A reply to "Proposal: Regarding Duplicate ..."

First of all it's not a great idea to put a question in a forum where almost nobody can answer it .

Second I disagree with the suggestion because I see the other's point of view. A newbie comes to our forums and wants to talk about Halo 4 even though the topic let's say died. He doesn't know there is a topic for Halo 4 already and will create a new topic. It will be unfair to punish him for this. And even if I want to discuss Halo 4 after the thread had died I won't start searching for it all over the forums if it's berried 10 pages away, I will create a new topic and in my opinion this is perfectly legal and IS NOT EVEN A DUPLICATE THREAD, The term applies for threads with similar contents to other ACTIVE threads.

THANK YOU.

I couldn't have said it better my self!

^

Iv121 wrote:

Second I disagree with the suggestion because I see the other's point of view. A newbie comes to our forums and wants to talk about Halo 4 even though the topic let's say died. He doesn't know there is a topic for Halo 4 already and will create a new topic. It will be unfair to punish him for this. And even if I want to discuss Halo 4 after the thread had died I won't start searching for it all over the forums if it's berried 10 pages away, I will create a new topic and in my opinion this is perfectly legal and IS NOT EVEN A DUPLICATE THREAD, The term applies for threads with similar contents to other ACTIVE threads.

This is a suggestion to add this to the official forum rules. There's the nifty feature called 'Google' that will clear any issues here.

"site:futurecraft.forumotion.com <discussion topic here>"

The search engine will then look for results containing your desired subject matter and bring them up, at which point one can 'revive' the topic with the discussion you wished to initiate to begin with, except now we don't have four threads for the same thing.

It is perfectly 'fair' to punish someone with a couple of points for being too lazy to spend less than a minute on a search. After all, that term means what is right for each individual, those points will serve as a considerable deterrent to the wanton topic creating nowadays.

As far as your assertions of threads not meaning the same thing, I assume you are justifying the creation of

"Is Minecraft a good buy?"

"MINECRAFT DISCUSSION THREAD"

"What do you like most about Minecraft?"

"Are you getting Minecraft?"

That is the gist I am getting from your argument here. Note that all of these could be compressed into option #2 without any ill effects. As for a real life forum example:

"Microsoft's Halo 4"

"Halo Universe"

"Who's getting Halo 4?"

"Halo Forward Unto Dawn"

"Halo 4 good or bad?"

Again, which of these threads could encompass all of the discussions presented without impeding any? Option #2 of course.

People, this is not Facebook or some IRC chat. No one's twisting your arm to post in two minutes or less. Take the time to review your post for glaring grammatical errors and check for topics that may have already started the discussion you hope to instigate.

And finally, you say that it's not a good idea to have a thread where most people can't respond. That is simply not true. All the users have the ability to vote in the poll I created. That should be enough, one can fully express their opinion on the subject through that without typing up text walls out of self-gratification.

Tiel wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

Second I disagree with the suggestion because I see the other's point of view. A newbie comes to our forums and wants to talk about Halo 4 even though the topic let's say died. He doesn't know there is a topic for Halo 4 already and will create a new topic. It will be unfair to punish him for this. And even if I want to discuss Halo 4 after the thread had died I won't start searching for it all over the forums if it's berried 10 pages away, I will create a new topic and in my opinion this is perfectly legal and IS NOT EVEN A DUPLICATE THREAD, The term applies for threads with similar contents to other ACTIVE threads.

This is a suggestion to add this to the official forum rules. There's the nifty feature called 'Google' that will clear any issues here.

"site:futurecraft.forumotion.com <discussion topic here>"

The search engine will then look for results containing your desired subject matter and bring them up, at which point one can 'revive' the topic with the discussion you wished to initiate to begin with, except now we don't have four threads for the same thing.

It is perfectly 'fair' to punish someone with a couple of points for being too lazy to spend less than a minute on a search. After all, that term means what is right for each individual, those points will serve as a considerable deterrent to the wanton topic creating nowadays.

As far as your assertions of threads not meaning the same thing, I assume you are justifying the creation of

"Is Minecraft a good buy?"

"MINECRAFT DISCUSSION THREAD"

"What do you like most about Minecraft?"

"Are you getting Minecraft?"

That is the gist I am getting from your argument here. Note that all of these could be compressed into option #2 without any ill effects. As for a real life forum example:

"Microsoft's Halo 4"

"Halo Universe"

"Who's getting Halo 4?"

"Halo Forward Unto Dawn"

"Halo 4 good or bad?"

Again, which of these threads could encompass all of the discussions presented without impeding any? Option #2 of course.

People, this is not Facebook or some IRC chat. No one's twisting your arm to post in two minutes or less. Take the time to review your post for glaring grammatical errors and check for topics that may have already started the discussion you hope to instigate.

