As the issuer of the Infraction in question I'll go ahead and explain my reasoning behind it. The poster in question has a recent history of posting utter crap in Magic General and was given multiple official and non-official Warnings/Infractions to stop doing so. This last post showed, to me, that he had no real appreciation of what he was doing and why we were moderating him for it.
Here's a few of his posts that WEREN'T moderated to show the leniency he was shown before his third Infraction:
As the issuer of the Infraction in question I'll go ahead and explain my reasoning behind it. The poster in question has a recent history of posting utter crap in Magic General and was given multiple official and non-official Warnings/Infractions to stop doing so. This last post showed, to me, that he had no real appreciation of what he was doing and why we were moderating him for it.
Here's a few of his posts that WEREN'T moderated to show the leniency he was shown before his third Infraction:
Compare these with any of his posts outside of Magic General and it's obvious he was just trying to cause trouble.
I don't think anyone's arguing on behalf of the OP here. (Well, maybe the OP is.) The question is just, in general, in the future, should people be able to reply to mod edits of their own posts.
As all the mods have pointed out, the existence of PMs, helpdesks, and the fact that you can wait a turn for someone else to post means that this rule probably doesn't need to be revised.
It's still good to look at the MTGS rules now and then and talk about them. In my opinion, "is responding to a mod edit a double post?" was a valid question and was worth talking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
1. User breaks a rule in a post.
2. Moderator warns/infracts, then edits mod text into the post.
3. User should be allowed to break the 'no double posting rule' now.
... How does breaking one rule make breaking the second okay?
You are willfully misinterpreting the situation/argument. Obviously we aren't arguing that a user should be allowed to break the rules. We are arguing that the rules are flawed because at step (3) the user is now no longer able to contribute to the thread. We are arguing that the rules of MtGSalvation should be changed because they are flawed as they stand. You are strawmanning.
It is trivial to add an exception whereby users are allowed to double-post in situations where editting is not allowed. This exception should be added because a moderator editting your post shouldn't lock you out of a thread.
You are willfully misinterpreting the situation/argument. Obviously we aren't arguing that a user should be allowed to break the rules. We are arguing that the rules are flawed because at step (3) the user is now no longer able to contribute to the thread. We are arguing that the rules of MtGSalvation should be changed because they are flawed as they stand.
Yes, the rules are flawed. I'm sure the more corner cases you whip up, the more flaws you'll find. We're aware of that when we streamlined the rules.
In order to cover all the basics, plus the dozens of rare corner cases, plus make the rules clear, plus leave outs for the staff to make situational judgment calls as situations call for them - we'd have to go back to the way we used to try to word the rules. Which was akin to lawyerese. The rules didn't work well that way, especially as more and more new users flocked to the site.
I speak for myself here when I say I'm not in favor of changing the rules to address every single corner case if it means layering on more complexity than our membership is overall capable of handling. Especially when said corner cases have alternative ways of being solved and thus don't necessitate an alteration to the rules.
It is trivial to add an exception whereby users are allowed to double-post in situations where editting is not allowed. This exception should be added because a moderator editting your post shouldn't lock you out of a thread.
Except as I've shown repeatedly, it doesn't lock you out of a thread. No, you can't doublepost, but that doesn't mean you aren't left with options should you want to add something.
I know I'm going to sound like the mod brown noser here, but I have to agree with Mikey and Extremicon on this one. there is no reason for a user to be allowed to break another rule after being moderated for a first offense. If they have an issue with the infraction, all of our standing rules state that you can go to the helpdesk or PM them. In addition, I don't think anyone here is reading what they are posting because most of the responses to MikeyG's attempts to say "hey, you have an option to get your content into the thread without breaking the rules post-modding" have been questions as to why people get "locked out" of their thread...they don't...
/Rant
EDIT: oh and my point was that I'm sure anyone is listening to the mods and their explanations...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
the user formerly known as isopsycho86
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig Legacy RUBFaithless Dredge
Yes, the rules are flawed. I'm sure the more corner cases you whip up, the more flaws you'll find. We're aware of that when we streamlined the rules.
In order to cover all the basics, plus the dozens of rare corner cases, plus make the rules clear, plus leave outs for the staff to make situational judgment calls as situations call for them - we'd have to go back to the way we used to try to word the rules. Which was akin to lawyerese. The rules didn't work well that way, especially as more and more new users flocked to the site.
I speak for myself here when I say I'm not in favor of changing the rules to address every single corner case if it means layering on more complexity than our membership is overall capable of handling. Especially when said corner cases have alternative ways of being solved and thus don't necessitate an alteration to the rules.
Except as I've shown repeatedly, it doesn't lock you out of a thread. No, you can't doublepost, but that doesn't mean you aren't left with options should you want to add something.
