It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Episode I - 10 Years in Retrospect(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
bansama: Disappointment or not, the very sad fact is that these changes will almost certainly be needed in the future. So why not make them now before an even worse situation comes along?

...i won't be happy about it, mkay ?
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
bansama: Disappointment or not, the very sad fact is that these changes will almost certainly be needed in the future. So why not make them now before an even worse situation comes along?

Now, when you mean age of account posting limits, what do you mean exactly? There are many who have been here since March 2009 and have managed to be extremely constructive in their posts. To bar them from posting as much as those who have been here since closed beta would be stupid.
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
bansama: Disappointment or not, the very sad fact is that these changes will almost certainly be needed in the future. So why not make them now before an even worse situation comes along?
avatar
Namur: ...i won't be happy about it, mkay ?

agreed , it's not because 1 guy spams the place that everything should change.
anyway , i just don't read his posts.
Posted September 10, 2009
...i won't be happy about it, mkay ?
I don't think any of us will be "happy" about it, but wouldn't you rather a proactive solution be found now and not when faced with a 100 people like this guy all spamming up the forum at the same time? Nipping it in the bud, as they say, is the better choice in the long run. Stop thinking of it as this one guy forcing a chance, as he isn't forcing anything. It's more of a change that will most likely be needed in the future, being implemented before it's *really* needed. It's damage control being put in place before the damage really happens.
Now, when you mean age of account posting limits, what do you mean exactly?
Simple really, if your account is less than say, 30 days old, you can only make x number of topics per day on any board (such as 10 per day per board -- and really, who *actually* needs to make 10 topics a day on each board?). Once your account is older than 30 days and if it is in positive reputation, then the limits are fully removed.
If done correctly, the only people who would ever feel such limits are the idiots who need it. Not the people who are a constructive part of this classy community.
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
bansama: I don't think any of us will be "happy" about it, but wouldn't you rather a proactive solution be found now and not when faced with a 100 people like this guy all spamming up the forum at the same time? Nipping it in the bud, as they say, is the better choice in the long run. Stop thinking of it as this one guy forcing a chance, as he isn't forcing anything. It's more of a change that will most likely be needed in the future, being implemented before it's *really* needed. It's damage control being put in place before the damage really happens.

To tell you the truth, i would like things to remain as they are for as long as possible. If new stuff gets introduced right away thinking about damage control before there's even any damage (one guy in one year doens't qualify) we'll never know exactly how long this rare, and in my experience unique even, police free state could have lasted.
But like i already said bansama, i get what you're saying and there's nothing wrong with your approach.
avatar
bansama: If done correctly, the only people who would ever feel such limits are the idiots who need it. Not the people who are a constructive part of this classy community.

Edit: I didn't realize that last part was related to the limitations on posts per day. Yeah, it makes sense.
Post edited September 10, 2009 by Namur
Posted September 10, 2009
the age thing actually makes sense but shouldn't rep be used as well.
Lets say once you reach -10 that you can't post a thing anymore.
You gain one rep every 2days for exemple when negative.
so they'll have to wait 20 days before being able to post again.
Just brainstorming here :)
Posted September 10, 2009
How about nothing changes till you hit negative rep?
When you hit -1, you can only make 100 posts a day. -2, 80 posts, 10 topics. -3, 60 posts, 7 topics. -4, 40 posts, 4 topics. -5, 20 posts, 1 topic. -6, banned from posting.
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
Zellio2009: How about nothing changes till you hit negative rep?
When you hit -1, you can only make 100 posts a day. -2, 80 posts, 10 topics. -3, 60 posts, 7 topics. -4, 40 posts, 4 topics. -5, 20 posts, 1 topic. -6, banned from posting.

I'd halve those numbers. Unless we had some moderation that outright banned spammers from posting at all.
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
CyPhErIoN: the age thing actually makes sense but shouldn't rep be used as well.
Lets say once you reach -10 that you can't post a thing anymore.
You gain one rep every 2days for exemple when negative.
so they'll have to wait 20 days before being able to post again.
Just brainstorming here :)

For negative rep. yes. But then again, only if people with negative rep. cannot be rewarded rep. for "solving" Questions. Otherwise, it's a little too easy to get back out of the negative rep. state. It's also why I propose age only for postitive rep., so as to avoid possible rep. spamming cliques (such as you have on the Steam forums).
To tell you the truth, i would like things to remain as they are for as long as possible. If new stuff gets introduced right away thinking about damage control before there's even any damage (one guy in one year doens't qualify) we'll never know exactly how long this rare, and in my experience unique, police free state could have lasted.
I understand that, it's just that I'm going from experience built up from other forums that started out with little to no policing of rules such as this one; and have seen the fallout that happens when it's not dealt with quickly enough.
Posted September 10, 2009
i to agree on not changing anything untill the shit hits the fan.
If it does , then we can go ponder about ways to avoid this. For nows it's only one and to be honest , it soesnt really bug me :)
It's like computers , don't fix things that aren't broken :)
Posted September 10, 2009
As much as I would like to see the near zero (we can probably count on one hand the number of times it's been done) moderation we have now, it would be useful to have something done.
You do need to take steps early as soon as this starts, even small ones can cause large beneficial changes once new spammy members start showing. I find the the idea of slowing posting and/or topic creation for neg-rep users is a good idea.
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
bansama: I understand that, it's just that I'm going from experience built up from other forums that started out with little to no policing of rules such as this one; and have seen the fallout that happens when it's not dealt with quickly enough.

I realize that somewhere down the road it will be though to balance the utopia we got going here and the practical aspects of the interwebz. I'm just hoping we manage to keep the balance a little while longer, that's all. I have no doubt that in the end the need to adress the practical aspects will win, as it always does. I'm not saying that's wrong either, i'm really kind of just stating the obvious.
Can't we skip moderation and go straight to shooting the spammers ?
Post edited September 10, 2009 by Namur
Posted September 10, 2009
avatar
Namur: Geez, -11 and counting. I guess he managed to break UK_John's record.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Or could he BE ukjohn?

Or Raneman?
Posted September 10, 2009
I don't get why he has to write AD at the end of his dates. It's freaky, like he's writing from some future that has a different calendar system.
Posted September 10, 2009
I've got no problem with the idea using negative rep as a means of limiting a user's ability to post, although it will have to be implemented carefully in order to avoid abuse of the system and the forming of cliques.
However, I don't believe there should be any limit on a user's ability to post which is dependent on how long they have been here or how many posts they have already made. It seems far too arbitrary for my liking. I have never been a fan of pre-emptive policing and presumed guilt or presumed potential of guilt.
This is precisely the reason why I like many others here have such a problem with DRM. The idea that the publishers are limiting my ability to use their products simply on the assumption that I might break the law is something I find uncomfortable purely on principle. Any comparable pre-emptive or preventative measures taken here based on a similar assumption is also something I would have a problem with.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Episode I - 10 Years in Retrospect(79 posts)(79 posts)
(79 posts)