Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;48158188]I don't think they were removed, let me test quick.
Test.
^Added during an edit.
[editline]9th July 2015[/editline]
Huh, I suppose they are gone.[/QUOTE]
I thought edit messages were only timestamped after a certain time has passed after the post has been made?
[QUOTE=RejectedPost;48158210]Craptasket, you should probably define in no uncertain terms what a pointless or "low-content" post is. The thing is, people have always made "wow neat" and other short posts in SH so Sensationalist Headlines is going to be a meatgrinder for the next few days as people realise that all of a sudden that's banworthy.
It's critical that you're specific about what constitutes a pointless post in a way that people can't dispute. Right now you're being too brief and I suspect that the only way to learn is going to be to lurk and watch people get banned en-masse for seemingly innocent things.[/QUOTE]
Low content posts have always been bannable.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;48158207]So evidently removing ratings changed nothing about how people post in SH.
Just remove the subforum already, nobody is ever satisfied with it anyways.[/QUOTE]
Ratings haven't even been gone for a day yet.
[QUOTE=maxumym;48158214]I thought edit messages were only timestamped after a certain time has passed after the post has been made?[/QUOTE] That's what it use to do, now they don't show up at all.
[QUOTE=OvB;48158222]Low content posts have always been bannable.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but it's never exactly been common and it was always for the bottom rung "why reply"-tier posts.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;48158224]Ratings haven't even been gone for a day yet.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think we need at least a minimum of a week to see if the changes actually make any noticeable improvement on SH.
[QUOTE=OvB;48158222]Low content posts have always been bannable.[/QUOTE]
tif that's the case, the I don't think I've ever seen it enforced until now.
[QUOTE=RejectedPost;48158233]Well yeah, but it's never exactly been common and it was always for the bottom rung "why reply"-tier posts.[/QUOTE]
So because they weren't punished properly before, the mods should just stop caring?
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48158247]tif that's the case, the I don't think I've ever seen it enforced until now.[/QUOTE]
Haven't been watching too closely, then.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48158247]tif that's the case, the I don't think I've ever seen it enforced until now.[/QUOTE]
Easy to spot when it's a whole threads worth. They're not always reported and we can't see everything at all times.
If you post something like "cool" or "neat" You'll get banned and it's always been that way. You can still express your awe in short sentences that at least add a bit of content to the thread, but thoughtless one word posts are a bad idea.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;48158166]I banned him when it was unedited. He must have changed it as I was banning him. Wouldn't have mattered anyway.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe this one bit because of the "- and you knew it" bit of the ban reason.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48158247]tif that's the case, the I don't think I've ever seen it enforced until now.[/QUOTE]
Those were usually banned with a "Snipe" ban reason, if memory serves correctly.
Is there a changelog of bbcode tag removal somewhere? Because I always remember [sub] and [sup] working but now they don't seem to. Are we down to just [b][i][u] now?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48158281]Is there a changelog of bbcode tag removal somewhere? Because I always remember [sub] and [sup] working but now they don't seem to. Are we down to just [b][i][u] now?[/QUOTE]
I thought it had been like that for a while?
[QUOTE=OvB;48158262]Easy to spot when it's a whole threads worth. They're not always reported and we can't see everything at all times.
If you post something like "cool" or "neat" You'll get banned and it's always been that way. You can still express your awe in short sentences that at least add a bit of content to the thread, but thoughtless one word posts are a bad idea.[/QUOTE]
Nobody's defending pointless posts like that, everybody is just extremely worried that all short posts or short opinions are going to fall into an uncomfortably vague area of what does and does not count as a low-content post.
By all means go ahead and cut down the people who are just there to try to substitute their ratings with a post.
Why not make it so that only the OP can be rated in SH? I understand the whole point of ratings being removed is to prevent bandwagoning but that could help people see the popular opinion on a matter in which they may not ever have the chance to properly research.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;48158308]Why not make it so that only the OP can be rated in SH? I understand the whole point of ratings being removed is to prevent bandwagoning but that could help people see the popular opinion on a matter in which they may not ever have the chance to properly research.[/QUOTE]
This right here would probably solve the entire problem brought up, would do what he just said, and wouldn't do anything to get in the way of discussion like the mods have stated is the reason for the removal of ratings.
