The warning system and why it should be changed

[Doge]

Okay, so the reason I am making this post is to point out the flaws in the warning system and how it can easily be abused. The main focus for this will be "Low Quality" posts. First of all what is "Low Quality" is completely up to the mods to decide and is frequently taken out of context. For example I had asked a question and I got an answer I didn't expect so my reaction was "okay..." and replied with "k" which is common to do as in with "lol" "lmao" etc. And many people do respond like that.The post was completely taken out of context and was considered low quality. It wasn't spam, it was saying a shortened form of "okay". If I wanted to, I could report countless posts of people replying with "LOL" "LMAO" "k" ";D" etc and get them a warning or even a ban. It's all based on subjective opinion and you are essentially completely at the mercy of the mods. I feel like the point of "warnings" was to stop spammers and people who break the rules and not to over-police everybody's posts for some stupid little things. This can easily be abused because someone can look through your post history and start reporting everything slightly "LQ" and get you banned. It's not supposed to harm normal users, it's supposed to stop actual rulebreaking and spam.

My solution? Make official criteria for a "Low Quality" post that mods must look over before deciding whether it's lq or not. Make sure it is not taken out of context and actually is spam. To combat abuse, make a limit to how old of a post can be reported. (1 week/3 days old etc.) Also, make sure to send a PM about the warning and include "If you believe this warning is unfair, please reply and explain your reasoning." I wasn't even notified about mine and had no idea.

I believe the criteria for a warning point (regarding types of posts. The ones below should be the only ones considered "Low Quality") should fall under these three catagories:

• Sales Trashing - Being critical towards a seller in a way that is not constructive/helpful but rather rude and demeaning.

• Threats - Can be related to DDoS or physical harm towards a user. (must not be a joke)

• Spam - The repeated posting of useless posts on a thread in attempt to gain posts or annoy a user.

We need to stop this extreme policing of content that isn't even "Low Quality". Nobody wants to be in an over-controlled system. Especially not a Minecraft forum.

 

[montyburly]

I agree. I think the only reason a person should be warned is if they trash a sales thread, threaten another member, or spam messages.

 

[Doge]

I agree. I think the only reason a person should be warned is if they trash a sales thread, threaten another member, or spam messages.

This is perfect honestly. The whole "Low Quality" thing is getting out of hand and is getting people warning points or bans for perfectly normal posts. Those three things should be the criteria to give out a warning point.

• Sales Trashing - Being critical towards a seller in a way that is not constructive/helpful but rather rude and demeaning.
• Threats - Can be related to DDoS or physical harm towards a user. (must not be a joke)
• Spam - The repeated posting of useless posts on a thread in attempt to gain posts or annoy a user.

 

[Resilience]

Honestly they should either consult with the person before taking action or just delete the post and not warn them unless it becomes a common trend for that person to go on a bunch of posts and say one letter posts.

 

[montyburly]

Honestly they should either consult with the person before taking action or just delete the post and not warn them unless it becomes a common trend for that person to go on a bunch of posts and say one letter posts.

Yeah, that would be a good idea. Making small comments like "lol" doesn't hurt anyone so I don't see why staff needs to warn people for it.

 

[Justis]

Your problem seems to be less with the warning system, and more with the low quality posting criteria.

If you were to read the rules, you would see that they specifically say no one word replies. "glws", "nice", etc.
It even goes so far as to explain why one word posts aren't permitted.
"If you wish to tell a user this, please send them a PM to reduce clutter on threads".

So you see, getting warned by a mod should come as no surprise to you at all.
You have right in front of you, what the mods use to determine if your post is low quality or not; and you are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion yourself before hitting post.

Of course, you are free to argue the rules if you wish.
Suggest that they be changed, if you so desire.
I'll disagree with you, however.
I would seriously rather not have my threads filled with one word replies, no matter what the context.
If I wanted one word replies, I'd message my girlfriend.

Anyone incapable of thinking of more than one word to add to their post should take a break and come back later when they've found their brain, or ask their mom for help, because even for the laziest of internet users, it's not that hard to do.

Thanks for this thread.
You actually put effort into it, and because of that, these forums feel that much more lively.

 

[montyburly]

Your problem seems to be less with the warning system, and more with the low quality posting criteria.

