick one or the other.

 

Third of all, whats wrong with me defending the rules? I think they're perfectly legitimate, and if you have the right to challenge them, I have the right to support them. You're free to post whatever suggestions or criticisms you want, but if I disagree, I reserve the right to state my own point of view. I'm not trying to attack you, I just don't like to see people complaining about the rules when I don't think they have a good reason to. In conclusion, I don't mean to discourage you from expressing your opinions and offering criticism, in fact I think it's important that you do, but if I disagree, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to state my case as well.

[CloudFyre 848]

For crying out loud, this is actually a topic of debate? Stop the incessant noise and settle down. You're all on the same side. Act like it.

This is a forum with

members - not a small number by any measure. With those numbers, the odd scenarios will inevitably come out of the woodwork here and there, and whether you think it's a good idea or not: RULES ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR A REASON. If it's a rule, there was probably some obscure instance where someone who took things a little too far, and thus some form of guideline had to be put in place, despite how silly it looks on paper.


Character limits are to keep pointless banter out of the threads. Warnings are just that. Age limits are to prevent lawsuits. It's. Just. That. Simple. Stop making it out to be something that it isn't.

 

This is not Twitter. Keep things meaningful. As an author, I know that single words can sometimes carry more power than many, but more often than not, nobody has any idea how to use a single word effectively.

Whining about warnings serve no purpose but to start flame wars and give bad names to both parties, whether it be a member or a mod. The moment something starts, everyone wants a piece of it, even though it has NOTHING to do with them. To be honest, I've hated seeing complaint threads since day 1. Half of the time, I don't even agree with the people who started the thread in the first place. Don't be obnoxious, and you probably won't get a warning. It's that simple.



Have I gotten a warning before? Sure. Twice, to be precise. One of them I understood, the other I really, really disagreed with. But you know what? IT WAS JUST A WARNING. IT DIDN'T MATTER. LIFE HAPPENS. PEOPLE MISUNDERSTAND. GET OVER IT.

 

Like the money in my wallet, warning points disappear quickly. Unlike the money that was once in my wallet, I wanted the warning points to go away. Stop agonizing over it. You'll completely forget about it after a few weeks.

As for the age limit: Lawsuits are lawsuits, and when push comes to shove, the law must be upheld. No exceptions. Yes, there are some mature 12 year olds, but do you want to risk the forum's safety over that?

Look at the bright side: they can learn a lesson in patience in the mean time. While their at it, they could send Princess Celestia a letter on what they learned - I'm sure she would appreciate hearing from someone one more time thins season.




To the Mods/Admins, from a different perspective:

Although I despise useless threads that serve no real purpose other than to complain, I can understand the hesitations of some of the members. Some wish to keep discussions private in order to keep things as clean as possible. (As per the new rules.)

But in a private environment, when it's set up from the start as one member on one side of the conversation, and a group of staff members on the other (who have probably seen and heard most everything under the sun), any likelihood of success is seemingly nonexistent. All one really has is a few words and the hope that you won't get completely ignored due to either a spin-off of some other rule, or bias towards a fellow staff member.

That's not how it's supposed to work, I know. But it doesn't matter how you phrase it: the psychology game is already set up that way. Would a person really want to go back and message the staff, knowing full well that somewhere in that same group exists the staff member they're having an issue with?

Of course not.

All of that being said, I can think of no better alternative to the current system, nor do I think that the above statement is any rhyme or reason to let such public displays continue. It's merely an observation - "food for thought" if you will.

/rant.

[Bronium 512]

Not only that, but making a public status update isn't exactly the same thing as simply talking to a friend about it - it's more along the lines of going into a crowded public space and yelling about it.  

I wouldn't say yelling as much as talking a bit loudly. I mean, it's only normal that a person talks a bit louder when discussing something bad that happened to them. 

I mean, status updates aren't in your face. They're nicely tucked away in the corner. Easy to read, but also just as easy to avoid. 

 

 

Do you complain about your mum to your friends in front of your mum?

The question is, are you doing it in front of your mum? For me, it's like if you're doing it in the same house as your mother, but in your own room and with a bunch of people (the analogy is starting to break down here. Blast it). I recognize the door is barely there since you have to go through every status (in some sort of aspect at least). It's two different perspectives here, I think. You feel like we're complaining in front of you, but we (at least I) feel like it's between the door, that door being time I suppose. That said, I'm not saying we should complain, I was giving a reason to Alex as to why we would complain. I wouldn't complain about the warning points as much as just talk to friends about it through PMs.

 

 

 If we're a brick wall that is unwilling to listen to reason, and that are happy to allow the moderation to do whatever they like and give whatever unfair warnings they want, complaining to your friends isn't going to do anyone any good or change anything.

I wasn't saying that you were like that at all. Maybe I shouldn't have used brick wall per say. It just feels like it. Remember that GIF I posted and you took down? That wasn't about me not breaking the rules as much and me saying no as what we deem offensive. See, the staff are there to enforce Feld0's rules. At least, that's what I think and since moderators are chosen with a lot of thought, it's unlikely that they'd have a vastly different world view, in terms of forum policy, at least.

 

So it's likely that you'd agree on a lot of stuff. When you're fighting "the man", complaining to them gains you nothing and I think that mentality has come to the forums. I mean, who would you complain about the detention your teacher gave you? The teacher? The staff of the school?

 

Also, I doubt anyone actually thinks they can change the ruling. I mean, what's the chance of that? Actually, real question here, how many times does a ruling get changed? It's mostly about validation, I think. Just want a little, yeah, you're kind of right from most people. It's a thing that happens, I think.

 

 

And it is nobody's goal to prevent you from doing that - the last thing I want is for anyone here to be stewing in anger alone with nobody to talk to; but that doesn't change the fact that there is, again, a time and place for everything. There are some things that people simply do not talk about in the open in front of the entire planet; this should be viewed as hardly being any different

 

That was kind of mostly to Alex. I remember he said I shouldn't tell my friends about it through PMs, so this is kind of a reply, if anything. The rest applies to the whole forums though. But thinking back on it, how many people here actually have PM friends here? It'd be pretty hard on people who don't have PM friends they can talk to. I mean, I know one person who might take the time to listen to me, but that's it.

 

Given the nature of the forum, it's kind of hard to talk about it with friends. I mean:

• Friends might not want to talk about it as it's a pony forum which might make them think "It's a fucking MLP board. Deal with it". So you can't talk with them.
• Even bronies might not care as again, it's an abstract value on the internet. Who gives a crap?
• Even "friends" on the forums might not actually care. Again, the whole internet thing comes into play

 

Really it's only between best buds on the forum and best buds who talk about stuff in their lives. I don't know how many people have those, but if you don't your only way out is the status updates.

 

Again, I'm not saying this validates any complaining. It's just a user's 5 cents on the matter, to be quite honest. 

 

And yes, I feel my opinion is worth the extra 3 cents.

 

 

Complaining about a warning and getting pissed off over a warning in a status update is about as effective a means of dealing with the core issue at hand as banging ones own head upon a brick wall

 

I just want to say this is pretty funny, in reference to our brick wall analogy.

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. I try to talk about what I think is wrong with the forums (Which I seldom do), and MEMBERS, not staff members, other members just immediately rally support the rules.

Well...yes. If one supports a rule, one will generally argue for it...if your a democrat, you can argue for the current government, to explain their reasoning (if you agree with it, of course. You could even be a republican.) There's nothing saying you can't argue for the establishment, if you agree with said establishment.

 

 

Whining about warnings serve no purpose but to start flame wars and give bad names to both parties, whether it be a member or a mod.

See, I think venting and discussing are two different things. Saying it once is fine, by my books, but saying it multiple times over various status updates and causing drama is a whole other thing.  That's what people are arguing, I think. Just that one status update, I think. 

