|
Post by Pitch on Apr 4, 2009 22:06:47 GMT -5
/me feels bad now.. Err.. yeah, I was mostly just kidding around/poking fun about contractions and such. I'm aware of the content part of the rule too. (though I can't say I've ever noticed any 5-word posts noted) Sorry to have made you take up so much time there. ( and I thought I wasn't being subtle enough...) And, it's a shame, but you're probably right about the 1337-speak rule. ah well. I still have yet to get the best ending, but I've set it aside for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Santa Melty on Apr 4, 2009 22:29:55 GMT -5
Eh, no problem. Honestly, the short post rule has probably raised more issues and misunderstandings than any other rule I can think of, both amongst the staff and the members, so some kind of explanation was plenty merited, I think. Would have probably come up in a thread like this anyway.
Though it does seem to be true that not a lot of posts that meet the word requirement but are still lacking content-wise seem to get noted. In theory, many 5- or 6-word posts around here probably should have been marked as infractions. They may have been overlooked simply to avoid unnecessary conflicts, seeing as how, like I’ve said, we get a whole lot of misunderstandings about that rule. I’m not actively patrolling around here much though, so I can’t personally say a lot on that subject. o.o
Also: Yeah. As it turns out, I’m not fantastic at catching subtleties in written form. You can ask Chiz; we had a brief discussion just recently regarding the varying levels of ambiguity allowed by the English language and my inability to recognize them.
Kind of painful that it should come up again so soon, actually. I'm losing my edge. DX
|
|
MayImilae
Zakobon
Badgeless, and proud of it!
Posts: 145
|
Post by MayImilae on Apr 5, 2009 3:35:42 GMT -5
I have a question. More a nostalgic curiosity really. Anyone on here remember old MMC? Megaman Community? ...anyone? It was just the biggest Megaman forum on the net for a year or so. Still no? Ok, moving on. I was a mod there for a while. MMC was FLOODED with insane amounts of traffic from all over the megaman fansite world, but it had a huge problem: Grammar. The kind of bad grammar and spelling that made 1337 seem tolerable. Us mods tried to turn the tide and turn them into at least reasonable posters, but it was not easy. I gave out 50 infractions a day for a while. The errors we got varied alot.
Ihadpeoplethatrefusedtoputspacesintotheirwords. Reallygotoldtryingtosortthesethingsout.
more common though was a complete lack of punctuation and capitalization like this that was several sentences can't tell well that's because there is no way to tell now imagine an entire post of nothing but this awful isn't it and these people were violent too they couldn't see how this was annoying and refused to change and if you think this was hard to read combine it with a ton of grammar errors leetspeak and such
The main issue though was tons of people who typed with such bad spelling and grammar it was unreadable. Some were willing to change when asked to, but it was hard when the admin there readily practiced such things...
We had FIERY debates on the issue among the staff and in the forum itself on what was reasonable and what wasn't. Many on the forum were so committed to talk in incoherent ways that they would try to get "revenge" if we said the slightest thing against them; our one and only porn upload was based on that. So, here is my curiosity: how do you guys approach grammar, spelling, and other coherency issues and how do you enforce it? I believe the rule below will cover it, but it doesn't specify.
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Apr 5, 2009 9:39:48 GMT -5
Ihadpeoplethatrefusedtoputspacesintotheirwords. Reallygotoldtryingtosortthesethingsout. I sometimes do this here just to imply that what I've said is meant to be read very quickly. Also, I do remember the MegaMan Community Forums. Wow... that was a while ago, it feels like. Now I feel old.. Finally, NOT A STAFF ANSWER: Most of the grammatical infractions you've mentioned seem to involve someone’s intentional misuse of the language, against which rules exist and are enforced here. (Of course there are always exceptions, where it is OK to be incoherent) But, from what I've seen, this isn't often an issue — or at least, not nearly as frequently an issue as you'd experienced over at MMC. And anyone who happens to post in such a way, either doesn't stick around very long, or ends up picking up some good grammar during his stay. But, bottom line, I think so long as a user makes an apparent effort to be basically coherent, he's in the clear. Un-intentional misuse of language is excusable. No one expects users to go out and read and memorize Strunk and White or anything like that. I think the rules used to have something to that effect in them, but I couldn't find it any more. I don't think I've ever seen a post noted for horrendously bad grammar, but I'd imagine enforcement of the grammar rule involves having a post noted — possibly followed up with a nice PM (or a post in the thread) to let the user know, just like just about every other rule.
