Oguma Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Alot of those topics were jokes to begin with >.> True, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 They didn't really annoy me, but I do agree that they were getting out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufasa Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 (edited) Basically ATTN topics tended to call someone out and cause a bunch of flaming to happen, which is why we're banning them. That has nothing to do with the topic title though. There have been plenty of topics that have been meant to call out or spite another member. And though some of the ATTN topics could be transferred to PM, some can not. Or, sometimes they are about a certain issue that may need more than one person's opinion and have it be open to several people. IT's not the topic itself that bothers me, it's the honking dickheads who say: "This is a stupid topic." that piss me off. I don't understand why people can't just ignore topics that they don't want to be a part of. It's a simple concept. A perfect example of what I mean: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?...c=8641&st=0 Edited November 15, 2008 by Lyle Dayek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 What was personally offensive or annoying about this specific kind of topic? They weren't the source of flame, that was the people making the specific topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Rabbit Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Well I think the point was that it happened in those topics alot. Get rid of the topics, get rid of the headaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLSothe Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Hmm, the fact that you could make an ATTN topic was one of my favorite things about Serenes...Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Okay, just to point something out to people. I do NOT think this means that any confrontational post is subject to a rule violation. If a topic about a site update is made, it's obvious that it has to address the whole forum. Also if someone makes a topic saying something like, "I love you all," but doesn't make it an "ATTN," topic, or make a title meant to address anyone, or the entire board, it's NOT a violation. Also any confrontational post is NOT a violation, that would mean if ANYONE disagreed with anyone else and said so, that it would be warn worthy. That would be like this: Person 1: "I like Barrack Obama, I think he's a good president." Person 2: "I disagree, I think McCain would have been a better president." That, although it's targeting the person above them, is NOT a violation, it's a disagreement. I can already foresee people using this misinterpretation of the rule to get topics they dislike closed, and people they dislike warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyosua Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 You can disagree, as long as you don't RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEG about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 You can disagree, as long as you don't RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEG about it. I'm just stating what I did because I foresee people using the loopholes in the new rule to give reasons to report people out of spite or disliking something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masu Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 You can disagree, as long as you don't RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEG about it. I HAZ RAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGG JYO! IMMA KEEL YOU! (obviously a joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Good, I am glad ATTN topics are banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) How about if said person has a full PM box, doesn't go to the chat, or doesn't have IM info up? Edited November 17, 2008 by Rei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 How about if said person has a full PM box, doesn't go to the chat, or doesn't have IM info up? Then they should delete the old PMs in their PM box. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 You could still leave a message on his or her profile page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Will we have to take action against the ATTN mods user? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyosua Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Nah, they're just being an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Then they should delete the old PMs in their PM box. Simple. Well, if they're new or don't realize it, or whatever. Though I dunno if it shows "PM Box full" on the index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Well, if they're new or don't realize it, or whatever. Though I dunno if it shows "PM Box full" on the index. I wouldn't exactly expect someone new to have 500 PMs in their inbox and I'm sure someone would notice that bar that would say "100% full". ^^ Edited November 17, 2008 by Fireman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Well, if they're new or don't realize it, or whatever. Though I dunno if it shows "PM Box full" on the index. It does. With a big fat exclamation mark, at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral "Bull" Halsey Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) What if it's something like this? Would it be acceptable? Edited November 17, 2008 by 安室 奈美恵 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Will we have to take action against the ATTN mods user? That's just Thunk being Thunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 What about topics that reintroduce a user to the forum? I don't mean to snitch or nothing, but technically, that topic made for Shad when he came back was confrontational. Yet, it had no flaming, it had no spam, and if you thought it was annoying, there is something wrong with you. I think mods and admins need to show good judgement instead of autolocking every single topic that has another member's name in the title or opening post. Basically, you're destroying part of our interaction with other members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyosua Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 That's fine saying WELCOME BACK SO AND SO But saying "Hey Lyle. Don't you think this rule is stupid lulz?" isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufasa Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 That's fine saying WELCOME BACK SO AND SOBut saying "Hey Lyle. Don't you think this rule is stupid lulz?" isn't. I think ATTN topics should still be allowed, but you're right about stupid little topics like that. But if I were to make an ATTN topic to address a certain issue or have a discussion with people, I think that would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 That wasn't my complete point though. The point is that this rule is too easily loopholed and broken to be enforced, so why make it a rule at all? For example, people can mask the title to make it not look confrontational, but then say something about someone else in the opening post. Plus, I don't want the higher ups going "Oh my god! This topic is directed at another user or a group of users! We must lock the topic even though we don't understand what it is about!" A lot of fun moments are killed this way. I believe they should be fairly assessing these type of topics instead of closing their eyes and clicking the lock button. A few ATTN topics do deserve to be locked, but most are just harmless and are simply a joke, which applies to all topics confrontational or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts