[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;47034632]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 free MY speech, which is BULLYING and ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE]
Yeah those outcasts really stand out in such an international world class place like SH.
Pun's and zingers are okay, but they get far too out of hand in SH to the point people just ignore the articles all together and just make a punny joke about the title
I'm fine as long as you don't ban them in /threads about the games/
Those Payday bans were ridiculous
It's not like the results of the poll will have any effect like the last few times people complained about a moderative change on FP
[editline]29th January 2015[/editline]
Hell last time people were complaining about the removal of the subforums, the mods said to discuss it in that thread and then a few posts later locked it for no real reason
Just rate shitposts dumb and move on, people will take a hint eventually.
And ban the truly shitty posters for spam because that's what it is.
Got nothing against references, but what annoys is me that even after someone already made a joke about it, people somehow have to run it into the ground entirely by repeating said joke over and over in the hopes of making an epic zinger
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;47032279]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.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if this is going to piss you off a lot, but I honestly feel I need to know exactly what you think it is about people being dumb makes them deserving of being banned besides the fact that it annoys you.
I mean, obviously, being dull-minded isn't exactly something to be absolutely proud of, but the way some of you guys treat people being dumb as something equivalent to offensive heretics seems kinda ridiculous considering that being stupid alone doesn't really seem to be comparable with being an asshole unless you combine those two aspects together.
So, you're pretty much banning jokes in what was once one of the funniest communities.
Seems legit.
EDIT:
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448024&p=47004400#post47004400"]Seriously, if you're banning all these people for Payday references, then I should have been banned for this.[/URL] In fact, there are plenty of posts I should have been banned for over the years.
I feel like that it should depend. After all we already ban for snipes which is nearly 90% of those reference posts anyway. After all, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1210099&p=37545592&viewfull=1#post37545592]one of the funniest posts on Facepunch[/url] was a reference in a SH thread.
[editline]29th January 2015[/editline]
I guess if it isn't funny or if it's too soon, then you deserve a ban.
My personal understanding of FP has always been a forum for gamers to come and discuss basically anything and everything.
I dont see how a forum whose basis for existence is centered around gaming communities talking to relatable people can logically declare it offensive to bring up video games when applicable.
If its wildly unrelated then simply ban them for derailing, a perfectly rational reason thats been around for the near decade Ive been a member here.
[QUOTE=Skerion;47036842]I'm sorry if this is going to piss you off a lot, but I honestly feel I need to know exactly what you think it is about people being dumb makes them deserving of being banned besides the fact that it annoys you.
I mean, obviously, being dull-minded isn't exactly something to be absolutely proud of, but the way some of you guys treat people being dumb as something equivalent to offensive heretics seems kinda ridiculous considering that being stupid alone doesn't really seem to be comparable with being an asshole unless you combine those two aspects together.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, people who usually post dumb stuff get banned here. I figured that was just the way it is, ever since I signed up here I'd see people say incredibly retarded things and get banned. I guess it's more shitposting related than being dumb, I probably should have worded it better. Personally I don't really think it's necessary to ban dumb posts unless they're flaming or trolling, I can easily just rate the poster dumb and scroll past their comments. I just figured that with bans being handed out like candy for references the issue isn't that they're making jokes but more that they're being dumb.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;47037503]So, you're pretty much banning jokes in what was once one of the funniest communities.
Seems legit.
EDIT:
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448024&p=47004400#post47004400"]Seriously, if you're banning all these people for Payday references, then I should have been banned for this.[/URL] In fact, there are plenty of posts I should have been banned for over the years.[/QUOTE]
it's a few days too late to catch that, but if you really want we can apply it anyways. Things get reported, others don't, mods don't trawl every single thread
this is all a doofy mixed bag, and I apologize if somebody's shitty joke shows up in the mod reports queue and it looks like a shitty joke when there's no clear context to the article. Contest your ban and a mod should at least own up to not realizing the legitimacy
Even after [i]weeks[/i] of this rule being up, the first page of that recent chinese>moon thread was plastered with pictures over movies and games where there's foreigners on the moon or somebody visits the moon or the moon is destroyed due to mining (topical!)
The first post was
[QUOTE=WhyNott;47018387]nazis are going to be pretty fucking upset
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Rules: "Don't post just to put your epic reference"" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Regardless of the dumb reference rule, this would have taken a ban for dumb snipe anyways.
References are fun, we get it, but half of the first page was spammed up with game/movie references and every last one of them (plus one or two BDA missed) are genuinely dumb derailments trying to farm funnies for making a connection. Adding "[I]but seriously[/I], this is interesting" after these posts doesn't turn it into a legitimate post, you can survive talking over this without dropping the a 7 minute long video of iron sky's credits.