And finally, you say that it's not a good idea to have a thread where most people can't respond. That is simply not true. All the users have the ability to vote in the poll I created. That should be enough, one can fully express their opinion on the subject through that without typing up text walls out of self-gratification.

\/

Nope, I agree with Iv, you are fighting a losing battle Tiel.

Edit: Also the 2 posts on Planetside 2 were immature and unnecessary. We get what you are saying, we disagree, you lose.

hyperlite wrote:

unnecessary.

Key word here. If you are right in that I have lost, then I have committed no wrong by creating two threads with earnest questions. If you are correct, they should have easily sprouted useful discussion. I was unable to ascertain what would have happened with them as they were locked, however from the looks of things no one bothered to reply.

Why?

Because we already had three threads about the game. As you say, it was 'unnecessary'.

Have a close look at this result page : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_oq=Halo+4&as_sitesearch=futurecraft.forumotion.com

Here I searched "Halo 4" and I've got lucky to see it in one of the bottom pages. I will not start to search for every single topic we ever had on our forums and instead I will create a new one. Do you have any argument FOR the system ? To prevent what you did ? This is spam which is directly forbidden by our rules. As I see no other reason to enforce this rule I see no reason to implement this rule and ESPECIALLY to make confusion between correct and incorrect necroposts. Better leave the Necroposts as forbidden and allow people to create new threads rather then facing an army of undead threads.

Is that so?



First page. Bam. Every Halo 4 thread ever created in the top five results.

The system is currently flawed in my opinion. Had those threads not been locked I honestly do believe they could have generated actual discussion, which is unacceptable when we already have three threads dedicated to Planetside 2.

And if you're confused about necroposts, first we have to think of what a 'necro' is. It can be defined as a post that adds nothing to a topic that's over a few weeks old.

If someone was already going to create their own topic, could they not copy/paste their OP into a new post in the appropriate thread, thus contributing something to the discussion and thus justifying their bump? And no, I don't mean crap like 'Cake is nice. Do you think so too?' in a two month old thread for news that someone got major rageface over.

Let's use the Halo 4 threads as an example. Revan made a new thread for people's opinions of the game,a subject that was already being actively discussed in a topic on the front page of Offtopic, but I digress. His post could have easily been in the 'Who's getting Halo 4?' thread without any ill effects. Discussion would have resumed in that direction and then we'd only have three Halo threads as opposed to the five or so we have now.

When it comes down to it, this is more of a question of 'Do you think multiple threads for the same thing is OK?'

My stance on that is rather obvious. I don't see how anyone could find the fact we currently have four threads for one game alright, but if that's what you think I clearly can't dissuade you.


e: Okay, seriously Iv?

You searched 'Halo OR 4 site:futurecraft.forumotion.com'

Is this some kind of joke?

Tiel wrote:

Had those threads not been locked I honestly do believe they could have generated actual discussion, which is unacceptable.

Don't lock them right away,Ok?Ok.

You keep forgetting I don't have moderator rights in this subforum. Someone else did it, and they weren't necessarily wrong in doing so. I still would have liked to see what the results after a day were though.

Tiel wrote:

Is that so?



First page. Bam. Every Halo 4 thread ever created in the top five results.

The system is currently flawed in my opinion. Had those threads not been locked I honestly do believe they could have generated actual discussion, which is unacceptable when we already have three threads dedicated to Planetside 2.

And if you're confused about necroposts, first we have to think of what a 'necro' is. It can be defined as a post that adds nothing to a topic that's over a few weeks old.

If someone was already going to create their own topic, could they not copy/paste their OP into a new post in the appropriate thread, thus contributing something to the discussion and thus justifying their bump? And no, I don't mean crap like 'Cake is nice. Do you think so too?' in a two month old thread for news that someone got major rageface over.

Let's use the Halo 4 threads as an example. Revan made a new thread for people's opinions of the game,a subject that was already being actively discussed in a topic on the front page of Offtopic, but I digress. His post could have easily been in the 'Who's getting Halo 4?' thread without any ill effects. Discussion would have resumed in that direction and then we'd only have three Halo threads as opposed to the five or so we have now.

When it comes down to it, this is more of a question of 'Do you think multiple threads for the same thing is OK?'

My stance on that is rather obvious. I don't see how anyone could find the fact we currently have four threads for one game alright, but if that's what you think I clearly can't dissuade you.


e: Okay, seriously Iv?

You searched 'Halo OR 4 site:futurecraft.forumotion.com'

Is this some kind of joke?

show us hat you searched. I highly doubt you searched "halo 4". You probably searched "Halo 4 Futurecraft" or something like that. If not, then you have already visited that page before, so it came up first.

I did not bother to crop the photo. You can clearly see in the Opera searchbox, "site:futurecraft.forumotion.com Halo 4", as is the format I posted earlier.

