Rottweiler got banned

Beholderess

Uh-uh. Guess this one will have to keep it mind, thank you for warning. Not that the possibility of getting banned is currently a concern for this one.

But just what is one supposed to do if quite a few interesting posts this one would like to respond to were made in this one's absence and the thread had moved since?

Nova

You can always PM the person and ask them about it.

Beholderess

Anyway, if this is disliked enough to be a bannable offence, then this one should  - nay, has to - be banned, for this one does this routinely.

And if it is not a reason to ban this one, then it is not a reason to ban anyone else. Rules apply to all or not at all.

Nova

It's a mark against.

Not ban-worthy in and of itself, but it hurts your case when the mods decide to ban you or not.

Beholderess

So it is decided based on preference, after all

IanExMachina

I was sure the reason for no quote buttons, was so people didn't have quoteboxes in quoteboxes rather than to reply to many people at once as the thread has moved on.

Nova

No- it's a mark of someone who does not respect the flow of conversation and discussion.

Nova

1) It's a crappy method of discourse because you can just address the person you are talking to and/or refer back to the post containing the material you are quoting.

How to do that? Here are some options:

• Hover your mouse pointer over the dateline on this post. See? It's a link to the post.
• 
  
• Use the post number. "Re post #4123: While it may be true that ... " works well.
• 
  
• Just talk to that human being out there. "Unfortunately, Fast Eddie, we have no access here to whatever supercrack you are smoking ..."
• 
  

2) If you make it easy, you will see people quoting the post directly above because they have developed a habit of always bashing the quote button when they want to reply. This adds visual clutter and is annoying.

3) A post containing a bunch of quotes each followed by a reply is like the International Symbol for "trolling in progress." Trolls deserve all the extra work we can make for them.

4) It very pointedly ignores all the posts between the quoted material and the reply. This jerks the flow of the conversation backwards and or fractures the conversation, causing there to be multiple 'threads' within the conversation. Confusing, and somebody is bound to be shorted.

5) Quote buttons suck, I don't like them, and since I'm the one who would have to build them for free, they're fucked.

For reference, here are the two relevant ones:

3) A post containing a bunch of quotes each followed by a reply is like the International Symbol for "trolling in progress." Trolls deserve all the extra work we can make for them.

4) It very pointedly ignores all the posts between the quoted material and the reply. This jerks the flow of the conversation backwards and or fractures the conversation, causing there to be multiple 'threads' within the conversation. Confusing, and somebody is bound to be shorted.

IanExMachina

Ah I misread it. 

However I feel that sometimes in the course of a discussion you need to have a few quotes in there with a reply to each individual one.

Nova

Indeed.

But when it stretches back to quoting things from the past several pages, like Rottweiler has done occasionally, it becomes disruptive to the flow of conversation.

Beholderess

Again, this one was done so too, and frequently. Simply can't keep up with the conversation without doing it. Why aren't people holding it against this one? They should.

IanExMachina

It seems like it would be rather hard to enforce, and even more harsh to enforce as the majority aren't using it to troll, not to mention it isn't a common internet forum complaint (as far as I know) but something that isn't liked specifically on TVtropes fora.

Beholderess

If noone's going to enforce it, why have the rule at all? Either it is enforced or not. Not "we are ignoring this standard for most people but the are some exceptions"

(sigh) That is exactly the thing that bothers this one. When a popular person gets banned for a clear and direct violation of the rule (say, against personal attacks) there is an outcry that said person should have been allowed to stay because they are just so cool and interesting and bring so much in the conversation etc. But with a not so popular person banned for "violating" a "rule" that is extremely ill-defined, vague and can be spinned either way by nothing but preference, a few people care.

IanExMachina

I think it must work like Cygan said earlier, with it acting as a black mark on your record?

If not I have no idea.

Nova

It isn't liked because it disrupts the flow of discussion, not generally because it's used to troll, although that is a concern.

And I have seen this rule being enforced on several internet forums (Try it on the Crytal Hall boards, I dare you.).

Again, as I say. This is, well, it's kind of basic etiquette. You don't go rattling off a list of points made in a discussion in real life, do you?

And yes, it is a black mark, not an offense on its' own.

CYGAN

IanExMachina

In response to the real life point:

The medium for discussion is different, the etiquette wouldn't be applicable in the same way.

Beholderess

Again, as I say. This is, well, it's kind of basic etiquette. You don't
go rattling off a list of points made in a discussion in real life, do
you?

Actually, this one does that, especially if she listened to numerous people before getting an opportunity to say her piece

LoneWolfEburg

If you want to do quote wars, go to CFC OT.

Beholderess

Bah, this one does not care specifically about quotes. It matters not whether the rule makes sense or not. For all this one cares, FE could require everyone to type in neon pink over a lime-green background while switching capital and small letters - it would be a valid rule all the same. All this one cares about is that

1) Rules should not be written in such a way as to allow interpretation and personal judgement
2) Everyone should be held to them equally. Again, without popularity entering in the equation in any way whatsoever

┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻

Wait a second, quoting the hell out of things is a mark against? (I mean I knew FE didn't like it but...)

How far is a mark against from a warning?

Chagen

It's a rule because Fast Eddie is a non-sensical fuckwad.

Khwarizmi

^ It's not a rule.  No such rule exists.

>You were just saying you don't like the idea of natural purpose and would prefer that existentialism be true?

Partly that, but also that I find it very unlikely that anything has a "natural purpose".  When different people may use different items and actions for different purposes, who is to say that any one of those purposes is more correct than any other?  And even if we accept that claim, how exactly are we to determine which purpose is the correct one?

