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.

 

[thebaum64]

I also got multiple warnings by thebaum64 because of posting old threads

I posted a message on Mick old thread of his introduction and i got a warning because of that, as well as Bot

Its never to late to welcome a fellow mcm member?

That is called necroposting and is not permitted, read the rules.

 

[montyburly]

No offense Doge....
You know I have a huge respect for you...
But I've lived with eight younger siblings, and I recognize a child when I see one.

You sound like a four year old... "But MOMMMM, why does HE get to have a piece of candy before dinner..."
"But DAAADDDDD.... Why doesn't HE have to do the dishes..."
"But MICKKKK..... Why doesn't HEEE get a warning... ;-;"

Life's not always fair...
I'm sorry but it's not.
Grow up and deal with it?

Love you bae.

Justis, what is your problem? First the ad fiasco and now this. This warning system is clearly and indisputably unfair. You comparing Doge's points with a four year old asking for candy makes absolutely no sense in any way. Doge is arguing that the system is unfair, and this site is important to so many people with shops. Nara and I make hundreds of dollars on this site each month. She was banned for three months due do a glitch in the warning system and abusive warnings given. Don't even try arguing with that, because after a week of me talking to staff, we figured it out and they admitted that some of her warnings were abusive. Why should she be banned for three months because of stupid warnings given to her while other people who post the same kind of content and lesser quality content are allowed to continue staying on the site? Give me a real, actual reason (not just some ass kissing to staff) that that is fair, and don't say it's because staff doesn't see the other people because I have reported so many rule-breakers and staff just ignores a lot of them. There is absolutely no reason that nara should have to lose out on hundreds of dollars for three months because of this faulty warning system and biased staff members while actual shitposting rule-breakers get away scot free.

The warning system clearly needs to be changed, and honestly it should be the staff's top priority. So many innocent people have been banned, and for what? Is commenting "k" on a thread hurting anyone? Is posting a silly thread in the general section damaging to anyone on this site? Do these people really need to be banned for that? In my opinion warnings should only be given to people who are making threats, sales trashing, or harassing other users. And sure there are a lot of actual shitposters on this site, people who go around posting one word comments with the clear intent of boosting their post count. Those people should be punished, yes, but someone like Doge with thousands of vouches, someone who is clearly a positive contributing member to this site should not be punished for making one "low quality" comment that hurts nobody.

Doge is making reasonable arguments about a faulty system on this site that needs to be changed, and then you just come in here and call him four years old. Personally attacking someone in a thread isn't going to get you staff.

 

[nara~kavi]

I think the warning system on this website is abominable. Monty & I used to post all the time, and some people liked that and some people didn't, but now we're simply afraid to post anything at all out of fear of being banned. Many prominent members such as myself and OGMaster have been mistakenly banned by the glitchy and broken warning system, and many more prominent members have become less active as a result of it. The simple fact is that if you make a lot of posts like all of the prominent members of this website do, then eventually over a period of time you are going to accumulate a lot of warnings. I myself have a lot of warnings that will *never* expire, over posts that are almost entirely located in the General section of this board that is meant for light/off topic conversation.

*So many* shitposts on this forum are posted in General and are totally ignored, and staff comes in and says "well you should have reported those", but honestly speaking it is STAFF'S JOB to go through and find these and delete these, not just to sit there on their asses waiting for reports. Why is it our job to hunt them down and report them for you? If you can't do this, then retire. It is unfair for one person to get warned over something that someone else gets warned for, and so long as this "low quality post" system is in place then people will continue to abuse it to get whoever they dislike banned.

People will only report posts of people who they hate. I see low quality posts from people I like all the time and refrain from clicking the report button - and I know for a fact it's the same with everyone else. Likewise, it's entirely up to the opinion of the moderator what a "low quality post" is, and how many warnings to give out for it. K3 showed me my warnings and I have 3 warnings for a recent post I've made, and yet I know for a fact the last post that I made that was deserving of that many warnings was a post I made against Baum a long time ago.

This system needs to be drastically altered or removed. All warnings should expire, and nobody should be automatically banned by the system without moderators/administrators looking into the ban first. It should all be manual, because clearly the automatic system is incapable of correctly functioning. How many people on this website have been automatically banned unjustly and have no way of protesting it?

In addition, the low quality posting rules should just apply to threads outside of General, and people shouldn't ever be able to be banned over low quality posts unless it is extremely excessive.

