We want Forum Feedback!

[TJ09]

Remember that this expanded definition is different from the currently-enforced version of the spam rule.

 

I think the example you mention of the shimmer thread would be fine under the new version, thanks to the "or current discussion" (a phrase that I put there intentionally to allow threads to "evolve" past what the first post says).

[KageSora]

I definitely think the allowance for thread evolution is important, and I'm glad to see that in there.

[PointOfOrigin]

Remember that this expanded definition is different from the currently-enforced version of the spam rule.

 

I think the example you mention of the shimmer thread would be fine under the new version, thanks to the "or current discussion" (a phrase that I put there intentionally to allow threads to "evolve" past what the first post says).

If it'll work like that, it's a step in the right direction, then

[Fuzzbucket]

Looks good as long as there isn't the off-chance that someone will go back to the first faintly deviant post and then start to warn all the way from there onwards and close ANYWAY...

[tjekan]

I think that's a great addition to the rule. I really do understand why truly RANDOM chat would make the forum a serious pain to police (and even to read through), but the ability to respond naturally to what another user has said is part of what makes a real Internet community. Frankly that original Shimmer thread was the friendliest I've seen the forum in a long time, except for gifting/departure threads (and even there, it's usually just one polite thank-you per person.)

Edited March 25, 2013 by tjekan

[kerrikins]

I really like the proposed changes, TJ :3 I feel like it'll let the mods relax a little without worrying about having to chase a thread back on course all the time, and users will feel more relaxed and able to actually converse.

 

Conversation does evolve naturally - touching on something brings up a memory or thought for another person, so the topic turns to that, which is still kind of related to the first... I hope that this will mean that more 'general' topics like the Shimmer thread will be allowed to stay open and the mods won't feel as much pressure to keep them within narrow confines.

[LadyLyzar]

I do think there should be a provision that the OP should be allowed to direct the topic back to its intended purpose, and if that's ignored, then something should be done.

 

For example, if I started a topic about a new suggestion to the site that was somewhat related to the ratios, and the topic "evolved" into a discussion about how ratios are fair vs. not fair, I would be frustrated that the actual suggestion itself was not being discussed.

[PointOfOrigin]

I do think there should be a provision that the OP should be allowed to direct the topic back to its intended purpose, and if that's ignored, then something should be done.

 

For example, if I started a topic about a new suggestion to the site that was somewhat related to the ratios, and the topic "evolved" into a discussion about how ratios are fair vs. not fair, I would be frustrated that the actual suggestion itself was not being discussed.

That would be a must for Suggestions/Requests. The site discussion and general discussion should differ on the circumstances.

[KageSora]

I do think there should be a provision that the OP should be allowed to direct the topic back to its intended purpose, and if that's ignored, then something should be done.

 

For example, if I started a topic about a new suggestion to the site that was somewhat related to the ratios, and the topic "evolved" into a discussion about how ratios are fair vs. not fair, I would be frustrated that the actual suggestion itself was not being discussed.

I would suggest that in such a situation, a mod simply suggests takin the current discussion to a new topic. If possible, move at least some of the posts or at least leave them in the original thread so the new topic can link to them so people can see the discussion.

 

The mod could then make a post in the thread stating that any posts related to the moved discussion belong in the new thread, and any posts made continuing it after that will be warned for being off topic.

 

I do agree with PointOfOrigin, though, that it might be good to have different rules for SD, GD, and SR. Not 100% different, but a little to account for the different nature of discussion.

[SilverMoonRain]

If you are responding to a person's on topic post, are you then off topic?

I've got a warn for something like this in the past, I was quoting my on topic question that noone had answered.

 

I am still unsure whether I would have gotten a warn for reposting the question instead of quoting.

[Tawanda001]

I would suggest that in such a situation, a mod simply suggests takin the current discussion to a new topic. If possible, move at least some of the posts or at least leave them in the original thread so the new topic can link to them so people can see the discussion.

 

The mod could then make a post in the thread stating that any posts related to the moved discussion belong in the new thread, and any posts made continuing it after that will be warned for being off topic.

 

I do agree with PointOfOrigin, though, that it might be good to have different rules for SD, GD, and SR. Not 100% different, but a little to account for the different nature of discussion.

Totally agree.

If a discussion about shimmers turns into a discussion about tinsel behavior or something, not big deal, because the topic isn't meant to do anything other than to be a fun discussion.