I'm not going to comment on the removal of ratings in SH, as that's now bannable. But I will say that I already see myself visiting the subforum not nearly as often before.
I didn't post often in SH but I would lurk quite a bit. A large part of the enjoyable experience was the hilarity of posts and their attributed ratings.
If I want plain discussion, I'll go to Reddit for my news. There's more content on different topics there anyway.
Moderation objectives in regards to rule enforcement are the same as they always have been. Banning single word replies and poimtless low content posts has always happened, will continue to happen, and will not be happening any more or less than it ever has unless there are suddenly more or less of these kinds of posts that need moderating. If you have been successfully posting without getting banned until now, you don't really have anything to worry about.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;48158254]So because they weren't punished properly before, the mods should just stop caring?[/QUOTE]
That's not at all what I'm saying. The point was that now that the rule is properly in effect and has been broadened, its scope should be clearly laid out.
I think I'm responding to this a little too late. In any case I think anybody with sense will be careful enough to avoid getting banned until things settle down.
In the end what it comes down to is one persons opinion on a subject trumps the entire communities opinion, we've know this for awhile and had to deal. Bitch and complain all you want but as long as starpluck is happy believing SH will actually be improved by this then it's simply not coming back.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;48158013]What makes this a bandwagon reply? He asked a legitimate question.
I think it's more power efficient
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This isn't the place to discuss bans" - Starpluck))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?
[editline]
[/editline]
And actually, I've seen a lot of posts made like the one above WITHOUT an accompanying ban. Seems like a half-implemented rule?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48158330]Moderation objectives in regards to rule enforcement are the same as they always have been. Banning single word replies and poimtless low content posts has always happened, will continue to happen, and will not be happening any more or less than it ever has unless there are suddenly more or less of these kinds of posts that need moderating. If you have been successfully posting without getting banned until now, you don't really have anything to worry about.[/QUOTE]
The thread is a perfect example of an outcome from the removal of ratings, I think that is what people are stirred up about. This wouldn't have been a problem otherwise.
[QUOTE=jetboy;48158371]I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?[/QUOTE]
This can be easily solved with a "Ban discussion thread"
[QUOTE=jetboy;48158371]I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?[/QUOTE]
PMs, RC
[QUOTE=jetboy;48158371]I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?[/QUOTE]
It is actually pretty unclear where you should discuss a ban. I don't think it should be in the originating thread because it's off topic, but maybe there should be some section made to discuss a certain person's ban reason? Or does the RC already cover that even though only the banned person and moderators can talk?
[QUOTE=paul simon;48158395]This can be easily solved with a "Ban discussion thread"[/QUOTE]
Or the return of "ask us about the forums".
[QUOTE=jetboy;48158371]I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?
[editline]
[/editline]
And actually, I've seen a lot of posts made like the one above WITHOUT an accompanying ban. Seems like a half-implemented rule?[/QUOTE]
We do not allow discussion of bans or other meta-administrative actions in a focused topic. For that — we have the refugee camp.
[QUOTE=jetboy;48158371]I'd also like to ask a question about that. Where exactly is the place to discuss bans if not in the originating thread?
[editline]
[/editline]
And actually, I've seen a lot of posts made like the one above WITHOUT an accompanying ban. Seems like a half-implemented rule?[/QUOTE]
Look at any popular thread and you will see people breaking rules and not getting banned. You should know that shit flies under the radar occasionally.
Edit: Literally if you want to make Facepunch better and have rules be implemented more extensively, report more posts. Doesn't matter which reason you pick as long as you pick something.
[QUOTE=RejectedPost;48158358]That's not at all what I'm saying. The point was that now that the rule is properly in effect and has been broadened, its scope should be clearly laid out.
I think I'm responding to this a little too late. In any case I think anybody with sense will be careful enough to avoid getting banned until things settle down.[/QUOTE]
The rule has always been properly in effect. It hasn't been broadened. It's exactly the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.