# Forums Rules. Do all of them apply?



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

As you may have noticed I have quoted are the rules of FAF. With the efforts of the moderators, new and old, these should be enforced more thoroughly. (Please note that any link is not to alienate anyone but to merely state a point.) 


> *NO*
> 
> Harassment, Trolling, Racial Slurs or other Malicious Behavior (this includes swearing at other users).
> Spam (posts or threads).
> ...


The items I have underlined are the least enforced rules of FAF. I believe that if there are rules, all of them should be enforced not just most (Or the ones easiest to find.) 

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=31984&page=3
^ This thread close is not one from the rules. A lack of intellgent posts does not make a lock. It would have been better justified as thread derailment.


> *Necrophilia Filter*
> Posts that are three months and older, except for those stickied and/or made by admins, will be automatically closed. Necro bumping is bad.


http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=27579&page=5&highlight=Furry
^ Three months did not pass between the last post and the return of the thread.

If I am wrong about any of my statements, please correct me. If you have noticed other rules that are not enforced, please bring them forth. 

I hope things will change for the better.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

A website where the rules are enforced equally? Not possible. Sorry, but it's true. Some people MAY see them being enforced equally and some will see as either not being enforced enough, or being enforced to the point of overkill. And some staff play favorites when it comes to enforcing the rules (looks the other way when a friend breaks them).


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> A website where the rules are enforced equally? Not possible. Sorry, but it's true. Some people MAY see them being enforced equally and some will see as either not being enforced enough, or being enforced to the point of overkill. And some staff play favorites when it comes to enforcing the rules (looks the other way when a friend breaks them).


It is also a matter of standards and opinions. Especially with these two: 

Harassment, Trolling, Racial Slurs or other Malicious Behavior (this includes swearing at other users).
 Spam (posts or threads).


----------



## Xaerun (Dec 14, 2008)

I think the bottom line is the mods are trying their hardest and we should respect that.

Whilst yak said there was zero intelligence in the last few posts on that thread you linked, the thread itself was a bit ridiculous, and I'm surprised it was allowed to exist at all... Oh, and these:


> Harassment, Trolling, Racial Slurs or other Malicious Behavior (this includes swearing at other users).
> Spam (posts or threads).


Are often enforced, I have seen many post deletions (and presumably infractions issued) over them.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 14, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> Are often enforced, I have seen many post deletions (and presumably infractions issued) over them.



Yup >_>


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> A website where the rules are enforced equally? Not possible. Sorry, but it's true. Some people MAY see them being enforced equally and some will see as either not being enforced enough, or being enforced to the point of overkill. And some staff play favorites when it comes to enforcing the rules (looks the other way when a friend breaks them).


I wouldn't call it favoritism. I'd call it varying circumstances. No one rule will ever cover every issue, every problem.

*Example:*
User A constantly bombards, attacks and berates User M in comments and notes, and exhibits stalker-like behavior by searching out threads and journals that User M has commented in. User M breaks, counter-attacking User A and breaking just about every rule known to man.

While User M broke the rules, over time User A goaded and harassed him into doing so with bait. Do we take the same exact punishment on both users, outright banning both? M broke the rules, but we can clearly see the events that lead up to it.

Food for thought.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> I wouldn't call it favoritism. I'd call it varying circumstances. No one rule will ever cover every issue, every problem.
> 
> *Example:*
> User A constantly bombards, attacks and berates User M in comments and notes, and exhibits stalker-like behavior by searching out threads and journals that User M has commented in. User M breaks, counter-attacking User A and breaking just about every rule known to man.
> ...



I didn't necessarily mean here, but I HAVE seen sites where the staff plays favorites. Though, I have seen at least one staff (non-Mod) member play favorites here on FA.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 14, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> I wouldn't call it favoritism. I'd call it varying circumstances. No one rule will ever cover every issue, every problem.
> 
> *Example:*
> User A constantly bombards, attacks and berates User M in comments and notes, and exhibits stalker-like behavior by searching out threads and journals that User M has commented in. User M breaks, counter-attacking User A and breaking just about every rule known to man.
> ...



^This.
As for your example: User M would/should get a PM telling him to stay calm and relax for a moment to stop him feeding the troll, and the mods probably should give him an infraction point since he could have told the mods to handle the situation. If he told them and nothing had happened, I'd probably even screw the infraction since he did what he could do but the staff didn't react properly.

User A: BANNED!


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> ^This.
> As for your example: User M would/should get a PM telling him to stay calm and relax for a moment to stop him feeding the troll, and the mods probably should give him an infraction point since he could have told the mods to handle the situation. If he told them and nothing had happened, I'd probably even screw the infraction since he did what he could do but the staff didn't react properly.
> 
> User A: BANNED!



You know how many times I've done that, and the staff did NOTHING? More times than I can count. I've gone to various FA staff about certain members, and got NO response nor saw any action taken by the staff member. They'd come to the thread, look then leave without doing anything. (Didn't want to go here, but had to mention that I have felt like the staff sometimes plays favorites by allowing certain people to flame and get away with it, by allowing the post to stay up. Heck, there's one post I reported several weeks ago, that's still up over in Bits & Bytes)


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 14, 2008)

All the things you're complaining about are all the things that make these  forums so much fun  .

Honestly though I think these forums are very well moderated, the mods can actually tell the difference between a harmless joke and actual harassment. The fact that I never get infractions is a testament to that :] .


----------



## Talvi (Dec 14, 2008)

Meh, I think the forums have become more unpleasant recently.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Image posts may be no more than 400 x 400px.



Surely this rule should be more flexible. For example, is this disruptive? http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=692032&postcount=5

Also it's silly that images in the post body have to be less wide than the images users are able to include in their signatures.


----------



## Jax (Dec 14, 2008)

This is a big forum... I see infractions as the exception to the rule. Not perfect, but then again I take things too seriously, that is just me...A good forum seeks balance. We need to be able to speak...the rules here keep us from being muzzled. I appreciate that.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> Are often enforced, I have seen many post deletions (and presumably infractions issued) over them.


And yet there are still people who do not receive infractions for obvious harassment. 


Dragoneer said:


> I wouldn't call it favoritism. I'd call it varying circumstances. No one rule will ever cover every issue, every problem.
> 
> *Example:*
> User A constantly bombards, attacks and berates User M in comments and notes, and exhibits stalker-like behavior by searching out threads and journals that User M has commented in. User M breaks, counter-attacking User A and breaking just about every rule known to man.
> ...


Sadly enough Ive seen this happen before. But if User A was noticed bombarding User M, why not take action before User M starts breaking rules?


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 14, 2008)

Whitenoise said:


> All the things you're complaining about are all the things that make these  forums so much fun  .
> 
> Honestly though I think these forums are very well moderated, the mods can actually tell the difference between a harmless joke and actual harassment. The fact that I never get infractions is a testament to that :] .



This indeed. It's the only reason I haven't been banned 5 times over, because most people will laugh at my Angry-Mask-Over-An-Exaggerated-Grin posts. But the certain few that get angry and whine instead of laugh at themselves are usually the ones that get pissy and fight back.

http://i36.tinypic.com/255kuv9.gif

Admittedly I do cross the line sometimes though, and if you people think moderation is lack, you ought to see my four page infraction history.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 14, 2008)

It's best to post links to large pictures like Rilvor or attach them, thus saving obnoxious page stretching.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> You know how many times I've done that, and the staff did NOTHING? More times than I can count. I've gone to various FA staff about certain members, and got NO response nor saw any action taken by the staff member. They'd come to the thread, look then leave without doing anything. (Didn't want to go here, but had to mention that I have felt like the staff sometimes plays favorites by allowing certain people to flame and get away with it, by allowing the post to stay up. Heck, there's one post I reported several weeks ago, that's still up over in Bits & Bytes)



This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but on moreso on what Ty is saying here overall.

I don't think it's so much favoritism as much as other factors, like how long [user] has been around, how offensive/baiting they may be, and on how frequent of a basis.

That's my take on that issue though, and I'm certainly open to criticism for at least my own handling of things -- so long as it's in this sort of fashion. It's a bit difficult to go over things when it's in a flame-turned textually stylized rant/rave. So thank you, Silibus.

There are more hands on deck now though, so hopefully this will help. One thing I'd recommend is maybe cutting down (just a little) on the (at times) very liberal usage deluge of the word "nigger".

I think that makes a good starting place for now, heh.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> There are more hands on deck now though, so hopefully this will help. One thing I'd recommend is maybe cutting down (just a little) on the (at times) very liberal usage deluge of the word "nigger".
> 
> I think that makes a good starting place for now, heh.



That word has no place in today's society, nor should it here.


----------



## uncia (Dec 14, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> There are more hands on deck now though, so hopefully this will help.


*nods* Should do, with the right people.



