Any Chance of Allowing Some Users to Post Awardspac Links?

viewtopic.php?f=173&t=785474&start=0

Well no offence, I know it's for the safety of the unsuspecting, but can at least some users be allowed to post links to sites hosted there? I spend three weeks coding that site, with tip.it being my main recruiting spot (based on the amount of people joined KoA through here), then I get this DANGER!!! HAX!!! all over the links.

Would appreciate a selection.

Ehh, I suppose no website means no websites. Mods are too rigid on the rules. You might get lucky and be granted an exception, it's worth trying...

^ I think that's a wrong assumption. Moderators are not out to get you. You do not get lucky, exceptions are made if they are fair and well backed.

Which they are indeed. Awardsp@ce is a popular hosting service that hosts many legit sites.

The filter is applied globally and there is no way for individual settings on it.

Awesome. Is it okay to use a picture for a link instead then (for this particular case)?

Edit: Scratch that. That's impossible.

Awesome. Is it okay to use a picture for a link instead then (for this particular case)?

 

Edit: Scratch that. That's impossible.

Use a URL redirection service like http://www.c-o.in/myred/register.php. You can point your link to its (unblocked) URL, then it will redirect the page to the blocked one.

 

^ I think that's a wrong assumption. Moderators are not out to get you. You do not get lucky, exceptions are made if they are fair and well backed.

Moderators should be people that stand back and don't interfere unless flaming\language\pictures get extreme or links against the rules are being posted. They shouldn't be locking for topics with 'little discussion value' or 'people disagreeing in a rude way, aka mild flaming' or 'topic creator requested a lock' - let them die on their own.

Moderators should be people that stand back and don't interfere unless flaming\language\pictures get extreme or links against the rules are being posted. They shouldn't be locking for topics with 'little discussion value' or 'people disagreeing in a rude way, aka mild flaming' or 'topic creator requested a lock' - let them die on their own.

Well you have to remember a few things:

Spamming is against the rules. And if a topic is created with no discussion value, it is likely spam, and therefore against the rules. And if topics WOULD die on their own, I'm sure many - if not all - of us would be more than happy to leave the topic alone and just let it die. But people don't let topics die. If a spammy, useless, boring topic is created, tons of people love to come in and post things like "this is stupid" or "in before lock" or "stop spamming," etc. They make all these comments that keep the topic bumped up and don't let it die. Sure we could remove the bad comments, and oftentimes we do anyway. But we would literally have to stalk the topics and continuously remove the spammy posts.

Awesome. Is it okay to use a picture for a link instead then (for this particular case)?

 

Edit: Scratch that. That's impossible.

 

Use a URL redirection service like http://www.c-o.in/myred/register.php. You can point your link to its (unblocked) URL, then it will redirect the page to the blocked one.

Guess I'll do that, thanks.

Actually makes the link look more shifty than the original one...

Moderators should be people that stand back and don't interfere unless flaming\language\pictures get extreme or links against the rules are being posted. They shouldn't be locking for topics with 'little discussion value' or 'people disagreeing in a rude way, aka mild flaming' or 'topic creator requested a lock' - let them die on their own.

Yes, indeed, they should. Little discussion value leads to spam. Flaming is spam. Topic creators have the right to request a lock, which often prevents spam. Topics do not seem to die out on their own here unless the topic wasn't interesting in the first place, most of the time a lock is necessary. I think the mods are doing a great job.

That being said, I would be wholly in favor of a 'stupid' filter. Have a vote on something serious every month, say, "What type of content do you think Jagex should focus on in the next year?" Put 4 good answers like "Combat, Skills, Quests, Minigames", and a 4th one of something stupid like "i can has cheezberger plz?". Choosing the 5th option would earn you a permanent IP ban. I've hard of other forums doing this, it should help a bit with weeding out the under-13 spammers and reduce the mod load. Hit anyone who posts pointless spam with a 1st time 1 week ban, 2nd time perm ban. Don't focus on dumb things like arguing about text being within the signature size and 'reasonable limits' within the status quo (Pyromancer, I'm looking at you... At least you finally backed down -.- )

As usual I can't speak for the forum staff but that is in my opinion entirely unreasonable. You do not seem to understand the ideas around moderation and banning.

 

As usual I can't speak for the forum staff but that is in my opinion entirely unreasonable. You do not seem to understand the ideas around moderation and banning.

My opinion of moderation is that it should be keeping forums reasonably spam free and allowing debates\discussions\questions to occur with minimal interference while keeping them reasonably mature. Banning is one of the tools used to promote that.

 

Yes, indeed, they should. Little discussion value leads to spam. Flaming is spam. Topic creators have the right to request a lock, which often prevents spam. Topics do not seem to die out on their own here unless the topic wasn't interesting in the first place, most of the time a lock is necessary. I think the mods are doing a great job.

