The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Feedback  % width posts: 210

Updated rules


OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #31
The current published list of rules are fine and in my opinion are well enforced by the moderators

Kindly point out where the "Q: This member abused the quoting feature." is explained. Kindly also explain why the rule which was clearly stated by a mod in this post polishforums.com/feedback/warning-posters-changing-names-famous-67569/#msg1393107 is now being ignored.
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #32
Kindly point out

Not my job I am not a mod, I understand the rules am happy with the moderation.

If people are not happy with the rules here there is nothing stopping them from setting their own forum and setting their own rules.
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #33
I understand the rules

OK, given that you understand what "Q: This member abused the quoting feature." now means, while a person who was a mod when it was introduced says "I am unsure what Q refers to these days.", perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to us all.

If people are not happy with the rules here

The problem isn't people being unhappy with the rules, it's with the rules being unclear and haphazardly applied.
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #34
, it's with the rules being unclear and haphazardly applied.

There are plenty of prisoners in jail who proclaim their innocence or ignorance of the law.

If posters abide by the rules and abstain from provoking and abusing the moderators the everything will be fine.
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #35
If posters abide by the rules

For the third time of asking, given that you understand what "Q: This member abused the quoting feature." now means and so can abide by it, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain it to the rest of us. Also, would you like to address the other question I asked in my last post or do you need to ignore that one due to the answer being obvious and entirely in opposition to what you claim?
Ziemowit 14 | 4,394
18 Jan 2017 #36
I dont know why you allow every topic about Poland to be turned into a topic about serbia?

Kindly explain what you have against Serbia. It's a lovely country with a lovely culture and you should know that!
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #37
For the third time of asking, given that you understand what "Q:

For the second time of answering I am not a mod its not my job.

My understanding of the rules is fine I have no problems or warnings here , maybe you could ask one of the moderators to take you under their wing and guide you as to what is acceptable and what is not, maybe they could give you some examples of what is and is not acceptable here.
Admin 32 | 1,530 Administrator
18 Jan 2017 #38
There are certain accepted norms in our society, certain conventions and views that are generally agreed upon.

Close to 900 people / organizations have received the Nobel Prize between 1901-2016. Would you, personally, make the same decision and award all these people the Prize? Probably not - then the 'accepted norms and conventions' is meaningless.

but that now it isn't possible to quote more than a certain amount of words

.. but you managed to get around the rule by using multiple, small quotes.. that's why this warning was created.
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #39
There you go Harry, the rule was created specially for you for circumventing rules, just stick to the rules in future.. simple.

As you can see there was no way I could have answered the question for you.
Atch 17 | 4,114
18 Jan 2017 #40
the 'accepted norms and conventions' is meaningless.

My goodness quite the Nihilist aren't we. However the analogy about the Nobel Prize is a bit obscure which indicates you either didn't understand my point or you didn't want to and are trying to be clever. You do come across as rather a smarty pants. But I must say it's been rather a pleasure chatting with you. I've enjoyed it. Imagine bone china tea cups clinking...........do come again :)
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #41
but you managed to get around the rule by using multiple, small quotes.. that's why this warning was created.

Interesting that you gave a warning for something which hadn't been forbidden, but thank you for finally explaining your reasoning. I'll be sure to keep my posts to below five quotes in the future (assuming that the example you set and also accept from other posters on the previous page is the acceptable one).

As you can see there was no way I could have answered the question for you.

One wonders why you said you can understand what you are not able to explain.
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #42
One wonders why you said you can understand what you are not able to explain.

Well I must say It was very sneaky of you posting multiple times , I must be honest that I do not always follow your posts in any detail hence I did not pick up on your infringment, but at least it proves the mods are smart and on the ball and it proves that it is not so easy to pull the wool over their eyes.
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #43
It was very sneaky of you posting multiple times

Until Admin said it wasn't OK to put multiple quotes in a post, I had no idea it wasn't allowed. I can point to numerous posts which have many more quotes than mine (and a lot more than 50 words).

it proves the mods are smart and on the ball and it proves that it is not so easy to pull the wool over their eyes.

If you feel that is the case, perhaps you'd like to address the rule which is clearly being ignored on a daily basis?
dolnoslask 6 | 3,076
18 Jan 2017 #44
perhaps you'd like to address the rule

It is up to the mods to address the rules, and in my opinion they are doing a good job.
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #45
It is up to the mods to address the rules

Let's hope they do so soon (the extra 'o' needed in case the rule I mentioned above has been lifted is ready and raring to go).
johnny reb 37 | 7,697
18 Jan 2017 #46
Why is it ONLY YOU that has a problem with this rule Har ?

If posters abide by the rules and abstain from provoking and abusing the moderators the everything will be fine.

That may be more of the hidden issue here aye Har ?

OK, so perhaps you can explain what the "Q: This member abused the quoting feature." warning means?

It was explained to you VERY CLEARLY awhile back HAR.
You as always want to split hairs rather then getting the jest of what you were told.
Let me repeat (not in the same exact words) what I remember what you were told about excessive quoting.....AGAIN...now listen up so we can let this go once and for all as you are driving us nuts with your obsessive compulsion disorder.

