nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@TecmagDiams
I actually suggested for there to be better moderation of forum rules for S&I, the additional phrase coinage was just the beginning. So you still lost. |
|
|
|
|
That all still has nothing to do with the fact that saying "No Support" followed by reason is not only allowed, but encouraged. "No support" is not some kind of slur or insult, it's a statement of one's stance and there is no reason to be hurt over it. |
|
TccoolJoin Date: 2011-11-27
Post Count: 13867 |
There are already rules for this.
No support.
You can say No support only if you provide a good reason, or it's an insult.
Follow me on Twitter: @Tccool_RBLX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPQrE_nou1I
i like cats
meow |
|
nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@Tccool
This is actually a tag-along thread to frozengaia's thread about punishing suggesters who avoid the WNTS: http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=108520086
But this one covers the commenters, not the suggesters.
And we both got our wishes to come true, thanks to the quote Malwarebytes provided. |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
Team, one section of your argument is self contradictory:
"People shouldn't need to state what you need to add to your idea for them to support it, for a variety of reasons. For one, they may never support it. That doesn't mean their opinion is invalid. If they claim they don't support, and why they don't, it's your job as the idea poster to make a better idea if you want to avoid such criticism."
In the first sentence of the quote, you state that it is up to the one replying whether to add a reason or not based on if they feel they should, but in the second you say it is the OP's job to improve on the idea based on the replying user's criticism which may or may not even be included because of the first sentence. My point being a plain "no support" should not be allowed so you are able to gain enough information to improve on the idea. And WNTS is a good enough reason because the idea shouldn't have even been posted in that context with the resolve pointing towards an act of WNTS in the first place, meaning the OP can improve the idea by modifying as to drop out the WNTS violation. Still support. o3o |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
Tec* Lol o3o |
|
|
Nosupport
#RT's Sniper | twitter.com/rbx_qremparts |
|
|
MettaurSp, that isn't a contradiction. It IS the replying user's job to state reason for their opinion, it is NOT their job to improve the actual idea.
For example, if someone suggests "More materials!" (we are going to just leave it at short ideas, instead of filling it out) and someone responds "No support, not specific enough." they have provided their reason, and done their job. It is then the original poster's job to improve the idea, not the person who didn't support it. The person who didn't support it has no obligation to come up with material ideas that are specific.
" My point being a plain "no support" should not be allowed"
It already isn't. It hasn't been allowed for a long time. Hence why an admin/moderator would make a comment on "the lack of moderation" because they have not been very heavily enforcing those already established rules.
This idea though is to try to FORCE people responding who do not support an idea to make it their responsibility, trying to say that you HAVE to suggest improvements, when again, that is not the job of the person responding, their job is to give reason why they don't support. I also note that this thread makes no mention of problems with people who just say, "Support" who are just as useless to an idea as someone who says "No support" and MORE useless than someone who says "No support" followed by their reason.
"WNTS" is not suggesting a way to improve it, it's the literal effect of saying, "No support" "get out" "drop the idea." You don't get to be super selective, if you want to get rid of comments that are not suggesting specific ways to improve an idea, that that means no "Support" or "WNTS" either. |
|
papeyJoin Date: 2008-09-18
Post Count: 7424 |
"So criticism should be banned?"
"Drop the idea" isn't criticism, it can be interpreted quicker as flaming. |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
You don't seem to have understood what I said. I stated that it is the job of the one who is replying to state what they don't like about it so that the OP knows what to fix. And WNTS is reason by stating "this suggestion isn't allowed, change it."
What I said: "but in the second you say it is the OP's job to improve on the idea based on the replying user's criticism which may or may not even be included because of the first sentence."
I stated that it is the OP's job to improve the idea and that it can be done through the criticism given, and I stated that the said criticism may not even exist because of the first part of the quote of your's I used in that post. You basically just took a fragment of what I said, put words in my mouth twisting it to your advantage, and called it good.
What you said: 'For example, if someone suggests "More materials!" (we are going to just leave it at short ideas, instead of filling it out) and someone responds "No support, not specific enough." they have provided their reason, and done their job. It is then the original poster's job to improve the idea, not the person who didn't support it.'
What you stated is that if someone doesn't support, they give enough information on why they don't support (which is basically what I said), which yes "not specific enough" is a good reason to back up the lack of support and say they have done their job. Afterwords you state it is the OP's job to improve the idea (also what I said), not the person who replied (which is as stated above not what I said). |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
"this suggestion isn't allowed, change it to remove the disapproved part"* |
|
nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@TecmagDiams
The idea I suggested is being implemented. The idea is, can S&I's "Commenter Forum Rules" be enforced? I brought up a term to begin with, and added onto the thread later. CorgiParade, a staff member at ROBLOX Corp., has considered this thread, frozengaia's thread, and Malwarebytes' thread. S&I will be a better place now. |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
Glad to hear that nairb :3 |
|
|
Mettaursp, if you think I didn't understand what you said, then you didn't understand what I said. My stance from my very first post in this thread.
"People shouldn't need to state what you need to add to your idea for them to support it, for a variety of reasons. For one, they may never support it. That doesn't mean their opinion is invalid. If they claim they don't support, and why they don't, it's your job as the idea poster to make a better idea if you want to avoid such criticism."