"FP is a site for gamers" isn't an excuse to make pop culture references in a thread that isn't about games, movies, time travel, or nazis
the rule is written. If you keep posting dumb references where they're not warranted you accept the fact that it's breaking the rules. If you post dumb references where they ARE warranted, don't be surprised if not every mod reads 'dallas robs mcdonalds' above a reported post and knows that's the name of a payday character, nor realizes the pictured dude has the actual mask from the game
how about you can make references but you get banned if you get more dumbs than funnies
it'll be just like uh...fuck i don't know, sailor moon?
[QUOTE=Nightfury;47030540]What's the point on calling/bashing yourself out to express what you feel?[/QUOTE]
I'm the worst self depreciating humor
[editline]30th January 2015[/editline]
which is generally bad anyways come to think of it
[editline]30th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;47035120]Just rate shitposts dumb and move on, people will take a hint eventually.
And ban the truly shitty posters for spam because that's what it is.[/QUOTE]
Sadly some people in SH who average in at 50 dumbs per post will never get it. they believe people are just "Butt mad / jealous about how right they are" or just don't care
if a user gets too many dumbs too fast they should be auto-banned
[QUOTE=J!NX;47041590]
Sadly some people in SH who average in at 50 dumbs per post will never get it. they believe people are just "Butt mad / jealous about how right they are" or just don't care
if a user gets too many dumbs too fast they should be auto-banned[/QUOTE]
if we're going to care about ratings ...
there are actually some really good posts that get boxed just because it's wrong ie some guy pointing out that it's stupid to blame the religion when it's just the extremists
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47041767]if we're going to care about ratings ...
there are actually some really good posts that get boxed just because it's wrong ie some guy pointing out that it's stupid to blame the religion when it's just the extremists[/QUOTE]
oh, ratings don't matter, but if you get an excessive amount of dumbs constantly without fail then it's probably a bad sign
some people seem to rate totally inoffensive, informative, purely unbiased posts dumb out of random, even though there is nothing that could be dumb about it
i know people say that removing puns is violation of free speech or w/e but you're pretty much banning people for disagreeing if you put an autoban system in if you get too many boxes
the current system of banning dumbfucks is fine, if they're actually going to say some really dumb racist/sexist/transphobic shit then report them or bitch to a mod
I think that they should be allowed depending on the situation.
Like, if something relevant to a situation that isn't terribly tragic should be okay. Putting a joke about Postal in a thread about a school shooting is going a bit too far, and I'm using the term "too far" incredibly loosely.
I already got banned for debating this but fuck it.
I think for the most part they are fine as long as they don't get too out of hand. Some threads do turn into spamming videogame and movie references all day. As others have said, it should be relevant to the article in some way.
[I]On the other hand[/I] the less enforcement the moderators are doing, the better. People should be banned for being disruptive to a thread, but even at worst these references are usually just a minor distraction. To me, all the heavy-handed moderation is doing is making an already shit section shittier. We don't even focus on the big picture as to why SH is shit; it isn't because of "lol epic memes" it's because the constant fighting, arguing, derailing, bandwagoning, and even flaming. If a one-sided argument hasn't started in a thread by the time it gets to the third page, it isn't going to stay on the front page of the section for much longer.
I don't know how to handle it, but to me [I]all[/I] of the forum changes, from new rules to the new layout, are pretty garbage and I do wish we just went back to 2014. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it worked. All these changes feel like we are just fixing shit that doesn't need fixing while continue to ignore (or make worse) some blatant problems.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;47042497]I already got banned for debating this but fuck it.[/QUOTE]
you got banned because after BDA banned people for doing the bannable thing, and warning people to post on-topic, you kept digging in on the bans and BDA. I would have banned you for the mod sass point myself but I was on mobile and told him to take it.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;47027081]Y
BDA used to be just a bad poster, but Garry wanted to torture us, so he promoted him to bad moderator instead.
I must say, he is doing a swell job.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Mod Sass, Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
you're right about people being disruptive to a thread deserving bans in the least. it's not our fault people can't hold in their cool obscure image macro references, and even less our fault if people decide they want to derail a thread even further to whine about people getting banned for rules instead of finding/making this thread.
I'm not sure this is so much heavy-handed as FP's past, it's just so many people are comfortable making these posts that we need to keep on top of it hard until the point gets across. When users aren't so ready to make bannable posts, the mods won't feel the need to act on so many minor infractions
If Garry and the mods didn't change things back the way they were when like 80-90% of people agreed it should, I doubt they would do it when only half support turning this back.
My personal opinion is that we should allow references so long as the poster follows up on it with a legitimate post. Simply posting something to farm funny ratings should remain bannable.
I'm not sure you should make harmless jokes bannable.
I really don't get the big stink about this. Most of the references I've seen are harmless. What's wrong with joking about the news? I mean unless the news is something tragic (in which case the poster is obviously just trying to stir shit). But for the most part, I enjoy the references. Honestly it's one of the main reasons I browse SH; so I can get funny commentary on some of the silly things happening in the world.
