Mod Warning - Post 2538 (Read before Posting)

theKillerBite

Why do Moderators bother changing the title of megathreads with references to a random post located deep within a thread. Either update the OP or don't bother!!

Orion

Because if just the OP is updated nobody would see it.

fred funk }{

Orion wrote: »

Because if just the OP is updated nobody would see it.

How about having a warning in thread and the op?

I'd say it's very rare someone goes searching for post #1658 for the warning.

Skid X

Orion wrote: »

Because if just the OP is updated nobody would see it.

But what happens hundreds of posts later, when someone joining the thread is expected to work out how far back in the thread the warning post is hidden?

If it's worth changing the thread title, it's worth updating the OP with the warning (as well as in the thread). More people will see it there.

theKillerBite

Orion wrote: »

Because if just the OP is updated nobody would see it.

I doubt anybody has read these warnings:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056715849

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057203435

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056728055

Overheal

If this is a soccer forum problem, have you tried suggesting your case to the soccer mods via PM?

theKillerBite

Overheal wrote: »

If this is a soccer forum problem, have you tried suggesting your case to the soccer mods via PM?

No its an across the boards problem!! I don't even post on the soccer forum, I just went there for a quick example (over 3 on the front page alone).

Here's more from other forums:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055477961&page=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057167720

MugMugs

Orion wrote: »

Because if just the OP is updated nobody would see it.

How do I find post 2358 on touch?

Oryx

Lately a lot of mods are putting warnings in the op.

Orion

MugMugs wrote: »

How do I find post 2358 on touch?

Would a link to the warning post in the op help?

theKillerBite

This is a particularly good example:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055730592

Friend Computer

Orion wrote: »

Would a link to the warning post in the op help?

Why not just put the warning in the OP, then?

r3nu4l

Friend Computer wrote: »

Why not just put the warning in the OP, then?

Context.

A link to the warning helps those who may be interested understand why the warning came about.

Good feedback. I'd be in favour of having the on-thread warning and then an edit to the OP linking to that warning.

Either way, there are still some people out there who wouldn't read the mod warning even if you typed it up, printed it and hand delivered it. These are the same people who would then complain vociferously in the dispute resolution forum about their infraction/ban when the time came.

Pawwed Rig

I think theKillerBite has a fair point. Trolling through a huge thread for post 2,536 can be cumbersome aswell as time consuming if you are connecting on your phone.
I don't think there is any 'rule' as such but imho would think it to be good practise to update the Original Post for important information rather than have it buried in the thread. I have seen it in many forums on boards (most likely in my own if I were to look:D). It is definitely something I will be conscious of from here on.

Panthro

"Mod warning -Read First Post" ought to be in the thread title and the warning edited in bold into the OP in my opinion.
It's difficult to find a post in a thread, way easier to see it in the very first post IMO,

Will I Amnt

A mod warning that highlights a general thread rule that applies to everybody should absolutely be incorporated into the thread title.
However, from my experience in the soccer forum, there's a trend in amending thread titles every time there's a mod warning, even if it's just 2 posters arguing with each other which is totally unnecessary.

MugMugs

Orion wrote: »

Would a link to the warning post in the op help?

If you're editing the OP you may as well quote the warning in there. If people really want context then they can read the thread.

It's easier to get to post 1 than it is to post 2634

It's always been a bit of a bug bear of mine too tbh. Generally just puts me off posting when I have to trawl for the warning / direction.

Little CuChulainn

I got an infraction last week for ignoring a mod warning. I had been following the thread through my subscription box and had not seen any warning in the thread. Turns out the warning had been put in the op and the title changed to add a warning at the end. I definitely think it was a harsh infraction. The mod warning should be given in thread as well as in the op and the title should have "mod warning" at the beginning.

Dades

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I definitely think it was a harsh infraction. The mod warning should be given in thread as well as in the op and the title should have "mod warning" at the beginning.

Just looked at that thread and there was a warning in the thread which was both put in the OP AND referenced in the thread title.

So you don't really have an excuse, sorry.

That example is a good example. I understand mods don't always have time to add warnings (or links to them) to the OP - it can be a pain on mobile, for example - but it's a better practice.

However the reality is if a mod issues a warning, it has been communicated and posters should be deemed to be aware of it.

Little CuChulainn

Dades wrote: »

Just looked at that thread and there was a warning in the thread which was both put in the OP AND referenced in the thread title.

So you don't really have an excuse, sorry.

That example is a good example. I understand mods don't always have time to add warnings (or links to them) to the OP - it can be a pain on mobile, for example - but it's a better practice.

However the reality is if a mod issues a warning, it has been communicated and posters should be deemed to be aware of it.

Yes but I'm not going to read the op a second time for no reason and i had no reason to believe it had been changed. The title warning was at the end of the title and not visible to me and I had not seen anything posted during the thread itself. Even with that it was a fairly harsh ban. I wasn't even referring to anyone in the thread but to another site so I'd hardly expect to be breaking the rules by using a word. I just think that in cases where it's very possible the warning was missed a bit of leeway could be given.

hullaballoo

There's an awful lot of "I'm not bothered reading..." going on here.