Grimfang said:


> One thing I'd recommend is maybe cutting down (just a little) on the (at times) very liberal usage deluge of the word "nigger".


Good luck with the "PG-13 maximum" clause (even if treated with a degree of flexibility), too, since that one much went pretty much out the window a long time ago.
Needs /careful/ handling, of course...

d.


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> There are more hands on deck now though, so hopefully this will help. One thing I'd recommend is maybe cutting down (just a little) on the (at times) very liberal usage deluge of the word "nigger".
> I think that makes a good starting place for now, heh.


You know, I read a lot of threads, and honestly, I think it's really not used very often at all, and always in a humorous sense.  I think people really make too much of rough language.  Last I heard, Pg-13 covers that rule nicely, considering it's level today, every swear word is fair game, to be honest.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> You know, I read a lot of threads, and honestly, I think it's really not used very often at all, and always in a humorous sense.  I think people really make too much of rough language.  Last I heard, Pg-13 covers that rule nicely, considering it's level today, every swear word is fair game, to be honest.



There's swear words, and there's derogatory words. The N-word is the latter.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

I encourage people to report posts. Honestly my time is somewhat limited due to a number of factors I won't bore you guys with, so I rely on reports a lot. A lot of times there will be multiple reports about the same thread but I'll only get to it after there's been a lot of back and forth because, well, I'm at work or I'm out of my house moving stuff to my new place. Or whatever else happens to come up. 

The new mods are doing an excellent job honestly. Right now the forums are better looked after than they were with just the two or three mods we've had otherwise (including me). Seriously, they deserve a friggin' cake for being as on the ball as they are.

I'm a big supporter of having a lot of mods, not too many mind, but plenty. This forum is too big for it's britches right now, but hopefully with some progress we can get it tailored and looking like it has a hot date waiting outside. Or whatever analogy you wanna put here.

I guess, what I'm trying to say with my overly long winded and rambling reply here is that I'm relieved we have more than just a couple mods now and that we're making progress. Maybe not as fast as most would like, but progress is at least SOMETHING in the long run. Like Grimfang has said, I am willing to take criticism too.


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> There's swear words, and there's derogatory words. The N-word is the latter.


They both fall under the category.  And it's only deragatory in some instances of it's use.  What a *good moderator* should do, is learn the difference.  Applying rules blindly is what got us into this whole situation, doing the same will not pull us out.


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 14, 2008)

Agreed.  The forums (not so much the mainsite) are sorely unmoderated.  I have even witnessed, and if I had a few hours to post-comb, can site examples of, staff breaking the rules themselves.  In some cases, highly bannable offenses.  I've brought all these right to the top, when they arise.

Reports remain ignored and unresolved, staff continue their behavior, cliches and elite clubs continue to form, the schism grows wider.  Morale slips on both sides, users feel more and more isolated and point more and more fingers and make more and more accusations.  Normally docile users become more upset about the rising drama.  Quiet users feel less and less safe.



This is not a public, unbiased site.  Any attempt to suggest otherwise is downright idiotic.  It is no more pro-public than SomethingAwful, a random IRC channel, or an AOL chatroom.  There is a heirarchy based totally on social standing and personal relations.

You can get angry about it and protest, and thus reinforce it. You can stop caring about it, and deal with it, good and bad, and all that entails.  Or you can leave.  There's no way to change it short of a complete overthrow of power.  (Which, admittedly, has occured several times.)

On the up side, at least a few staffers /want/ to remain unbiased and fair.  But furry politics make that far, far harder than it sounds.  Dragoneer has a lot more on his plate than simply enforcing the rules.


----------



## Xaerun (Dec 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> And yet there are still people who do not receive infractions for obvious harassment.



You wouldn't actually see infractions being issued, they are usually issued privately. The only time you would notice is when their posts begin being moderated (their name turns orange) or they are banned, and even then you can't be certain that the infraction/ban issued was for the post you reported.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2008)

Oi... I broke this thread.

I'm not sure if I should have even mentioned it now, haha. I'm not trying to state anything about my personal feelings on any words of controversy. No one's going to _bad word-nazi_ this place, or whatever. I was just trying to make light of something, heheh. While there are occasionally /those threads/, the language really isn't too terrible.

Like Arrow said though, reporting posts does help a lot.



Archibald Ironfist said:


> Agreed.  The forums (not so much the mainsite) are sorely unmoderated.



This is being worked on. Things have improved a lot around here, especially with how tense things were over this past summer. FAF goers voiced complaints, and I think the fact that the staff chose to pick a few mods out from forum regulars that applied says something. I've never really been 'connected', or had a particular social standing here. I know that had nothing to do with myself being added on, so I don't think it's all that bad.

Again, I'm open to criticisms about my handling of things, and I think things will continue to improve.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> Again, I'm open to criticisms about my handling of things, and I think things will continue to improve.



Since youre the mod in charge of Introductions, I think you ought to be greeting the new users and directing them toward forum rules and making them feel welcome.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Since youre the mod in charge of Introductions, I think you ought to be greeting the new users and directing them toward forum rules and making them feel welcome.



That's a good idea, and I probably should've figured that. I'll do that.


Also, can I ask for a return to the topic, guys? The word is worthy of an entirely different thread for debate, heheh.


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Simply because SOME (as in a MINORITY) take as non-offensive doesn't automatically make it okay.



Wow, that wasn't racist at all.

anyway, sure Grim back on topic, I'm done here.


----------



## Surgat (Dec 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> As you may have noticed I have quoted are the rules of FAF. With the efforts of the moderators, new and old, these should be enforced more thoroughly. (Please note that any link is not to alienate anyone but to merely state a point.)
> The items I have underlined are the least enforced rules of FAF. I believe that if there are rules, all of them should be enforced not just most (Or the ones easiest to find.)
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=31984&page=3
> ...



For the first thread you linked to, the thread was closed because of spam, because that's about all people were doing there. 

For the second one, it may not have been three months, but the interest in not having lots of old, not-recently used threads was served by closing it, and its closing was not against any restrictions placed on moderators. It was serving the spirit of the rules. 



LemurBoi said:


> Clearly you are stuck on that notion.  I wont debate you, as here isn't the place for it, but it has encompassed many meanings over the course of it's life, and has evolved to a slang term that mean any random shit head, white or black, or any color at all. And if it's so deragatory, why do so many people say, "Whats up, my nigger?" or "Yo, he dat nigga" both in a friendly, laudatory sense?



"Nigga" means something like "my fellow black person." The regular "N word" has not changed in its meaning or application; it is still a black-specific racial slur.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Dec 14, 2008)

It's hard to enforce every single rule.  It just can't be done.  Most likely the rules are interpreted on a case by case basis.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> For the second one, it may not have been three months, but the interest in not having lots of old, not-recently used threads was served by closing it, and its closing was not against any restrictions placed on moderators. It was serving the spirit of the rules.



Then why add a time frame if it can just be ignored by staff?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> It was serving the spirit of the rules.


Im sorry. I understood everything you said, until you mentioned this. ^


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

> It was serving the spirit of the rules.



Is now a good time to point out that thread necroing actually *isnt* against forum rules?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Is now a good time to point out that thread necroing actually *isnt* against forum rules?



Maybe not, but it is against netiquette.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Maybe not, but it is against netiquette.



Which is completely irrelevant. It isnt staffs job to enforce netiquette, its their job to enforce forum rules. 

And since this site has a clear definition of what is considered necro (ie the filter) then posting before that filter takes effect isnt necro.


----------



## Surgat (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Then why add a time frame if it can just be ignored by staff?



It tells you when the automatic filter/thread-locking function applies. Other than that, gives users a good idea of what constitutes thready necromancy. 

People can still get around the automatic system. For example, say once every sixty days an OP came back and bumped their thread, got a few comments from other people, and repeated this process for a long period of time. Hence, it's useful allow moderators to use their own judgment on this to prevent the exploiting of loopholes. 



Emil said:


> Is now a good time to point out that thread necroing actually *isnt* against forum rules?



"Necro bumping is bad." Plus, the necro filter is a way of prohibiting the bumping of old threads. The rule may not be written, but it seems to be  there.   



			
				Silibus said:
			
		

> Im sorry. I understood everything you said, until you mentioned this. ^



It's an English idiom. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law 
Just substitute "rules" for "law."


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Which is completely irrelevant. It isnt staffs job to enforce netiquette, its their job to enforce forum rules.
> 
> And since this site has a clear definition of what is considered necro (ie the filter) then posting before that filter takes effect isnt necro.



Well, if the staff decides to close what they consider a necro'd thread, who are we to tell them what to do? Generally any thread over a month without a post is considered dead, and to post in it is considered necro'ing, and it's discretion of the staff to decide whether to close it or not.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> It tells you when the automatic filter/thread-locking function applies. Other than that, gives users a good idea of what constitutes thready necromancy.



