Forum Discussion v6 - Newpunch Migration Underway - General

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;53082000]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.[/QUOTE] uhhh are you referring to the car crash that literally killed a protestor?? because again remember this discussion is about what's suited to be posted in a thread called "[B]LMAO Pics[/B]". Obviously some goof ball trying to do a train track selfie and instead gettin non-seriously bonked by a slow moving train would qualify, whereas an image of the moment a car collided into a group of protestors and ultimately killed someone obviously wouldn't for several hopefully obvious reasons...

[QUOTE=The golden;53081890]Honestly I don't see a point in reporting. It's just not worth the risk. Maybe if the report box had an option to write in your own reasoning but it doesn't so whether or not you get banned is largely a gamble as it's down to how a mod interprets your vague report. I simply just don't do it anymore and I know I'm not the only one.[/QUOTE] there is no risk unless you're a jackass about it. my only qualm with the report system is that spam, warez, and flaming/trolling aren't always adequate as the only options. a textbox would do better. I remember several situations where I've reported posts and it wasn't really something that fit cleanly in those options so I just either moved on or clicked spam or trolling. there was also a spambot somewhat recently where I felt I had to post about it in this thread (a previous version i think) rather than reporting it because they were copying older posts from the threads to boost their post count, presumably before posting links to sketchyrussianlink.com

[QUOTE=butre;53082019]there is no risk unless you're a jackass about it. [/QUOTE] I was just banned and unbanned for a report that was deemed "shit" (and then not) so clearly this isn't the case lol

[QUOTE=Quark:;53082038]I was just banned and unbanned for a report that was deemed "shit" (and then not) so clearly this isn't the case lol[/QUOTE] there's currently some confusion about driveby shitposts as a rule. it's not yet a bannable offense and they're not doing retroactive bans for it. you reported something that wasn't against the rules.

[QUOTE=postal;53082014]uhhh are you referring to the car crash that literally killed a protestor?? because again remember this discussion is about what's suited to be posted in a thread called "[B]LMAO Pics[/B]". Obviously some goof ball trying to do a train track selfie and instead gettin non-seriously bonked by a slow moving train would qualify, whereas an image of the moment a car collided into a group of protestors and ultimately killed someone obviously wouldn't for several hopefully obvious reasons...[/QUOTE] The image isn't the protestor that was killed but yes. Also it wasn't a crash it was a collision with people.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;53082129]The image isn't the protestor that was killed but yes. Also it wasn't a crash it was a collision with people.[/QUOTE] Ok well it's still an image of a fatal incident even if it doesn't clearly show the person that died and obviously it isn't meant to be funny anyways so again, why are you bringing it up in a discussion about what's acceptable in LMAO pics? You're looking at only half the issue here so idk what point it is you think you're making. also "it wasn't a crash it was a collision with people." there's loads of news articles that used the word crash or even straight up call it [url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-car-crash-suspect-idd/index.html]a car crash[/url] lol but holy moly this is a dumb thing to argue over. are you just bored or what

Is the title of this [URL="https://www.axios.com/workers-automation-lost-jobs-skills-2d944533-3f51-40ee-b2c0-b65e4644a9db.html"]article[/URL] ok or is it too sensationalist?

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53082337]Is the title of this [URL="https://www.axios.com/workers-automation-lost-jobs-skills-2d944533-3f51-40ee-b2c0-b65e4644a9db.html"]article[/URL] ok or is it too sensationalist?[/QUOTE] Seems the bigger issue is that it's not very descriptive.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53082350]Seems the bigger issue is that it's not very descriptive.[/QUOTE] There's more content if you hit show more, but the article is a bit light. edit: oops you must have been referring to the title

So I am going to try to be vague on this as to not make any callouts, but the situation I am wondering about is this: Someone makes a post in a thread making a false statement, one that is easily verifiable with literally seconds of Google. I reply back with a valid source, stating that what they said was false. They then rate the correcting post dumb and don't rebut or continue the conversation otherwise. Would this fall under the umbrella of drive-by shitposting we discussed earlier in this thread? (I'm not trying to emphasis the rating as the point of this question, but rather someone blatantly disregarding a factual correction)

The rating acknowledges that they read your post at the very least and didn't bother to respond, instead resorting to rating you dumb and not responding. I would consider it to be at least similar to drive-by shitposting

If you reduce someone that is wrong to just them rating you dumb & ditching the argument, you have won. You and those that agree with the truth, and heck everything else about the thread will continue on. That shame is far more than having to ban them.

Question: the user Mud is banned but I don’t see anything in the event log [editline]25th January 2018[/editline] [t]https://i.imgur.com/RJaYM9d.png[/t] [t]https://i.imgur.com/pr1Nehu.png[/t] Swear on me feckin' mum I ain't lying

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53082568]Question: the user Mud is banned but I don’t see anything in the event log [editline]25th January 2018[/editline] [t]https://i.imgur.com/RJaYM9d.png[/t] [t]https://i.imgur.com/pr1Nehu.png[/t] Swear on me feckin' mum I ain't lying[/QUOTE] Deep State ban. Please roll onto your stomach with your hands at your side while you are retrieved. [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Craptasket;53082536]If you reduce someone that is wrong to just them rating you dumb & ditching the argument, you have won. You and those that agree with the truth, and heck everything else about the thread will continue on. That shame is far more than having to ban them.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. It was nothing major, just seemed like a rather weaselly way out of confrontation.