If you're not bothered reading the rules, irrespective of where they are, don't be surprised when you get a slap.

Other than that, I agree that any thread-specific warnings should be linked to in the OP. There really isn't a better option than that available to mods here. On other VB sites, there are other tools that can be used but those tools cannot be integrated here for various reasons.

Little CuChulainn

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's an awful lot of "I'm not bothered reading..." going on here.

Not really. It's more of case that people are saying it's unnecessarily difficult.

hullaballoo wrote: »

If you're not bothered reading the rules, irrespective of where they are, don't be surprised when you get a slap.

The rules are set out pretty clearly. We are not talking about the rules though. We are talking about additional directions given by moderators and how effectively they are communicated to users.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Other than that, I agree that any thread-specific warnings should be linked to in the OP. There really isn't a better option than that available to mods here. On other VB sites, there are other tools that can be used but those tools cannot be integrated here for various reasons.

If the software is restrictive then it's even more a reason to make sure there's some kind of standardised method to communicate the rule.

Dades

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes but I'm not going to read the op a second time for no reason and i had no reason to believe it had been changed. The title warning was at the end of the title and not visible to me and I had not seen anything posted during the thread itself. Even with that it was a fairly harsh ban.

Are you really still complaining about getting a card (not a ban) for ignoring a warning that was posted in a thread, duplicated in the OP, and referenced in the thread title itself - a day earlier? The only way to communicate that more effectively would have been to PM you the warning.

Throw down your shovel.

Beasty

I personally tend to favour updating the OP particularly for long-running (time-wise) threads

However for those in the Soccer Forum "superthreads" the "regulars" tend to be fully aware of everything that's going on, and most of the warnings are simply re-emphasising stuff that's already in the Charter or site rules. Some of those threads are very fast moving also - for example the current Manchester United Superthread has been running for less than 2 weeks and is already nearly half-way to its 10,000 post limit. If we tried to re-state the mod warnings that have cropped up historically in such threads it would probably take up the whole of the front page, and would guarantee no-one ever properly reads it. The way it currently works is there tends to be warnings that may be a bit "topical" to current themes within the thread, but it's rarely anything that goes beyond what posters are expected to know anyway.

Little CuChulainn

Dades wrote: »

Are you really still complaining about getting a card (not a ban) for ignoring a warning that was posted in a thread, duplicated in the OP, and referenced in the thread title itself - a day earlier? The only way to communicate that more effectively would have been to PM you the warning.

Throw down your shovel.

I didn't ignore any warning. This is what I'm trying to explain. There's no need to take it personal. I did not see the warning. I'm trying to help improve the system by explaining why I did not see the warning. Is that not what feedback forum is for?

Dades

Fine, say you didn't see the warning in that case despite the effort put into making it visible by the mod, what further could be done to communicate it to you?

There comes a point - juts like in real life - where people have to be deemed to be aware of the rules. If you allow people claim ignorance of the law, it just becomes an excuse.

K-9

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I didn't ignore any warning. This is what I'm trying to explain. There's no need to take it personal. I did not see the warning. I'm trying to help improve the system by explaining why I did not see the warning. Is that not what feedback forum is for?

We're mods, not babysitters!

Little CuChulainn

For one thing I'd put the warning notice at the start of the title for people who are viewing the site on a small screen such as a phone. If you aren't using the mobile site (which has limited functionality compared to the normal one) the text does not wrap around.

I don't know what can be done technically as I don't know the limitations of Boards. But perhaps it might be possible to reset the post counts so that immediately after a warning is added and a user hits "Go to last unread message" in their subscribed threads page they are immediately sent to the warning post or back to the op.

And again, I must point out, people are aware of the rules. These are not the rules, they are additional instructions given by mods. We don't really have a comparable situation in real life where additional caveats can be placed on laws by enforcers. If the Gardaí were to announce tomorrow that they wanted to close pubs an hour early because of concerns for public order, do you think they could prosecute people who break that rule and remain open?

Little CuChulainn

K-9 wrote: »

We're mods, not babysitters!

And? I'm not asking anyone to be a babysitter. I'm simply suggesting that if you want to introduce arbitrary rules on a thread by thread basis it's only fair to make sure everyone knows these rules.

I agree with the OP.

The way we do it in After Hours is this.

If it's a quick warning to cut the sniping or bickering, an on thread warning is posted and those active on the thread will see it. These are pretty effective to get the thread back on track at that particular time.

If it's a warning that something is not going to be tolerated anywhere on thread, we will post the mod warning as above, and in addition copy it to the opening post and change the thread title *read OP before posting* or similar. This means that those active on the thread will see it immediately, and those joining a thread later on will know the rules from the outset.

