6. Moderator discretion
There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.
i did use my judgement and got banned so obviously your fucked up moderation team needs more clearly defined rules
I made a choice since there was no other moderation happening.
I made a choice since there was no other moderation happening.
No, you made a choice because you felt your judgment supersedes the rules. No moderation was necessary because no rules were being broken. That still doesn't explain why you didn't hand out a warning before banning him.
[...]that any rational person would consider excessive.
You could've certainly mentioned something earlier, prior to the rage quit .
He was previously warned for taking his behavior outside the lower fora; the same spam garbage posted everywhere else.
[...]nothing he posts is informative, worthy of debate or the slightest bit amusing[...]
His stated goal was to screw things up, as yours seems to be, to become king of the pissy nitpickers.
There wasn't one single other person that engaged and enjoyed seeing those posts in CN. It was just one individual using the forum in an anti-social way. The purpose of the rules is to provide protection to the enjoyment of all, from those who abuse the forum. Doesn't really matter if it is in CN. That is just exploiting the relaxed nature of that particular section.Yes but you had to click the thread to see the posts.
We have a 'don't be a dick' rule ... persistent spamming of a popular part of it is being a dick.
[...]nothing he posts is informative, worthy of debate or the slightest bit amusing[...]
So his posts are like everything else in CN. w0w better ban everyone who posts there then
But did he do it to crash browsers? Or was that just an unintentional side effect?[...]nothing he posts is informative, worthy of debate or the slightest bit amusing[...]
So his posts are like everything else in CN. w0w better ban everyone who posts there then
No, nobody else deliberately made posts so enormous that they crashed people's browsers.
I don't think it needed to be handled at all. We don't moderate any other spam in CN, despite it being full of it.
I'm sorry, I'm a little bit behind the curve on this one. Could someone please explain to me how a forum post could crash people's browsers? I'll admit that I'm asking this out of incredulity, but if it did indeed happen, then perhaps we should look for a technical solution instead of (or alongside) a social one. People shouldn't really have the ability to create posts that would cause that, so I'd be willing to consider that a bug.
Regardless though, can someone link some examples of the offending posts? I clicked around for a moment until my CN threshold was passed and didn't find anything overtly spam-like or "browser-crashing."
also, i don't get why we would want to protect to ability to spam nothing but endless rows of periods or equals signs or whatever in every single thread in cn.
it doesn't freeze my browser, but if half of the posts in a thread are nothing but literally hundreds of lines of dots and dashes, then i'm not going to ever check that thread again. or, you know, any other thread in a forum where every thread is just a bunch of dots and dashes for, again, literally hundreds and hundreds of lines.
i mean i do get that that's super funny!!!!!!! times lolololol lmao get it cause it's like lots of text rofl copter imo imo imo imho
... which dredges up the question of should admins be moderating?
also, i don't get why we would want to protect to ability to spam nothing but endless rows of periods or equals signs or whatever in every single thread in cn.
it doesn't freeze my browser, but if half of the posts in a thread are nothing but literally hundreds of lines of dots and dashes, then i'm not going to ever check that thread again. or, you know, any other thread in a forum where every thread is just a bunch of dots and dashes for, again, literally hundreds and hundreds of lines.
i mean i do get that that's super funny!!!!!!! times lolololol lmao get it cause it's like lots of text rofl copter imo imo imo imho
Moderating based on personal value judgments is literally the worst idea ever. Otherwise I would have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago because I find all of his posts annoying :^)
That said, it sounds to me like quite a few people here are missing the point of CN. As far as I understand, CN is quite literally the dumpster of FES. I would expect for actual discussions to take place in the Lounge.
This is everyone's community, and you should all have a say in how the forum should be run.
Restricting the font size is something we could definitely do in software. It would likely be more effective than having a rule.I like that idea then. The font sizes are really what got to me and I think what made it difficult to load a page.
That said, it sounds to me like quite a few people here are missing the point of CN. As far as I understand, CN is quite literally the dumpster of FES. I would expect for actual discussions to take place in the Lounge.
also, i don't get why we would want to protect to ability to spam nothing but endless rows of periods or equals signs or whatever in every single thread in cn.
it doesn't freeze my browser, but if half of the posts in a thread are nothing but literally hundreds of lines of dots and dashes, then i'm not going to ever check that thread again. or, you know, any other thread in a forum where every thread is just a bunch of dots and dashes for, again, literally hundreds and hundreds of lines.
i mean i do get that that's super funny!!!!!!! times lolololol lmao get it cause it's like lots of text rofl copter imo imo imo imho
Moderating based on personal value judgments is literally the worst idea ever. Otherwise I would have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago because I find all of his posts annoying :^)
I'm not really sure how what I said is any more or less of a personal value judgement than any of the other rules for posting that already exist. I'm not taking issue with the quality of the content. I'm saying that the content makes CN unreadable. That's a far cry from "I think Saddam should be banned because I find all of his posts annoying."
