Suggestion Abolish post editing restriction

Stigma

Veteran OT User
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
2,060
Not sure what you find misleading about it, just because it happens to have the word bump in it? It's used as the most common example of spamming / double posting, there is no rule specifically for bumps, just that rule that blanket covers bumping.
It's not misleading if people actually read the rule rather than just skipping to the "bump" part.
if other bumps are disallowed as well
You may not repeat the same message multiple times.
 

Wirox

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
18
Not sure what you find misleading about it, just because it happens to have the word bump in it? It's used as the most common example of spamming / double posting, there is no rule specifically for bumps, just that rule that blanket covers bumping.
It's not misleading if people actually read the rule rather than just skipping to the "bump" part.
But why the hell would it mention "within 24 hours", if it applied to any bumps at all?
 
Last edited:

Stigma

Veteran OT User
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
2,060
But why the hell would it mention "within 24 hours", if it applied to any bumps at all?
Because it's an example. For me at least, I read that example and it says 24 hours for just normal bumps, why wouldn't it include others as well? Any other bump would still fall under the general rule of double posting / spamming.
 

Wirox

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
18
Because it's an example. For me at least, I read that example and it says 24 hours for just normal bumps, why wouldn't it include others as well? Any other bump would still fall under the general rule of double posting / spamming.
But it's a very misleading example. There is no reason at all to mention any particular trait of bumps in the example, if all bump at all are disallowed.

If the idea is to disallow any bumps, the example should definitely be re-written.
Instead of saying
This also applies if you for example "bump" a thread within 24 hours.
something like
For example, users are not allowed to "bump" threads at all.
would be way more appropriate.
 

Stigma

Veteran OT User
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
2,060
The idea is to stop users from posting the same content multiple times in a row, which the rule effectively states in my opinion, I don't understand how you find it so misleading just because it includes bumps within the rule. A bump/any other type of bump IS double posting/spam.
 

Wirox

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
18
The idea is to stop users from posting the same content multiple times in a row, which the rule effectively states in my opinion, I don't understand how you find it so misleading just because it includes bumps within the rule. A bump/any other type of bump IS double posting/spam.
Technically, no example at all is needed here. If you post the same thing twice, it is against the rules, right. But an example is given to clarify certain things. And this unfortunate example only clarifies the rules about "bumps within 24 hours", and not any other bumps at all. Which doesn't make sense, if all bumps, regardless of when they were posted, are disallowed. Can you give me a single reason why exactly "bumps within 24 hours", and not "bumps that contain three letters 'a' and five letters 'e'" are mentioned in the example?
 

Don Daniello

/root
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
3,468
Reaction score
820
Location
Proland
It's historical reference for how the rule evolved. Before "bumps" were a thing that needed a rule, we would not explicitly remove them at all time. That's because there are no strict rules for things that are not a problem and many years back, it was not a widespread occurrence. Then we started specifically targeting spammers who bumped more often than 24 hours as a "guidance" to moderators. Still, the rules never said anything about bumps but moderators instructed those users directly when they received a warning, specifying that they crossed that mark.

Then over time bumping became so common that some threads consisted of 8 pages of posts but after removing "bumps", only 2 pages remained. "bumping" was also less needed - we have less posts per day than at the peak popularity of Open Tibia a few years ago and therefore threads don't fade away that soon anyway. We also increase the standards - we don't need useless "bump" posts at all.

All of this is a result of action taken by Staff in response to problems as they occur. We don't need an explicit rule stating what particular letters make a "bump" and how often exactly you can do it. Almost always it will be deleted now and depending on how frequently it happened, you may get a warning. This is all under the "No spamming" rule. If your post is not valuable to the reader, then don't post.

In fact, there are MANY types of "covert bumps" that we discover as well that are considered "bumps" AND "spam". Imagine this:
"Server is starting in 5 hours!"
"Server is starting in 4 hours!"
"Server is starting in 3 hours!"
"Server is starting in 2 hours!"
"Server is starting in 1 hours!"
"Server is starting in 30 minutes!"
"Start has been rescheduled for 19:00 due to low number of players!"
"Server is starting in 3 hours!"
...

Would you say those are bumps? It doesn't matter, they are certainly spammy posts that are not worth anything to the reader. We get the concept of time and we know how much time there is to server start because the date/time are shown in the thread. Yet people are surprised. We know exactly what they're doing - trying to make the thread look "active" and the server "interesting" by generating posts. And they are not same content you may say! Sure, the number is changed, maybe the sentence is changed too. Again, think about the value to the reader. If someone finds those posts valuable, then they probably don't know how to use a simple clock and probably unlikely to be able to play this game.
 

