View Full Version : R&R: Results of collaboration week
Finals and a whole bunch of other life stuff got in the way during the past week so I wasn't able to roll out these changes as soon as I would have liked, but here are the changes I've implemented since the last version of the R&R that I posted:
Pornography ban reduced to 8 points
Mods were more willing to give out warnings and felt apprehensive about giving out permanent bans due to the 16 point infraction being high. Reducing the infraction cost of Pornography means that mods are not so apprehensive about it and that the meaning of this rule does not get pushed due to lack of willingness to ban for it. Also, less drama from bannings is a good thing.
"Adbot" rule changed
There are now two separate infractions for advertising. The first one is for those users who advertise and then there's an infraction for adbots. It's unfair to treat regular members who advertise as an adbot.
Transactions rule changed
Added "Non-Nexon sanctioned NX transactions" to the list
Flooding rule slightly changed
Emphasized that those who make 3 or more blog posts in a 24 hour period is also flooding.
"One Rule" and rule-related stickies removed from the Funhouse
Yeah, you all knew this one was coming. Instead, the rules are now in the R&R for what is and is not allowed in the Funhouse.
Reported for X, Enjoy your Y remains
We have decided not to remove this. It's not funny no matter how many times its said.
Probationary bannings
This is a no go. The problem before was that users were never sure if they were BoS or allowed to come back once being banned and they had to go through several bannings before realizing that "Hey, you're BoS." So, as before where you were only BoS if I said you were, now you are BoS unless I say you're not. This removes confusion about the whole process. Also, probationary bannings leads to a lot of administrative overhead as we have to manage users differently to handle all of the additional rules that have to be put into place just for a user that couldn't follow those rules to begin with.
For moderators and regular users
Due to these rules not being official until today, I am extending warning week until next week. On Thursday, May 20, the rules will go into full force.
Reported for X, Enjoy your Y remains
We have decided not to remove this. It's not funny no matter how many times its said.
Really?
...
Really?
...
Not like it'll change anyone's life.
...although it may set a precedent.
It's an internet meme for god's sake. It's not like we invented it. I've seen it anywhere, and always used in a funny way. I don't understand.
Rick Rolling is a meme, too. Doesn't make it any less annoying.
But Rick Rolling involves fooling the user with a link. Posting: ''Reported for trolling, enjoy your ban.'' is a mere post. You can skim over it and no one would care. I find it funny sometimes, like ''Reported for ragequitting, enjoy your comeback'' for ShiKage. You get it? I DONT SEE NO HARM
I'm glad you see the harm in it.
chrome
2010-05-12, 07:40 PM
Why don't you ban all internet memes why you're at it? It makes absolutely no sense to ban that particular thing; it's so minor.
Sarah
2010-05-12, 07:51 PM
I know ben meant it sarcastically but yeah please ban all internet memes.
Kurtle
2010-05-12, 07:51 PM
Restricting the use of that phrase is extreme, and I recall collaboration led to the conclusion the majority sees no harm in it.
TøbiasBlack
2010-05-12, 08:28 PM
Restricting the use of that phrase is extreme, and I recall collaboration led to the conclusion the majority sees no harm in it.
-insert "Fiel's site, Fiel's say"-
i agree though that prohibiting that phrase isnt as serious as any other issue. sure it's a meme, but so is "so i herd u liek mudkipz," for instance. no real harm in it, and really trying to argue it is just fishing for a point. like the kid with a learning disability in school, just ignore it and go on your way.
ImagineAll
2010-05-12, 08:44 PM
Sigh I quit. Yeah, it's better to argue with a moderator that isn't so narrow minded. Just sayin'. And it's not like this is the first time that we've seen words/phrases being censored (derp anyone?). Can't say I agree with it, but Paul's going to do what Paul wants to do, lol.
All in all am fairly happy with the adjustments.
Heidi
2010-05-12, 08:54 PM
But Rick Rolling involves fooling the user with a link. Posting: ''Reported for trolling, enjoy your ban.'' is a mere post. You can skim over it and no one would care. I find it funny sometimes, like ''Reported for ragequitting, enjoy your comeback'' for ShiKage. You get it? I DONT SEE NO HARM
That would be insulting Shikage. Whether or not you agree with his actions, making fun of people like that is highschool stuff...
Solarboy
2010-05-12, 09:08 PM
Thanks a lot for this fiel, this clarifies a lot of stuff.