No, by its nature it clearly defines it. It sets a number at which is considered necro, and posts made prior to that time are not. Thats why the time frame was set at all.



> People can still get around the automatic system. For example, say once every sixty days the OP came back and bumped their thread, get a few other comments, and repeat this process for a long period of time. Hence, it's useful allow moderators to use their own judgment on this to prevent the exploiting of loopholes.



If the posts are still on topic, and there *are* still more comments being added, then how is this any sort of rules violation? You might not like it, but its perfectly acceptable.



> "Necro bumping is bad."



Thats describing the filter. It isnt part of posted forum rules



> The rule may not be written, but it seems to be there.



Do we get secret moderators to go with our secret rules?



> Well, if the staff decides to close what they consider a necro'd thread, who are we to tell them what to do? Generally any thread over a month without a post is considered dead, and to post in it is considered necro'ing, and it's discretion of the staff to decide whether to close it or not.



They already made a decision. Theyre the ones who set the filter, and the definition.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Well, if the staff decides to close what they consider a necro'd thread, who are we to tell them what to do?



The users.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> It's an English idiom.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law
> Just substitute "rules" for "law."


Clever. I have not further questions, for now.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Rossyfox said:


> The users.



Uh, no. The staff doesn't HAVE to listen to the users. It's the owner's site, and the staff usually are friends of the site owner, but they are not under any obligation to listen to the users. Really, if you don't like the way the staff runs the site, tough. The site may lose a few users, but out of the tens of thousands of members that FA has, that's a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Uh, no. The staff doesn't HAVE to listen to the users. It's the owner's site, and the staff usually are friends of the site owner, but they are not under any obligation to listen to the users. Really, if you don't like the way the staff runs the site, tough. The site may lose a few users, but out of the tens of thousands of members that FA has, that's a drop in the bucket.



As long as the staff changes the rules to suit you, no one else matters amirite?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Rilvor said:


> As long as the staff changes the rules to suit you, no one else matters amirite?



That would be a first if they did.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Uh, no. The staff doesn't HAVE to listen to the users. It's the owner's site, and the staff usually are friends of the site owner, but they are not under any obligation to listen to the users. Really, if you don't like the way the staff runs the site, tough. The site may lose a few users, but out of the tens of thousands of members that FA has, that's a drop in the bucket.



Yes, they might lose a few people. Or they might lose a great many. Little things tend to build up until people cannot take them anymore.



> and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.



A rather extreme case, but the point is still there.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Yes, they might lose a few people. Or they might lose a great many. Little things tend to build up until people cannot take them anymore.



But they'd get other new people to replace those that left. Like a revolving door.


----------



## Surgat (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:
			
		

> No, by its nature it clearly defines it. It sets a number at which is considered necro, thats how it eliminates necro threads.



Actually it doesn't. It's only talking about how the filter works, and something we consider to be against the interests of the forums. 



> If the posts are still on topic, and there *are* still more comments being added, then how is this any sort of rules violation? You might not like it, but its perfectly acceptable.



With old threads nobody has posted in for a while, the issue the thread was about may have already been resolved, the subject of the thread may no longer be topical, certain participants may no longer be regular users and thus may not respond, and/or the bumping may resume hostilities. In such circumstances the newer posts, or at least a good number of they may be useless. 



> Thats describing the filter. It isnt part of posted forum rules.



Look at subject of the sentence: "necro bumping." That's not referring to the filter, it's referring to what the filter targets. It's saying that a certain type of posting "is bad." 



> Do we get secret moderators to go with out secret rules?



"Unwritten" is not a synonym "secret." The set of uncodified rules is not coextensive with the set of secret rules. 

Before they had writing, were all the laws secret? No. Appellate court rulings are not codified; you have to track down specific court case reports to determine the laws in common-law countries. Does this mean that most U.S. law is secret? No. Customary laws, like Maritime laws, or customs you find in primitive communities aren't written, but are ship captains or the members of those communities in the dark about what flies and what doesn't? No.  

Any reasonable person would be able to tell that we frown on bumping older threads that haven't been used for a while. They could infer this because there's a filter to close them automatically, it's something that most forum staffs and userbases frown on, and we _explicitly stated we consider it bad_.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> Actually it doesn't. It's only talking about how the filter works, and something we consider to be against the interests of the forums.



No, not the statement, the filter itself. By its very nature, it is a definition. Staff had to decide a number at which to say, this is necro for the necro filter, and that was set at 3 months. Otherwise, why would you set the filter at 3 months, and not at 1 month, or a week, especially if posts before that time are still considered unacceptable? Wouldnt that do the job better or more efficiently than a moderator? The point of the large timeframe is to allow the chance of a thread to become active again and prevent duplicate threads from appearing in the future.



> With old threads nobody has posted in for a while, the issue the thread was about may have already been resolved, the subject of the thread may no longer be topical, certain participants may no longer be regular users and thus may not respond, and/or the bumping may resume hostilities. In such circumstances the newer posts, or at least a good number of they may be useless.



It the thread was resolved, than a moderator should have locked it prior to that. And if hostilities exist in a thread, it should have been locked regardless. 




> Look at subject of the sentence: "necro bumping." That's not referring to the filter, it's referring to what the filter targets. It's saying that a certain type of posting "is bad."



Yes, it is describing the filter. A necro filter, that stops posts that are necro. Necro is bad, refers to what the filter filters, which states a time frame after which a post is necro, hence why the filter activates, to eliminate threads that are necro. Yet again, otherwise, there would be no point of the filter at all.





> "Unwritten" is not a synonym "secret." The set of uncodified rules is not coextensive with the set of secret rules.



Hard to obey laws that arnt written down. Makes it hard to know if youre violating a rule or not, since theres no safe basis to judge. And it makes it extremely easy to abuse power, enforcing "rules" that dont exist, as you seem to be willing to do as long as rules are "supposed" or implied.



> Before they had writing, were all the laws secret?



There was no law. Only the whims of the strong over the weak. No protection, only abuse.



> No. Appelate court rulings are not codified; you have to track down specific court case reports to determine the laws in common-law countries. Does this mean that most U.S. law is secret? No. Customary laws, like Maritime laws, or customs you find in primitive communities aren't written, but are ship captains or the members of those communities in the dark about what flies and what doesn't? No.



Appelate courts dont eliminate laws, nor do they create them. They decide on whether or not a law was violated in the first place. Its not even close to being what you suggest it to be.

Please find me a primitive society that has communities and ships,and rules to govern them by, but no written laws.



> Any reasonable person would be able to tell that we frown on bumping older threads that haven't been used for a while. They could infer this because there's a filter to close them automatically, it's something that most forum staffs and userbases frown on, and we _explicitly stated we consider it bad_.



They would also infer that since a filter exists to stop it at a certain point, that it isnt bad *until* that point. Hence, why the filter exists, to stop that which is bad, when it is bad.



> But they'd get other new people to replace those that left. Like a revolving door.



That only works *if* people are willing to come. Assuming a large mass exodus, thats highly unlikely.


----------



## Azure (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> "Nigga" means something like "my fellow black person." The regular "N word" has not changed in its meaning or application; it is still a black-specific racial slur.


Pardon, you are correct.  I know it is not always offensive, as I have many black friends, and they have zero problem with me using it. Still, with both versions, intent and usage rule whether it is offensive or not.

Also, you are on the ball as a mod, I see you making a difference already.


Ty Vulpine said:


> From Dictionary.com:
> Nigger:
> 
> 1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a. a black person.
> ...


How posh, you can use a dictionary. Rilvor showed you another way below, but it's expected that you disregard any opinion but your own.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

I am going to ask that the "n-word" issue be dropped as it is derailing from this topic. Take it to another thread please.


----------



## Surgat (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Yes, it does. Staff had to decide a number at which to say, this is necro for the necro filter, and that was set at 3 months. Otherwise, why would you set the filter at 3 months, and not at 1 month, or a week? Wouldnt that do the job better or more efficiently than a moderator? The point of the large timeframe is to allow the chance of a thread to become active again and prevent duplicate thread from appearing in the future.



It's only the _maximum_ length of time a thread can go before being locked automatically, and if we held to that exact length of time as a standard for when threads were considered too old, it would allow for the exploiting of loopholes as I explained.    




> It the thread was resolved, than a moderator should have locked it prior to that. And if hostilities exist in a thread, it should have been locked regardless.



They don't always need to do so in either case, because people had stopped posting in the thread anyways (at least prior to the bump). 

I like how you ignored my other examples. 




> Yes, it is describing the filter. A necro filter, that stops posts that are necro. Necro is bad, refers to that filter, which states a time frame after which a post is necro, hence the filter activates. Yet again, otherwise, there would be no point of the filter at all.