I want to be able to make posts on this website again without being afraid of randomly being banned for three months because some dick who doesn't like me stalks me reporting my posts.

 

[Justis]

Justis, what is your problem? First the ad fiasco and now this. This warning system is clearly and indisputably unfair. You comparing Doge's points with a four year old asking for candy makes absolutely no sense in any way. Doge is arguing that the system is unfair, and this site is important to so many people with shops. Nara and I make hundreds of dollars on this site each month. She was banned for three months due do a glitch in the warning system and abusive warnings given. Don't even try arguing with that, because after a week of me talking to staff, we figured it out and they admitted that some of her warnings were abusive. Why should she be banned for three months because of stupid warnings given to her while other people who post the same kind of content and lesser quality content are allowed to continue staying on the site? Give me a real, actual reason (not just some ass kissing to staff) that that is fair, and don't say it's because staff doesn't see the other people because I have reported so many rule-breakers and staff just ignores a lot of them. There is absolutely no reason that nara should have to lose out on hundreds of dollars for three months because of this faulty warning system and biased staff members while actual shitposting rule-breakers get away scot free.

The warning system clearly needs to be changed, and honestly it should be the staff's top priority. So many innocent people have been banned, and for what? Is commenting "k" on a thread hurting anyone? Is posting a silly thread in the general section damaging to anyone on this site? Do these people really need to be banned for that? In my opinion warnings should only be given to people who are making threats, sales trashing, or harassing other users. And sure there are a lot of actual shitposters on this site, people who go around posting one word comments with the clear intent of boosting their post count. Those people should be punished, yes, but someone like Doge with thousands of vouches, someone who is clearly a positive contributing member to this site should not be punished for making one "low quality" comment that hurts nobody.

Doge is making reasonable arguments about a faulty system on this site that needs to be changed, and then you just come in here and call him four years old. Personally attacking someone in a thread isn't going to get you staff.

Personally attacking...
I find that very ironic indeed.

I did make sure to say I have a huge respect for Doge.
Which I do.

I was not attacking him.
I did not call him a four year old.
I told him the post he made made him sound like a four year old.
And it is because of the respect I have of him, that I found this so troubling.
This may not mean much to you, but it makes all the difference to me.

If you want to see an attack, look what you've said.
Instead of saying, "Your posts make you sound like you want to be agreeable to staff"... Which, is a viable opinion to have after observing my posts, I suppose..
You directly accused me of wanting staff, without asking me... And more inappropriate.. You claimed that it MUST be the reason for my thoughts, and my soul motivation for my posts.

You wanted a real reason?
My reason for disagreeing with this post...

Doge wants "official criteria".
And claims that low quality posts are okay, but only sometimes...

Official Criteria already exists. Stated clearly in the rules.
Doges version of "official criteria" breaks the very reasons why low quality posting is banned.
To prevent post count boosting, rate farming, and trashy threads.

Just because I'm not trashing and thread or being abusive doesn't mean I should get away with it.
What if I went to every single thread, and just pasted in various versions of "Nice! GLWS!"?
Under doge's criteria, I should be fine...
I'm only sending one post, I'm not trashing their thread or harassing them or spamming them...
But oh my oh my, how fast my post count would go up.
Not to mention my ratings if each thread OP gave me a heart or something.
And for what? An absolutely useless low quality post.

Or maybe I'm a great guy.. And don't do that..
Maybe we're all great guys, with the best intentions.
If low quality posts were allowed, and under Doge's criteria, every user would be free to post "GLWS" "Nice" "Vouch" "Cool", or even worse, carry out useless conversations in the threads, increasing post count and page depth with each and every "haha"...

You could then say, "Well if it's not constructive, then it's not acceptable", but then you run into the exact problem doge is currently trying to fix with this suggestion... It leaves deciding whether or not a post is acceptable up to the mods. Leaving us with constant debates back and fourth about what is and isn't acceptable.
It's not a better alternative.
At least with our current system.. Where ALL low quality posts are banned... The only thing mods have to decide is whether or not it's low quality... And not whether it's "constructive" or "abusive" or "spammy"...
No... If someone makes a low quality post, then it's indisputable, and staff can reference the rules where it says all low quality posts are banned, and be done with it.

This is a better system, in my view.

You don't have to agree.
But don't accuse me of being false, and sucking-up.
Just like with affixes' banner, I provided you with my opinion, and my evidence to support it... It wasn't enough for you, but that's okay.
But just because I don't hop on the bandwaggon, doesn't mean my opinion doesn't mean anything.
Don't insult me by claiming otherwise.

