Deleter wrote:Sometimes it only takes one sentence to dispense the wisdom the forum needs
Arckas wrote:Deleter wrote:Sometimes it only takes one sentence to dispense the wisdom the forum needs
Those types of thing would be more low quality, rather then starting a flame war. If someone going to post "I agree" they may as well not post at all.
quality poster1: [insert big opinion]
Shitposter 1: [quoteof qualitly poster]This role would make the game unbalanced[endquote]
Shitposter 2: [insert dvideo of unbalanced] [insert bad pun that its unbalanced]
Shitposter 3: Makes random pun because the other person did
Quality poster 2: Stop shit posting
Shitposter 2: Were not shit posting
REPEAT
UnknownH wrote:Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the situation, but considering what's causing the problem primarily is the fact that people want to raise their post count, why not just change the "reward" of the forums?
Many people see a large post count as a way to become important. Why not add some other features to the forums? Forum Mafia flairs, donor flairs, among other contests held on the forums could instead become mini badges, or awards, shown underneath the PM icon (there is a lot of unused space there!).
You could also consider adding a like feature to the forums where you can like a certain topic or response, and that will be tallied on the poster's profile page, which will encourage people to make quality posts and responses. In addition this this, keep the Trusted Users group, because it's (usually) a good indicator whether a person makes quality posts, but make the upsides to being a Trusted User less. If people want the ability to post images on the forums, they'll want to post more, so change the reward of using the image BBCode to something else.
Hope my ideas weren't too far fetched.
Deleter wrote:Sometimes it only takes one sentence to dispense the wisdom the forum needs
Gobln wrote:Its really not that big of a deal.
Arckas wrote:Deleter wrote:Sometimes it only takes one sentence to dispense the wisdom the forum needs
Those types of thing would be more low quality, rather then starting a flame war. If someone going to post "I agree" they may as well not post at all.
Due to the nature of Reporting sections, that board is more prone to starting fights. Wether it be because of a false report or a breakout between if something is wrong or not, it stopped (somewhat) as the rule was implemented. Its understandable that is letting bad apples ruin the bunch, but when it keep happening and things start getting out of hand, it just needs a change.
Rule remain as it is for now, perhaps with small changes as time passes and perhaps with the rule getting lax. Perhaps it may be lifted, but not unless under more supervision.
parkerparkour wrote:How about we work on the low quality player community first
Arckas wrote:So when you have people trying to justify and explain the logistics of why shit-posting is beneficial, then you have the problem and the reason for it, which I'm starting to now see why we need more enforced rules.
From experience, there is nothing in the game, no feature that can be added, to better the community other then the community. Reporting system will only take away people who are toxic; reporting won't take away new players. If were looking at the forums for any changes, I doubt there is going to be a lack of new players posting strategies. Even more, if I were to make a hypothesis. The community itself has to do the heavy lifting here. Like any MMO, the community is a major part of the game. What better way to better the community then the community itself.
Nellyfox wrote:That would only work if TurdPile was willing to do that. But honestly if people just post a bunch of low quality posts constantly then you can report them for spam.
Mroz4k wrote:Nellyfox wrote:That would only work if TurdPile was willing to do that. But honestly if people just post a bunch of low quality posts constantly then you can report them for spam.
I believe that is how its working, is it not? But even if it does, what happens?
If they do spam, then they get reported, then they get the warning, and continue doing it anyways.
I dont think the warnings do all that much because some people think they can do whatever they want, and I dont recall there being too many people actually banned for spamming.
I consider pernament ban to be a bit too much - it would turn into limiting the freedom of speech kind of thing.
But removing their benefits by taking away their Trusted User status and putting them back to almost square one would seem to be a pretty serious, but fair punishment.
Maybe then some Members would learn to respect the rules, by getting squashed by them.
Nellyfox wrote:Nobody gets banned for spam because not many people do it and as the rule states we're pretty lenient with it to begin with. Because really, where do you draw the line ?
If people disregard their warnings and continue their behaviour then they get more warnings until they're banned. It may be a long process, but it can happen.
Where did you get the idea that we permanently ban people for spam ? Permanent bans are usually only give out to trolls/bots, rule breaking first posts, and if you're a long time trouble maker. Honestly if you went so far to get 3 warnings for spam I'd start you off with a week ban.
Nellyfox wrote:Bots/trolls aside don't think anyone has been banned for spamming. And if that happened before the entire forums were banned, since the bans were wiped I guess everyone got another chance ? Not sure. And you know, the last time we were pretty strict on rules, well you know how that went. :s
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests