Mod Warnings

Seriously, these warnings are getting ridiculous. It makes me cringe to think that new users might be greeted to this site with the following message after they post a harmless thread about fountain pens: USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (Rule 4) Always elaborate on your opinions, Write a better OP next time, One line OP with a single question and no additional context? Why is this question being asked? What pens do you use to write ?)

I agree. That thread specifically didn't need any more context, it's not as if OP was introducing an entire discussion, it was just a lighthearted thread about pens. There's a distinction between writing "programming thread" and writing "what is your favorite programming language?". One is a broad subject that should be expanded upon by OP, the other is a narrow, light subject that doesn't need further clarification.

>>6231 >>6230 If it makes you cringe, then cringe. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. This rule was broken. The thread was soft warned (no one was derezzed), the thread was not deleted. It wasn't a lighthearted threads about pens, it was a lazy What is your favourite <x> thread ? or Does anyone else <x > thread , that had minimal effort provded by the poster of the OP. Whilst threads like this can be made into quality threads, there is no quality in the opening post, on the subsequent replies and the discussion there in. I am not going to stop warning people for breaking the rules. First we were asked to stop deleting posts without explaining why, then we were asked to stop warning posts with bans and red text, now you are asking us to stop warning threads entirely regardless of the rules they break, just because it makes you cringe. Asking what someone's favorite thing is without providing bounding scope or context for the discussion is just low effort soykaf.

>>6233 Are these warnings creating any identifiable improvement in the community? Because from what i've seen it only makes people find ways around it instead of the intended outcome (people putting effort in their posts and threads).

>>6234 Yes they are. No I don't have the statistics to demonstrate on hand , since we stopped running analytics solutions that tracked this sort of thing, but all manual and prior analysis of warned threads vs improved post and discussion quality indicated as much.

>>6233 I would agree with Appleman here. If no regulation will take place then soon we would see a lot of threads in a fashion of "what is your favourite X" with short replies to that thread like "my is Y". By warning people the admins gives a hint to OP that he could have done better. He/She could have elaborated why he started this thread, why he/she thinks it's importand, what is his/hers preferences in this subject. This gives more opportunities to discussion and it's less likely that the thread will end in a form of a list ("I like Z", "I like X" ...). Also I suspect that the new users might not read the rules section before posting. By giving a warning the new user is informed that there are some rules on this board and that violating of those rules can have consequences.

>>6236 >>>/reddit/ You fuarrrkers are hopeless.

>>6233 Stop signs are important. The difference between stop signs and what you do is the above picture.

>>6238 Are you against rules and regulation for the sole purpose of being against rules and requlations or is it something else?

>>6241 I don't think anyone in this thread is against there being rules, what's being questioned is the effectiveness of the rules in place and what their goal is. Some feel that they do their job, some feel that they don't do their job. None question whether or not they should exist.

>>6242 This. The complaint is that moderation is just too overbearing. It is like kicking dead whales down the beach the spontaneity out of posting and turns it into a chore.