 

 

While their at it, they could send Princess Celestia a letter on what they learned

 

Come on. We all know that's what's gonna happen. Maybe not the all along part, and it may not the tone of the letter, but the words are certainly correct.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Bronium

[MatrixChicken 879]

TL; DR

 

Anyways, I like the banner FAQ, that is a welcome feature.

 

As for warning points complaints, I can see why you would go this route, as it can cause an uproar. However, I'm not sure it should be completely barred... Meh, it's probably for the best, I suppose.

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

I wouldn't say yelling as much as talking a bit loudly. I mean, it's only normal that a person talks a bit louder when discussing something bad that happened to them. 

I mean, status updates aren't in your face. They're nicely tucked away in the corner. Easy to read, but also just as easy to avoid. 

 

 

The question is, are you doing it in front of your mum? For me, it's like if you're doing it in the same house as your mother, but in your own room and with a bunch of people (the analogy is starting to break down here. Blast it). I recognize the door is barely there since you have to go through every status (in some sort of aspect at least). It's two different perspectives here, I think. You feel like we're complaining in front of you, but we (at least I) feel like it's between the door, that door being time I suppose. That said, I'm not saying we should complain, I was giving a reason to Alex as to why we would complain. I wouldn't complain about the warning points as much as just talk to friends about it through PMs.

You're allowed to do it in PMs, they already said that they aren't going to go through everyone's personal messages to enforce this rule, and they couldn't even if they wanted to.

 

In regards to the mom analogy, the difference is that, even if you're not talking to your mom, she can still hear you, in fact you know she can hear you, which in my opinion is that much more disrespectful. You wouldn't go into your room and loudly complain about your mom when you know she's within earshot, at least I hope not. That's saying that you don't even care that she can hear you and you might hurt her feelings. But this analogy is getting out of hand. Back to reality.

 

 

See, I think venting and discussing are two different things. Saying it once is fine, by my books, but saying it multiple times over various status updates and causing drama is a whole other thing.  That's what people are arguing, I think. Just that one status update, I think. 

 

People are bound to accuse mods of being unfair unless they bust people on it every time. How many times, and how frequently does someone have to complain before it becomes enough to merit a warning? Should it be the same regardless of the nature of the complaints? People will inevitably make these arguments. The person being punished is always going to be inclined to find a reason why it's unfair, and this would give them a perfect reason to complain, which would, of course, defeat the purpose of having this rule in the first place. 

 

As for venting, allow me to say this for the third time. Buy a punching bag and work your anger out that way. It's a good workout and maybe you'll become good enough that you can do it for money. The point is, there are other ways to vent that don't bother anyone else.

 

 

That was kind of mostly to Alex. I remember he said I shouldn't tell my friends about it through PMs, so this is kind of a reply, if anything. The rest applies to the whole forums though. But thinking back on it, how many people here actually have PM friends here? It'd be pretty hard on people who don't have PM friends they can talk to. I mean, I know one person who might take the time to listen to me, but that's it.  

 

 

I didn't say that you shouldn't tell your friends about it in PMs, I said that I don't think people really care, and I stand by that. However, if you want to PM your friends, fine. If they don't want to hear about it they can tell you themselves. A status update is seen by everyone, and often they start conversations, which can also be seen by ever member on the forums, the majority of whom don't care. If they don't care, there's no reason they need to see it, so there's no reason that it shouldn't be limited to PMs. So actually, I encourage you to PM friends about it, if you feel compelled to talk about it at all. For people who don't have friends they can PM, I refer you to my punching bag comment above. Or just find a large empty space and scream at the top of your lungs if that helps. There are other ways to vent your frustration.

 

 

Really it's only between best buds on the forum and best buds who talk about stuff in their lives. I don't know how many people have those, but if you don't your only way out is the status updates.

 

 

Again, punching bag. Seriously, they're not that expensive or anything. Or talk to your real life friends, but find another way to vent your frustration.

 

Oh, and one other thing:

 

Well...yes. If one supports a rule, one will generally argue for it...if your a democrat, you can argue for the current government, to explain their reasoning (if you agree with it, of course. You could even be a republican.) There's nothing saying you can't argue for the establishment, if you agree with said establishment.  