It's an internet meme for god's sake. It's not like we invented it. I've seen it anywhere, and always used in a funny way. I don't understand.
Because it has no value.
It can never be on topic in any thread, because it's a meta reference to the behavior of another person in the thread rather than the topic itself.
It can only generate additional deviation from the thread if anyone replies to it, or additional drama
The latter is why it's not even allowed in the funhouse - Because we don't allow drama llamas there.
There is absolutely nothing funny, helpful or needful in a post that boils down to 'nyah nyah i'm telling on you'. Tell on someone or do not. Rubbing their faces in it, even jokingly, is just stirring up crap.
y0y0y0y0shi0
2010-05-12, 10:11 PM
It can only generate additional deviation from the thread if anyone replies to it, or additional drama
May I see examples of such situations? As it stands, I have never seen any such drama resulting from "Reported for X, Enjoy your Y."
I agree with the "general" consensus. There is no real harm in it.
No. I feel absolutely no need to hunt through the forums looking for examples to prove to you it happens when it takes very little logic to see that "I'm telling on you" is a childish and pointless thing that can accomplish absolutely nothing positive.
If you report someone and they've done something wrong a moderator will explain to them what they did wrong.
If you can see why it's wrong to accuse someone of trolling you should be just as capable of seeing this. Swapping it out with another form of infraction doesn't improve it.
Swerve
2010-05-12, 10:36 PM
y0y0y0y0shi0 you just got owned. Suffer in shame and misery.
IllegallySane
2010-05-12, 10:41 PM
Because it has no value.
It can only generate additional deviation from the thread if anyone replies to it, or additional drama
The latter is why it's not even allowed in the funhouse - Because we don't allow drama llamas there.
This implies any kind of derailment in the Funhouse is not allowed. Also, I do not recall there being drama from the "Reported for X, Enjoy your Y" bit. At most it would derail a thread, but not bring in drama. It's a ridiculous enough phrase that people aren't going to take it seriously.
And honestly. the "nyah nyah i'm telling on you" is really redundant, because I don't even think more than a handful of the posts that made the "Reported for X, enjoy your Y" comments even pressed the report button. I can understand it being a problem anywhere BUT the funhouse. Heck, not a single one of my own "Reported for X, enjoy your Y" comments ever involved me pressing the report button once. It's as hollow a threat as people flaming/trolling one another in the Funhouse.
ImagineAll
2010-05-12, 10:41 PM
Because it has no value.Stopped reading right there. Nothing has value in the Funhouse, so what's your point? You're seriously making such a big deal over a fucking phrase. For Christ's sake.
I don't really get angry over the "Reported for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" whatever phrases, it's just words to me. I don't see why others would, either. Most people on the forum are already acquaintanced with internet-memes anyways. I don't see a huge problem with it. To me, it's similar to seeing someone typing:
"lol u funny"
Obviously, it's a sarcastic remark. But I doubt anybody would be irked over it. It's just a small phrase. Now if it was a direct attack on the person (and a more serious post, at that), I can understand.
y0y0y0y0shi0
2010-05-12, 10:49 PM
y0y0y0y0shi0 you just got owned. Suffer in shame and misery.
I fail to see how I can "get owned" in regards to a topic that is highly opinionated.
No. I feel absolutely no need to hunt through the forums looking for examples to prove to you it happens when it takes very little logic to see that "I'm telling on you" is a childish and pointless thing that can accomplish absolutely nothing positive.
If you report someone and they've done something wrong a moderator will explain to them what they did wrong.
If you can see why it's wrong to accuse someone of trolling you should be just as capable of seeing this. Swapping it out with another form of infraction doesn't improve it.
There's a very obvious difference between "Haha I'm telling on you." and "I'M TELLING ON YOU!" that you fail to see here. Accusing someone of trolling is one thing, but when you aren't ACTUALLY accusing them of trolling.
As Omni said (moreso implied), you're acting as if everything should be taken seriously.
It's not something that only happens in the funhouse. The problem with allowing it "only" in the funhouse is that then becomes yet another loophole in the rules where it's ok to do something in one place but not another.
Not a single one of you has given any justification for why you should be allowed to tell each other you've reported one another, accuse each other of various crap and stir up pointless drama that the moderation team then has to wade through when frivolous reports and thrown all over because so-and-so hurt my feelings.
You should all know by now telling us you disagree and that it should be your way just because you want it so doesn't get you any where.