|
|
|
Post by Chiz on Apr 17, 2009 9:32:39 GMT -5
Figured I should post here and give my say on a few issues, to make them known, to keep this thread in the spotlight, and to remind people that while I'm not incredibly active as of late (due to other, non-MMLS commitments), I'm still very much alive and do occasionally browse when I get a few minutes. Note: Heavily abbreviated quotes to save on space + emphasize the important. To my knowledge, no meaning is changed.I has a question: How does the “Five words or more per post” rule apply to contractions? Is a contraction considered 1¹⁄ 2 words? Two words? Just one? [...] What about acronyms? [...] Are acronyms written out in full interpreted backward, as the acronym itself, and treated as a single word? [...] Might I suggest interpreting {net,chat,1337}-speak as negating real words in terms of a post's word count? (such that one would need at least five more real words in his post than words written in {net,chat,1337}-speak to satisfy the rule: i.e., (real-words ≥ (fake-words+5))) Could posts with a hypothetically negative word count be double noted? Regarding acronyms and contractions, I honestly think you’d end up getting a slightly different response from all the moderators. [...] Therefore, if you’re relying on contractions or acronyms to make the 5-word minimum, there’s a very good chance that someone or other on the staff will mark it as an infraction. [...] But there’s a little more to it than just the raw word count. Anything clearly below that 5-word minimum is automatically marked, but [...] the 5-word rule is really in place as an indirect, simple, empirical way of gauging CONTENT, not length. [Members] have two choices: pad with filler, or elaborate on their thoughts. If you elaborate on your thoughts, even minimally, you can easily fly past that 5-word requirement. [...] you’re easily in the clear. Alternatively, if you simply pad, you’ll probably end up just scraping by. The latter, although fulfilling the 5-word portion of the requirement, can STILL be marked as a “short post”, as it doesn’t meet the underlying obligation for content. We could explicitly detail exactly what an abbreviation, compound, et cetera counts as word-count wise, but generally, as a rule of thumb, if you find yourself fretting over such issues like what a compound word is worth word-count wise just to see if you meet the minimum word requirement, you’ll probably end up getting marked anyway for the content side of the rule.This is basically it right here. The short post rule (also the "4-word" or "5-word" rules, depending on the era we're talking about) have always been a gauge of content versus posting for the sake of posting. Originally I believe this was in place to discourage people from posting for the sake of increasing their post count rapidly, but we kept the rule even during the "countless" era because we've always wanted to encourage intelligence, originality, and stimulating discussion and debate. The problem is, we have little means to give positive reinforcement for those who took the time to speak openly and maturely about their opinions and thoughts, and while MLT and I did, for a short time, try to devise a system that would provide a more accurate community participation indicator, ultimately it was shelved due to complexity and difficulties to coordinate rolling the project out for a trial run. So, our only option left would be negative reinforcement to those who perpetually or actively refuse to contribute meaningful thought. In my opinion, we've always tried to be fair and just on the issue. We can't expect a wall of text for every last post - it would be unreasonable. We also can't expect that no post would ever justifiably be short. If the situation calls for a laconic or brief post, then by all means, do so. Even if you get nailed for it, you have the right to discuss this with the admin. You've always had this right. If you ever got an official warning in the last 18 months and actually read it completely, you would know you had this right. I cannot stress this enough. If you believe you were in the right, and we warn you, and you do not enact your invitation to discuss this with the admin, ultimately we can't be faulted for not being privy to your opinions and justifications on the issue, and of course the infraction will then stay on record. Furthermore, while 'short posts' are probably one of the infractions we give out the most (2nd only to double posts, most likely) the actual impact of a single or two short posts over the span of a 2-3 months is negligible at best. We do not ban people over a single infraction or even 2 if they're innocent mistakes or unusual/uncommon incidents. It's just not ethical (or worth the effort, for that matter) to be that totalitarian on an internet forum of all places. EDIT: And in those instances where we note something and don't send you a warning, it's so inconsequential that we