Just because a lock sometimes prevents spam doesn't mean it should be requested. If a thread is being spammed, then so be it - lock away. If the OP wants it locked simply because someone disagrees with his viewpoint or he believes his question has been answered (both very common), it should NOT be granted unless people are jumping on the bandwagon with useless posts, at which point the aforementioned bannings should take place. I have seen many threads in H&A where the OP posts a question, someone answers it incorrectly, and the OP requests a lock before anyone else can post corrections or updates. I've had to PM H&A thread creators after having a post locked with potentially harmful information (No, dropped items over 60k do NOT become visible to other players after a minute :roll: ).

 

Guess I'll do that, thanks.

 

Actually makes the link look more shifty than the original one...

Ehh, the people you want will be smart enough to know that clicking on a link isn't going to hackzorz their computer. I frequently visit scam\keylogger sites just to see what they look like. You can try and find a URL redirection service with a different name, but apparently tip.it tries to block them for reasons like this. I used to love [Censored for time being], when will they realize they can't hit nearly all of them :|

 

As usual I can't speak for the forum staff but that is in my opinion entirely unreasonable. You do not seem to understand the ideas around moderation and banning.

 

My opinion of moderation is that it should be keeping forums reasonably spam free and allowing debates\discussions\questions to occur with minimal interference while keeping them reasonably mature. Banning is one of the tools used to promote that.

 

 

 

We do keep the forums 'reasonably spam free' and do allow debates/discussions/questions with as little interference as possible but if posts are frequently popping up in the same thread which break rules, then we are obviously going to interefere to keep the thread 'reasonably mature'.

If the OP wants it locked simply because someone disagrees with his viewpoint

I'm pretty sure the moderating team don't respond to such requests as it stands.

 

We do keep the forums 'reasonably spam free' and do allow debates/discussions/questions with as little interference as possible but if posts are frequently popping up in the same thread which break rules, then we are obviously going to interefere to keep the thread 'reasonably mature'.

I'm saying that you should be punishing the posters, not the thread. If someone post spam, don't remove it - just hand out a week's ban. It'll get the point across very quickly, even though I know I would have gotten at least one of them over the course of time. Telling them to stop really isn't going to do much - I know it didn't for me.

 

I'm pretty sure the moderating team don't respond to such requests as it stands.

They do. I've seen it happen on a regular basis in forums like Rants, where a user posts a subject, is proven wrong, then says 'lock, people are refusing to get the point' or something along those lines. Despite the lack of spam or flaming posts, and even if an active discussion is taking place, along comes a mod with 'locked upon request'.

We do sort of have a complex policy regarding users requesting locks on their threads. If it's a closed Help & Advice or Tech & Computers topic where someone is asking a question, gets an answer, and then changes the thread title to "Closed" and asks for a lock, we grant their request. It was not a discussion thread in the first place and once the author is done with it, there is no reason for it to remain open. If there is a flame/spam-free discussion going on, the author decides that they want the thread locked so they change their title to "Lock Please" and edit out the entire first post, we lock the thread but make it clear that anyone who wants to recreate the topic is welcome to do so. We grant their request because the first post has been wiped clean, making it so any new-comers to the thread will be completely oblivious to what the thread is about. However, if a perfectly good discussion is taking place (again no spam, no flames, no off-topic posts, etc.) and the author reports their own thread requesting that it be locked (but doesn't edit the title/first post), we do not lock it.

So in summary:

Lock If:

• [*:27xsndww]Help & Advice thread
   
  [*:27xsndww]Tech & Computers thread
   
  [*:27xsndww]Art Bazaar "shop" or request
   
  [*:27xsndww]Title/first post edited/removed
   
  [*:27xsndww]Thread contains excessive spam/flames/off-topic posts

 

* Help & Advice thread

 

* Tech & Computers thread

Both of those are question based forums with high turnover - if a thread has been answered accurately, it sinks to the bottom quickly and few users request a lock in either of those forums. However, when they do, they may have gotten the wrong first answer - without a lock, they will be re-informed before the thread dies out. Threads should not be locked upon request in these forums.

#

 

# Art Bazaar "shop" or request

I don't frequent that forum, so I wouldn't know, but if it's only a request it should die out easily.

#

 

# Title/first post edited/removed

If the first post is removed, it is now spam with no discussion value and should be locked regardless of request.

#

 

# Thread contains excessive spam/flames/off-topic posts

This has nothing to do with the OP requesting a lock; mods make the choice here.

In short, I see NO situations where the OP should be able to request a lock. I HAVE seen MANY topics with active discussion and an unedited first post with the words 'lock please' tacked on to the title 'locked upon request'.

 

* Help & Advice thread

 

* Tech & Computers thread

 

Both of those are question based forums with high turnover - if a thread has been answered accurately, it sinks to the bottom quickly and few users request a lock in either of those forums. However, when they do, they may have gotten the wrong first answer - without a lock, they will be re-informed before the thread dies out. Threads should not be locked upon request in these forums.

