Courtesy replies: Against the Terms of Service?

I was just PMed by a mod, asking me to "refrain from posting in old threads, because most of them are old."

I was just curious what the general opinion was about Courtesy Reply posts among the other mods and admins. Used to be that a Courtesy Reply (namely, a first reply to a thread that got none for a very long time) was seen as harmless fun. At best, it was a kind of sociological observation about the kind of topics that were, for one reason or another, buried by time and public apathy. But now I'm told that it's against the rules.

What rule is it breaking, exactly? Why wasn't I told about this before? Is this new policy?

 

I've always understood the rule to be you could UP a thread if it was really buried.

 

Yeah- I don't see why "upping" would be allowed for new threads, but not old ones? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

 

i may be going out on a limb here, but aren't ALL old threads old?

 

I think the point with that thread was that it was against the TOS (Spamming a site or something to that effect), so upping it wasn't right.

 

That's not the reason I was given, though. The mod in question told me that 'upping several threads is like making a bunch of new topics'. Huh?

 

If you are upping several old threads with no real substance to add to them, that is spamming. Now, a mod will use his/her judgment on whether you are spamming or not, so that comes into play.

If you are simply upping an old thread because you have something to add or it is an isolated incident, such as trying to bring a pertinent discussion back to life, then that itself is not an offense.

It's when it becomes a habit or repetetive that you are spamming.

(edit:?Spamming? is the act of filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts.)

 

If the thread was breaking the TOS, why wasn't it locked or deleted?

 

I find that somewhat ironic, considering the number of people who complained about the same threads being at the top all the time in YJCC.


I don't see any problem with posting in an old thread, as long as you have something constructive to say. For someone to say that certain threads should remain on the first page is ridiculous though, if something needs to be on the first page then they can stickify it.

 

Okay- there seems to be some confusion in terminology here. Upping a thread, is posting a non-contributing thing in it, just to see it on the first page again. It is done all the time here.

A courtesy reply is what I outlined in my first post-- a comment in a decidedly old thread, noting how poorly it did. In some cases, a courtesy reply can actually bring a thread to life, and have people notice the discussion that might have missed it. But it's intention is more meta-community analysis and reflection. Or mockery, if you do it mean spiritedly.

My concern isn't about whether upping threads is allowed or not, but whether courtesy replies are.

 

If the thread was breaking the TOS, why wasn't it locked or deleted?

I believe this one was.

 

Xie, if this was locked, he couldnt have posted in it.

So far as I am concerned, if its a legal thread, and you are making a legitimate comment, no mod has the right to tell you not to post a reply.

 

It was locked for violating the TOS, after he posted in it.

It wasn't locked BECAUSE of what he posted.

 

It depends on how the mod looks at courtesy replies, and how the post was worded. Most of the time, posts like this are the equivalent of +1 posts. They are just "Boy this thread died quickly." It isn't contributing to the discussion, and it isn't with the intention of bringing the abandoned discussion to the attention of the forum to incite more interest. They are posts intended to be funny.

I don't think there is anything wrong in doing it once. It can entertain a lot of people, and that is pretty much was YJCC is for.

But I think in this case, and correct me if I am wrong, it was done repeatedly, right? That is probably what the mod had a problem with. In general, upping several/many old threads in a short time is considered spamming, and that isn't new policy. I'm sure its explained better in one of the hundred "JC terminology" threads, because I know I read it somewhere.

 

So earlier it wasnt deemed lockworthy, but it is now?

And even if it is against the TOS, why does Halloween get warned for something else? He wasnt warned for posting in a thread that broke the TOS, but for posting in an old thread.

EDIT: I havent seen his posts, or the threads involved. However, so long as the posts were legitimate, then there shouldnt be a problem. If the posts werent, then he should be warned for spamming, or the like.

"refrain from posting in old threads, because most of them are old."

This says to me the issue with the mod wasnt the members posting, but that the posts were made specifically in old threads, ie, if he had posted in newer threads, there wouldnt have been a problem. It isnt for mods to tell members what threads they can post in.

 

From the JCC Guide to Better Posting:

"QUESTION: What is "spamming"?
ANSWER: The act of filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts is considered "spamming". Other examples of spamming include: posting unnecessary comments (ie: +1) for any reason can be considered spamming, upping old threads [such as those from a year ago] ... Excessive spamming will get you a warning and, after that, a banning."

So MyHalloweenSock got his warning, just as the definition said he would. I don't know how old a thread has to be to qualify as "old," but I don't think it has to be a year old to count as spamming.

 

Courtesy reply

 

So the JCC Guide to Better Posting is now the JCC Rules?

When did that happen, and why didnt anyone inform 90% of JCCers?

 

Ah, okay, thank you Gay-Len. That's what I was looking for. Why is it in a 'better posting guide' and not in the TOS or Rules of Conduct though? Should those be the places I check to see what's allowed?

 

So I guess I'll get banned for upping an old JediMaster22 threads I take it....

 

Well, it's in the header. It isn't exactly a secret thread that the mods are enforcing without informing us about it's contents first. Plus, when it was written, it's author wasn't a mod. But I don't think she made up at that rule, I'm sure JMT was just reiterating it, just like all of the other information there.

EDIT: To explain better; I don't know exactly where the specific rule is outlined. I knew that a layman's terms version of the rules was in the header in the JCC forum, so I used that to find a quote about the rule. Just like everything else in that post, it is a reposting of most of the common rules that are enforced in that board and what punishments can be expected. I'm sure it isn't the Mod Handbook for handling cases in YJCC, and I don't claim it is.

 

The TOS cannot contain every rule and situation. That's where things like the JCC Guide come in.

 

I'm not claiming it was secret or anything, but one wonders how any rules are followed at all here, with them being scattered across so many documents.

Some brave soul should try to track down all the little rules like this that are only sometimes enforced, and collect them in to one single official rulebook.

Would save people a lot of wondering, I think.


Anyways, this thread probably doesn't need to be open anymore now that my question has been answered. But just to sum up:

* Upping of threads is allowed, but not if they are old threads
* Courtesy replies to one or two threads are funny (but not allowed).
* Courtesy replies to a whole bunch of threads are spam (and still not allowed).

Oh, and also:

* Because the TOS and Rules of Conduct cannot contain every rule of conduct or term of service, random other documents can be interpreted to be rules as well, if the administration sees fit.

 

I know you weren't implying that. I was trying to make a point that this isn't a rule that the mods haven't informed us about in some way, nor is it new policy that they just decided to make up and apply to this instance.


Its a good idea to compile all the rules, but the catch is that it was that exact goal that has resulted in sooooo many different threads about rules. Several people have tried to make the comprehensive list, and the result was a bunch of lists in several places that aren't all exactly alike and uniform.

 

It's common sense on every board I've ever been to that rasing a whole heap of crappy threads for no better reason than raising them is considered bad form (clogs up the forum).

It's one of those "doesn't need to be stated" rules, like DON'T TYPE IN CAPS BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU'RE SHOUTING kinda things.

Maybe the mod involved didn't express it the best way but I'm pretty sure that's the length and breadth of it.