Yes our current system has flaws...
Give me a better alternative, and I'll side with you.
But until then, I'll either stick with what we've got, or come up with my own ways of improving this always flawed site, and it's community.
How you would expect anything else from me, is beyond my comprehension.

 

[nara~kavi]

Personally attacking...
I find that very ironic indeed.

I did make sure to say I have a huge respect for Doge.
Which I do.

I was not attacking him.
I did not call him a four year old.
I told him the post he made made him sound like a four year old.
And it is because of the respect I have of him, that I found this so troubling.
This may not mean much to you, but it makes all the difference to me.

If you want to see an attack, look what you've said.
Directly accusing me of wanting staff, when you've not even asked me if that's my motivation for posting what I have.

You wanted a real reason?
My reason for disagreeing with this post...

Doge wants "official criteria".
And claims that low quality posts are okay, but only sometimes...

Official Criteria already exists. Stated clearly in the rules.
Doges version of "official criteria" breaks the very reasons why low quality posting is banned.
To prevent post count boosting, rate farming, and trashy threads.

Just because I'm not trashing and thread or being abusive doesn't mean I should get away with it.
What if I went to every single thread, and just pasted in various versions of "Nice! GLWS!"?
Under doge's criteria, I should be fine...
I'm only sending one post, I'm not trashing their thread or harassing them or spamming them...
But oh my oh my, how fast my post count would go up.
Not to mention my ratings if each thread OP gave me a heart or something.
And for what? An absolutely useless low quality post.

Or maybe I'm a great guy.. And don't do that..
Maybe we're all great guys, with the best intentions.
If low quality posts were allowed, and under Doge's criteria, every user would be free to post "GLWS" "Nice" "Vouch" "Cool", or even worse, carry out useless conversations in the threads, increasing post count and page depth with each and every "haha"...

You could then say, "Well if it's not constructive, then it's not acceptable", but then you run into the exact problem doge is currently trying to fix with this suggestion... It leaves deciding whether or not a post is acceptable up to the mods. Leaving us with constant debates back and fourth about what is and isn't acceptable.
It's not a better alternative.
At least with our current system.. Where ALL low quality posts are banned... The only thing mods have to decide is whether or not it's low quality... And not whether it's "constructive" or "abusive" or "spammy"...
No... If someone makes a low quality post, then it's indisputable, and staff can reference the rules where it says all low quality posts are banned, and be done with it.

This is a better system, in my view.

You don't have to agree.
But don't accuse me of being false, and sucking-up.
Just like with affixes' banner, I provided you with my opinion, and my evidence to support it... It wasn't enough for you, but that's okay.
But just because I don't hop on the bandwaggon, doesn't mean my opinion doesn't mean anything.
Don't insult me by claiming otherwise.

Yes our current system has flaws...
Give me a better alternative, and I'll side with you.
But until then, I'll either stick with what we've got, or come up with my own ways of improving this always flawed site, and it's community.
How you would expect anything else from me, is beyond my comprehension.

I honestly don't see the problem with any of the posts you mentioned. How does that shit make the forum a worse place? Why does it bother people? It hardly affects you at all, and I'm sure you agree it isn't something anyone should ever be banned over. The fact that you can get warned for saying GLWS is totally nonsensical, and if you think that should be the case you are crazy.

Whether or not a post is low quality is entirely subjective and this shit should not be a rule at all, outside of sales threads, where whether or not a post is low quality or not should be up to the owner of the thread.

The fact that anyone thinks someone on this forum should be banned over non-excessive low quality posts is ridiculous to me. People should only be banned for spam, harassment, or scamming, in my opinion.

 

[montyburly]

You wanted a real reason?
My reason for disagreeing with this post...

Doge wants "official criteria".
And claims that low quality posts are okay, but only sometimes...

Official Criteria already exists. Stated clearly in the rules.
Doges version of "official criteria" breaks the very reasons why low quality posting is banned.
To prevent post count boosting, rate farming, and trashy threads.

Official criteria is exactly what the system needs. Currently all members of staff have different opinions on what a low quality post is. Some think "k" is a low quality post, and some don't. You can't say official criteria already exists because it really doesn't.