really didn't see a need to bother you with it (or that its really outdated and it would be rather pointless bringing it up that long after the fact). Really. If no one on the admin team cares that much about the infraction, there's almost no way you're going to be bothered over it in the future. As I've said many times before, we're all human here, folks. Except maybe JMCNow, as for the suggestion that we subtract words from the total word count for 1337sp34k and the like (now this is all my opinion, mind you), I don’t think it’d work out. Might improve content, but really, there’ve been a ton of issues already just concerning the 5-word minimum as it is. [...] placing more emphasis on length requirements might just obscure that fact further. Indeed. And again, like with short posts, I'm willing to entertain and even support the notion that there are times and places for...let's go with "non-standard English". To penalize those legitimate uses (no matter how few they are) in an effort to give perpetual short post offenders more 'opportunities' to be penalized is futile at best. If the individual truly has problems with this sort of thing and refuses to hold himself to a higher standard, he's likely to be shunned or banned regardless of if he has 5 infractions of 500. Besides, we already have a rule which fits this perfectly:Right there in blue and black. "Non-Standard English" is forbidden, with exception for justifiable reasons, which explicitly exclude laziness. Ihadpeoplethatrefusedtoputspacesintotheirwords. Reallygotoldtryingtosortthesethingsout. more common though was a complete lack of punctuation and capitalization like this that was several sentences can't tell well that's because there is no way to tell now imagine an entire post of nothing but this awful isn't it and these people were violent too they couldn't see how this was annoying and refused to change and if you think this was hard to read combine it with a ton of grammar errors leetspeak and such Case in point... Most of the grammatical infractions you've mentioned seem to involve someone’s intentional misuse of the language, against which rules exist and are enforced here. (Of course there are always exceptions, where it is OK to be incoherent) But, from what I've seen, this isn't often an issue — or at least, not nearly as frequently an issue as you'd experienced over at MMC. And anyone who happens to post in such a way, either doesn't stick around very long, or ends up picking up some good grammar during his stay. But, bottom line, I think so long as a user makes an apparent effort to be basically coherent, he's in the clear. Un-intentional misuse of language is excusable. Typos happen. Jumbled thoughts that don't quite translate well to the fingers happen. Tiredness happens. English as a 2nd language happens. So long as the member is, in good faith, making an effort to be understandable, makes a valid effort to be understandable the majority of the time, or is making a point or demonstration where NSE is warranted, then we have little right to bully the person over the post. To become grammar police and trifle over every little 'teh' and 'liek' is not only unethical, but is an exorbitant waste of efforts and time when larger issues or more pressing matters could be attended to. Considering the amount of paperwork we have to do every time we make a report, it's not something that one would want to do excessively. Similarly, some concessions need to be made in regard to common-place internet acronyms, expressions, and neologisms, which have become ingrained into the very fabric of our online exploits, but language traditionalists might have reservations about them. The point is, for all things, we allow some leeway and breathing room because we're not the wild-eyed drones on the quixotic crusade against the windmills imperfection that we're sometimes made out to be. The problem is, when those individuals cross our threshold for what is an infraction and such, it leaves a much greater mark in our eyes due to those liberties, concessions, compromises and similar that we've worked into our rule system. EDIT: I should add, it's awfully sad when incidents arise where members interpret the rules literally to the letter as opposed to following the spirit of the law. Using technicalities, loopholes, and creative definitions/interpretations only works when the law system is mechanical in nature. We follow the spirit of the law, and deliberation over the agreed course of action when a member exploits the wording of the rules (or lack thereof) is usually very short and generally results in a warning or ban, unless the incident is clearly not covered appropriately by the current rules at all (in which case we may propose rule changes to cover for that sort of incident, which may or may not be retroactive, depending on the severity and the details.)
|
|
Cleveland Rock
Cannam
Disco Mustache Enthusiast
Oh look, it's that guy.
