So on Newpunch there are a bunch of threads in GD that were deleted, related to piracy. I can't open the post itself, but I can still see the title. Is there any means to actually get rid of the title entirely, or could I just name a post "GO TO STOLENYIFF.RU NOW" and it'd be stuck there forever until it eventually gets consumed by other threads constantly updating?
[QUOTE=JerryAnderson;53079324]So on Newpunch there are a bunch of threads in GD that were deleted, related to piracy. I can't open the post itself, but I can still see the title. Is there any means to actually get rid of the title entirely, or could I just name a post "GO TO STOLENYIFF.RU NOW" and it'd be stuck there forever until it eventually gets consumed by other threads constantly updating?[/QUOTE]
As far as I'm aware, proper moderation tools are still yet to be developed
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53079186]Should there be a Mueller investigation megathread? Things could come to a head soon.[/QUOTE]
megathreads are great for games and other enjoyable topics that you love to check in on to see the new couple posts, maybe a new page when cool stuff happens, once every day to couple of days.
Hard news, let alone something as individually newsworthy as all of these new mueller threads, is less the kind of important info I want on page 183 of a megathread that runs dozens of pages at a time when things happen and I have no idea what I'm looking at without devoting several hours to sifting through reaction posts for new information. These threads get muddied in their own debates and derailments, don't need that multiplied
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53078374]Yeah, this is my line of thinking about this.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/qfs7jSK.png[/t][/QUOTE]
as someone who learned proper chart technique in a university this image gave me cancer
here u go:
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/cwVtdo2.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=meppers;53079692]as someone who learned proper chart technique in a university this image gave me cancer[/QUOTE]
Alright tough guy.
hold my beer
[t]https://i.imgur.com/XVOt0Ug.png[/t]
This incentivises trolls to hijack threads by latching onto minor side points people say with intent of making it go off topic so people get banned.
You're trying to fight trolls, but instead you give trolls a way to get people banned.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53079914]This incentivises trolls to hijack threads by latching onto minor side points people say with intent of making it go off topic so people get banned.
You're trying to fight trolls, but instead you give trolls a way to get people banned.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure you can make that fall under thread derailing and nip it in the bud.
I think you should just be expected to continue discussion and answer questions if any, the problem here isn't sources, but just 1 post derailing a thread without ever responding, a "trusted" source to you is a shit source for someone else
make a wild claim fine, but when half the people reading point out that you are wrong or that what you said isn't mentioned anywhere, atleast acknowledge it, "my mistake" or "it's just what i suspect" is something at least
[QUOTE=Nebrassy;53079987]a "trusted" source to you is a shit source for someone else[/QUOTE]
It's a good thing we have established rules on what an acceptable source is then, isn't it?
[QUOTE=JerryAnderson;53079324]So on Newpunch there are a bunch of threads in GD that were deleted, related to piracy. I can't open the post itself, but I can still see the title. Is there any means to actually get rid of the title entirely, or could I just name a post "GO TO STOLENYIFF.RU NOW" and it'd be stuck there forever until it eventually gets consumed by other threads constantly updating?[/QUOTE]Wait, regular blues can see deleted threads there?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53079914]This incentivises trolls to hijack threads by latching onto minor side points people say with intent of making it go off topic so people get banned.
You're trying to fight trolls, but instead you give trolls a way to get people banned.[/QUOTE]
i believe the latest update to the Facepunch ModAI gave them the ability to gather and understand context
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53080137]i believe the latest update to the Facepunch ModAI gave them the ability to gather and understand context[/QUOTE]
If so, why do we need the rule? If context is clear then its clear the person is trolling and they could be banned without a rule
[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53080173]You can not test nor define common sense. If you could there would be a common sense rule list.
If we were to define the rules and bans in a SMART manner a lot of discussion could be avoided since you could just point to them.
By now with all the bans dealt we could compile a list like this, only I think it would be pretty massive and of course it would take a few hours of revising. Maybe we could just get a start on it using git to keep track and make pull requests of the rules to improve and set clear guidelines?
Or maybe I'm just missing the point and over thinking the whole discussion.[/QUOTE]
We should make an ai, feed it a load of shitposts so it knows what to look for and use that to moderate polidicks
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53080179]We should make an ai, feed it a load of shitposts so it knows what to look for and use that to moderate polidicks[/QUOTE]
I'd rather unleash it on social media sites in general if it ends up being good at it.
