We want Forum Feedback!

[TJ09]

I simply would prefer to see warns used for things that are seriously offensive. If people are getting warns for breaking very harmless rules (like the +1 posts thing), then perhaps the solution is to not hand out tons of warns to correct people, but to loosen up the rules a bit. ^^;

This is the correct way to go about it. Getting angry is pretty much unproductive, if you think your warn was the result of an unfair rule, then build up a case for the rule to be changed.

[Lythiaren]

TJ, it's not only that people are seeing unfair rules or whatever, it's that the rules are being stretched to cover even the tiniest of things. I could run into a thread call DS a doodoohead in jest, she and I could laugh over it in IMs and not report it, but chances are someone (or two, or fifteen) will get mad on her behalf and report me and I'll get a warn for harassment or something, even when it's not even remotely offensive to the only person who should even care.

 

And that's not even getting into what appears to be modly unprofessionalism in my case: seemingly giving out warnings based on either volume of reports or simple disagreement. The former looks lazy, the latter corrupt.

 

Okay I'm done editing I swears

Edited February 4, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Obscure_Trash]

Warns aren't handed out just for reports - mentioning that your post got lots of reports is to let you know many members were hurt by it and that is also how the mod saw it. Obviously, something, somewhere, didn't connect with people as a joke and if you want to call a friend silly names, perhaps that is best kept over PM/IM.

[Lythiaren]

Why shouldn't we be allowed to call each other silly names in public? Am I duty-bound to have my serious face on at all times? I never signed any contract that said I'm not allowed to be facetious anymore.

 

And my case wasn't simply "it got lots of reports", when I asked for a detailed analysis all I got was "please read it again because I said so" and that's not an analysis. If I could see what was supposedly wrong by looking I wouldn't have asked.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Lythiaren

[MaggieXawesomeness]

Only warning I have is from posting a :3 face in the CPA forum game thread

 

(you're supposed to not just post an emoticon)

 

But I kinda thought a warning was pretty silly over that, one quick reminder and I would of learned.

[TJ09]

But I kinda thought a warning was pretty silly over that, one quick reminder and I would of learned.

This seems to be the biggest disconnect with the warn system. Because if that's the only warn you got, then all it is is a "quick reminder."

[zara]

This seems to be the biggest disconnect with the warn system. Because if that's the only warn you got, then all it is is a "quick reminder."

^ lol I was actually about to type that.

[Lythiaren]

If warns are only "quick reminders" and not "hey you did something seriously wrong" they lose all meaning because all I have here is a stack of "quick reminders" and not a record of things that are done wrong.

 

I mean seriously, I've been warned for posting a link to Hyperbole and a Half. The emote is from there. For all that people keep going "this board is PG-13", I see mods cutting it down to below G. People report polite disagreement as horribly rude and it gets warned.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Having been in BIG trouble before, I've tried to stay out of this discussion.. but I feel like I need to say something about one particular point. The "I support" rule.

 

I don't get it? Why is that a warnable offense? Why does one have to justify agreeing with something? I can understand a 'disagree'.. knowing why something isn't agreed with needs an explanation. But agreeing with something is just that.. I agree with the OP about this idea.

 

Or how about this... maybe English isn't someones native language and rather than a rambling attempt at getting their point accross in a language that isn't their own, they just want to agree with the idea in a way that is easy and accurate.

 

Or this... the poster is one of our younger members and they don't want to post something that would come accross as childish. Rather than posting something that might be misunderstood, they only want to say "I agree" and let that be the end of it.

 

Or maybe... the original idea is so well written and thought out that their really isn't more that needs to be said about it. In that case, a simple "I agree" is all that is needed.

 

It's the negative responses that need an explanation.. NOT the positive ones.

[Khallayne]

Generally a warn without a consequence is a quick reminder, while as soon as a consequence is applied it's viewed as an actual warn. The way I see it, a person will get some logged verbal warns before getting an actual warn with negative consequence to give the users a chance to learn.

[Thuban]

Editing in a quick verbal warn into someones post isnt that horrible, if its used for the minor offenses as a heads up. I cant be the only person who goes into a busy thread and reads every comment since i last posted

 

 

its definitely faster than issueing a warn and pm-ing the person to tell them why you warned them in the least annoyed tone you can after a long spree of doing similar pms and warns...

[MaggieXawesomeness]

 

its definitely faster than issueing a warn and pm-ing the person to tell them why you warned them

This is what I got for my post.

 

Not just a verbal warning.

[Pokemonfan13]

I don't really want to get into this debate [mostly because I normally only give warns for stuff like eggspam, since I am horrible at recognizing stuff like rudeness that is being debated as "frivolous" warns here] but I'm going to say one thing and go back to lurking.

 

 

I do not like the idea of editing posts as a "verbal" warning. Or rather if that's the only thing done. If it's accompanied by a PM, I guess it's ok. Why? Because how many people go back and read all their own posts again a day after they make them? I doubt many do. So the warning wouldn't be read by the person being warned.