We've seen the issues from it and taken a stance based on how it impacts us. Unless you can prove that not having the right to tell each other publicly that you're gonna go tattle impacts you negatively you're not likely to get the rule changed. We saw incidences of this even during the period we were discussing it - That's what sealed it's fate. The fact "you" didn't see them is irrelevant, there's a lot you don't personally see and we shouldn't have to single out every one involved in such things just to prove they have/can/do become issues.
If you need it broken down in a very simple manner take it this way - Reporting is not a joking matter. It's the single most serious right & responsibility normal users have on these forums, and just like a loaded gun you don't point it unless you intend to shoot to kill.
butterfλi
2010-05-12, 10:53 PM
Because it has no value.
It can never be on topic in any thread, because it's a meta reference to the behavior of another person in the thread rather than the topic itself.
It can only generate additional deviation from the thread if anyone replies to it, or additional drama
The latter is why it's not even allowed in the funhouse - Because we don't allow drama llamas there.
There is absolutely nothing funny, helpful or needful in a post that boils down to 'nyah nyah i'm telling on you'. Tell on someone or do not. Rubbing their faces in it, even jokingly, is just stirring up crap.
But you're saying that like all memes have some sort of "value" or "function" which is ridiculous. You're looking far too deep into this meme. I can't speak for others but of the two or three times I've used that meme, I've never even moved my mouse near the report button. I've assumed everyone else who've used the meme were kidding as well because 1) memes are not meant to be taken seriously and 2) how immature does a person have to be to actually metaphorically say "nyah nyah i'm telling on you"? That line hasn't been used since folks were in grade school.
>Implying meme is also "stirring up crap". Most often when it's used it's to highlight some underlying to diss the opinion of the person quoted.
J-Pop is the best genre EVAR
>implying J-Pop is music
"I stopped reading there" meme " stirrs up crap as well. Like Reported for X, it's rubbing in their face and politely saying "what you've posted is stupid. In fact, it's so stupid that I I'm going to announce that I no longer want to read your opinion".
"Posting in a funhouse thread" and "ITT" has never been funny, helpful or needful either. Like all the memes before it, it does nothing but posted the obvious.
ImagineAll
2010-05-12, 10:56 PM
ITT: Eos acting like he's intellectually superior to everyone on these boards. Oh wait...that seems familiar.
Gimme my infraction already.
Swerve
2010-05-12, 11:01 PM
Stopped reading right there. Nothing has value in the Funhouse, so what's your point? You're seriously making such a big deal over a pineappleing phrase. For Christ's sake.
If I were to gauge such a response, I would say that it exists within a given range that spans from "inciting anger" at one boundary and "indifference" at the other. At best, the statement has no value. At worst, it stirs feelings of resentment and disdain. It is important to understand that certain members of South Perry don't show all their emotions on the surface. I know that certain people have discussed adding members to the ignore list in order to avoid getting in confrontations with certain users. Therefore even though it may appear that such statements do not issue concern, it may have larger implications that lead to underlying factors such as complete censorship of another user.
In addition, it is ironic that there is debate over this with moderation over the statement, "Reported X, enjoy your Y" given that the only tangible upside in this context is the hypothetical argument that it somehow rallies moderation support. The fact that there is debate with moderation over this issue indicates that is it not clearly intended for pro-authority intentions leaving behind the disillusioned counter-notion that it's a masked ad-hominem.
The intentions are a direct smite against another person, relying on a formulaic response. This makes it even more frustrating as it appears to impersonalize what is really a personal attack against another user. As Eos mentioned before, this is also done via Rick Rolling in order to show spite, disdain, or disrespect to another user. Even though I was debating whether or not I should milk it out, I issued an attack along the lines of "Reported X, enjoy your Y" to y0y0y0y0shi0 in order to generate a response that displayed the fact that such statements can get off-topic. I decided to refrain from stringing out the conversation because I didn't want to be a troll.
Finally, I agree that flaming and trolling accusations are similar to "reported x, enjoy your y" as far as the game of semantics goes. There are many ways of explaining dislike rather than referring to a simple syntax formula. The fact that such argument is generated over the principal of this is partially disturbing as it insinuates that this is something to be treasured, valued, and respected as a superior modicom of funhouse tradition. I disagree in principal that flaming and trolling accusations share similar intentions to "reported x, enjoy your y" as it is more likely that accusations are used as a method to point out such deviant behavior instead of pointing out failures post-implementation. In other words, "reported x, enjoy your y" seems to imply a substantial amount of hostility because the moderators have already made their judgment call and it should be up to the user and the moderation team to work out the handling of the infraction. The process is not intended for a captive audience to mock and jeer or monopolize off the interaction that has occurred as a third party.