This section isn't very coherent. You're saying "necro bumping" meant "the bumping of the necro filter?" Wat? 

I sense desperation. 

How does occasionally locking a thread before it reaches the maximum time limit before it's considered too old make the filter pointless? 




> Hard to obey laws that arnt written down. Makes it hard to know if youre violating a rule or not, since theres no safe basis to judge. And it makes it extremely easy to abuse power, enforcing "rules" that dont exist, as you seem to be willing to do.



Yeah, you'd have to use your common sense. _So hard_. 

You're wrong about unwritten or uncodified rules necessarily amounting to arbitrary punishment. 




> There was no law. Only the whims of the strong over the weak. No protection, only abuse.



You don't know anything about human history and pre-literate societies. Pre-literate societies, like the Vikings, the earlier Hebrew, and the Mesopotamians had lawcodes, they just transmitted them orally. In the Torah it makes reference to an oral law system; the Vikings only wrote one law code in their runes, and late in their history. When laws became written in these societies, it was (usually) a record of the orally transmitted law. Of course the law in Viking society was enforced more or less on whims, but it was still there. Go read "A History of the Vikings," "The Sagas of Icelanders" (including introductory and reference section material), and a small essay anthology called "Ancient Religions."



> Appelate courts dont eliminate laws, nor do they create them. They decide on whether or not a law was violated in the first place. Its not even close to being what you suggest it to be.



You don't know anything about our legal system. Appeals courts can and do strike down laws, if they're inconsistent with federal or state constitutions.  Courts often make law in their rulings. For example, they drafted up the consent search forms that police use, and they made it mandatory for police to inform people of their 5th Amendment rights when they take then in for custodial interrogation (it was a higher order court than appeals courts that made these laws, but still). 



> Please find me a primitive society that has communities and ships,and rules to govern them by, but no written laws.



Huh? 

Pre-literate societies had/have forms of laws. If you do certain things, people will ostracize you for it, or punish you, or you can become an outlaw. They don't have to be set by a chieftain, sometimes they just develop naturally. I don't see what ships have to do with them. 

If you need an example of a pre-literate society with both laws and ships, the Viking are an example. Their laws were passed on orally, almost exclusively.   

See also: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_law


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

This thread is devolving from constructive into arguments. Closed.

Edit: Alright, cleaned up. Back on topic please.

What can we do better?


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> It's only the _maximum_ length of time a thread can go before being locked automatically, and if we held to that exact length of time as a standard for when threads were considered too old, it would allow for the exploiting of loopholes as I explained.



For something to be a loophole, there has to be a rule for it to first go around. No such rule exists.

There is no maximum, only a minimum. Necro is an expiration point, at which reviving a thread is unacceptable. So why isnt the filter set at this point? Or, perhaps it already is, and moderators are overstepping their boundaries to enforce rules that dont exist.



> They don't always need to do so in either case, because people had stopped posting in the thread anyways (at least prior to the bump).



Clearly it did if you are worried about a necrod thread reviving hostilities or being redundant. Stop cutting corners.



> I like how you ignored my other examples.



Because they were irrelevant, often contradictory to your statements, and some actually support my statements and not yours. But Ill rectify that if it would please you.



> This section isn't very coherent. You're saying "necro bumping" meant "the bumping of the necro filter?" Wat?



No, Im saying, necro is bad. And because it is bad, a filter was put up to eliminate it. That is why it has a set time frame of activation. Because, before that point, posts are fair game. If they werent, the filter would be set earlier.



> I sense desperation.



Me too, but I trust we sense it from different sources.



> How does occasionally locking a thread before it reaches the maximum time limit before it's considered too old make the filter pointless?



Necro isnt something that has a maximum. It is a set time frame, an expiration point. Once it hits that point, it is necro. Thats why the filter exists. If there was a point where something is necro  before the filters time limit, then why wouldnt the filter be adjusted to eliminate it? You have yet to actually answer that question.



> Pre-literate societies, like the Vikings, the earlier Hebrew, and the Mesopotamians had lawcodes, they just transmitted them orally.



I find that hard to believe, given that all of these societies had written languages. You even state yourself that they wrote laws down.

Yes, societies have oral traditions and customs. But tradition and custom are not the same as law.

And youll notice, as societies advance, oral tradition is inevitably replaced by written law. The reason for this is obvious.



> When laws became written in these societies, it was (usually) a record of the orally transmitted law.



And why do you think that is? Because its *fucking* confusing when they arnt, and in a literate society, there is no excuse to not know the law.

Two of the requirements of civilization are a law code, and a written language. Ergo, written law. 



> You don't know anything about our legal system.



I lold



> Appeals courts can and do strike down laws, if they're inconsistent with federal or state constitutions.





> (it was a higher order court than appeals courts that made these laws, but still).



Given that you contradict your entire point, Im going to leave this alone.



> Pre-literate societies had/have forms of laws. If you do certain things, people will ostracize you for it, or punish you, or you can become an outlaw. They don't have to be set by a chieftain, sometimes they just develop naturally. I don't see what ships have to do with them.



We are not a preliterate society. And we at the FAF have no oral tradition. A new user cannot be held accountable for a rule that was made in a one line post two years ago, that they have no way knowing exists, and is not written down in the section clearly labled "forum rules"



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law



Custom =/= law

Custom can very well violate law, and customary law is overshadowed by written law in all cases where the two contradict. There is no court in the civilized world that will enforce a law that is not written down and sanctified by that court in some way, shape, or form


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_law



Admirality law is written down.

Do you not read the articles you post?



> Yeah, you'd have to use your common sense. So hard.



Please explain how it is common sense that posting in a still active thread, before its set expiration date(which is also not listed in any readily available location), violates a rule? A rule that is not listed, nor does a user have any reason to believe exists.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

Worth noting is that infractions and warnings are not given out for a necro'd thread. They are just closed. So it isn't really so much a rule-that-could-get-you-in-trouble as much as a gesture of etiquette.


----------



## uncia (Dec 14, 2008)

_*waves over*_
(Neat last line hook back, btw )



Arrow Tibbs said:


> Edit: Alright, cleaned up. Back on topic please.
> 
> What can we do better?


Yeah, as noted above, it's often easier to catch a whole lot of other "nastiness" under that "PG-13" max header rather than having to appeal to other clauses.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

uncia said:


> Yeah, as noted above, it's often easier to catch a whole lot of other "nastiness" under that "PG-13" max header rather than having to appeal to other clauses.



What do you mean?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> This thread is devolving from constructive into arguments. Closed.
> 
> Edit: Alright, cleaned up. Back on topic please.
> 
> What can we do better?


Thank you for changing your mind. I was hoping this thread would bring issues to light. 

I did have one thing to say about multiple accounts. How would a moderator know that a user has more than one, besides someone reporting them?


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> Worth noting is that infractions and warnings are not given out for a necro'd thread. They are just closed. So it isn't really so much a rule-that-could-get-you-in-trouble as much as a gesture of etiquette.



I dont mean to sound rude, but your jobs as moderators are to enforce the rules. So, why are you doing anything at all, if its not violating a rule? Especially, since an automatic filter exists to do that job so you dont have to. If it werent acceptable posting before that point was reached, then why wouldnt the filter be adjusted to take that into account?


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> What can we do better?



I would say (and will extend beyond just here):

Public response
Public relations
Global consistency
Global professionalism
Disseminate non-private information (see: public response excluding direct threats to site security)
Core values and mission statements
Infrastructure optimization

But keep in mind I have a real thing for formality. So take that as you will.


Really the most pressing thing is letting the user base know what is going on and have that sort of information readily available. If you keep people in the dark, they are going to look for light no matter how false it is.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil: It's a vicious circle. If we just let the filter take care of it, then people will complain that there are too many dead topics being revived. If we move the filter date up then people will complain that too many topics that _might_ still be kicking are being locked (I'm talking topics that are just a bit shy of being a month dead and gone). You tell me, what is the best option here? I'd rather move the rule up, but that's just me. I don't represent the whole of the staff, I represent myself only. I don't presume to know what the verdict will be.

To answer the question of why we enforce it if it isn't a rule: Would you rather see a dozen posts of "necro, let it die!"?

Xipoid: Alright. And what can we improve in those areas, specifically? Mind that this is just discussion on the moderation of the forums. I for one would not want "x user has received an infraction for this reason" to be public information if that's what you mean by public response; it's not the business of anyone but the user in question and the staff.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> Emil: It's a vicious circle. If we just let the filter take care of it, then people will complain that there are too many dead topics being revived. If we move the filter date up then people will complain that too many topics that _might_ still be kicking are being locked. You tell me, what is the best option here?