Was part of my first post, explaining my view, and why I didn't support the idea to, add
"No Support, drop the idea"
to the rules, it's already covered by
- Rudeness is not allowed. Examples of what not to post as your only reply, “Get out”, “dumb idea”, “no support”, “no, just no”. Short negative replies are not at all helpful and diminish the effort the person put into posting their idea.
It's still a short negative reply that doesn't aid the original poster in improving their idea via telling them what needs improvement (ie, pointing out what you don't like).
However, this post "idea" was directly targeting me, and a response I had to a previous one of his ideas in which I did give reason, and the OP got all mad and started tossing insults and wanting to start a "fight." (By his own words) He even said in this post that:
"Not criticism as a whole.
Allowed: "If you would add this to the idea, I would totally support."
Or: "I am sorry if you see me as being mean, but I don't think it would work. However, if you provided a valid point against my argument, I could support your thread."
That's criticism, and I accept it. It's valid feedback."
Which means he is looking to REQUIRE that people responding take it upon themselves to improve the idea, rather than just give feedback that will allow the OP to improve. The fact of the matter is it's ALREADY and has been for a long time, against the rules to not give actual feedback on the idea. I don't support the making of it any more strict as it already is perfectly fine. You example that, "The feedback might not be there because they just said 'no support.'" is irrelevant as that's already against the rules. |
|
|
Additionally,
"The idea is, can S&I's 'Commenter Forum Rules' be enforced?"
Is a total lie. I agree with THAT idea 100%, moderation on S&I has been lacking for a long time.
YOUR idea though was
>"Can 'No Support, drop the idea' be in the rules?"
>"Also, 'No support, the complete opposite of your idea is the accepted norm.'"
You even specified further when a user asked:
"So criticism should be banned?"
>"Not criticism as a whole."
>"Allowed: 'If you would add this to the idea, I would totally support.'"
>"Or: 'I am sorry if you see me as being mean, but I don't think it would work. However, if you provided a valid point against my argument, I could support your thread.'"
That is not asking for the rules that are already in place to be enforced. It's asking for the rules to be needlessly more specific (as they already cover things like "No Support, drop the idea." and that is asking for rules that force users to do the work an idea poster should be doing. Users who say "No Support" followed by why, WITHOUT saying how to improve the idea, is valid and useful criticism, because you know WHY they don't support it, and as the poster you can choose to attempt to improve your idea taking those reasons into account.
Don't try to play like your idea was something it's not. Just because people pointed out the problems doesn't mean you can say it was something else and look like you where in the right the whole time, you dodged points and tried to say your idea is something you never even presented in your original post. |
|
nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@TecmagDiams
Now I'm worried about your mental health. The idea is both something it is and something that it is not. As I said, I "added on". You clearly ignored that, you dodged a point.
I was angry because you poked me with a parroting stick. Keyword, "WAS". As in, past, done, not anymore. Constructive criticism creates positivity and improvement, your diatribes are not helping the ROBLOX community.
Let me use YouTube's forms of criticism.
YouTube's Dislike Button is not constructive criticism, it is blind hatred toward someone's work. I use comments as a better gauge than Likes/Dislikes. I just want the Dislike button to go away, it is useless.
For example, now I know to insert music into my Bloopers because someone said "it would be better to insert music in your Bloopers" in the comments section of my first Bloopers video. Perfect, I just need better editing software so I can apply the change. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3glf7ZqbOCI&list=PLI-MlS4dN-2jbYJUaCp79_kZCmrCQpcbt&index=1 )
Sometimes I just delete videos that have 50% or greater Dislikes, as that video has been condemned for life without any form of constructive criticism. For all I know, it could be that it was a foreign language failing to understand my English-only videos, or someone finds some deep philosophical meaning that I didn't know about in my video and dislikes it because that "secret" offended them. |
|
|
Adding onto an idea does not equate with completely changing the subject from adding something to the rules to just wanting more enforcement of already in place rules. You didn't adjust between the two either, you just suddenly tried to say it was about enforcing already in place rules.
So first you say you where not angry, then you said you where, then you say you are not again, then you say here that you have been devastated, now you are saying you are fine... |
|
nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@TecmagDiams
That's what a human being goes through in an argument. Especially one with Autism of the worst degree, who just got his high school diploma. Yes, I just got it today. |
|
|
Different people have different opinions.
Some people might support, some people won't.
So it's unfair to the minority that DOES support 'x' idea. So, if you don't mind, no support.
Also, it's an advantage to trolls to just spam 'no support'(I know there's flood check).
çç82
|
|
nairbJoin Date: 2007-12-14
Post Count: 12396 |
@crazycash82
I don't mind, the admins are implementing this, though you did pick the wrong fruits off the tree. If the trolls spam "no support" without a valid reason, they get banned for breaking forum rules. ("What the mod says, goes.") Also, there are more supporters than non-supporters in general, mainly because it's harder to be a non-supporter. |
|
MettaurSpJoin Date: 2010-03-20
Post Count: 3179 |
Okay, just noticed that the statement I was pointing out wasn't correct originally. I was tired last night so I misinterpreted it in general, and as proof, I said "Team" on accident in the very same post. But you still put words into my mouth as was done with the original mesh related thread I posted. So, we are both on the same page now, but what I find strange is that you hinted at agreeing with the idea, yet disagreed at the same time. You basically restated the revised "current" version of the idea by the time you posted and disagreed. |
|