Forums → Support Forum → Forum Games Concern
| 29 | 3293 |
In this thread Devoidless said counting isn't a game.
Counting is not a game, thus not allowed.
Definition of game.
Take your pick, those definitions can apply to counting. Especially the third.
How is counting not a game? I don't see how rating someone is a game, but counting isn't. It's as much of a game as those rating games are.
Count to 100:
- You attempt to count to 100.
- There are rules.
How much respect do you have for the above user:
- Give a reason and rate.
If anything, counting is more of a game than those rating games.
Far too much trouble with spam and off-topic discussions.
As for spam and off-topic discussions, that can apply to many of the forum games, and there's no such things as off-topic discussion in the counting games. You simply keep on counting with something typed up in there, it doesn't have to be about the current conversation, it just needs to be something to keep the game going.
If you're saying that it's spam and there's off-topic discussion, you might as well say that to the other forum games. People sure do spam in those, and sometimes they go off-topic because little kids can't take a rating from someone.
In the Count to 100, there was more substance than in those rating games. There were actual conversations to keep the game going and it was fun.
I don't understand why you don't think it's a game.
Also, I'd like to point out, how is posting pictures a game? An example of that can be the Non Spam Picture Wars thread. I don't see how posting pictures is a game and counting is not. That's even more spammy than counting since you're just posting pictures and posting about seven words to avoid spam. In the counting game, you posted a number, then some filler material to get to 100. If a moderator or administrator posted, you had to restart, unless, of course, they participated in the game. It's a game.
Example:
GhostOfMatrix: 1) Anyone see any good movies recently?
Master565: 2) I saw Law Abiding Citizen a few days ago, the plot was wonderful.
Then some other people will post.
Devoidless: Restart! or Just dropping in to make you guys restart.
Then we restarted.
Or
Devoidless: 10) Yeah, great movie there. Gerard Butler did an amazing job.
Also, from reading some of those popular forum game threads, I don't understand how they are games, but counting is not considered a game.
Here are the forum game rules posted by Carlie and Gantic:
1. Replies - Games should try to encourage longer replies. Games that require only 1-5 word responses are discouraged.
2. Appropriate/Respectful - All games must be appropriate and respectful. No offensive behavior, profanity, killing, etc.
3. Images - Images may be used with games but must be appropriate and contain a description.
4. Repeats - PLEASE check the game listing below and look through the topics in the forum before you start a new thread. This will help prevent duplicate games from being made.
5. Spam - While some Forum Games generate short responses, there is no excuse for spamming. If posts no longer follow the rules, the forum game may be locked.
1. The Count to 100 encouraged longer replies.
2. It was appropriate.
3. Images were posted occasionally, but that was kept to a minimum due to moderators restarting the game.
4. It wasn't a repeat.
5. The Count to 100 was barely spammed in.
The reason as to why the Count to 100 was locked was because a few forumers decided to break the rules of the thread, there were about five people doing it. They would just keep counting to over 9,000 and disregarded the moderators restarting the game. It isn't fair how the thread got locked due to a few people ruining it. If you're going to do that, you should lock many of those forum games threads due to people not following the rules.
I just want the Count to 100 unlocked, or I can remake it if they allow me.
- 29 Replies
also, there are so many other things i said you didnt respond to...
I don't care to discuss the topic of this thread. As I already stated, issues with mod decision should go to an admin, who will then take us over their knee and spank us for being bad little kids with powers.
honestly i still dont think its annoying. those are just words. and that is what warning and banns are. no need in punishing many people for that.
Except they are not breaking the rules by doing it. They are annoying, but not breaking any rules. The thread, however, showed some users should not have the privilege of such a thread, and as we can't cut some users out, we have to punish everyone.
Did someone except me notice that everybody on the first page for the moment use a shield Armatar?
Nope.
There's really no point in doing that since the mods think it's required for them to play the game. Since they don't want to play, I doubt they'll let a counting thread exist. I don't understand that, though. The thread is for players to count to 100. It isn't required for mods to stop the count, but they can if they want.
Given your original post and the discussion that followed, surely you would understand why I thought it was the case that you wanted the mods to join in, since that was the premise of the thread in question and part of your request was to have it unlocked.
However, if that's not the issue, as far as I see it, you're free to either submit a proposal or attempt to start a new counting game that doesn't involve the moderators. However the moderators will still be at liberty to use their discretion as to whether to lock it or not, and if the issue persists then it would warrant further discussion. I may be overriden on this issue, and be advised that I'm only mediating on this because I noticed it was persisting past a simple query.
Given your original post and the discussion that followed, surely you would understand why I thought it was the case that you wanted the mods to join in, since that was the premise of the thread in question and part of your request was to have it unlocked.
They can join in if they want, but they don't have to join in. I understand why you thought that, though, since in that thread it states moderators can get involved.
you're free to either submit a proposal or attempt to start a new counting game that doesn't involve the moderators.
Submit a proposal to whom? Also, why can't I put "if a moderator posts, you must restart"? I take it as that's putting them into the game when you've said that they don't want to participate. I guess I'll just have to make one without moderators.
However the moderators will still be at liberty to use their discretion as to whether to lock it or not, and if the issue persists then it would warrant further discussion.
This is what I want answered. I want to be able to create a counting thread without it getting locked on sight by a moderator. If I'm permitted to remake one, then they shouldn't lock it solely because they don't like it. If it doesn't violate the forum rules, it should be able to be created. Since counting is a game, and it won't involve moderators this time around, I don't see a problem.