If we were to gauge things on the value of principle, the Funhouse is supposed to be a place to incite humor and jokes. Even though the actual condition of the Funhouse is up to personal speculation, the principal is the fact that it's ideally supposed to be a place where everyone can get together for a laugh. Issuing such a statement as "reported x, enjoy your y" or "yourteachersaresodelicious.jpg" indicate jeering and a sense of disapproval. In essence, if we were better users then there wouldn't be this discrepancy between what should be the condition of the funhouse and what it actually turns out being. Even though I am of mixed belief on what I believe the purpose of rules constitute, I am personally dissatisfied with the status quo established by the funhouse as I find it to constitute complaining, personal attacks on other users, and a general region of senseless vigilantism. Normally I believe that rules should be implemented in order to reflect the needs of the community and to make it a better place. In principle, this rule lays down the impression that we shouldn't denigrate to personal attacks in a forum section intended for humor. Perhaps one of the lowest forms of humor is one that relies on attacking other users in order to get a cheap laugh. Again, I fall short on many principles of what I believe to be morally just and ideal. We all fall short. But it doesn't change the fact that we should try to be a better and more mature community.
y0y0y0y0shi0
2010-05-12, 11:04 PM
"ITT" has never been funny, helpful or needful either. Like all the memes before it, it does nothing but posted the obvious.
I agreed with your post up until here. ITT isn't always used in a disrespectful manner.
We saw incidences of this even during the period we were discussing it - That's what sealed it's fate.
And what incidence might this have been? As you are saying it now, it doesn't appear to me that you have to "go searching" for such dramatic events, as you can recall the incidence off of the top of your head.
Saying we have to justify that our posts MEAN something, and that we must justify that if we can't post something, is just downright silly. Have we always needed to say "I posted this to explain how silly your post was, and therefore it has meaning and I needed to post this to show you how silly it was."?
butterfλi
2010-05-12, 11:07 PM
ITT: y0y0y0y0shi0 thinks I said something I did not.
IllegallySane
2010-05-12, 11:09 PM
But you're saying that like all memes have some sort of "value" or "function" which is ridiculous. You're looking far too deep into this meme. I can't speak for others but of the two or three times I've used that meme, I've never even moved my mouse near the report button. I've assumed everyone else who've used the meme were kidding as well because 1) memes are not meant to be taken seriously and 2) how immature does a person have to be to actually metaphorically say "nyah nyah i'm telling on you"? That line hasn't been used since folks were in grade school.
>Implying meme is also "stirring up crap". Most often when it's used it's to highlight some underlying to diss the opinion of the person quoted.
"I stopped reading there" meme " stirrs up crap as well. Like Reported for X, it's rubbing in their face and politely saying "what you've posted is stupid. In fact, it's so stupid that I I'm going to announce that I no longer want to read your opinion".
"Posting in a funhouse thread" and "ITT" has never been funny, helpful or needful either. Like all the memes before it, it does nothing but posted the obvious.
Don't forget Baklava's spamming of "THREAD SUCKS" 24/7.
And what incidence might this have been? As you are saying it now, it doesn't appear to me that you have to "go searching" for such dramatic events, as you can recall the incidence off of the top of your head.
Knowing that it occurred and keeping a detailed listing of the thread, the person and the link are completely unrelated concepts.
I know for example that an estimated 2,000 laptops are stolen every year. Does this mean I can readily give you names and addresses of victims? No. Does that level of specification matter in the slightest to the point that was being made? Also no.
Anytime you want to regain a perceived right you're now being told you don't have you have to justify it. This has been true for every proposed rule. Trolling accusations are a perfect example. There was no rule against them until they became problematic. Now there is a rule against them and no one has successfully argued a legitimate reason why they should be allowed. Same situation. Problem identified. Rule enacted. Lots of noise about not liking it, nothing constructive about how keeping it can be more beneficial than outlawing it.
