Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Rule question
  • Subject: Rule question
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Rule question

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Why do you people defend dumb threads?

It has to do with the reasoning behind locking threads, all i'm saying is, if Foman is going to lock the thread on poor discussion value, he should lock the thread on poor discussion value, not say something else (like it was improperly placed or something.) I'm pretty sure he said he locked it on "other reasons" to avoid the whole messy argument of what makes a thread acceptable in the flood on terms of discussion value. There are plenty of flood threads like this one that have all sorts of different outcomes, either being locked, having the OP banned or having the thread go on untouched. The new rules are too vague about this thing called discussion value especially in the flood forum, as far as i know, Since the whole rules change, i thought it was acceptable to post threads like this in the flood? Aren't forum games allowed? Or is it still all depending on discussion value, and the discussion value is dependent on whatever the available moderator's mood is at the time.

[Edited on 10.27.2011 6:29 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 6:23 PM PDT

Hello, I'm Mr AwesomePizza. I like pizza and I'm a man. Reasoning for the name. I like to listen to the classics of music, write poetry, play video games, and much much more. I'm always down for a nice chat, so please hit me up for some conversation.

Posted by: kashinfist
He said on another thread that it was a slip of tongue or keyboard, and that one slip-up doesn't change the forums.
Posted by: Mr AwesomePizza
Posted by: x Foman123 x
"The Flood Forum is Bungie.net's off-topic forum "
Wow wow wow!
You said the Flood isn't an off-topic forum, now I'm confused. =/

OT: That thread had no discussion value and just contributed to spam.
Oh I didn't know that. I hope no one took me as a person who hates mods, I was just confused.

But yeah, that thread had no discussion value.

  • 10.27.2011 6:26 PM PDT

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.


Posted by: Qbix89
Oh, sorry. I wasn't talking about the OP here at all. I should have pointed that out. It was just trying to make a point out of raad face's post


so...what happened to the whole "fight the power" thing ?

Posted by: Qbix89
Because the mods must be torn down at all costs. Nevermind the thread was horrible. Fight the oppression!


cmon qbix i tohught we were a team Lol- o wut, gotdangit.fine i quit.lol.

  • 10.27.2011 6:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

And the Shadow fell upon the Land, and the World was riven stone from stone. The oceans fled, and the mountains were swallowed up, and the nations were scattered to the eight corners of the World. The moon was blood, and the sun was as ashes. The seas boiled, and the living envied the dead. All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. And him they named Dragon.

So... Let me get this straight. We have established that both violations warranted a thread lock. Right? And now you are asking why Foman mentioned one reason and not the other?
Posted by: raad face
It has to do with the reasoning behind locking threads, all i'm saying is, if Foman is going to lock the thread on poor discussion value, he should lock the thread on poor discussion value, not say something else (like it was improperly placed or something.) I'm pretty sure he said he locked it on "other reasons" to avoid the whole messy argument of what makes a thread acceptable in the flood on terms of discussion value. There are plenty of flood threads like this one that have all sorts of different outcomes, either being locked, having the OP banned or having the thread go on untouched. The new rules are too vague about this thing called discussion value especially in the flood forum, as far as i know, Since the whole rules change, i thought it was acceptable to post threads like this in the flood? Aren't forum games allowed? Or is it still all depending on discussion value, and the discussion value is dependent on whatever the available moderator's mood is at the time.


[Edited on 10.27.2011 6:36 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 6:35 PM PDT

Best of random chance

Perhaps he's suggesting that it may warrant confusion on the forums.
Posted by: Qbix89
So... Let me get this straight. We have established that both violations warranted a thread lock. Right? And now you are asking why Foman mentioned one reason and not the other?
Posted by: raad face
It has to do with the reasoning behind locking threads, all i'm saying is, if Foman is going to lock the thread on poor discussion value, he should lock the thread on poor discussion value, not say something else (like it was improperly placed or something.) I'm pretty sure he said he locked it on "other reasons" to avoid the whole messy argument of what makes a thread acceptable in the flood on terms of discussion value. There are plenty of flood threads like this one that have all sorts of different outcomes, either being locked, having the OP banned or having the thread go on untouched. The new rules are too vague about this thing called discussion value especially in the flood forum, as far as i know, Since the whole rules change, i thought it was acceptable to post threads like this in the flood? Aren't forum games allowed? Or is it still all depending on discussion value, and the discussion value is dependent on whatever the available moderator's mood is at the time.


[Edited on 10.27.2011 6:38 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 6:37 PM PDT

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.


Posted by: Qbix89
So... Let me get this straight. We have established that both violations warranted a thread lock. Right? And now you are asking why Foman mentioned one reason and not the other?


