 |
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by DanS on 06-14-2000 03:37 PM</font>
Points of clarification, please...
(1) If you post an on-topic topic, are you then forbidden to post an off-topic topic in the time period? Can you say that quickly ten times? 
(2) If you post an off-topic topic, are you then forbidden to post an on-topic topic during the same time period?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>the restriction is only in the OT. you can post 100(to get the meaning) in the on topics forums if you like, but you can post 1 in the OT
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>(3) Are moderators also forbidden to post more than once in the same time period?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>no.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>MarkG: why not create an ad hoc rule, rather than an automated one? Ming seems to think it would be more "efficient" for the mods in the long run.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>it seems that decisions made by people sometimes tend to create even more fuss than the actual problem was in the first place. when possible, and when it's right, an automated rule works better imho
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Also, I "sort of" call into question your intent. If attacks were the posts to be guarded against, then you would institute the rule forum-wide. But you aren't doing this, which leads me to believe that you are trying to regulate the content.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>how exactly do I regulate content? Such a restriction is not made on the on-topic forums, as they have no spam problems.
images are also enable in the on-topic forum cause there have be no mis-use of the ability to post. see where I'm going?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Believe me, there are better, positive ways to increase the quality of OT.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>post them please
|
|
| |
|
|
Cthol
|
|
"I'm a fucking idiot who complains all the time."
Oct 1999
time: 07:13
|
|
now when the OT is censored, the spam artists will move to apolyton forum.
i think the 1 hour/per thread idea is good, but who cares what i think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by CapTVK on 06-14-2000 03:15 PM</font>
In the 2nd case I would take their complaints into consideration and try to promote self-regulation. And self-regulation works best when there are a FEW but CLEAR rules, not a bunch of "thou shalt not..." commandments.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>1) how do you promote self-regulation? I'm very interested...
2) what exactly is not clear in our rules?
btw, I have yet to hear from someone who was affected by this decision
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cthol
|
|
"I'm a fucking idiot who complains all the time."
Oct 1999
time: 07:13
|
|
HEY! let's make a 1 post/per day, yes post = NO SPAM! many DL's though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
btw, people, did you see what BD posted?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>2 posts/ 2 hours
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
see? want to go to something like that?!? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cthol
|
|
"I'm a fucking idiot who complains all the time."
Oct 1999
time: 07:13
|
|
i seems that markos has spammed in this thread, every third post is posted by markos. hhmmmm......
if you wanna spam go to the OT!
PS. the angry face is there because of the new rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
I agree completely with GP. Thats the way things should be run. And just where is DanQ?! He's always going 'what about me guys!! I'm co-owner you know... blah blah blah'. Did he have any say in this or is this just MarkG going crazy all on his own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by GP on 06-14-2000 05:03 PM</font>
The posters in those threads should have the power to do that.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>it remains to be seen if this decision causes problems in these cases...
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>I think you should just stop pussyfooting around with the discipline. If somebody disrupts the community, just ask them once to stop. If they don't, ban them permanently.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>unfortunately for what you suggest, it took 5-6 bannings of someone in order to be accepted by the grand majority of this forum that he should be permanently banned(RainbowJDS)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Add another dissenting voice MarkG. I am probably the fourth oldest logon at Apolyton (after you, Dan and Ming). In all of this time I may have started 20-30 threads at best, and practically all of them in On-Topic. Therefore you can see that this rule does not affect me at all. From my totally objective point of view, I fail to see the logic behind your decision. Please reconsider it.
GP's solution appears to be a very good one. Just warn the spammer and if he/she persists in his/her idiocy, just ban him. And as Ming would say, case closed!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with my friend Benedetti. And I am not against sensible restrictions to stop spammers. But this is idiotic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
embalmer42
|
|
The Great State Of Insanity
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Count another dissenting vote from someone who has yet to start a thread here....although I doubt it would make a difference how many people raised their voices in objections. As they have pointed out in the past, this is their site and they will do what they want.
How sad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The real reason they are doing this is that a lot of the other forums are dying and they want to force the OT posters to go and liven them up.
Eh? That can't be true, can it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MarkG, I believe you said that your objective was to stop people posting 10 threads per day (when those who do fail to include quality) on the off-topic and screwing things up.
If that's the case, why did you make the limit 1 thread? I think a compromise would be a better solution. Most people have suggested something a bit less restrictive, like 2 or 3 threads per day. People still won't be able to post 10 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I would just like to add that I, too, am shocked, dismayed, horrified, perplexed, saddened, distraught, distressed, annoyed, irritated, and confused about this new policy. The last time there was real spamming in OT (unless I missed something) was over a month ago. For 1 person over 1 month, are you going to prevent 100 frequent posters from discussing the things they are interested in eternally? I've seen some bad decisions around here, but this one has to take the cake. You can already ban spammers...don't seriously restrict "good" posters as well!
Besides, now any would-be-spammer is going to have to spam the on-topic fora, which you are likely to like even less than spamming off-topic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm not talking about importing battle.net's 2 posts/2 hours rule, I'm talking about using whatever hacking technique is being used to institute a 2 threads/day rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tsk
|
|
Problem: Your favourite threads are knocked into page two because of "spam".
Solution: Click on the link to page two.
There, that wasn't hard, was it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course this idiotic new restriction is just an open invitation for people to create D/Ls. I'd say just with my current IP accounts, logons and computers I could create at least 10 double logins without any chance of detection.
Someone just with AOL could create 5 on just 1 account.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Mark - I think I've started about 6 or 7 threads here in as many months, so the rule doesn't affect me directly.
It does affect the feel of the place - if I'm working 12-14 hours in a day and AH puts up 3 email spam threads - I know I'll probably get a laugh and a stress relief. It doesn't bother me in the least.
Most times, it's the regulated's sense of over-regulation, more than the actual effect, the has the impact. People will either migrate to other fora or sites, go out of their way to subvert the rule with D/Ls, or get on ICQ and ask others to initiate topics for them. Do you then warn or ban someone for creating a topic for someone who's at the limit? I understand the intent behind the rule, but I think the silliness factor outweighs the utility - and it just begs the OT crowd to run amok. A 2 or 3 per day limit would be reasonable, and a total posts per day limit would definitely cure spam. 1 new topic per day, but unlimited posts, won't do much but trigger some reaction from OTers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
embalmer42
|
|
The Great State Of Insanity
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
...or could that be his intention: to kill off OT completely?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2000 01:21
I think you're just jealous you couldn't start a thread suggesting Mark G's remedy and thereby create all this commotion. 
|