Of course, in my opinion, since there are few complaints about necro atm (at least, public ones) why not leave it as it is? Or maybe have a public poll as to what is acceptable in this case, since mods are making judgments based on etiquette, and the public sets the etiquette? And this has little bearing on whether or not moderators are overstepping their boundaries with locking threads that have violated no rules.



> To answer the question of why we enforce it if it isn't a rule: Would you rather see a dozen posts of "necro, let it die!"?



No I wouldnt. Since such posts are spam and irrelevant to the topic, staff should be deleting them. Not locking a thread that has violated no rule, to prevent having to punish posts that have.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 14, 2008)

On the whole necro thing i believe the 1 month of being in place is long enough for a post on the forums.

its really stupid that people actually complain that a thread they started months ago was closed.

to me i say good riddance.

however instead of auto closing they should just be auto delted that will make the whiners clam up.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Nanakisan said:


> On the whole necro thing i believe the 1 month of being in place is long enough for a post on the forums.



A month of *inactivity* seems reasonable to me.



> however instead of auto closing they should just be auto delted that will make the whiners clam up.



Then theyd just complain about the threads being deleted instead of locked =l Besides, keeping threads around for users to ref has its own benefits.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> Or maybe have a public poll as to what is acceptable in this case, since mods are making judgments based on etiquette, and the public sets the etiquette? And this has little bearing on whether or not moderators are overstepping their boundaries with locking threads that have violated no rules.



A public poll may not be a bad idea in this case. However the public has set the etiquette by complaining and reporting necro'd threads, and often. Such posts, yes, should be deleted (and I'll admit I don't do that), but that doesn't change the fact they exist and the posts were reported. Etiquette has been set there.

I don't think we are overstepping our bounds by locking threads. Overstepping would be handing out infractions for people who bump a dead thread; that is too far in my opinion. Not just locking it.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> A public poll may not be a bad idea in this case. However the public has set the etiquette by complaining and reporting necro'd threads, and often. Such posts, yes, should be deleted (and I'll admit I don't do that), but that doesn't change the fact they exist and the posts were reported. Etiquette has been set there.



Youre taking what is more than likely a vocal minority and setting it as the rule, the etiquette. Obviously, the people who report it care. But, Im willing to say that more users dont care, or dont see something as necro at that point. And they more than likely arnt reporting the threads, because theres no rules violation to report. To prevent getting reports from users about necro threads, you should inform those users not to report them in the future, because they do not violate the rules.

The only real way to see what the public thinks is to put it to a vote. A vote that matters and is not just a matter of opinion with no effect on the outcome.



> I don't think we are overstepping our bounds by locking threads. Overstepping would be handing out infractions for people who bump a dead thread; that is too far in my opinion. Not just locking it.



You are given your power to lock for the purpose of enforcing the rules. Using it for any other purpose would be an abuse of power. In this case, not a particularly serious one, but an abuse nonetheless


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> Xipoid: Alright. And what can we improve in those areas, specifically? Mind that this is just discussion on the moderation of the forums. I for one would not want "x user has received an infraction for this reason" to be public information if that's what you mean by public response; it's not the business of anyone but the user in question and the staff.




Well, infractions would really be something to not broadcast. I was speaking more on the workings of decisions as a whole. Like a public hearing or so even if the input is not really considered.

I'm not exactly sure what goes on behind the scenes, so I cannot be too specific.


----------



## Surgat (Dec 14, 2008)

Emil said:


> For something to be a loophole, there has to be a rule for it to first go around. No such rule exists.
> 
> There is no maximum, only a minimum. Necro is an expiration point, at which reviving a thread is unacceptable. So why isnt the filter set at this point? Or, perhaps it already is, and moderators are overstepping their boundaries to enforce rules that dont exist.



Three months is the maximum amount of time a thread can go without being posted in before the automatic filter applies, provided that it wasn't closed earlier for some reason. 

One reason it might be locked before that time is thread necromancy, as there is no clear-cut, generally agreed upon rule as to what necromancy is, and people could get around the filter and thwart its purpose if it was the minimum retirement for a thread being too old. 



> Clearly it did if you are worried about a necrod thread reviving hostilities or being redundant. Stop cutting corners.



No, because most users have enough sense to not reply to very old threads. People know it's generally frowned upon or results in thread closings. What's the point of locking a thread you expect nobody to post in anymore? 



> Because they were irrelevant, often contradictory to your statements, and some actually support my statements and not yours. But Ill rectify that if it would please you.



In what way were they irrelevant, or supportive of your claims? I claimed that thread necromancy was a bad thing. In each scenario I mentioned, the bumping of an old thread had unwanted effects.



> No, Im saying, necro is bad. And because it is bad, a filter was put up to eliminate it. That is why it has a set time frame of activation. Because, before that point, posts are fair game. If they werent, the filter would be set earlier.



Without the ability of moderators to make judgments about particular threads, the filter's purpose could easily be thwarted. It would be irrational for the filter to be the only thing that determines when a thread is too old for new posts.

You could also go ask whoever set up the filter (Dragoneer, probably) if they meant for it to be the only safeguard against necromancy. They probably didn't, since they haven't reprimanded anybody. 



> Necro isnt something that has a maximum. It is a set time frame, an expiration point. Once it hits that point, it is necro. Thats why the filter exists.



Many forums do lock recently bumped old threads, but there is no generally agreed upon age requirement for necromancy that I know of, especially not one common throughout the internet. 



> If there was a point where something is necro  before the filters time limit, then why wouldnt the filter be adjusted to eliminate it? You have yet to actually answer that question.



We might be able to tolerate certain threads being bumped before the maximum, depending on their topics. It wouldn't always restart a flame war, be on a thread about something that is no longer topical, etc. It's something we'd have to deal with on a case-by case basis, though most old threads do not need to be bumped. 



> I find that hard to believe, given that all of these societies had written languages. You even state yourself that they wrote laws down.



They didn't always have writing, they didn't immediately write law codes down, and even when they did, they didn't produce a lot of them.  

Look, the Viking had lawyers, but they only ever had one single written document with laws in it, in runic, and it was a late development. One famous one was a guy named Njal. How did they have lawyers if there was no law? 

To qualify you needed to recite the law to the satisfaction of a bunch of other lawyers. 

_Yes, societies have oral traditions and customs. But tradition and custom are not the same as law._

In jurisprudence it's considered a form of law. If it's something you need to know to avoid punishment, it's a law.

The whole legal system is just a group of conventions and traditions anyways. 



> And youll notice, as societies advance, oral tradition is inevitably replaced by written law. The reason for this is obvious.
> 
> And why do you think that is? Because its *fucking* confusing when they arnt, and in a literate society, there is no excuse to not know the law.
> 
> Two of the requirements of civilization are a law code, and a written language. Ergo, written law.



This has nothing to do with the fact that laws existed in pre-literate societies.



> Given that you contradict your entire point, Im going to leave this alone.



Do you know what "contradiction" means? 

It's perfectly consistent with both of my claims that appeals courts can strike down laws, and that to determine just what the law is in common law countries you have to know court rulings, not just look over a code. 

If you want an example of a lower (appeals) court making law, here: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=B9...=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA285,M1



> We are not a preliterate society. And we at the FAF have no oral tradition. A new user cannot be held accountable for a rule that was made in a one line post two years ago, that they have no way knowing exists, and is not written down in the section clearly labled "forum rules"



There's no rational reason to bump old threads which have had no activity for a long time. Forums all over the internet lock old threads that have not been posted in for a long time if someone bumps them. There is a section stating that "necro bumping is bad." There's no reason for someone to not know that we don't want necroing.

Besides, *people aren't given infractions for bumping old threads nobody used. The thread's just locked.* 



> Custom can very well violate law, and customary law is overshadowed by written law in all cases where the two contradict. There is no court in the civilized world that will enforce a law that is not written down and sanctified by that court in some way, shape, or form



Custom can violate laws set by _legislatures_.



> Admirality law is written down.
> 
> Do you not read the articles you post?



I was thinking of something else.



> Please explain how it is common sense that posting in a still active thread, before its set expiration date(which is also not listed in any readily available location), violates a rule? A rule that is not listed, nor does a user have any reason to believe exists.



We're not talking about active threads, we're talking about thread necromancy. 





Emil said:


> Of course, in my opinion, since there are few complaints about necro atm (at least, public ones) why not leave it as it is? Or maybe have a public poll as to what is acceptable in this case, since mods are making judgments based on etiquette, and the public sets the etiquette? And this has little bearing on whether or not moderators are overstepping their boundaries with locking threads that have violated no rules.
> 
> 
> No I wouldnt. Since such posts are spam and irrelevant to the topic, staff should be deleting them. Not locking a thread that has violated no rule, to prevent having to punish posts that have.



A thread doesn't need to be violating a rule to be worthy of being locked. 