No, here read this

Posted by: x Foman123 x
This thread, besides being a silly, spammy hypothetical with no point, is about the Bungie.net forums and the Bungie.net community (specifically, the Flood community). Regardless of the thread's "discussion value" (which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked), the thread is on-topic for the Community Forum only.

its not whether he mentioned one or the other, he mentions both, but only says one is a valid reason for banning
^this statement warrants that the reason to lock this thread was solely because it was improperly placed, it was not locked for its discussion value. "which is debatable"

thats my whole arguement pretty much, because i dont feel its valid to lock that in the first place if it was soley based off being "misplaced" because i feel it is hardly misplaced at all.

Fomans reason for locking this thread is not accurate, because it implies that this exact thread can be posted with proper placement(in community forum) and not get locked.(which is hardly believable)


[Edited on 10.27.2011 6:55 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 6:40 PM PDT

Best of random chance

Centrifugal force!
Posted by: raad face

Posted by: Qbix89
So... Let me get this straight. We have established that both violations warranted a thread lock. Right? And now you are asking why Foman mentioned one reason and not the other?


No, here read this

Posted by: x Foman123 x
This thread, besides being a silly, spammy hypothetical with no point, is about the Bungie.net forums and the Bungie.net community (specifically, the Flood community). Regardless of the thread's "discussion value" (which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked), the thread is on-topic for the Community Forum only.


^this statement warrants that the reason to lock this thread was solely because it was improperly placed, it was not locked for its discussion value. "which is debatable"

  • 10.27.2011 6:42 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

I'd say he answered it fairly. It is off topic. Foman simply said that while the topic was next to worthless, the reason it was locked was that it was in the wrong forum. It's pretty straight forward to me. Do you feel that a moderator should list evry single potential reason a thread is locked? Or is it ok to just list the top answer?

  • 10.27.2011 6:53 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

So moderators should refrain from locking threads for a solid, incontrovertible rule violation when a debatable, less clear rule violation exists? And instead they should choose the route that leads to more controversy?

MAKES SENSE

  • 10.27.2011 6:55 PM PDT

Best of random chance

I'm going to sound like a douche, but every reason please. That way we can better ourselves and make your job easier.
Posted by: Old Papa Rich
I'd say he answered it fairly. It is off topic. Foman simply said that while the topic was next to worthless, the reason it was locked was that it was in the wrong forum. It's pretty straight forward to me. Do you feel that a moderator should list evry single potential reason a thread is locked? Or is it ok to just list the top answer?

  • 10.27.2011 6:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
Do you feel that a moderator should list evry single potential reason a thread is locked?
List, I agree. That way we can play guessing games. Perhaps a tournament type thing, where you have to pick the right reason for a bunch of locks in a row.

  • 10.27.2011 6:58 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
evry
OPR writing hymn lyrics o'er here.

  • 10.27.2011 7:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: raad face
Fomans reason for locking this thread is not accurate, because it implies that this exact thread can be posted with proper placement(in community forum) and not get locked.(which is hardly believable)
I can't believe I actually have to defend this.

I implied the utter, complete opposite. What I said was that the thread was only "on-topic" in this forum, but that it contained little potential for discussion in any forum. That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.

If I were to post a thread saying "What is it about [insert political party or religion here] people that makes them hate Halo: Reach's respawn system?" in the Community Forum, it would be both off-topic for the Community Forum and a violation of the political/religious discussion rule. I would lock the thread and issue the warning/ban on one or both violations. If the thread was more obviously a violation of one rule, I might just issue the ban on that particular rule rather than try to list every potential rules violation in the ban message and try to defend it later.

Why are you being so contrarian? You're a smart guy -- there's no way you could actually believe what you're posting here.

  • 10.27.2011 7:06 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: kashinfist
I'm going to sound like a douche, but every reason please. That way we can better ourselves and make your job easier.
That does not make my job easier. Now, I do often put multiple reasons in a warning/ban message, but I'm not going to guarantee it all the time.


Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: Old Papa Rich
evry
OPR writing hymn lyrics o'er here.
Hey. I saved one letter. I'm pacing myself.

  • 10.27.2011 7:11 PM PDT

Key

Posted by: x Foman123 x

Nobody ever calls me a smart guy... :(

  • 10.27.2011 7:18 PM PDT

Does anyone even read these?

Posted by: x Foman123 x
Why are you being so contrarian? You're a smart guy -- there's no way you could actually believe what you're posting here.
Did you just call raad face a smart guy?

  • 10.27.2011 7:22 PM PDT

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.

Heres what throws me off Foman,
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)
^That line,
so you explained it had little discussion value, a silly thread that had little meaning. However, you ended up concluding that, the discussion value was not the reason why it was banned. Thus Making the only reason it was locked because of it's misplacement violation.
That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.
Not just locking it for one, while it violated two. You locked it for one and then claimed it was not locked for the other- despite it violating two.
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)but not the reason the thread was locked
meh, whatever.
just the way you phrased it really.
¯\_(0_o)_/¯


[Edited on 10.27.2011 7:44 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 7:27 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: raad face

Posted by: x Foman123 x
Posted by: raad face
Fomans reason for locking this thread is not accurate, because it implies that this exact thread can be posted with proper placement(in community forum) and not get locked.(which is hardly believable)

I implied the utter, complete opposite.

