Quote:
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. |
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.
And, lastly, the bottom line
to the bottom line is that the less subjective rules and warnings
are on ATRL, the better it will be for the members, the forum, and the image of the moderators.
(Meaning, abolish "Annoying.")
...Vin