No one has asked you to justify the value of everything and anything you post. Only to justify the value in this not being illegal.
y0y0y0y0shi0
2010-05-12, 11:13 PM
ITT: y0y0y0y0shi0 thinks I said something I did not.
pomegranate. I'm really reading into things too deeply here.
Same situation. Problem identified. Rule enacted. Lots of noise about not liking it, nothing constructive about how keeping it can be more beneficial than outlawing it.
A lot of things could be banned because they have no meaning whatsoever. Does that mean they are banned? No. ie. X has no meaning. "X should be banned. Have a problem with that? Well, find a fucking meaning to it or else tough luck for you."
I'm just going to stop now before I look at a post that says "My pants are gelatinous" and interpret it as "My mind is a squishy conundrum of perplexing binders that are formed form an illegal immigrant's Jello."
ImagineAll
2010-05-12, 11:14 PM
If I were to gauge such a response, I would say that it exists within a given range that spans from "inciting anger" at one boundary and "indifference" at the other. At best, the statement has no value. At worst, it stirs feelings of resentment and disdain. It is important to understand that certain members of South Perry don't show all their emotions on the surface. I know that certain people have discussed adding members to the ignore list in order to avoid getting his confrontations with certain users. Therefore even though it may appear that such statements do not issue concern, it may have larger implications that lead to underlying factors such as complete censorship of another user.
In addition, it is ironic that there is debate over this with moderation over the statement, "Reported X, enjoy your Y" given that the only tangible hypothetical argument that comes to mind is that it rallies support of moderation. The fact that there is debate indicates that the intentions masked behind the statement conceal a direct smite against another person, relying on a formulaic response makes it even more impersonal as it appears to impersonalize what is really a personal attack against another user. As Eos mentioned before, this is also done via Rick Rolling in order to show spite, disdain, or disrespect to another user. Even though I was debating whether or not I should milk it out, I issued an attack along the lines of "Reported X, enjoy your Y" to y0y0y0y0shi0 in order to generate a response that displayed the fact that such statements can get off-topic. I decided to refrain.
Finally, I agree that flaming and trolling accusations are similar to "reported x, enjoy your y" as far as the game of semantics goes. There are many ways of explaining dislike rather than referring to a simple syntax formula. The fact that such argument is generated over the principal of this is partially disturbing as it insinuates that this is something to be treasured, valued, and respected as a superior modicom of funhouse tradition. I disagree in principal that flaming and trolling accusations share similar intentions to "reported x, enjoy your y" as it is more likely that accusations are used as a method to point out such deviant behavior instead of pointing out failures post-implementation. In other words, "reported x, enjoy your y" seems to imply a substantial amount of hostility because the moderators have already made their judgment call and it should be up to the user and the moderation team to work out the handling of the infraction. The process is not intended for a captive audience to mock and jeer or monopolize off the interaction that has occurred as a third party.
If we were to gauge things on the value of principle, the Funhouse is supposed to be a place to incite humor and jokes. Even though the actual condition of the Funhouse is up to personal speculation, the principal is the fact that it's ideally supposed to be a place where everyone can get together for a laugh. Issuing such a statement as "reported x, enjoy your y" or "yourteachersaresodelicious.jpg" indicate jeering and a sense of disapproval. In essence, if we were better users then there wouldn't be this discrepancy between what should be the condition of the funhouse and what it actually turns out being. Even though I am of mixed belief on what I believe the purpose of rules constitute, I am personally dissatisfied with the status quo established by the funhouse as I find it to constitute complaining, personal attacks on other users, and a general region of senseless vigilantism. Normally I believe that rules should be implemented in order to reflect the needs of the community and to make it a better place. In principle, this rule lays down the impression that we shouldn't denigrate to personal attacks in a forum section intended for humor. Perhaps one of the lowest forms of humor is one that relies on attacking other users in order to make a point. Again, I fall short on many principles of what I believe to be morally just and ideal. We all fall short. But it doesn't change the fact that we can try to be a better and more mature community.A thought out response that didn't come off as though you're trying to be a smug asshole. Now go teach Eos how to do that. I'll concede that you're right, though I never understood censorship of single words or phrases.
Luxreme
2010-05-12, 11:33 PM
Stopped reading right there. Nothing has value in the Funhouse, so what's your point? You're seriously making such a big deal over a pineappleing phrase. For Christ's sake.
Who's making a big deal over it? Who's protesting it so loudly? After all, it's exactly as you said - just a pineappleing phrase.
