by Newmanistan » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:51 pm
by NERVUN » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:16 pm
Newmanistan wrote:Hello, moderating team. I have a question, and my intention is just for an honest answer, and not to criticize.
I have noticed that when responding to a thread created to spam (not the extreme ones), you will often choose to simply lock it, and not delete it. It seems to me that the utter uselessness of these threads should warrant an instant delete, and by keeping them, they remain on page 1 or bumped up longer then they need to, thus keeping a legitimate thread on page 2. You can also argue that by keeping the thread visible, despite your lock, that the spammer has succeeded in a small way.
Is there a reason you choose to not just delete these pointless threads outright?
by Zephie » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:19 pm
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by NERVUN » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:29 pm
Zephie wrote:I have a question too, and I think I may as well ask it here than making another thread. Why aren't people notified if they are warned? Does the mod team not consider the possibility someone might abandon a thread, but be warned on it, and never notice they have been? It's not because of a personal development, it's just something that has been making me ponder.
by Zephie » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:33 pm
NERVUN wrote:Zephie wrote:I have a question too, and I think I may as well ask it here than making another thread. Why aren't people notified if they are warned? Does the mod team not consider the possibility someone might abandon a thread, but be warned on it, and never notice they have been? It's not because of a personal development, it's just something that has been making me ponder.
Well, your warnings are recorded in the user control panel and we will, when asked, TG a user who requests why if they abaonded thread without seeing the warning.
Honestly, I am not too sure about how many times though people have not seen their warnings given that most NS players tend to share a certain, ah, shall we say bulldog mentality, and have trouble letting go of ANY argument.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:55 am
by Zephie » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:02 am
There really shouldn't be much of an excuse for 'but I didn't know' especially considering we've got the site rules and guidelines posted all over the site in clearly-laid-out ways that all are encouraged to read up on. Those who don't? Well that isn't our responsibility when we've done all we can to make it simple for players to be aware.
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:If you're participating in a thread, its your responsibility to read the posts preceding your contribution, so your scenario again, is not something that would be our fault. We can't force people to read, that's your problem. Given it is also very easy to see at a glance when a moderator has posted in a thread, participatory or in an official capacity, perhaps its best to pay attention to that. Just in case.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by Panzerjaeger » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:06 am
Zephie wrote:Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:If you're participating in a thread, its your responsibility to read the posts preceding your contribution, so your scenario again, is not something that would be our fault. We can't force people to read, that's your problem. Given it is also very easy to see at a glance when a moderator has posted in a thread, participatory or in an official capacity, perhaps its best to pay attention to that. Just in case.
I still don't understand how difficult it is for someone to receive something simple as a telegram telling them they committed a forum offense and a link to the post in question. And wouldn't that be posts succeeding your contribution? I find it bit of a poor excuse to try to push the responsibility onto the members to periodically check every thread they have discussed in to see if they have been unofficially or officially warned. This isn't a complaint, it's a suggestion.
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!
Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!
Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"
New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.
by South Lorenya » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:14 am
by Melkor Unchained » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:31 am
by The Most Glorious Hack » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:12 am
And I still don't understand how difficult it is for someone to follow the rather basic rules we have. Especially when they basically boil down to "don't be a tool".Zephie wrote:I still don't understand how difficult it is for someone to receive something simple as a telegram telling them they committed a forum offense and a link to the post in question.
by Nobel Hobos » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:36 am
by Shazbotdom » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:31 am
ShazWeb || IIWiki || Discord: shazbertbot || 1 x NFL Picks League Champion (2021)
CosmoCast || SISA || CCD || CrawDaddy || SCIA || COPEC || Boudreaux's || CLS || SNC || ShazAir || BHC || TWO
NHL: NYR 1 - 0 WSH | COL 0 - 1 WPG | VGK 0 - 0 DAL || NBA: NOLA (8) 0 - 1 OKC (1)
NCAA MBB: Tulane 22-18 | LSU 25-16 || NCAA WSB: LSU 35-10
by South Lorenya » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:58 am
by Melkor Unchained » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:43 am
Nobel Hobos wrote:I agree with Zephie here. In-thread warnings should always be accompanied by a TG to the player who was warned.
I'd like to add: thread locks should always have a mod statement, however brief, as to why they were locked.
like... two posts before, I wrote:
- I have lobbied for a tool to auto-TG someone with a link when they're warned on the forum (or a self-explanatory note when they're banned), but we either can't do it or no one has gotten around to it. The current system of warning is a consequence of our moderators having two levels of access: forum mods can't look up a nation in the game-side Moderation Centre and thus cannot send telegrams as "NationStates Moderators." A possible solution could be to enable PM's for moderators only.
by The Horror Channel » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:13 am
Panzerjaeger wrote:Zephie wrote:Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:If you're participating in a thread, its your responsibility to read the posts preceding your contribution, so your scenario again, is not something that would be our fault. We can't force people to read, that's your problem. Given it is also very easy to see at a glance when a moderator has posted in a thread, participatory or in an official capacity, perhaps its best to pay attention to that. Just in case.
I still don't understand how difficult it is for someone to receive something simple as a telegram telling them they committed a forum offense and a link to the post in question. And wouldn't that be posts succeeding your contribution? I find it bit of a poor excuse to try to push the responsibility onto the members to periodically check every thread they have discussed in to see if they have been unofficially or officially warned. This isn't a complaint, it's a suggestion.
I agree with Zephie there was once when I got a warning in a thread about a week after I made the post. I had zero recollection of the thread or even my post and I had to post in moderation to get a clarification. I am also growing tired of Nath's attitude especially over something as simple as a suggestion. To accuse players of whining and other nonsense when they are being polite and asking for clarification or even offering suggestions is beyond obnoxious.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:34 pm
by Ardchoille » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:17 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement