Originally posted by b3dro

Oh noo its not about that, 90% of the mods are Britney stans, in case you forgot.

Originally posted by b3dro

Oh noo, its not about that, 90% of the mods are Britney stans, in case you forgot.

Originally posted by MrPeanut

So how many warnings would you hand out in a thread like this for example?










This is pretty much par for course for any of those threads in the Charts section, and not any of those posts are warned (with good reason - that would be ridiculous). So yeah, if I saw those posts go unwarned routinely and one of my posts that was in a similar vein got warned then I would be miffed as well due to the alarming inconsistency of its application.

And I've not really heard any other mods refer short or single-word posts (e.g., "lol," "omg, "wow, etc.) as being warn-worthy. Is that a sentiment shared by all the mods or something to which you subscribe?



I understand that some people do complain about every little thing, even in instances where they were warned for blatantly trolling and they knew it, but there is a bit of a debatable gray area on some warnings (such as flamebait) where I don't blame posters for wanting to discuss it in here.

Some of the mods seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes "flamebait" as opposed to others. That's understandable to a degree because the mods are individual people all with their own judgment, but I feel like it's getting a bit ridiculous in some instances where posts are getting warned that are less provocative than things posted by moderators themselves on a regular basis in the past.

This was one post of mine that was warned for "flamebait" even though the purpose was to pursue a line of discussion rather than instigate a mindless flame war:

http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.ph...86815#10086815



That is substantive charts discussion made in the charts section and it was on-topic with what was already being discussed. You talked before about it being annoying when posters report things that they just disagree with expecting it to be warned, and yet this was not a heated post made with the attempt to instigate a flame war, it was a post that some stan didn't like, and yet it was warned as "flamebait" as if it had said "Britney's sales are pathetic tbh."

Like I said, I realize the mods are going to be using individual discretion, but these things are frustrating and the process should be a bit more objective than having the likelihood of whether you'll be warned for a post or not differ drastically depending on which mod is first to process the report.

Originally posted by Vin

I applaud your efforts, Peanut. I agree with some of your statements, however, again, I feel it's important that both the moderator and the member have equal responsibility. It only takes one "pointless" warning point from a post with only a gif or smiley to know that users can be warned for it. If the user decides to role the dice and do it again, then that is on them. And although, most likely, unintentional, there is a subtle undercurrent of "It's all the mods fault. Fix it!" in your last statements about the issue at hand. One cannot put more blame on moderators than on members or vice versa, or expect the report and warning system to be lock tight -- there will inevitably be gray areas like any system of rules and practices. One also cannot blame the moderators for at least trying to implement a rule that may create more posts with depth. Attempting to do something about it, is better than doing nothing about it. Before, members would complain about relentless "cosigns" and smileys and now members complain about their smileys and gifs being warned. It's not going to be 100%, either way.

By the same token, moderators cannot expect members to completely cease replying with only gifs or smileys. Arguably, one of the biggest appeals to ATRL is the use of animated gifs, and if that was crippled in a major way, a large piece of the entertainment factor of the forum could suffer, so that should be taken into account. Furthermore, members like when they know that they've made other members laugh; members like when they know they've entertained other members with their post. An instant smiley is a way to receive that gratification and expression -- from the member posting the smiley to express their reaction, to the member who made the post that enjoys the fact that they've entertained someone else. So, this should also be taken into account. The same thought is applied to gifs. If an animated gif fully expresses a reaction or response, in relation to the quoted post, then perhaps a warning will/should be bypassed. For example, disagreeing with a member by solely using the following gif should be acceptable, despite whether it's reported or not:


To type out "That is false" on top of posting the gif that reads the same, is redundant. The gif alone is fully expressive and, in my opinion, acceptable as a sole post. The bottom line is that once you know it's a rule, just play by it, and play around it -- have fun with the game. If you know a simple "lol" next to a smiley will keep your post from being warned, then do it. It's not that big of a deal. It only becomes a big deal when someone who is upset their smiley or gif post got warned has a meltdown, and goes back into the forum and starts warning every single smiley or gif post to feel better about their warning point.