It is unnecessary to quote from the above post repeatedly. We want to keep the thread flowing as if someone was reading the thread from the beginning of it.....like a story. Excessive quoting disrupts the flow of the thread.

Now do a photo shot of this, make a copy and tape it on the wall above your computer screen.

Sadly there are people who post under one username until they have become shunned and then they register for a new username

Oh Har wipe the egg off your face.
I have repeatedly came clean on that one by telling you that I just said that to keep YOU, jon357, Pam, delph, Wroclaw Boy and TheOther (All Brit Bullies) busy spending countless hours researching the back logs trying to figure out who I was previously.

NO TRUTH TO IT HAR ! Get it ?????? Purely a tactic to make you all look stupid and waste your time. AND IT WORKED PERFECTLY ! LMAO

All you guys were abscessed with it for months which brought much entertainment and laughs from me and the other members that I P.M.'d and told the truth.

I was sick and tired of the bunch of you belittling, insulting and bullying the Polish and American members here so I dished it back to you.

If people are not happy with the rules here there is nothing stopping them from setting their own forum and setting their own rules.

Plus +1
It is up to the mods to address the rules, and in my opinion they are doing a good job.
Plus +1
OP Harry
18 Jan 2017 #47
Why is it ONLY YOU that has a problem with this rule Har ?

Clearly you do too, as you've just quoted way more than 50 words by breaking the quotes in to four parts.

But then you clearly also have problems with understanding the rule about hijacking threads and the one about not going off topic. It's lucky for you that there's no rule here against assaulting and harassing women.
TheOther 6 | 3,692
18 Jan 2017 #48
...then the 'accepted norms and conventions' is meaningless.

That was exactly my point with warnings. There are far too many variables for a mod to decide which post actually breaks the rules and which one doesn't. In the end it seems to boil down to personal preferences, which is why the warning system is deeply flawed IMO.

TheOther (All Brit Bullies)

Missed a geography lesson, have we? LOL!

trying to figure out who I was previously

Wait a minute ... now I know who you are. You are the sockpuppet of Donald Trump!!! Why didn't I think of that earlier? It was so obvious: you lie when you open your mouth, you post to stir sh*t, you never admit to a mistake, you deny that you've said something even though your posts prove otherwise, you abuse women, and so on and so forth. How should we address you from now on, sir? Duke Orange?

This was a political statement, by the way, not a personal insult... ;)
johnny reb 37 | 7,697
21 Jan 2017 #49
This was exactly my point with warnings. There are far too many variables for a mod to decide which post actually breaks the rules and which one doesn't as seen in the above two posts.

you've just quoted way more than 50 words

I must have missed it
You however being obsessive compulsive would be the authority
You are lucky there are no rules for low life filth after how you posted here bragging of sodomizing women and other men.
Must have happened the same day that you bragged about drinking fifty different kinds of beer that day.

Missed a geography lesson

Nope, Australia is a British Penal colony Kangaroo Boy. LOL !

Duke Orange?

You have called me far worse so it would be an improvement.

Wait a minute ...

Ya, wait a minute is right.
All you have done for two years is follow me around stalking trying to insult me by breaking the rules of "A' & "O' and "T" without me reporting it to the mods ya dumb ass....... you have just brought it to their attention so be ready to receive another warning in the near future.

This was a private political statement by the way but you can take it as a personal insult if you like.
Paulina 13 | 3,832
14 Apr 2017 #50
here are far too many variables for a mod to decide which post actually breaks the rules and which one doesn't.

I agree.

OK, I really have enough of this. Could someone please explain to me why this post of mine was moved to Random Chat and why did I get another warning?:

polishforums.com/off-topic/random-chat-74400/37/#msg1589337

Which rules did I brake this time and how, in which place?
13 quotes in one post after being warned about this before
Paulina 13 | 3,832
14 Apr 2017 #51
First of all, noone ever explained it to me what is "excessive quoting", not even the admin of this forum was able to tell me that.

Second of all, my post was long so it's pretty natural that it contained more quotes than a short one would. I mean - it's pure logic and common sense. Don't mods take that into account?

It didn't even cross my mind that that post could brake any rules - even those insane ones about quoting.

If 13 quotes in one post are too many then how many quotes in one post are allowed on this forum?
Admin 32 | 1,530 Administrator
15 Apr 2017 #52
First of all, noone ever explained it to me what is "excessive quoting", not even the admin of this forum was able to tell me that.

OK, up to 3 quotes in a message is fine, anything more than that is not.

If 13 quotes in one post are too many then how many quotes in one post are allowed on this forum?

0,1,2, or 3.
Chemikiem
15 Apr 2017 #53
up to 3 quotes in a message is fine, anything more than that is not.

What is the rationale behind this? Are you saying that long posts, which by their very nature will probably contain more than your allowed number of quotes, are to be discouraged? Would Paulina's post have been acceptable if she had divided it into 4 separate posts instead? What if for example, I want to address a couple of points from 2 or 3 posters in a post? Although I don't tend to write lengthy posts, this would not be something unusual. Seems to me as if you are trying to limit discussion.

