Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Thunderfall, Jul 22, 2003.
Create a DL for testing like Turner did when he made the rules discussion social group.
Use the same DL if it still exists. We're totally nto gonna report you and get you banned, btw.
Why can threads that very obviously do not fit the criteria of being a [RD] thread:
be moderated as if they should be [RD] thread, with infractions handed out to particular community posters based on [RD] moderation levels, but not punish the original creator of the thread for not adhering to [RD] discussion rules? Nor have any consistency in the moderation (many more posts than the one receiving an infraction were problematic)?
There have been some fairly low quality RD threads started. Such threads really don't have a shot at reaching RD standards when the OP is not within the RD spirit.
This poorly assembled collection of screenshots shows what happens. When you click the total posts link at the right of a page (to search the thread by posters) it brings up the "Who posted" popout box. If you then click the posts number on the right-hand column (so you can actually see all the posts the poster has made) it kicks you out to the "wait 15 seconds" alert, meaning you have to do it all over again. In essence what this means is that you have to sit there staring at a page that tells you nothing for 15 seconds so you can get to the page that actually gives you useful information.
This is of course ignoring the other irritating part of the 15-second rule, which is that you have to wait 15 seconds between search refinements, so that even if you immediately realize that the search you made was not accurate enough, you have to sit there staring at a worthless page for 15 seconds while you wait for it to tick over.
The result is that I never actually use the search "feature" on cfc: I use google to search for only hits within the website.
It seems to me that the 15 second rule is done to prevent overuse of the search function from crashing the servers. It is quite good at that purpose. In fact, I believe it prevents any use of it at all.
Doesn't happen for me.
But then again, not sure if there are some left-over priviliges with the "retired mod" status.
EDIT: Normal search restrictions apply, but can't replicate the other problem either.
I imagine that problem is related to the fact that it's opening the search up in the original window - what happens if you right-click, 'open in new tab' instead?
Wouldn't explain Double A's problem in any case, I suppose.
Well holy crap, that actually works.
Very cool feature!!!
Just because I couldn't be bothered reading over the thread to find out, can anyone tell me what the cross sign beside someone's name in the "Users Online" section means? My best guess is they're tabbed out. I couldn't see anything about it on any other part of the forum, so I thought I'd ask here.
It means the person is one of your contacts/friends.
Thanks! Makes perfect sense now that I think about it.
What is the time limit for quoting another poster before such quoting becomes infractable as trolling? For example - Poster A makes point X. Poster B quotes a past post by Poster A that undercuts Poster A's current point. How old does that past post have to be for Poster B to be considered trolling?
It is an interesting question. I think that those of us who are reasonably set in our ways might be held more accountable for our past speech than others. Those who find themselves more flexible and growing in their ideas should have lots of opportunity to change their minds. For the purposes of "quoting as trolling" I think that you should be able to go back six weeks or so and quote a person and not worry. That is, of course, if you quote within a similar context of the newer conversation. I would think it important that the old context be made quite clear.
It is important to keep our purpose in mind. Any particular person might be trying to trap, embarrass, make a fool of some other poster and try using an old quote to do so. But that is not the larger purpose of the forum. The larger goal is to converse, to talk about what interests us in manner that is civil and fun. That goal supersedes the lesser goals of ridicule, winning some point or demonstrating LAM hubris.
My six week time frame is just my opinion and nothing official, but if you want to play "rules lawyer" on the matter rather than use a "poster friendly" standard, we can probably do that.
Quoting from someone's long gone past here can be a warm and friendly exercise; it can also be cruel. We all have things we would prefer not to have unearthed. Let's not let "winning the point" get the better of us.
What's the mentality behind that rule? People post sheer crap when they first become a forumite (myself included)?
What does "LAM hubris" mean?
As far as I know, there is no rule about it. JR is asking for a ruling. I merely offered my opinion.
LAM = Look at me
Thank you for explaining. That's an acronym I'd never run across before.
I don't believe that the mere passage of time should make a quoting a post with a contrary opinion an infractable trolling attempt.
Clearly a personally provocative response would justify a trolling infraction. However, a politely worded disagreement with the quoted post should not.
The forums are a venue for discussion and civil disagreements about the subject of threads are often a natural consequence of such discussions. The rules are in place to ensure everyone benefits and enjoys using the forums.
Sun Tzu Wu
Separate names with a comma.