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules, and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway. The rules are, admittedly, flawed. You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated. I mean, zero rules would be much simpler than the current rules? Why not go with that? The slippery-slope fallacy can be used both ways, you see. By neccessity, a rules structure is more complex than no structure, and adding additional rules is going to increase the structure. But you've decided not to fix a flaw on the grounds that it will increase complexity, not because the new level of complexity will be too much, but because at some undefined point in the future the rules will be too complex if a bunch more cornercases come up. This is a fairly flawed way to go about developing a rules system. Way flawed.
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules, and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway.
Is it a slippery slope when that's actually how things used to be and we're just trying not to go down that road again?
The rules are, admittedly, flawed. You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated.
Not really. We have chosen to enforce rules that are fluid and allow for moderators to make case-by-case decisions that make sense rather than force moderators to follow rigid rules that try to account for everything. The rules are only truly flawed if you're looking for them to outline any and every given situation. They don't, they're rather generalized, and in that respect they are flawed.
But I can't say I'm interested in changing the rules to address a rare corner case that already has alternative solutions. Not even remotely worth it.
How is the user locked out of the thread? I'm trying to understand this, especially with the 'wait until someone posts' option.
If no one else posts, the thread is dead. Which means your edit into your post wouldn't do anything anyways. And, if it was important enough to need that double post, but the thread is dead, why not just, I don't know, make a new thread?
Basically, when you get infracted to your post, consider your post locked. You can't edit it, screw with it, delete it, nothing. It's no longer under your control because it broke the rules. You don't get to make -another- post right there and then. Doing this puts a little bit of, I don't know, punishment in there for breaking a rule.
Hrm. Maybe we can make it so single posts -can- be locked after moderator action has been taken...
And you'd still not fix all of the problems because lawyers would still find cases to argue and corner cases to hatch out. Which is why the mods are real people and not robots. The rules are written in such a way so the mods CAN exercise their common sense when making judgments. Is their common sense flawed? Will people still find ways around it? Yes. But, that's fine, this is the internet. They are not doling out life and death sentences.
I remember when I was suspended for ~24 hours while a mod tried to get information out of me and force me to stop my disruptive behavior, despite the fact I had broken no written rules of the site, nor had any active infractions.
At the time I blatantly lied to said mod to get my account reactivated. I feel blatantly lying is abhorrent, but at the time I felt justified because I felt the mod had overstepped the "rules" of the game and he felt justified because I was creating problems for the site and the staff. The mod found out I lied to him at some point, and never mentioned it, and I never said anything about my suspension until just now. But, I did stop that behavior.
Now, if some cop tried to beat info out of me, it would have been different.
This is a website. The rules are written so the mods have more ability to make decisions based on their own judgment. Which also means, because they are reasonable, you can PM them and ask them rules questions, or to make allowances. That's the simple answer to corner cases, just ask a mod.
I know one mod I've PM'ed about rules questions has NEVER once responded, but who cares? I just ask another one, and if there is a problem I work it out with them privately.
When I act reasonably, the mods act reasonably to me.
That edit could have been something that would have kept the discussion going. Because of the random wait before another person would wait, I consider it a non-option. This is all theoretical, but it's a way the rules can kill a perfectly fine discussion. Imagine something as minor as a verbal warning for spelling stopping your deck from being discussed before you had a chance to add to the post testing results or some metagame analysis.
I believe this is very much covered under the 'PM a mod and get permission' option. I"m damn sure a mod will allow you to doublepost, or will waive the editing of a moderated post, in order to get -that- type of information into the thread.
I believe this is very much covered under the 'PM a mod and get permission' option. I"m damn sure a mod will allow you to doublepost, or will waive the editing of a moderated post, in order to get -that- type of information into the thread.
The tension is thick in here.
I agree that the users should not be allowed to break the rules again.
That being said, PMing a mod is a terribad option as well however... I'm not sure what anyone else's experience with the PM system is, but there are users few and far between that have actually responded to PM's I have sent, and only a portion of that that have responded in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, I've seen that the mod help threads don't really seem to get a whole lot of attention for moderation help, which is what they're there for, but rather off-topic discussion, thereby cluttering the mod help threads for anyone who would like to research previous decisions on infractions/warnings said mod has given. Now, I know the response to this is probably going to be "First, really? Ragging on the mod help threads? And second, we're open to suggestions." Well, no offense, but as the mods of this site isn't it your job to look into other options?
I'm having kind of a bad day so yeah... Don't take any of that too hard.
It's important that a mod has the final edit because that way, everyone looking at the post can be reasonably sure of what transpired. Allowing users to make post-moderation edits of their own only leads to confusion, and often insolence.
