Remove half of these shitty rules.
- Thread starter Overtime
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
Incorrect. "Shock" in this context, would mean something like a jump scare website. I’m sure you’ve seen them before. You load the site, and suddenly the screen goes black and white and a loud noise plays. We don’t want that content on our platform, and it is actually physically dangerous due to how some people react in their experience of sudden shock.
You would never be warned for saying you won the lottery, and if you did, you could quickly appeal it away, and the staff member would be given a stern talking to.
You can only be warned if you vouch on a thread offering a product/service that you’ve never even used before.
Prior to this rule being in place, every time a popular user created a thread, everyone who liked that user would flood it with "vouch" posts, resulting in pages of unhelpful content that would need to be scrolled past for anyone wanting to gauge current offers, look for reviews by people who had actually bought the product/service. If you like a user, use the reputation system. That’s what it’s there for.
Maybe there wouldn't be so much rules if people like you stop posting stupid threads like this one.[DOUBLEPOST=1582124366][/DOUBLEPOST]
To add on to this, members used to just spam “vouch"/"glws" on any thread to boost their post count and reaction count. This rule was very much needed and imo, it should be enforced more harshly.
Last edited:
just use the winner tag, basically a vouch tag. it prevents people from post farming
Not true according to the staff that warned me. I vouched for a product I bought...
Well, no, it's not - clearly, the reputation system is meant to be used only for deals due to the obvious and dramatic rules put in place for it. But, else, I agree with what you say.
You most likely didn't specify it in the vouch. Instead of saying "vouch" or "vouch user is cool" you have to specify by saying "vouch i bought something from the user and it was good quality" etc.
Exactly.
If you believe you were unfairly issued warning points, you can always appeal them by creating a support ticket.
There are no rules stating that the reputation system must only be used for deals, because the reputation system is not only for deals. Feedback pertaining to relevant interactions outside of a transaction are also always welcome. The issue is only that we are a marketplace and so interactions have a more difficult time being relevant if they are not something along the lines of a transaction. However, that hasn’t stopped the reputation system from being properly utilized to leave feedback on users for non-deal related interactions, such as someone being excessively toxic and disrespectful in conversation, or exceptionally helpful in multiple experiences of their support. It should also be noted that an interaction being a deal doesn’t necessarily make the feedback relevant either. For instance, you may find that feedback you received gets removed if the only thing you’ve done to earn it, according to the user who left it, was pay them one cent in exchange for a royalty free picture they found off google images.
-5 warning points
A more shitty rule is 1.8 which states "Do not post content which is extremely low in quality, irrelevant, redundant, unnecessary, or meaningless. (e.g: “Looks nice, GLWS”, “Vouch”)"
Who gets to decide what content is considered low quality, redundant, or even "meaningless"? Just because a certain staff member finds something meaningless or redundant doesn't mean that it is, or that others think that way.
For example, I agreed with someone's post a couple of weeks ago by replying "Agreed." (rather than using a reaction) namely because I also wanted to bump the thread and bring some life back to it (since you can't bump suggestion threads), and for some reason I received warning points for it because a staff member thought my post was redundant.
Is posting that you agree with someone really redundant? Unlike a reaction, it places more emphasis on the fact that you agree with the user and as such has more merit than a simple reaction, not to mention it bumps the thread which was my main intention. It also offers a chance for more interaction, if someone feels like responding to me or something. It's not like I posted random spam or gibberish that is truly irrelevant to the thread and/or meaningless.
Furthermore, writing simply is a skill (brevity is the soul of wit). Had I written something more verbose that might actually be considered "redundant", like "I agree with you; that really does suck!" I probably wouldn't have received warning points for it. But yeah, whatever, punish users for trying to boost forum activity when the activity of the forum already seems to be decreasing.
This thread is obviously pretty redundant but we all know he won't receive warning points for it.
Who gets to decide what content is considered low quality, redundant, or even "meaningless"? Just because a certain staff member finds something meaningless or redundant doesn't mean that it is, or that others think that way.
For example, I agreed with someone's post a couple of weeks ago by replying "Agreed." (rather than using a reaction) namely because I also wanted to bump the thread and bring some life back to it (since you can't bump suggestion threads), and for some reason I received warning points for it because a staff member thought my post was redundant.
Is posting that you agree with someone really redundant? Unlike a reaction, it places more emphasis on the fact that you agree with the user and as such has more merit than a simple reaction, not to mention it bumps the thread which was my main intention. It also offers a chance for more interaction, if someone feels like responding to me or something. It's not like I posted random spam or gibberish that is truly irrelevant to the thread and/or meaningless.
Furthermore, writing simply is a skill (brevity is the soul of wit). Had I written something more verbose that might actually be considered "redundant", like "I agree with you; that really does suck!" I probably wouldn't have received warning points for it. But yeah, whatever, punish users for trying to boost forum activity when the activity of the forum already seems to be decreasing.
This thread is obviously pretty redundant but we all know he won't receive warning points for it.
Last edited:
If you continue reading 1.8’s sub-rules which were quoted to you in your warning, you would see this:
1.8.1 Do not post content to which a reaction could have been substitute, or which was already made apparent.
Yes, responding to something with "Agree" rather than simply using the "Agree" reaction, is considered low quality posting, as is explicitly stated within 1.8’s first sub-rule. Such posts will be removed upon report, and a small warning with a brief expiry will be issued.
Something more verbose but with the same meaning, as you’ve used in your example, would still be removed upon report. However, a warning wouldn’t be issued since the poster has a reasonable excuse for their misunderstanding, even after reading the rules. An alert would generally be sent instead.
A reaction does not "substitute" a post in all contexts
A post
- has more merit
- clearly identifies with another user unlike a reaction number
- offers more interaction (For example, Eclipse has a habit of reacting agree/disagree to posts without explaining why. Had they written "agreed" or "disagreed", I would ask them why they felt this way. But it seems wrong to just tag someone randomly when they obviously don't want to be involved and only want to use the reaction feature.)
- bumps the thread (functionality that isn't possible with a reaction, or at all in the Suggestions section) which was the main reason I posted
You say it would be removed, but I doubt it. I see posts like that everywhere. Perhaps they just aren't as obvious as my example.
I believe the rules should stay in place but there could be more of an explanation given for the shock rule. I've seen multiple users not understand what that exactly means and simply adding a small explanation to it could prevent suggestions like this.
We'll likely be rewording our rule about 'shocking' to clarify its meaning. All of the other examples of rules you consider shitty have had their purpose justified and will be staying.
Denied, thanks for the suggestion
Denied, thanks for the suggestion
- Status
