Replacing Statuses

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

This just feels similar to the thread about controversial statuses, where even though the current rules make something explicitly clear, we have to double down on it by making it more clear that this is a problem.

 

Giving the site a simpler rulebook means nothing when people want to abuse loopholes around those rules. It's not that the rules are "arbitrary", it's that the rules need to cover as many specific circumstances as necessary to prevent that loophole abuse.

what's the abusive loophole in question?

[Phantom Roxas]

what's the abusive loophole in question?

 

Here:

As I already mentioned, some members were abusing this by posting stuff that was otherwise against the rules (i.e. causing drama). Granted, if we don't see it (or if someone doesn't screenshot / report it), then you won't get penalized. 

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with deleting/reposting, but make sure you have a good reason for doing so and don't abuse the privilege. 

 

To focus on stuff that you haven't already stated, the abusive loophole in question is people posting stuff against the rules to cause drama.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Here:

 

To focus on stuff that you haven't already stated, the abusive loophole in question is people posting stuff against the rules to cause drama.

except the current rules don't stop this.

 

I could post a status that breaks every rule possible, then delete it. The rule in question only comes into play if I wanted to post another status after deleting the first.

 

To fix this "loophole" the ability to delete statuses would need to be removed completely. If that's the way we're gonna go, then sure, but this just limits people for no benefit.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Black warned me for posting about YGO spoilers that were 11 minutes in between not the allocated 15. That kinda thing needs to die

Not faulting Josh, he's just following the rules as a impartial judge should. But the rule is overly broad

[Phantom Roxas]

Black warned me for posting about YGO spoilers that were 11 minutes in between not the allocated 15. That kinda thing needs to die

Not faulting Josh, he's just following the rules as a impartial judge should. But the rule is overly broad

 

If you're warned for breaking a rule, maybe you should be following that rule instead of calling for the rule itself to die.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

So, beyond the bit I already explained the false reasoning of, what reason is there for this rule to exist at all?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you're warned for breaking a rule, maybe you should be following that rule instead of calling for the rule itself to die.

It'll let you find the circular logic in your sentence........

[Phantom Roxas]

It'll let you find the circular logic in your sentence........

 

I think you missed the point.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think you missed the point.

There isn't really a point if you build it using circular reasoning.

 

We're trying to say this funking rule is dumb, and is like using a nuke to kill a rat (mod evasion statuses).

 

You're responding by telling us to shut up and follow the rule, why? Because it's a rule. I was trying to give an example of how audacious this situation is, and you've once again, missed the forest for a tree

[Phantom Roxas]

Black warning you because you posted spoilers too early isn't even what this thread is about, so could you please offer a more relevant example? The rules aren't nukes aimed to kill you, and I'm not telling you to follow the rule solely because it's a rule. It's just difficult to sympathize with your position when your argument is "I was warned for this, and the rule must be abolished." It makes your argument seem less like a critique of any flaws in the rule, and instead seems to merely be lashing out for getting punished.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Black warning you because you posted spoilers too early isn't even what this thread is about, so could you please offer a more relevant example? The rules aren't nukes aimed to kill you, and I'm not telling you to follow the rule solely because it's a rule. It's just difficult to sympathize with your position when your argument is "I was warned for this, and the rule must be abolished." It makes your argument seem less like a critique of any flaws in the rule, and instead seems to merely be lashing out for getting punished.

Then stop beating off to your hatred of winter and talk about the rule itself.

 

The rule serves no purpose. You listed off one thing, but once I responded you ignored the part of the conversation that actually matters and continued fighting. And winter does have a point. Just because he was warned for something doesn't invalidate any critique he has of it. That's the same mindset that got things as bad as they were last year.

[Phantom Roxas]

except the current rules don't stop this.

 

I could post a status that breaks every rule possible, then delete it. The rule in question only comes into play if I wanted to post another status after deleting the first.

 

To fix this "loophole" the ability to delete statuses would need to be removed completely. If that's the way we're gonna go, then sure, but this just limits people for no benefit.

 

Again, I say this is reminding me about the controversial status thread, because the issue is that you would have gone out of your way to post such an egregious status in the first place. You don't fix the loophole by preventing users from deleting statuses, but by addressing that you broke the rules and then swept it under the rug as if that means it didn't happen.