All of the changes in the rules and this one is the one to be harped on? Oh well.
The main reasons why this rule was enacted were several:
1. Users could use this as a loophole for any accusation. People tend to get frustrated or angry over any accusations and try to defend themselves against a personal attack - even in the srs bzns realm of the Funhouse. This makes it less fun and decreases the lolworthiness of the board. And, since I have tried this in the past, putting a "Get used to it!" disclaimer on the Funhouse makes things worse. Users then do anything and say, "Well, the board says get used to it, so I can do whatever I want. Shove off."
2. The problem with allowing this meme is then we have to establish intent. "Did the user intend to accuse the other of being X or was he/she just being stupid and using a meme to be funny?" We already wiped out "intend" or "intent" on the boards since judging intent over the internet is a ridiculously hard task and because users abuse that part of the rule, "I didn't intend to accuse anyone! It's just a silly meme."
3. Allowing this meme puts it into the strange paradox that you can then accuse people of anything except for being a mult, troll, or hacker. Seems a bit strange, doesn't it?
4. There are cases where people post this meme and then they do report it as well. It's not all meme and no serious business.
TøbiasBlack
2010-05-13, 12:39 AM
Not a single one of you has given any justification for why you should be allowed to tell each other you've reported one another, accuse each other of various crap and stir up pointless drama that the moderation team then has to wade through when frivolous reports and thrown all over because so-and-so hurt my feelings.
you mean people actually report people when they make those kinds of posts, or are you just using the "he said report, LETS GO RUSH TO CHECK IT OU--oh wait guys its just a red herring. GRRRR YOU DANGED KIDS!"
seriously. its the funhouse, firstly. second, even when it isnt in the funhouse, how many times has it been used where the report is actually legitimate?
The only thing i can point out to try and get this rule overturned is this: gossip and ball busting. Guys crack jokes to other guys about their lives, hobbies, girlfriends, w/e; this is nothing more than ball busting. if you cant handle someone on the internet making a joke, then maybe its you, not the internet, that needs to get something looked at. The people that use SP are, more or less and overall of a higher level of maturity. you cant honestly tell me that you werent at work, and someone made a sarcastic remark about something you did/wore, and laughed about it, and you got in such a tizzy over it that you went to your boss and told them about it. same. damn. scenario.
you're right, reporting isnt a joking matter, its serious. but at the same time, dont go and make it out that just SAYING (or in this case typing out) the word 'report' will automatically report a post. you're making it out that every instance of someone saying that triggers the alarms/emails for the mods that a report has been made. Unless you could oblige me with proof of at least 6 instances where this has happened, and the moderators werent immediately able to tell that it was a joke report, and actually wasted their time to go to a thread to investigate it to see it was a joke, then i really cant help but laugh at this. now to make the obligatory disclaimer: no, ive never moderated any site, nor have i ever wanted to; no i am not aware of what a report looks like on the moderator end of it; In all actuallity, i support this phrase being blacklisted, but i want to make sure that the reasons FOR IT are justified and not just simple "he tattled on me, so now im gonna whine and complain about it like a little 12 year old."
ever hear of parody and spoof? People do it all the time with all sorts of things. its comedy; using "reported for x, enjoy your y" is a joke made at the term report in this instance, where "hey i want to say you're an idiot, but i cant just go outright and SAY it, so ill be witty and crack a joke to deliver my point." if anything a good usage of this might actually be of good to the person being mocked. "hey, reported for x, enjoy your y." "oh, wait, x is bad?" "yes, it is." "oh thanks, ill go change that right now. i dont want to get into trouble."
lastly, yes, relevance is determined by individuals, and majority rules. if X+5 say no, yet Y+17 say yes, eventually either X will give in to Y in some way(s) to make them happy and keep peace, or X will remain resolute and anger a good deal of Y, causing them to go to another side. politics in action. just because the moderators have the ability to enforce the rules, and administrators have the ability to make the rules, doesnt mean that the userbase is of no worth. If enough people are for something and the heads still wont listen, that causes tension and arguments, drama. the whole point of this is to avoid drama, so i cant help but laugh at the irony of this, but also; whether or not you realize this (general reference to moderation as a whole, not anyone here), you need users to have people to enforce rules on. the internet is vast, and its got a lot to offer, and many different ways to do so. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if theres a moderator that people dont get along with, the whole will be reflected in the dullness and cracks present in that chain.
