Rantzien has double-posted!

THAT AWFUL BASTARD HE MUST BE EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY

Now, I'm all used to double-posting being against the rules because it always has. I use the edit button instead of a second post, just like everyone else who's been here more than a few weeks. My question is not so much about whether double-posting is good or not, but why we should care so much about it as to have staff edit every instance of double-posting they came across.

Is there anything inherently wrong about a double-post? Obviously not. The staff generally lets a double-post slide if its done sufficiently after-the-fact, because otherwise no other member would notice the updated thread.* In some forums, double-posting is the norm if a member is responding to multiple previous posters.

I agree that extensive double- and triple-posting can get annoying. But why not just have a "don't be annoying" rule, like we have with quote pyramids? Should we really care so much about double-posts?


*Jiro once edited a double-post of mine that was made a full day after the previous one. This horribly gross error of judgment is obviously why he is no longer on staff.

As with quote pyramids, it's simply a matter of making the forums look tidy. One person multi-posting everywhere looks messy as anything, though I'm on the same page as you in that the occasional double post that adds to the an otherwise slow/dead conversation is fine. In fact, I'd say most of the staff are on this page. With regards to the rule itself, and how it's written, I figure it's much simpler to outright ban something and use common sense on a case by case basis rather than to have a lenient rule to begin with. This way, if someone starts taking the piss with it all, you're more justified in punishing them more severely.

Double posting to boost activity in a thread is fine, but it can indeed be annoying. To me, it's sortof the idea that you're leaving room available to have someone else respond to you or the thread and encourage a conversation instead of a monologue.

I think it may also help with reducing the need to spam in order to boost post count. EoFF doesn't have the elitist "I'm the postmaster with my three million post count" mentality I've seen at some other forums [strike]with the exception of Jiro[/strike]. I'm glad we don't have that crap here.

If staff wants to take the time to merge them, I have no problem with it because double-posting is just kindof overall ugly. Utilize the edit button, bro. There's no reason not to. It's right there.

It's really just a cosmetic issue from what I've always understood. Seeing the same avatar and signature is ugly, and it slows the loading of a page. We don't have much of a probably with bumped threads here so it shouldn't be a particularly big deal to MAKE SURE THESE ABOMINATIONS DON'T EXIST but the official stance being against them makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flambard D'Quinceteth

With regards to the rule itself, and how it's written, I figure it's much simpler to outright ban something and use common sense on a case by case basis rather than to have a lenient rule to begin with. This way, if someone starts taking the piss with it all, you're more justified in punishing them more severely.

---

Pretty much this. The reason to have a rule like no double posts as opposed to don't be annoying is pretty straight forward: the former is this wishy washy, nebulous thing which exists but is pretty much impossible to objectively define in a hard and fast way. Someone might find a bit of a spam post annoying. Someone else may find it funny and perfectly fine. Same for double posts. So instead of saying don't be annoying, and force the staff to basically debate what is and isn't an annoying use of double posts, we've got the hard and fast, easy to define rule of don't double post. And everyone can see when a double post happens.

But since double posting is sort of useful in one situation (and it's really the only time I can think of where it's justifiable over editing) they tend to be lenient on that. But they can still just smack someone for double posting whenever needed and point to the rule and say don't do that. I'll admit exceptions to rules which aren't codified are a bit contentious for me, but I'll take that over a rule that doesn't actually mean anything when you read it.

Long story short: clear and concise rules (don't double post) are better than touchy feely hippie crap (don't be annoying) and easier to enforce consistently with little debate.

I always thought that it is okay to do once in awhile, but if a user does it frequently, then they should learn to use the edit button. I agree that it is a good way to revive a thread, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

I always thought that it is okay to do once in awhile, but if a user does it frequently, then they should learn to use the edit button. I agree that it is a good way to revive a thread, too.

---

I think the general stance is that as long as it's done after a reasonable period of time to move the conversation along then it's fine. I know I've double posted plenty of times when a thread was down the page a ways and the only thing editing would do is make sure someone saw the post I wanted to make two years from now when a bot resurrects the thread.

Methinks it's a case of employing the UYFB rule. If it's a spam double-post, warn. If there's any logical reason whatsoever, do nothing. The staff is meant to be the police, not mom and dad.

What does UYFB stand for? Also, yes. You are correct.

UYFB = Use Your smurfing Brain, a rule that I've been a proponent of since Bastardly Productions actually had a forum to run.

Ahh, interesting. The staff are fairly spot on with their judgment nowadays. I think it's been a long process of gradual refinement, but we have a particularly good haul. Even Shlup isn't completely insane anymore!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flambard D'Quinceteth

As with quote pyramids, it's simply a matter of making the forums look tidy. One person multi-posting everywhere looks messy as anything, though I'm on the same page as you in that the occasional double post that adds to the an otherwise slow/dead conversation is fine. In fact, I'd say most of the staff are on this page. With regards to the rule itself, and how it's written, I figure it's much simpler to outright ban something and use common sense on a case by case basis rather than to have a lenient rule to begin with. This way, if someone starts taking the piss with it all, you're more justified in punishing them more severely.

