Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: How short can a reply to a thread be before the OP is banned?
  • Subject: How short can a reply to a thread be before the OP is banned?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: How short can a reply to a thread be before the OP is banned?
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Q What is/counts as spam?
- Threads that only require a one-liner reply such as a number or rank.
Congratulations practically every person who has posted a thread and not been banned. You dodged a bullet, because nearly every single thread could fall under this rule.

My last two bans were for this very reason with the message being the rather ambiguous "Threads must encourage discussion."

What is discussion? Determining the discussion value of a topic is a very subjective matter.
Heck, in my opinion more than half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time, but that's no reason to lock or ban them, because someone else might think otherwise.

I propose that this rule is either elaborated on or scrapped. It ultimately comes down to whether the moderator wants to ban you or not, not if you were negatively affecting the community.

Please don't all reply to my thread with one line replies... ;)

  • 05.11.2012 1:45 AM PDT

I'm pretty sure threads in the Halo 3 Forum were locked due to being one liner threads such as "What is your matchmaking level?" and others would reply with 34, 27, 49, ect. That's all I can really think of.

I'm perplexed that you would risk posting in the mains. You're never going to get your Mythic back if you keep getting banned.

  • 05.11.2012 1:50 AM PDT

The rule is pretty vague... It probably refers to threads with that just require a yes or no, or something equally short like a join date.

  • 05.11.2012 1:51 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: antony X1000
It probably refers to threads with that just require a yes or no, or something equally short like a join date.
That's still discussion, it's just not discussion that requires a paragraph. People are still involved in interacting with each other in a positive way in the community.

  • 05.11.2012 1:55 AM PDT

Posted by: Dropship dude
No, acnboy. Spartain Ken 15 is a lesser being. Much like the bacteria that lives in your shi­t.
Posted by: mike120593
My shi­t bacteria takes offense to that comparison.

Don't make me lel. You won't like me when I lel.

It's probably more to do with threads that a user couldn't possibly type more than one relevant sentence without trying really, really hard (IE threads that not only have no discussion value, but couldn't reasonably be discussed in any form).

  • 05.11.2012 1:56 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: random no337
It's probably more to do with threads that a user couldn't possibly type more than one relevant sentence without trying really, really hard (IE threads that not only have no discussion value, but couldn't reasonably be discussed in any form).
Like this?
You won't see anyone typing paragraphs to justify their selection of a few words... :/

Not that there's anything wrong with that thread, hence this thread.

  • 05.11.2012 2:00 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: Skibur
That's still discussion, it's just not discussion that requires a paragraph. People are still involved in interacting with each other in a positive way in the community.
No it's not, and no they're not.

If everybody is just posting their simple replies to the OP's question, and not discussing anything amongst themselves, it isn't interaction or even real discussion.

Funnily enough, these are the most popular types of threads on this forum because they solicit a quick and easy answer that everybody has.

Quick example from the front page: "If you could have your own custom title what would it be?" It's five pages long and basically entirely filled with one liner responses. There is very little interaction whatsoever. (The occasional "lol funny choice")

We see these threads everyday and they nearly always hit hot topic because of this.

Compare it to this thread, where we are actually talking to eachother and addressing individual posts, and it's pretty clear what "discussion" and "interaction" really is.

  • 05.11.2012 2:14 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Are people interested in reading the responses? Are people interested in sharing their opinion/ideas?

Yes.

Positive.

  • 05.11.2012 2:17 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
What is discussion? Determining the discussion value of a topic is a very subjective matter.
I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why we have moderators to make a judgement call.

Posted by: Skibur
Heck, in my opinion more than half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time...
And you'll also notice that you're no longer a moderator... Maybe that's part of the reason.

  • 05.11.2012 4:10 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
What is discussion? Determining the discussion value of a topic is a very subjective matter.
I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why we have moderators to make a judgement call.
As "rule enforcers" their only judgement calls should be on whether a warning or ban is sufficient, and if a ban, how long is appropriate.

Posted by: Skibur
Heck, in my opinion more than half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time...
And you'll also notice that you're no longer a moderator... Maybe that's part of the reason.
I think this is just an attempt at a personal attack. It has no relevance to the topic.

  • 05.11.2012 4:18 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
What is discussion? Determining the discussion value of a topic is a very subjective matter.
I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why we have moderators to make a judgement call.
As "rule enforcers" their only judgement calls should be on whether a warning or ban is sufficient, and if a ban, how long is appropriate.
It sounds like you just repeated my point back to me... I'll assume that means you agree with me.

Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
Heck, in my opinion more than half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time...
And you'll also notice that you're no longer a moderator... Maybe that's part of the reason.
I think this is just an attempt at a personal attack. It has no relevance to the topic.
Quite the contrary... The topic at hand is one of opinion. My point is that it is the moderator's opinion that matters, not yours. The fact that your opinion seems to differ from that of the general population (or, at least, that of the current moderating team), should be a pretty clear explanation for each of the following events:

1) Your change in status of a moderator
2) Your recent string of bans
3) Your creation of this topic

  • 05.11.2012 4:27 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
Heck, in my opinion more than half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time...
And you'll also notice that you're no longer a moderator... Maybe that's part of the reason.
I think this is just an attempt at a personal attack. It has no relevance to the topic.
Quite the contrary... The topic at hand is one of opinion. My point is that it is the moderator's opinion that matters, not yours. The fact that your opinion seems to differ from that of the general population (or, at least, that of the current moderating team), should be a pretty clear explanation for each of the following events:

1) Your change in status of a moderator
2) Your recent string of bans
3) Your creation of this topic
My opinion on what? That discussion is far wider reaching than the rules allow? That the moderators shouldn't decide what is and isn't discussion? Or that this forum is mostly inane repeat threads?

