Mod warning post 55, 92, or and 1346

the_syco

Hi,
I was wondering could you put the warnings into the first post, or a link to the warnings in the first post, as opposed to having to look for the warnings?

Good idea..


A quick way around would be to divide post number by your posts per page..
So 1346/15 for me = 89.7

Just add &page=90 to the address bar and it will jump to the page with that post.


I've never had to do this though because no one tells me what to do :cool:

Doctor DooM

I always wonders why mods don't edit the first post myself. I always do. *Shrugs*

Dord

Yeah I never got that. Another trick I use is to go back and find a post of mine older than the first post, copy it and move it over to the new thread. Then you can edit it and it looks like the mod has posted first with the warnings.

Star Lord

the_syco wrote: »

Hi,
I was wondering could you put the warnings into the first post, or a link to the warnings in the first post, as opposed to having to look for the warnings?

Personally, I find that on-thread warnings tend to be directed to particular posts/posters in the specific thread, rather than aimed at a theme or general type of posting. Where they relate to the thread in general, then I would put the warning in the first post.

nesf

Well, since you should read a thread fully before replying one should come across the warnings naturally...

TouchingVirus

nesf wrote: »

Well, since you should read a thread fully before replying one should come across the warnings naturally...

I completely disagree with this point. There are some simply MASSIVE threads here on boards.ie, and the suggestion that one should read those in their entirety before commenting on it is ridiculous - for example, you should not have to read through hundreds of opinions on a certain issue before being allowed to post your own one, all you need to read is the first post which asked a question or engaged you.

AckwelFoley

nesf wrote: »

Well, since you should read a thread fully before replying one should come across the warnings naturally...

Im in full disagreement with you there.

OP: Do you like choclate cake?

I dont need to read 20 pages of "nyom nyom cake" to have an answer.

If you even take a more serious answer, somewhat, for example, the Lisbon 2 treaty, The OP makes a thread, askes a question perhaps - after 20 pages the thread can take a slightly different direction of sorts and be on a debate of a specific part of the treaty, i would assume however that, being new to the thread, i would be still entitled to address the OP initial post?


mmm... cake.. nyom nyom nyom

nesf

snyper wrote: »

If you even take a more serious answer, somewhat, for example, the Lisbon 2 treaty, The OP makes a thread, askes a question perhaps - after 20 pages the thread can take a slightly different direction of sorts and be on a debate of a specific part of the treaty, i would assume however that, being new to the thread, i would be still entitled to address the OP initial post?

And what's the point of making the same point that two other people have already made in the 20 page thread?

AckwelFoley

nesf wrote: »

And what's the point of making the same point that two other people have already made in the 20 page thread?

...back to te cake analogy.. there is only a limited number of points to a discussion on do you like cake? Yes i do, no i dont, yes, but it gives me gas. We, i think are all entitled to express our opinion with whatever anecdote that may be attached to our opinion.

TouchingVirus

nesf wrote: »

And what's the point of making the same point that two other people have already made in the 20 page thread?

It lends weight to an opinion or a point if more people make it. For example, most forms of change would never come about if one person made a point and nobody else bothered to say they agreed or made the same point. It's a discussion forum, people talk about things. It doesn't or shouldn't matter that they mention points or ideas that have been talked about before.

bonkey

TouchingVirus wrote: »

It lends weight to an opinion or a point if more people make it.

And if that point is wrong, and has already been corrected?

It doesn't or shouldn't matter that they mention points or ideas that have been talked about before.

Again....what if the point or idea is wrong, false, etc. and has already been addressed and corrected? What, exactly, does it gain for someone to add in the same canard once more?

While I don't necessarily agree that someone should read the entire thread in each and every situation before posting, I do think it should be encouraged to at least read the most recent posts before posting, to see whether or not you're contributing to the ongoing discussion or simply disrupting it to make your own point.

AckwelFoley

bonkey wrote: »

And if that point is wrong, and has already been corrected?

You cant really correct a personal opinion

I support the government

You dont.

We can argue and debate until the preverbial cow comes home, we wont agree.

What we can agree on however is we are derailing this thread to a course that wasnt intended.

Can the next poster not comment on the OP's point about mod warnings or do they have to engage in the debate we are having now?

TouchingVirus

bonkey wrote: »

And if that point is wrong, and has already been corrected?

So you should read the most recent posts and determine if you're making a contribution. The thread is 100 pages long, the point you're about to mention was last mentioned on page 43, and corrected on page 44. You would fall victim to your own scenario were you to only read the most recent posts.