[QUOTE=Van-man;53080193]I'd rather unleash it on social media sites in general if it ends up being good at it.[/QUOTE]
Some people just want to watch the world burn
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;53080119]Wait, regular blues can see deleted threads there?[/QUOTE]
Yup, I'm a blue and I can see all the movie spam threads in GD.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53079914]You're trying to fight trolls, but instead you give trolls a way to get people banned.[/QUOTE]
This already happens but we're not allowed to talk about it.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53080166]If so, why do we need the rule? If context is clear then its clear the person is trolling and they could be banned without a rule[/QUOTE]
Because we don't.
Chonch knew what he was doing and is only complaining about it because he got caught with his pants down.
Can we either stop putting BREAKING!!!!!! in titles or start removing it when the story is no longer breaking? I keep clicking on "BREAKING: Senate..." from the front page and it's been the same thread for the past 3 days :v:
yea just need to remove them after like a day. feel free to link them here when it's no longer a breaking story and we can remove it
[editline]25th January 2018[/editline]
fixed that one btw
So what's the policy on reporting? Reporting a post judged to be innocent seems to be a bannable offense now, so why would anybody ever report?
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53081445]So what's the policy on reporting? Reporting a post judged to be innocent seems to be a bannable offense now, so why would anybody ever report?[/QUOTE]
Reports are only bannable if we feel you are taking the piss with it or just reporting posts you personally disagree with. If you genuinely had the impression that a post was ban-worthy for whatever reason, chances are we will leave you alone, no matter the actual judgement on it, perhaps we will ask you for the reason if we need clarification.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53081445]So what's the policy on reporting? Reporting a post judged to be innocent seems to be a bannable offense now, so why would anybody ever report?[/QUOTE]
afaik it's just if you clog up the report queue with a ton of frivolous shit. I report posts every once in a while that end up not being ban worthy according to the mods and have never been banned for it, and "things I haven't been banned for" is a very short list
little confused here: someone posted a video on lmao pics that was literally just someone getting hit by a train and they didn't get banned. i dont really see the "lmao" part of being hit by a train nor did most anyone else who saw the post. So, are we allowed to post videos and pics of various degrees of injuries without even nsfw tags?
[editline]25th January 2018[/editline]
because im down for more world star and liveleak clips, would love to know what these rules are about if getting hit by a train is good enough humor.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53081733]little confused here: someone posted a video on lmao pics that was literally just someone getting hit by a train and they didn't get banned. i dont really see the "lmao" part of being hit by a train nor did most anyone else who saw the post. So, are we allowed to post videos and pics of various degrees of injuries without even nsfw tags?
[editline]25th January 2018[/editline]
because im down for more world star and liveleak clips, would love to know what these rules are about if getting hit by a train is good enough humor.[/QUOTE]
The humor comes from his utter obliviousness while filming a selfie in front of an incoming train, his smile totally sold it. I imagine if it was literally just raw footage of someone getting hit by a train it wouldn't fall under "Humor" the way that video did.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;53081798]The humor comes from his utter obliviousness while filming a selfie in front of an incoming train, his smile totally sold it. I imagine if it was literally just raw footage of someone getting hit by a train it wouldn't fall under "Humor" the way that video did.[/QUOTE]
so videos where stupid people get hurt are okay? where they didnt know they would get hurt, that's ok somehow? i guess that's "humor"? imagine all the shit you can post following this logic, or just the logic that getting hit by a train is "funny" alone.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53081800]so videos where stupid people get hurt are okay? where they didnt know they would get hurt, that's ok somehow?[/QUOTE]
Dude I'm not judging the moral ramifications of laughing at a video of someone getting hurt, I'm saying that his optimistic obliviousness was the "funny" part which is why it could reasonably be on lmao pics, whereas for example a video of a woman falling over onto some tracks would be much harder to argue has comedic value.
Edit
Also for anyone unfamiliar with the video, it's important to note that there's no gore or anything and he only suffered minor injuries. The two of us aren't talking about an unintentional death right now :v:
The dude didn't die and the video had no gore or anything gross in it.
It was fine.
We usually remove stuff that has gore, blood, excessive injury (broken bones/other visible physical injuries), or death.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53079883]Alright tough guy.
hold my beer
[t]https://i.imgur.com/XVOt0Ug.png[/t][/QUOTE]
This should genuinely replace the "rules" section
[QUOTE=Pascall;53081847]The dude didn't die and the video had no gore or anything gross in it.
It was fine.
We usually remove stuff that has gore, blood, excessive injury (broken bones/other visible physical injuries), or death.[/QUOTE]
Different websites, different staff and whatnot but I I'm staff on a site and by that logic the image of the guy getting hit by the car in the Charlotteville riot would be fine to post. (By this I mean the "no gore or visible injury) bit) and that was classed as NSFW.
Although you could argue it's different because it was violence VS. someone doing it intentionally.
Just thought I'd share my two cents on that thought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion v6 - Newpunch Migration Underway