Are threads that have been inactive for over three months in violation of any rules, just by not being posted in? No, but they're closed anyways. Is a thread about some site issue that's been resolved in violation of a rule just by existing? No, but they still get closed.





Emil said:


> Youre taking what is more than likely a vocal minority and setting it as the rule, the etiquette. Obviously, the people who report it care. But, Im willing to say that more users dont care, or dont see something as necro at that point. And they more than likely arnt reporting the threads, because theres no rules violation to report. To prevent getting reports from users about necro threads, you should inform those users not to report them in the future, because they do not violate the rules.
> 
> The only real way to see what the public thinks is to put it to a vote. A vote that matters and is not just a matter of opinion with no effect on the outcome.



It's more than a matter of just etiquette. This has been explained to you. 



> You are given your power to lock for the purpose of enforcing the rules. Using it for any other purpose would be an abuse of power. In this case, not a particularly serious one, but an abuse nonetheless



It's not an abuse of power, because it's an action taken to further the interests of the forum, and it does not violate any known policies, principles, or rules.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 14, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> Well, infractions would really be something to not broadcast. I was speaking more on the workings of decisions as a whole. Like a public hearing or so even if the input is not really considered.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what goes on behind the scenes, so I cannot be too specific.



We tend to discuss decisions if we are unsure, if that's what you mean. A public hearing, or even a poll, can turn into a circus really fast between commentary and sock-puppet voting. 

Emil: Then tell me what the etiquette is. I'm pretty sure if this was considered an abuse of power I would have been relieved of my moderator status by now through forum complaints.


----------



## Emil (Dec 14, 2008)

Surgat said:


> Three months is the maximum amount of time a thread can go without being posted in before the automatic filter applies, provided that it wasn't closed earlier for some reason.



Again, there is no maximum. There is a set time implemented by the filter. The filter negates any action you would have to take. Your idea that there is some sort of interpretive maximum/minimum is supported only by your opinion, and not by any rules of this site. Youre just making more work for yourself.



> One reason it might be locked before that time is thread necromancy, as there is no clear-cut, generally agreed upon rule as to what necromancy is, and people could get around the filter and thwart its purpose if it was the minimum retirement for a thread being too old.



There happens to be no rule at all. And therefore, there cannot be a loophole to a rule that does not exist. 



> No, because most users have enough sense to not reply to very old threads. People know it's generally frowned upon or results in thread closings. What's the point of locking a thread you expect nobody to post in anymore?



Apparently youre wrong, because someone expected it enough to impliment a piece of software to take care of the problem.




> In what way were they irrelevant, or supportive of your claims? I claimed that thread necromancy was a bad thing. In each scenario I mentioned, the bumping of an old thread had unwanted effects.



How about when you said a court made a law, but didnt because a higher court actually did that?



> Without the ability of moderators to make judgments about particular threads, the filter's purpose could easily be thwarted. It would be irrational for the filter to be the only thing that determines when a thread is too old for new posts.



Why is that irrational? Its the whole purpose of the filter.



> You could also go ask whoever set up the filter (Dragoneer, probably) if they meant for it to be the only safeguard against necromancy. They probably didn't, since they haven't reprimanded anybody.



They also dont lock threads that are resurrected before that deadline that they set. Only mods seem to be doing that.



> Many forums do lock recently bumped old threads, but there is no generally agreed upon age requirement for necromancy that I know of, especially not one common throughout the internet.



Sounds to me like you have no basis for action then. Other than your opinion.



> We might be able to tolerate certain threads being bumped before the maximum, depending on their topics. It wouldn't always restart a flame war, be on a thread about something that is no longer topical, etc. It's something we'd have to deal with on a case-by case basis, though most old threads do not need to be bumped.



You have no power to lock threads that do not violate any site rules.



> There's no rational reason to bump old threads which have had no activity for a long time. Forums all over the internet lock old threads that have not been posted in for a long time if someone bumps them. There is a section stating that "necro bumping is bad." There's no reason for someone to not know that we don't want necroing.



How bout to say something? The thread is still fair game. Just cause you think its bad, doesnt make it so. Youre using your own personal opinion as a basis for action, as opposed to site rules. And no, there is no seciotn of "necro bumping is bad" in the stickied Forum Rules thread. 



> Besides, *people aren't given infractions for bumping old threads nobody used. The thread's just locked.*



Irrelevant. Youre giving punishment for something doesnt break the rules. In this case, the punishment is a thread lock and not an infraction. Buts its still a punishment.



> We're not talking about active threads, we're talking about thread necromancy.



And Im arguing that you are judging active threads as necro based soley on your opinion and a rule that doesnt officially exist.



> Emil: Then tell me what the etiquette is. I'm pretty sure if this was considered an abuse of power I would have been relieved of my moderator status by now through forum complaints.



As I said, the etiquette would be determined by the vote.

And I lold. Youd only be removed from your position if the people who are in charge actually care. And, the past tends to show otherwise.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 14, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> We tend to discuss decisions if we are unsure, if that's what you mean. A public hearing, or even a poll, can turn into a circus really fast between commentary and sock-puppet voting.




I meant more like C-span, where you can watch and yell at the TV, but no one can hear you. I wouldn't really trust a mass public voting system.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In a fair number of cases, harassment and general increments in emotional temperature leading to later grief are accompanied by escalations of language which can be handled under the "PG-13" clause. It's often an easier "kill" on that basis rather than arguing what is and what isn't "harassment".



Surgat said:


> There's no rational reason to bump old threads which have had no activity for a long time.


No _rational_ reason? New ideas do occur to existing or new users and in many cases it's more sensible to bundle those together than open a new thread.
(Goodness knows where we'd be if the world's religions refused to allow discussion on past events/rulings/discussions simply because that was deemed thread necromancy. _*jk*_ )

The whole idea about "thread necromancy" being a "bad thing" automatically is simple chan behavior, little more: people will let out a knee-jerk cry demanding moderator action... and get it. Pandering to that rather than handling forum flow in a "business as usual" manner is counterproductive to constructive discussion; but that's probably a lost cause anyhow, in this case.
*
There is better justification if, for example, database size is an issue - but to delete old threads entirely is even more destructive of community effort (not withstanding the "90% noise" "rule").



Surgat said:


> Forums all over the internet lock old threads that have not been posted in for a long time if someone bumps them. There is a section stating that "necro bumping is bad."


That doesn't in any way mean that procedure is "right", just that it's habitual. And generally for the wrong reasons, as above.

02c, anyhow,
d.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 15, 2008)

I hope nobody minds me jumping in again.
I'm going to back up just a bit.



I do want to say that the necrofilter's anouncement was made on 11/22, from the looks of this:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=31180

The thread in question (if I'm looking at the right one) was closed on the 23rd.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=27579&page=5



I really can't speak for anyone here, but I think we're overlooking the fact that the timeframe was a day's worth. Now, locking threads doesn't seem to have a occurred much since the filter took effect. If I'm wrong, correct me.

But I'd like to think we can figure something out with a bit more ease than this.

The issue behind all this is concerns the mods' abilities to contradict a rule. I don't think that's an unreasonable concern, and this should be what we're focused on. So we should either change the length of the necro filter, or amend the rules for an exception in this situation.

Again: These are only my thoughts. I'm just trying to get this out of a jam, and into the direction of a resolution.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2008)

uncia said:


> No _rational_ reason? New ideas do occur to existing or new users and in many cases it's more sensible to bundle those together than open a new thread.
> (Goodness knows where we'd be if the world's religions refused to allow discussion on past events/rulings/discussions simply because that was deemed thread necromancy. _*jk*_ )


Honestly, the reason behind locking necro threads lies in the fact that most of the people from them have moved on.  Many of the threads being necro'd are often many months old, sometimes years.  Bundling your idea where it won't be read isn't a very effective method of communication, now is it? And that's a pretty useless example, as it in no way relates to the internet, where information flows at a far more rapid pace than people of those times could begin to imagine.  You can't necro a holy book or a philosophy. But you can necro a thread that is 2 years old with a reply to a banned user who will in no way respond.  I know, I've seen it happen.


uncia said:


> The whole idea about "thread necromancy" being a "bad thing" automatically is simple chan behavior, little more: people will let out a knee-jerk cry demanding moderator action... and get it. Pandering to that rather than handling forum flow in a "business as usual" manner is counterproductive to constructive discussion; but that's probably a lost cause anyhow, in this case.


How is it chan behavior to have a thread that people want to participate in, with fresh ideas and people who will actually respond to a post, instead of people who may(and probably have) moved on from the forums? I fail to see how the chans even relate to this subject at all.  Personally, I'd see the auto pruning of all threads over 6 months, not only for database management, but for the fact that they are probably no longer relevant to anyone. You said this yourself below. Stick with it.
[/quote]


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Honestly, the reason behind locking necro threads lies in the fact that most of the people from them have moved on.  Many of the threads being necro'd are often many months old, sometimes years.  Bundling your idea where it won't be read isn't a very effective method of communication, now is it?