---

Do you think this would really be a problem? I think the current way quote pyramids are handled is entirely analogous, and works just fine with a more vague "don't abuse them" rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

I think it may also help with reducing the need to spam in order to boost post count.

---

What is this, 2002???? No one cares about post counts anymore. It's all about join date rep points now.

I agree that Jiro is a spam whore. But he is an entertaining spam whore who livens up our days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gobo

Seeing the same avatar and signature is ugly, and it slows the loading of a page.

---

1. Not as ugly as your face.

2. How the hell does 2 posts by Raistlin slow the loading of a page any more than 1 post by Raistlin and 1 post by Shorty? The latter would obviously slow loading down way more, because of Shorty's gigantic-... uh, beauty. Yeah, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi

Pretty much this. The reason to have a rule like no double posts as opposed to don't be annoying is pretty straight forward: the former is this wishy washy, nebulous thing which exists but is pretty much impossible to objectively define in a hard and fast way. Someone might find a bit of a spam post annoying. Someone else may find it funny and perfectly fine. Same for double posts. So instead of saying don't be annoying, and force the staff to basically debate what is and isn't an annoying use of double posts, we've got the hard and fast, easy to define rule of don't double post. And everyone can see when a double post happens.

---

I disagree that such "hard and fast" rules are so useful or even desirable. I also disagree that a lack of those rules would cause any problems. The staff already says "don't be annoying" or "don't be rude to other members" or "don't talk about how Shlup's ass got stuck in the door that one time," or other similarly vague instructions, and while I personally just ignore everything they say, most of the rest of the members seem to have no trouble following along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

I always thought that it is okay to do once in awhile, but if a user does it frequently, then they should learn to use the edit button.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleys

Methinks it's a case of employing the UYFB rule. If it's a spam double-post, warn. If there's any logical reason whatsoever, do nothing.

---

This is basically the dramatic rule change I am talking about, right here. Any given double post that includes its own substantive content (so that it isn't just spam or duplicative) doesn't need to be a problem.

Quote:

---

1. Not as ugly as your face.

2. How the hell does 2 posts by Raistlin slow the loading of a page any more than 1 post by Raistlin and 1 post by Shorty? The latter would obviously slow loading down way more, because of Shorty's gigantic-... uh, beauty. Yeah, that.

---

Once the page is full double posting has no affect on page loads, when a page is not full it does, it's quicker to load 1 post than 2. Pretty minor but gotta go fast gotta go fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi

Pretty much this. The reason to have a rule like no double posts as opposed to don't be annoying is pretty straight forward: the former is this wishy washy, nebulous thing which exists but is pretty much impossible to objectively define in a hard and fast way. Someone might find a bit of a spam post annoying. Someone else may find it funny and perfectly fine. Same for double posts. So instead of saying don't be annoying, and force the staff to basically debate what is and isn't an annoying use of double posts, we've got the hard and fast, easy to define rule of don't double post. And everyone can see when a double post happens.

---

I disagree that such "hard and fast" rules are so useful or even desirable. I also disagree that a lack of those rules would cause any problems. The staff already says "don't be annoying" or "don't be rude to other members" or "don't talk about how Shlup's ass got stuck in the door that one time," or other similarly vague instructions, and while I personally just ignore everything they say, most of the rest of the members seem to have no trouble following along.

---

Care to elaborate? I would certainly concede that set in stone rules with very clear requirements may not always be the best thing, and certainly the member and situation should be taken into account any time a punishment is being doled out, but how is a very clear rule and easily understood ruler about not cluttering up threads needlessly a bad thing?

You can't get much clearer than don't double post. There's no wiggle room for someone to argue they weren't doing it or that they shouldn't be punished for it if it's deemed enough of a problem to actually punish a member. It's right there in black and white (and blue), clear as day: don't do this. Did you do this? Yes? Well, too bad for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Care to elaborate? I would certainly concede that set in stone rules with very clear requirements may not always be the best thing, and certainly the member and situation should be taken into account any time a punishment is being doled out, but how is a very clear rule and easily understood ruler about not cluttering up threads needlessly a bad thing?

You can't get much clearer than don't double post. There's no wiggle room for someone to argue they weren't doing it or that they shouldn't be punished for it if it's deemed enough of a problem to actually punish a member. It's right there in black and white (and blue), clear as day: don't do this. Did you do this? Yes? Well, too bad for you.

