Warn people who threat others with giving negative rep/Stop users from making multiple 4 same produc

[Benton]

If you're like me and you like to browse MCM on a daily. You may come across users who get mad just because people comment stuff on threads that the owner of the thread doesn't wanna hear or feel "It's not pertaining to the item". Some thread owners get so mad and butthurt that they make threats to negative rep users if they comment something "they don't like" on their thread. This and users making new threads for the same item just because their old thread got what the cool kids like to call "trashed" and "spammed with irrelevant replies" should be punishable. Just like there's a rule where you can't have multiple accounts. there should be one that stops users from creating multiple threads for the same item. This is very misleading to others who are interested but don't see messages that other users' comment just because the owner of the thread got butthurt and wants to censor out the comments that'll make users go "hmm, Do I really wanna buy this product now", Therefore they make a new thread because the old one got "trashed" but in reality users was just pointing out things.

 

[Ivain]

So is this for the reputation or for the threads?
the threads I sorta agree with, but it should be a soft rule (aka people who do it more than once or even consistently get warned).
This should be 1 warning point for 6 months.
The reputation, I agree. that just gave me an idea to add another false reputation definition. You can't false-rep people for something that could be solved with a simple report unless they do it consistently. I'll have to think on the exact definition some more, to avoid abuse of that rule.

 

[Doge]

If you're like me and you like to browse MCM on a daily. You may come across users who get mad just because people comment stuff on threads that the owner of the thread doesn't wanna hear or feel "It's not pertaining to the item". Some thread owners get so mad and butthurt that they make threats to negative rep users if they comment something "they don't like" on their thread. This and users making new threads for the same item just because their old thread got what the cool kids like to call "trashed" and "spammed with irrelevant replies" should be punishable. Just like there's a rule where you can't have multiple accounts. there should be one that stops users from creating multiple threads for the same item. This is very misleading to others who are interested but don't see messages that other users' comment just because the owner of the thread got butthurt and wants to censor out the comments that'll make users go "hmm, Do I really wanna buy this product now", Therefore they make a new thread because the old one got "trashed" but in reality users was just pointing out things.

"if u make a reply i don't like, u get -rep!!"

^ If you're referring to people who do that, it's already not allowed.

 

[Benton]

"if u make a reply i don't like, u get -rep!!"

^ If you're referring to people who do that, it's already not allowed.

There was a guy last night who made a thread and said he'll negative rep anyone who trashes his thread. I can't find it anymore.

 

[Doge]

There was a guy last night who made a thread and said he'll negative rep anyone who trashes his thread. I can't find it anymore.

If we're thinking of the same person, I've told them before that it's not allowed before. If they were to -rep someone for posting on their thread, it would be removed and they'd be warned. These people say that to try and scare away people who question anything about the thread.

 

[Zyger]

I mean if the thread's spammed w/ things that are off topic and not related to the account, e.g. two people having an argument in your thread, then I can understand making another.[DOUBLEPOST=1505970027][/DOUBLEPOST]Benton Explain why you disagree with what I said just before.

 

[Benton]

I mean if the thread's spammed w/ things that are off topic and not related to the account, e.g. two people having an argument in your thread, then I can understand making another.[DOUBLEPOST=1505970027][/DOUBLEPOST]Benton Explain why you disagree with what I said just before.

I do sorta agree. People do argue in threads instead of taking it to the PMs. You're right about that but it doesn't mean you have to make a new thread just because they "trashed" it. There is no point in creating 3 threads for the same item when people will continue to argue no matter what because at the end of the day. Arguing in other people's thread isn't breaking the rule. They're having a discussion and by definition. That's what threads are used for. and for the people who like to complain about "thread trashing". Creating a new thread doesn't do anything but give people another reason to "trash" your thread. Most of the time the owner of the thread is the one making the argument go on. Here's a scenario. One user will comment something off topic. Instead of the owner choosing ignore t the comment like I'll do. He replies to it. They go back in forth with each other instead of being mature and nipping it in the bud. Them arguing attract other users to the thread and they join into the conversation and flood the thread when all the owner had to do was ignore the comment instead of going back and forth.

If i disagree, You know ima give you a reason. Had to type it all lol.

 

[Verang]

If we're thinking of the same person, I've told them before that it's not allowed before. If they were to -rep someone for posting on their thread, it would be removed and they'd be warned. These people say that to try and scare away people who question anything about the thread.

http://www.mc-market.org/reputation/feedback/35733/view

What about this one? 34010 got a neg rep just for saying it might've been a scam account.

 

[Zyger]

Arguing in other people's thread isn't breaking the rule.

Rule 1.5 states "Do not slander or otherwise trash another member, person, or thread."

Arguing in a thread that's not meant for a discussion would be a form of trashing as it would make it more difficult for people to keep track of the current offers, and it'd make people less likely to consider purchasing it, just because it'd have a bad stigma surrounding it.

 

[Benton]

Rule 1.5 states "Do not slander or otherwise trash another member, person, or thread."

Arguing in a thread that's not meant for a discussion would be a form of trashing as it would make it more difficult for people to keep track of the current offers, and it'd make people less likely to consider purchasing it, just because it'd have a bad stigma surrounding it.

If that is the case and it is a rule. "Arguing in other people's thread isn't breaking the rule", What I said was wrong. but that still doesn't mean users should create a new thread. This is probably a bad analogy but if 5 users give you false negative rep. That doesn't mean you go create new an account. You tell a staff member and get it removed. The same should go for a thread if you feel that two users are arguing over something that doesn't pertain to the item. If that's a rule. Really good, Maybe users should report the problem. Just like you guy's don't like to see the spammy comments. I don't like to see users spamming their same thread flooding the site. And there's a difference between arguing about some off-topic stuff and arguing about. Let's say an account and the owner of the thread is saying it has TID but people are arguing saying it doesn't and all that jazz. They're arguing but it's still pertaining to the item so it shouldn't matter. If a user goes and say "your account is shit". Yeh that's trashing but not if two users get in an argument over a TID going back and forth about who has it and who don't and have is the og owner and stuff.

 

[Mick]

Users are always, and should always be able to trash any thread that they want to if they want to remake it, and it would be extremely difficult to enforce otherwise. Threatening others with a neg rep has always been disallowed, but recently we have adjusted the wording of the rule to ensure that it is as clear as possible.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.