That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.

I would lock the thread and issue the warning/ban on one or both violations.

Heres what throws me off Foman,

Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)
^That line,

so you explained it had little discussion value, a silly thread that had little meaning. However, you ended up concluding that, the discussion value was not the reason why it was banned. Thus Making the only reason it was locked because of it's misplacement violation.
Honestly, you should quit with the nitpicking. Seriously, you're acting like a 12 year old who thinks he's tough -blam!- and can prove anyone wrong if he just argues enough.

I'm not trying to insult you, far from it. But, you're just arguing with him either A) because he's a ninja and you want to salvage some sort of fallacy in his otherwise logical and completely sound post about an obviously inappropriate and useless thread, or B) you legitimately think that you're correct and that Foman should recognize his mistake to you and admit that he didn't legitimately defend the lockin of that thread.

Both of these reason are asinine and without warrant for discussion to be honest with you. I honestly don't get why you're still bohemian to argue your point.

[Edited on 10.27.2011 7:50 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 7:48 PM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!


Posted by: raad face
Heres what throws me off Foman,
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)
^That line,
so you explained it had little discussion value, a silly thread that had little meaning. However, you ended up concluding that, the discussion value was not the reason why it was banned. Thus Making the only reason it was locked because of it's misplacement violation.
That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.
Not just locking it for one, while it violated two. You locked it for one and then claimed it was not locked for the other- despite it violating two.
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)but not the reason the thread was locked
meh, whatever.
just the way you phrased it really.
¯\_(0_o)_/¯
Just stop, you've clearly run out of steam because you're contradicting yourself now.

Earlier you said Foman implied that thread wouldn't be locked if posted here, which in effect means that you interpreted his comments as stating that the thread broke only one rule. Now you're saying that he said that it broke two rules. Which is it?

  • 10.27.2011 7:48 PM PDT

I breathe BR, not kidding homie.


Posted by: RighteousTyrant

Posted by: raad face
Heres what throws me off Foman,
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)
^That line,
so you explained it had little discussion value, a silly thread that had little meaning. However, you ended up concluding that, the discussion value was not the reason why it was banned. Thus Making the only reason it was locked because of it's misplacement violation.
That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.
Not just locking it for one, while it violated two. You locked it for one and then claimed it was not locked for the other- despite it violating two.
Regardless of the thread's "discussion value"(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)(which is debatable, but not the reason the thread was locked)but not the reason the thread was locked
meh, whatever.
just the way you phrased it really.
¯\_(0_o)_/¯
Just stop, you've clearly run out of steam because you're contradicting yourself now.

Earlier you said Foman implied that thread wouldn't be locked if posted here, which in effect means that you interpreted his comments as stating that the thread broke only one rule. Now you're saying that he said that it broke two rules. Which is it?
I'm still saying it broke one rule because that's how he presented it in his original post, he's trying to say now that it violated both and he blamed it for one, i'm showing that's not possible because he clearly said he did not lock it for it's discussion value, leaving only the one single misplacement reasoning to lock the thread. Even if he did lock it for both reasons, the way it is presented in his original post on the first page is that it was locked for only the misplacement. Which would then in turn possibly lead someone to believe that thread would be appropriate if re posted in the community forum. How is that contradicting myself, it supports my original point?

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Honestly, you should quit with the nitpicking. Seriously, you're acting like a 12 year old who thinks he's tough -blam!- and can prove anyone wrong if he just argues enough.

^hahahahahahaha.k.

ok, i'm done, i'm just trying to clarify my argument that's all.

[Edited on 10.27.2011 8:05 PM PDT]

  • 10.27.2011 7:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: x Foman123 x
I implied the utter, complete opposite. What I said was that the thread was only "on-topic" in this forum, but that it contained little potential for discussion in any forum. That is not a cop-out, nor is it difficult to understand. The thread violated two rules, and I locked it for the more obvious violation.

If I were to post a thread saying "What is it about [insert political party or religion here] people that makes them hate Halo: Reach's respawn system?" in the Community Forum, it would be both off-topic for the Community Forum and a violation of the political/religious discussion rule. I would lock the thread and issue the warning/ban on one or both violations. If the thread was more obviously a violation of one rule, I might just issue the ban on that particular rule rather than try to list every potential rules violation in the ban message and try to defend it later.

That answers my question. You know you could have just said, "That post was off-topic and had little discussion value." instead of the way you worded it, would have cleared things up a lot more.

  • 10.27.2011 8:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: kkrotz
  • user homepage:

I reckon it could be considered a piece of literary spam, like mentioned by a number of other users. It does not leave people with much to talk about.

  • 10.28.2011 2:43 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2