[QUOTE=The golden;53081890]Honestly I don't see a point in reporting. It's just not worth the risk. Maybe if the report box had an option to write in your own reasoning but it doesn't so whether or not you get banned is largely a gamble as it's down to how a mod interprets your vague report. I simply just don't do it anymore and I know I'm not the only one.[/QUOTE] As I said above, the only time you could possibly get banned for a report is either abusing or being extremely dumb with it. We will not punish for a well-intentioned report that you thought was a good idea to have a mod look at, irregardless of whether or not it actually breaks any rules. Not reporting bad posts at all, because you fear you might "risk" losing your account for 12 hours, is irresponsible and makes our jobs alot harder.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53082568]Question: the user Mud is banned but I don’t see anything in the event log [editline]25th January 2018[/editline] Swear on me feckin' mum I ain't lying[/QUOTE] Extenuating circumstances. Mud's aware of why, so don't worry.

[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53082646]As I said above, the only time you could possibly get banned for a report is either abusing or being extremely dumb with it. We will not punish for a well-intentioned report that you thought was a good idea to have a mod look at, irregardless of whether or not it actually breaks any rules. Not reporting bad posts at all, because you fear you might "risk" losing your account for 12 hours, is irresponsible and makes our jobs alot harder.[/QUOTE] Obviously it's not abusive or dumb if you get unbanned though which is kinda the whole point of the conversation?

[QUOTE=The golden;53081890]Honestly I don't see a point in reporting. It's just not worth the risk. Maybe if the report box had an option to write in your own reasoning but it doesn't so whether or not you get banned is largely a gamble as it's down to how a mod interprets your vague report. I simply just don't do it anymore and I know I'm not the only one.[/QUOTE]Eh, just hit me up on Discord (if i'm online) if you're that terrified of the report button.

reporting is for snitches and you know what snitches get? stitches :payne:

[QUOTE=Clovis;53082717]This is absolute fucking bullshit and you all know it[/QUOTE] Can you provide a source?

Who'd have thought that the charts from before would be following through right now.

[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53082646]As I said above, the only time you could possibly get banned for a report is either abusing or being extremely dumb with it. We will not punish for a well-intentioned report that you thought was a good idea to have a mod look at, irregardless of whether or not it actually breaks any rules. Not reporting bad posts at all, because you fear you might "risk" losing your account for 12 hours, is irresponsible and makes our jobs alot harder.[/QUOTE] Ok but several people have already been banned for "shit reports", when the post that was reported was [i]maybe probably[/i] bannable, and even if it wasn't bannable, definitely counts as a well-intentioned report. I appreciate what you're trying to say here, but that's simply not how it's been enforced so far.

Here's something to note: bans are reversible if it turns out a report was valid. So. Y'know. It's not as huge a deal as some of you guys are making it. Not worth having a panic attack over. Use the report feature if you need to.

[QUOTE=Pascall;53082725]Here's something to note: bans are reversible if it turns out a report was valid. So. Y'know. It's not as huge a deal as some of you guys are making it. Not worth having a panic attack over. Use the report feature if you need to.[/QUOTE] It's definitely not a huge deal, but if I had to choose between having my account banned for 2 hours and then unbanned, and just not reporting anything and not getting banned at all, I (And I think a lot of other people) would choose the latter. It's not something that a ton of deliberation goes into, people just don't want to risk the hassle in the first place.

Source? Hello?

[QUOTE=Clovis;53082734]The amount of 'shit reports' i see in event log immediately followed by 'reduced' its far bigger than it should be, I mean it really should be 0 optimally. It just tells me you guys are like 'haha wow what a useless report' and then after someone appeals youre like 'oh we fucked up' then its like did you even look at the context of the report in the first place?[/QUOTE] We have had four bans for shit reports in the last two months (possibly even longer, thats just how far back the current event log goes), two of which received unbans for the same instance. You are blowing this way out of proportion and are making it out to be a much bigger issue than it is in reality. Would that one single incident ideally have been avoided? Yea maybe, but we are only human and make mistakes too. Fact is, reporting posts doesn't nearly put you at risk as much as you are making it out to be, and you aren't as good at reading the moderator's minds as you think you are.

[QUOTE=Craptasket;53082745]Source? Hello?[/QUOTE] [img]https://i.imgur.com/mlxfW0b.png[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/gw5bB1c.png[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/bkkYfta.png[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/JvVFYGs.png[/img] Granted the two for myself and The golden are a few months old but this is kinda the point people are trying to make. I'm only aware of two more shit report bans off the top of my head, made around the same time as Quark: and PsiSoldiers' bans, and those are also the only two I'm aware of that didn't get reversed. That's a 2/3rds unban rate which seems way over the top. Also noticed while gathering these screenshots that this seems to happen most often with UncleJimmema so perhaps it's primarily an issue regarding the one mod?

a little more of this: [QUOTE=Reagy;52483983][B]If you put in a shit report I'm going to ask you for a reason for why you reported it[/B] from now on, and I'm going to expect a response from it. If you can't come up with a good enough reason other than "I disliked it", you might want to rethink before reporting[/QUOTE] would go a long way. the only people who would be banned are those with legitimately shit reasoning, nobody would be discouraged from reporting shit content, everyone lives happily ever after.

I'm really curious to know which posts are being reported that lead to the "shit report" bans. That would give a lot of clarification.

[QUOTE=Bertie;53082845]I'm really curious to know which posts are being reported that lead to the "shit report" bans. That would give a lot of clarification.[/QUOTE] If its anything like before, its normally people reporting stuff because they purely don't agree with it and it doesn't actually violate the rules (also people reporting Garry posts from like 2011 because lolfunny). But going off whats pulled up before, the concept of what applies as a shit report looks to be a bit mixed. Maybe this could be discussed and cleared up?