Posts: 4345
Threads: 43
Joined: February 21, 2012
Reputation:
64
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 1:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: It may be overkill but there is definitely a need for a rule to discourage people from posting just to draw traffic to their site with no intention to take part in the community. I'm content to leave it to the experts, the people who have taken on the annoyance of keeping the site viable, to decide what the rule should be. I just hope if this Emily really does want to take part in this community that she will get the opportunity. Again, I'm content to leave it to our experts to determine if that is the case.
But that rule is already there. There is a no advertising rule. We don't need to ban all links from people who haven't been around for 30 days to fix that. Its already against the rules to advertise. Most new members aren't trying to advertise and if every time they use a link in conversation be it a image, a video or a article they get it removed and get a warning of course its going to put them off staying here.
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:45 pm by SteelCurtain.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Nine Wrote: 30 days seems excessive. I probably had 500+ posts in my first month. It would be nice to have a upper post count that exempts them from the rule. Perhaps a 'over 10 days and 200 posts' or something. I feel like somebody who has hit over 200 posts even if in only 10 days has a fairly good feel for whats acceptable.
I'd agree with this. Maybe not a 30/30, but a 300/30/30, so 300 posts OR 30 posts and 30 days?
So this would allow newer members that have been really active to come out of the restriction earlier than 30 days, but also keep people who made one post a year ago from spamming.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 349
Threads: 1
Joined: January 7, 2015
Reputation:
5
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:42 pm
As a newbie, it wasn't difficult to follow the 30/30. I looked at it as an initiation. The old-timers earned the right not to have the threads jammed with passersby bullshit. If someone is serious about becoming a long-term contributor, 30/30 is an easy hurdle to clear.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
Posts: 21828
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I agree that the line as to what's acceptable is somewhat subjective, but I'll give you my perspective on it. Linking to an article without giving your own summary and argument for/against - OK. Linking to an article saying something along the lines of "Hey guys, what do you think of this?" - not OK. When the link/video is the bulk of the meaningful content, it's very clearly over the line.
Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that dropping a link with no commentary at all means that the bulk of the content is indeed the link. This seems to be a mixed message.
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:47 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:48 pm by SteelCurtain.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: (February 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I agree that the line as to what's acceptable is somewhat subjective, but I'll give you my perspective on it. Linking to an article without giving your own summary and argument for/against - OK. Linking to an article saying something along the lines of "Hey guys, what do you think of this?" - not OK. When the link/video is the bulk of the meaningful content, it's very clearly over the line.
Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that dropping a link with no commentary at all means that the bulk of the content. This seems to be a mixed message.
I think he got his wires crossed, and meant:
(February 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Linking to an article and giving your own summary and argument for/against - OK. Bolds/edit mine.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Sorry guys. Someone starting a thread about the rules doesn't mean they're debatable. The 30/30 rule is there for a reason, and while it's imperfect, I stand behind it as is. Sometimes I wish we could give regular members a sort-of ride-along like the cops do so people could understand exactly what it's like to be in green or red.
Posts: 4345
Threads: 43
Joined: February 21, 2012
Reputation:
64
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:56 pm by Nine.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I'd agree with this. Maybe not a 30/30, but a 300/30/30, so 300 posts OR 30 posts and 30 days?
So this would allow newer members that have been really active to come out of the restriction earlier than 30 days, but also keep people who made one post a year ago from spamming.
Exactly.
(February 22, 2015 at 1:42 pm)404NotFound Wrote: The old-timers earned the right not to have the threads jammed with passersby bullshit. If someone is serious about becoming a long-term contributor, 30/30 is an easy hurdle to clear.
Thats already in the rules though. People can just jump in and advertise but if they came in and used a link as evidence to a point they are making no problem. The 30/30 is irrelevant to jumping into 'older members' threads.
Also the 30/30 depends on how much you post. Its not actually that big a deal with the rule but if you blanket ban links for 30/30 then somebody with 300 or 400 posts would still be unable to join in a lot of threads despite really getting involved.
(February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Sorry guys. Someone starting a thread about the rules doesn't mean they're debatable. The 30/30 rule is there for a reason, and while it's imperfect, I stand behind it as is. Sometimes I wish we could give regular members a sort-of ride-along like the cops do so people could understand exactly what it's like to be in green or red.
But we can still talk about if we think they are right or wrong surely?
I do think you lot are awesome for taking your own time up moderating this place to keep everything smooth. We should still be able to discuss if we think something is wrong and maybe harmful to the community we have here.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Just out of interest, if someone gets banned, is that permanent? Do they ever get another chance?
Not saying they should, just wondering.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 2:02 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Nine Wrote: (February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Sorry guys. Someone starting a thread about the rules doesn't mean they're debatable. The 30/30 rule is there for a reason, and while it's imperfect, I stand behind it as is. Sometimes I wish we could give regular members a sort-of ride-along like the cops do so people could understand exactly what it's like to be in green or red.
But we can still talk about if we think they are right or wrong surely?
I do think you lot are awesome for taking your own time up moderating this place to keep everything smooth. We should still be able to discuss if we think something is wrong and maybe harmful to the community we have here.
Of course you can. I didn't say you couldn't.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 2:05 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 1:57 pm)robvalue Wrote: Just out of interest, if someone gets banned, is that permanent? Do they ever get another chance?
Not saying they should, just wondering.
Sometimes there is discussion about letting a banned member back. Since I've been a mod, we haven't let anyone back in, but I find that once members are banned, they rarely want to come back enough to jump through hoops to get here- and when they do, they usually create sock accounts. Once that happens, they have absolutely no chance.
|