Quote from {mikeyG} »
That, certainly, but also the dozens of posters we will never hear from that could potentially otherwise learn from a previous poster's mistake.
Great of explanation of why transparency is helpful.
But following the suggested resolutions for the question at hand...
If he has something to say to the mod, there's always the Private Message, or the posting in the mod's help thread.
...contradicts the above reasons for not editing the post. I post, you edit, I post should not be considered a double post. Ridiculous. In the world of lawyerese I submit the mods would lose this argument.
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules
Just because you can't doesn't mean the thousands of other users can't either. Or that something won't come up next week. I'd bet big money that if someone asked you a month ago to read the forum rules and identify potential problems like this one, you wouldn't have come up with it. I know I didn't, and I've put a great deal of thought into the forum rules over the years.
and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway.
Slippery slope? Yes. Horrible? No. It's a fairly predictable progression that making a rule to cover a corner case will necessitate or encourage doing so again. In fact, for a couple years that's exactly what happened, and we've since re-evaluated some of those rules and removed or simplified them.
Yes, they are. Because it's impossible to create a flawless system. Most of the time addressing one flaw creates another. (Kind of a basic concept of economics, but if you want to see that play out in an example on this site, go browse the FCC and MCC discussion threads.)
You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated. I mean, zero rules would be much simpler than the current rules? Why not go with that? The slippery-slope fallacy can be used both ways, you see. By neccessity, a rules structure is more complex than no structure, and adding additional rules is going to increase the structure. But you've decided not to fix a flaw on the grounds that it will increase complexity, not because the new level of complexity will be too much, but because at some undefined point in the future the rules will be too complex if a bunch more cornercases come up.
The obvious issue you're overlooking is that the forum rules are already complex and cumbersome. There's no magic threshold that separates too complex from not too complex, there's only a guideline/philosophy of evaluating whether a particular problem/issue is important enough to be worth the increased complexity.
As far as this specific issue is concerned, it's hard to think about it without considering the example provided, and in this case I can't possibly care that this person was inconvenienced by not being able to post actual content after willfully spamming twice. I can, however, imagine other cases where someone makes a genuine mistake and is annoyed by being unable to add to the topic without contacting a moderator. I just don't really see that being that widespread or severe enough of a problem to warrant a rules change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I have read through the entire thread and I have to say I generally agree with the view of the OP, despite all the arguments against it.
The main complaint about fixing this problem is that it would make the rules more complex. I disagree with that complaint.
Normally, any post you make can be edited, if you need to respond to a simultaneous post that just happened to post before yours, for example. Why would being moderated change that?
If you want to punish a person for making a mistake, the moderator could temporarily ban that account, but this arbitrary rule of "you can't post in the thread you were moderated in until another poster posts, if they do, which they might not, or you can PM a mod, but that may or may not do anything..."
The rule could be vastly SIMPLIFIED (not made more complex, but made more simple) by changing it from "you can't edit a moderated post or double post ever forever" to "you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
Honestly, the idea of punishing the user for posting a moderated post might make some sense, what doesn't make sense is the "punishment" being so completely random and inconsistent in that if another user immediately posts it's as if there is no punishment at all, while if it's a slow thread with no further posts the punishment is basically permanent.
I would like to know what would be so mind-numbingly awesome that you need to edit the last post on a dead thread, yet not important enough that it could be its own thread.
If you're editing the last post on a dead thread, chances are no one is going to be reading the edit anyway.
Personally, I don't think this hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case deserves it's own subsection in the rules of an internet website, "just in case."
Personally, I don't think this hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case deserves it's own subsection in the rules of an internet website, "just in case."
This hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule already exists, the rule that says you can't edit your post if a moderator has edited it. That rule is inconsistent with the normal operational rules of the forum. The normal rule is that you can edit your posts. I am not suggesting the addition of another hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule, I am suggesting that the current hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule be REMOVED.
Further, I'd like to add that I suspect most first-time posters post without ever reading any of the rules. I believe that they generally post within MTGS's rules simply because most of MTGS's rules make sense, the ones that don't are these hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rules as noted above. For this reason, it's beneficial to have rules that make sense logically and are generally consistent with the rest of the internet.
This hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule already exists, the rule that says you can't edit your post if a moderator has edited it. That rule is inconsistent with the normal operational rules of the forum. The normal rule is that you can edit your posts. I am not suggesting the addition of another hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule, I am suggesting that the current hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule be REMOVED.
Um.... no. The rule against editing after moderation applies to every single moderation; it is not a corner case at all. And it has a very clear and tangible purpose, which has already been explained at length. It is not being removed.