0,1,2, or 3.

So are you saying that warnings will be given or the post removed to the bin for posts containing 4 quotes and above? Please clarify.
Chemikiem
15 Apr 2017 #54
* I can see why Paulina's post was removed in the light of your explanation, but if you had made yourself clear at the start as to exactly what constitutes excessive quoting, this probably would not have arisen in the first place. If you have exact expectations ( no more than 3 quotes per post ), then surely it is up to you to update the rules accordingly so everyone knows where they stand and what is and what is not acceptable.

* I also find it strange that if in your own words, " Rules are just a guidance ", why some rules are strictly adhered to whereas others are not. Posters are allowed to use the most disgusting language towards each other ( breaking Rule 2 ), but posts will be binned and warnings given if 3 quotes are exceeded? What you are really saying is that the rules that suit you will be enforced to the letter, while the other 'rules' will remain the absolute joke that they are.

Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.
Ziemowit 14 | 4,394
15 Apr 2017 #55
It is only part of the truth. The truth is that Paulina's posts are often (but not always) too long and many quotes in them is only a side-effect of this. Posts that are very long are usually skipped over by most of the members, I should think. Post that are long and have many quotes are double-boring since not only they discourage people from reading them, but also the inserted quotes make such posts look unattractive and somewhat chaotic. As far as Paulina's long posts are concerned, she goes into too much detail when trying to make her point and thus it makes her long posts even triple-boring. She should improve her writing style by putting more "drama" into shorter passages and leave the abundance of details out.

To sum it up, Paulina is the Eliza Orzeszkowa of the PF except, of course, for her lenghty writing style being not so refined as the writing style of that renowned 19th century Polish writer.
Chemikiem
15 Apr 2017 #56
It is only part of the truth

That part of my quote that you replied to was concerning my 2nd paragraph about why some rules are strictly enforced but not others. I should have been more specific.

Paulina's posts are often (but not always) too long and many quotes in them

Yes I have noticed this as I do read them, but if Admin had been clear from the start about the 3 quotes per post rule, then more than likely her posts would have been shorter with less quotes in them. You cannot expect people to conform to rules which have not until now been clearly explained.
Vincent 9 | 924 Moderator
15 Apr 2017 #57
So are you saying that warnings will be given or the post removed to the bin for posts containing 4 quotes and above? Please clarify.

Not many profile warnings have been given out for over quoting and I don't expect posters will get a ban if they go over 3 quotes per post. The line is drawn when someone takes no notice of previous warnings (red warnings are issued first) and continues to quote over a dozen times in on of their following posts.

If you have to address some points from up to three posters, why not quote a short sentence and address all your points to that poster in one go, instead of repeating everything they said? The poster will know you are referring to them personally. The same format could be done for the next poster etc. This way half of the forums' text won't be repeated.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
15 Apr 2017 #58
OK, up to 3 quotes in a message is fine, anything more than that is not.

Seems fair.
Chemikiem
15 Apr 2017 #59
The line is drawn when someone takes no notice of previous warnings (red warnings are issued first) and continues to quote over a dozen times in on of their following posts.

I can understand this, but as I said, until now no-one knew that 3 quotes is the maximum permissible. Had that information been updated in the rules at the start, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.Before this, I presumed excessive quoting applied to too many words within one particular quote.

why not quote a short sentence and address all your points to that poster in one go

Well I guess I will have to now, even though I am not someone who generally overuses quoting, but to me that seems bonkers as anyone reading my answer to a particular quote will wonder why on earth I am going over other points having nothing to do with the original quote I replied to. The whole thing smacks of Admin's trying to have the forum read as a conversation, as he tried before and which failed miserably.

The poster will know you are referring to them personally

Yes of course they will, but to others reading it, it won't, as I said above.

This way half of the forums' text won't be repeated.

But generally speaking it isn't.
Oh dear, I have quoted 4 times, horrors!! Best whisk me off to the bin now then ;)
johnny reb 37 | 7,697
15 Apr 2017 #60
The line is drawn when someone takes no notice of previous warnings (red warnings are issued first) and continues

You mean like the members who are warned CONSTANTLY in red warnings to stay on topic and their very next post under your warning they post another off topic reply without getting a warning ?

I think now that the quote rule has been explained with patience and it is written in stone, that Paulina now understands the P.F.'s point.

Her warning should be deleted do to the fact it was a grey area to the members.
Thank you in advance Vincent.

With that said hopefully we can move on by establishing the OFF TOPIC rule.
Violators bait other members with nasty remarks to get the attacked member to defend themselves and off topic the thread goes.
Maybe it should be that ANY intentional provoking immature remarks to insult another member to cause a thread to go off topic should be entertained next as it is the MAIN PROBLEM in disrupting the flow of threads.

Whew ! There, I feel so much better now being able to throw in my two cents............:-)

Home / Feedback / Updated rules
Discussion is closed.

Please login or sign-up on the main page to post in this category!