Double Posting

[Mint]

I've just been warned for double posting and it's made me realise how annoying the rule can be. Obviously most people that double post don't do it on purpose so when you get punished for it you are not happy. Does anyone think that this rule should be watered down a little bit so if people are clearly double posting on purpose they should be punished or if it's obvious that the double poster didn't mean to double post then they can get a way with maybe just a reminder PM?

[kk.]

well, i know if its a popular thread which gets posts very often, you do a quick reply and then someone else has posted that you want to reply to, you have to quote, copy, press back, refresh, edit, paste, save. When you could just quote, comment, post. It needs to be relaxed a bit i think. or as you said, a reminder pm or in ur post

[Charlie]

If it's accidentally then fair enough, I don't think you should receive a warning because it isn't your fault and could be due to lag or something. But if you purposely do it (not to add information to a previous post after your edit time has run out) then a warning should be issued.

[scottish]

Its almost impossible to tell if someone does it accidently or purposely?

I could post this then post again responding to someone elses post and edit and say "oops never meant to double post" and i get +1 post and even though i've done it purposely the mods could think it was an accident?

Only double posts that shouldn't receive a warning is ones out of the editable time and its adding information (and ofc the other exceptions such as spam where post count doesn't increase) and ones due to forum lag.

Vampirism; if a member double posts due to forum lag it'll be a replica of the previous post so they just get merged usually and user won't be infracted/warned as its not their fault.

[Mint]

Its almost impossible to tell if someone does it accidently or purposely?

I could post this then post again responding to someone elses post and edit and say "oops never meant to double post" and i get +1 post and even though i've done it purposely the mods could think it was an accident?

Only double posts that shouldn't receive a warning is ones out of the editable time and its adding information (and ofc the other exceptions such as spam where post count doesn't increase) and ones due to forum lag.

Vampirism; if a member double posts due to forum lag it'll be a replica of the previous post so they just get merged usually and user won't be infracted/warned as its not their fault.
I'm sure our Mod's will be able to tell the difference between someone double posting on purpose and someone who did not mean to do it. And besides, if a user keeps on double posting then it's obvious that they are doing it on purpose.

[scottish]

I could do it once per 20 posts purposely saying oops meant to edit? mod would have absolutely no idea that i'm purposely doing it. Mods aren't some kinda of superhuman who can tell what the user was meant to do.

[ReviewDude]

If you double-post due to lag (though, I don't know how that's possible with flood control), then I doubt any decent Moderator would warn you for it. However, anything else can't ever really be much more than thread-bumping, so might deserve it...

[bo$$]

I could do it once per 20 posts purposely saying oops meant to edit? mod would have absolutely no idea that i'm purposely doing it. Mods aren't some kinda of superhuman who can tell what the user was meant to do.

if you accidently double post (like due to lag or something) then the posts would be identical :S unless you edit the second one saying "oops i didnt mean to double post" and thats when that post is removed...

[Robbie]

I could do it once per 20 posts purposely saying oops meant to edit? mod would have absolutely no idea that i'm purposely doing it. Mods aren't some kinda of superhuman who can tell what the user was meant to do.

Check edit history.

[The Professor]

I could do it once per 20 posts purposely saying oops meant to edit? mod would have absolutely no idea that i'm purposely doing it. Mods aren't some kinda of superhuman who can tell what the user was meant to do.

If someone was doing that I'm sure the mod would be smart enough to make the connection ;)

[Loser]

I don't actually see what the problem with double-posting is.

[ReviewDude]

I don't actually see what the problem with double-posting is.

It unfairly bumps topics, so if people could doduble post as and when they want, good threads get ignored next to ones where the creator keeps it alive.

[Loser]

It unfairly bumps topics, so if people could doduble post as and when they want, good threads get ignored next to ones where the creator keeps it alive.

Righto, while that's not a life threatening problem, I'm pretty sure it could easily be dealt with before the moderators have to do anything. I think I saw somewhere there's a way to make two simultaneous posts from the same user automatically merge together.

[The Professor]

Righto, while that's not a life threatening problem, I'm pretty sure it could easily be dealt with before the moderators have to do anything. I think I saw somewhere there's a way to make two simultaneous posts from the same user automatically merge together.

Moderators can do that, users can't. Hence it being a problem for the moderators

[ReviewDude]

Righto, while that's not a life threatening problem, I'm pretty sure it could easily be dealt with before the moderators have to do anything. I think I saw somewhere there's a way to make two simultaneous posts from the same user automatically merge together.