Futher, the fact that a user must either wait for someone else to post after them or contact a modertator for assistance is neither an additional corner-case rule nor a punishment, it is a side-effect of how the rules interact in a specific situation. You suggested simplifying the rules by adding an exception to the double posting rule. I fail to see how "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting" - "except after a moderated post" is more simple than "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
This hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule already exists, the rule that says you can't edit your post if a moderator has edited it. That rule is inconsistent with the normal operational rules of the forum. The normal rule is that you can edit your posts. I am not suggesting the addition of another hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule, I am suggesting that the current hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule be REMOVED.
You feel that people should be able to delete or modify mod text in a post in which a mod moderated? Or otherwise change a post after a mod moderated it?
I thought your suggestion was: "you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
That was what I was arguing against. I felt that was silly because no on was going to read the last edit on a dead thread anyway. If you really want people to hear what you have to say, and its THAT IMPORTANT, it should be its own thread.
Further, I'd like to add that I suspect most first-time posters post without ever reading any of the rules. I believe that they generally post within MTGS's rules simply because most of MTGS's rules make sense, the ones that don't are these hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rules as noted above. For this reason, it's beneficial to have rules that make sense logically and are generally consistent with the rest of the internet.
You don't feel it "makes sense" that a user shouldn't be able to delete or modify mod text in a post in which a mod moderated? Or otherwise change a post after a mod moderated it?
You don't feel it "makes sense" that users should not be allowed to make double posts?
I'm quite confused to what your argument is at this point.... I thought it was simply the addition of this rule: "you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
But, it seems you have more drastic changes in mind. I know I'm a little slow, could you go over them again in greater detail for me? I can't discuss you ideas for the changes to the rules if I don't know what they are.
Um.... no. The rule against editing after moderation applies to every single moderation; it is not a corner case at all. And it has a very clear and tangible purpose, which has already been explained at length. It is not being removed.
Well then, obviously even among the moderation team you have a difference of opinion as to what a "corner case" is. {mikeyG} said it was a rare corner case, while you seem to think it isn't. I agree with the opinion that it's rare, I don't see a whole lot of moderated posts, maybe 1% or less of the total posts, but it's not so rare that it shouldn't be covered by a rule.
The problem is that the existing rule is extremely random and arbitrary. Effectively it says you can't post comment in a thread if your post was mod-edited, until someone else responds to your post. I see this as very random and arbitrary because the "mod edit" itself could ave been for something extremely benign or even a simply clarification of something that isn't even breaking a rule, but you would be penalized just the same.
Why have this cumbersome and confusing rule when you could have something more logical and simple instead?
Futher, the fact that a user must either wait for someone else to post after them or contact a modertator for assistance is neither an additional corner-case rule nor a punishment, it is a side-effect of how the rules interact in a specific situation.
That is really just a lot of lawyer speak and doesn't really say anything useful or new to support your argument. If something hinders a poster, it is punishing them, intended or not. But this isn't just some random side effect that can't be changed, this is the rules (for a corner-case) working exactly as written, when they could have just as easily been written in a way that doesn't result in this unfair "side-effect".
You suggested simplifying the rules by adding an exception to the double posting rule. I fail to see how "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting" - "except after a moderated post" is more simple than "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting".
My rule set:
1. You can't double post unless at least an hour has passed since your previous post.
2. You can't edit moderated posts.
Done.
Your rule set:
1. You can't double post, however you can edit your post if you want to add more to a thread and you currently have the last post.
2. If a moderator has edited your post, ignore the part of rule 1 that says you can edit your post. Instead, you can't edit that post at all, ever.
And TBH, I think the whole rule "you can't edit moderated posts" rule is pretty silly, I've been around a few forums and the vast majority simply disable editing of moderated posts, which is a cleaner solution than making it a rule and hoping people follow it. With that change my simple rule would be "you can't double post unless at least one hour has passed", and would cover everything the existing confusing tangle of rules covers.
Taylor, since I probably answered most of your questions in the response above I'm only going to respond to a few points in your post.
You feel that people should be able to delete or modify mod text in a post in which a mod moderated? Or otherwise change a post after a mod moderated it?
I was talking about the corner case rule that says "you can't double post because you can edit your post so there is no need, BUT in the special case of a mod edited post, you can't edit it".
If you change the double post rule to a one hour limit instead, there is no need to bring up the whole editing your post bit.
You don't feel it "makes sense" that a user shouldn't be able to delete or modify mod text in a post in which a mod moderated? Or otherwise change a post after a mod moderated it?
Inability to edit moderated posts makes sense. Relying on users (users who have already broken a rule, in most cases) to not edit it through another rule seems silly when you could disable it entirely.
You don't feel it "makes sense" that users should not be allowed to make double posts?
