ForumsForum GamesCount to 100 Discussion Thread

238 55885
Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

This is a discussion thread regarding rules and gameplay of 'Count to 100', so that the count isn't frequently interrupted and restarted when a mod posts.

Posts not on topic will be removed.

  • 238 Replies
Crickster
offline
Crickster
1,795 posts
Jester

so how long till you post on the count to 100 thread than gantic? edit: that fast....

nivlac724
offline
nivlac724
2,564 posts
Farmer

so that the count isn't frequently interrupted and restarted when a mod posts.


Dont post on it! Its as simple as that!
Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,380 posts
Templar

Dont post on it! Its as simple as that!


That's why he created this thread. This thread is also a threat to lock Count to 100 unless the users can come up with one or more anti-trolling measures.

My Idea: Actually, I have a few things to say:

1) The "ignore numberless posts" rule is a good one and should remain.

2) In addition, a 1 post should be ignored unless the previous count contains a violation or the post is by a mod or admin.
rychus
offline
rychus
1,284 posts
Blacksmith

2) In addition, a 1 post should be ignored unless the previous count contains a violation or the post is by a mod or admin.


Agreed.
nivlac724
offline
nivlac724
2,564 posts
Farmer

Dont post on it! Its as simple as that!


That's why he created this thread. This thread is also a threat to lock Count to 100 unless the users can come up with one or more anti-trolling measures


Thats not what I meant I mean if he doesn't want the thread to frequently start over than moderators shouldn't post.
rychus
offline
rychus
1,284 posts
Blacksmith

Thats not what I meant I mean if he doesn't want the thread to frequently start over than moderators shouldn't post.


They are posting because certain people are asking questions about rules. Are they going to magically tell the asker the answer without posting?
Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

@Patrick2011: Can you clarify what you mean by this?

2) In addition, a 1 post should be ignored unless the previous count contains a violation or the post is by a mod or admin.
Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,380 posts
Templar

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[quote]2) In addition, a 1 post should be ignored unless the previous count contains a violation or the post is by a mod or admin.
[/quote]

So let's say there's a count that has reached 25, and all 25 posts follow the rules. Then the next person posts something like this:

1. [insert any text here]

With my idea, such a post would be ignored because the count it reset followed the rules. However, the count would be reset if the post in italics was made by a mod or an admin.

As another example, let's say that again, the count has reached 25, and someone resets the count. However, this time, the last few posts go like this:

[quote=User1]22. [insert non-spam text here][/quote]
[quote=User2]23. [insert non-spam text here][/quote]
[quote=User1]24. [insert non-spam text here][/quote]
[quote=User2]25. [insert non-spam text here][/quote]
[quote=OneWhoKnowsTheRules]1. That's a back to back post, so the count must be reset.[/quote]

In this case, the count reset is allowed because the previous count didn't follow all the rules (there was a back-to-back post from 22-25).
nivlac724
offline
nivlac724
2,564 posts
Farmer

Than get rid of the rule where if a mod posts the count is reset its hard enough already

Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,380 posts
Templar

Than get rid of the rule where if a mod posts the count is reset its hard enough already


That would break the whole point of Count to 100. The original purpose was to see if the users could reach 100 before a mod or admin posted.
kalkanadam
offline
kalkanadam
798 posts
Shepherd

Yeah, but its not needed since people are just ignorant and doesnt check for ninjas, doesnt read the rules and breaks the P1, P2, P1, P2 rule frequently and sometime just reset on purpose for absolutly no reason. Gantic, is there a way you can temproarily ban people from posting on a certian thread. If so maybe temporarily banning people that frequently mess up, might lower the number of resets, because if they dont wanna get banned again they will pay more attention to there mistakes.

Gladiator246
offline
Gladiator246
365 posts
Bard

In my opinion,there are no flaws in the count to 100 rules.

kalkanadam
offline
kalkanadam
798 posts
Shepherd

Were not talking about the rules. Count to 100 was meant to see how far we can get without a mod posting. But we dont need a mod posting because people just keep messing up.were trying to find a solution for that.

R2D21999
online
R2D21999
18,314 posts
Templar

I don't think any of the current rules need to be replaced or taken away. I just want something done with the people who purposely ruin it, maybe you could delete their post? Like we could ignore their post and a mod can just delete it.

Also people make mistakes, those people will eventually learn from their mistakes... hopefully.

Everything else is fine, I'm fine with the mods post and we reset. I'm fine with the 1 2 1 2 rule. The editing rule. Blah blah blah rule.

Were not talking about the rules.


Yes we are. Gantic: This is a discussion thread regarding rules and gameplay of 'Count to 100'
Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

Okay, here's the proposal:

1: Ignore all intentional resets (by users). Do not ignore mistakes.
2. Count is not successful until after a moderator reviews it.
- Mod's word is final.
- It is not successful if a non-intentional reset is ignored.

Showing 1-15 of 238