Just because I'm not trashing and thread or being abusive doesn't mean I should get away with it.
What if I went to every single thread, and just pasted in various versions of "Nice! GLWS!"?
Under doge's criteria, I should be fine...
I'm only sending one post, I'm not trashing their thread or harassing them or spamming them...
But oh my oh my, how fast my post count would go up.
Not to mention my ratings if each thread OP gave me a heart or something.
And for what? An absolutely useless low quality post.

I specifically said that these type of people are the ones who actually deserve warnings. Obviously someone posting one word replies on every thread they see is post-farming and spam. Doge posting "k" once or someone wishing luck in someone's thread every now and then is harmless and does not deserve a warning.

At least with our current system.. Where ALL low quality posts are banned...

The point is that they aren't. All low quality posts are not banned. What even is a low quality post? There's no clear definition anywhere in the rules. This is because, again, every staff member has a different opinion of what a low quality post is. If all low quality posts actually did get warned, then yes the system would be fair, definitely unnecessary, but fair. Since they are not, the system is not fair.

 

[Justis]

The fact that you can get warned for saying GLWS is totally nonsensical, and if you think that should be the case you are crazy.

Look... I've said this many times... It's okay to have opinions, everyone does..
But claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or crazy, which you do in very nearly every single one of your posts where you're arguing with someone, is just not acceptable.

I love the contributions you've made to this site, and this community.
You've brought up many good points, and you're brilliant at locating flaws...
But your inability to put yourself into someone else's shoes and see from their eyes is unnerving.

Yes, whether or not a post is low quality is subjective...
But I see no better alternative. Especially not doge's.
And my entire post, which you quoted, explained why.
I have a hard time believing you actually read my entire post and still can't understand why I might have the opinion I do...
Try reading it again.
There are reasons for the low quality posts rule. I've explained it.... And they are good reasons. I'm sorry they're not good enough for you.

I doubt anyone on this site thinks someone should be banned over saying "GLWS" (though I don't see why that's such a hard thing to refrain from doing...)
That's why we have the warning system.
So you can make that mistake repeatedly, before you get banned...
And by that point it's obvious you simply can't follow the rules, and you really shouldn't be on this site.

But the low quality posts rule isn't really there to filter out people who can't follow rules.
It's there for it's own reasons... Which I've gone in depth in explaining in the post you quoted.

Official criteria is exactly what the system needs. Currently all members of staff have different opinions on what a low quality post is. Some think "k" is a low quality post, and some don't. You can't say official criteria already exists because it really doesn't.

You can't account for every single instance of a low quality post, in every form it might exist in.
At some point, you need to generalize.
And I've explained why I believe that, here:

Spoiler

At least with our current system.. Where ALL low quality posts are banned... The only thing mods have to decide is whether or not it's low quality... And not whether it's "constructive" or "abusive" or "spammy"...
No... If someone makes a low quality post, then it's indisputable, and staff can reference the rules where it says all low quality posts are banned, and be done with it.

I specifically said that these type of people are the ones who actually deserve warnings. Obviously someone posting one word replies on every thread they see is post-farming and spam. Doge posting "k" once or someone wishing luck in someone's thread every now and then is harmless and does not deserve a warning.

And there you leave room for interpretation... How much is "Now and then"... And when is "k" actually necessary... And when is it just spam...
You can't get around it...

The point is that they aren't. All low quality posts are not banned. What even is a low quality post? There's no clear definition anywhere in the rules. This is because, again, every staff member has a different opinion of what a low quality post is. If all low quality posts actually did get warned, then yes the system would be fair, definitely unnecessary, but fair. Since they are not, the system is not fair.

We can only try to make sure it's fair for everyone..
While still keeping the forums tidy.
Which is why we have the report button.

If staff do get a report, and they don't enforce the rules, then that's an issue with the staff... Not the system.

Look, I know how we handle things isn't perfect...
You don't have to convince me of that.
Hopefully we can improve it.
If we find a better solution to low quality posting than the one we have right now, then I'd be overjoyed at the idea of a change.
All I'm saying is the suggestion doge has made, doesn't meet those requirements.
And I've given my reasons why.

 

[nara~kavi]

Look... I've said this many times... It's okay to have opinions, everyone does..
But claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or crazy, which you do in very nearly every single one of your posts where you're arguing with someone, is just not acceptable.

I love the contributions you've made to this site, and this community.
You've brought up many good points, and you're brilliant at locating flaws...
But your inability to put yourself into someone else's shoes and see from their eyes is unnerving.