How are references really affecting your ability to start discussion about a piece of news? You don't have to respond to them at all. And if other people want to participate in your line of discussion, they will respond to you and the ball will start rolling. Most of the jokes are made on the first page anyway, with subsequent pages petering out into other discussion.
Most of the news pieces I see with jokes in them really don't have much to seriously discuss anyway. Other than political news, what constructive commentary can really come out of "[I]person did weird and crazy thing today[/I]" pieces? Without the jokes, the thread is just full of "wow that's really weird huh" and "well if it was ME I would unsheathe my katana and..." posts. Though I'm certainly not saying those should be bannable either.
So I guess my stance on it is "if it isn't insensitive, then who the fuck cares". It's literally not hurting anyone, and I think this is a shit rule because now it's going to cover the whole section in a blanket of fear and everyone will stop making interesting posts for fear of getting banned.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47044630]It is but honestly I'd rather stay on topic then make a post explaining it.[/QUOTE]
I have never seen this happen. Most references are obviously references, even if you don't know what it's from. The only responses I've seen are people making further jokes to play off of the reference. It's usually funny, and it contributes to the thread, at least in my opinion.
And, again, it isn't affecting anyone's ability to start their desired line of discussion. You don't get the jokes? Whatever. Still wanna talk about the news piece? Then post what you wanna talk about. Interested people will respond, and discussion will start. Jokes and references don't hinder that whatsoever.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47041800]oh, ratings don't matter, but if you get an excessive amount of dumbs constantly without fail then it's probably a bad sign
some people seem to rate totally inoffensive, informative, purely unbiased posts dumb out of random, even though there is nothing that could be dumb about it[/QUOTE]
You have people who hold and consistently voice very, very unpopular opinions (within Facepunch) in places like SH, though.
I dont get it. People are getting banned for harmless puns or references and then theres threads like this [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448841[/url] that are nothing BUT puns or references and nothing happens? I dont think it should be a bannable offense but I think that whatever the rules they need to be enforced consistently.
I think the, "[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448334"]China is going to mine the Moon for helium-3 fusion fuel[/URL]" thread is a pretty good example of what can go wrong with this "no puns" rule.
Everyone's having a pretty fun time in the thread until the bans start rolling out, and then you have facepunchers who usually obey the rules and keep their heads down, bitching about moderation and making alts just to come back and specifically troll in that thread. Simply because they feel the ban was unwarranted and the rule cited lacks common sense. We need to think about what the rules are actually for on this forum. The thread stating the rules is there to encourage order by providing transparency, while the bans are meant to inform users of serious misconduct. When we get to the point that bans are being given for less than serious misconduct, and instead of encouraging users to comply, inspires them to rebel, we should go back and find out where we went wrong.
Some people complain about SH and it being a bit heated at times, but honestly that's why I go there. Discussions and even arguments about current, relevant news that actually matters is very satisfying, and let's be 100% clear here: the vast majority of people are trying to post in good faith. I've seen some posts in this thread basically equate to "THIS ISN'T 9GAG!!!" and they're right, it isn't; there's no need to play tard wrangler on SH because people seem to be reporting often and they largely take care of themselves.
SH has been running pretty smoothly lately and you guys (mods) seem to be largely hands off, so I have to know: did something change that made you want to implement this rule? Also, what problem is this rule supposed to be solving? I don't understand its purpose.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;47045456]I think the, "[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448334"]China is going to mine the Moon for helium-3 fusion fuel[/URL]" thread is a pretty good example of what can go wrong with this "no puns" rule.
Everyone's having a pretty fun time in the thread until the bans start rolling out, and then you have facepunchers who usually obey the rules and keep their heads down, bitching about moderation and making alts just to come back and specifically troll in that thread. Simply because they feel the ban was unwarranted and the rule cited lacks common sense. We need to think about what the rules are actually for on this forum. The thread stating the rules is there to encourage order by providing transparency, while the bans are meant to inform users of serious misconduct. When we get to the point that bans are being given for less than serious misconduct, and instead of encouraging users to comply, inspires them to rebel, we should go back and find out where we went wrong.[/QUOTE]
This pretty much nails where I'm coming from and what I am potentially worried about.
I don't mind the ratings.
Sort of a "reward" system for me in my opinion, not sure if anyone else thinks the same thing.
But yes, I do care if someone thinks my post is stupid, helpful, funny, or the truth. See, I like that.
In the old forum I used to go to, you couldn't tell if someone thought that what you posted was funny, no one wants to make a "full post" saying that you posted something that made them laugh. No one does. And no one fucking cares. Ratings have that magic, because there are more people who use it. More people who [I]see[/I] it. Notice. Influences shit posters to change their ways. Hey I'm not as bad now than before when I started. I don't want to remember.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.