That's how others feel when their content stands to be moderated.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
I think you should however give her at least two posts not condensed a day as a condensed post does not have a notification quite the same on the board and is less likely to be read.
I've ignored topics that got actual traffic, kept up ones from days where she didn't make many, and don't plan to hide it until it's had at least 24 hours of life.
This is a trial run, it can be ended or adjusted.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
I think you should however give her at least two posts not condensed a day as a condensed post does not have a notification quite the same on the board and is less likely to be read.
I've ignored topics that got actual traffic, kept up ones from days where she didn't make many, and don't plan to hide it until it's had at least 24 hours of life.
This is a trial run, it can be ended or adjusted.
Oh okay. I wasn't sure exactly how you were going about this so I thought I'd just suggest.
Yeah the trial run sounds good.
She is ruining the useability of the site 24/7 constantly so this is better than the other alternative to people who destroy the website and get banned. Turq is a bit of a grey area because she's crazy
🌺🐀 🌺
Singling out a particular individual in this case doesn't feel right. Turq's schizo posting is different that cawk's malicious spaming.
Instead of creating a Turqie specific rule, what if it became a general spam condensing rule:
If a user posts 5 or more times in 1 day, and those posts fit certain criteria*, then all their posts for that day will be condensed into an index.
*The criteria, if all of the posts are about the same topic and reasonably fit in the same thread. If Turq posts 5 times in a row about being sexually attracted to Light and wanting to save SC and Michael Mawhatshisname, those posts all fit together pretty well as schizophrenic ramblings.
If a user posts 5+ times about different topics, and those threads are stimulating forum conversation, condensing them wouldn't make sense.
For example, if Xadem made 5 posts along the lines of:
- Who would win X or Y
- Observation of the forum
- Sharing a personal experience, and encouraging others to share as well
- A shitpost
- An idea to build site traffic
^ These topics do not fit together, and condensing them would deter activity that otherwise would have been there.
But Xadem could also post 10 times in a row "regalize chardlarp," in that case the spam rule should apply to him as well, not just Turquie.
I think this rule would well handle the turq situation without essentially completely removing her posts from the topic list, which does not feel fair.
The blood on my hands covered the holes
Singling out a particular individual in this case doesn't feel right. Turq's schizo posting is different that cawk's malicious spaming.
Instead of creating a Turqie specific rule, what if it became a general spam condensing rule:
If a user posts 5 or more times in 1 day, and those posts fit certain criteria*, then all their posts for that day will be condensed into an index.
At that point why not just limit accounts to only so many topics each day as a function of the forum?
Who makes more than that many topics constructively in a day?
*The criteria, if all of the posts are about the same topic and reasonably fit in the same thread. If Turq posts 5 times in a row about being sexually attracted to Light and wanting to save SC and Michael Mawhatshisname, those posts all fit together pretty well as schizophrenic ramblings.
If a user posts 5+ times about different topics, and those threads are stimulating forum conversation, condensing them wouldn't make sense.
For example, if Xadem made 5 posts along the lines of:
- Who would win X or Y
- Observation of the forum
- Sharing a personal experience, and encouraging others to share as well
- A shitpost
- An idea to build site traffic
^ These topics do not fit together, and condensing them would deter activity that otherwise would have been there.
What of when Xadem does a few constructive posts and multiple shitposts? What about when he bumps a bunch of stuff from years ago with nothing added to it?
Where's the line between free speech and function, and where does a topic stop being like another one?
But Xadem could also post 10 times in a row "regalize chardlarp," in that case the spam rule should apply to him as well, not just Turquie.
Posts copypasta'd when I see them are reduced to a single expression, and chat when I'm there to three instances to prove the spam.
I think this rule would well handle the turq situation without essentially completely removing her posts from the topic list, which does not feel fair.
So far that'd only change the 15th in her case, I've been keeping up cases of three or less with a 24 hour lifespan before processing.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
3/23/2023 11:37:18 AM
Singling out a particular individual in this case doesn't feel right. Turq's schizo posting is different that cawk's malicious spaming.
Instead of creating a Turqie specific rule, what if it became a general spam condensing rule:
If a user posts 5 or more times in 1 day, and those posts fit certain criteria*, then all their posts for that day will be condensed into an index.
At that point why not just limit accounts to only so many topics each day as a function of the forum?
