• Should References be allowed in SH?
    167 replies, posted
Facepunch needs to be less serious, this isn't the news at 10, this is a group of nerds discussing news. Rather than ban for shit references, just punish them by dumbs until they realise theyre an idiot. Banning obviously isn't working and makes facepunch look stuckup.
[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;47045988]Facepunch needs to be less serious, this isn't the news at 10, this is a group of nerds discussing news. Rather than ban for shit references, just punish them by dumbs until they realise theyre an idiot. Banning obviously isn't working and makes facepunch look stuckup.[/QUOTE] It's funny you say this because FP used to be far more harsh and was the butt of many jokes (and honestly, back then, it deserved the reputation it had). This place has improved considerably.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;47045548]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] Id love these questions to be answered.
I personally give no shits, if seeing a reference to a video game in the comments to your precious news hurts you then you are probably uptight as fuck and shouldn't be reading news in the first place. Just be glad our posts aren't like the shit you see on other news websites and let people post their game whatevers. Again like others have said, this isn't a serious fucking news site, trying to make it look like that is seriously coming off as obsessive and controlling as fuck, we are a bunch of nerdos talking about news.
[QUOTE=bdd458;47046939]Id love these questions to be answered.[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly, there was a thread where people complained about the state of SH and it resulted in Big Dumb American being made mod and puns/references being banned, along with some other new rules.
[QUOTE=meek;47047613]If I recall correctly, there was a thread where people complained about the state of SH and it resulted in Big Dumb American being made mod and puns/references being banned, along with some other new rules.[/QUOTE] My becoming a mod had nothing to do with the changes, or vice versa. The rules were already drafted before I took the stage. What the rules are hoping to address are situations like this: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448841[/url] Nearly [I]every[/I] post is a pointless one-off zinger made for no other reason than to try and score a few funny ratings, and this isn't an uncommon phenomena in SH. It's very silly, very stupid, and nothing productive. Now, maybe our implementation of the rule so far has been heavy handed, and maybe the rule itself is even conceptually flawed. We're looking at it, we're experimenting a bit, and we're generally trying to figure out whether or not we want to keep the rule, and if we do to what lengths and conditions we enforce it. The rules may change, or they may not, but people are expected to follow them. You dig? Even if we end up striking this from the rules tomorrow, you'll still be put in time-out for breaking it today. It's no skin off our backs! In the meantime, please keep posting your thoughts on it in here. This kind of feedback is useful stuff!
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47047709]My becoming a mod had nothing to do with the changes, or vice versa. The rules were already drafted before I took the stage. What the rules are hoping to address are situations like this: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448841[/url] Nearly [I]every[/I] post is a pointless one-off zinger made for no other reason than to try and score a few funny ratings, and this isn't an uncommon phenomena in SH. It's very silly, very stupid, and nothing productive. Now, maybe our implementation of the rule so far has been heavy handed, and maybe the rule itself is even conceptually flawed. We're looking at it, we're experimenting a bit, and we're generally trying to figure out whether or not we want to keep the rule, and if we do to what lengths and conditions we enforce it. The rules may change, or they may not, but people are expected to follow them. You dig? Even if we end up striking this from the rules tomorrow, you'll still be put in time-out for breaking it today. It's no skin off our backs! In the meantime, please keep posting your thoughts on it in here. This kind of feedback is useful stuff![/QUOTE] What exactly do you see when you picture the correct reply to these types of stories? "Oh thats terrible" "We need to focus on protecting the people who feed bears." This is a bad example because there is literally nothing to discuss. Its a bear attack story. If there was actually even a discussion that could occur than ban for derailing. Why is a blanket ban a better than the mods actually having to exercise contextual judgement?
But that thread was funny. Honestly, banning for stuff like that just seems to ruin all of the fun. Yeah sometimes the references and zingers can be pretty dumb but usually other posters are pretty good at discouraging those through ratings. I say just leave it be and let the community decide what references are dumb and let it solve itself.