If you were to read the rules, you would see that they specifically say no one word replies. "glws", "nice", etc.
It even goes so far as to explain why one word posts aren't permitted.
"If you wish to tell a user this, please send them a PM to reduce clutter on threads".

So you see, getting warned by a mod should come as no surprise to you at all.
You have right in front of you, what the mods use to determine if your post is low quality or not; and you are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion yourself before hitting post.

Of course, you are free to argue the rules if you wish.
Suggest that they be changed, if you so desire.
I'll disagree with you, however.
I would seriously rather not have my threads filled with one word replies, no matter what the context.
If I wanted one word replies, I'd message my girlfriend.

Anyone incapable of thinking of more than one word to add to their post should take a break and come back later when they've found their brain, or as their mom for help, because even for the laziest of internet users, it's not that hard to do.

Thanks for this thread.
You actually put effort into it, and because of that, these forums feel that much more lively.

The rules mention two things that are considered low quality. I've gotten warnings for random multi-word comments/posts I made without any explanation as to why they were "low quality."

 

[Justis]

The rules mention two things that are considered low quality. I've gotten warnings for random multi-word comments/posts I made without any explanation as to why they were "low quality."

The rules give three examples of low quality posting, actually.
"Replies such as 'glws' and 'nice'" are one example.
You can't honestly expect the rules to list every single word reply possible. You're expected to use your brain for this one.
I focused only on this example, as it was mainly the target of the OP.
The second example is, as the rules put it, "If your post is not needed, or is created with the intent to increase your posts".
That's fairly self explanatory. If your post contributes nothing to the thread/forum it's under, it can be removed.
And then the third example, asking for vouch copies when vouch copies are not explicitly offered.

These are all examples of low quality posting.
And posts that fit this criteria are liable be removed by staff.

If you have an example of a post you've made that obviously doesn't fall under any of these, then by all means offer it.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing the unjustified power abuse happening under our noses.

But I would suggest keeping in mind that the rules cannot account for every possible response in every context; and deciding whether this criteria applies to your post is at the discretion of the staff. It cannot be helped.
If you're uncertain of whether or not your post can be seen as low quality, and you don't want a warning, don't risk it for the biscuit.
Make it indisputable that your post is a valuable contribution to the site.
The moment it can be argued otherwise, you've lost.

 

[montyburly]

The rules give three examples of low quality posting, actually.
"Replies such as 'glws' and 'nice'" are one example.
You can't honestly expect the rules to list every single word reply possible. You're expected to use your brain for this one.
I focused only on this example, as it was mainly the target of the OP.
The second example is, as the rules put it, "If your post is not needed, or is created with the intent to increase your posts".
That's fairly self explanatory. If your post contributes nothing to the thread/forum it's under, it can be removed.
And then the third example, asking for vouch copies when vouch copies are not explicitly offered.

These are all examples of low quality posting.
And posts that fit this criteria are liable be removed by staff.

If you have an example of a post you've made that obviously doesn't fall under any of these, then by all means offer it.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing the unjustified power abuse happening under our noses.

But I would suggest keeping in mind that the rules cannot account for every possible response in every context; and deciding whether this criteria applies to your post is at the discretion of the staff. It cannot be helped.
If you're uncertain of whether or not your post can be seen as low quality, and you don't want a warning, don't risk it for the biscuit.
Make it indisputable that your post is a valuable contribution to the site.
The moment it can be argued otherwise, you've lost.

For starters, here's a warning I got for a post that cannot be considered of lower quality than any of the shitposts on the front page right now:

I know that the rules cannot account for every single situation, but staff clearly just pick and choose who they want to warn and who they want to allow to shitpost. I mean there's people who actually refer to themselves as shitposters and have a "shitposter club" who are still allowed to post whatever they want. My point is that if they're going to have these rules against low quality posts, they need to enforce it for everyone or no one. They shouldn't pick and choose who they feel like punishing.

 

[Justis]

For starters, here's a warning I got for a post that cannot be considered of lower quality than any of the shitposts on the front page right now:

I know that the rules cannot account for every single situation, but staff clearly just pick and choose who they want to warn and who they want to allow to shitpost. I mean there's people who actually refer to themselves as shitposters and have a "shitposter club" who are still allowed to post whatever they want. My point is that if they're going to have these rules against low quality posts, they need to enforce it for everyone or no one. They shouldn't pick and choose who they feel like punishing.

