New Battleground Rules

[Nyruss]

Why is it unacceptable.

[Kuroda Taishi]

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

Why is it unacceptable.

If I have the intellgence to think of 30 solid, interesting, engaging matchups then I should have the ability to make threads for each of them.

The rule is an effort to prevent thread spamming. It should be prevented through the use of downreps and infractions, not with a rule.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Originally Posted by Kuroda Taishi

If I have the intellgence to think of 30 solid, interesting, engaging matchups then I should have the ability to make threads for each of them.

The rule is an effort to prevent thread spamming. It should be prevented through the use of downreps and infractions, not with a rule.

I honestly agree with KT on this one.

[The 1st Hokage]

Originally Posted by Maikeru Shinigami

I honestly agree with KT on this one.

But what about the people who arent fazed by -reps,infractions,BG temp bans?They will just keep spamming crappy threads and then the BG is full of spam.

[Lady Tsunade]

Exellent rules.
Much better than the previous ones at least.
Great Job!

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Originally Posted by The 1st Hokage

But what about the people who arent fazed by -reps,infractions,BG temp bans?They will just keep spamming crappy threads and then the BG is full of spam.

Won't they do that anyways?

[Nyruss]

Originally Posted by Kuroda Taishi

If I have the intellgence to think of 30 solid, interesting, engaging matchups then I should have the ability to make threads for each of them.

The rule is an effort to prevent thread spamming. It should be prevented through the use of downreps and infractions, not with a rule.

And the odds of someone actually thinking of 30 solid, interesting, engaging matchups are approximately .000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Conversely the odds that in thirty threads made by the same person, they are more likely to be retarded and failtastic than good.

Must we suffer retardedry and spam for the sake of that .00000...01?

Quite to the contrary of what Madame de Pompadour says, a world of demons is not worth a single angel.

[Kuroda Taishi]

Originally Posted by The 1st Hokage

But what about the people who arent fazed by -reps,infractions,BG temp bans?They will just keep spamming crappy threads and then the BG is full of spam.

We have ways of dealing with those types of users.

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

And the odds of someone actually thinking of 30 solid, interesting, engaging matchups are approximately .000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Conversely the odds that in thirty threads made by the same person, they are more likely to be retarded and failtastic than good.

Must we suffer retardedry and spam for the sake of that .00000...01?

Quite to the contrary of what Madame de Pompadour says, a world of demons is not worth a single angel.

Your statistics are not realistic. Thus your arguement is fail.

[Nyruss]

Saying an argument is fail is fail.

Exagerating to prove a point is fair game. The point is, the chances of 30 threads being fail are much much MUCH greater than of being good. Better to leave the limit at three so as to prevent the fail from further infesting the place. If someone has thirty good threads then they'll just have to take an extra nine more days to use them all. No harm no foul, everyone's happy.

[The 1st Hokage]

You might should add the meaning of fodder.

[Kuroda Taishi]

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

Saying an argument is fail is fail.

Exagerating to prove a point is fair game. The point is, the chances of 30 threads being fail are much much MUCH greater than of being good. Better to leave the limit at three so as to prevent the fail from further infesting the place. If someone has thirty good threads then they'll just have to take an extra nine more days to use them all. No harm no foul, everyone's happy.

Denying your argument is fail is fail.

I'm not happy. If I feel like making 30 awesome threads in one day I'm going to do it, because honestly you really can't do anything about it.

[Konoha'sGreenThunder]

There's no need to limit the amount of threads that can be made to prevent spammy threads. That can be prevented through other means that don't involve restricting the progress or fun of the battlegrounds. We're looking to expand it and make it better, not limit it. If someone makes a bunch of stupid threads, they can be downrepped, infracted, section banned, etc.

Would you honestly punish someone for posting over 5 good threads? And anyone breaking the rules but keeping in the limit gets punished in some form anyway. It effectively doesn't do much besides limit the BG.

My two cents.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I am with KT and KGT on these things. If the user gets too bad, there is always the option to infract, downrep, delete threads, move threads or section ban, as already stated. Don't limit the good users to compensate for the stupid.

