This.Decay wrote: We don't need warnings shoved in our face all the time.
It gets annoying.
This.Decay wrote: We don't need warnings shoved in our face all the time.
In most circumstances yes, but the warnings are simply a result of an inadequate level of maturity in threads like these.Decay wrote: We don't need warnings shoved in our face all the time.
Cyber: was chased by cowboys
Nautilus: Cowboys? more like a buncha kids chasing a fucking ice cream truck
BEST.EVER.UnixAssassin wrote: The definition of cheating is not this: Using an aim assisting tool in a game
(this warrants a warning) wrote:jesus christ, get this shit out of here. this just goes to show that furfags and bronies can create nothing good or original and don't belong in this community at all
(this does not) wrote:why did you make this in the first place? youtube poop isn't funny.
[18:55] <Decay> if you're upset, it is your obligation to make someone else upset
Totally agreed. That's why I am getting more and more inactive in this forum ....Decay wrote:
Warnings are not needed in threads like these; wait and see where they go. There is no point in continually telling us "don't state your opinion or get warned" or "no pointless posts or get warned," it's all in the rules anyway.
Nobody likes to have that shoved in their face. Those kind of "don't post or we will warn you" post can absolutely fuck off. The community doesn't need it's administration power-tripping all over the place. We damn well know when we post something warn-able, we see it coming. Unless we compare minecraft to lego, then it's a little unpredictable. You don't need to continually tell us what we already know.
Oh snap, and I've jumped on the bandwagon of those who misinterpreted. All I can say is that even if it is annoying, it does in some cases prevent bad things from happening. If a moderator feels it's absolutely necessary to remind people of the rules (minority have actually read them before their first split/warning (obviously)), then why not. It's not like it's going to hurt anyone.Qent wrote: Huh. It looks like Decay's talking about verbal in-thread warnings and everyone else is talking about formal warnings, so I'll talk about TTA's post. The community in general needs more optimism. Posting that some thread will attract trolls or erupt into a flamewar already puts a negative spin on it, and risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[18:55] <Decay> if you're upset, it is your obligation to make someone else upset
Too bad not many people even look at the rules. Mods are here to enforce that, and we'd like to prevent problems before they happen. There's also new people who come in and don't see the rules or don't see the "Please don't do that".Decay wrote: Warnings are not needed in threads like these; wait and see where they go. There is no point in continually telling us "don't state your opinion or get warned" or "no pointless posts or get warned," it's all in the rules anyway.
Nobody likes to have that shoved in their face. Those kind of "don't post or we will warn you" post can absolutely fuck off. The community doesn't need it's administration power-tripping all over the place. We damn well know when we post something warn-able, we see it coming. Unless we compare minecraft to lego, then it's a little unpredictable. You don't need to continually tell us what we already know.
You really need to word things better. Your whole "The whole world can fuck off" attitude isn't really getting you far and all it's saying to me is "I'm pissed off, and they're going to hear about it!". Really, give your opinions in a less aggressive manner and maybe we'll listen.Those kind of "don't post or we will warn you" post can absolutely fuck off.
I agree with you Aenima but...Ænima wrote:Yeah I got warned for this not too long ago, somehow.
To be honest, I fail to see how that merits a full-on warning (which contributes towards an auto-suspension or auto-ban, if your warning level goes high enough, as I've found).
Splitting my post because it was "pointless" or "not necessary" is fine. I have no problem with that.
[...]
The act of giving a warning should be as objective as humanly possible. Receiving a warning for flaming, distributing wares, or intentionally starting a shitty thread seems justifiable. Receiving one just because some butthurt basement-dweller decided to report your snarky-but-mostly-neutral post just seems excessive.
... this is the problem.HeavenWraith wrote:[...] on the other hand, there are people who are dissatisfied when there are off-topic interruptions in their discussion. So it's hard to tell what is the right way of moderation at this point.
... the problem seems to be the maturity level of the community and, if it is, the solution is to lower the tolerance threshold. If the moderators do this, they must do it for everyone, because we're all equal.Tor-Bjorn wrote:[...]warnings are simply a result of an inadequate level of maturity[...]
Cruduxy wrote: TBH topics that would cause mass bad reactions to them -and the authors KNOW it they can pretend but they know its an insult magnet- should have their authors warned themselves and the topic is locked with a "this should be a lesson to future topics".
Judging by Cruduxy's wording, I think he meant "threads started with the intention of having a shitfest take place". You know, where the OP pretends to be innocent.Qent wrote: That is incorrect. Trolling is one thing. Posting your project that no one likes is completely different and okay, provided you're prepared to take some harsh criticism for it.
This annoys me because it's sort of a contraction. If someone made a bad thread that wasn't a project and no one likes it, shouldn't that person take that very harsh criticism?Qent wrote: That is incorrect. Trolling is one thing. Posting your project (or match in this case) that no one likes is completely different and okay, provided you're prepared to take some harsh criticism for it.
Spoiler: A little off topic remark: (Open)
Probably because we're not all hive-minded, and we don't all warn for the exact same reasons, but generally we follow the same guidebook (I.E. Forum rules). Also, we're human, we make mistakes, and I personally don't think we're doing as bad as we were during the Skulltag era. I find we're much more relaxed now and less strict. I don't really see what there is to complain or make a big fuss over.Decay wrote: Well Watermelon you see, different punishments for different people is the definition of ST/zanzan administration!
I'll address some of the other points in a little bit.