Frisbeetarian wrote:...you didn't do it once, you did it 4 times in a row over three days.
Well, that is a lot! Color me sheepish. I hadn't gone back to look at the details.
I suppose getting 4 warnings for my first four posts would explain the reaction, not to mention the feeling I had that the sky was coming down on me in this forum during my first efforts at involvement. Of course, it was my mistake in the first place, just glancing over the forum rules and assuming they were just the standard boilerplate stuff in most forums. Anyway, thanks for the clarification of details, that's useful.
Frisbeetarian wrote:Contrary to what you say ("or that checking to see whether it had been 32 days or 29 days since the last posted response would be necessary"), or at least imply, it was by 3 months twice and four months twice. Are you really that surprised at a warning?
I was, yes. I wouldn't be now. As I mentioned in the post to which you are responding, I had failed to read the forum rules closely, and that's without question my mistake, my fault. You seem to be implying that if my violations HAD been only 32 days over instead of 3 and 4 months, there would have been more leniency... I hope that's true, and will take your word for it. Though I'm still not sure why a 4-month-old post is less worthy of discussion than a 1-month-old post, or a 29-day-old post, for that matter.
Frisbeetarian wrote:While I understand that you don't like the current rules blanketed across all situations, you can't turn around and say that what you want to do is alright in all situations. That's contradicting yourself!
I don't really see how I was saying or implying that what I want to do is all right in all situations. I feel that if a rule is created to do one clearly defined thing, then it should be expressed so that it addresses that one thing and no more -- for example, if the aim is to get rid of lengthy siglines, make a rule that caps sigline length and clutter only, so you don't end up wasting time and energy reprimanding people for habit-posting two letters. If the aim is a ruthless pogrom of all forms of siglines (*grin*) regardless of the time and energy spent on those with only one or two words, then the current rules are well-suited to that. That's all I meant; if what I was doing wasn't considered a problem but happens to fall under the broadly expressed rules and is then left to a vague and inconsistent system of exceptions, then we're left with uncertainty and inconsistency, which leaves people feeling the way I did -- discouraged from getting involved.
Frisbeetarian wrote:You've got to look at each situation and see if it's worth the information you provide. A two year old map that was briefly revived five months ago? I think not. The map of an author who hasn't posted in five months? Also, no. Another where the author posted once in the last four months and three times since that map?
Why not? Those maps were new to me. Maybe my comments would have spurred new interest in the old map, spawned new ideas. And if not, then the thread would have sunk back down into the depths on its own, because of the lack of interest. I can understand forbidding and reprimanding thread-resurrections for insubstantial comments like "Nice map!", but substantial comments and feedback should I think be encouraged wherever it's found.
Of course, this is likely academic -- it all comes down to individual value-judgements on what is considered "substantial" or "worthwhile". And anyway, I can and will accept and abide by the 30-day-bump rule, I'm just clarifying how I feel about the broadness of the rule.
Frisbeetarian wrote:Invest some time into doing research instead of making yourself look like
JackTHorn wrote:an idiot, a useless poster, discourteous, senseless, or someone without regard for rules or without respect for people.
I fail to see how it causes me to look like any of those things because I didn't do an hour's research (date of latest post, date of the first post, post author's recent posting habits in other threads over the last few months, etc) before every post I make.
And honestly, suggesting that I make myself look like
"an idiot, a useless poster... without regard for rules or respect for people" because I didn't do extensive and frankly neurotic levels of research before posting about a video game... well, that's right in line with what makes people feel discouraged from posting or getting involved.
JackTHorn wrote:Sure, I can see that. But then why not just make a mid-ground rule, like "Siglines must not exceed one line, and must consist of text only." That way you're not wasting time and energy catching up new posters who might just add initials or a name by habit, but you're still addressing the actual problem at hand.
If you didn't like what Mav said in response to this the first time, then you'll just need to suck it up. Other than uber-sigs, there's plenty of reason to keep all forms of them away.[/quote]
The question still hasn't been answered; Mav's response was in reference to the general reason for the rules, that is, avoiding massive cluttering siglines. The question above, which was a response to Mav's answer, still hasn't been answered, except for your vague "there's plenty of reasons" comment. Which is basically like someone's mom saying "because I said so."
And that's fine, I can accept that if that's all there is. I'll abide by the rules because I value and appreciate this site and all it offers. But I'll probably still politely question things now and then, though, for the same reasons -- because I value and appreciate the site.
Responding to mswf:
mswf wrote:My opinion about the signature is: WHY?????
I mean seriously, what's the point of them? Sure, if you have made a cool sig... you'd want to tell people your name/initials or you want to make a witty joke about your current status... let other people see what you have achieved... it is not necessary to continuously remind people about who you are and what you have done.
Yeah, I don't necessarily see the point of elaborate sigs, really, either. And I certainly have never even thought of sigs as a way to remind people of who I am or what I've done. The only reason it was an issue at all for me was that, on the last forum I was really involved with for a long time, the interface was set up so it wasn't necessarily obvious who was posting a given item, and without siglines people often got confused about who was posting -- so I got into the habit of ending every post with "JT" so people easily knew it was me. I still have that urge at the end of my posts, but it's no big deal, I just type the "JT" and then erase it. I just don't understand why something like that is still such a big deal. But whatever, no big thing, I can accept it. =]
(edited for misspellings, and a dash of what passes for brevity with me)