Makes some sense, but it is a bit unfair and arbitrary in some cases. I think it's a better system to just say no double-posts in X time. Sometimes it just makes sense to double post, for example making a thread to discuss a particular deck the thread can be so much cleaner if post 1 is deck list and deck description with results and comments in the next post (my 1 hour restriction would make it harder to do this as well, though), and sometimes you have new information to add to a days-old post and want to bump it to the top, but editing won't do it. The real problem with double posting is when people just spam the forums posting over and over, but really those sort of spammers usually don't even read the rules or care, and will spam regardless.
But, it seems you have more drastic changes in mind. I know I'm a little slow, could you go over them again in greater detail for me? I can't discuss you ideas for the changes to the rules if I don't know what they are.
I don't know what they are either! I am commenting on this subject because the thread title caught my interest and I decided to read it, if I studied every possible rules interaction I might have other suggestions. I like these forums and I don't intentionally break any rules, but my interest in discussing or posting suggested changes to those rules is limited to what looks interesting to read while I'm on my lunch break.
Not necessarily. I personally would much rather a user necro if they have a worthwhile contribution to a thread, rather than make a whole new thread that starts the discussion from scratch. And if they don't have a worthwhile contribution, I'd rather they didn't post, because that's spam.
Inability to edit moderated posts makes sense. Relying on users (users who have already broken a rule, in most cases) to not edit it through another rule seems silly when you could disable it entirely.
Well, I have wonder this myself a few times.
Secretly I think they do it this way because if the user edits his post it shows he did not go read the rules after getting an infraction like he was suppose to.
Makes some sense, but it is a bit unfair and arbitrary in some cases. I think it's a better system to just say no double-posts in X time. Sometimes it just makes sense to double post, for example making a thread to discuss a particular deck the thread can be so much cleaner if post 1 is deck list and deck description with results and comments in the next post (my 1 hour restriction would make it harder to do this as well, though), and sometimes you have new information to add to a days-old post and want to bump it to the top, but editing won't do it. The real problem with double posting is when people just spam the forums posting over and over, but really those sort of spammers usually don't even read the rules or care, and will spam regardless.
Personally, I don't want people bumping their threads no one cares about.
Or making each post a double to increase post count or something.
In your example I don't think it's at all necessary to make that post 2 posts, especially when you can format your post into sections using [tags]. It's not worth changing the rule to allow for something like that, especially when changing the rule would obviously increase the amount of spam on the forum, as people desperately try to get others to care about something they don't.
In your example I don't think it's at all necessary to make that post 2 posts, especially when you can format your post into sections using [tags]. It's not worth changing the rule to allow for something like that, especially when changing the rule would obviously increase the amount of spam on the forum, as people desperately try to get others to care about something they don't.
Well, we can just agree to disagree in this case. I see advantages to either side. Editing posts, as a way to add more to a thread, has numerous disadvantages such as the fact that someone who has already read your post prior to the edit would not normally go back and reread it, and in an active thread where a response is posted to your unedited post while you are editing it it can be very confusing, especially if the editing involves removing statements that are responded to. "Spam" is relative, are two separate posts really that much worse than one edited post that is just as big as those two posts would have been? Spammers as a rule generally ignore the rules of the forum anyway, so I completely disagree that changing the rule would increase spam.
I do agree that the endless "bump" posts you see on some forums are annoying. However, there are ways to handle that issue without a strict ban on double-posting. I could care less about post count and if you want to discourage useless posts used to boost it I'd simply disable it from being displayed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's a few of his posts that WEREN'T moderated to show the leniency he was shown before his third Infraction:
Compare these with any of his posts outside of Magic General and it's obvious he was just trying to cause trouble.
I don't think anyone's arguing on behalf of the OP here. (Well, maybe the OP is.) The question is just, in general, in the future, should people be able to reply to mod edits of their own posts.
As all the mods have pointed out, the existence of PMs, helpdesks, and the fact that you can wait a turn for someone else to post means that this rule probably doesn't need to be revised.
It's still good to look at the MTGS rules now and then and talk about them. In my opinion, "is responding to a mod edit a double post?" was a valid question and was worth talking about.
You are willfully misinterpreting the situation/argument. Obviously we aren't arguing that a user should be allowed to break the rules. We are arguing that the rules are flawed because at step (3) the user is now no longer able to contribute to the thread. We are arguing that the rules of MtGSalvation should be changed because they are flawed as they stand. You are strawmanning.
It is trivial to add an exception whereby users are allowed to double-post in situations where editting is not allowed. This exception should be added because a moderator editting your post shouldn't lock you out of a thread.
Yes, the rules are flawed. I'm sure the more corner cases you whip up, the more flaws you'll find. We're aware of that when we streamlined the rules.