Since replying to the thread bumps it to someplace where it *can* be read(ie, the very top of the forum), its quite effective.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Since replying to the thread bumps it to someplace where it *can* be read(ie, the very top of the forum), its quite effective.


And yet, all the people who participated, and you may be replying to, are unaware that their months old statements are being addressed, and all too often, the thread falls right back down to the depths again, with no ones concerns addressed. I like the 500 post lock rule, and the necro rule goes hand in hand with it, to prevent this sort of activity from ever occuring again.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> And yet, all the people who participated, and you may be replying to, are unaware that their months old statements are being addressed, and all too often, the thread falls right back down to the depths again, with no ones concerns addressed. I like the 500 post lock rule, and the necro rule goes hand in hand with it, to prevent this sort of activity from ever occuring again.



The thread may very well fail because of crys of "necro necro!" and threadlock, as seems to be the trend. The chance is never really given for the thread to continue. And, once again, there *is* no necro rule. Nor has one been proposed by any admin at this point.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> The thread may very well fail because of crys of "necro necro!" and threadlock, as seems to be the trend. The chance is never really given for the thread to continue. And, once again, there *is* no necro rule. Nor has one been proposed by any admin at this point.


The thread fails regardless.  Honestly, old conversation is rarely interesting, especially if it is just to add one statement to some inane thread, which most of the time, it is.  I've never seen a thread revived that contained useful discussion, most of it was just spam, or a one line reply, hardly worth the effort of searching 90 pages back.  And if there isn't a necro rule, there should be. Not infraction wise, just a thread lock.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

(OTish)


LemurBoi said:


> Honestly, the reason behind locking necro threads lies in the fact that most of the people from them have moved on.


Threads are not made of people. 
Besides, everything is time-framed and personal opinions can change just as rapidly in minutes as they do in years.



LemurBoi said:


> How is it chan behavior to have a thread that people want to participate in, with fresh ideas and people who will actually respond to a post, instead of people who may(and probably have) moved on from the forums? I fail to see how the chans even relate to this subject at all.


Hmm... try reading again, sorry? I certainly said nothing about chan-like behavior in that context.
It *is* chan-like behavior to have a crowd of people shouting out whenever something happens that they see as being automatically wrong. "Thread necromancy" is one of those things that ticks that box for some people inclined towards such behaviors.
I honestly never had any particular issues with that thanks to the simple expediency of not reacting negatively to knee-jerk shouts/demands for "action" along those lines. The "issue" only got bigger when staff starting reacting and making it look as though they'd "do something" more permanently, thus creating a rod for their own backs.



LemurBoi said:


> Personally, I'd see the auto pruning of all threads over 6 months, not only for database management, but for the fact that they are probably no longer relevant to anyone. You said this yourself below. Stick with it.


No, I'm totally against deletion of potentially useful content in return for minimal benefit.
(Ditto for deporting threads, just because they're embarrassing and/or that staff would rather sweep matters under the carpet and pretend they didn't happen).

For example, the majority of >6 month old threads relating to FA issues are probably still relevant (issues and suggestions are still valid issues and suggestions, given progress in the intervening period), far less anything on a more general level. High-level topics of conversation are more often than not still relevant even if keyed into a specific event.

=
Taking that back a step; yes, as has been noted rules are not perfect and it is possible for staff to contradict or step into grey areas on those. Creating more rules will tend to create more potential issues, however, so that has to be carefully balanced.
Kinda goes without saying, but nonetheless... 

Regards,
David.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2008)

uncia said:


> (OTish)
> Threads are not made of people.
> Besides, everything is time-framed and personal opinions can change just as rapidly in minutes as they do in years.


And? I fail to see how this requires a person to drag something from the ends of the forum for this. And people post on the internet, there fore threads are made of people, or their opinions and thoughts. Close enough, tho some people do resemble bots, in that they have little of interest to say.


uncia said:


> Hmm... try reading again, sorry? I certainly said nothing about chan-like behavior in that context.
> It *is* chan-like behavior to have a crowd of people shouting out whenever something happens that they see as being automatically wrong. "Thread necromancy" is one of those things that ticks that box for some people inclined towards such behaviors.


And yet, that is what I read.  I think you'd just like to pawn it off to something that everyone dislikes, to be honest.


uncia said:


> I honestly never had any particular issues with that thanks to the simple expediency of not reacting negatively to knee-jerk shouts/demands for "action" along those lines. The "issue" only got bigger when staff starting reacting and making it look as though they'd "do something" more permanently, thus creating a rod for their own backs.


People wanted action because it was happening all the time, for no good reason.  Threads years old, users long gone, and all they had to add was stuff like, "I think this is cool", or, "LOL", or some other inanity.  There was a time where it was several a day.  Old conversation is old, and nobody is reading your reply, for a more effective stab at communication, try making a new thread, with your own ideas and thoughts, for people in the now to contribute too.  This would fall under peoples opinions changing from day to day and hour to hour, perhaps they'd like to restate it, and to do so in a thread where they'd previously done so, would make them look rather foolish, if anybody bothered to read it. 


uncia said:


> No, I'm totally against deletion of potentially useful content in return for minimal benefit.
> (Ditto for deporting threads, just because they're embarrassing and/or that staff would rather sweep matters under the carpet and pretend they didn't happen).


Like the Dave Hyena thread, rite? I have that one saved, its a gem, to be sure. Everyone in there came off as a bunch of jerks, every last one of them.


uncia said:


> For example, the majority of >6 month old threads relating to FA issues are probably still relevant (issues and suggestions are still valid issues and suggestions, given progress in the intervening period), far less anything on a more general level. High-level topics of conversation are more often than not still relevant even if keyed into a specific event.


And yet, they fall into disuse once people are done discussing them, often, because they are no longer relevant. Suggestions and the like, if not acted upon, probably weren't fit to be, and repeatedly bringing up something that was rejected before doesn't make it any more likely to be successful in it's implementation.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

(still OTish)


LemurBoi said:


> Threads years old, users long gone, and all they had to add was stuff like, "I think this is cool", or, "LOL", or some other inanity.  There was a time where it was several a day.


Thread derailment, remove reply and discuss if required. All of which was invisible before when staff deletes were hard. No big issue, no drama.



LemurBoi said:


> Old conversation is old, and nobody is reading your reply, for a more effective stab at communication, try making a new thread, with your own ideas and thoughts, for people in the now to contribute too.


And there may still be "complaints" that the topic is old and has been deemed "finished". Have seen that approach elsewhere where "locked for age" is equated with "locked for drama".
There is very little to be gained from locking old threads with specific topics (as a whole) to justify overturning the "do nothing" position. The "first to 1000" or equivalent might've been another matter, since there's no overarching "topic" in those.



LemurBoi said:


> Like the Dave Hyena thread, rite? I have that one saved, its a gem, to be sure. Everyone in there came off as a bunch of jerks, every last one of them.


Heh; if you're referring to that - yes, saved that too, and disagree. 



LemurBoi said:


> And yet, they fall into disuse once people are done discussing them, often, because they are no longer relevant. Suggestions and the like, if not acted upon, probably weren't fit to be...


With regards to FA/Ferrox development that just means that things go very slowly.

All of which relates only to a small part of the original post, anyhow...


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2008)

uncia said:


> (still OTish)
> 
> Thread derailment, remove reply and discuss if required. All of which was invisible before when staff deletes were hard. No big issue, no drama.


But nobody else wanted to participate in that topic, hence, it's not being dragged out of the catacombs.


uncia said:


> And there may still be "complaints" that the topic is old and has been deemed "finished". Have seen that approach elsewhere where "locked for age" is equated with "locked for drama".


And yet, that's not the case here.  Locked for drama takes all the fun out of threads IMO.  But locked for age is the subject here.  Two different topics.


uncia said:


> There is very little to be gained from locking old threads with specific topics (as a whole) to justify overturning the "do nothing" position. The "first to 1000" or equivalent might've been another matter, since there's no overarching "topic" in those.


And there is even less lost by locking them, or pruning them in the first place.


uncia said:


> With regards to FA/Ferrox development that just means that things go very slowly.


Tell me about it. But people rarely suggest things for Ferrox anyway, and rarely in a coherent, helpful fashion.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I was talking about possible staff action to aim to resolve with minimal hype in such circumstances although I'm not quite sure how you interpreted that.

The OP was inevitably correct about variable enforcement but being seen to take action isn't always easiest when a go-gently approach can often leave much of the discussion/resolution on PMs without echoing that in public. 
Not applying the stick /can/ yield longer terms benefits, but also requires "people skills" and the ability to keep ones finger on the pulse to make a judgment call on particular individuals/cases.