Yes, whether or not a post is low quality is subjective...
But I see no better alternative. Especially not doge's.
And my entire post, which you quoted, explained why.
I have a hard time believing you actually read my entire post and still can't understand why I might have the opinion I do...
Try reading it again.
There are reasons for the low quality posts rule. I've explained it.... And they are good reasons. I'm sorry they're not good enough for you.

I doubt anyone on this site thinks someone should be banned over saying "GLWS" (though I don't see why that's such a hard thing to refrain from doing...)
That's why we have the warning system.
So you can make that mistake repeatedly, before you get banned...
And by that point it's obvious you simply can't follow the rules, and you really shouldn't be on this site.

But the low quality posts rule isn't really there to filter out people who can't follow rules.
It's there for it's own reasons... Which I've gone in depth in explaining in the post you quoted.



You can't account for every single instance of a low quality post, in every form it might exist in.
At some point, you need to generalize.
And I've explained why I believe that, here:
And there you leave room for interpretation... How much is "Now and then"... And when is "k" actually necessary... And when is it just spam...
You can't get around it...


We can only try to make sure it's fair for everyone..
While still keeping the forums tidy.
Which is why we have the report button.

If staff do get a report, and they don't enforce the rules, then that's an issue with the staff... Not the system.

Look, I know how we handle things isn't perfect...
You don't have to convince me of that.
Hopefully we can improve it.
If we find a better solution to low quality posting than the one we have right now, then I'd be overjoyed at the idea of a change.
All I'm saying is the suggestion doge has made, doesn't meet those requirements.
And I've given my reasons why.

Do you have to talk...
Like this...?

I call people crazy when they are acting crazy, and if it seems like I do that a lot it's because a lot of people on this site have crazy ideas about how things should work. You literally just called Doge a 4 year old child, so you can't really play that card against me. If you think that people should be permanently or even temporarily banned because of low quality posts, you are ridiculous, end of story. There's nothing wrong with saying GLWS to someone. This site functioned for a year under Verringer without being so anal about low quality posts and now all of a sudden people pretend like it'll be the end of the world if someone says "GLWS" or "lol". Who gives a shit if somebody has lots of posts or is post-farming? You probably don't, and you are just continuing to use this as an opportunity to kissass.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that someone deserves to be banned from this site for saying GLWS.

And what do you mean "Look, I know how we handle things isn't perfect..."

Are you a member of staff? Are you posting on behalf of staff? Is one of the staff feeding you stuff to say or something? Why would you say that?

 

[montyburly]

Look... I've said this many times... It's okay to have opinions, everyone does..
But claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or crazy, which you do in very nearly every single one of your posts where you're arguing with someone, is just not acceptable.

I love the contributions you've made to this site, and this community.
You've brought up many good points, and you're brilliant at locating flaws...
But your inability to put yourself into someone else's shoes and see from their eyes is unnerving.

Yes, whether or not a post is low quality is subjective...
But I see no better alternative. Especially not doge's.
And my entire post, which you quoted, explained why.
I have a hard time believing you actually read my entire post and still can't understand why I might have the opinion I do...
Try reading it again.
There are reasons for the low quality posts rule. I've explained it.... And they are good reasons. I'm sorry they're not good enough for you.

I doubt anyone on this site thinks someone should be banned over saying "GLWS" (though I don't see why that's such a hard thing to refrain from doing...)
That's why we have the warning system.
So you can make that mistake repeatedly, before you get banned...
And by that point it's obvious you simply can't follow the rules, and you really shouldn't be on this site.

But the low quality posts rule isn't really there to filter out people who can't follow rules.
It's there for it's own reasons... Which I've gone in depth in explaining in the post you quoted.



You can't account for every single instance of a low quality post, in every form it might exist in.
At some point, you need to generalize.
And I've explained why I believe that, here:
And there you leave room for interpretation... How much is "Now and then"... And when is "k" actually necessary... And when is it just spam...
You can't get around it...


We can only try to make sure it's fair for everyone..
While still keeping the forums tidy.
Which is why we have the report button.

If staff do get a report, and they don't enforce the rules, then that's an issue with the staff... Not the system.

Look, I know how we handle things isn't perfect...
You don't have to convince me of that.
Hopefully we can improve it.
If we find a better solution to low quality posting than the one we have right now, then I'd be overjoyed at the idea of a change.
All I'm saying is the suggestion doge has made, doesn't meet those requirements.
And I've given my reasons why.