 

I also agree that warnings are a record for the mods. Verbal warnings like that do not get recorded, so it would be very difficult to do a "three and you get a real warning" system like described earlier because the same person would have to remember the person and remember how many verbal warnings they've had, and how many verbal warnings would they really be getting given that there are other mods who would be giving out other verbal warnings!

 

 

Generally a warn without a consequence is a quick reminder, while as soon as a consequence is applied it's viewed as an actual warn. The way I see it, a person will get some logged verbal warns before getting an actual warn with negative consequence to give the users a chance to learn.

I never thought about it like that, but I definitely agree now that you've said it. =3 The first two warns have absolutely no consequences [unless they're for something bad enough that they need consequences], so there's nothing much more to them than a logged reminder of the rules.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[Pokemonfan13]

Whitebaron, is that "lost" post one you posted while on posting moderation? Posting moderation means that your posts need to be approved by a mod before they appear on the forum, like what happens with new threads in dragon requests. If you have a post that breaks the rules the mod can delete it instead of approving it.

 

It's a little different from deleting an existing post, at least in my eyes.

[TJ09]

Having been in BIG trouble before, I've tried to stay out of this discussion.. but I feel like I need to say something about one particular point. The "I support" rule.

 

I don't get it? Why is that a warnable offense? Why does one have to justify agreeing with something? I can understand a 'disagree'.. knowing why something isn't agreed with needs an explanation. But agreeing with something is just that.. I agree with the OP about this idea.

 

Or how about this... maybe English isn't someones native language and rather than a rambling attempt at getting their point accross in a language that isn't their own, they just want to agree with the idea in a way that is easy and accurate.

 

Or this... the poster is one of our younger members and they don't want to post something that would come accross as childish. Rather than posting something that might be misunderstood, they only want to say "I agree" and let that be the end of it.

 

Or maybe... the original idea is so well written and thought out that their really isn't more that needs to be said about it. In that case, a simple "I agree" is all that is needed.

 

It's the negative responses that need an explanation.. NOT the positive ones.

I'm open to changing the rule, and in fact I've started a mod discussion to get the definition of "spam" in the rules clarified (in the same manner that PG-13 was updated a while back).

 

It does not, however change the fact that currently, the rule exists and users should be aware of it. The root of the problem with the "no 'support-only' posts" rule in this case was that people didn't bother to read the pinned topic, so they didn't know it was a thing.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I don't really understand how the warn level thing works on the technical side, but is there some way that very low-consequence warns could be given as, say, 1% or 5% instead of 10%? That'd log warnings while also making it immediately clear that 1) the person hadn't done something truly awful and 2) keep a high warn level from jumping on you wicked fast.

 

Because with the current strictness level they really CAN stack up quick--there was one very heavily debated thread a while back where I got a few warns within a couple days (again, all for low-level sarcasm and the like), and because of it I got pretty much crippled in my ability to be part of the conversation/play forum games/use the trade threads for a few days because all my posts had to be mod-approved and it was so slowww and annoying and felt like way too much of a punishment over nothing. Whereas lowering the warn percent for very small matters (or raising the level at which penalties kick in) would give me a tap on the shoulder without getting crazyyy.

 

At any rate, on a more specific note I still think the +1 post rule should be removed. I don't see any reason why it should be allowed in the normal request suggestion (which often has more 'big' ideas then the BSA section) but not the BSA one. It should really be a standard thing for all areas of the suggestion section, and I think that removing the rule from the one spot makes more sense then applying it everywhere. Would a poll likely gather up those posts while leaving the board more open to heftier thoughts on the matter? Sure. But is having +1 posts REALLY all that hurtful to a thread, or worthy of a warn? I would say no. ;;

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Cinnamin Draconna]

I'm open to changing the rule, and in fact I've started a mod discussion to get the definition of "spam" in the rules clarified (in the same manner that PG-13 was updated a while back).

 

It does not, however change the fact that currently, the rule exists and users should be aware of it. The root of the problem with the "no 'support-only' posts" rule in this case was that people didn't bother to read the pinned topic, so they didn't know it was a thing.

Thanks TJ.

 

That's the thing tho... I DID read it and found it annoying. If all you want to do is agree with the suggestion, explaining yourself is just redundant and repetitive. And sometimes you might goof and wind up saying something that you didn't really mean and throw the entire topic into left field.

 

If you don't have something to add to the discussion, it's way better to just say "I agree" and leave it at that, rather than confusing the issue with a mis-spoken comment.

[MURDERcomplexx]

I don't really understand how the warn level thing works on the technical side, but is there some way that very low-consequence warns could be given as, say, 1% or 5% instead of 10%? That'd log warnings while also making it immediately clear that 1) the person hadn't done something truly awful and 2) keep a high warn level from jumping on you wicked fast.

Well, warns only go up in 10% intervals, so we can't actually do anything that isn't by tens.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

It does not, however change the fact that currently, the rule exists and users should be aware of it. The root of the problem with the "no 'support-only' posts" rule in this case was that people didn't bother to read the pinned topic, so they didn't know it was a thing.