Originally posted by MrPeanut

Well, for me the whole "people are unaware of the rule because it's so inconsistently applied" discussion was more of a sub-point to my larger argument that I don't think it should be warnable at all. I realize a lot of posters (newer ones, anyway) are unaware of the warning points for even making a request for a download, but I think it's totally legitimate to warn that, so in that case I'd place the onus on the member to be aware of the rule.

As it relates to the "pointless" warning, though, I'm mostly just arguing that it should be abolished entirely. The lack of consistency in its application was just a side-point to argue its overall irrelevance. Obviously as long as it remains a rule people would be smart to avoid smilie/.gif-only posts, but acknowledging that fact has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not it's a good or beneficial rule. And I understand the ostensible purpose of encouraging posts with more depth, but in this case it really changes little (if anything) when there is a broader culture of substantial .gif/smilie usage here.

This is not the type of forum where most posters are going to be writing paragraphs of analysis on a regular basis. I enjoy forums with that kind of level of discussion, but I also enjoy the fun this forum has to offer, and I feel like the "pointless" rule runs pretty contrary to that atmosphere because it does little to change anything beyond providing an annoyance for both moderators who have to process the report and the members who end up arbitrarily warned for something that goes by unnoticed/unwarned in most instances (e.g., that whole thread I linked to as just one of many examples). If you really wanted to change the atmosphere of discussion around here or "aesthetic" of the forum you'd have to ban or limit the use of .gifs/smilies and ban all the nonsensical slang while you're at it.

Originally posted by castrobabytiger

Originally posted by Haven17

Mods, can I make a Tina Turner base thread?

Originally posted by b3dro

How was this post worth a WP?

http://atrl.net/?p=11631407

Bring him back. This isnt funny.

Originally posted by Cassiopeia

Very worthy.

Originally posted by Gui Blackout

Originally posted by b3dro

90% of the mods are Britney stans.

Originally posted by Kworb

Don't use Nekci Menij names as nicknames

Originally posted by KyKy

Why can't the Brit Army stay on topic in base

I see captain edited his post but he still deserves a warning

and mods all the off topic and isulting.posts in there you should do some lurking

Originally posted by Chemist

you just did it

And at all the britney haters fuming and getting banned faster than the actual britney stans

Originally posted by Duca

Ace Reject X
Athens X
Dookie X
eli's_rhythm X
foxaylove ✓
JDM X
josephs911 X
Katie ✓
Kworb X
Lee!! X
Lipton X
Matty X
orange X
Patrick ✓
Vato X

Originally posted by b3dro

"Like her" would have been more appropriate. But i know Matty, Kworb, Lee!! & Vato are mostly 'stans' though.

Originally posted by b3dro

"Like her" would have been more appropriate. But i know Matty, Kworb, Lee!! & Vato are mostly 'stans' though.
But thats not the point.

Originally posted by Kworb

Far from it. I wouldn't even say I'm a fan of hers. Blackout is a masterpiece though.

Originally posted by Kworb

Banned recently:

Guero 29 Days, 0 Hours [User reached ten points.]
MadiFierce 29 Days, 0 Hours [Ten points.]
TheVoiceXtina 29 Days, 1 Hour [Trolling.]
DG1 29 Days, 5 Hours [Ten warning points.]
Dip Low 29 Days, 13 Hours [10 points]
FelixMonster 29 Days, 13 Hours [User reached ten points.]
Halien4Life 29 Days, 23 Hours [User reached 10 warning points.]
InsureTer 29 Days, 23 Hours [User reached 10 warning points.]

Originally posted by Chemist

you just did it

And at all the britney haters fuming and getting banned faster than the actual britney stans

Originally posted by Kworb

Far from it. I wouldn't even say I'm a fan of hers. Blackout is a masterpiece though.