Yeah, it's used a lot on the Vbulletin.org forums. But of course it's not a life-threatening situation, but making sure it's a rule not to do it takes the guesswork out of it - you just can't post twice. Much the same as if someone's signature is one pixel over the limit, it's not huge, but having a limit stops people having massive, 600x800 sig images.

[buttons]

I think it should be 'watered down' as you put it for new members (if you can pick new members out from old members returning or w/e). Obviously they should read the rules before posting but I'm guessing many probably don't so they wouldn't know if double posting is against the rules or not. I know you get a pm first saying you've broke the rules right?? I think new members should get an extra chance like um god how do i put it uhh they can get two pm warnings instead so they have equal chance as older members that've been active for a while who haven't been pm warned for double posting and should know the rules by now because then if they do double post they know it's against the rules and therefore deserve it (still talking bout older members here)
sorrrrrry can't really explain maybe that's not fair though :P
and anyway it's not that hard to just edit your post if you really need to reply to someone :S

btw i'm sure i just posted so i'm sorry if i accidently double post :S

[scottish]

if you accidently double post (like due to lag or something) then the posts would be identical :S unless you edit the second one saying "oops i didnt mean to double post" and thats when that post is removed...

If you read i said forum lag you don't get a warning or anything for so? i seriously don't get your post try reading and re-posting


Check edit history.

I could easily leave it a minute or two and edit it?


If someone was doing that I'm sure the mod would be smart enough to make the connection ;)

Not really cause if i constantly do it in different sections it'd be dif mods dealing with it so they're not going to have a cybermeeting "omgz dat entrance is double postinz in ma sekshun if e duz it in urz mek sure ya warn him bludz" are they? If it was spread between sections then it could be a while before i double posted in the one section again so they might not remember aswell ^^

[Mint]

If you read i said forum lag you don't get a warning or anything for so? i seriously don't get your post try reading and re-posting



I could easily leave it a minute or two and edit it?



Not really cause if i constantly do it in different sections it'd be dif mods dealing with it so they're not going to have a cybermeeting "omgz dat entrance is double postinz in ma sekshun if e duz it in urz mek sure ya warn him bludz" are they? If it was spread between sections then it could be a while before i double posted in the one section again so they might not remember aswell ^^
From what I've heard a Mod can check edit history so they will be able to spot all of your double posts.

[Blinger1]

Can't you do a mod/hack something like this?


wow.. good job :)
-=Double Post Merge =-
wow.. good job :)!

http://forums.qj.net/showpost.php?p=2148413&postcount=87

[nvrspk4]

Lag posts are very easy to detect.

If you make a mistake you can PM a moderator, and as long as they get to it before another mod does you should be fine.

However if its consistently happening you would get a warning.

On a small scale yes its not an issue but unchecked it would be hugely problematic.

[Yonder]

I've just been warned for double posting and it's made me realise how annoying the rule can be. Obviously most people that double post don't do it on purpose so when you get punished for it you are not happy. Does anyone think that this rule should be watered down a little bit so if people are clearly double posting on purpose they should be punished or if it's obvious that the double poster didn't mean to double post then they can get a way with maybe just a reminder PM?


It is 'watered' enough in my opinion.




A12. Do not multiple post - Multiple posting is allowed after the 15 minutes edit time has passed only if you are adding new information.

[efq]

Why don't we have the ability to edit whenever not after 15 minutes and that posting 2 in a row isn't allowed. Most Forums use that.

[The Professor]

Why don't we have the ability to edit whenever not after 15 minutes and that posting 2 in a row isn't allowed. Most Forums use that.

Because there was a problem with people going back and editing the first post in a thread making it completely different and making all the rest of the mosts in the thread meaningless. It just stuck I suppose :P

[ReviewDude]

Because there was a problem with people going back and editing the first post in a thread making it completely different and making all the rest of the mosts in the thread meaningless. It just stuck I suppose :P

Didn't VIPs have that ability, though?

[JustRG3]

Sometimes you do it by mistake. Yes they should lower down the rule I think. But if people get warned then it might help them not to do it again.

[efq]

Ok but you can change it that if a person double posts that it puts the second post into the first one underneath the first content of course.

Don't know how its done but it does prevent double posting, e.g.

BUMP/DOUBLE POST [TIMESTAMP POSSIBLY]: HI ASDSA DOUBLE POST.

[ReviewDude]

Ok but you can change it that if a person double posts that it puts the second post into the first one underneath the first content of course.

Don't know how its done but it does prevent double posting, e.g.

BUMP/DOUBLE POST [TIMESTAMP POSSIBLY]: HI ASDSA DOUBLE POST.

It's a hack from VB.org, but I don't know how easy it would be to implement... Habbox (at least, from what I remember), don't like to install third-party scripts.