Since counting is a game, and it won't involve moderators this time around, I don't see a problem.
Then it becomes chatspam with numbers next to it.
See ya later alligator.
Then it becomes chatspam with numbers next to it.
That can apply to the other forum games. That's essentially what the Non Spam Picture Wars thread is and the ^, <, V game. Simply chatting with pictures and telling what you're doing and asking questions. Also, if you want to use chat spam as an argument, that's basically what the other counting thread was, however, I don't see why you would label it as chat spam. The posts have substance to them.
Honestly, it's taken me about 2 pages to identify all the issues and discern which ones are a concern. Here's how I see it:
1) The game was good while it lasted but then it was locked. It is claimed that the reasons for locking it was unfair. The moderators who were being harassed by the users who disagree. The way I see it, you could argue that either the moderators are being selfish or the users who want it back are being inconsiderate, and in such a case I'd just say moderator discretion should be respected. However this is just one aspect of it...
2) This game originally had moderator input as optional and it just so happened to evolve into a user versus moderator kind of game. However it's hard to reboot something like that straight up. I'd advise making a game that doesn't mention whether or not moderators should participate (just like all the other ones), though seeing as that was where all the fun in the counting game lay...
3) The most important issue is that I can see good reason why we don't allow counting games. It's actually to do with what Devoidless said (albeit very casually): a counting game's meaningful content, by definition, is offtopic discussion, because, as the OP stated, you have a number followed by a conversation. Now I know you could argue that there are plenty of instances where we do let the "off-topic" run on a bit, but we do keep these as being exceptions to the rule, and for that reason it wouldn't be good jurisprudence to explicitly sanction establishing something that is going to include a lot of offtopic chatter, right?
Anyway, I've also raised the issue to the rest of the team, we'll see what happens.
The difference is with moderators in the game it has an opposing team.
Picture Wars is a defeat the previous picture; using your text as a description to what you're using your picture for.
^.<,V game is a question/answer thread along with a status update thrown in there.
Woah, ninja'd.
That's essentially what the Non Spam Picture Wars thread is and the ^, <, V game. Simply chatting with pictures and telling what you're doing and asking questions. Also, if you want to use chat spam as an argument, that's basically what the other counting thread was, however, I don't see why you would label it as chat spam. The posts have substance to them.
This gets covered by what I'm going to call the "let sleeping dogs lie but don't raise the undead" clause that I mentioned under 3): if we're compelled to close those threads, they'll be shut, and as you've now pointed out, it's unlikely we will allow those threads to ever open again.
Some of these threads have been around since the site had a mere 100k users on it. Issues of behaviour were much easier to handle before the site hit critical mass, so some of these threads survived the progressive hardening of our stance necessitated the growth. If you get too preoccupied with consistency, you'll find that nobody can have nice things.
Some of these threads have been around since the site had a mere 100k users on it. Issues of behaviour were much easier to handle before the site hit critical mass, so some of these threads survived the progressive hardening of our stance necessitated the growth. If you get too preoccupied with consistency, you'll find that nobody can have nice things.
Does that mean that counting threads will never be allowed again?
However it's hard to reboot something like that straight up. I'd advise making a game that doesn't mention whether or not moderators should participate (just like all the other ones), though seeing as that was where all the fun in the counting game lay.
Perhaps I could make it where a few select users can reset the game?
a counting game's meaningful content, by definition, is offtopic discussion, because, as the OP stated, you have a number followed by a conversation.
Of course, but it's in the forum games sub-forum where you don't gain AP nor posts. So a conversation that has substance and follows the rules in a counting thread should be fine. From what I've seen, they don't allow off-topic discussions in threads in the other sub-forums because it's basically a place where you can gain AP and posts.
Anyway, I've also raised the issue to the rest of the team, we'll see what happens.
Alright.
^.<,V game is a question/answer thread along with a status update thrown in there.
It's conversation nonetheless, which is chatting, and therefore "chat spam" with your definition of chat spam. Asking a question, someone answering it, then continuing the process. In the counting thread you converse about things, not all that different from the ^, <, V game.
Perhaps I could make it where a few select users can reset the game?
Absolutely not. Arbitrarily defined preferential treatment of users will certainly cause trouble!
Of course, but it's in the forum games sub-forum where you don't gain AP nor posts.
While that's something that can be said to weasel our way into allowing something to continue when we don't want to ruin the fun, it's not something that can be said to weasel our way into allowing something that was already ruined to restart, seeing as the overriding rule is no spam, and no offtopic, regardless of where on the forum it is.
It's conversation nonetheless, which is chatting, and therefore "chat spam" with your definition of chat spam. Asking a question, someone answering it, then continuing the process. In the counting thread you converse about things, not all that different from the ^, <, V game.
I just looked at that game and the difference is that both ^, <, V and the picture wars require sequential discussion like in normal threads. Counting game does not, and frequently, as a result, there was none.
From reading all this, a counting thread shouldn't be allowed because it was basically spam since there wasn't continuous discussion about something. Why was it kept alive all that time, then?
As I said earlier, it went from being a thread that was permissible, to a thread that was no longer technically permissible but was running smoothly. And then some users ruined it for everybody and we can't reasonably reopen it as, well, times have changed.
Guys, the moderators have more than answered this concern. Case closed.
Any game which ends up with too much spam or off-topic replies, can be closed at the discretion of the Moderator team. It's also at their discretion whether another similar game can start in a new thread.
Thread is locked!