>Tongpu spams Lick.

This sentence is highly disturbing.

>But when it stretches back to quoting things from the past several pages, like Rottweiler has done occasionally, it becomes disruptive to the flow of conversation.

I'm actually pretty strongly in disagreement with both you and Eddie on this one.  A discussion thread is not a linear conversation.  They are fundamentally different, and I see no reason to limit a forum thread by imposing what I see as being one of the biggest drawbacks of spoken conversation upon it.

In any case, if such behaviour were seriously regarded as a "black mark" on a troper's record, Glenn would have been banned ages ago, so I think there's more to it than that.  The post which Rott was banned for was rude and blatantly false.  If a new user had made a post like that they would have been immediately dismissed as a troll.

>1) Rules should not be written in such a way as to allow interpretation and personal judgement

I completely disagree with this.  Flexibility allows for common sense.  Rigid rules encourage callous by-the-bookness and rules-lawyering.

>2) Everyone should be held to them equally. Again, without popularity entering in the equation in any way whatsoever

I think you'll find that Eddie disagrees with you on that one, since he's said in the past that unpopularity is often (not always) a sign that somebody is an unpleasant person to be around.

Nova

"I'm actually pretty strongly in disagreement with both you and Eddie on this one.  A discussion thread is not a linear conversation.  They are fundamentally different, and I see no reason to limit a forum thread by imposing what I see as being one of the biggest drawbacks of spoken conversation upon it."

It's the same principle behind thread necromancy. Too tired to remember the full reasons behind it, but I think it's something about not using Negative energy on the forum or something, or maybe I'm getting my TVTropes references mixed up with some other ones.

"In any case, if such behaviour were seriously regarded as a "black mark" on a troper's record, Glenn would have been banned ages ago, so I think there's more to it than that."

I never said a black mark- I said a mark against, which only particularly counts against you if they're looking at your actions and behaviours in regards as to whether or not to ban you.

Beholderess

Well, if interpretation is allowed, what's preventing people from deciding that, say, Pykrete is "being a jerk" and "causing disruption"? (This one does not think he is, of course, in fact she only thought about him because he is one of the nicest people on the forum and the thought of him doing anything wrong is inconceivable to this one. Still, if that was unappropriate, this one apologises).

Or from pushing the rules in such a way as to allow a popular poster to remain, considering their acidic insults a biting humour? Or to insist that certain people should be an exception of the rules because they are oh so cool and intelligent?

(sigh) This one had been a victim of more than enough decisions based on popularity and being perceived as "trouble" in high school. Luckily, the headmaster eventually came to her cences and understood that this one constantly being in a centre of scandal does not mean that this one is necessary the party that should be corrected. But this one is still very afraid of the perspective of ever being at the mercy of popular judgement again (shudders)

Hatter

I'm not sure about this, but here's a suggestion:

Rott, you hate to leave an argument unanswered. That's admirable. People don't want to have huge, intimidating blocks of text, though. So what if instead of addressing old arguments in the thread, you either PMed the user with your rebuttal? That way, you'd be able to argue things, and it wouldn't break up the page.

Alternatively, if the person was talking about something only semi-related to the topic at hand, you could simply create a new topic about it.

Would that work?

Khwarizmi

@ Cygan: But thread necromancy is bringing up something which nobody wants to talk about anymore and which has been dead for ages.  And even then, the rules state quite clearly that thread necromancy is not actually bad providing the thread in question wasn't a flame war or anything like that.  Besides, considering the rate at which some debate threads grow, it's hardly comparable to the ressurrection of a very old thread, and the alternative is some very valid points going completely ignored.

@ Beholderess: That Pykrete is disruptive is demonstrably false, so there isn't really room for interpretation there.

That he is a jerk is a statement no mod would make, because only somebody with absolutely bizarre views would think that.

>Alternatively, if the person was talking about something only semi-related to the topic at hand, you could simply create a new topic about it.

This is very good advice, I think.

vandro

I've told you before and tell you now, you seem to be projecting past experiences into this, that is, quite frankly, anything but objective, while that on itself is not a problem, beholderess, your entire reasoning is based around treating people equally under "the law", and that is hardly the case when one is as strongly biased as you, don't be a preacher, be an example.

And about popularity being a get away scot-free card, that is quite an stretch, I see you talking about it all the time, but I'd rather have names of such "popular" people that got to come back while still acting the same dickish way that got them banned.

Nova

"But thread necromancy is bringing up something which nobody wants to talk about anymore and which has been dead for ages.  And even then, the rules state quite clearly that thread necromancy is not actually bad providing the thread in question wasn't a flame war or anything like that.  Besides, considering the rate at which some debate threads grow, it's hardly comparable to the ressurrection of a very old thread, and the alternative is some very valid points going completely ignored."

And as you have said, this is not always the same thing, the same as we have Dread Necromancers who are Good-aligned, or something, what is this metaphor

But yes. Points are raised and forgotten. But there is no need to quote the text- you can always say:

"I will refer you back to Post XXX, in which Pykrete said" or "As stated earlier in this thread, I believe that Bobby is, in fact, not a mod, but is secretly an admin". Or, hell, you could always just say "I believe Cygan is a jerk" without mentioning that it was brought up earlier at all.

Khwarizmi

I don't remember Rott using quotes all that much, though maybe I was reading the wrong threads.

Nova

I'd have to go back through his posting history, but I have seen Rottweiler pull up easily a dozen quotes in a single post several times.