---

My main point... well, I guess I actually have two main points. My two main points being:

1. It isn't a clear-cut, black-and-white rule, and so shouldn't be treated as such. Double-posts are freely allowed in some instances, such as bumping an inactive thread. Further, clear-cut rules aren't all they are cracked up to be, especially when they're not followed anyway; if someone wants to complain, there's plenty of opportunity there. The downside of more discretionary rules is also greatly exaggerated, as they work fine in a variety of other, far more significant areas. Rudeness and excessive swearing and abuse of quote pyramids are all judged by essentially subjective standards that allow for plenty of staff discretion, and EoFF has managed just fine. I really don't see a downside.

EDIT: We could, for instance, have a "no more than three swear words per post" rule instead of just "no excessive swearing," but I think you'll agree that that would be a bit silly and unnecessary. There are instances were ten swears in a row could be part of a joke, or an instance where just one or two swears is inappropriately rude and unacceptable. Clear cut is not automatically superior, especially when an issue actually requires discretion and considering the circumstances. Why does this issue require such an arbitrary line that isn't followed anyway?

2. Why is any given instance of a non-spam, non-duplicative double-post such a bad thing, anyway? Why is it always something a staff member has to bother editing? Most people here seem to accept it as an axiom, which is why I was curious to challenge it in this thread. The only remotely persuasive answer I see is aesthetics, and is it really that big of a deal if someone's sig appears two posts in a row? I understand a thread would look ridiculous if double-posting is taken to excess, but of course the staff would still step in then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

I think it may also help with reducing the need to spam in order to boost post count.

---

What is this, 2002???? No one cares about post counts anymore. It's all about join date rep points now.

---

THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID, THAT NO ONE CARES

I quite like the no double posting rule.

1. As it has been said before by Quin and a few others, it keeps the forums tidy. I know that members will have an inclination to not contribute to a thread if it's basically one person or a couple posting constantly. Without the rule, I think it just asks for spamalot to rear his ugly head.

2. It doesn't take two seconds to click 'Edit' on a post. I understand that there's the argument that some people won't read it or overlook it, but you can bring more attention to it by highlighting it some way. Double posting just seems kind of lazy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

My main point... well, I guess I actually have two main points. My two main points being:

1. It isn't a clear-cut, black-and-white rule, and so shouldn't be treated as such. Double-posts are freely allowed in some instances, such as bumping an inactive thread. Further, clear-cut rules aren't all they are cracked up to be, especially when they're not followed anyway; if someone wants to complain, there's plenty of opportunity there. The downside of more discretionary rules is also greatly exaggerated, as they work fine in a variety of other, far more significant areas. Rudeness and excessive swearing and abuse of quote pyramids are all judged by essentially subjective standards that allow for plenty of staff discretion, and EoFF has managed just fine. I really don't see a downside.

---

Fair enough. I was coming at it from the perspective of having a clear and easy to understand rule about double posting for newer members. I do think something like no double posts except when bumping a thread with no activity after a reasonable amount of time may do the same job and be plenty clearer than some vague no spam rule or some such thing, but you are right that simply saying no double posting then having unwritten exceptions is no clearer and provides a lot of room for discussion and disagreement.

Quote:

---

2. Why is any given instance of a non-spam, non-duplicative double-post such a bad thing, anyway? Why is it always something a staff member has to bother editing? Most people here seem to accept it as an axiom, which is why I was curious to challenge it in this thread. The only remotely persuasive answer I see is aesthetics, and is it really that big of a deal if someone's sig appears two posts in a row? I understand a thread would look ridiculous if double-posting is taken to excess, but of course the staff would still step in then.

---

I realized sometime this morning that I didn't even really address where I stand on no double posts at all actually, instead focusing on the wording of the rule and how effective it is, which is pretty pointless when the real discussion is whether it's needed. The more I think about it the more I do believe, as you seem to, that it's a remnant of a bygone day when the user base was much younger on average and people actually cared about post counts. I do believe editing is preferable when you're returning with more thoughts shortly after making a post, but the thing the rule seems meant to protect against (spam and post count boosting) are probably non-issues now given our main user base and could be easily handled by a broader no spamming rule.

I really don't mind double-posting being verboten; If you want a thread bumped, ask someone to post in it so that you can update. If nobody's willing to bump it, chances are nobody will read your update anyways.

Just for the record, Bleys is the one who PM'd multiple people in the middle of the night because he was terrified at the thought of double-posting in his FFV thread, despite the fact that his last post was almost a full day earlier. So obviously he needs some therapy and medication before his perspective on this topic can be considered sane.

Two people. The two participants in that thread who were online at the time I sent the message.

I'd do it again, too. Even if it's allowed I am not a double-poster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys

Two people. The two participants in that thread who were online at the time I sent the message.

I'd do it again, too. Even if it's allowed I am not a double-poster.

---

YES! I DID IT! AND I WOULD'VE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU MEDDLING CID SQUIRES!