Iv searched "Halo OR 4 site:futurecraft.forumotion.com" For reasons he's yet to explain.

And just in case you still don't believe me for whatever reason:



Camtasia screwed up my scroll down, but you can clearly see those are the genuine results.

Even if so I'm not planning to search threads every time I post, especially with the poor way this search is implemented. To get it straight I typed in the search window (Top button panel with red buttons) and entered "Halo 4" and for some reason it did or, I'm sure any other newb like myself will do it.

Another point that I see is that posting a new thread about a topic that died years ago does no harm at all to anyone. Reposting already active topics is spam which is already covered and therefore I see no reason to implement new rules that will force me to google search every time I start a thread .

As a judge I really expect you to see the other side as well, as the judge there is to see the other's point of view and find any circumstances that reduce the punishment he gets while still acting in the law. This will create the right balance between both opposites : Law and mercy, as if you wouldn't try to see the other side what's the point in you ? There is a strict, cold book with rules that we can apply. This is a good opportunity for you to practice this.

Iv121 wrote:

Even if so I'm not planning to search threads every time I post, especially with the poor way this search is implemented. To get it straight I typed in the search window (Top button panel with red buttons) and entered "Halo 4" and for some reason it did or, I'm sure any other newb like myself will do it.

I posted the format. "site:futurecraft.forumotion.com <topic>" It searches the site for the keyword, any other text simply will not do the job. You also have the option of using the forum's own search feature to see if the topic you're about to make has already been created in the past.

Iv121 wrote:

Another point that I see is that posting a new thread about a topic that died years ago does no harm at all to anyone. Reposting already active topics is spam which is already covered and therefore I see no reason to implement new rules that will force me to google search every time I start a thread .

This forum has existed for less than a year. At most, topics are but three months old. If you are to assert that blatant duplicate threads = spam, then they are simply not being treated as such by the moderation.

And again, you treat the search as if it's some tedious, excruciating task that will take so much time...when in reality it can be done in less than ten seconds. Again, I repeat that this is not a chatroom. You have unlimited time to review your post and check if it's already been posted, tasks that I repeat take very little time proportionate to typing up a proper OP.

Iv121 wrote:

As a judge I really expect you to see the other side as well, as the judge there is to see the other's point of view and find any circumstances that reduce the punishment he gets while still acting in the law. This will create the right balance between both opposites : Law and mercy, as if you wouldn't try to see the other side what's the point in you ? There is a strict, cold book with rules that we can apply. This is a good opportunity for you to practice this.

I'm offended that you don't think I see both sides of every situation; I've gone out of my way to do so even when I was not a Judge. And as it stands, you are arguing that people shouldn't be forced to spend a minute reviewing their posts and thusly have the ability to wantonly create topics when most discussions could be focused into a sole thread. Extra topics only serve to use up bandwidth and clutter up the forum, two things that our moderators are obligated to minimize, and thusly I've pushed forward a motion to penalize users for them instead of just locking threads for no reason.

It's beyond me why I've spent a great deal of time explaining my reasoning here. It'd seem you simply don't want to listen to the point of lecturing me on my duties as a Judge. (Irrelevantly, at that?)

Not at all, I do want to see a deeper view of your point to accept it if it suits me or to know what arguments should I bring against it. An as a judge you are also expected to detail the way you made your choice.

If bandwidth is what concerns you delete the old topics. This will solve two problems : The need to prevent necroposting and searching for "duplicate" threads. After a year I see no reason to keep a thread.

Iv121 wrote:

If bandwidth is what concerns you delete the old topics. This will solve two problems : The need to prevent necroposting and searching for "duplicate" threads. After a year I see no reason to keep a thread.

Again, this forum hasn't existed for a year. I also see your use of hyperboles to justify the deletion of old topics...most threads are only going to 'die' for a month or two before someone finds something to add on to it.

As for necroposting...I believe I clarified on that. See the previous page, I've not the time at the moment to rephrase what I've already said.

Lastly, it seems searching for dead threads is a major matter of consternation for you and the main thing you dispute. The solution here would be when someone disregards the proposed rule, they will get the points and their topic will be moved into the old one, thus reviving it and eliminating the useless topic at the same time.

But moderators are not babysitters. I honestly don't see what issue you have with spending a few seconds on a google search before posting a new topic....in most cases that amount of time will pale in comparison to what a member would have spent creating their OP to begin with. If it doesn't, well, the topic clearly doesn't warrant being created to begin with.

Tiel wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

If bandwidth is what concerns you delete the old topics. This will solve two problems : The need to prevent necroposting and searching for "duplicate" threads. After a year I see no reason to keep a thread.

Again, this forum hasn't existed for a year. I also see your use of hyperboles to justify the deletion of old topics...most threads are only going to 'die' for a month or two before someone finds something to add on to it.

