
Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Archer

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.



Conversation Between Archer and IIMarckus
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
  1. Archer
    November 11th, 2011 08:51 PM
    Archer
    Well no, the rules are put in place to stop the people that do abuse their liberties and in turn, this can inconvenience the better people.

    As mentioned before and you stated below, reviving is up to the moderator. I don't think it's a major issue as it can definitely be the right thing to do in some scenarios. Regardless of whether this has been denoted a rule that only applies under the moderators discretion in the Hacking section, most post-related rules have always been up to the moderator.

    To be fair, your sig said bumping, which is the act of double/re-posting in one's thread with the intention of publicising it. Which I think is a totally fair rule in 99% of cases. I didn't really have a major problem with reviving in the right circumstances.
  2. IIMarckus
    November 11th, 2011 12:12 PM
    IIMarckus
    Quote originally posted by Archer:
    Here's the thing: rules are always going to inconvenience someone with good intentions and where it might not be necessary, but these rules are required to stop the people who will take advantage of any freedom.
    I don’t think the latter follows from the former.

    A poster who adds nothing significant to an old topic should be punished not for posting in an old topic, but for adding nothing significant. If posters are punished simply for posting in an old topic, then a poster who does add something significant to an old topic will be punished, and do we really want that?

    This is especially significant in the ROM hacking documentation forums, where discussion is focused less on current events and more on technical information that rarely goes out of date. Thankfully, things have changed there since I last updated my signature, and the bumping rules no longer apply, instead being left to moderator discretion. Nonetheless, I keep it in my signature because I think having it there was one of the reasons the rules were changed (along with private discussions with some moderators).
  3. Archer
    November 10th, 2011 11:33 PM
    Archer
    Quote originally posted by Your Sig:
    Rules that should be rethought: 25charlimit, bumping.
    Bad posts are bad posts, regardless of how many words are in them or how old the thread is.
    Good posts are good posts, regardless of how old the thread is—and brevity is underrated.
    There's certainly some truth to that - in an ideal world, those rules would not exist. But here's the problem: good and bad posts are often a matter of opinion. Some people simply don't understand what constitutes either. So in 99.9% of cases, very short posts have very little or nothing to contribute, so they, as a whole, need to be avoided. In terms of bumping, there is rarely anything that requires a new post and can't be added to the previous one. If you're referring to reviving threads, then I believe that is up to the moderator's discretion, but in most cases, either the thread or the offending post is no longer at all relevant.

    Here's the thing: rules are always going to inconvenience someone with good intentions and where it might not be necessary, but these rules are required to stop the people who will take advantage of any freedom.

All times are UTC -8. The time now is 03:15 PM.
http://www.pokecommunity.com/converse.php?u=36854&u2=64049
www.pokecommunity.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
57835
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:NLGVPYQ6GXAYWTFNR7BTHPIO3SGB5ILL
<urn:uuid:6dc08d09-dbdf-4615-855a-19ac8e34853c>
2015-02-27T23:15:33Z
162.159.244.55
sha1:6U3GIWRZAZB2APB2I4NVESXSE2WRABXM
<urn:uuid:0e736674-fe29-4d94-982e-d1b1d4ae2cba>
http://www.pokecommunity.com/converse.php?u=36854&u2=64049
length
response
<urn:uuid:fcca1152-15fe-441e-be91-0ab4f7aa7f59>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-28-5-156.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-11
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for February 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf