post hierarchy is entirely pointless when it comes to online forums. comparing government bodies, where each level of its structure has a purpose to labels on a forum that only reflect number of posts is not a very sound analogy. obviously, by the way numerous "high-ranking" forumers behave, and continue to behave because they have this strange notion that the "don't be rude" rule only applies to headcrabs, status titles here reflect absolutely nothing about the nature of the person's posts, or their attitude toward other people. its original purpose to be a fun little detail has now become some way of classifying people, not even by how long they've been here, but instead by how many times they've posted. wouldn't a person who's been here for six months and has 30 posts be more likely to make sure they're contributing relevant ideas to the thread rather than someone who's been here a month and has 500 posts? not to say that people with high post counts are inherently spamming. there are obviously examples of where this is not the case. the only difference that can reflect post quality is the person themselves, and unless they go through some huge maturation phase as they post more, their personality will not change with their "status".
your "examples" were not compelling. i prefer to go on my own experience of reading most threads that come up. also, if you're going to continue to resort to random insults, then you prove my point further of status being independent of the poster's character.
and it is precisely this kind of attitude, that it's all the headcrabs' fault, that gives zombies and up the idea that their negative and antisocial attitudes are superior to whatever maturity new forumers display. no matter how constructive a headcrab's post may be, this mentality dictates that he is not to be respected because he posts once every few days rather than ten+ times a day. this alone is a blatant act of immaturity, and i'm surprised so many people have refused to notice such an obvious hypocracy.
insults are counterproductive. they don't detail specifics of what the issue is, nor do they usually accurately reflect the situation or the people involved. they prevent people from understanding eachother, and mar any productive activity, such as staying on topic in a thread. insults are generally used when people feel that they can no longer / shouldn't bother communicate with the person with whom they're discussing. how calling them stupid or lame gets closer to solving this problem is beyond me.
this ties into the problem with insults. if the headcrab doesn't understand the rules, it isn't the job of the "more experianced" combine to act superior and degrade him, making the issue worse and making the offender even less likely to change their attitude; it's his job to make sure the headcrab understands the issue, and if they continue to act like an ass, then they obviously have no intention of being a productive member of the community.
i totally agree that threads we've seen four or five times are an issue, and that it degrades the quality of the forums. but how does implimenting a decidedly prejudice rule better the community? you may get rid of the threads that would come from the headcrabs, but you'll still have to deal with the repetetive threads that come from zombies and up, as well as the rude and superior attitudes of some "high-ranking" posters.
dude, i didn't edit your post. i went through it by pieces, not responding to some sentences that didn't need responding to. how can i take something out of context by quoting the whole thing? the meaning you conveyed in the entire post is what i responded to, not some little piece that i warped the meaning of. if people doubted that, they could look on the very same page and see your post. are you saying that i shouldn't reply to your posts at all because i might not get what your original meaning is at all? isn't that kind of your fault, too?
o_o school hierarchy is yet another irrelevant example. in school, you learn things specific to your grade, you probably hang out with people in your classes and in your grade, etc. it's entirely different. i don't know where you think i implied that any and all hierarchy is bad, and you putting words in my mouth negates any standing your complaint of me taking your post out of context may have. let's compare this to how the forums are. you register, and make posts, and you get a status determining how many posts you make. you don't get educated with people of your status, you don't hang out only with people of your status, and there is no separation between people with different titles. that's all it is. a title. people that think they should get more respect because they post more, regardless of the content of their posts, are seriously kidding themselves. you get respected by how you act, and that, as i've said so many times before, is not dependent on how long you've been here.
your 1 week's probation is not great. it is prejudice. if people think they don't need to learn how things run around here before delving into things, then one of our forum members can politely inform them of the rules should they break them. week-long censorship is a very unwelcoming message to send to new members. this also doesn't stop people from posting assinine replies to threads. have you noticed how many "stfu lame thread" replies there have been by people that are not headcrabs? i think warns and bans are more effective deterrents, which is why i also think we need more moderators.
