Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Moderators, please be smart about who you ban...
  • Subject: Moderators, please be smart about who you ban...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Moderators, please be smart about who you ban...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I'm "D king"
Posted by: King Karp
I would never eat a pet, as in an animal.
Now, if it was a pet cake or pie, then Hell YEAH! I'd eat that -blam!- man!

Posted by: Rooster Boost
I just want to point out that while many people create threads that are just spam, its not like every single person that replies is also posting spam, recently i was banned because i replied by telling the original poster to delete his post and reminded every future reader of the post to not reply so it can get deleted, i in no way contributed to the spam, so i'm just requesting that the mods be smarter about who they ban in the future, i was very agitated by their actions and i know others who have encountered this problem, thanks


Hey Rooster Boost you probably dont remember me but anyway,
Im in the same boat i sorta have a tendancey to give spamers a little lecture before warning a mod,
but i have never been baned for it.

  • 07.28.2007 9:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: navilord
Quick, someone ban Achronos! He posted twice! ;-)


lawl

  • 07.28.2007 9:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I'm "D king"
Posted by: King Karp
I would never eat a pet, as in an animal.
Now, if it was a pet cake or pie, then Hell YEAH! I'd eat that -blam!- man!

Your allowed to post twice if you are replying to someone else's post.


[Edited on 07.28.2007 9:48 PM PDT]

  • 07.28.2007 9:47 PM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

^


Double posting is the act of repeating a post twice.

You will note that those are replies to two different posts within this thread. That's not double posting.

Thank you, drive through.


From one of the wisest, and definitely the most sharp-tongued, brilliantly austere people to have participated in the forums.

On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.

[Edited on 07.28.2007 10:35 PM PDT]

  • 07.28.2007 10:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Mike D Halo King
You're allowed to post twice if you are replying to someone else's post.

Actually, it's preferred that you edit both down into a single post. It's not that much effort.

-TGP-

  • 07.29.2007 4:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Mike D Halo King
Your allowed to post twice if you are effectively God of B.net.
fixt

  • 07.29.2007 4:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Read about the Forgotten Spartan I Program
Butane: To protect the world from devastation!
sir_brilliant: To unite all people within our nation!
Rainman89: To denounce the evils of truth and love!
sir_brilliant: To extend out reach to the stars above!
SpaceGhostFlyer: Jessie!
Butane: James!
sir_brilliant: Team Rocket blasting off at the speed of light
Butane: Surrender now or prepare to fight
sir_brilliant: Meowth, that's right!

Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.


How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?

  • 07.29.2007 6:19 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The End

‘The conscious is cancerous if allowed to linger’

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."

Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.


How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?
Here is a tip. To avoid confusion don't reply at all. That way there won't be any problems.

~TOM T 117

  • 07.29.2007 6:21 AM PDT

<3 PMS Clan-Twitter-Personal Site
Posted by: Deus_Ex_Machina
Cortana 5 is a carbon-based lifeform that frequently visits these forums, currently residing in the United States. Practically every male on the site responds to her posts.

The Joyeuse IP Formula

Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.


How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?

Because when you reply. That's what it does. Bumps the thread. It might not always be the very top depending on the forum's traffic at the time. None the less. It doesn't do anything good for the forum's benefit.

  • 07.29.2007 8:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Read about the Forgotten Spartan I Program
Butane: To protect the world from devastation!
sir_brilliant: To unite all people within our nation!
Rainman89: To denounce the evils of truth and love!
sir_brilliant: To extend out reach to the stars above!
SpaceGhostFlyer: Jessie!
Butane: James!
sir_brilliant: Team Rocket blasting off at the speed of light
Butane: Surrender now or prepare to fight
sir_brilliant: Meowth, that's right!

Posted by: cortana 5
Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.


How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?

Because when you reply. That's what it does. Bumps the thread. It might not always be the very top depending on the forum's traffic at the time. None the less. It doesn't do anything good for the forum's benefit.


You guys don't seem to get my point. I'm against the idea. I asked those question because they proved, to me at least, that naku's idea wasn't a realistic approach. It isn't fair for the first person to reply to get a reprieve if they say "this is spam, don't reply" because that's excatly what they did; reply.

  • 07.29.2007 9:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

If a topic is spam and someone posted in it, they count as being a spammer as well. It's a chain.

  • 07.29.2007 1:21 PM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.


How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?


On the contrary, I thought it was a much more realistic suggestion.

A) Timestamps and inference.

B) They don't necessarily have a right to do this. But, if they do, the mods would be exercising their own discretion not to blacklist the user for what is indeed a minor infraction of the rules.

C) People who post in threads ought to at least read the first few posts. If they brazenly ignore any warning that might have been offered by another member, they fully deserve what's coming. They have no excuses for not listening, no excuses about forgetting the rule which should now be fresh. Many who might have slipped would listen -- you'd certainly see replies, but those would be from miscreants who mods should have no misgivings about blacklisting.