 

 

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it much better than I did. 

[Shadow Chaser 633]

 

The question is, are you doing it in front of your mum? For me, it's like if you're doing it in the same house as your mother, but in your own room and with a bunch of people

   I think for that analogy to work you'd have to be PMing people.  haha

 

While I agree that status updates are small in comparison to the rest of the board, it's something that sits on the front page, potentially for a good while, until there are enough other statuses to bump it.  And while I don't often post statuses or in the boards, I do always scroll to read the statuses.  They're small and quick reads.  But if they're all about injustices of warning points, it's kinda disheartening.

 

(Mods correct me if I misinterpret this one.)

The thing some people don't realize is that you can complain about getting the points, just be vague.  For instance, if I were to get some warning points my next status would be something along the lines of, "Well, crap."  or "Won't do that one again."  And, invariably, someone will ask and you can mention you got a warning but it was accidental or incidental or something you didn't think was that bad.  It's all about keeping a cool head and not openly raging about it and causing unnecessary drama.

 

Because if you're really that upset about it, it's probably best to look at a different site.  And I don't mean move to a different forum, but find another website that can occupy you and/or calm you down.  And then when you come back you can brush off those warning points as just a bad day and then move on and not worry about it.

[Bronium 512]

 

In regards to the mom analogy, the difference is that, even if you're not talking to your mom, she can still hear you, in fact you know she can hear you, which in my opinion is that much more disrespectful.

I recognize that, but again, I think it's more about perspective. Your mother isn't there physically, so it's like she isn't there at all, thus you would say it. I mean, it's in the back of your mind, but it's not registering.

 

 

How many times, and how frequently does someone have to complain before it becomes enough to merit a warning?

Just the one time. I think I made that quite clear. Multiple as in more than once. I mean, one burst of displeasure and that's all.  

 

 

Buy a punching bag and work your anger out that way. It's a good workout and maybe you'll become good enough that you can do it for money.

I'm not sure how it works for you, but I don't really release any stress by actually doing anything physical. I kind of need to talk it out and I'm sure that most people disagreeing with this rule feels the same way.

 

It'd be an interesting topic though. Seeing how people relieve stress. It's not a hate, it's just something you need to tel somebody. I mean, I've tried the whole punching pillow thing and in the end I had to talk to someone. I mean, as of this moment I've made an imaginary figure in my head to complain to, so that curbs the dislike, but it's not all that great otherwise.

 

 

 

The thing some people don't realize is that you can complain about getting the points, just be vague.

Exactly. I'm not sure as to what qualifies as hanging your dirty laundry, but all I want is just to say that "Warning points are awful and should burn in hellfire" and just let that out. I'm not saying describe your whole situation. I don't know if I'm the only one here, but that's pretty much it. 

 

I just want to say. I'm not saying let us insult another mod (that's breaking another rule), all I want to do is just let of a quick burst of steam. And really, if it's vague, it's not really causing drama, nor hurting others now, is it?

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

 

Just the one time. I think I made that quite clear. Multiple as in more than once. I mean, one burst of displeasure and that's all.  

 

I wasn't asking you, I was saying that people would debate it, and it would give them an excuse to say that they were being treated unfairly.

 

 

I'm not sure how it works for you, but I don't really release any stress by actually doing anything physical. I kind of need to talk it out and I'm sure that most people disagreeing with this rule feels the same way.

 

If you need to talk to someone, why don't you just talk to people offline. They can't give you warning points for complaining. 

 

 

I recognize that, but again, I think it's more about perspective. Your mother isn't there physically, so it's like she isn't there at all, thus you would say it. I mean, it's in the back of your mind, but it's not registering.

 

Okay, this analogy has gotten to the point where I'm not even sure what you're saying any more, or if you're saying what I think you are, then this isn't going anywhere anyway. I'm just going to chalk it up to us just having two different interpretations of it. Back to reality, if you don't mind.

