Yes, elitism is the solution!

That kind of thinking unsettles me. Put the assumptions back where they came from. For directions where, refer to its first three letters.


"Is it unreasonable?"
You have in some cases 13 year olds and younger on this board. Everyone has had different levels of exposure to the internet. Everyone, including yourself, learned what they know now at some point during their life. You can guide them and, as a result, gain some very loyal members who, in time, may prove very valuable. Or you can be a dick and chase away that potential. Your call, your community.

If I don't like a community, I leave. That is my right, as it is your right to institute any rules you feel appropriate. But if the consequences do not match your goals, then perhaps you should reconsider.


"Not my idea of people who will be greatly missed"
Blind. Arrogant. An expression of real ignorance. There is no 30-second solution to that. Do what you want; stumble in the darkness of your own smug.

If people read the rules, as they should be - its not very long, then they would learn about it there. This is more of a troll deterrent than a 13-year old who just got the internet deterrent. Like I said, moderators can use their discretion as to who deserves a suspension.

Think about it. Is anyone really going to leave over getting hit with this rule? Is anyone really going to quit the site over a deleted post, locked topic, or a fine for something that's clearly stated in the rules? (I think we'd have about six members left by now.) I'm all for taking a more educational stance, because odds are this is something a person will get hit with once and "now I know".

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 12 2008, 3:31 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Do it moose. 24 hours is nothing. Seriously. Why does everyone think a one-day suspension is the end of the world? I thought we already had a googlable rule but having a set punishment for it seems better.

A suspension of any length has always been regarded as a very serious punishment. What I've heard from a number of people in this topic is that serious action is needed only for people who do this multiple times, in which case it should be considered general spamming, and writing a specific rule for it is superfluous. A moderator can lock the topic with a link to the Google solution to the question without having a specific rule pertaining to it.

Saying to new member #1 that "sorry, you're banned for a day because you asked a stupid question on your third post" is extremely cruel.

I'll edit the first post since this is apparently unclear.

Yea for locking Googleable question topics, as long someone lets the poster know it's Googleable. This would also be nice for questions in Map Making Assistance that can be answered by tutorials/wikis, but I don't think it should be put into effect for them until the tutorials and wikis are actually not-unsearchable.

Then I think there is no need to specifically make this against the rules; consistently asking exceedingly dumb questions for which you have been warnd already is clearly against the already existing rules.

... No.

Nay, unless there question actually gets answered first. Hard Core noobs might not know where to look.

I vote yay as long as you aren't too strict about it. For example, asking how to open doors in UMS Mapmaking Assistance is fine even though they could just put in how to open doors in staredit in google and go to the first option.

File Request Thread.
Maplantis Wiki.
SEN Wiki.
SEN Tutorials.

The first time I ever went on a forum, I wrote posts the way I chatted in a chat room. That was a long time ago lol.

Which is something
like this.
which is hard to read
I ended up getting a warning
but replied with a smart remark
and didn't improve.
So I got a 1 day suspension
when the suspension was over
I tried harder to improve
my post writing skills
and how to write a good post
that people will actually read

I vote yes for the enforcement, but ney for the rule. Moderators should be more strict to people who spam. If they WANT to be here, they will improve, and fix what they are doing wrong. If not then we don't need them. As long as the moderator isn't abusing their powers there shouldn't be a problem.

But the half and half comproising in the end turns out fortinute to these rule breakers to begin with.