Why do we need these new rules?
These aren't new rules, its always fallen under baiting, but instead of randomly enforcing it more tightly, we thought it'd be fair to give everyone fair warning. These types of posts have been deleted regularly for years.
We are tired of the instigators getting away with no punishment. Countless times users like Corey Feldman were baited and when they responded, only a user like Corey Feldman would get punished and the baiter would not.
Each of these cases are responses that are trying to anger the original poster, Matt01 did a great job of explaining how he uses them to try to anger or annoy the original poster.
This change in enforcement does not affect very many users, we just think its fair for transparency to announce that this is happening so there are less surprises.
I was asked to post this:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985
Was about to post this when you closed the thread. Thought it might be useful:
I don't think this is a good idea and I'm against this new rule.
1) Replying to a post to say that you reported it
Why should I not be allowed to say that to someone? I think I should be allowed to and that poster who gets reported can know when I report him. Besides, I made the experience (not only/necessarily on this forum) that that when a poster trolls around and harresses me, telling him that I will report or already reported him, then that poster will think twice if he continues with that harressing. It may not be 100% correct but it is an effective way and reduces the trolling and harressing on the forum.
And why can't you just PM the poster and tell him/her that the post was reported? Why would the thread be clogged with more useless posts?
2) Elimination of posts like 'Nadal forum' when a poster isn't interested in a thread.
When it is true and the respective thread belongs into the Nadal forum, then the poster has the right to state the obvious! And the poster who (wrongly) started the thread can also know that.
Again, clogging a thread with useless information. Stating the obvious is not useful information. One can ignore the fact that a thread belongs to another section, let Moderators handle the obvious, and contribute to the thread with useful information.
3) Posts that say 'my post was deleted?' or 'who deleted my post?' - posts along those lines.
I remember a few days ago a poster was asking "why was my post deleted" and then another poster told him that that post was posted in a similar result thread and the two threads were simply not merged yet. Should that poster who asked the question be infracted? Obviously not!
Posters with such dilemmas should PM the Moderating team.
4) Posts saying that another poster should be banned.
Again, it's the right of a poster to say that a poster should get dinged for obviously trollish and/or offensive behaviour. It should not be "infractible" to post an opinion about another poster!
And clogging the thread with useless information once again. We should have every thread about a match result looking like this:
1% useful post match impressions
70% obvious facts that every fanbase states
29% posts stating that poster should be banned, a post was reported and so on.
This is all useful IMO, and it should be implemented by the Moderating team. It's not limiting freedom of speech, but rather concentrates useful information is threads for everyone to have a more pleasant read when opening threads.