 

 

Exactly. I'm not sure as to what qualifies as hanging your dirty laundry, but all I want is just to say that "Warning points are awful and should burn in hellfire" and just let that out.

 

Well, you said it. Are you all good now?

[Shadow Chaser 633]

 

Warning points are awful and should burn in hellfire

That's a little too pointed.  haha  I get where you're coming from but you have to keep it as vague as possible.  Don't mention in the status that you got a warning.

 

While you may be angry that you got the warning, that feeling usually becomes disappointment.  What I'm saying is just jump to disappointment and just let it roll off your back.  Just try not to repeat the mistake.

Again though, if you feel like you were wronged, open a ticket about it.  I trust in the staff members that, even if they don't like that you're challenging their judgment, they'd happily pass it to another mod for them to judge freely.

It's like the judicial system.  You can be found guilty at your initial trial, and if you disagree with that ruling you can appeal the decision and the case is given to a different judge who can reverse the ruling or uphold it.

[Jokuc 8,173]

Oh I missed this thread.. Well I can't say this was unexpected. I have seen how you guys tell everypony who makes a "aawww modds why, more warning points?? really??"-status. Oh and wow you guys have written alot of stuff in the FAQ, I don't even think new ponies are bored enough to read it all

Edited January 30, 2013 by Jokuc

[NavelColt 22,878]

Oh and wow you guys have written alot of stuff in the FAQ, I don't even think new ponies are bored enough to read it all

It's a good thing newbies aren't expected to read it all, then ^^ The FAQ is a library resource, it's not meant to be something you sit down and read in full (though someone is encouraged to do so if they want), it's meant to be a thing you go to when you want an answer to a specific question. Newbies usually always have specific questions. When someone has something specific they're seeking out, then they usually are more likely to read a semi-wall of text answer to their question, or at least skim it and understand the jist.

[HomuraBL 851]

I started out just not agreeing with this new rule about warning points. I dismissed because it didn't affect me at all. 

 

However, things have gotten more personal for me. 

 

It's my turn to put my thoughts on this rule.

 

I'm going to be blunt. I don't like this rule. I think it's horrible. 

 

You know what would've been a good rule? "You can't complain about getting warning points out in public. It must be talked about only through support tickets" "You also can't bash or harass anyone else because of it." 

 

But that isn't the rule. 

 

It's "You can't talk about your warning points, period." 

 

Look, I agree with you guys on the fact that complaining about warning points to an open crowd is pointless and bad. Maybe that should be saved for PMs and support tickets. 

 

 But, the fact that if I supposedly got 15 warning points and I said: "Aww, I got warning points. Oh well, I actually deserved them. I thank the mods for teaching me a lesson." And I would get that comment deleted AND more warning points just seems like an unreasonable rule. 

 

Let's look at this statement. 

 

1. It's not expressing any bad, angry, or rude vibes. In fact, it's complimenting the mods. 

 

2. It's your status. The status is that the person got 15 warning points. Therefore, a perfectly reasonable status update.

 

 

If the status or anything really, is not expressing any hateful attention, prejudice, or anything like that. Or is also things like advertising and whatever. 

 

It's perfectly valid and should not be considered against forum rules. 

 

Let's try another example that isn't as impossible as my first. 

 

"Aw, I got 15 warning points." 

 

Everything I said before applies here. He's not really complaining, he's just telling us his status of how he was disappointed.

 

At this point, it's should be the people who assume stuff and start bashing other people who get the punished and not the person who said: "Aw, I got 15 warning points."

 

Because it was the fault of the assumer. 

 

There's probably more I have to say, but I just want to see how this part goes first, if I have to explain more, I will. 

Look, I understand where you guys are coming from. I understand why you guys did this. I just think you made the rule cross the line though. I just hope you guys understand I'm not trying to be a jerk myself and I'm sorry if I came off that way.

 

And just to be sure, I'm fine with the rule against people complaining about getting warning points.

 

My issue is not being to talk to people about getting them at all. (excluding mods, and even else involving the support ticket). 

