CS Debate Thread

[Agent Cooper]

You weren't just giving feedback, however.

You had pages talking about random things, and talking about XATs and various other things that did not include feedback. Did you read Kyame's post? Tell me, did all of that look like feedback to you?

I think the no reply rule should be set in place because you obviously cannot handle feedback if you got 3 warnings and did nothing to stop your spamming.

- - - - - - -

Giving me dictionary definitions doesn't do anything to be honest. The dictionary is not 100% pure true facts. The dictionary is made by people, and people can have differing opinions.

On thefreedictionary.com, ONE of FOUR definitions describes it as " a small, exclusive group of friends or associates". On another website, it simply describes it as a group of friends. You can describe it however you want.

Also, the fact that you did not outright state that you did not other people to join means nothing. You can exclude someone simply by making them feel left out, even unintentionally, such as when there was about 2 users on page 512 that no one seemed to respond to.

A clique can mean many different things, and you actually seem to fit your own definition.

You even have a list of "the honored members of this thread." kinda hurts when you realize that the TTAmY thread has a list of "honored members" on the front page, that lists only about 16 users, out of the 352865 total members of the website.

That is true, but surely, you can't still believe that, after all this trouble, no one will have changed at all?
I doubt that anyone who was considered to be a part of this 'clique,' wouldn't have realized that they'd made a mistake.

You've already humbled the most active players that had posted on the most recent version of the thread, so I highly doubt that a no-reply rule would be necessary.

Besides, the players who posted didn't really acknowledge the warnings, but that's just what children do.
They don't learn their lesson until they're punished.
We've been punished, we've learned our lesson - this makes a no-reply rule an extra, unneeded, and harsh punishment.

Sure, the people weren't COPPA'd, but just because a person is over thirteen does not mean that they aren't still children that can be immature.

People get silly, and playful, and tend to forget things (most especially rules) when they become warmed up to people.

I'm quite sure that many of the people who've participated in this argument have, at some point, behaved and thought the exact same way.

it's simply a part of maturity, and that affects how and when a person - or a group of people - will respond to a warning.

Ignorance or "being silly and playful forgetting things" is not an excuse. You all have 3 WARNINGS. Maturity does not come into play in this, it's a simple ability to follow directions.

If a person cannot follow a simple direction, one that is repeated 3 times, then there's going to be problems on here and later on in life. People give warnings, and people should be able to follow a direction.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance is something that can be helped, and is simply a lack of knowledge. They had plenty of places on here to get knowledge about the rules.

[CroissantMoon]

well you're making it out to be as if it would be a wild beast off its leash haha, i understand something like people posting every 3 seconds could cause some sort of a lag, but i meant for the few who are feeling hurt by having this discussion. And i mean something like to just talk and chill, it wouldnt be like an event because not everyone will be posting, just the few who want to talk...the few people who want to say something not encased in boundary(like getting called out for not being on topic, rules would still apply). we would have the cs rules as a rule on the front page, im sure people would LOVE to minimod it all day, it wouldnt be that bad, i assure you and if it is then delete it. not that hard hehe. i agree, of course about everything, but im sure something could work, we are, after all, supposed to be a comunity, im sure we can figure something out cs~

[reilly]

-snip-

-snip-

Ignorance or "being silly and playful forgetting things" is not an excuse. You all have 3 WARNINGS. Maturity does not come into play in this, it's a simple ability to follow directions.

If a person cannot follow a simple direction, one that is repeated 3 times, then there's going to be problems on here and later on in life. People give warnings, and people should be able to follow a direction.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance is something that can be helped, and is simply a lack of knowledge. They had plenty of places on here to get knowledge about the rules.

I agree with Oyasumi here.
There were even people who literally said stuff like, "I know I'm spamming, but this is just too fun!"

And by the way, when we are saying it causes lag, we don't just mean for the TTAmY Thread. Spam causes lag for the entire site since it can take up so much room.

[Tea_Leaf]

I just really don't appreciate the idea of having "regulations" on things that are supposed to make you happy.

"You can only have this much fun."

What would really be the point, then?
I mean, not even a single reply to anything?

Say I posted something about a topic that you just really really love and adore and everything.
And you just really really wanted to say something like "Oh, that's so funny! Haha!"

Or

"I love that!"

But you couldn't post anything like that?
A strict no-reply rule would not work for something that's supposed to be loose and relaxed.
It's like putting a "no running" rule on playgrounds.

[Sety]

I just really don't appreciate the idea of having "regulations" on things that are supposed to make you happy.

"You can only have this much fun."

What would really be the point, then?
I mean, not even a single reply to anything?

Say I posted something about a topic that you just really really love and adore and everything.
And you just really really wanted to say something like "Oh, that's so funny! Haha!"

Or

"I love that!"

But you couldn't post anything like that?
A strict no-reply rule would not work for something that's supposed to be loose and relaxed.
It's like putting a "no running" rule on playgrounds.

While I see where you're coming from, I think that's a bit too extreme. It's more like saying "no running" at a pool, because there IS a reason behind it.

What if we all just meet in the middle?
Allow responses AS LONG AS you also add something else amusing.
Liiiike...
"That's so funny oh my goodness XD
....
Look what I found on tumblr, guyses!
*-insert random gif here-*"

Ya'know, like, replying but ALSO adding your own thing.
It would be less like spam and more like what happens on other threads c:

[Agent Cooper]

I just really don't appreciate the idea of having "regulations" on things that are supposed to make you happy.