In order to cover all the basics, plus the dozens of rare corner cases, plus make the rules clear, plus leave outs for the staff to make situational judgment calls as situations call for them - we'd have to go back to the way we used to try to word the rules. Which was akin to lawyerese. The rules didn't work well that way, especially as more and more new users flocked to the site.
I speak for myself here when I say I'm not in favor of changing the rules to address every single corner case if it means layering on more complexity than our membership is overall capable of handling. Especially when said corner cases have alternative ways of being solved and thus don't necessitate an alteration to the rules.
Except as I've shown repeatedly, it doesn't lock you out of a thread. No, you can't doublepost, but that doesn't mean you aren't left with options should you want to add something.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
/Rant
EDIT: oh and my point was that I'm sure anyone is listening to the mods and their explanations...
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig
Legacy
RUBFaithless Dredge
I can't think of another cornercase like this that would clog up the rules, and that is a horrible slippery-slope argument anyway. The rules are, admittedly, flawed. You have chosen to enforce flawed rules rather than makes the rules more complicated. I mean, zero rules would be much simpler than the current rules? Why not go with that? The slippery-slope fallacy can be used both ways, you see. By neccessity, a rules structure is more complex than no structure, and adding additional rules is going to increase the structure. But you've decided not to fix a flaw on the grounds that it will increase complexity, not because the new level of complexity will be too much, but because at some undefined point in the future the rules will be too complex if a bunch more cornercases come up. This is a fairly flawed way to go about developing a rules system. Way flawed.
Is it a slippery slope when that's actually how things used to be and we're just trying not to go down that road again?
Not really. We have chosen to enforce rules that are fluid and allow for moderators to make case-by-case decisions that make sense rather than force moderators to follow rigid rules that try to account for everything. The rules are only truly flawed if you're looking for them to outline any and every given situation. They don't, they're rather generalized, and in that respect they are flawed.
But I can't say I'm interested in changing the rules to address a rare corner case that already has alternative solutions. Not even remotely worth it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
If no one else posts, the thread is dead. Which means your edit into your post wouldn't do anything anyways. And, if it was important enough to need that double post, but the thread is dead, why not just, I don't know, make a new thread?
Basically, when you get infracted to your post, consider your post locked. You can't edit it, screw with it, delete it, nothing. It's no longer under your control because it broke the rules. You don't get to make -another- post right there and then. Doing this puts a little bit of, I don't know, punishment in there for breaking a rule.
Hrm. Maybe we can make it so single posts -can- be locked after moderator action has been taken...
My helpdesk should you need me.
And you'd still not fix all of the problems because lawyers would still find cases to argue and corner cases to hatch out. Which is why the mods are real people and not robots. The rules are written in such a way so the mods CAN exercise their common sense when making judgments. Is their common sense flawed? Will people still find ways around it? Yes. But, that's fine, this is the internet. They are not doling out life and death sentences.
I remember when I was suspended for ~24 hours while a mod tried to get information out of me and force me to stop my disruptive behavior, despite the fact I had broken no written rules of the site, nor had any active infractions.
At the time I blatantly lied to said mod to get my account reactivated. I feel blatantly lying is abhorrent, but at the time I felt justified because I felt the mod had overstepped the "rules" of the game and he felt justified because I was creating problems for the site and the staff. The mod found out I lied to him at some point, and never mentioned it, and I never said anything about my suspension until just now. But, I did stop that behavior.
Now, if some cop tried to beat info out of me, it would have been different.
This is a website. The rules are written so the mods have more ability to make decisions based on their own judgment. Which also means, because they are reasonable, you can PM them and ask them rules questions, or to make allowances. That's the simple answer to corner cases, just ask a mod.
I know one mod I've PM'ed about rules questions has NEVER once responded, but who cares? I just ask another one, and if there is a problem I work it out with them privately.
When I act reasonably, the mods act reasonably to me.
I don't know how you could ask for anything more.
__________________
I believe this is very much covered under the 'PM a mod and get permission' option. I"m damn sure a mod will allow you to doublepost, or will waive the editing of a moderated post, in order to get -that- type of information into the thread.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The tension is thick in here.
I agree that the users should not be allowed to break the rules again.
That being said, PMing a mod is a terribad option as well however... I'm not sure what anyone else's experience with the PM system is, but there are users few and far between that have actually responded to PM's I have sent, and only a portion of that that have responded in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, I've seen that the mod help threads don't really seem to get a whole lot of attention for moderation help, which is what they're there for, but rather off-topic discussion, thereby cluttering the mod help threads for anyone who would like to research previous decisions on infractions/warnings said mod has given. Now, I know the response to this is probably going to be "First, really? Ragging on the mod help threads? And second, we're open to suggestions." Well, no offense, but as the mods of this site isn't it your job to look into other options?
I'm having kind of a bad day so yeah... Don't take any of that too hard.