If you're telling me that I'm alone when it comes to all three of these then I'll tell you you're crazy.

  • 05.11.2012 4:37 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
That the moderators shouldn't decide what is and isn't discussion?
I think this is the main sticking point...

If not them, then who? If no one is responsible for making this decision, then there isn't really any solution for your issue that "half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time", now is there?

  • 05.11.2012 4:48 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
That the moderators shouldn't decide what is and isn't discussion?
I think this is the main sticking point...

If not them, then who? If no one is responsible for making this decision, then there isn't really any solution for your issue that "half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time", now is there?
The solution is to let them be, because them being a waste of time is simply an opinion, like I said in the OP.

If a thread has no discussion value no one will post in it. Problem solved. If people are posting in it then it's serving a purpose and providing some enjoyment for someone.

  • 05.11.2012 4:52 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
That the moderators shouldn't decide what is and isn't discussion?
I think this is the main sticking point...

If not them, then who? If no one is responsible for making this decision, then there isn't really any solution for your issue that "half the threads posted in this forum are a gigantic waste of time", now is there?
The solution is to let them be, because them being a waste of time is simply an opinion, like I said in the OP.

If a thread has no discussion value no one will post in it. Problem solved. If people are posting in it then it's serving a purpose and providing some enjoyment for someone.
Doesn't that sorta open the doors for a full-on spam attack? How do you propose we prevent that?

  • 05.11.2012 4:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It's easy to define a spammer. It's not so easy to define spam.

  • 05.11.2012 5:00 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Doesn't that sorta open the doors for a full-on spam attack? How do you propose we prevent that?
Mods can differentiate between a "full-on spam attack" and a discussion, no matter how inane the discussion is.

  • 05.11.2012 5:06 AM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

Posted by: Skibur
Q What is/counts as spam?
- Threads that only require a one-liner reply such as a number or rank.
Did the topics that caused you to get banned have questions similar to "What is your rank on Halo: Reach?"?

That kind of topic can cause one-liners.

  • 05.11.2012 5:24 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
It's easy to define a spammer. It's not so easy to define spam.
Actually, it is... You just don't like the definition that's been decided on.

Posted by: Yax
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Doesn't that sorta open the doors for a full-on spam attack? How do you propose we prevent that?
Mods can differentiate between a "full-on spam attack" and a discussion, no matter how inane the discussion is.
How? What's the difference? And what grounds are there to stop or punish someone if what they are doing does not violate any stated rules?

  • 05.11.2012 6:31 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
It's easy to define a spammer. It's not so easy to define spam.
Actually, it is...
Actually, because it's so subjective, it's not.


Posted by: Yax
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Doesn't that sorta open the doors for a full-on spam attack? How do you propose we prevent that?
Mods can differentiate between a "full-on spam attack" and a discussion, no matter how inane the discussion is.
And what grounds are there to stop or punish someone if what they are doing does not violate any stated rules?
Um, how about because the moderators can use their 'judgement', so there doesn't really need to be any 'grounds'. Well according to your logic at least.

[Edited on 05.11.2012 6:36 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 6:36 AM PDT

Posted by: antony X1000
The rule is pretty vague... It probably refers to threads with that just require a yes or no, or something equally short like a join date.

That's where the rule gets tricky for me. Sure, the OP is supposed to start a thread that creates discussion, but it falls on the poster to elaborate and flesh out his idea, or his post, and not just reply with a yes or no. In short, it takes at least two to tango. Or post. Whatever.

  • 05.11.2012 6:59 AM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Define discussion

  • 05.11.2012 7:01 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Synyster Ricz
Posted by: antony X1000
The rule is pretty vague... It probably refers to threads with that just require a yes or no, or something equally short like a join date.

That's where the rule gets tricky for me. Sure, the OP is supposed to start a thread that creates discussion, but it falls on the poster to elaborate and flesh out his idea, or his post, and not just reply with a yes or no. In short, it takes at least two to tango. Or post. Whatever.
Exactly. That's why I worded the title of the thread the way I did, as it is really up to the people who are replying to the thread to post in a way that constitutes discussion.

I could make a thread where the OP simply says "Climate Change" and it could possibly reach hundreds of pages of quality discussion.

  • 05.11.2012 7:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Shoot pool, not people.

Obvious alt


Posted by: Skibur
It's easy to define a spammer. It's not so easy to define spam.


This shiz right here.

  • 05.11.2012 7:05 AM PDT

Tin shacks and catfish bones.

What are we supposed to be discussing here?

  • 05.11.2012 7:08 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2