I Understand the Need to Enforce the Rules..., There's nothing saying that I don't, really. Options

[KuramaBingyi]

...But there really needs to be exceptions to the Double-Posting policy. I understand that it gets extremely annoying to see someone bumping their own topic repeatedly, and just seeing their posts all over the page, but there's no way to bump topics without being forced to do so - especially when no one else is posting in said topic, and the need for attention drawn towards it forces one to have to post again if only to get people interested.

For example, say that someone needs to post an update to a project they're doing. The last post made in their project's topic was their own, only made about eighteen hours ago. Three other topics have taken the top in this section, and those are the topics getting views while that person's own topic has received none. This person knows the policy, but they're desperate to at least post the update to his topic - and they don't want to wait the 72 hours required before double-posting.

So that person decides to update their topic. Sure enough, the moderators come in, deletes their post, edits that post into the last one made by the creator, and places a warning on them for not waiting the full 72 hours. Is it really fair to do this when there's no other way to bump topics?

I would like to suggest something for this policy: Allow exceptions for double posts when the double posts have updates pertaining to the original posts in the Creative Commons sections - mainly, in the Games Under Development, Long Demos, and the Completed Games forums.

TL;DR, I got a warning placed on me, and my warning level increased, because I wanted to post a demo to my thread, and no one else had posted since my previous post.

EDIT: For rephrase.

This post has been edited by Crescent: Apr 19 2011, 04:06 PM

[Holder]

Firstly no moderators will delete your post, if a case of double posting emerges then your two posts would be merged into one.

I can see how updating a game within GUC with a first demo could be made an exception though it would be set to one day (24 hours), as if you're planning on releasing a Demo for the first time then you should know the day prior to release. As both Long Demos and Complete Games have a 24hour exception rule in place for such things as described within the individual threads.
This will be discussed further.

There are an enormous amount of active topics within the Creative Commons especially Games Under Construction, the double posting rules are in place to halt mindless 'bump - bring me to the top spot' posts. As for general updates 72 hours has been set in place to give people time to accumulate update bulk, giving people the chance to reply and other developers are able to do so without trying for quick up bump update.

[Harryb412]

Firstly no moderators will delete your post, if a case of double posting emerges then your two posts would be merged into one.

I can see how updating a game within GUC with a first demo could be made an exception though it would be set to one day (24 hours), as if you're planning on releasing a Demo for the first time then you should know the day prior to release. As both Long Demos and Complete Games have a 24hour exception rule in place for such things as described within the individual threads.
This will be discussed further.

There are an enormous amount of active topics within the Creative Commons especially Games Under Construction, the double posting rules are in place to halt mindless 'bump - bring me to the top spot' posts. As for general updates 72 hours has been set in place to give people time to accumulate update bulk, giving people the chance to reply and other developers are able to do so without trying for quick up bump update.

This, basically.

Even if there are projects above yours, yours will still get noticed. Thinks aren't terribly quick on forums, it might take a or or even two to get your first reply/replies, even then the topics above you have played by the same rules so it's also down to luck on just what someone happens to click on.

[amerk]

All really great information. I've wondered about that myself a time or two, but when you think about it, most people won't post unless they have accumulated a lot of information to provide. Also, giving 72 hours allows people to read and process the information (and hopefully provide feedback) before updating and asking for more feedback.

One suggestion, you can always edit the initial post at anytime (to offer more information or even a download link). No, it won't push your topic up ahead of the list, but this way it's already out there, and then after the 3 day window you can "bump" the topic and let them know there is a download.

[Klokinator]

I'm just gonna throw this out there. I go to like, 20 forums, on a regular basis. I know of about 5 that don't even allow double posts, most notably DGemu. What happens is that instead when you try to make a new post, it's merged with the previous post automagically. I don't know if this forum software would even support such a feature, but if it does, you might try that approach for a while.

Yay suggestions.