LemurBoi said:


> Locked for drama takes all the fun out of threads IMO.


"Locked for drama", whether temporarily or permanently, can be required and certainly doesn't take _all_ the "fun" out of threads. Locking is usually preferable to deportation in order to ensure it's clear what happened.



LemurBoi said:


> Tell me about it. But people rarely suggest things for Ferrox anyway, and rarely in a coherent, helpful fashion.


Thanks for leaving space for exceptions to both those statements.

d.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> hardly worth the effort of searching 90 pages back.



Search feature and Similar Threads eliminate having to manually go through 90 pages.


----------



## TakeWalker (Dec 15, 2008)

There is too much crap to read in this thread, but I wanted to squeak something, if I may.

Does that three-month auto-lock apply to stickied threads as well? The "looking for authors" thread in Writer's Bloc goes unused for months at a time, yet I've still found need to update it every once in a great while. I'd hate to see that ability taken away; it's one place where a necro isn't a bad thing at all.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

Come to think about the necro threads, I just realized that there's no clarification about starting several threads about the same topic (I guess everyone remembers the threads about the banner for Thanksgiving ;-)).
Those double posts are one of many reasons for threads to become necroed and forgotten about. Maybe it would be a good idea to say that double posts are not allowed if there are posts with the same topic that can be found within the first five pages (which would be about one week in the livelier sections).


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

Well i'm going to break the chain of the necro threads crap.

as we know the necro thing is virtually a land mine right now.
the thing i'm more concerned over is the games thread which is really loading up quickly and is already spawning multiple bad threads.

maybe a harder punishment in that thread would be reasonable seeing as its the hard end of the stick of a much larger tree ready to fall.

There is also the issue of the infractions system.
It would be nice if there was like a legend of how many infractions at one time it takes till being banned or something or perhaps which each infraction will do.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

Nanakisan said:


> There is also the issue of the infractions system.



Id like to see them remove the time buffer between reports. I think its more of a reason not to report than anything else. Makes it more time consuming than it should be.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Id like to see them remove the time buffer between reports. I think its more of a reason not to report than anything else. Makes it more time consuming than it should be.



i agree.
whats the point of reporting if you have to wait x amount of seconds to report.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

It's more likely that it was installed to relief the server a bit. Why the hell would you want to report 10 posts per minute anyway?


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> It's more likely that it was installed to relief the server a bit. Why the hell would you want to report 10 posts per minute anyway?



Because its not worth reporting violations when it takes at least 10 minutes to report 10 posts. Makes it frustrating and impractical to report when you have a derailed thread filled with spam or flaming. And I doubt there are that many users just falling over themselves to report violations XD


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

WOW, you find a rule-violating post every minute? Respect!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 15, 2008)

TakeWalker said:


> There is too much crap to read in this thread, but I wanted to squeak something, if I may.
> 
> Does that three-month auto-lock apply to stickied threads as well? The "looking for authors" thread in Writer's Bloc goes unused for months at a time, yet I've still found need to update it every once in a great while. I'd hate to see that ability taken away; it's one place where a necro isn't a bad thing at all.



Even though it's auto locked it's not too hard to request a mod to unlock the thread and you can re-post in the thread you'd like to post in. I know you're referring to more of the helpful threads like tutorials and articles to help in the art forums.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> It's more likely that it was installed to relief the server a bit. Why the hell would you want to report 10 posts per minute anyway?



because its fun to make people mad when i report them
hahahahaha

other then that i agree on the server thing.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> WOW, you find a violating post every minute? Respect!



Violations often times are in large groups, and no method is provided to mass report, so you have to report each post individually.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Violations often times are in large groups, and no method is provided to mass report, so you have to report each post individually.




that is a feature i'd like to see happen.

a mass report tool that lets you use the multi quotes option to make better reports by linking them in the report you file


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Violations often times are in large groups, and no method is provided to mass report, so you have to report each post individually.



Do you mean several violations in a single thread, or several threads that violate the rules?
Please specify.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> Do you mean several violations in a single thread, or several threads that violate the rules?
> Please specify.



Several violations in one thread. And right now, other than reporting the OP, there is no method to report threads themselves. Thats something else that would be nice to see. A report thread button, maybe in the index.

Sorry about the rude eyeroll. I took it out.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Several violations in one thread. And right now, other than reporting the OP, there is no method to report threads themselves. Thats something else that would be nice to see. A report thread button, maybe in the index.
> 
> Sorry about the rude eyeroll. I took it out.



lol

to true

but a report thread option would be pointless.
if you report the OP it would be like doing the same thing

also

the eyroll is still in warmock's quotes
XD


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Several violations in one thread. And right now, other than reporting the OP, there is no method to report threads themselves. Thats something else that would be nice to see. A report thread button, maybe in the index.



If you find several violations I'd recommend you use the messagebox that shows up when reporting a post to tell the staff that the thread contains SEVERAL violations (including the page/post number if you want to). That would be enough for the mods to find the questionable posts and handle them.

As for the "Report an entire thread"-Button: you won't believe it, but I desperately needed something like that a few minutes ago. xD
It would be nice to clarify if the report buttons can be used to report threads, too. Right now the description just refers to the content of the post but not the entire thread.

And it's ok about the eyeroll, I don't blame you. ^^


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

> but a report thread option would be pointless.
> if you report the OP it would be like doing the same thing



Yeah, but would just be something nice. Alot of the time you can tell from the index if a thread doesnt belong where it is, or whether or not it should even exist =P Plus, makes it easier to report several violations on the index, assuming that would ever happen.



> the eyroll is still in warmock's quotes
> XD



I know, thats why I apologized xP He picked it up before I could correct myself.



> If you find several violations I'd recommend you use the messagebox that shows up when reporting a post to tell the staff that the thread contains SEVERAL violations (including the page/post number if you want to). That would be enough for the mods to find the questionable posts and handle them.



One of the advantages of the button is that it takes them directly to the violation. Just telling them that there are multiple violations in text, without showing them specifically where they are would sorta be like just giving them a link to the thread and going "Look, bad stuff! D=" Even if you quoted the violations in the box, theyd still have to look up all the violations themselves to eliminate them.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 15, 2008)

It's not the best solution, but on the other hand I am certain that the mods would have a look at the entire thread if there's a reported violation anyway, and try to find out if there's more to be removed.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 15, 2008)

If there are several violations in a row, you don't have to knock yourself out with reporting each one. When I get a report, I look at the thread, not just that single post.

I'm not saying you can't report posts in such a manner, but please don't abuse the system. I really think what you're saying is only necessary if there are violations that have a number of posts between them, or aren't of a relating conflict in the thread.


----------



## Arrow Tibbs (Dec 15, 2008)

As Grimfang said, it's general tenancy to look at a whole thread when it's reported. It's actually more time consuming to have ten or more reports for each post in a single thread; we have to then wade through them, mark them as completed, and then figure out which reports are from other threads.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

Arrow Tibbs said:


> As Grimfang said, it's general tenancy to look at a whole thread when it's reported. It's actually more time consuming to have ten or more reports for each post in a single thread; we have to then wade through them, mark them as completed, and then figure out which reports are from other threads.



Thats why you should have a way to mass report, so you only have to mark it completed once, but can still zoom directly to violations.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> Thats why you should have a way to mass report, so you only have to mark it completed once, but can still zoom directly to violations.



You'd still have to make sure you're clicking or visiting each individual post, as well as determining the context. A lot of times people just report to see "tee hee I think I can get this guy in trouble" when they were egging someone else on.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> You'd still have to make sure you're clicking or visiting each individual post, as well as determining the context. A lot of times people just report to see "tee hee I think I can get this guy in trouble" when they were egging someone else on.



True =P Im just trying to prevent you from having to look through the whole thread for violation. It stands to reason, imo, that if you could mass report, thered be no reason to gloss over the violations, because theyd all have been reported.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> If there are several violations in a row, you don't have to knock yourself out with reporting each one. When I get a report, I look at the thread, not just that single post.


Mhmm... and depending on the circumstances perhaps check other recent posts on other threads, look back to mainsite, search for any alts, discuss calmly with any buddies/mentors/etc. online, compare with your own personal notes/logs (which you are keeping?), etc.?

All in a days work, eh, Grimfang?
Kudos. 



Grimfang said:


> I'm not saying you can't report posts in such a manner, but please don't abuse the system. I really think what you're saying is only necessary if there are violations that have a number of posts between them, or aren't of a relating conflict in the thread.


*nods* avoiding reporting /every/ "offending" post in a thread is a smart enough principle. Quality and calmness rather than quantity and knee-jerk reactions are sensible guiding principles to continue to encourage as communicating with community members on an ongoing basis.

fwiw, anyhow ^^
d.


----------