The posts kept me from checking anything in CN. I don't really mind when it's just random shit posting, but when it's that fucking gigantic and you can't see anything else without scrolling down forever... well, I really don't have the patience for it.
I enjoy dumpster diving every now and then for some hidden treasure. He made CN unenjoyable.
That's weird, I can read fe43's posts just fine. Perhaps the problem is on your end?
Perhaps a better way to express it would be to say that it affects the readability of the other posts in CN, many of which I enjoy reading. People make funny threads there with funny jokes and banter and all that. It's fun to read, and most of it is too shit-post-y for the Lounge. If those fun things to read are all intentionally buried under thousands and thousands of literally just punctuation, then they're no longer accessible/readable.
Yes, a thousand lines of equals signs is legible. Is that genuinely what you think I'm complaining about?
Perhaps a better way to express it would be to say that it affects the readability of the other posts in CN, many of which I enjoy reading. People make funny threads there with funny jokes and banter and all that. It's fun to read, and most of it is too shit-post-y for the Lounge. If those fun things to read are all intentionally buried under thousands and thousands of literally just punctuation, then they're no longer accessible/readable.
Yes, a thousand lines of equals signs is legible. Is that genuinely what you think I'm complaining about?
No, I get it. You are just complaining about quality of content, you're just rephrasing it to seem more rational.
Sorry, but "bawww the content I personally like is less easily accessible" is not a banworthy offense.
Perhaps a better way to express it would be to say that it affects the readability of the other posts in CN, many of which I enjoy reading. People make funny threads there with funny jokes and banter and all that. It's fun to read, and most of it is too shit-post-y for the Lounge. If those fun things to read are all intentionally buried under thousands and thousands of literally just punctuation, then they're no longer accessible/readable.
Yes, a thousand lines of equals signs is legible. Is that genuinely what you think I'm complaining about?
No, I get it. You are just complaining about quality of content, you're just rephrasing it to seem more rational.
Sorry, but "bawww the content I personally like is less easily accessible" is not a banworthy offense.
I don't know how I could be any more clear that I'm saying it's the quantity of the nonsensical content that ruins that entire sub-forum. If that sub-forum is meant to be read and engaged by the community at all, then a rule that maintains its accessibility to the community doesn't seem overbearing to me.
I'll try to be more clear: I think that fe43 posting 10 periods in every CN thread is fine. I think that fe43 posting 10,000 periods in the maximum font size makes the thread its in unreadable. Doing that in every CN thread makes CN unreadable.
The community seems to disagree. While it is a place for crap and derping out, people still want to be able to reasonably navigate it.I'm not trying to go against that. I'm merely voicing my views as part of the community. Perhaps I'll be able to convince some people to see things my way, perhaps I won't. In the end of the day, I have no intention of trying to force my views through. That said, I think it's a bit early to declare a community consensus just yet. The discussion is still very much alive, perhaps even heated.
The community seems to disagree. While it is a place for crap and derping out, people still want to be able to reasonably navigate it.I'm not trying to go against that. I'm merely voicing my views as part of the community. Perhaps I'll be able to convince some people to see things my way, perhaps I won't. In the end of the day, I have no intention of trying to force my views through. That said, I think it's a bit early to declare a community consensus just yet. The discussion is still very much alive, perhaps even heated.
I agree it is too early to make any final determinations. I honestly wish this discourse would've happened before. Then, perhaps, it could have been handled in a more universally agreeable way. If there is any good to come of it, at least people are talking now. I may be in the minority, but I would like to see Parsifal make a definitive rule on what CN is or is not after the discussions are over.We are largely in agreement, then.
As a side note: when his posts started annoying me, I just added him to my ignore list. That way I can still read them when I want to, but they're collapsed by default. I'm not trying to say that people should do that instead of suggesting rule changes, but I would like to remind people that this function exists and may be helpful in the future.I totally forgot that was an option. Thanks, buddy!
You only think that makes CN "unreadable" is because you *************personally************* do not enjoy the content fe43 puts out, and you ************personally************** do not believe his content matches the quality of content you expect from CN.
I'm merely voicing my views as part of the community. Perhaps I'll be able to convince some people to see things my way, perhaps I won't.
No. I'm not talking about how much I enjoy the content of fe43's posts. I'm saying that I think that it makes CN unreadable because having to scroll through endless pages of punctuation makes it prohibitively difficult to read any other posts in that forum. Huge image files that crash my browser make CN effectively off limits to me if that's something I can expect to happen with any regularity. I'm not talking about banning something that I didn't enjoy reading.