The solution is just for staff to calm down about low quality posts. The only people who really deserve to be punished are spammers, rate-boosters, scammers, and people who harass others. Who is being hurt by a "low quality" comment? Did Doge's "k" affect anyone negatively? Was he trashing a sales thread? Was he harassing someone? Was he giving a threat? No. It literally affects nobody in any way whatsoever. What is the reason for that punishment? Sure, you could say it clutters up a thread, but unless that thread was a sales thread, who cares? The general section is here for general posts. If "low quality" posts aren't allowed on this site, why do we have a section for off-topic, general discussion?

I do understand, though, that this is Mick's site, and he is in charge of what type of posts he'd like on here. My point is that if they're going to enforce a rule like this, it needs to be enforced on everyone, not just a few handpicked people. If Mick doesn't want any low quality posts on his site, that's fine, but he needs to make sure every member is treated the same and gets the same punishments as everyone else. There are people on this site who literally have the title "shitposter" and who go around saying they're shitposting. Those people are free to roam the site, yet nara~kavi who has made a few "low quality" posts got banned for three months for it. You cannot tell me that's fair at all. There is way too much opportunity for staff's personal biases to come into play with this warning system.

The warning system is here to weed out every low quality post made, but staff doesn't try at all to eliminate them. Instead, they wait for someone to report low quality posts so that they don't have to do the work of finding them. This means someone who hates me can watch my posts like a hawk and report every low quality one just to get me banned, but if one of their friends makes low quality posts they will not receive warnings. I have significantly lowered the amount of posts I make for this reason. If staff really wants this site to be free of low quality posts, they need to go through threads and delete them themselves. If they don't want to do that, it's really not fair to leave it up to the members of this site, because A) it is not their job, and B) members will not report their friends.

 

[Justis]

The solution is just for staff to calm down about low quality posts. The only people who really deserve to be punished are spammers, rate-boosters, scammers, and people who harass others. Who is being hurt by a "low quality" comment? Did Doge's "k" affect anyone negatively? Was he trashing a sales thread? Was he harassing someone? Was he giving a threat? No. It literally affects nobody in any way whatsoever. What is the reason for that punishment? Sure, you could say it clutters up a thread, but unless that thread was a sales thread, who cares? The general section is here for general posts. If "low quality" posts aren't allowed on this site, why do we have a section for off-topic, general discussion?

I do understand, though, that this is Mick's site, and he is in charge of what type of posts he'd like on here. My point is that if they're going to enforce a rule like this, it needs to be enforced on everyone, not just a few handpicked people. If Mick doesn't want any low quality posts on his site, that's fine, but he needs to make sure every member is treated the same and gets the same punishments as everyone else. There are people on this site who literally have the title "shitposter" and who go around saying they're shitposting. Those people are free to roam the site, yet nara~kavi who has made a few "low quality" posts got banned for three months for it. You cannot tell me that's fair at all. There is way too much opportunity for staff's personal biases to come into play with this warning system.

The warning system is here to weed out every low quality post made, but staff doesn't try at all to eliminate them. Instead, they wait for someone to report low quality posts so that they don't have to do the work of finding them. This means someone who hates me can watch my posts like a hawk and report every low quality one just to get me banned, but if one of their friends makes low quality posts they will not receive warnings. I have significantly lowered the amount of posts I make for this reason. If staff really wants this site to be free of low quality posts, they need to go through threads and delete them themselves. If they don't want to do that, it's really not fair to leave it up to the members of this site, because A) it is not their job, and B) members will not report their friends.

You're right, it's not fair.
All of your points are valid.

But you haven't offered a better solution.
I hear "The site needs to stop being <this>" but from what I can tell... You don't know how to get rid of the problem.
Neither do I. Neither does doge.
I've pointed out the flaws with his system, and in my eyes, they outweigh the flaws with our current system.

Yes, I agree, it should be enforced for everyone if it's going to be enforced, and it has to.
But the staff can hardly get their butts on often enough to take care of reports and reply to private messages.
The idea of them reading every post on every thread is probably unlikely...
You could suggest more staff... But there are so many claims against our current staff being biased/broken/corrupt... I'd hate to see what would happen if we added a handful of more fresh meat, yet to have gained the trust of the users of MCM...

Perhaps the best solution would be to simply remove post counts?
That'll reduce people's desire to flood the forums with useless posts...
But that's only a solution to one aspect of the problem...
And I know a lot of people wouldn't like that....

Again, if you have any suggestions for how to improve the LQP system, bring them fourth.