OTOH the suggestion threads are an effort to solve a perceived problem or find a way to improve something so staying on topic is important.

So yeah, different handling, different rules.

I do also think the OP should have a right to request a thread be closed if they want. Most forums have that option, although I do know sometimes those requests are denied if the OP doesn't have a good reason for the close request.

[Amazon_warrior]

If a discussion about shimmers turns into a discussion about tinsel behavior or something, not big deal, because the topic isn't meant to do anything other than to be a fun discussion.

Not to mention, it was titled the Prize Dragon Discussion Thread, and what are Tinsels but prize dragons? Anyone reading the title but perhaps not the first post would be likely to make that assumption (and *no one* on the internet ever reads *anything*...)

 

 

I doubt anyone thinks that the relaxation should apply to the same extent to Suggestion/Request threads, their entire nature is different and typically far less chatty anyway.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Amazon_warrior

[cfmtfm]

I could be nitpicky and say but I don't want to and can't be bothered.

 

Those new guidelines are looking good and I'm looking forward to it going into effect. Thanks, TJ and the team. :3

[Tawanda001]

I doubt anyone thinks that the relaxation should apply to the same extent to Suggestion/Request threads, their entire nature is different and typically far less chatty anyway.

Maybe, but up to this point it sure feels like they both have been treated to the same "no deviation from the topic whatsoever' type of mentality. I just want to be clear on what will be allowed going forward.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Tawanda001

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I like all of it but this bit:

 

- could be submitted as a post report instead (e.g. posting that a topic is inappropriate and needs to be closed).

 

I know there are times when a really new player will come in and post a thread that's like "help my eggs or dying!" or "hey anyone want to trade?" A lot of the time these threads are shut down by mods with a standard copy-paste answer that can look really intimidating and, in my opinion, isn't always that helpful (like saying to search for duplicate topics beforehand; I have HORRIBLE luck with the forum's search engine, and I imagine new users even more so). Now, if I came in to such a topic, and said 'ohey you shouldn't post trades here, post it in the (link to trade thread) thread instead! ' or 'you can't post your eggs here, but you can use (link to hatchery) instead,' would I get a spam warning for that? If so, then I really think that part should be removed from the new rule, because helping people shouldn't get you punished, especially when users can often provide quicker and more in-depth help then mods do in such cases.

Edited March 25, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[TJ09]

I like all of it but this bit:

 

 

 

I know there are times when a really new player will come in and post a thread that's like "help my eggs or dying!" or "hey anyone want to trade?" A lot of the time these threads are shut down by mods with a standard copy-paste answer that can look really intimidating and, in my opinion, isn't always that helpful (like saying to search for duplicate topics beforehand; I have HORRIBLE luck with the forum's search engine, and I imagine new users even more so). Now, if I came in to such a topic, and said 'ohey you shouldn't post trades here, post it in the (link to trade thread) thread instead! ' or 'you can't post your eggs here, but you can use (link to hatchery) instead,' would I get a spam warning for that? If so, then I really think that part should be removed from the new rule, because helping people shouldn't get you punished, especially when users can often provide quicker and more in-depth help then mods do in such cases.

IMO, it's just as intimidating to get 5 people posting "you can't do this, this is spam."

 

If you link the user to a hatchery, then that's not something that could be served by a report, is it? Saying "this is eggspam" is, however.

[Amazon_warrior]

I like all of it but this bit:

 

 

 

I know there are times when a really new player will come in and post a thread that's like "help my eggs or dying!" or "hey anyone want to trade?" A lot of the time these threads are shut down by mods with a standard copy-paste answer that can look really intimidating and, in my opinion, isn't always that helpful (like saying to search for duplicate topics beforehand; I have HORRIBLE luck with the forum's search engine, and I imagine new users even more so). Now, if I came in to such a topic, and said 'ohey you shouldn't post trades here, post it in the (link to trade thread) thread instead! ' or 'you can't post your eggs here, but you can use (link to hatchery) instead,' would I get a spam warning for that? If so, then I really think that part should be removed from the new rule, because helping people shouldn't get you punished, especially when users can often provide quicker and more in-depth help then mods do in such cases.

I never bother replying on those sorts of threads now since in the past I have been warned for trying to be helpful. If I'm just going to get slapped down for that, then why make the effort?

 

@Tawanda - Ah, fair enough. And yeah, better to get the boundaries sketched out a bit first...