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;47048011]What exactly do you see when you picture the correct reply to these types of stories? "Oh thats terrible" "We need to focus on protecting the people who feed bears." This is a bad example because there is literally nothing to discuss. Its a bear attack story. If there was actually even a discussion that could occur than ban for derailing. Why is a blanket ban a better than the mods actually having to exercise contextual judgement?[/QUOTE] And that's why this rule is still experimental. We're talking about it, and shit like this is being taken into consideration. In the meantime, though, don't expect it not to be enforced. If you just [I]can't[/I] contain your epic news puns and hilarious video game references for a few days, and end up getting a temporary ban for that, then you've got nobody to blame but yourself. I know that a large degree of ya don't like this rule, but it is pretty specifically stated. So, until we all come to a consensus in the mod channel about it, it's going to be enforced. What's important on our side of things, as moderators, is that we're all on the same page about what is and isn't allowed, because then we can all enforce the rules with a certain degree of consistency. We were in agreement when the rule was drafted, so until we're in agreement that it ought to be undrafted, this is where we're at.
My problem is that it treats jokes and references as if that's a bad thing. I honestly fail to see how a bit of subjective humor can be considered an issue in the first place. Because adding some form of humor to a discussion is contributing to the overall discussion.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47047709]My becoming a mod had nothing to do with the changes, or vice versa. The rules were already drafted before I took the stage. What the rules are hoping to address are situations like this: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448841[/url] Nearly [I]every[/I] post is a pointless one-off zinger made for no other reason than to try and score a few funny ratings, and this isn't an uncommon phenomena in SH. It's very silly, very stupid, and nothing productive. Now, maybe our implementation of the rule so far has been heavy handed, and maybe the rule itself is even conceptually flawed. We're looking at it, we're experimenting a bit, and we're generally trying to figure out whether or not we want to keep the rule, and if we do to what lengths and conditions we enforce it. The rules may change, or they may not, but people are expected to follow them. You dig? Even if we end up striking this from the rules tomorrow, you'll still be put in time-out for breaking it today. It's no skin off our backs! In the meantime, please keep posting your thoughts on it in here. This kind of feedback is useful stuff![/QUOTE] my bad, I was wrong then. I am glad to see the bear thread didn't turn into a ban fest though :D
[QUOTE=meek;47048316]my bad, I was wrong then. I am glad to see the bear thread didn't turn into a ban fest though :D[/QUOTE] Hey, it still might! Fingers crossed! Telling people not to do something makes them want to test you on it. I guess they think they're sticking it to the man? Regardless, it takes two seconds to click "ban," so it's no trouble for me. Like, three people have already committed forum suicide over this shit. [I]"Permaban me, because this is the end of everything holy and right!"[/I] We're talking about news puns and video game references here. Can we all just be a little less dramatic?
It's a stupid rule, SH was perfectly fine before it. A lot of threads there are just going to sink to the bottom of the forums without a single post to it because literally the only response that can be given is a pun or reference. This isn't forbes.com or the washington fuckin' post. It's Facepunch, no one gave a shit about this except the moderation team for whatever reason. I do see a lot of "no" votes on the poll, but honestly - how many people complained about this before it became a rule? There was never a thread like this to discuss the possibility of banning it before it was so. Sure, SH isn't Fast Threads, but it's not a professional journalistic webpage either. It's particularly shitty when someone makes a joke in their post, but majority of it is an actual, serious discussion of the OP and they still get banned. It's like having a conversation with someone - on occasion, you make a quick joke as the talk goes on. When I discuss the news with coworkers or friends, we occasionally make a pun or joke on something we've read in the papers or saw on television. So why is so horrendous and thus bannable for such behavior [I]here[/I] of all places? Also, that "if someone quoted you before you snipped it" thing is total crap [sp]*victim*[/sp] [editline]31st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47048454]Hey, it still might! Fingers crossed! Telling people not to do something makes them want to test you on it. I guess they think they're sticking it to the man? Regardless, it takes two seconds to click "ban," so it's no trouble for me. Like, three people have already committed forum suicide over this shit. [I]"Permaban me, because this is the end of everything holy and right!"[/I] We're talking about news puns and video game references here. Can we all just be a little less dramatic?[/QUOTE] Not sure if you remember, but a few years back puns were banned from SH and many people posted them in defiance even though they knew their fate was coming (I being one of them). Due to the overwhelming opposition to the rule, it was overturned in like 2 weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if people assumed the same would happen this time.