 

[montyburly]

You're right, it's not fair.
All of your points are valid.

But you haven't offered a better solution.
I hear "The site needs to stop being <this>" but from what I can tell... You don't know how to get rid of the problem.
Neither do I. Neither does doge.
I've pointed out the flaws with his system, and in my eyes, they outweigh the flaws with our current system.

Yes, I agree, it should be enforced for everyone if it's going to be enforced, and it has to.
But the staff can hardly get their butts on often enough to take care of reports and reply to private messages.
The idea of them reading every post on every thread is probably unlikely...
You could suggest more staff... But there are so many claims against our current staff being biased/broken/corrupt... I'd hate to see what would happen if we added a handful of more fresh meat, yet to have gained the trust of the users of MCM...

Perhaps the best solution would be to simply remove post counts?
That'll reduce people's desire to flood the forums with useless posts...
But that's only a solution to one aspect of the problem...
And I know a lot of people wouldn't like that....

Again, if you have any suggestions for how to improve the LQP system, bring them fourth.

Everyone on this site makes low quality posts. If you go through any member's posts, you're bound to find some low quality ones. You, yourself are guilty of that.

This is a direct quote from Mick:
"A low quality post is one that the staff team consider to add nothing useful to a conversation or generally a comment that doesn't mean anything."

This was on a thread asking for advice about Windows. This has nothing to do with the post and contributes nothing useful to the thread.

This adds nothing useful to a conversation.

This doesn't either.

Nor does this.

I could go on almost anyone's profile and find at least a few low quality posts made by them. Why do these posts deserve to be punished? You clearly care deeply about this site and are trying to better it. Do you deserve to be banned for making these kind of posts? The only reason these posts weren't removed/warned is because nobody reported them. If they had, you would've been warned because they are clearly considered low quality by staff. Your posts get to stay, but nara's did not and she was banned for 3 months. How is that fair?

I have said many times what a solution could be. The staff needs to cool it with low quality posts. Only posts that directly harm the site or members on the site deserve a warning.

 

[Justis]

I have said many times what a solution could be. The staff needs to cool it with low quality posts. Only posts that directly harm the site or members on the site deserve a warning.

I would argue that those posts added humor to the thread.... -smirks-

But you're right.
If someone felt the need to report them, I would have been at the mercy of the mods, in deciding whether or not I got warned, and my message deleted.
A gamble I'm betting in favor of?... Maybe maybe not..

I will point out flaws with every possible system, all day every day....
I've pointed out the flaws with doge's, the current system (with lots of help),

Now yours...

The staff needs to cool it with low quality posts. Only posts that directly harm the site or members on the site deserve a warning.

This, I might be able to get behind...
Only... It doesn't take into consideration, at all, the posts made with the intent of just being posts...
I know there are people that don't care about other users message and rate farming...
But I know there are also people that do...
And it's one of the main reasons for the current brutal system.

I've made a suggestion in another thread about removing a users' ability to block other users from accessing their profile...
Apparently it's "not possible right now"...
If that change were to happen, and I were able to go on any profile and look at all their past posts, I would not have a problem with allowing users to post farm or rate farm...
I would easily be able to check and see if their posts signify their contribution to the site, or their lack thereof..

Until then... I'm guilty, and so are many other users... Of judging people based off their message count and rating count.
I'd rather be secured in mind, knowing that it is unlikely that they attained those by spamming useless garbage around the site.

 

[montyburly]

I would argue that those posts added humor to the thread.... -smirks-

But you're right.
If someone felt the need to report them, I would have been at the mercy of the mods, in deciding whether or not I got warned, and my message deleted.
A gamble I'm betting in favor of?... Maybe maybe not..

I will point out flaws with every possible system, all day every day....
I've pointed out the flaws with doge's, the current system (with lots of help),

Now yours...

This, I might be able to get behind...
Only... It doesn't take into consideration, at all, the posts made with the intent of just being posts...
I know there are people that don't care about other users message and rate farming...
But I know there are also people that do...
And it's one of the main reasons for the current brutal system.

I've made a suggestion in another thread about removing a users' ability to block other users from accessing their profile...
Apparently it's "not possible right now"...
If that change were to happen, and I were able to go on any profile and look at all their past posts, I would not have a problem with allowing users to post farm or rate farm...
I would easily be able to check and see if their posts signify their contribution to the site, or their lack thereof..