[angelicdragonpuppy]

IMO, it's just as intimidating to get 5 people posting "you can't do this, this is spam."

 

If you link the user to a hatchery, then that's not something that could be served by a report, is it? Saying "this is eggspam" is, however.

So, to clarify, as long as I did a bit more than simply saying 'don't post this' (ex: showing them the proper thread/hatchery/whatever to use), it wouldn't be counted as spam?

[cfmtfm]

Now, if I came in to such a topic, and said 'ohey you shouldn't post trades here, post it in the (link to trade thread) thread instead! ' or 'you can't post your eggs here, but you can use (link to hatchery) instead,' would I get a spam warning for that? If so, then I really think that part should be removed from the new rule, because helping people shouldn't get you punished, especially when users can often provide quicker and more in-depth help then mods do in such cases.

In this thread:

 

-Mini-Modding

As mods we appreciate, and even depend, on your help. HOWEVER, taking matters into your own hands is not help. Mini-modding (trying to stop drama or trolling or flaming on your own, attempting to take spam or duplicates into your own hands, generally trying to do the mod's job) is only more likely to start flaming and drama. While you may have good intentions, you have no authority. On the other hands, mods can warn, lock topics, delete posts/pictures, suspend or ban users, and ect. We have tools at our use to help back up the authority we've been giving. Reporting topics or posts or PMing us with problems is the correct action to take. It's our job to deal with the problems in this forum so please let us, rather than mini-modding and getting yourself in trouble, too.

The one exception is posting a link to an original thread if you notice it's a duplicate - but be nice about it or, even better, give the mod the link and let them take care of it.

 

I disagree with you with the bolded statement. Mods can provide just as much help as the users - sometimes more, depending on the case. Using the example of the "you shouldn't post trades here, post it in (link) instead"; if a user hasn't posted the link and said it's a duplicate, mods usually post that before they post the copy-paste message. (At least, that's what I've seen before.) They also give the option of PMing them to explain it further.

Edited March 25, 2013 by cfmtfm

[Fuzzbucket]

IMO, it's just as intimidating to get 5 people posting "you can't do this, this is spam."

 

If you link the user to a hatchery, then that's not something that could be served by a report, is it? Saying "this is eggspam" is, however.

Actually I have copped a warning for (being the first to be) doing that. Maybe there should be clarity - my warn said that saying that was spamming, and to report and leave it to a mod.

 

I did point to the rules and suggested a hatchery... But I said that the egg link was spam, and...

[KageSora]

In this thread:

 

 

 

I disagree with you with the bolded statement. Mods can provide just as much help as the users - sometimes more, depending on the case. Using the example of the "you shouldn't post trades here, post it in (link) instead"; if a user hasn't posted the link and said it's a duplicate, mods usually post that before they post the copy-paste message. (At least, that's what I've seen before.) They also give the option of PMing them to explain it further.

But users CAN do it quicker at times. What if a person posts at a time when no kids who have the power to do anything? They could be waiting hours for a mod to handle it, in the meantime possibly posting over and over in frustration that nobody will help them.

 

I see no reason why a user should be in trouble for going "Hey, just so you know this is against the rules. You can find more information HERE so you know better in the future. But to answer your question [insert detailed answer here]."

 

Or "Hey, just so you know you should ask questions in the help section in the future--you'll get more help faster! But to answer your question

[detailed answer".

 

I agree it's a problem if users are just going "don't do this it's against the rules". But if they're providing help, and just giving the newbie a heads up in the process, I don't think it should be an automatic warn.

[Rally Vincent]

doesn't reply to anybody, and doesn't give anybody anything to reply to.

Do "I support"-posts fall under this definition? Do these kind of posts still count as spam?

[Fuzzbucket]

Do "I support"-posts fall under this definition? Do these kind of posts still count as spam?

In suggestions I believe they count as spam. TJ said that himself somewhere.

 

So do DNS, +1, One vote from me, and so on.

[purpledragonclaw]

I thought those kinds of posts only counted as spam in the BSA section. I've posted "I support this" in the past in Suggestions/Requests threads with no problem.

[Fuzzbucket]

I thought those kinds of posts only counted as spam in the BSA section. I've posted "I support this" in the past in Suggestions/Requests threads with no problem.

You may well be right. It isn't as if I have a brain .

 

But I would support their counting as spam in suggestions, too, actually. They really do slow down discussion of a suggestion.

 

So hit me. I'm old; I can take it