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?

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


Well that's not exactly what I meant, but I get what you do mean by that. In that case, I doubt the thread itself would be locked. I remember a thread on this forum where the OP was banned, but the thread itself wasn't locked, probably because the thread itself could still be answered and discussed upon without the need of an OP (I think it was because the question was in the topic, can't remember).

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is if it falls on the poster himself to avoid posting a one-liner, it falls on the OP to try and make a thread that attempts to avoid one-line replies. "Climate Change" wouldn't work, even if you were guaranteed replies.

[Edited on 05.11.2012 7:22 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 7:20 AM PDT


Posted by: Skibur
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?[/quote]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.
Did you just repeat my point back to me again?

I'm fully aware how my logic works... Repeating it back to me doesn't really further your point any. Do you actually have anything new to add to the discussion?

  • 05.11.2012 8:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

So you're saying that it's a good thing that there's justification for moderators to bam someone for 'not violating a rule'?

  • 05.11.2012 8:55 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
So you're saying that it's a good thing that there's justification for moderators to bam someone for 'not violating a rule'?
It's late where you are, so I'll forgive your lack of mental acuity... But what you just posted does not resemble, in any way, shape, or form, the point I was making. I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

My point is this:
- The spam rules, as they are currently stated, are perfectly clear.
- Enforcement of the rules is the job of the moderators.
- For the moderators to enforce the rules, they must use their own judgement.

  • 05.11.2012 8:59 AM PDT

Have A Nice Day!

Commander, CammCam's Queensguard; Sapphire Mod; 34th Seat, Table of Avalon(Exiled);Captain, HAND

yolo? -blam!- that! YOLTOSS!! You Only Live Twice or Some -blam!-

After reading this thread I have determined the rule is only enforced against Skibur.

  • 05.11.2012 9:04 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bea
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.
Did you just repeat my point back to me again?
It is late where I am, but there's what you said.

They are not perfectly clear! Hence the thread! "One liner replies are spam." well look at most replies to most threads. If that's a clear rule, then people should be getting banned for spam and thread creators for making threads with "no discussion value."

What is and isn't discussion isn't clear. What is and isn't spam isn't clear.
It ultimately comes down to the moderator to decide. I think this is dangerous and inconsistent. You think it's good.

Bed time.

[Edited on 05.11.2012 9:09 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 9:05 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2