Still waiting on a rule clarification

[TallBill]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2165566

Here is the explanation that was offered.

My usual rule of thumb is only two NEF quotes are allowed.

This means that after the first two NEF quotes, people post per day percentage will drop.

However, deliberate attempts to get around those guidelines may be handle accordingly.

These are my guidelines, other Moderators may have different ones/tolerances

Where Duddy did not follow the quote pattern, he skated with a warning.


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

This isn't meant to be a callout at all. I just want clarification and cant seem to get any. The only person responding to this issue is the mod doing the banning. Why are there personal guidelines? Shouldn't there be standard accross the board guidelines?

Also, I still don't see where any of us 6 banned participated in Nef quoting. Sure we quoted, but I see hundreds of examples of that every day on the forums.

So if our posts were exactly the same minus the [q.] tags then there would have been no problem? I really cant follow the logic here.

We were not "nef quoting" whatever that is.

Edit - I tried PM'ing DerekWilson and emailing moderator@anandtech.com and a few others as suggested to keep this off the forums, but never got an answer.

 

[bsobel]

Nef quoting is simply quoting the prior person, adding a word or two and continuing. Its always been disallowed.

I hadnt looked at the thread before, but looking now I can clearly see where it was done.

And while not every person who speeds may be caught, when you do it ad pass a cop, your more likely to.

Bill

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Nef quoting is simply quoting the prior person, adding a word or two and continuing. Its always been disallowed.

I hadnt looked at the thread before, but looking now I can clearly see where it was done.

And while not every person who speeds may be caught, when you do it ad pass a cop, your more likely to.

Bill

So if we had just responded with our responses without the quotes it would have been fine? And is there an accross the board feeling of 2+ quotes?

If that is fully agreed on by all mods then fine. I'm just looking for something in stone.

 

[bsobel]

Lets look at the last page of the thread: These where the responses added, each was its own post and quoted the post above it:

1: FUCKIN SLAMMIN
2: JAMMIN!
3: HAMMIN SLAMMIN!
4: ?
5: FUCKIN HAMMIN JAMMIN! SLAMMIN

If the quoting wasn't involved, those would have been dealt with as simply neffing.

Bill

 

[TallBill]

So why bother calling it nef quoting then? As I understand it nested quoting spamming became an issue when people simply hit quote and replied. After 4 or 5 people do this the text becomes unreadable. Do we really need a "nef quoting" category as a vacation reason?

Edit - Not arguing, just looking for rules. I'll stop here.

 

[DrPizza]

From rule #5: "Multiple quick nef posts, . . . , and flooding the Forums will not be tolerated."

Of course, a LOT of posts are recognized as nef posts. And, for the most part, they're fairly innocuous and are generally ignored. Consider this like driving at 58mph past a policeman in a 55mph zone. You're breaking the rules, but you're not going to even receive a second glance from a policeman.

But, at what speed are you going to actually going to end up getting pulled over? 60mph? 65mph? 70mph? Something in between? Might it even depend on a combination of the actual speed and the policeman's mood? Might it also depend on how busy the policeman is.. gotta be in court in 10 minutes and not enough time to write a ticket? Bad mood, maybe 65mph? Good mood, maybe 68mph?

Or, try to do something that some people will consider funny, but is in a gray area of whether it's legal or not. 3 out of 10 police may laugh. 3 out of 10 police may laugh and ticket you. 2 out of 10 may not laugh, but not ticket you, and the remaining 2 might not laugh and will ticket you.

Unfortunately, you've discovered a speed that may result in you getting pulled over, depending on the policeman's mood and how busy the policeman is. Look at how relatively short the forum rules are. The type of neffing/quoting that resulted in the vacations has always been against the rules. Sometimes, you might get lucky and get that mod who finds it really amusing and decides not to do anything unless it gets further out of hand.