I'm expressing literally exactly what Rooster and Jura and Saddam and Junker already have. I'm unsure why only my expression of this opinion has drawn your ire.
As I mentioned before, I'm not really sure how what I said is any more or less of a personal value judgement than any of the other rules for posting that already exist.
Sure, I guess it's true that I'm expressing a ***personal preference*** against a single user being allowed to spam a whole sub-forum into irrelevance and functionally delete the posts of everyone else who tries to post there by making them inaccessible.
Why in the fuck, people are even allowed to post 99pt font posts is beyond me.I'm with you bro, hence my suggestion that we should fix that, instead of punishing individuals.
I mean, god damn. Thank christ SexWarrior is the voice of reason.Why in the fuck, people are even allowed to post 99pt font posts is beyond me.I'm with you bro, hence my suggestion that we should fix that, instead of punishing individuals.
Any one user of authority shouldn't be making judgments based on what personally annoys them, and that includes what they think CN should or should not be for.
Any one user of authority shouldn't be making judgments based on what personally annoys them, and that includes what they think CN should or should not be for.
I suppose it is a good thing that did not happen, then.
No. I'm not talking about how much I enjoy the content of fe43's posts. I'm saying that I think that it makes CN unreadable because having to scroll through endless pages of punctuation makes it prohibitively difficult to read any other posts in that forum. Huge image files that crash my browser make CN effectively off limits to me if that's something I can expect to happen with any regularity. I'm not talking about banning something that I didn't enjoy reading.
Any posts I don't enjoy make it prohibitively difficult to read posts I do enjoy.
The difference is that you agree to abide by forum rules when you post. You don't agree to abide by an individual user's personal inclinations. That is why I don't care for any of these "this is annoying so it should be banned" suggestions (specifically looking at you, Saddam). Any one user of authority shouldn't be making judgments based on what personally annoys them, and that includes what they think CN should or should not be for.
What do you mean by "a single user being allowed"? We're not prohibiting anyone else from spamming CN as well.
The difference is that you agree to abide by forum rules when you post. You don't agree to abide by an individual user's personal inclinations. That is why I don't care for any of these "this is annoying so it should be banned" suggestions (specifically looking at you, Saddam). Any one user of authority shouldn't be making judgments based on what personally annoys them, and that includes what they think CN should or should not be for.
I'm saying that I think it's unfair for any one user (or group of users, obviously) to get to decide what CN is for for all the other users, and that to me is effectively what happens when this sort of spamming occurs.
The difference is that you agree to abide by forum rules when you post. You don't agree to abide by an individual user's personal inclinations. That is why I don't care for any of these "this is annoying so it should be banned" suggestions (specifically looking at you, Saddam). Any one user of authority shouldn't be making judgments based on what personally annoys them, and that includes what they think CN should or should not be for.
You could use this logic to argue against changing the rules for anything, ever, or indeed even having rules at all. Not wanting NSFW material in the forum is a personal inclination. Not wanting insults and off-topic posting in the upper forums is a personal inclination. Not wanting adbots and spam is a personal inclination. Not wanting mods to have the authority to ban users and delete posts as they freely choose is a personal inclination. There are no rules that somehow transcend the personal and become objective judgments of inarguable facts. I'm not saying that the opinions of other people are irrelevant and that everyone should just do what I say, but arguing against an opinion simply because it's just that, an opinion, is a ridiculous stance to take.
I literally have no idea what any of what you said has anything to do with what I said. If a particular inclination were to be set up as a rule, it would be another thing users agree to abide by. Anything else would, of course, still be irrelevant.
Unless you're actually suggesting that your personal opinions should be made into rules? In which case, no.
I literally have no idea what any of what you said has anything to do with what I said. If a particular inclination were to be set up as a rule, it would be another thing users agree to abide by. Anything else would, of course, still be irrelevant.
Unless you're actually suggesting that your personal opinions should be made into rules? In which case, no.
Of course the community should agree with potential new rules. The whole point of making a discussion thread about an issue is to get the community talking about that issue. I didn't spell it out in the OP because I figured I wouldn't need to, but I suppose I was wrong. As I said, and I have no idea how you missed this point, I'm NOT arguing that everyone should just do what I say. I'm trying to persuade people, not command them.
I literally have no idea what any of what you said has anything to do with what I said. If a particular inclination were to be set up as a rule, it would be another thing users agree to abide by. Anything else would, of course, still be irrelevant.
Unless you're actually suggesting that your personal opinions should be made into rules? In which case, no.
You'll have to be more specific than that, and that's irrelevant to this thread. Reported for off-topic posting.