If you want to talk unrealistic, continue believing that everyone will suddenly be inspired to observe for themselves the most often transgressed of forum rules. People, especially newer members, will continue to forget that replying to spam is unacceptable, as they see it so often without the punishment being exacted on the guilty.

That is, users who reply and are banned are not seen. Most spam threads are locked with replies and users intact, and if everyone has been banned it'll be assumed that the thread was locked immediately. People get the idea that it's a dead rule. The only time it's reinforced is when a mod posts in the thread reminding users not to feed spammers. Which is more work, of course, and they shouldn't feel obligated to remind users of the rules that they should have already read.

Mods can either immediately crack down on these relatively minor offenses and ban the whole lot while reminding users to read the rules, or they can give some leeway for those who do the latter for them while a campaign is instituted to raise awareness of the rules, at the end of which everyone will be fully expected to ignore all spam. Halo-related forums in general, to be blunt, do not attract the same caliber of members that the Septagon does. I think the first method is likely to cause criticism and deliberate malfeasance, especially from those who don't open locked threads to read the warnings, while the second would be a bit more understanding of the current state of things and that some transition is necessary.

And sometimes it's just fun, you know. There was a thread a few days ago asking when the beta would start. It was spam, of course, but even agdTinMan posted a witty reply in it. Should everyone else in the thread have been blacklisted?

[Edited on 07.29.2007 1:27 PM PDT]

  • 07.29.2007 1:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Frankie
Shut up nerds!

I got banned for 7 days and i can take that because the mods where doing there job.
Oh and Achronos why do you always put the quote under your post :P?

  • 07.29.2007 3:01 PM PDT

Posted by: Billygoat456
I'll bring the tritium laser cutters if you bring the beer!

Funny story.

Should the ninjas go and put this in the rules so that no one does it?

I mean like putting it in the stickys.

[Edited on 07.29.2007 3:48 PM PDT]

  • 07.29.2007 3:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Frankie
Shut up nerds!

Posted by: monitor 16807
Should the ninjas go and put this in the rules so that no one does it?

I mean like putting it in the stickys.

hope so..

  • 07.29.2007 3:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nobody reads the stickies. No-one ever read the stickies.
I think the mods need an 'insert "DO NOT REPLY TO SPAM" post here' button.

[Edited on 07.29.2007 4:57 PM PDT]

  • 07.29.2007 4:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SS_Zag1
sammich
Indeed, Zaggles, indeed.

I really like how the mods have little to no tolerance for the crap that's been going on in this forum. Ignorance is not an excuse FTW!

  • 07.29.2007 5:55 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Mr Faucy Paunts
Posted by: SS_Zag1
sammich
Indeed, Zaggles, indeed.

I really like how the mods have little to no tolerance for the crap that's been going on in this forum. Ignorance is not an excuse FTW!

Not always. I have been banned in the middle of rule changes, with absolutely no mercy. The sticky wasn't even up that mentioned the rule change until after I was banned. I have also been banned for merely discussing bannable material (i.e. leaked info).

While I agree many times the rules have been around long enough for people to know already, sometimes things really are just a matter of getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it really, really does suck. Especially with my luck. I have been banned nearly 6 times for extremely minor infractions.

  • 07.29.2007 6:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It happened to me. The rules changed like half an hour before I posted (and c'mon, nobody ever reads the stickies).

But overall, I like the low tolerance. My one quip is that I like to sometimes criticize stupid people in non-spam threads sometimes. I don't do anything along the lines of cursing and other lewd behavior in non-spam threads. That's got me banned a couple of times. But, if I feel the need to go bash someone who is clearly an arrogant idiot, I'll give him a piece of my mind, and I won't be nice.

  • 07.29.2007 6:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Oddly enough, the rule is mildly moot in the Halo 3 forum, since the spam is often more of a contribution to the forum than 99% of the on-topic threads.

Typical Page 1 of the Halo 3 Forum:

3-4 threads of "zOMG can you b3l13ve those MLG nubzors! Will they be in Halo 3?" or, alternatively, "zOMG can you b3l13ve those little kids on Live! Why are they allowed to play multiplayer!!!1!one"

1-2 threads of "<insert moderator here> sux mah bawl$, especially at Halo 3"

4-5 threads of "<insert random thing here> confirmed for Halo 3- Proof inside," with "proof" being some miserably bad inference of half-comprehended info.

2-3 threads of "ROFLMAO Halo 3 graphics suck u fanboy nubzors"

1 thread "z0mg! G4 hates Halo 3!"

5-6 threads of "WHEEEEEEEE! I LIKE GETTING MY THREAD LOCKED FOR HAVING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE TITLE!!!!!!"

Spam is actually more of a contribution, because spam at least has the potential to be amusing.

[Edited on 07.29.2007 7:33 PM PDT]

  • 07.29.2007 7:32 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2