References are only funny when the news itself is funny or exciting. I mean if there's no arguing in the thread because everyone is unanimously happy with the news, then why not give some room for jokes?
Payday references weren't even the thing that set the ball rolling. Remember the idiots who would go into threads about Ukraine and post the intro to Fallout 3 as if it had some spiritual connection to the tragedy at hand?
I don't think making jokes should be inherently bannable, maybe on occasion depending on the nature of it, how much it relates to what the article's actually about, and how people react to it, but not by default.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;47029795]Eh depends, 99% of the time I would say no, but the guy getting banned for saying something about Payday 2 when the robber was wearing a fucking official payday mask was retarded.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that was me, so long goal of never getting banned. I will admit that I technically did break the rules on that one. But the thing is I hardly visit or even post in SH. So when the rules get changed I do not know and there is next to no fan-fare when rules for a board are changed other than editing the title of the rules section that you look at once then have no reason to look at them again.
References or jokes should be fine in threads with non serious or ridiculously silly subjects. More serious topics that actually warrant discussion is no place for it.
but then posts like [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099]this[/url] wouldn't have been allowed
Although seriously, I don't think a blanket ban is very appropriate or useful. There's obviously (and unavoidably) low quality reference posts, but sometimes, references are what people want to talk about. If any rule were to be enforced, it would have to be situational and subjective. It'd be understandable to want to ban references in threads with serious dialogue (e.g. on economics or politics), but there's also plenty of news that's only interesting in the context of references, and can hardly be written off as low quality. I feel that banning all references (and essentially a lot of news) goes against the spirit of SH.
I only do references where it would seem appropriate and not totally forced. For example, I referenced Grand Theft Auto in the news threads about the porn star reality show, and the Fleshlight iPad case, because both of them have shown up in the games long before either had existed in reality. They were pure coincidences.
fuck no
video game references have made SH worse, on top of right wing extremist and islamophobes who plague threads constantly saying why Muslim and immigration is terrible and oh god mum forgot to cook dinner on time AGAIN
i dont want to read about your dumb epic payday 2 zingers, or how its relatable to your favourite ghastly awful anime
this experimental rule is fantastic and fine
the only time I think it's okay is when it's painfully relevant
for example if some guy with a payday mask robs a store crack as many jokes as you want
but if some guy just robs a store and people are screaming "LOL PAYDAY" then it should be bannable
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47030964]the only time I think it's okay is when it's painfully relevant
for example if some guy with a payday mask robs a store crack as many jokes as you want
but if some guy just robs a store and people are screaming "LOL PAYDAY" then it should be bannable[/QUOTE]
even if its relevant, SH still finds a way to overblow it into a cancerous free-for-all
[QUOTE=corkscrew_1;47030872]but then posts like [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099"]this[/URL] wouldn't have been allowed[/QUOTE]
You can still do them, you'll just get banned for it.
Just like people who know not to flame another member or derail a thread but still do it anyway!
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47030975]even if its relevant, SH still finds a way to overblow it into a cancerous free-for-all[/QUOTE]
honestly what else are people going to talk about
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448413[/url]
virtually every single post in this thread is about payday except for 2 (where are the bans for the rest?). one was about steveuk's reactionary moderating skills and another was about some other reference involving a video
if you can't talk about payday in a thread that's practically about payday then there is no point to the thread
If you blanket ban reference posts you're going to miss out on relevant, smart and funny references which are a good thing and don't harm the conversation. It's not dumb joke posts that are the problem, it's dumb posters.
Why not just ban people for being dumb? Kind of like smartness, but instead of variable ban lengths just have a specific ban length for dumb posts. First dumb post is a day, if you get banned again for being dumb shortly after you get a longer ban, et cetera. If you go a while without being dumb your dumb ban length gets reset to a lower amount. Of course if someone is incredibly dumb in a single post a mod could override the ban length.
If the argument is that joke posts take up space in the conversation or are an eyesore to see, then there's plenty more chaff posts that are more of an issue. If you look at a thread about someone who died, basically all of the posts are the same "I feel sorry for the family/victim" or something derivative of that for a ton of pages. There could be one post saying that and everyone could rate agree and the thread wouldn't be more than a post or two long, but everyone regurgitates the same sentiment. Threads like "somebody died by a shooter" turn into gun debates, lasting for pages upon pages of the exact same arguments with the exact same people. In vaccination threads there's one dumb poster saying he's anti-vax and the rest of the thread is people saying the same shit: he's a retard. Maybe one or two posts will use facts to argue he's a retard, but most of the posts say the same shit. Occasionally in these threads someone will have a relevant personal anecdote but that's usually one person per thread.
There's more chaff posts from people reacting to a dumb post, or saying the exact same shit stated in the thread earlier, than the amount of dumb posts there are in total.