However, since you're looking for a more specifically written rule, I ask you to think about this: how would you write a rule to describe the exact situation that resulted in the vacations? Now, try to think of every borderline situation that could possibly occur, choose where the exact boundary is, and write a specific rule. If such could be done, then there would be no need for moderation by humans. Someone could write some computer code and it would be black and white - at least until someone found a crack or loophole in the code. Then again that wouldn't even work. When most of those forum rules were written last summer, things like "rick-rolling" hadn't even been invented. Moderation is always going to need a human element. And as humans, we're not going to always interpret the rules the exact same way as someone else may.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
From rule #5: "Multiple quick nef posts, . . . , and flooding the Forums will not be tolerated."

Of course, a LOT of posts are recognized as nef posts. And, for the most part, they're fairly innocuous and are generally ignored. Consider this like driving at 58mph past a policeman in a 55mph zone. You're breaking the rules, but you're not going to even receive a second glance from a policeman.

But, at what speed are you going to actually going to end up getting pulled over? 60mph? 65mph? 70mph? Something in between? Might it even depend on a combination of the actual speed and the policeman's mood? Might it also depend on how busy the policeman is.. gotta be in court in 10 minutes and not enough time to write a ticket? Bad mood, maybe 65mph? Good mood, maybe 68mph?

Or, try to do something that some people will consider funny, but is in a gray area of whether it's legal or not. 3 out of 10 police may laugh. 3 out of 10 police may laugh and ticket you. 2 out of 10 may not laugh, but not ticket you, and the remaining 2 might not laugh and will ticket you.

Unfortunately, you've discovered a speed that may result in you getting pulled over, depending on the policeman's mood and how busy the policeman is. Look at how relatively short the forum rules are. The type of neffing/quoting that resulted in the vacations has always been against the rules. Sometimes, you might get lucky and get that mod who finds it really amusing and decides not to do anything unless it gets further out of hand.

However, since you're looking for a more specifically written rule, I ask you to think about this: how would you write a rule to describe the exact situation that resulted in the vacations? Now, try to think of every borderline situation that could possibly occur, choose where the exact boundary is, and write a specific rule. If such could be done, then there would be no need for moderation by humans. Someone could write some computer code and it would be black and white - at least until someone found a crack or loophole in the code. Then again that wouldn't even work. When most of those forum rules were written last summer, things like "rick-rolling" hadn't even been invented. Moderation is always going to need a human element. And as humans, we're not going to always interpret the rules the exact same way as someone else may.

Excellent explanation

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: bsobel
Nef quoting is simply quoting the prior person, adding a word or two and continuing. Its always been disallowed.

I hadnt looked at the thread before, but looking now I can clearly see where it was done.

And while not every person who speeds may be caught, when you do it ad pass a cop, your more likely to.

Bill

So if we had just responded with our responses without the quotes it would have been fine? And is there an accross the board feeling of 2+ quotes?

If that is fully agreed on by all mods then fine. I'm just looking for something in stone.

actually, since someone replied without quoting with the word SLAMMIN and didn't get a mod quote ban, it appears you are correct. had you not quoted, IT APPEARS you would have been fine.

edit: fixed so that someone knows it's an OBSERVATION and i'm not trying to moderate.

 

[bsobel]

actually, since someone replied without quoting with the word SLAMMIN and didn't get a mod quote ban, it appears you are correct. had you not quoted, you would have been fine.

The question was asked and answered, please do not come into PFI and make statements like that.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: bsobel

actually, since someone replied without quoting with the word SLAMMIN and didn't get a mod quote ban, it appears you are correct. had you not quoted, IT APPEARS you would have been fine.

The question was asked and answered, please do not come into PFI and make statements like that.

this is a forum, i made an observation. the threat in PMs was not necessary. thanks tho.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: bsobel

actually, since someone replied without quoting with the word SLAMMIN and didn't get a mod quote ban, it appears you are correct. had you not quoted, IT APPEARS you would have been fine.

The question was asked and answered, please do not come into PFI and make statements like that.

this is a forum, i made an observation. the threat in PMs was not necessary. thanks tho.

That's not very professional. I didn't see anything you had said in your post that would warrant any such threats.

 

[JJChicken]

man that thread was hillarious

 

[JJChicken]

is neffing a banable offense..cause thats all i do

--
Yes. I wouldn't push it, you are already on our list. There are 2 ways off: You shape up or we will escort you to the curb. We prefer the former, but there is always the latter.
AnandTech Moderator Evadman