Great of explanation of why transparency is helpful.
But following the suggested resolutions for the question at hand...
...contradicts the above reasons for not editing the post. I post, you edit, I post should not be considered a double post. Ridiculous. In the world of lawyerese I submit the mods would lose this argument.
You posted twice. No one posted between you. Therefore, double post. Someone editing your post doesn't count as someone else posting.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Just because you can't doesn't mean the thousands of other users can't either. Or that something won't come up next week. I'd bet big money that if someone asked you a month ago to read the forum rules and identify potential problems like this one, you wouldn't have come up with it. I know I didn't, and I've put a great deal of thought into the forum rules over the years.
Slippery slope? Yes. Horrible? No. It's a fairly predictable progression that making a rule to cover a corner case will necessitate or encourage doing so again. In fact, for a couple years that's exactly what happened, and we've since re-evaluated some of those rules and removed or simplified them.
Yes, they are. Because it's impossible to create a flawless system. Most of the time addressing one flaw creates another. (Kind of a basic concept of economics, but if you want to see that play out in an example on this site, go browse the FCC and MCC discussion threads.)
The obvious issue you're overlooking is that the forum rules are already complex and cumbersome. There's no magic threshold that separates too complex from not too complex, there's only a guideline/philosophy of evaluating whether a particular problem/issue is important enough to be worth the increased complexity.
As far as this specific issue is concerned, it's hard to think about it without considering the example provided, and in this case I can't possibly care that this person was inconvenienced by not being able to post actual content after willfully spamming twice. I can, however, imagine other cases where someone makes a genuine mistake and is annoyed by being unable to add to the topic without contacting a moderator. I just don't really see that being that widespread or severe enough of a problem to warrant a rules change.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
The main complaint about fixing this problem is that it would make the rules more complex. I disagree with that complaint.
Normally, any post you make can be edited, if you need to respond to a simultaneous post that just happened to post before yours, for example. Why would being moderated change that?
If you want to punish a person for making a mistake, the moderator could temporarily ban that account, but this arbitrary rule of "you can't post in the thread you were moderated in until another poster posts, if they do, which they might not, or you can PM a mod, but that may or may not do anything..."
The rule could be vastly SIMPLIFIED (not made more complex, but made more simple) by changing it from "you can't edit a moderated post or double post ever forever" to "you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
Honestly, the idea of punishing the user for posting a moderated post might make some sense, what doesn't make sense is the "punishment" being so completely random and inconsistent in that if another user immediately posts it's as if there is no punishment at all, while if it's a slow thread with no further posts the punishment is basically permanent.
If you're editing the last post on a dead thread, chances are no one is going to be reading the edit anyway.
Personally, I don't think this hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case deserves it's own subsection in the rules of an internet website, "just in case."
This hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule already exists, the rule that says you can't edit your post if a moderator has edited it. That rule is inconsistent with the normal operational rules of the forum. The normal rule is that you can edit your posts. I am not suggesting the addition of another hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule, I am suggesting that the current hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rule be REMOVED.
Further, I'd like to add that I suspect most first-time posters post without ever reading any of the rules. I believe that they generally post within MTGS's rules simply because most of MTGS's rules make sense, the ones that don't are these hypothetical-theoretical-corner-case rules as noted above. For this reason, it's beneficial to have rules that make sense logically and are generally consistent with the rest of the internet.
Um.... no. The rule against editing after moderation applies to every single moderation; it is not a corner case at all. And it has a very clear and tangible purpose, which has already been explained at length. It is not being removed.
Futher, the fact that a user must either wait for someone else to post after them or contact a modertator for assistance is neither an additional corner-case rule nor a punishment, it is a side-effect of how the rules interact in a specific situation. You suggested simplifying the rules by adding an exception to the double posting rule. I fail to see how "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting" - "except after a moderated post" is more simple than "no editing a moderated post" + "no double posting".
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I thought your suggestion was:
"you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
That was what I was arguing against. I felt that was silly because no on was going to read the last edit on a dead thread anyway. If you really want people to hear what you have to say, and its THAT IMPORTANT, it should be its own thread.
You don't feel it "makes sense" that a user shouldn't be able to delete or modify mod text in a post in which a mod moderated? Or otherwise change a post after a mod moderated it?
You don't feel it "makes sense" that users should not be allowed to make double posts?
I'm quite confused to what your argument is at this point.... I thought it was simply the addition of this rule:
"you can post in response to being moderated after another poster posts, or after 1 hour passes".
But, it seems you have more drastic changes in mind. I know I'm a little slow, could you go over them again in greater detail for me? I can't discuss you ideas for the changes to the rules if I don't know what they are.