[Zakerot]

I'm just gonna throw this out there. I go to like, 20 forums, on a regular basis. I know of about 5 that don't even allow double posts, most notably DGemu. What happens is that instead when you try to make a new post, it's merged with the previous post automagically. I don't know if this forum software would even support such a feature, but if it does, you might try that approach for a while.

Yay suggestions.

Does it prevent the topic from going back to the top? If it doesn't then I disagree.

Because we would see people bumping their topics every hour just to get attention and mods will have to deal with the same crap as double posting, making this idea useless. BUT if it automagically merges the second post without bumping the topic then I support this idea. (Of course let the topic get bumped after the 72 hours have passed, perhaps this would be a little too hard to do xD)

[bacon]

I sort of agree with the idea of maybe getting rid of the double posting rule. I guess my thoughts are if you are encouraging people to develop, you are holding them back by a silly rule. i think in certain boards, the double posting rule should be nixed. The reason being is because you want people to see your updates on what you post. A lot of people just generally look at new threads and don't look into individual threads. I know a few times I have not posted certain art pieces and instead held onto a few of them so that I could post them all at once to try to receive full feedback. If someone abuses it, then they are warrant for a warn. But for the most part, people who abuse will abuse it whether or not you state it as they are newer members or really just dont even care. Most of us understand what is a reasonable doublepost and what isnt.

Also, if i may suggest a change in the necropost policy as well. For the most part, necroposting it bad. But at the same time, if someone is actively contributing the a conversation, I do not see the problem. They are revitalizing a certain thread and bringing in new life and a new perspective. Of course, things a few years old dont really count, but Ive seen members get warned because they posted 1 day after the month limit, some of which brought some new conversation into a thread.

This post has been edited by bacon: Apr 20 2011, 11:02 PM

[X-M-O]

I like what you mentioned there, bacon; your comment about receiving "full feedback".
I disagree that double-posting rules should be changed, because the current rule encourages people to post when they have more material, and if that material is interesting enough, it will encourage activity in your topic.
Double-Posting Rule = More Material / More Valuable Posts = More Interest = More Activity.

If you are bumping your topic with small "meaningless updates" (dumb example: I finally got back to the project and added a title) then you are only attracting a small amount of attention for a short time and then it disappears. Yet, if you are posting a great deal of "wholesome goodness" (dumb example: I've added loads of new material to my game, including things from Kread-EX's desktop) then you will attract more attention and it will last longer and increase interest/activity.

So the rule seems to encourage good behaviour, as far as I can see, and losing the rule seems to discourage meaningful updates.

Just my opinion. =]


@bacon:
You mentioned that you wanted to suggest a change to the necropost policy, but you didn't specify what change you'd like to see (only that you see a problem). Could you turn what you've mentioned into an actual suggestion? At current it leaves us all guessing what specific change(s) you want to suggest. =]

[kaz]

I sort of agree with the idea of maybe getting rid of the double posting rule. I guess my thoughts are if you are encouraging people to develop, you are holding them back by a silly rule. i think in certain boards, the double posting rule should be nixed. The reason being is because you want people to see your updates on what you post. A lot of people just generally look at new threads and don't look into individual threads. I know a few times I have not posted certain art pieces and instead held onto a few of them so that I could post them all at once to try to receive full feedback. If someone abuses it, then they are warrant for a warn. But for the most part, people who abuse will abuse it whether or not you state it as they are newer members or really just dont even care. Most of us understand what is a reasonable doublepost and what isnt.

Also, if i may suggest a change in the necropost policy as well. For the most part, necroposting it bad. But at the same time, if someone is actively contributing the a conversation, I do not see the problem. They are revitalizing a certain thread and bringing in new life and a new perspective. Of course, things a few years old dont really count, but Ive seen members get warned because they posted 1 day after the month limit, some of which brought some new conversation into a thread.

Necroposting is allowed in some forums. for example Serious Discussion- if it brings a whole new point to a thread.

Each forum has individual rules.

[Vanit]

I like what you mentioned there, bacon; your comment about receiving "full feedback".
I disagree that double-posting rules should be changed, because the current rule encourages people to post when they have more material, and if that material is interesting enough, it will encourage activity in your topic.
Double-Posting Rule = More Material / More Valuable Posts = More Interest = More Activity.