As I said...
It's at the discretion of the staff..
"That cannot be helped".
We're all only human.

You should not get upset when your low quality post gets removed and another LQ-post was not.
Even if you think theirs was lower quality.

If you want to help the staff locate and remove these posts you consider lower quality than yours, so your don't feel left out, you can always report them.

But the best way to avoid getting yours removed, is to avoid making low quality posts in the first place.
"... don't risk it for the biscuit.
Make it indisputable that your post is a valuable contribution to the site."

 

[montyburly]

As I said...
It's at the discretion of the staff..
"That cannot be helped".
We're all only human.

You should not get upset when your low quality post gets removed and another LQ-post was not.
Even if you think theirs was lower quality.

If you want to help the staff locate and remove these posts you consider lower quality than yours, so your don't feel left out, you can always report them.

But the best way to avoid getting yours removed, is to avoid making low quality posts in the first place.
"... don't risk it for the biscuit.
Make it indisputable that your post is a valuable contribution to the site."

lol why does the general section even exist then? every post there is "low quality" and doesnt pertain to what the site is meant for, which is selling things

 

[Justis]

lol why does the general section even exist then? every post there is "low quality" and doesnt pertain to what the site is meant for, which is selling things

No. The site is meant for the forums within it.
There are selling forums for selling things, sure, but there are other forums as well.
Keep your posts where they should be, and keep them high quality.
Report the ones that aren't these things, and we should all have a great time.

 

[montyburly]

No. The site is meant for the forums within it.
There are selling forums for selling things, sure, but there are other forums as well.
Keep your posts where they should be, and keep them high quality.
Report the ones that aren't these things, and we should all have a great time.

I don't feel like arguing about it anymore, but if there's a 'general' section staff cant get mad about 'general' posts being made. it does not make sense

 

[Justis]

I don't feel like arguing about it anymore, but if there's a 'general' section staff cant get mad about 'general' posts being made. it does not make sense

The general section is for the community to make and participate in threads that don't have a forum already designated for them.
That does not include low quality posts.

Most low quality threads in the general section normally fall under the second example the rules provide of a low quality post.
A post made only for the purpose of being another post. To boost your numbers. That's all.
No contribution to the community.

I hope I've cleared that up for you.

 

[Justis]

People need to get banned for posting salty posts on someones thread.

I disagree,
Even salty posts can be constructive.

The world is full of salty people. Toughen up. That's just their attitude.
You can't change how people are, nor should you want to.
Diversity makes life fun.

Life is rude and so are the people living through it.
I'd hate to participate in a forum where everyone is afraid to speak their mind when their mind isn't necessarily positive.

As long as posts aren't abusive, they're alright with me.

Anyways..
What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Justis]

Report the post he's made if you think it's abusive.
But if you want my opinion.....

He called you arrogant...

I dont have time to read all of that. Let me make this clear no one is on my level here you are all below me thats that.

And you proved him right.

If you don't want people calling you a out on being a brat, stop being a one.
Yes his attitude was salty, but so was yours in nearly every post on your thread.
He got his point across, and it was a perfectly justified opinion for him to have after everything you said.
He actually gave you some great advice if you opened your eyes enough to acknowledge it.

Going back and fourth posting paypal statements:
https://gyazo.com/73be2634dc0ceb44130d33c1a42be937
Trying to prove you're better and above everyone else...
As if it means anything.

People in that thread were responding negatively to your service, and instead of making an appropriate response, you escalated the whole situation, fighting with and insulting everyone that spoke. Going on and on about how great you are, and antagonizing the people who called you out.

Now you come here.... To a completely unrelated thread... And you whine and complain about people being "salty" with you.
Claiming that they should all be banned...

I'm sorry sir, but you should really reconsider your perspective.

And leave this thread.
You still have yet to make a contribution to the topic at hand.

 

[OptiBrine]

ok lol

And that is a great example of what "LQ post" is.
A LQ post should be determined through the following:
- Un-needed post on a thread.
- Something that starts a flame war.

Honestly, punishments should be severely lowered.
Someone gets 10 Warning Points = 1 week ban, wtf.
The things that are needed to be removed/altered is...
- LQ posts rule
- Warning system punishments