IllegallySane
2010-05-13, 01:21 AM
All of the changes in the rules and this one is the one to be harped on? Oh well.
I believe this shows how logical/reasonable the rest of the changes were, the fact that we are all fine with the other changes because they made sense.
if anything a good usage of this might actually be of good to the person being mocked. "hey, reported for x, enjoy your y." "oh, wait, x is bad?" "yes, it is." "oh thanks, ill go change that right now. i dont want to get into trouble."
If only people were so logical! This is pretty idealistic. Just as you expected me to find you examples, I also expect you to find examples. Guilty until proven innocent, right?
lastly, yes, relevance is determined by individuals, and majority rules.
Since when has a forum structure ever allowed for majority rules? As much as anyone would like to believe that this is a true democracy, it's not. I have unlimited power in this situation and all situations on this website. I let you guys have a say on the happenings here because I believe it brings about a better community. In order to bring about the best possible forum structure, there needs to be a balance between my power and your ability to speak out. If you actually think this is a democracy, that means I am doing a damn fine job. :chin:
And as much as we moderators need users, you users need us moderators too. This is a two-party deal. Obviously if we are too strict we're going to lose members and if we're too loose we're going to lose members. I hardly think saying you can't use one phrase is being too strict.
Swerve
2010-05-13, 01:55 AM
Since when has a forum structure ever allowed for majority rules? As much as anyone would like to believe that this is a true democracy, it's not. I have unlimited power in this situation and all situations on this website. I let you guys have a say on the happenings here because I believe it brings about a better community. In order to bring about the best possible forum structure, there needs to be a balance between my power and your ability to speak out. If you actually think this is a democracy, that means I am doing a damn fine job. :chin:
Hehe.
I don't really know what to say.
You leave me clueless Paul. I mean, I have nothing against the changes made, but this rule. I think you're looking to far into it. Even after what Eos said.
Sarah
2010-05-13, 03:17 PM
I don't really know what to say.
You leave me clueless Paul. I mean, I have nothing against the changes made, but this rule. I think you're looking to far into it. Even after what Eos said.
I wonder... if Fiel just came out and said (not actually saying this is how he feels) that he just hates that phrase and is sick of seeing it spammed (for quite a while it was) would you have been more or less okay with this decision?
I wonder... if Fiel just came out and said (not actually saying this is how he feels) that he just hates that phrase and is sick of seeing it spammed (for quite a while it was) would you have been more or less okay with this decision?
I would've had to accept it no matter what. But the way Paul has always treated his userbase makes me think that wouldn't happen. See?
IllegallySane
2010-05-13, 10:16 PM
I wonder... if Fiel just came out and said (not actually saying this is how he feels) that he just hates that phrase and is sick of seeing it spammed (for quite a while it was) would you have been more or less okay with this decision?
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could compare with Combattente's old DERP flood nor Bakalava's urge to tell us that every THREAD SUCKS. Those I would have been sick of posthaste and would have gladly told those two to shut up about posting DERP and THREAD SUCKS so many times. Reported for "X"? Not really. It's no different than people going "what is this I don't even", even in non-Funhouse threads. While "what is this I don't even" sounds less threatening than "Reported for X enjoy your ban" it's still a meme that gets used when the time calls for it.
TøbiasBlack
2010-05-13, 10:35 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could compare with Combattente's old DERP flood nor Bakalava's urge to tell us that every THREAD SUCKS. Those I would have been sick of posthaste and would have gladly told those two to shut up about posting DERP and THREAD SUCKS so many times. Reported for "X"? Not really. It's no different than people going "what is this I don't even", even in non-Funhouse threads. While "what is this I don't even" sounds less threatening than "Reported for X enjoy your ban" it's still a meme that gets used when the time calls for it.
ill say it for Eos: there is never a time that calls for a meme.
sorry, i could just see that coming from a mile away. =x
the big thing here, to argue for it being banned; is anyone really going to be affected by this? Baklava was hit with THREAD SUCKS, so it affected him. DERP was combattantes thing, and he was nailed for it. is there any one user here that you can see that this will truly affect? no, not really. the day some user in particular goes around into quite a few threads, and is known for saying that line, and really nothing else of value, then people will rally behind it to rid themselves of said user. that's not the case here, so the point still stands that no one is truly going to be hurt by it.