Posts: 328
|
Post by Cleveland Rock on Jan 22, 2010 1:38:28 GMT -5
Tonight, I got in trouble for a four-word post. Apparently, if I had said "are not" instead of "aren't", I wouldn't have broken a rule. That's bullcrap and you know it. I have half a mind to scrap my fan game and leave. Edit: I don't mean to be a jerk, really. I'm just really flustered right now. This is like being pulled over for driving 26 in a 25 MPH zone. ARGH!
|
|
|
Post by mirak on Jan 22, 2010 2:00:30 GMT -5
Lol my case was the same, i typed and abvreviation of two words and got bit by the same guy. But what can we do right? Kiddies got to enjoy their newly found superpowers, with so few active members, i guess it's a MUST to abuse extend control to the fullest, even if the reason for giving an official warning just got turned up an exaggerated notch.
|
|
Cleveland Rock
Cannam
Disco Mustache Enthusiast
Oh look, it's that guy.
Posts: 328
|
Post by Cleveland Rock on Jan 22, 2010 2:02:56 GMT -5
Okay. I had a feeling I wasn't alone…
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jan 22, 2010 2:04:33 GMT -5
Geez, guys...
You need a lot of notes for anything to actually happen to you, so chill out. It's such an easy rule to follow, you really have no reason to complain. =/
|
|
|
Post by mirak on Jan 22, 2010 2:05:15 GMT -5
Hey, Green deleted his post. Huh, i don't see why he did it.
EDIT: LOL now i see why. lolol
|
|
Cleveland Rock
Cannam
Disco Mustache Enthusiast
Oh look, it's that guy.
Posts: 328
|
Post by Cleveland Rock on Jan 22, 2010 2:08:41 GMT -5
It's such an easy rule to follow, you really have no reason to complain. =/ Most forums have rules that are just common sense and apply to just about everywhere on the Internet. Those are easy rules to follow. The above was taken from the Court-Records.net forums. See? That is an easy rule to follow. If I'm making an actual statement, and it happens to be four words long, why should I be treated like a spammer? Ridiculous rules are ridiculous, and I deserve the right to complain about them.
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jan 22, 2010 2:15:21 GMT -5
EDIT:
That was rude. I'm sorry.
The main point is five words is the bare minimum. It's a low bare minimum. It's not hard to post five words. (EDIT 3: It's also not hard to actually read the rules) And again, one note is not a big deal.
EDIT 2:
In this case, you could've perhaps said why things aren't looking good. (?) I had to go there and flip through a few pages of suggestions to see what you were talking about. The statement was kind of vague..
apologies for the many edits. It's hard to fix something when you know people are probably reading it already. >.<
|
|
|
Post by mirak on Jan 22, 2010 2:21:58 GMT -5
You know green, putting aside your pathethic try at trolling (very mature coming from you, i'm impressed), you should know that the punishment is still applied even if you put exactly five words there depending on what these five words say. This is because the administration demands an avobe average standard for intellectual discussion even though that dumb rule is one of the "kid forum" rules, wich as we know, makes a lot of sense, heaven forbid if you complain about it in a thread that's specifically made for discussing said rules. EDIT: Oh, i see you edited your post. Yeah, your newly found dark side was truly formidable, i was shocked and appalled.
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jan 22, 2010 2:28:33 GMT -5
I've made a lot of five word posts, actually. o__o; Never seen one of 'em noted. I'll admit to not being much of a troll, though. That was silly of me. Also it's not the fact that people complain it's that people overreact. For the record, I've complained about the exact same point about this rule myself. They explained it to me in a way that I think makes sense. I just really don't see what's the big deal.
|
|
|
Post by mirak on Jan 22, 2010 2:30:41 GMT -5
They've explained it a lot of times, but people still complain about it. I've yet to see the administration actually listening to the opinion of those who have complained and keep complaining. To be honest, if that rule was disposed of, nothing would happen, but ho ho. Paranoia.
|
|