I follow the recent posts rule myself, I would have missed many corrections to my line of thought had I not posted what I was thinking only to have somebody correct me on it. The time users have on boards.ie is limited, there are no abridged versions of topics here on boards, so when something is 25+ pages long a call has to be made. I think the recent posts rule is a good rule of thumb, nobody wants a derailing post in the middle of a discussion that as since moved on. Expecting people to read through every post of the thread is a solution, but a very impractical one.

You can join into a conversation ITRW fairly handy by listening to the last few exchanges, but sometimes you'll put your foot in it by rehashing old things. But you wouldn't bother joining in if you knew you had to get through 2 hours of past exchanges before being allowed join in. Same goes for boards..

This seems to be getting rather off topic. A small bit of work by a mod editing the first post for the thread-wide warning will only serve to promote activity on the forum whilst informing everybody to obey whatever rule the warning was about whereas the insistence to read all pages of a thread before posting will reduce it as more time is spent reading old posts.

nesf

We have serious problems in Politics for repeating the same statements or points over and over in threads where they've already been shown to be false, misleading or based on incomplete information.

That's why we're bringing this up! Adding mod warnings to the first post only encourages this kind of behaviour where people butt into long running conversations to say the same thing that was thrashed out and settled 20 pages back.

TouchingVirus

nesf wrote: »

We have serious problems in Politics for repeating the same statements or points over and over in threads where they've already been shown to be false, misleading or based on incomplete information.

That's why we're bringing this up! Adding mod warnings to the first post only encourages this kind of behaviour where people butt into long running conversations to say the same thing that was thrashed out and settled 20 pages back.

Don't get me wrong nesf, I agree with you on the repeating things proven to be wrong, misleading or otherwise incorrect. I had a pain in my face at the budget thread repeating stuff about the cuts in Social Welfare that eventually I just gave up answering questions.

By editing the thread title to say there was a mod warning on post X it doesn't really stop people from doing that. There are many people who will skip to the point in the thread where the warning is, read it, check if it applies to what they were going to say and if it doesnt they'll post away. I find myself firmly within that category of user. I don't think I'm alone. So it'd be easier to pop it into the first post for people like me. Not putting it in the first post isn't going to make me read the whole thread.

copacetic

nesf wrote: »

That's why we're bringing this up! Adding mod warnings to the first post only encourages this kind of behaviour where people butt into long running conversations to say the same thing that was thrashed out and settled 20 pages back.

on the soccer forum for example there are threads 100s of pages long with pages of posts a day, posting warnings somewhere in the middle of them and editing the thread title doesn't make sense.

As for posting warnings in the first post 'encouraging' that behaviour, couldn't disagree more. People will post whatever they want, one way they will likely see the warning, the other way the chances are they won't.

nesf

TouchingVirus wrote: »

So it'd be easier to pop it into the first post for people like me. Not putting it in the first post isn't going to make me read the whole thread.

Users like yourself aren't the problem. I just see the proposal as adding more overhead and more work for mods with little real value. Sometimes mods literally just have enough freetime to check a reported post and need to deal with it as quickly as possible, adding an extra layer of stuff to do wouldn't be welcome really.

Rev. BlueJeans

In fairness, there's more workload in clicking reply to-adding a mod note-and then going back to the title to edit, than there is in simply editing the OP.

If people are to refrain from posting because it's possibly been said before, then we'd all run out of things to say very quickly. Most thread exchanges are in the form of conversations between people who may or may not have interacted earlier in the thread, or elsewhere. Should they not have a conversation because one, the other, or neither had it earlier?

the_syco

bonkey wrote: »

While I don't necessarily agree that someone should read the entire thread in each and every situation before posting, I do think it should be encouraged to at least read the most recent posts before posting, to see whether or not you're contributing to the ongoing discussion or simply disrupting it to make your own point.

Myself, I'd read the last two pages.

=-=

The mod may have already edited the title of the thread. Putting a link to said warning would be nice.

Picking a random thread here:
Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread [mod warning post #9254,#11145 (see OP)]And you'll see one of the warnings has been linked in the thread. Soccer mods are great for this, but some other forums prefer you to look. I sometimes take 2 minutes to hunt down the 3 posts they refer to, or somethimes I just ignore them, and start posting.

**Timbuk2**

Putting the mod warning in the first post isn't an ideal solution either, but it is still much better than 'Mod warning Post #2252' (actual thread in Soccer, afaik).

An ideal solution would be to have a 'sticky post' that stays on top of each page, or maybe after the last post posted. That way posters really couldn't miss it.

If this wasn't possible, it could be accomplised in possibly a different way. If a mod is making a warning, they could change the date of their post to some date way in the future (e.g. 1/9/2011) and that way it would always appear last. I'm not sure if mods can edit the date of posts, but maybe the Dev team could alter it so they are able to do this.