Does anyone have any views at all about my suggestion to resolve this problem through technical means, rather than with more restrictive rules? I genuinely can't see a downside, but everyone other than Parsifal (with whom I discussed this in person) seems to be completely ignoring that idea.
Sorry, was too busy replying to everyone else. I'm mostly fine with that idea, but what would it mean for people who want to occasionally post something in 99pt font in a non-spamming way?They'd probably be pretty upset. That said, I can't really think of a reason anyone would need something bigger than 30pt or 3em for a non-spam post. It pretty much already carries the message of "this font is supposed to be large", and is probably more than good enough for headers. Can you (or anyone else) think of a legitimate use for larger fonts?
Does anyone have any views at all about my suggestion to resolve this problem through technical means, rather than with more restrictive rules? I genuinely can't see a downside, but everyone other than Parsifal (with whom I discussed this in person) seems to be completely ignoring that idea.Well you know I like the idea.
As SexWarrior has mentioned, the ignore function would solve all the problems instantly.
If you don't want to scroll, put him in ignore.
Done.
Does anyone have any views at all about my suggestion to resolve this problem through technical means, rather than with more restrictive rules? I genuinely can't see a downside, but everyone other than Parsifal (with whom I discussed this in person) seems to be completely ignoring that idea.
Does anyone have any views at all about my suggestion to resolve this problem through technical means, rather than with more restrictive rules? I genuinely can't see a downside, but everyone other than Parsifal (with whom I discussed this in person) seems to be completely ignoring that idea.
w0w turns out you don't have to ban him to get him to stop spamming
w0w turns out you don't have to ban him to get him to stop spamming
But it isn't against the rules, so why the warning? I do appreciate you acting like this is the exact same scenario with the exact same set of circumstances, though.
While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto (http://forum.tfes.org/manifesto) already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:Quote6. Moderator discretion
There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.
No, but w0w literally the first reply of this thread:While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto (http://forum.tfes.org/manifesto) already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:Quote6. Moderator discretion
There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.
In any case, my point has never been that you can't step outside the rules, so I hope this isn't just a petty attempt at catching me committing to a double standard.
No, but w0w literally the first reply of this thread:While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto (http://forum.tfes.org/manifesto) already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:Quote6. Moderator discretion
There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.
In any case, my point has never been that you can't step outside the rules, so I hope this isn't just a petty attempt at catching me committing to a double standard.
I am not trying to catch you committing to anything. It just seems contradictory, that is all. A warning for something that isn't against the rules can lead to a ban for something that isn't against the rules. It takes a few steps to get there, but it isn't all that much different. I am legitimately trying to determine why your discretion would lead you to an action against your personal opinion about what CN is for, especially something that doesn't violate a rule.
Nothing contradictory about it. I had an issue with banning fe43 for something he couldn't have known was wrong. What I've done by warning him is letting him know what actions can lead to him getting banned, so he can stop doing said actions. As of right now he has, so I don't see how your claim that "it takes a few steps to get there" is correct in the slightest. I've stopped the "process" at step one without resorting to unfair punishments at all. See how easy that was?
I also have not voiced my opinions on what "CN is for" and it's not relevant in this case at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.
I don't think it needed to be handled at all. We don't moderate any other spam in CN, despite it being full of it.and
So his posts are like everything else in CN. w0w better ban everyone who posts there then
So to be clear: can I spam the fuck out of it again for a second warning? Or would I be banned? Furthermore, would the god damn motherfucking ban be temp or perma? FUCK!
Yes, he couldn't have possibly known it was wrong, gotcha. You let him know that actions that aren't against the rules can lead to a banning. You have "stopped" the process, yes, at least for now. The temporary ban he already received for for the exact same thing isn't encompassing of a warning to cease a behavior, only a warning achieves that. The claim of "a few steps" refers to a second warning, then a ban (per the rules) for a behavior that is not against the rules (in this case), if the behavior continues.
So to be clear: can I spam the fuck out of it again for a second warning? Or would I be banned? Furthermore, would the god damn motherfucking ban be temp or perma? FUCK!
If he does continue his behaviour, it would be with him knowing that said behaviour is banworthy, which wasn't the case with your ban. That's the difference and that's what matters.
Moderating based on personal value judgments is literally the worst idea ever.
I have nothing against discretion, I just want it to be fair and to allow users to know what to expect.
As for the thing about personal value judgments, I wasn't talking about them in that strict of a sense. I warned fe43 because people were reporting that his posts containing massive images were crashing their browsers, not because I personally found those posts annoying. In fact, my browser wouldn't even load the images so for my personal enjoyment I wouldn't have even cared.
So to be clear, can I continue to post 20,000 HR tags?
I'm using Edge and this policy sounds good to me.So to be clear, can I continue to post 20,000 HR tags?
Yes.