If you are bumping your topic with small "meaningless updates" (dumb example: I finally got back to the project and added a title) then you are only attracting a small amount of attention for a short time and then it disappears. Yet, if you are posting a great deal of "wholesome goodness" (dumb example: I've added loads of new material to my game, including things from Kread-EX's desktop) then you will attract more attention and it will last longer and increase interest/activity.

So the rule seems to encourage good behaviour, as far as I can see, and losing the rule seems to discourage meaningful updates.

Just my opinion. =]

This makes a few assumptions which are not always true. For one, you're assuming that every post the person is making in their thread is with regards to updates and is not just discussion, and two, that discussion replies will not occur between update posts. The problem is that you can be caught offguard.

For example with my FF72DR thread I get a lot of traffic coming through giving me feedback and I like to thank them whenever I can. The thread then has to sit dormant for 3 days with an inability to draw attention to meaningful updates because I participated in the discussion and no one else has since replied. So everyones seen my little "Thanks I'm glad you like it!" and thinks theres nothing more, when really I've amended a video that people probably want to see and they don't know its there. My meaningful updates are sparse; weeks apart; and its frustrating that because I've replied to discussion in my thread that I then have to wait an additional 3 days to post when I finally have something to show. You say its so people don't spam updates, but the problem is that not all posts are updates, and people can have meaningful updates ready to go, but because they've participated in discussion they are unable to draw attention to them.

I think this is the problem that people are having the most trouble with. The current double posting rule discourages devs from participating in their own threads when they know they might have new content to post in less than 3 days time and want it to bump the topic so people see it. I don't know about you guys, but I only check threads twice if they're updated, I don't usually check for amendments and I think its safe to say most people have this behaviour. I ofcourse have complied with forum rules thus far, but I've more than noticed the lack of replies to an update announced through amending my last post.

What I propose is making exceptions by acknowledging the difference between discussion and update posts. If someone makes an update post and the previous post was just discussion, let the double post stand. If the last post in a thread is an update and was made less than 3 days ago, then the user must wait 72 hours to post again, or until someone else replies, or amend the update to their previous post. This would solve a lot of issues and comply with your stance on meaningful updates.

This post has been edited by Vanit: Apr 30 2011, 07:47 AM

[Klokinator]

^I always try to reply to your posts after you've posted, just for the purpose of NOT having you double post, because I always look forward to your updates. Usually that solves the problem.

You could always PM me and ask me to post something relevant that way you're not spamming/DP'ing

[Jonnie19]

Now, to be honest in my opinion the rules are okay as they stand, because it could just mean that people keep double posting, and I mean it is down to the opinions of Rob and Harry, as the Moderators of the Game Development forum, however they might have different views on the relevance of the posts, what makes a discussion and discussion and an update an update, there is a close correlation to the two, it could just be an excuse to mindlessly bump the thread! It just would cause more unnecessary stress, the way that the rules are fine, they work!
It should stay as it is !

[Vanit]

I'm not sure how my suggested exception would allow them to mindlessly bump the thread. The exception only allows them to double post if they choose to follow a discussion with an update. Obviously they can't go Discussion->Post->Discussion themselves, thats spamming ,regardless of if the second discussion is legitimate.

As for the semantics of what separates an update from a discussion; they are easy to distinquish. If something is in reply to someone its a discussion; period, even if it mentions new features relevant to that reply. If something is mentioning new features without replying to someone, its an update. Its easily recognisible through basic language and social skills when someone goes off topic and I'm sure the moderators will have no issue spotting this.