I don't see how well done reference posts could be a problem.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;47029698]After take a look at this thread:
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448334[/url]
It was clear things were getting out of hand to me. Seems silly to ban people for referencing games on a largely gaming-based forum, regardless of subforum.[/QUOTE]
That was abysmal to read. Like half the thread is just ""*picture/video* it's like this thing guys!" then people got all shitty when they got banned. What do those contribute exactly? If someone makes an effort to discuss the topic after posting the picture, why not just do that in the first place without the picture? Is it really that necessary?
I sometimes laugh at them, but when a large part of a thread is stupid references and then gets rightfully cleaned out, how is that things getting out of hand exactly? Especially when the rule has existed for a while now, people have been banned for it, yet a large percentage of a thread decides to do it anyway.
To reiterate what I said earlier, As long as a reference isn't in bad taste or just plain massively insensitive, it should be fun, as long as its not just "huehueheuhueheuheu references" and is actually clever in some way.
SH is getting awfully boring. No references, no puns, no fun allowed.
Might as well disable comments altogether.
sh without posts doesnt sound all that bad considering how many of them are shit
Remember SH is now serious fucking business, no fun allowed what so ever, after all there are the brightest mind the internet has to offer at work.
We're a [I]video game forum[/I] after all, we're the tough fucking shit.
whats the point of the "Depends on the situation" option
it basically means you can post a reference and depending on the mood of the mod and their interpretation of how relevant it is you might get banned or you might not
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47029836]First off, lemme thank you for finally taking some initiative to discuss this in the proper environment, meaning [I]not[/I] in an active thread, where discussing the rules is going to do nothing but derail it.
This "reference" thing is a new rule that we're still experimenting with. It [I]is[/I] currently a rule, so I have been enforcing it when I see it broken. Feedback like this could be pretty helpful in determining exactly where we're going to take that rule, however, because we're still figuring it out on our end, too. As long as you keep it civil and on track, I'm personally okay with this thread being open.[/QUOTE]
I think references should be allowed if the reference is related to the article. The Payday 2 reference for example, that's just a bit [I]overkill[/I][sp]AHAHAHAH[/sp] to ban for that in my opinion
It's a video game forum, why can't we just have some fun and poke at things when they remind us of those?
Still, some dude going "lol he noscoped the father of 4 kids lol rekt CS:GO ftw xddd" is not cool, but when something sounds exactly like the plot of a movie or a game, why can't we poke a little fun at things?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47033589]SH is getting awfully boring. No references, no puns, no fun allowed.
Might as well disable comments altogether.[/QUOTE]
if you consider that "fun" maybe the news subforum isn't the place to be
They shouldn't
I think a blanket ban isn't that great, if an article concerns a game references should at least be allowed there. Such as burglars with payday masks or the sonic drowning post.
In other threads where the references don't really correlate, I'd be ok if they were banned, as they usually derail the thread to something completely unrelated.
No fun allowed
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47033589]SH is getting awfully boring. No references, no puns, no fun allowed.
Might as well disable comments altogether.[/QUOTE]
Posting here as to not derail the news thread:
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47033424]Am I missing something? First no videogame references, now you can't even post puns?[/QUOTE]
That post isn't a pun, though, it was a reference.
A pun would be "police found the body chopped into 140 pieces or less".
I believe it is okay as long as it is funny or entertaining. If you're just making terrible puns/references or being an asshole and it can be classified as "shitposting" then deal with it from there.
But to outright ban people for puns/references and jokes is stupid. News can be pretty boring as it is, sometimes the jokes and banter make news more entertaining.
If we're going to adopt a blanket rule, then I think SH should be merged with ITTN and there should be a new 'Current Events' forum (or a thread in GD), where people are allowed to make references and jokes. If we're going to have a serious news section on Facepunch then it would be nice to have somewhere we can relax and satirise.
As a fairly frequent poster, and someone who likes to post content without references and such, it is a touch annoying to see a bunch of posts without any real content, e.g. bad references, memes, shitty puns and whatnot.
However, I also like to make shitty jokes from time to time, and the references are sometimes pretty good, if not directly related to the subject at hand. So I'm conflicted. I would say that if someone posts a truly awful post, one that has nothing at all to do with the thread, or they are posting semi-related but still derailing a bit they deserve to get banned. Kinda like how there is a warning system in place now: Ban 1 = warning, ban two = stronger warning, multiple consecutive bans = perma.
I would suggest a shorter ban period (say, one or two hours) for thread derailers though, especially the ones that are posting semi-relevant content. If they come back to the thread and continue to do stupid shit, ban for a longer period, but that first ban acts like a warning and may keep them from doing the same thing again.
I think people will survive without their shitty references tbh
they literally provide no insight to the topic, and doing something along the lines of:
[QUOTE]*shitty reference*
but in all serious though, blah blah[/QUOTE]
that's just as bad
I can't believe I'm no longer allowed to make tone deaf, unfunny, shitty jokes that only a fellow social outcast would find funny. How else am I supposed to relate to real world events?
This an assault on MY free speech, which is BULLYING and ILLEGAL.
I don't see anything wrong with the references, gives me a quick laugh anyways. I mean I personally disagree with the rule and think that it should only be implemented if the reference makes no sense or is redundant . Otherwise I think references are fine
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.