Wirox

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
18
It's historical reference for how the rule evolved. Before "bumps" were a thing that needed a rule, we would not explicitly remove them at all time. That's because there are no strict rules for things that are not a problem and many years back, it was not a widespread occurrence. Then we started specifically targeting spammers who bumped more often than 24 hours as a "guidance" to moderators. Still, the rules never said anything about bumps but moderators instructed those users directly when they received a warning, specifying that they crossed that mark.

Then over time bumping became so common that some threads consisted of 8 pages of posts but after removing "bumps", only 2 pages remained. "bumping" was also less needed - we have less posts per day than at the peak popularity of Open Tibia a few years ago and therefore threads don't fade away that soon anyway. We also increase the standards - we don't need useless "bump" posts at all.

All of this is a result of action taken by Staff in response to problems as they occur. We don't need an explicit rule stating what particular letters make a "bump" and how often exactly you can do it. Almost always it will be deleted now and depending on how frequently it happened, you may get a warning. This is all under the "No spamming" rule. If your post is not valuable to the reader, then don't post.

In fact, there are MANY types of "covert bumps" that we discover as well that are considered "bumps" AND "spam". Imagine this:
"Server is starting in 5 hours!"
"Server is starting in 4 hours!"
"Server is starting in 3 hours!"
"Server is starting in 2 hours!"
"Server is starting in 1 hours!"
"Server is starting in 30 minutes!"
"Start has been rescheduled for 19:00 due to low number of players!"
"Server is starting in 3 hours!"
...

Would you say those are bumps? It doesn't matter, they are certainly spammy posts that are not worth anything to the reader. We get the concept of time and we know how much time there is to server start because the date/time are shown in the thread. Yet people are surprised. We know exactly what they're doing - trying to make the thread look "active" and the server "interesting" by generating posts. And they are not same content you may say! Sure, the number is changed, maybe the sentence is changed too. Again, think about the value to the reader. If someone finds those posts valuable, then they probably don't know how to use a simple clock and probably unlikely to be able to play this game.
I wasn't arguing about whether bumps should be allowed or not. I was merely pointing out that the rule, due to the very specific example, is misleading. Yes, if we treat the rule as literally as possible, it means that any double-post/spam is against the rules. But sometimes when rules are created, they mean something different than what a person who has created them had in mind. In this case, when I read that only "bumps within 24 hours" are given as an example, I'm immediately starting to think that the person who has written that part meant to say something more like "bumps within 24 hours are disallowed, but bumps posted later are fine". Which is why I believe this example is misleading. Just because only "bumps within 24 hours" were penaltied back in the day, doesn't mean it justifies such an example, if rules and moderation policy are different nowadays.
 
Last edited:

BahamutxD

Jack of all trades, master of none
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
568
Reaction score
176
Location
Spain
So if I find myself in the need of editting the first post (job section) is it ok to message a mod to do it for me or should I just create a new thread?

I don't understand the limitation being applied to the whole forum.
 

Xikini

I whore myself out for likes
Premium User
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
2,114
So if I find myself in the need of editting the first post (job section) is it ok to message a mod to do it for me or should I just create a new thread?

I don't understand the limittation being applied to the whole forum.
Report your post with the edit's you wish to make.
That way any mod who is online can go make the changes for you.
 

e.e

Divine Intellect
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
458
Reaction score
195
Location
/dev/urandom
I wasn't arguing about whether bumps should be allowed or not. I was merely pointing out that the rule, due to the very specific example, is misleading. Yes, if we treat the rule as literally as possible, it means that any double-post/spam is against the rules. But sometimes when rules are created, they mean something different than what a person who has created them had in mind. In this case, when I read that only "bumps within 24 hours" are given as an example, I'm immediately starting to think that the person who has written that part meant to say something more like "bumps within 24 hours are disallowed, but bumps posted later are fine". Which is why I believe this example is misleading. Just because only "bumps within 24 hours" were penaltied back in the day, doesn't mean it justifies such an example, if rules and moderation policy are different nowadays.
In all truth there are no real and substantial rules on here that staff themselves take seriously other than obeying/kissing staff on both cheeks every day, so nvm reason or what their supposedly official rules say in a discussion like this.
This is even partially stated in their so-called official OTLand rules thread:
Please note that at any occasion OTLand reserves the right to amend the rules without giving prior notification or any reasons thereof.
Personally I'm really looking forward to their next update: Needing approval for every new post, thread, like, PM, edit, registration, search query, etc, unless you're premium or friends with benefits with staff of course.
Also disagreeing or disapproving of anything staff or anyone related to or on good terms with staff does is shutdown under some bogus pretense like "going off topic" and "trolling". Nvm that the last part's already in effect.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
45
Reaction score
19
1.click report
2. put edited post
3. ???
4. profit
5. moderators have job and are succ(essful) in their life and feel the need for them to exist instead of commiting otland suicide leaving forum

ps i love how my name is naprawiamforu
m
 
Top