Random Humorous Things - A Light-Hearted Thread

[Angrboda]

Tyrants!

[The Valkyrie]

Tyrants!

You called?

[A. Secular Human]

Tyrants!  

You called?

I had to look up "Cluedo".

It was as I suspected.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Tyrants!  

That’s offensive!! The proper term is ‘autocratic despots’.

Boru

[pocaracas]

This is getting way too off topic for this thread... perhaps you guys can fork this to some other thread?

I’m confused. You seem to want 1) the 30/30 rule to be more efficient and effective, 2) the 30/30 rule to be enforced, but with using other rules to achieve the same results, and 3) the 30/30 rule to only be applied in some threads and not others. Let’s do these one at a time.

Merely giving options.
Personally, I think the rule in unnecessary, but if you deem it necessary, then it should be automated.

1. I’m not a computer guy, but I imagine automating the rule is doable and probably not difficult. But it would actively make things less efficient than doing it manually. When some makes a post that gets caught in our spam filter and doesn’t show up on the boards, the user tries to repost (often several times), which requires Staff to take action on each and every rejected post. Then, the user either hits up the Questions for Staff forum wanting to know why their posts aren’t posting, or they PM every Staff member with the same question. I can’t imagine that an automated 30/30 rule would be any different.

Yeah, automatically replacing the img tag with a mod warning, potentially containing a link to the rules page might be more understandable than blocking the whole post like you do with spam content.

2. Since new users don’t seem to understand the 30/30 rule, I can only surmise that they haven’t read ANY of the rules. What difference does it make if a post is bounced for one rule or another?

Hence the suggestion to include that usual warning you guys put in the automagically edited post.

3. Other than the Adult section, we simply cannot have different rules for different parts of the Forum. That would be so unwieldy as to make ANY moderation all but impossible.

If it's all done manually and it's a single rule, then meh...

And no, 30 days/30 posts isn’t too long to have new members wait. Each and every active member here (apart from a couple of newbies) managed to do it. You yourself were subject to this rule when you joined up, and here you are - nearly 12 years and 20K posts later. If you didn’t leave in a huff over the 30/30 rule, why would you suspect that other people would?

Boru

Perhaps when I came along, all I wanted was to write stuff and didn't care about the images.
But everytime I see that warning about images on a thread like this one that I think, "oh come on guys, what is the point??"
(and it's been such a rare occurrence that it's taken me until now to actually say something about it)

You already have an automated spam filter effectively blocking posts that are spammy (thank you for remindng me about it), so the spam excuse is a bit moot already.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is getting way too off topic for this thread... perhaps you guys can fork this to some other thread?

I’m confused. You seem to want 1) the 30/30 rule to be more efficient and effective, 2) the 30/30 rule to be enforced, but with using other rules to achieve the same results, and 3) the 30/30 rule to only be applied in some threads and not others. Let’s do these one at a time.

Merely giving options.
Personally, I think the rule in unnecessary, but if you deem it necessary, then it should be automated.

1. I’m not a computer guy, but I imagine automating the rule is doable and probably not difficult. But it would actively make things less efficient than doing it manually. When some makes a post that gets caught in our spam filter and doesn’t show up on the boards, the user tries to repost (often several times), which requires Staff to take action on each and every rejected post. Then, the user either hits up the Questions for Staff forum wanting to know why their posts aren’t posting, or they PM every Staff member with the same question. I can’t imagine that an automated 30/30 rule would be any different.

Yeah, automatically replacing the img tag with a mod warning, potentially containing a link to the rules page might be more understandable than blocking the whole post like you do with spam content.

2. Since new users don’t seem to understand the 30/30 rule, I can only surmise that they haven’t read ANY of the rules. What difference does it make if a post is bounced for one rule or another?

Hence the suggestion to include that usual warning you guys put in the automagically edited post.

3. Other than the Adult section, we simply cannot have different rules for different parts of the Forum. That would be so unwieldy as to make ANY moderation all but impossible.

If it's all done manually and it's a single rule, then meh...

And no, 30 days/30 posts isn’t too long to have new members wait. Each and every active member here (apart from a couple of newbies) managed to do it. You yourself were subject to this rule when you joined up, and here you are - nearly 12 years and 20K posts later. If you didn’t leave in a huff over the 30/30 rule, why would you suspect that other people would?

Boru

Perhaps when I came along, all I wanted was to write stuff and didn't care about the images.
But everytime I see that warning about images on a thread like this one that I think, "oh come on guys, what is the point??"
(and it's been such a rare occurrence that it's taken me until now to actually say something about it)

You already have an automated spam filter effectively blocking posts that are spammy (thank you for remindng me about it), so the spam excuse is a bit moot already.

Our spam filter is not 100%. Sometimes spam gets through, sometimes it blocks things that aren’t spam.

Boru

[pocaracas]

Our spam filter is not 100%. Sometimes spam gets through, sometimes it blocks things that aren’t spam.

Boru

Spam filters are notoriously more complex than a simple parse and replace under the equally simple condition of user "age" lower than 30 days and post count lower than 30.

[arewethereyet]

Making the 30/30 rule fully automated wouldn't be all that helpful for staff.

For one thing, it's not that big a deal to handle manually. It's good for someone on staff to see all posts/new posters.

For another thing, anyone who decides to immediately break a rule gives us a heads up that they need to be monitored for a time.

Often the people who show us and immediately break the 30/30 rule already know the rule because they have been here before and been banned...read - sock.

[Silver]

Curious, what's the second thirty in that fraction? I get the first thirty is a month.

[arewethereyet]

Thirty days and thirty posts.