I must admit I laughed IRL when BDA suggested that the reason puns are bannable is because they aren't "productive". We aren't a governing body that has to have serious conversations due to our time being limited and of extreme importance. I think what the mod team, and what several users who are proponents of this new rule want is a change of SH's culture. If that is the case, than I think this new rule fits into their agenda. If the mod team actually does want SH to be more "productive" then I don't think this is going to help. If an increase in SH's production is the end goal right now, I think all of you need to take a step back and think about what you are doing, because right now that sounds more ridiculous than the people asking for permabans due to a lack of puns.
I don't know why people seem to think this is a blanket attack on humor. You can still post jokes to get your kicks or whatever it is you want to do, just having threads full of pictures of movies and games and posts saying "This is like X" are pointless and contribute nothing except to show you watched a thing and happened to notice it was similar to a news story. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47049333]It's a stupid rule, SH was perfectly fine before it. A lot of threads there are just going to sink to the bottom of the forums without a single post to it because literally the only response that can be given is a pun or reference.[/QUOTE] What does this actually mean? If the thread can't be discussed or the discussion is done, let it drop from the front page. Why would you want to keep it there if it can't be taken any further just to make references to other things?
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;47050102]I don't know why people seem to think this is a blanket attack on humor. You can still post jokes to get your kicks or whatever it is you want to do, just having threads full of pictures of movies and games and posts saying "This is like X" are pointless and contribute nothing except to show you watched a thing and happened to notice it was similar to a news story.[/quote] That kind of crap got banned beforehand anyway. And it's kind of crappy to say "these kinds of jokes are okay, but these ones are going to get you banned". [QUOTE=Tomo Takino;47050102]What does this actually mean? If the thread can't be discussed or the discussion is done, let it drop from the front page. Why would you want to keep it there if it can't be taken any further just to make references to other things?[/QUOTE] Because why can't we have the right to make a funny zinger and be done with it?
I say it should be. People keep trying to top the sonic drowning when they can. It's not funny anymore. Video game references should be allowed in video game related news though. I do know that I made 2 before, and I think they're stupid now.
[QUOTE=Shaohs;47050524]I say it should be. [B]People keep trying to top the sonic drowning when they can.[/B] It's not funny anymore. Video game references should be allowed in video game related news though. I do know that I made 2 before, and I think they're stupid now.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sure every single poster making a little funny is trying to top the sonic joke. I'm sure they think about it every day and wank themselves to sleep thinking about how they will be remembered forever for linking a relevant youtube video in a thread one day. Alternative (and far more believable) theory here: they do it because they think it's worth a laugh.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47050268]That kind of crap got banned beforehand anyway. And it's kind of crappy to say "these kinds of jokes are okay, but these ones are going to get you banned".[/QUOTE] It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Surely you don't think all jokes are on the same level and should be treated as such? [QUOTE]Because why can't we have the right to make a funny zinger and be done with it?[/QUOTE] Does this right extend to other things that have been bannable for ages yet no one cares about and actively tries to get rid of? [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448334&p=47018515&viewfull=1#post47018515[/url] So why should that post be fine but something like a reaction image stay bannable because I don't see anyone defending those? There's very little difference between the two actually. I still haven't seen a genuinely good reason to keep those kinds of posts now that I think about it. All I see is "Why are these posts a problem??" when other similar posts are banned all the time.
One great example this shit should be banned is during the Sydney siege thread there were people posting the tf2 sniper in it While an estimated 50 people were fearing their lives, the government and police were fearing this could of been the biggest terrorist attack Australia had ever saw. Let's post epic zingers of that hilarious and wacky Australian video game sniper haha! Keep it off
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47052609]One great example this shit should be banned is during the Sydney siege thread there were people posting the tf2 sniper in it While an estimated 50 people were fearing their lives, the government and police were fearing this could of been the biggest terrorist attack Australia had ever saw. Let's post epic zingers of that hilarious and wacky Australian video game sniper haha! Keep it off[/QUOTE] How did he/they even manage to relate the two, it's a video game character and a terrorist attack.
who gives a shit if somebody makes a reference worst comes to worst, nobody finds it funny and it gets scrolled past best comes to best, somebody makes a cracking joke and we all enjoy it
I think they should be allowed unless it's a really shitty situation. If somebody made a silly reference after somebody's family died on Christmas morning, I would expect them to be banned. But if it's a silly and lighthearted subject, sure why not?