Until then... I'm guilty, and so are many other users... Of judging people based off their message count and rating count.
I'd rather be secured in mind, knowing that it is unlikely that they attained those by spamming useless garbage around the site.

Post-farming should be punishable, since it does harm the site for the reasons you stated. The post Doge is talking about and the posts of yours that I showed do not violate the 'no post-farming' rule, because clearly you two do not post farm and are contributing members to the site.

Warnings should only be given to people who:
-Spam/post farm
-Harass others
-Trash a sales thread
-Give threats to other members or the site itself

That is how the system can be improved. Low quality posting should not be a bannable offense. If someone consistently shitposts, then yes, they do deserve a warning. That falls under the spam/post farm category because clearly shitposters only post to boost their post count. While I personally only take the amount of ratings someone has into account when I'm doing deals with them, I understand lots of people look at the post count to determine trustworthiness of a member. Because of this, yes, post farming should be against the rules, and it is already. Most low quality posts, however, are not made for the sake of post farming. You could make the argument that the amount of low quality posts someone has shouldn't be taken into account when determining how trusted they are, but if someone is active on this site and takes part in discussions, whether they be relevant to MCM or not, they can be considered somewhat trustworthy, as they've clearly put time into the site.

My point is that the warning system currently does more harm than good. It punishes innocent people. If the criteria for earning a warning were more specific and less strict/subjective, the site would be a lot better.

 

[Justis]

Post-farming should be punishable, since it does harm the site for the reasons you stated. The post Doge is talking about and the posts of yours that I showed do not violate the 'no post-farming' rule, because clearly you two do not post farm and are contributing members to the site.

Warnings should only be given to people who:
-Spam/post farm
-Harass others
-Trash a sales thread
-Give threats to other members or the site itself

That is how the system can be improved. Low quality posting should not be a bannable offense. If someone consistently shitposts, then yes, they do deserve a warning. That falls under the spam/post farm category because clearly shitposters only post to boost their post count. While I personally only take the amount of ratings someone has into account when I'm doing deals with them, I understand lots of people look at the post count to determine trustworthiness of a member. Because of this, yes, post farming should be against the rules, and it is already. Most low quality posts, however, are not made for the sake of post farming. You could make the argument that the amount of low quality posts someone has shouldn't be taken into account when determining how trusted they are, but if someone is active on this site and takes part in discussions, whether they be relevant to MCM or not, they can be considered somewhat trustworthy, as they've clearly put time into the site.

My point is that the warning system currently does more harm than good. It punishes innocent people. If the criteria for earning a warning were more specific and less strict/subjective, the site would be a lot better.

Determining which users are rating/post farmers might cause some issues....
When one staff member warns a user for having made <x> number of low quality posts in the past/in a certain time frame, and they have been deemed a post farmer instead of an innocent...
Do the posts then get removed? All of them? Then we go back to "well which post is low quality/ part of the spam"...
If they don't then do they get taken into account when another staff member wants to warn them? If not, how do we insure that when the posts are still there? If they do, then to what extent? What if one staff has a different idea of which posts were low quality from another... And doesn't think you're a spammer?... How do we handle those conflicts..

Actually, I think your idea has a lot of potential, and I'd like to develop your idea further, if you'd allow that.
Only I'm afraid we're hogging up doge's thread with your ideas no instead of discussing his...
Would you be okay with PMing me so we can exchange thoughts?[DOUBLEPOST=1450130649,1450130083][/DOUBLEPOST]

We will be sure to do that.......................................

Bruh, I've literally typed like that since forever.
And I don't intend to change.
I just type how I think...
And some thoughts trail off, while others are just points.
It me helps organize my train of throught into words.
No need to harass me because of it.

EDIT: It got deleted. .-.
I swear to god, I didn't report it. .-. -.-.-. .-.

 

[Overlord]

"low quality" isn't a reason to stop people posting... lol. This site actually warns people for "low quality" posts. Again, the only other site I know that does that is... You guessed it... Hack forums!

I'm pretty much convinced the members of this site would prefer a hack forums spinoff rather than a Minecraft marketplace. Anyhow:

'Low quality' isn't a reason. 'spam' is. But if you think a post isn't appropriate, that isn't a cause for anything. Personally, I don't think all the troll threads are appropriate. I'd rather start removing them than a post saying "k", in context.

Anyway, the examples you stated are examples of spam... Not low quality posting... lol. How long has this one been around for? Looks like HF took over the management in this forum.