 

You can proceed to get mad at me for being another "complainer" and or, because I'm apparently repeating the same problem with this over and over. 

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

You know what would've been a good rule? "You can't complain about getting warning points out in public. It must be talked about only through support tickets" "You also can't bash or harass anyone else because of it."    But that isn't the rule.    It's "You can't talk about your warning points, period." 

 

 Correct me if I'm wrong, mods, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to talk about it in support tickets. And in PMs for that matter.

 

 

 But, the fact that if I supposedly got 15 warning points and I said: "Aww, I got warning points. Oh well, I actually deserved them. I thank the mods for teaching me a lesson." And I would get that comment deleted AND more warning points just seems like an unreasonable rule.    Let's look at this statement.    1. It's not expressing any bad, angry, or rude vibes. In fact, it's complimenting the mods.    2. It's your status. The status is that the person got 15 warning points. Therefore, a perfectly reasonable status update.     If the status or anything really, is not expressing any hateful attention, prejudice, or anything like that. Or is also things like advertising and whatever. 

 

If they make exceptions for statements that are not particularly inflammatory, then the people who are on the borderline but do get punished will see it as being treated unfairly.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Alex-Kennedy

[HomuraBL 851]

 Correct me if I'm wrong, mods, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to talk about it in support tickets. And in PMs for that matter.

 

 

 

If they make exceptions for statements that are not particularly inflammatory, then the people who are on the borderline but do get punished will see it as being treated unfairly.

 

For your first sentence, thats actually what I said. 

 

Also, "not particularly inflammatory." I think you mean not at all. There was no way logically that could get someone mad.

 

They wouldn't have to make exception if they just made the rule more reasonable. You should still be allowed to talk about in a public part of the forum, you just shouldn't mean. I think thats what everyone really asks for. 

 

The mods can make rules about people complaining about the warning points they got all they like. But, they should draw the line before "You can't talk about it in public at all."

[NavelColt 22,878]

Correct me if I'm wrong, mods, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to talk about it in support tickets. And in PMs for that matter.

 

Yes. People really need to go read Zoop's two gigantic essay responses, as well as Scoots', before replying to this topic. It's been hammered home to death that complaining is perfectly appropriate in support tickets. To be frank, we've covered most basis already in this topic. A lot of the feedback is a bit redundant, and I don't believe each new replier has taken a full look into the past responses.

[HomuraBL 851]

~Chaotic Discord~, on 30 Jan 2013 - 22:01, said:

 

Yes. People really need to go read Zoop's two gigantic essay responses, as well as Scoots', before replying to this topic. It's been hammered home to death that complaining is perfectly appropriate in support tickets, and that you're encouraged to do so in them.

And what about me? You just going to completely ignore the fact that I actually did mention that in my post.

 

While I do agree that people should read what those two wrote,

I'm trying to be reasonable here.

 

Those posts were fine and dandy about the fact people were complaining and they should put that in support tickets, but my post was more about: "Yeah, I agree with what you are saying, but I think you are crossing the line a bit with the rule and to just at the very least consider this."

Edited January 31, 2013 by LoyalRaccoonBL

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

And what about me? You just going to completely ignore the fact that I actually did mention that in my post.

 

While I do agree that people should read what those two wrote,

I'm trying to be reasonable here.

 

Those posts were fine and dandy about the fact people were complaining and they should put that in support tickets, but my post was more about: "Yeah, I agree with what you are saying, but I think you are crossing the line a bit with the rule and to just at the very least consider this."

Do you realize how many people have posted their thoughts here? The staff can't respond to all of them immediately, if at all. It hasn't even been an hour since you posted, give them time.

[HomuraBL 851]

Do you realize how many people have posted their thoughts here? The staff can't respond to all of them immediately, if at all. It hasn't even been an hour since you posted, give them time.

 

I'm not saying that they should respond immediately. I was just worried he was agreeing with you about me without actually reading my post, when I clearly mention those things in my post. 