So far it has not proven to cause any damage. And in many cases, I'm more than willing to bet that if someone requests a lock on their thread, they don't plan on coming back. So even if we didn't lock the thread, the chances are high that they wouldn't see the "correct" advice anyway.

#

 

# Title/first post edited/removed

 

If the first post is removed, it is now spam with no discussion value and should be locked regardless of request.

That's not true. More often than not, when someone edits out their first post and changes it to "Lock please," the people who were already on the thread, still continue their discussion, which is oftentimes very thought-provoking. It makes the thread spam to new-comers only, and that's exactly why we do lock it.

#

 

# Thread contains excessive spam/flames/off-topic posts

 

This has nothing to do with the OP requesting a lock; mods make the choice here.

My entire post was about requesting locks. The whole point was "When someone requests a lock, we only close the thread if it meets one of the following criteria." And if the author requests a lock and the thread is full of spam, flames and off-topic posts, then we do grant their request. But had we seen the thread BEFORE the request was made, we would have locked it anyway. But that's not always the case.

In short, I see NO situations where the OP should be able to request a lock. I HAVE seen MANY topics with active discussion and an unedited first post with the words 'lock please' tacked on to the title 'locked upon request'.

Well as always, if you feel a moderator's actions are inappropriate, unjustified or inconsistent with the rules, you can PM the moderator in question to discuss it or talk to an administrator about it.

 

My entire post was about requesting locks. The whole point was "When someone requests a lock, we only close the thread if it meets one of the following criteria." And if the author requests a lock and the thread is full of spam, flames and off-topic posts, then we do grant their request. But had we seen the thread BEFORE the request was made, we would have locked it anyway. But that's not always the case.

 

They or someone else could just as easily report the post. There is no situation where the OP's requesting a lock should have any impact whatsoever on the thread being locked.

 

Well as always, if you feel a moderator's actions are inappropriate, unjustified or inconsistent with the rules, you can PM the moderator in question to discuss it or talk to an administrator about it.

It wouldn't help - it's currently the rules that a person can ask for a thread lock, and it's used often by new players in H&A. Honestly, most locks I see (aside from bad links) are 'locked upon request'.

 

Art Bazaar "shop" or request

 

I don't frequent that forum, so I wouldn't know, but if it's only a request it should die out easily.

I'm afraid they don't. Unless a lock is given by a moderator, requests just keep on coming even to a shop that has "CLOSED" or "LOCKED" in its title.

 

My entire post was about requesting locks. The whole point was "When someone requests a lock, we only close the thread if it meets one of the following criteria." And if the author requests a lock and the thread is full of spam, flames and off-topic posts, then we do grant their request. But had we seen the thread BEFORE the request was made, we would have locked it anyway. But that's not always the case.

 

 

They or someone else could just as easily report the post. There is no situation where the OP's requesting a lock should have any impact whatsoever on the thread being locked.

Yes, there are several, in fact. Any topic that causes an unforeseen amount of flaming and spam, for example. (IE just filling up with "Why did you post this?" or people telling the topic author that their opinion is useless or something to that effect.)

 

I'm afraid they don't. Unless a lock is given by a moderator, requests just keep on coming even to a shop that has "CLOSED" or "LOCKED" in its title.

If the first page is erased, the thread should die out. Like I said, I don't read that forum frequently, so you may be right in this case

 

Yes, there are several, in fact. Any topic that causes an unforeseen amount of flaming and spam, for example. (IE just filling up with "Why did you post this?" or people telling the topic author that their opinion is useless or something to that effect.)

Then ANYONE should be able to report the topic for spam\flames without the OP having to request a lock. His requesting a lock shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the thread actually being locked. If it's breaking the rules for spam\flaming, lock it. If it isn't, don't.

 

I'm afraid they don't. Unless a lock is given by a moderator, requests just keep on coming even to a shop that has "CLOSED" or "LOCKED" in its title.

 

If the first page is erased, the thread should die out. Like I said, I don't read that forum frequently, so you may be right in this case

The first page is not erased, because it takes such a long time to write.

 

 

Yes, there are several, in fact. Any topic that causes an unforeseen amount of flaming and spam, for example. (IE just filling up with "Why did you post this?" or people telling the topic author that their opinion is useless or something to that effect.)

 

Then ANYONE should be able to report the topic for spam\flames without the OP having to request a lock. His requesting a lock shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the thread actually being locked. If it's breaking the rules for spam\flaming, lock it. If it isn't, don't.

Anyone can certainly report the topic for spam or flames. Why shouldn't a lock request have anything to do with it?

 

The first page is not erased, because it takes such a long time to write.

Umm, WHAT? Copy and paste exists for a reason.

 

Anyone can certainly report the topic for spam or flames. Why shouldn't a lock request have anything to do with it?

If a thread is filled with spam, it's going to be locked regardless of if the OP wants it to be. If it isn't, then the OP's requesting a lock isn't going to do anything. His 'request' isn't doing a single thing towards getting the thread locked.