[SageoftheSixPaths]

Honestly, I'm not that big a fan of the rule either. However, most BAD members agreed that, given the current amount of bad threads there have been in the Battlegrounds, there should be a limit. I'm all for revising it, but it would need to be put to a vote.

[Nyruss]

Originally Posted by Kuroda Taishi

Denying your argument is fail is fail.

Only if it is fail when you are denying it is. But when it isn't fail, and you deny that it is fail, it is not fail. :P

Conversely, claiming an argument is fail to avoid addressing it is fail.

I'm not happy.

If the limit would make the Battlegrounds better(and it would) then your happiness in regards to that limit is irrelevant.

If I feel like making 30 awesome threads in one day I'm going to do it, because honestly you really can't do anything about it

And they have a higher chance of being fail than of being good.

Once again, better to have the limit because one good thread does not make up for a hundred thousand billion jillion bad ones.

Originally Posted by Konoha'sGreenThunder

There's no need to limit the amount of threads that can be made to prevent spammy threads.

It's not necessary, but it would help.

That can be prevented through other means that don't involve restricting the progress or fun of the battlegrounds.

Ways that don't involve simply slapping them on the wrist and wagging your finger at them?

We're looking to expand it and make it better, not limit it.

And if the only way to make it better is to limit the massive numbers of bad threads? Does the universe implode from the ensuing paradox?

Would you honestly punish someone for posting over 5 good threads?

If it was in the rules, absolutely. Gotta avoid hypocrisy. Even if the threads are good, gotta punish the makers just as much as you would if the threads were bad. Unless you;re

Originally Posted by Maikeru Shinigami

I am with KT and KGT on these things. If the user gets too bad, there is always the option to infract, downrep, delete threads, move threads or section ban, as already stated. Don't limit the good users to compensate for the stupid.

The first two do nothing, the latter three are rare. Rare enough that they are not viable ways of keeping the place clean unless you become much more aggressive in their employment.

The no-limit argument is baseless anyway because no one who makes multiple threads a day ever makes good ones, so why not have the limit? There's nothing to lose and plenty to gain.

[Konoha'sGreenThunder]

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

Ways that don't involve simply slapping them on the wrist and wagging your finger at them?

And if the only way to make it better is to limit the massive numbers of bad threads? Does the universe implode from the ensuing paradox?


If it was in the rules, absolutely. Gotta avoid hypocrisy. Even if the threads are good, gotta punish the makers just as much as you would if the threads were bad.

Which is why it needs to be removed. Don't punish users for being active and contributing positively. That's worse than bending the rules and appearing hypocritical. That would be sending the BG in the opposite direction by striking down progression and making the good users not want to contribute anymore.

If, according to you, downrepping and infractions do nothing, how exactly are words that say you can't do something going to do anything more?

I find limiting thread cap to 5 a day, to be pretty "anal" if you will. I don't see why those who do create acceptable threads should be limited in any way here whatsoever.

Honestly I disagree with the fact that infractions/downreps do nothing to those who create poor threads. I downrepped Tourune ONCE and he immediately showed improvement in quality thread making (They were not the best threads but they had far more debating potential than his previous ones).

[321zigzag1]

It depends on who is the user. Torune had the eagerness to be a better debator and contributor thats why it worked.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

No, limiting threads is just stupid, plain and simple. Who gives a damn if the good users don't post 5+ threads a day. It should be done on a user by user basis. And KT has been doing a good job of striking down the bad posters. Limiting thread count is just a lazy way of getting bad threads out.

[Nyruss]

So what you're saying is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is no hope for the Battlegrounds, burn it down and salt the earth."

Infractions themselves won't do anything to stop anyone, but if they have enough infractions you ban them. With the limit, a person who spams bad threads will shortly be removed from the place. With that person removed, the Battlegrounds are a better place. If a person wants to make good threads he should follow the rules in doing so. The limit may be three, but it's better than having this place filled with "Tsunade vs The Sage of Six Paths, only the Sage can't use chakra and can't move and has the strength, speed and durability of a thirteen year old Asian prostitute"