[scottish]

Most hacks are easy to install but habbox doesn't install stuff if it has potential security exploits, so in best interest of habbox :P

[Yoshimitsui]

To be honest, if you do it on purpose then we know and the majority of times it is. If it's a lag post we can see by obvious signs. So the rules exist becuase people are doing it on purpose.

[efq]

To be honest, if you do it on purpose then we know and the majority of times it is. If it's a lag post we can see by obvious signs. So the rules exist becuase people are doing it on purpose.
You should check the trading forums, theres hundreds of double postings and their done on purpose.

[Yonder]

You should check the trading forums, theres hundreds of double postings and their done on purpose.






A12. Do not multiple post - Multiple posting is allowed after the 15 minutes edit time has passed only if you are adding new information.


It is 'watered' enough in my opinion.


Explains the majority of the double posts in the trading section, people are updating their thread.

They could be updating prices, amount of the items they are selling, buying .

[Mint]

Explains the majority of the double posts in the trading section, people are updating their thread.

They could be updating prices, amount of the items they are selling, buying .
You forgot to add bumping. ;)

You say that the rule is in place because of the people that do it on purpose but what about the people that generally don't do it on purpose?

[Con]

^ that's been explained in peoples posts?
Bumping would be counted as pointless and then they get warned /w.e for bumping their thread with no important information.

If it's an accidental double post, E.g forum lag causes a double post, The moderator of that forum will merge the posts.

The rule that Yonder brought up explains it all in my opinion. Why else would you need to double post unless it was with important information relating to the thread? :)

[Alex3213]

Explains the majority of the double posts in the trading section, people are updating their thread.

They could be updating prices, amount of the items they are selling, buying .

Sometimes this happens, however a lot of the time I find it the opposite. Like:

"Thread Starter:

Buying 9 Sea Dragons

-long time-

Thread Starter:

any1 got??????????

-long time-

Thread Starter:

still needing 9 sea drags"

I suppose it is updating that they still need, but in my opinion because they haven't bought any it's classing as a bump.

[Yonder]

Sometimes this happens, however a lot of the time I find it the opposite. Like:

"Thread Starter:

Buying 9 Sea Dragons

-long time-

Thread Starter:

any1 got??????????

-long time-

Thread Starter:

still needing 9 sea drags"

I suppose it is updating that they still need, but in my opinion because they haven't bought any it's classing as a bump.

Ye as i said majority of the posts in specificaly can be under that rule, but instances of "any got!!!111" moderators should be taking action but because the trade setion is so busy i think it gets overlooked a lot.

[buttons]

Sometimes this happens, however a lot of the time I find it the opposite. Like:

"Thread Starter:

Buying 9 Sea Dragons

-long time-

Thread Starter:

any1 got??????????

-long time-

Thread Starter:

still needing 9 sea drags"

I suppose it is updating that they still need, but in my opinion because they haven't bought any it's classing as a bump.
why's it a bump if they haven't sold any?? what would be the point on sum1 making a new thread if they could just bump it and if they had changed prices they can just say so there, nothing wrong with what.

[Yoshimitsui]

Because some people bump it to attract attention to the thread instead of waiting for someone to reply. This is different to adding information.

[buttons]

:S so, what's so bad with that???? they only wanna sell something, big deal it's hardly infraction worthy unless they double post in it before 15 mins. If someone else was to bump it then it would be different and rule breaking but only if it was like weeks or so old.

[Yoshimitsui]

Because the simple fact being if you let them bump it would be abused. It's not an infractionable offence bumping, however if people constantly do it then they will recieve some form of punishment for it.

[The Professor]

Its just bad netiquette tbh

[Alex3213]

Ye as i said majority of the posts in specificaly can be under that rule, but instances of "any got!!!111" moderators should be taking action but because the trade setion is so busy i think it gets overlooked a lot.

And another problem is that there are currently no moderators in the Trading section, meaning that Super Moderators are the ones who have to look through it.

[Yonder]

And another problem is that there are currently no moderators in the Trading section, meaning that Super Moderators are the ones who have to look through it.

Exactly. But with trailists maybe this will change.


On the bumping note if people really wanted to be clever an avoid a infraction for saying "bump" then they could easily just "add new information". But people aren't that clever :P

[Alkaz]

You can double post if your adding information which I think is why nothing gets done in trading as they are generally ''... now sold'' posts. When people post things like ''lol funny'' thats not additional information and could wait untill someone else has posted or edit there previous post which then makes it obvious they arent paying attention to double posting rule so i think that in most cases it is fair to be warned about double posting and if you do it on a regular basis then fair enough if you get infractions.