"You can only have this much fun."

What would really be the point, then?
I mean, not even a single reply to anything?

Say I posted something about a topic that you just really really love and adore and everything.
And you just really really wanted to say something like "Oh, that's so funny! Haha!"

Or

"I love that!"

But you couldn't post anything like that?
A strict no-reply rule would not work for something that's supposed to be loose and relaxed.
It's like putting a "no running" rule on playgrounds.

...Are you suggesting there should be no rules?

Because you could easily say something like that in a PM, or in some form of chat box or what have you.

Rules are kept so that one/others do not get hurt/things don't get too out of hand, exactly like the TTAmY got out of hand. Rules are regulations that people follow so things stay orderly.

An anarchist version of Chicken Smoothie, or just about anything in general wouldn't run very smoothly.

[mal du pays]

I just really don't appreciate the idea of having "regulations" on things that are supposed to make you happy.

"You can only have this much fun."

What would really be the point, then?
I mean, not even a single reply to anything?

Say I posted something about a topic that you just really really love and adore and everything.
And you just really really wanted to say something like "Oh, that's so funny! Haha!"

Or

"I love that!"

But you couldn't post anything like that?
A strict no-reply rule would not work for something that's supposed to be loose and relaxed.
It's like putting a "no running" rule on playgrounds.

While I see where you're coming from, I think that's a bit too extreme. It's more like saying "no running" at a pool, because there IS a reason behind it.

What if we all just meet in the middle?
Allow responses AS LONG AS you also add something else amusing.
Liiiike...
"That's so funny oh my goodness XD
....
Look what I found on tumblr, guyses!
*-insert random gif here-*"

Ya'know, like, replying but ALSO adding your own thing.
It would be less like spam and more like what happens on other threads c:

That seems reasonable, and maybe a you can only post once or twice per page rule? it would make it a bit slower, but it would maybe hold off on the spam!

[scree53]

Little late, but I gotta say stuff X3

That would be just like a chat thread though. And if the amusement got a spam/chat thread, then every thread would need to have one, since that would be fair. of course, if there was a spam thread, it would probably slow the servers down quite a bit.
A chat site, like the DeviantART chat rooms, would be a much better option, or even a messanger. You wouldn't need mods, and if you use a dA chat, then you can just give people the link or link to it in your signature and people could join that way. you wouldn't get warnings for it either, considering it would be offsite. :33

well they dont want to be offsite, that is the whole point of why they want this thread though...and the spam thread could be for everyone not just the what amuses you thread. and i doubt that a simple thread will slow the whole site down,

You'd be surprised how much the servers slow due to "simple threads." That's actually one of the major reasons spam isn't allowed on CS.

Having random chat threads could:
*lead to major conflicts and arguments (because people are people and people argue, there is no denying it.)

*lead to people getting "left out" and thus have a 'feelings-hurt' epidemic.

*slow the servers (imagine how many posts the thread would get per hour. You know how during CS events, it's so hard to post? That's because so many users are trying to post. The servers can only handle so much, and this is why the site runs slow during events - though they wouldn't slow as much because of one thread, it could definately affect things behind the scenes that few users know about. Just because slow servers don't affect your CS life doesn't mean they don't affect, say, the security of the site.)

*lead to other threads getting no attention (I can't think of the right way to phrase this. Like, you can't bump your trade thread until it goes to the second page. Same kind of thing.)

*give the mods a hard time due to inappropriate content, the aforementioned arguments, et cetera. Honestly, the mods don't need more work.

***

As for this "no reply" rule, I totally agree. People get hurt by others replying to other posts, even on the Fun Wats To Use Items thread. I see it all the time on the TTAYT. It HURTS people to be ignored. It really doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. Like scree said, people are being left out.

And that is not amusing.

We can pretty much sum up the idea that a "spam thread" is not a good idea on CS, even if it does get some things out of people.

About the "no reply" rule, I actually don't agree. Yes, maybe it does hurt but people all have their different opinions and while someone might think that one gif is funny, another might not eve get it. I think that if there was a rule, like say, if you are to reply to a post, it has to be about that post, not something random. Kinda like the "Good Trade Thread," you know? There's a rule like that on that thread and it doesn't get riddled with spam.

[Tea_Leaf]

@ Caelum.

Yeah, that's a more reasonable rule. I honestly believe that it will just be too hard for people to restrain from not responding altogether, so your idea is a very good compromise. c:

~~~

@Oyasumi Punpun

No, I'm not saying there should be no rules whatsoever. I realize what the point of rules are, and why they're there.

What I'm trying to convey is that I don't like the idea of having such a strict sort of system for threads with purposes to make people laugh.

I understand that rules are needed, I'm just saying that I don't think we should take such drastic measures to keep things in check.

Yes, I agree that some rules should be altered so they're more clear, or more enforced, but they shouldn't be such a large change.

As I said in response to Caelum.'s post, I think it's a good idea to be able to reply, as long as you add your own amusing post.

Simply replying, or not replying at all are actions that have either too little regulation, or too much.

I get the feeling that you and I won't easily see eye-to-eye, so I really suggest that we compromise and go with Caelum.'s idea.

[Agent Cooper]

@tea_leaf

I can agree with Caelum's idea, and I do think it is a good idea.

However, your post just came off to me as a situation where you see no reason to why there should be rules on things that should be fun, and I apologize for misunderstanding your message.

I must disagree on the fact that we will never see eye to eye on this however. I'm quite willing to make a compromise if you put one on the table.