 

At that point, I wouldn't say that the user shouldn't be punished for replacing their status; they should be punished because the initial status was inappropriate to begin with. The rule against replacing a status is more about responding to how you could abuse a feature to supplement your other violations.

 

Basically, when you're already breaking every other rule, do you seriously think that sweeping it under the rug with a new status would be helping your case?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Again, I say this is reminding me about the controversial status thread, because the issue is that you would have gone out of your way to post such an egregious status in the first place. You don't fix the loophole by preventing users from deleting statuses, but by addressing that you broke the rules and then swept it under the rug as if that means it didn't happen.

 

At that point, I wouldn't say that the user shouldn't be punished for replacing their status; they should be punished because the initial status was inappropriate to begin with. The rule against replacing a status is more about responding to how you could abuse a feature to supplement your other violations.

 

Basically, when you're already breaking every other rule, do you seriously think that sweeping it under the rug with a new status would be helping your case?

I'm so confused, I made one YGO related status and replaced it with another YGO related statues 11 minutes later, where is the controversy there

 

In the cont statues thread, I noted I posted a status and asked to be warned for it, because I felt it was important enough to be said even if I got slapped for it. 2 different incidents 

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I'm so confused, I made one YGO related status and replaced it with another YGO related statues 11 minutes later, where is the controversy there

 

In the cont statues thread, I noted I posted a status and asked to be warned for it, because I felt it was important enough to be said even if I got slapped for it. 2 different incidents 

 

First one was likely with you not waiting 4 more minutes to make that second status. Talk to Black if you have a concern with it because rest of the team doesn't know what the contents of said status are.

 

15 minutes mean 15 minutes; had you waited a little longer to post it, perhaps you wouldn't have received WP for that particular case.

 

====

As far as I know from the rest of the team regarding the issues brought up in this thread. 

 

Deleting statuses if mispost due to personal error / autocorrect acting up: There should be no problem with you guys doing this if it happens, though you should only have to repost it once with error fixed (unless autocorrect on mobile or whatever is really bad).

 

For the most part, we're generally in agreement about this.

 

Deleting statuses to make new ones about an entirely different topic: At the time of writing, the rest of the team has not yet weighed in on how they feel about the matter (least in specifics, such as whether they disapprove of the idea or if they're fine with it, should the 15 minute period still apply). 

 

There should not be any issue with you doing this, though there shouldn't be many cases where you need to do it, unless it's urgent. Remember, you need to share the status bar; it's not just there solely for one person to always have a status on main page. 

 

[Again, the above statement is just my take on the matter and does not represent the views of the team as a whole.]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not complaining, trying to give an example of non-malicious violation

[Phantom Roxas]

Sorry for getting aggressive here. Given Sakura's statement, I'd rather just wait for the rest of the team to chime in, and hopefully soon to wrap up this issue.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

As far as the matter is concerned right now, here's what the team (well, 5 of us anyway overall) has decided on after almost 3 weeks since last post. 

 

1. The rule that forbids reposting the same status because of typos (either by your own accord or that of autocorrect) will be repealed.

 

I already mentioned on previous page that we're all okay with this as a whole. (As far as our consensus goes, no dissension on this part)

 

Just make sure you do it right the second time, and that autocorrect / human error didn't kick in again. You shouldn't have to redo it more than once in most cases.

 

2. Permitting the deletion of statuses for DIFFERENT ones is on hold.

 

This came up with some of the team and was already noted beforehand, but there is the possibility for abuse, even with the rules that are supposed to address them. One concern is that deleting it for something else is technically "cheating" the 15 minute period between statuses.

 

Unless the matter is extremely important, you shouldn't have to delete your previous status for something else. 

 

This doesn't mean we will not permit you to do this at a later time, pending further discussion on the matter addressing abuse cases.

 

====

At the end of the day, we actually need to enforce the rules on the status bar, but really does prove difficult to when some of us either don't care about the status bar or do not reply in a timely manner so we can resolve the matters regarding it sooner.

 

But yeah, you guys can now delete statuses due to typos / autocorrect being dumb, but please make sure you double-check it when you repost it again.