Who makes more than that many topics constructively in a day?
Do we really want to encourage site growth by limiting the number of posts any user can make? Sounds counter productive. Our baseline is freedom of speech and restricting the extremes, not setting a restriction on everybody. We want to mod just enough to make the site better, not mod it to death.
*The criteria, if all of the posts are about the same topic and reasonably fit in the same thread. If Turq posts 5 times in a row about being sexually attracted to Light and wanting to save SC and Michael Mawhatshisname, those posts all fit together pretty well as schizophrenic ramblings.
If a user posts 5+ times about different topics, and those threads are stimulating forum conversation, condensing them wouldn't make sense.
For example, if Xadem made 5 posts along the lines of:
- Who would win X or Y
- Observation of the forum
- Sharing a personal experience, and encouraging others to share as well
- A shitpost
- An idea to build site traffic
^ These topics do not fit together, and condensing them would deter activity that otherwise would have been there.
What of when Xadem does a few constructive posts and multiple shitposts?
Use your best judgment. If a post can stand on its own two legs, do not condense. That would bring more harm than good. 5 posts that fit together is the criteria I am proposing, so 3 constructive posts and 3 shit posts, condense nothing. 3 constructive posts and 5 shitposts, condense only the shit posts.
What about when he bumps a bunch of stuff from years ago with nothing added to it?
So? Are we going to condense all old posts that get bumped now?
Where's the line between free speech and function,and where does a topic stop being like another one?
Use your best judgment. But don't single others out or dampen the entire website with a discriminatory or militant rule.
But Xadem could also post 10 times in a row "regalize chardlarp," in that case the spam rule should apply to him as well, not just Turquie.
Posts copypasta'd when I see them are reduced to a single expression, and chat when I'm there to three instances to prove the spam.
See, you are already doing a version of this without having to single out any one person
I think this rule would well handle the turq situation without essentially completely removing her posts from the topic list, which does not feel fair.
So far that'd only change the 15th in her case, I've been keeping up cases of three or less with a 24 hour lifespan before processing.
well, maybe we can change criteria to 4 or more, and leave days with 3 or less. The quantity is negotiable but the sentiment stands.
The blood on my hands covered the holes
Singling out a particular individual in this case doesn't feel right. Turq's schizo posting is different that cawk's malicious spaming.
Instead of creating a Turqie specific rule, what if it became a general spam condensing rule:
If a user posts 5 or more times in 1 day, and those posts fit certain criteria*, then all their posts for that day will be condensed into an index.
At that point why not just limit accounts to only so many topics each day as a function of the forum?
Who makes more than that many topics constructively in a day?Do we really want to encourage site growth by limiting the number of posts any user can make? Sounds counter productive.
Who makes more than five topics in a day, constructively?
How many people don't even hit the five topics?
Five is 1/4 the front page, at least a timer between new topics might stop some of it if it hits during an episode or something. Maybe it could be adjusted if the population increases or something, but I don't currently see an argument in favor of users being able to flood with ease if this is about PR and efficiency.
Orrr... it's accepted as part of the culture that we house people here with self control issues by the nature of the place.
Our baseline is freedom of speech and restricting the extremes, not setting a restriction on everybody. We want to mod just enough to make the site better, not mod it to death.
I would love to uphold that, but now it seems to be becoming about PR while people complain about the website enough to cause another one of these 'how can we fix it' times.
What of when Xadem does a few constructive posts and multiple shitposts?
Use your best judgment. If a post can stand on its own two legs, do not condense. That would bring more harm than good. 5 posts that fit together is the criteria I am proposing, so 3 constructive posts and 3 shit posts, condense nothing. 3 constructive posts and 5 shitposts, condense only the shit posts.
This has so much red tape in it you have no idea. Hard lines at the very least help for defining a point to debate from, something outside of the person or room to call bias (further).
We will need to define where the line for "Constructive" is before going anywhere else, as that is what every person hit by it will be making a fuss about.
What about when he bumps a bunch of stuff from years ago with nothing added to it?
So? Are we going to condense all old posts that get bumped now?
Could delete bumps. 🤷
Couldn't one argue it's ruining usability or whatever, like when Med would bump tons of topics in the past to hide a topic she did not like? What about when the bumps are nonsensical or otherwise random?
Topics with the bumps deleted return to where they once were in the index, like how the bot copypasta is handled.