it may stop a few, much in the same way banning everyone from posting would. notice how many quality threads we wouldn't have if such an implimentation was put forth. also, the spamming is not so much a problem anymore, as is the horrible attitude of some community members, who, coincidentally, happen to not be headcrabs. they don't start threads, but their negative impact is still quite apparent, isn't it? like i've said, post quality is not determined by registration date.
the only reason i initially responded to your post was because i disagreed. where from this do you get that i don't like you? i don't even know you, just like you don't know me. and if i agreed with your suggestions, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, now would we? please don't try to make me seem like some random antagonist when all i did was opened a discussion with you. if you decide to take it personally, then that's your own fault.
i didn't find them convincing because i didn't find them convincing. boy, you sure pulled a massive 180 there. "don't take my posts out of context" while you then decide to draw a plethora of conclusions that have no basis in the conversation. the impression i get from the threads you mention is that they were started by the enthusiastic or careless. yes, they are tiresome to people who've seen similar threads dozens of times. however, i don't agree with how you draw conclusions from some of their statuses as headcrabs as a determining factor for all headcrabs. if these people make threads asking for info on the delay, then we can be considerate, and do something constructive and tell them information, direct them to previous threads, and also remind them that there's a search feature should they want more information. what isn't constructive is insulting their intelligence, driving them off, or turning the thread into an insult-fest where no information is gained, and their opinion of our community is turned into a wholly negative one.
yes, precisely. i'm skimming it by quoting it and responding to it in depth. status means nothing at all. so far, all it's been used for is our good friend prejudice. people can make a thousand posts and still not know the rules of the forum, or how to make friendly, informative posts. it's not dependent on the number of posts they've made. the only time it makes a difference is if they were initially grossly misinformed, and were then actually willing to learn the rules and follow them. otherwise, headcrabs are no different than combine. there are some nice ones, some caustic ones, and some ones that don't read threads before replying in them. i mentioned the fact that maturity would most likely not change in a week because it's true. it would be a problem with your idea, because the person has not changed during the week that they've been censored, and if they didn't know the rules, then all it takes is a polite reminder for them to learn them. not a week of discouragement. and please, if you want me to take your arguments seriously any longer, you shouldn't use the logic "i'm right because you know i'm right".
stereotypes. nice. how is this conducive to bettering the community again? you construct a scenario in your mind that has, if any, no apparent basis in reality or experience, and then apply this logic to every headcrab, regardless of if they even know what counter-strike is. if someone does make such a post, then it's far better to tell them the facts of the situation, and direct them to the search feature. as i've said before, telling them "already talked about u idiot" and completely turning them off from the community, is not productive, nor is inhibitting any posts by headcrabs. that sends the message "we don't care what your thread may be, because we're assuming it to be worthless." the people that would do what you've laid out probably shouldn't be posting on the forums at all. that doesn't mean that any person that wants to sign up should get treated like an idiot just because of one person who might be one.
you needn't put it any simpler, because i've meticulously been replying to almost your entire replies, detailing why i don't agree, and giving my reasons. please don't insult my intelligence based on the notion that if i don't agree with you, i must not know what the hell i'm talking about. all i've seen you do, however, is ignore most of my replies, and then either insult me, or repeat the arguments that i gave reasons for their invalidities. i'd be willing to consider your propositions if you could explain to me why it isn't prejudice, why it isn't stereotyping, and why it betters the community, considering my side of the argument. most of the rest of your reply i've already responded to several times above. please see those posts.
yes, leave the forums themselves the way they are. what needs to change is the attitude some of community members have, though there's been a big increase of less insult-eager people coming here lately, so :thumbs: to that. threads used to be mostly insults, and few contributions, but now it's the other way around, though there seem to always be three or four people who just *have* to make sure a newbie 'knows their place'. those are the people that need to change, and oddly enough, most of them are not headcrabs. i'd suggest cracking down on making sure discussions stay above the insulting stage.
...just noticed.
OK 