But TJ, it's kind of hard to stay up to date with pinned topics. Since they're, well, pinned, they never really shift around or give any indication that something has been changed. I certainly wouldn't think to reread the rules to clarify if something that was ok two weeks ago is still ok today, which is why a warn seems rather harsh. Can new rules be made more prominent, or at the very least, barring a forum 'emergency,' can there be set days (maybe once every three months) when rules are subject to update and we would know to check in on them? Although I'd really just prefer no more rules were added at all haha, I think the forum already has all the really vital rules it needs covered. X'D At any rate, thanks for being open to changing the +1 rule.

[Pokemonfan13]

no, it was deleted before my first warn, suggesting personal reasons (most likely) was what got me the warn. but let's not derail any further into  my warn history, it's just a basic feeling i get when looking at this board - people dont really care about warns, because all you need to do when you get into dangerous waters is to take a 3 weeks hiatus and then you can insult or spam again as if nothing ever happened.

Four week hiatus. x3 According to the FAQ, warnings delete themselves after four weeks.

 

 

I agree that warnings aren't that important overall, but is that really a problem? A lot of the rules, when you get down to it, aren't the end of the world to break. Being rude to a user, as long as it's not a total flame war, isn't a horrible thing, but it's still something to be chastised about.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[Khallayne]

But TJ, it's kind of hard to stay up to date with pinned topics. Since they're, well, pinned, they never really shift around or give any indication that something has been changed. I certainly wouldn't think to reread the rules to clarify if something that was ok two weeks ago is still ok today, which is why a warn seems rather harsh. Can new rules be made more prominent, or at the very least, barring a forum 'emergency,' can there be set days (maybe once every three months) when rules are subject to update and we would know to check in on them? Although I'd really just prefer no more rules were added at all haha, I think the forum already has all the really vital rules it needs covered. X'D At any rate, thanks for being open to changing the +1 rule.

I believe the topics are posted in to say that they are updated. Though... That may have online been RP.

[Thuban]

But TJ, it's kind of hard to stay up to date with pinned topics. Since they're, well, pinned, they never really shift around or give any indication that something has been changed. I certainly wouldn't think to reread the rules to clarify if something that was ok two weeks ago is still ok today, which is why a warn seems rather harsh. Can new rules be made more prominent, or at the very least, barring a forum 'emergency,' can there be set days (maybe once every three months) when rules are subject to update and we would know to check in on them? Although I'd really just prefer no more rules were added at all haha, I think the forum already has all the really vital rules it needs covered. X'D At any rate, thanks for being open to changing the +1 rule.

Would a new post to announce changes in the rules help? (a quick "gd rules have been updated, go read them" post, that is closed)

[Banuk]

I don't exactly remember why I got my first warn, but I guess I was being rude or something, so after that?

 

I tried to be more civil. I tried to be more understanding. I tried not to let my emotions get the better of me.

 

And I got warned anyway.

 

After that, I figured, "Hey, I can either get a warn for keeping it as civil and polite as I possibly can, or I can get warned for saying what I REALLY think?" Guess which one I go for each time.

 

I've gotten in some pretty heated discussions before. Yes, I've been rude to people. But I tend to only resort to that after someone's said something rude to me. I don't report people I argue with because I see that as cowardly. But what really irks me is that I have no way of knowing the people matching my rudeness have been warned for arguing as well, so it makes me feel like I'm being persecuted for my opinions.

 

No one should ever be afraid to post what they think in a discussion. But I am. I am afraid because everyone seems to disagree with me on every point. I'm afraid of TJ. I'm afraid of the artists. I'm afraid of the mods. I seriously have a phobia of you guys. It terrifies me to type this right now. I hesitate when I see that a mod has posted in a thread I've said anything in, in fear that they're going to tell me that I'm wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

 

I have tried my hardest to "rehabilitate" myself. But I am, naturally, a tempermental person who is proud of her beliefs and willing to stand up for them. I can't change that, no matter how hard I try.

 

I always have to wonder, "If I get involved with this, if I try to make known what I believe in, am I going to get in trouble for it?"

 

That's not the kind of place a forum should be, honestly.

[TJ09]

up to date

That topic was last changed in May of 2012 and was first posted in 2010. I'm pretty sure that that rule has existed since at the latest 2011.

[Pokemonfan13]

Thanks TJ.

 

That's the thing tho... I DID read it and found it annoying. If all you want to do is agree with the suggestion, explaining yourself is just redundant and repetitive. And sometimes you might goof and wind up saying something that you didn't really mean and throw the entire topic into left field.

 

If you don't have something to add to the discussion, it's way better to just say "I agree" and leave it at that, rather than confusing the issue with a mis-spoken comment.

But...if all you have to say is "I agree", do you really have to post at all?

 

I definitely feel the same, to some extent, with "Love it!" posts in Dragon Requests. Sure, if the person posts a new sprite it's good to get positive feedback if it really is awesome, but random "Love it!" posts in the middle of a discussion on how the back foot needs to be changed or the shading on the wings is wrong is totally pointless and can derail the discussion if it triggers more and/or a response from the artist.

 

 

It comes down to the fact that, unless it's a suggestion that needs to know public opinion, "support" posts are not helpful at all and are better left off the forum. Ditto "don't like it" posts that are only that.