It really does grate on me to see *Read post 2538 before posting*. It's giving every single poster who joins a thread late uneccesary effort while it would take one mod seconds to simplify the whole thing.

cant touchthis

Mod warning post 55, 92, or and 1346

Mod Warning Post Number ###

Please read mod warning post 31352

The Use of Mod 'Pest' Control - Warning: Mod Post #1234

Goog few bout this already.

biko

It's up to the forum mods.
That said I agree with adding the mod warning in the OP, please read that first before responding to the thread anyway (at least most of the time).

wnolan1992

Deleted User wrote: »

It really does grate on me to see *Read post 2538 before posting*. It's giving every single poster who joins a thread late uneccesary effort while it would take one mod seconds to simplify the whole thing.

Hear, hear.

And unless I missed something during the moderator orientation weekend while I was getting that deep tissue massage by the Thai girl in the bikini, isn't it through the OP you've to edit the title anyway? So like, while you're there why not just quote the post, it takes very little time at all.

I know I personally tend to just steer clear of threads with titles like the ones the OP is on about, or else I'm just going to ignore the warning completely and post as if it's not there and hope for the best.

Darkglasses

wnolan1992 wrote: »

And unless I missed something during the moderator orientation weekend while I was getting that deep tissue massage by the Thai girl in the bikini, isn't it through the OP you've to edit the title anyway?

Nope, I just double click on the thread title on the forum page!

wnolan1992

Darkglasses wrote: »

Nope, I just double click on the thread title on the forum page!

Hmmm, this isn't the first time a scantily clad woman rubbing oil all over me has meant I missed out on something important...

Gordon

wnolan1992 wrote: »

isn't it through the OP you've to edit the title anyway?

Nope 2: you can edit the thread title on any page by clicking 'Thread tools' on the top of the thread, and 'Edit Thread'. This brings you to a page with just the title and Mod notes and a couple of other options.

Incidentally, that's on the "Moderation 101 [Q+A]" thread in the ZatAoM forum, the forum that is there to help Mods with any questions about modding... She must be very scantily clad

wnolan1992

Gordon wrote: »

Nope 2: you can edit the thread title on any page by clicking 'Thread tools' on the top of the thread, and 'Edit Thread'. This brings you to a page with just the title and Mod notes and a couple of other options.

Incidentally, that's on the "Moderation 101 [Q+A]" thread in the ZatAoM forum, the forum that is there to help Mods with any questions about modding... She must be very scantily clad

Phoebe Cates by the pool in Fast Times looks like she's wearing a hijab compared to this girl...

Taco Corp

Deleted User wrote: »

It really does grate on me to see *Read post 2538 before posting*. It's giving every single poster who joins a thread late uneccesary effort while it would take one mod seconds to simplify the whole thing.

to add, the touch site doesn't have post numbers (unless I'm blind) so trying to find a random post on touch is pointless

dfx-

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with the OP.

The way we do it in After Hours is this.

If it's a quick warning to cut the sniping or bickering, an on thread warning is posted and those active on the thread will see it. These are pretty effective to get the thread back on track at that particular time.

If it's a warning that something is not going to be tolerated anywhere on thread, we will post the mod warning as above, and in addition copy it to the opening post and change the thread title *read OP before posting* or similar. This means that those active on the thread will see it immediately, and those joining a thread later on will know the rules from the outset.

It really does grate on me to see *Read post 2538 before posting*. It's giving every single poster who joins a thread late uneccesary effort while it would take one mod seconds to simplify the whole thing.

Something like *read OP before posting* often works for a warning. It would not be much use for example in the Soccer Superthreads, as it would require regulars to keep checking back to the OP to keep up-to-date.

A change in either time or date to the title or perhaps number of updates might solve it.

Ken.

dfx- wrote: »

Something like *read OP before posting* often works for a warning. It would not be much use for example in the Soccer Superthreads, as it would require regulars to keep checking back to the OP to keep up-to-date.

A change in either time or date to the title or perhaps number of updates might solve it.

In a forum like soccer I believe every superthread should be titled for example "Liverpool superthread-be a dick get carded-only warning" Then stock up on yellow/red cards. I'd put it in the charter also.

Dravokivich

Dades wrote: »

Just looked at that thread and there was a warning in the thread which was both put in the OP AND referenced in the thread title.

So you don't really have an excuse, sorry.

That example is a good example. I understand mods don't always have time to add warnings (or links to them) to the OP - it can be a pain on mobile, for example - but it's a better practice.

However the reality is if a mod issues a warning, it has been communicated and posters should be deemed to be aware of it.

I've seen a bit of fun been had in private forums were a mod jokingly created a post, or edited one to be before the op. Can this be a possible suggestion for mod warnings?

Dades

Not sure how they'd do that. Maybe move an older post into a new thread or something, or merge another thread with an older post. Bit finicky, tbh.

Unconvinced there's too much wrong with leaving a note in the first post (w00t), as long as the OP's post isn't edited.

hullaballoo

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how they'd do that. Maybe move an older post into a new thread or something, or merge another thread with an older post. Bit finicky, tbh.

Unconvinced there's too much wrong with leaving a note in the first post (w00t), as long as the OP's post isn't edited.

Copy a post that pre-dates the OP and edit it. Had to figure that one out for doing a new charter for LD a few months ago.