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;47050887]It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Surely you don't think all jokes are on the same level and should be treated as such?[/quote] All references and puns ought to be treated the same, whether good or bad. Banning someone on whether they were funny or not, which seems to be what you're suggesting here. [QUOTE=Tomo Takino;47050887]Does this right extend to other things that have been bannable for ages yet no one cares about and actively tries to get rid of? [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448334&p=47018515&viewfull=1#post47018515[/url] So why should that post be fine but something like a reaction image stay bannable because I don't see anyone defending those? There's very little difference between the two actually. I still haven't seen a genuinely good reason to keep those kinds of posts now that I think about it. All I see is "Why are these posts a problem??" when other similar posts are banned all the time.[/QUOTE] This is completely irrelevant. This whole discussion is about game/movie references and puns. The rest of that crap, like image macros, is not part of the debate so there's no need to even consider comparing it.
What kind of in-depth discussion are you going to get out of "China is considering maybe mining the moon for some nuclear fuel in the distant future" anyway?
imagine getting upset over a post that is probably 5 inches on your screen that you have to vehemently be against it to the point of a ban. People here are acting like a handfull of posts in a thread is breaking the entire subfourm, if you guys cant get over some small puns/references then i don't know how you're going to function in the real world. I mean FP was fine where it was mostly because it isn't nearly as fucking bad as the other 95% of forums out there. [editline]1st February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=geogzm;47052805]who gives a shit if somebody makes a reference worst comes to worst, nobody finds it funny and it gets scrolled past best comes to best, somebody makes a cracking joke and we all enjoy it[/QUOTE] exactly this, its just a small post that might make someone chuckle, just rate and move on.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;47055447]What kind of in-depth discussion are you going to get out of "China is considering maybe mining the moon for some nuclear fuel in the distant future" anyway?[/QUOTE] implications of mining on the moon regulation of land claims politicians who'd say you can't build anything major on the moon because it's all a historic landmark and we shouldn't deface it scientific pros/cons for lower-gravity environment studies of fusion tech cost/efficiency of getting equipment/men on moon, mining, transporting back near-future frequency of human travel to moon potential of moon colonization and a new space race capacity of colonies and consistent energy sources (solar may not be practical when night lasts 2 weeks, etc) future potential for a spaceport and how that will affect deeper space travel nazis on the moon haha rate funny if you thought of that too omg the moon exploded in that one movie here's a picture of a gundam
[QUOTE=dai;47056088]implications of mining on the moon regulation of land claims politicians who'd say you can't build anything major on the moon because it's all a historic landmark and we shouldn't deface it scientific pros/cons for lower-gravity environment studies of fusion tech cost/efficiency of getting equipment/men on moon, mining, transporting back near-future frequency of human travel to moon potential of moon colonization and a new space race capacity of colonies and consistent energy sources (solar may not be practical when night lasts 2 weeks, etc) future potential for a spaceport and how that will affect deeper space travel nazis on the moon haha rate funny if you thought of that too[/QUOTE] if you think FP could ever have a serious discussion about anything ever you're crazy
[QUOTE=Dermock;47056102]if you think FP could ever have a serious discussion about anything ever you're crazy[/QUOTE] I have more faith in FP than I do in any of the news sites people source but that's still a high improbability. People seem to get pretty serious when their rights to shitpost are being infriged upon though!
[QUOTE=dai;47056123]I have more faith in FP than I do in any of the news sites people source but that's still a high improbability. People seem to get pretty serious when their rights to shitpost are being infriged upon though![/QUOTE] while saying FP can have a better/more thoughtful discussion than say, neogaf or the dailymail is correct, it's still not that much more thoughtful or even noticeably so. Remember that Facepunches highlights throughout the years include a kid spending $1000 on a forum gadget, making fun of a boy that drowned because Sonic and Justin.... CUNT! FP isn't known for thoughtful discussion because it's mostly absent, case in point, the largely failed mass debate section.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.