[Zoop 8,384]

 

You know what would've been a good rule? "You can't complain about getting warning points out in public. It must be talked about only through support tickets" "You also can't bash or harass anyone else because of it."

 

 

That was considered, but it was ultimately decided that it was vital to keep the rule simple, and completely free of any potential for misunderstanding - be it intentional or unintentional; additionally, it would open the door to people making claims of bias, saying things like "well, this person's comment on his warning wasn't that much different than mine, but he didn't get in trouble!" 

 

The difference is minimal enough and has so little of an impact that it was decided that there was no sense in not simply tightening it down to the point of being completely and utterly waterproof.

 

 

1. It's not expressing any bad, angry, or rude vibes. In fact, it's complimenting the mods. 

 

 

And the warning points given would reflect that. Both off-topic and backseat moderation warnings carry light warning point payloads that reflect the non-destructive nature of the posts that receive them; this is no different. Any warnings given for a polite status would be more a reminder of the rule, with a light bit of weight to them, rather than a raging dragon of instant and eternal banmation.

 

 

2. It's your status. The status is that the person got 15 warning points. Therefore, a perfectly reasonable status update.

 

 

That's not really a valid point, I don't think - if it were, we'd have no grounds for going against NSFW status updates because... well, the NSFW stuff could very well be relevant to the person's present status. :x

 

 

"Aw, I got 15 warning points."   

 

Everything I said before applies here. He's not really complaining, he's just telling us his status of how he was disappointed.   At this point, it's should be the people who assume stuff and start bashing other people who get the punished and not the person who said: "Aw, I got 15 warning points."   Because it was the fault of the assumer. 

 

And in the ensuing discussion, the warning will be discussed as has already happened. Clamping it off at the start prevents such situations from ever happening or arising. 

 

 

Look, I understand where you guys are coming from. I understand why you guys did this. I just think you made the rule cross the line though. I just hope you guys understand I'm not trying to be a jerk myself and I'm sorry if I came off that way.

 

 

Don't worry - I realize that, and don't think that you're trying to be a jerk. We realized going into this that this change would probably have a decent number of folks confused, or otherwise unhappy; which is why I'm trying to respond to everyone's concerns as much as possible.

 

Likewise, I apologize if I've seemed a bit frustrated myself - sometimes it honestly that people don't care to read my explanations, or give any attention to my posts explaining our stances and reasoning. That said, criticism in and of itself is not something that is frustrating to receive, nor is it anything that we want to discourage. Feedback is important even in cases where we're fairly firmly set in a particular direction.

 

I realize that I'm unlikely to change anyone's mind about the rule, but I do hope that through a bit of discussion and perhaps a bit of debate that I can at least make people understand why we decided on our present path, and sort of thought process went into it - like many things here (the character minimum being another example), even if it seems like a sudden change that came out of nowhere, it was not a change that was made lightly.

 

 

My issue is not being to talk to people about getting them at all. (excluding mods, and even else involving the support ticket). 

 

The first thing we look at when we consider any changes to policy or rules is 'what can go wrong, and what can we do to minimize it?' - with that in mind, in this particular case we decided that simple wording that was completely lacking in loopholes, questionable situations, claims of personal bias, etc, was the best way to proceed.

 

 

You can proceed to get mad at me for being another "complainer" and or, because I'm apparently repeating the same problem with this over and over. 

 

 

GAWD, RACCOON, WAY TO BE A COMPLAINER. GOSHHHHHH. >:[

 

Like that? :3

 

 

They wouldn't have to make exception if they just made the rule more reasonable. You should still be allowed to talk about in a public part of the forum, you just shouldn't mean. I think thats what everyone really asks for. 

 

 

You don't have to be outwardly 'mean' to spread the seeds of Chaos and Discord; quite the opposite actually. The people who cause the most problems are often those that do so without the need for capital lettering or four letter words, after all.

 

 

I'm not saying that they should respond immediately. I was just worried he was agreeing with you about me without actually reading my post, when I clearly mention those things in my post. 

 

Nah, I think it was intended more as a general statement rather than being targeted at you specifically, to be honest.