This post has been edited by Vanit: Apr 30 2011, 03:20 PM

[Jonnie19]

Although, your ideas are good in theory, the amount of people who could update their post would mean that it would increase the work load of the mods who run that particular section, If I am not mistaken Harry and Rob control the whole of the Games Development section,meaning that would mean that they would have to check each solicited update, to see whether the rules are being adhered too, it would also mean that in one evening, a person could update their post with one huge amazing update, and then some other members would post lots of little updates, which using your suggested exception means that these smaller updates will still be acceptable, it would also mean that a person who wishes to be right up the top of their respected forum would be able to post them separately the moment someone overtakes their post.
If a dispute came from the Rob or Harry, it could easily be disputed by saying it was a valid update, and without viewing the process that the member made we they cannot be sure that these list of updates wasn't made at the same time and the poster decided to split up these posts and ensure they stay at the top

Your idea would work if everyone in this world is fair and gives everyone equal chance, but in the grand scheme of Games Development we always wanna be at the top of our game and crushing the competition so to speak

Basically Holder summed it up:

As for general updates 72 hours has been set in place to give people time to accumulate update bulk, giving people the chance to reply and other developers are able to do so without trying for quick up bump update.

This post has been edited by Jonnie19: Apr 30 2011, 05:26 PM

[Vanit]

The moderators try to read every thread thats updated regardless, thats how they moderate.

And I don't think you've really understood what I've posted. It doesn't matter if they're "little updates", this exception is not removing the double posting rule. The exception will not allow you to post multiple updates in a row quicker than every 72 hours. The only purpose of the exception is to remove the issue of being unable to bump your thread because you decided to give a reply to someone, and now wish to post an update. You can not post update after update, I didn't say that was part of the exception.

All the exception will allow you to do is after replying to someone you are allowed to make a single additional update post should you choose to update. Any further updates must be amended to that update post if its shorter than 72 hours later as before.

This post has been edited by Vanit: Apr 30 2011, 05:25 PM

[Rob_Riv]

Vanit, instead of a rule that would be complicated (I drafted it as "You have to wait at least 72 hours to double post unless you are posting a substantive update following a post that was part of a discussion"), would it be easier to reduce the 72 hours to a lower number, so that there wouldn't be the issue of having to wait for three days?

This post has been edited by Rob_Riv: Apr 30 2011, 05:32 PM

[Jonnie19]

Vanit, instead of a rule that would be complicated (I drafted it as "You have to wait at least 72 hours to double post unless you are posting a substantive update following a post that was part of a discussion"), would it be easier to reduce the 72 hours to a lower number, so that there wouldn't be the issue of having to wait for three days.

Yes, perhaps 48, instead of 72, this would mean that people can get a chance to update their threads also...but means that people don't have to wait as long to update their own.

This post has been edited by Jonnie19: Apr 30 2011, 05:33 PM

[Vanit]

Haha, I had "lower it to 24 hours" as my main proposal initially, but I removed it because I thought you guys would prefer to keep it to 72 hours (and most of you had made a case for keeping it specifically to fewer, more meaningful updates). If you're fine with making the number 24 hours thats definitely acceptable.

The reason I'm pushing for 24 and not 48 is potentially you could still reply to someone on a Friday night and still not be allowed to update until Sunday night, which is still pretty much the issue I described originally.

This post has been edited by Vanit: Apr 30 2011, 05:41 PM

[bacon]

I vote that as long as information is being added to the thread and its not a shameless bump, any double post should be allowed. I mean, its obvious when someone is bumping for the sake of bumping and when someone is actually adding content.

[Rob_Riv]

Haha, I had "lower it to 24 hours" as my main proposal initially, but I removed it because I thought you guys would prefer to keep it to 72 hours. If you're fine with making the number 24 hours thats definitely acceptable.

The reason I'm pushing for 24 and not 48 is potentially you could still reply to someone on a Friday night and still not be allowed to update until Sunday night, which is still pretty much the issue I described originally.

Yeah, but that's not a long time. I mean, your game thread won't have fallen that much within two days. Also, the reason for the rule, as stated, is so that people don't constantly post updates that are not substantive.

I vote that as long as information is being added to the thread and its not a shameless bump, any double post should be allowed. I mean, its obvious when someone is bumping for the sake of bumping and when someone is actually adding content.

I don't think so at all. You could gradually announce updates for your game so that your thread stays bumped.