Well then, obviously even among the moderation team you have a difference of opinion as to what a "corner case" is. {mikeyG} said it was a rare corner case, while you seem to think it isn't. I agree with the opinion that it's rare, I don't see a whole lot of moderated posts, maybe 1% or less of the total posts, but it's not so rare that it shouldn't be covered by a rule.
The problem is that the existing rule is extremely random and arbitrary. Effectively it says you can't post comment in a thread if your post was mod-edited, until someone else responds to your post. I see this as very random and arbitrary because the "mod edit" itself could ave been for something extremely benign or even a simply clarification of something that isn't even breaking a rule, but you would be penalized just the same.
Why have this cumbersome and confusing rule when you could have something more logical and simple instead?
That is really just a lot of lawyer speak and doesn't really say anything useful or new to support your argument. If something hinders a poster, it is punishing them, intended or not. But this isn't just some random side effect that can't be changed, this is the rules (for a corner-case) working exactly as written, when they could have just as easily been written in a way that doesn't result in this unfair "side-effect".
My rule set:
1. You can't double post unless at least an hour has passed since your previous post.
2. You can't edit moderated posts.
Done.
Your rule set:
1. You can't double post, however you can edit your post if you want to add more to a thread and you currently have the last post.
2. If a moderator has edited your post, ignore the part of rule 1 that says you can edit your post. Instead, you can't edit that post at all, ever.
And TBH, I think the whole rule "you can't edit moderated posts" rule is pretty silly, I've been around a few forums and the vast majority simply disable editing of moderated posts, which is a cleaner solution than making it a rule and hoping people follow it. With that change my simple rule would be "you can't double post unless at least one hour has passed", and would cover everything the existing confusing tangle of rules covers.
Taylor, since I probably answered most of your questions in the response above I'm only going to respond to a few points in your post.
I was talking about the corner case rule that says "you can't double post because you can edit your post so there is no need, BUT in the special case of a mod edited post, you can't edit it".
If you change the double post rule to a one hour limit instead, there is no need to bring up the whole editing your post bit.
Inability to edit moderated posts makes sense. Relying on users (users who have already broken a rule, in most cases) to not edit it through another rule seems silly when you could disable it entirely.
Makes some sense, but it is a bit unfair and arbitrary in some cases. I think it's a better system to just say no double-posts in X time. Sometimes it just makes sense to double post, for example making a thread to discuss a particular deck the thread can be so much cleaner if post 1 is deck list and deck description with results and comments in the next post (my 1 hour restriction would make it harder to do this as well, though), and sometimes you have new information to add to a days-old post and want to bump it to the top, but editing won't do it. The real problem with double posting is when people just spam the forums posting over and over, but really those sort of spammers usually don't even read the rules or care, and will spam regardless.
I don't know what they are either! I am commenting on this subject because the thread title caught my interest and I decided to read it, if I studied every possible rules interaction I might have other suggestions. I like these forums and I don't intentionally break any rules, but my interest in discussing or posting suggested changes to those rules is limited to what looks interesting to read while I'm on my lunch break.
Post a new thread adding your new info to it.
Thats what you should do instead of necroing too...
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
Where as with 'no double posting', we don't. We just see there's two posts from the same user next to each other.
The 'no editing' rule is really simple. "After a mod has edited your post, you may no longer do so." Simple. No more text involved.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I think it's pretty clear at this point you have not read the rules. Your second "addition" is not an addition at all.
Well, I have wonder this myself a few times.
Secretly I think they do it this way because if the user edits his post it shows he did not go read the rules after getting an infraction like he was suppose to.
Personally, I don't want people bumping their threads no one cares about.
Or making each post a double to increase post count or something.
In your example I don't think it's at all necessary to make that post 2 posts, especially when you can format your post into sections using [tags]. It's not worth changing the rule to allow for something like that, especially when changing the rule would obviously increase the amount of spam on the forum, as people desperately try to get others to care about something they don't.
I think you misread my post. I was repeating the existing rule because if I didn't repeat it it would look like my rule set didn't include the rule.
Well, we can just agree to disagree in this case. I see advantages to either side. Editing posts, as a way to add more to a thread, has numerous disadvantages such as the fact that someone who has already read your post prior to the edit would not normally go back and reread it, and in an active thread where a response is posted to your unedited post while you are editing it it can be very confusing, especially if the editing involves removing statements that are responded to. "Spam" is relative, are two separate posts really that much worse than one edited post that is just as big as those two posts would have been? Spammers as a rule generally ignore the rules of the forum anyway, so I completely disagree that changing the rule would increase spam.
I do agree that the endless "bump" posts you see on some forums are annoying. However, there are ways to handle that issue without a strict ban on double-posting. I could care less about post count and if you want to discourage useless posts used to boost it I'd simply disable it from being displayed.