As for necroposting...I believe I clarified on that. See the previous page, I've not the time at the moment to rephrase what I've already said.

Lastly, it seems searching for dead threads is a major matter of consternation for you and the main thing you dispute. The solution here would be when someone disregards the proposed rule, they will get the points and their topic will be moved into the old one, thus reviving it and eliminating the useless topic at the same time.

But moderators are not babysitters. I honestly don't see what issue you have with spending a few seconds on a google search before posting a new topic....in most cases that amount of time will pale in comparison to what a member would have spent creating their OP to begin with. If it doesn't, well, the topic clearly doesn't warrant being created to begin with.

oh it'll be a year real soon now. The ME3 and SOASE thread has been around for as long as I can remember and I've been here since... what? March maybe?

Yes Kobialka, nine months constitutes a year.

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps in whatever strange world you live in it does.

Yes if no threads are 1 year old our bandwidth is not at risk. It is the only reason I have found appropriate to note and it is currently irrelevant. Even if you do this you'll add points for it right ? Do you know that besides being used as a mark of shame , this is your counter to a ban ? (suspension as called in Jedi's thread). Do you really think this is worth putting people to public shame and maybe even ban ? I do not think this matter justifies any attention beyond an unofficial warning which means pretty much no punishment.

I would like to point out that rules exist in order to protect the others' rights. As I see no right violation at all in this situation there should not be a law prohibiting it.

I propose that all threads should be deleted after at least three months of inacivity! (Well, actually it be smart as well to just go ahead and delete anything that is possible to necropost. (1 week))

Iv121 wrote:

Yes if no threads are 1 year old our bandwidth is not at risk. It is the only reason I have found appropriate to note and it is currently irrelevant. Even if you do this you'll add points for it right ? Do you know that besides being used as a mark of shame , this is your counter to a ban ? (suspension as called in Jedi's thread). Do you really think this is worth putting people to public shame and maybe even ban ? I do not think this matter justifies any attention beyond an unofficial warning which means pretty much no punishment.

I would like to point out that rules exist in order to protect the others' rights. As I see no right violation at all in this situation there should not be a law prohibiting it.

Bandwidth is not an issue, I am sorry for absentmindedly legitimizing that factor after you introduced it. My quarrel with our current system lies in its clutter. We do not need four or more threads when but one would suffice...it introduces a ton of junk in the board which is not what anyone wants or needs.

If this becomes a rule, yes, you would be penalized for not bothering to look for similar topics before posting. It would be an example of overbearing laziness on the OP's part...such behavior would be rewarded with a point or two depending on the severity (say, making two threads for a topic that's already on the front page with active participants). And no, there is no public shame, as I doubt anyone in the right mind cares about their fellow's accumulated points.

We of this board do not want to promote laziness on the part of posters, or useless threads in the forum, that much should be universal for everyone (I hope). You say the rules exist to protect the rights of everyone...I feel everyone deserves the right to have a board free of spam topics, would you not agree? As such, I'm not really seeing much in the way of the logic behind your opposition of this motion. Thus far, those that agree with you either have something to lose or are predisposed against the proposer. So please, Iv, enlighten me as to your reasons here. This has become more of a Presidential debate than a legitimate discussion...a list of your reasons would greatly help me to see this from your perspective.

And for all that debate, no-one actually checked. The first accounts were created in August 2011, more than a year ago, and the oldest topic I've found was created on August 31 of that year.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

And for all that debate, no-one actually checked. The first accounts were created in August 2011, more than a year ago, and the oldest topic I've found was created on August 31 of that year.

Somehow I knew you'd pop in here with that.

Also, poll is no bien. We have no existing definition of 'dead' in the context of a thread. I'd replace that term with 'abandoned' or 'where discussion has ceased', something similar. Maybe remove it entirely.

I put a vote to demonstrate you my point. You are welcome to vote yes as you believe in.

My arguments against are:

- Making a similar thread to one already existing is not a spam (unlike your multiple planetside threads) and therefore it doesn't hurt any rights of the forum members.
- Even if you find this true I do not think a ban and public humiliation is the correct punishment for such a minor to non-existent offense
- The Search option is flawed and if used ordinary doesn't give the necessary results.
- Searching for threads even though taking a short time is annoying and causes more harm than help. Yes that's right, making a new thread with contents similar to one existing is less harmful than even searching for a thread.
- There is no law forbidding laziness. We are here for free talk and not to enforce thousands of laws and make people feel uncomfortable.
- Besides help topics this system is not implemented in any other forum for a reason. how many "Obsidian tools" mods there are on the minecrft forums you think ?

Also your extremism somehow pushes me away , I really don't wanna end up in a hearing with the Tiel that talking here so I better behave well . By extremism I mean your saying about laziness and imbalanced punishment.

If you have arguments for put them here in an orgenized way.