Where's the line between free speech and function, and where does a topic stop being like another one?
Use your best judgment. But don't single others out or dampen the entire website with a discriminatory or militant rule.
My 'best judgement' would be going with things being mostly fine right now, save for needing new blood, but the current believed concern is over how they won't want to join a forum with weird schizo shit sprawling the front page alongside the word 'pedo' multiple times, and that the welcome wagon if they're not nice and chummy will scare them off.
How does one even enforce the welcoming committee? If someone wants to shit on newcomers, they will, especially if they come on here saying super weird shit like a lot of ours have over the years. It might be easier to have a guidelines topic or something advise newbies on what to expect, if things really have to go that far.
But Xadem could also post 10 times in a row "regalize chardlarp," in that case the spam rule should apply to him as well, not just Turquie.
Posts copypasta'd when I see them are reduced to a single expression, and chat when I'm there to three instances to prove the spam.
See, you are already doing a version of this without having to single out any one person
Who else other than Turquie is making lots of topics right now? When it's one person it kind of singles them out by default, and already above you are trying to find ways to make special exceptions for Xadem. I have already proposed Delora as a potential candidate for times that she tantrums, and should others be showing sprawly behavior Meta's already been talking about adding a feature to move posts into a single topic.
I pretty much thought it was fine, and should we feel like undoing all of this censorship stuff they can be thrown back onto the index super easily. If this was deleting stuff that would be a different story, and I feel like people won't really talk about this until something's mid-being done.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
3/23/2023 12:33:51 PM
Singling out a particular individual in this case doesn't feel right. Turq's schizo posting is different that cawk's malicious spaming.
Instead of creating a Turqie specific rule, what if it became a general spam condensing rule:
If a user posts 5 or more times in 1 day, and those posts fit certain criteria*, then all their posts for that day will be condensed into an index.
At that point why not just limit accounts to only so many topics each day as a function of the forum?
Who makes more than that many topics constructively in a day?Do we really want to encourage site growth by limiting the number of posts any user can make? Sounds counter productive. Our baseline is freedom of speech and restricting the extremes, not setting a restriction on everybody. We want to mod just enough to make the site better, not mod it to death.
*The criteria, if all of the posts are about the same topic and reasonably fit in the same thread. If Turq posts 5 times in a row about being sexually attracted to Light and wanting to save SC and Michael Mawhatshisname, those posts all fit together pretty well as schizophrenic ramblings.
If a user posts 5+ times about different topics, and those threads are stimulating forum conversation, condensing them wouldn't make sense.
For example, if Xadem made 5 posts along the lines of:
- Who would win X or Y
- Observation of the forum
- Sharing a personal experience, and encouraging others to share as well
- A shitpost
- An idea to build site traffic
^ These topics do not fit together, and condensing them would deter activity that otherwise would have been there.
What of when Xadem does a few constructive posts and multiple shitposts?
Use your best judgment. If a post can stand on its own two legs, do not condense. That would bring more harm than good. 5 posts that fit together is the criteria I am proposing, so 3 constructive posts and 3 shit posts, condense nothing. 3 constructive posts and 5 shitposts, condense only the shit posts.
What about when he bumps a bunch of stuff from years ago with nothing added to it?
So? Are we going to condense all old posts that get bumped now?
Where's the line between free speech and function,and where does a topic stop being like another one?Use your best judgment. But don't single others out or dampen the entire website with a discriminatory or militant rule.
But Xadem could also post 10 times in a row "regalize chardlarp," in that case the spam rule should apply to him as well, not just Turquie.
Posts copypasta'd when I see them are reduced to a single expression, and chat when I'm there to three instances to prove the spam.
See, you are already doing a version of this without having to single out any one person
I think this rule would well handle the turq situation without essentially completely removing her posts from the topic list, which does not feel fair.
So far that'd only change the 15th in her case, I've been keeping up cases of three or less with a 24 hour lifespan before processing.
well, maybe we can change criteria to 4 or more, and leave days with 3 or less. The quantity is negotiable but the sentiment stands.
Xadem doesn't spam everyday, and his posts aren't braindead like Turquie's.
Turquie is a special case, other spammers like dexter received the same treatment in the past.
Turquie's posts are irritating because they're a waste of time to read. It's clever in a way; she manages to be irritating without breaking a rule.