IllegallySane
2010-05-13, 11:18 PM
ill say it for Eos: there is never a time that calls for a meme.
sorry, i could just see that coming from a mile away. =x
the big thing here, to argue for it being banned; is anyone really going to be affected by this? Baklava was hit with THREAD SUCKS, so it affected him. DERP was combattantes thing, and he was nailed for it. is there any one user here that you can see that this will truly affect? no, not really. the day some user in particular goes around into quite a few threads, and is known for saying that line, and really nothing else of value, then people will rally behind it to rid themselves of said user. that's not the case here, so the point still stands that no one is truly going to be hurt by it.
Memes bring me humor, and the Funhouse is getting a little stale as it is without some of the good ole people stirring things up; there can ony be so much original content. Eventually a meme will appear.
Banning memes is bad, because the Funhouse will have a lack of content. Look at Sleepywood's version of the Funhouse. Sure there's no memes, but it feels more like a dry Social Discussion board because all memes get you infracted/banned and for a forum with so many people new threads pop up less often than new Funhouse threads. Yes there's a time that calls for memes, and that's called committing tomfoolery in the Funhouse.
I think we're trying to hard guys.
I think we're trying to hard guys.
Trying too hgard with friggin SouthPerry. Wh ynebver. Hell, this is a democracy.
TøbiasBlack
2010-05-13, 11:45 PM
Memes bring me humor, and the Funhouse is getting a little stale as it is without some of the good ole people stirring things up; there can ony be so much original content. Eventually a meme will appear.
Banning memes is bad, because the Funhouse will have a lack of content. Look at Sleepywood's version of the Funhouse. Sure there's no memes, but it feels more like a dry Social Discussion board because all memes get you infracted/banned and for a forum with so many people new threads pop up less often than new Funhouse threads. Yes there's a time that calls for memes, and that's called committing tomfoolery in the Funhouse.
with that considered then a compromising middle ground is to give the funhouse its own set of rules and appoint a mod or two to moderate the forum. but thats just silly.
IllegallySane
2010-05-14, 12:18 AM
I think we're trying to hard guys.
I apologize, Rob. :(
I apologize, Rob. :(
It's okay though. We tried.
Memes bring me humor, and the Funhouse is getting a little stale as it is without some of the good ole people stirring things up; there can ony be so much original content. Eventually a meme will appear.
Banning memes is bad, because the Funhouse will have a lack of content. Look at Sleepywood's version of the Funhouse. Sure there's no memes, but it feels more like a dry Social Discussion board because all memes get you infracted/banned and for a forum with so many people new threads pop up less often than new Funhouse threads. Yes there's a time that calls for memes, and that's called committing tomfoolery in the Funhouse.
A meme is, by definition, lack of original content by using the same phrase over and over again.
I don't think memes are a problem by default. You'll notice that we moderators do not dropkick a meme out of the forum unless it becomes an issue with the same one being spammed everywhere - "Thread Sucks" and this one. In the past two years of SP's existence, only three memes have ever been banned from the Funhouse - and one meme wasn't really even banned from the Funhouse just from one person. I'm not on a quest to ban all memes, and I'm not on a quest to make the Funhouse an unhappy place to be with absolutely no memes. Remember in my blog a long time back, I used "Accidentally a coca-cola bottle"? I think memes can and will always be hilarious when used properly. But when a meme causes problems, I want to see it gone.
In your argument you're saying, "Banning memes are bad because the Funhouse will lack content. Look at Sleepywood's version of the Funhouse. Sure there's no memes..." Where here did I even make the argument that all memes are banned? You're evaluating an extreme (Sleepywood with no memes) as the same as the current condition (Southperry without one meme). I'm not banning all memes, so I feel like you're arguing against an argument I never made.
MetaSeraphim
2010-05-14, 02:01 AM
"Emphasized that those who make 3 or more blog posts in a 24 hour period is also flooding."
What if someone makes three really well thought out blog posts in a day, would they still be warned?
"Emphasized that those who make 3 or more blog posts in a 24 hour period is also flooding."
What if someone makes three really well thought out blog posts in a day, would they still be warned?
Yes. With the blogging system, we only have the five latest blogs per page to enunciate the latest blogs added. Adding too many blog posts to your own blog in one day takes away from other people being able to have their new blog post featured and receive comments. The quality of the blog post does not matter. Either wait until the next day to make your blog post or combine your posts.
Kalovale
2010-05-14, 03:04 AM
Approved. Everything makes sense to me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.