Make thread warnings actively viewable from any page of the thread.

[Lilithvia]

I often respond to things I get quoted in. Usually I'll check the page the quote was on, the OP, and the quote I'm going to be posting on (40 ppp ftw), but often, a buried thread warning that is still active, might not even be visible. If folks are expected to abide by them, there should be an effort made to make them visible for those trying to do basic due diligence, don't you think? Especially given that the search feature on this website brings up thousands of unrelated posts before it does anything you're actually trying to find related to any possible thread warnings?

I suggest:

Best case: display the post with the thread warning at the top of each page

Realistic case: add the damn thread warning to the top. It's five clicks and a ctrl + v. Mobile it's five taps, a long press, and another tap. It really does not add that much effort to a mod's job.

Assuming a typical moderator gives fifteen thread warnings a day (extreme case scenario), it adds maybe a minute or two a day tops, and helps keep active discussion from straying.

[Logwyn]

I often respond to things I get quoted in. Usually I'll check the page the quote was on, the OP, and the quote I'm going to be posting on (40 ppp ftw), but often, a buried thread warning that is still active, might not even be visible. If folks are expected to abide by them, there should be an effort made to make them visible for those trying to do basic due diligence, don't you think? Especially given that the search feature on this website brings up thousands of unrelated posts before it does anything you're actually trying to find related to any possible thread warnings?

I suggest:

Best case: display the post with the thread warning at the top of each page

Realistic case: add the damn thread warning to the top. It's five clicks and a ctrl + v. Mobile it's five taps, a long press, and another tap. It really does not add that much effort to a mod's job.

Assuming a typical moderator gives fifteen thread warnings a day (extreme case scenario), it adds maybe a minute tops, and helps keep active discussion from straying.

I agree. I got hit from a warning from page "50" when I posted on page "800". (Numbers are exaggeration).

[Varodoc]

This is something that the resident mod on the Lore subforum should learn to do. If you're going to infract people over a thread warning, put the warning in the fucking OP, don't expect me to scroll through every reply of every page to find the thread warning.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thread warnings merely reiterate forum rules. You shouldn't need a warning at the top of every page saying "follow the rules when posting"

[Lilithvia]

Thread warnings merely reiterate forum rules. You shouldn't need a warning at the top of every page saying "follow the rules when posting"

Sometimes discussions that are pretty innocent get hit too. And thread warnings intent is to steer discussion back *without* giving infractions, so it would seem to be that making a thread warning, which is in of itself a tool to make moderation easier for the mods, more visible and thus able to achieve its intended purpose, would be a good thing.

And better behavior makes the job of moderators easier, *and* makes users have a better experience. Win Win.

[draynay]

Some of the mods do a good job of this, greater uniformity in handling thread warnings is a good idea.

[Daedius]

Other forums I frequent have the title updated with [MOD WARNING] in it... here it's hidden in some post.

[DarkAmbient]

Hard agree. It's stupid to expect people to read every single post in a large thread, and it's bullshit to infract someone for going against a warning that's buried somewhere in the thread.

[Lochton]

I understand your view of the idea, though, shouldn't be needed to have a highlight visible to remind people to actually follow the rules and stay on topic?

It would be a neat feature though, to have a visible warning in the top, not with the posts that has been warned, people shouldn't be highlighted further, but with the warning message.

Assuming a typical moderator gives fifteen thread warnings a day (extreme case scenario).

If only it was an extreme case but there have been times with many more.

[Logwyn]

Thread warnings merely reiterate forum rules. You shouldn't need a warning at the top of every page saying "follow the rules when posting"

Not always the case.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not always the case.

I mean, the reason warnings get issued on threads is because the current conversations are violating forum rules.

[Endus]

Some of the mods do a good job of this, greater uniformity in handling thread warnings is a good idea.

Honestly, even adding it to the first post is only marginally helpful. If it's a shorter thread, sure, people will start there and read every post, and you'll generally catch any warnings as they come up. But with highly active threads, you both get hundreds of pages of back-thread people generally don't bother with, they don't check the first post for the same reasons, and you can easily run into cases where you're either unaware there was a thread warning 40 pages back because you only caught up on the last 10, or where you make a response to a post on page 5 of those 10 as you're reading up (and these were all posted recently, so you're not necroing), and you just haven't gotten to the thread warning that's on the 8th page of the 10 most recent pages yet, meaning you've violated the warning. I've had that happen, and by the time I got to the thread warning, I'd already been given an infraction for violating it. Which I had; I'm not complaining about that infraction or something. Just pointing to some issues with the current notification system.

A way to maintain an "active warning" on a thread, with a message at the top of the page akin to the message you get if you're currently banned, might help, but I have no idea how difficult implementation would be.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, the reason warnings get issued on threads is because the current conversations are violating forum rules.

There's a lot of leeway. A lot of "off-topic" derails start out on-topic; thread warnings go out if/when they get too far afield and the mod things it needs to be brought back to the main point. The first posts on that tangent don't violate rules and the later posts are just following that conversation so there's no clear point where anyone's violating any rule until the mod puts in a warning.

[craigw]

stay on topic or you will get a thread about it 25 post in.

[Deus Mortis]

Would it be possible to program it so if it is your first time entering a thread you get a popup or whatever if the thread has warnings, and if it is a thread you have already been in before such as the Ukraine thread as an example and a new warning gets posted, have that new warning popup, or a popup saying new thread warning.

[Lilithvia]

Honestly, even adding it to the first post is only marginally helpful. If it's a shorter thread, sure, people will start there and read every post, and you'll generally catch any warnings as they come up. But with highly active threads, you both get hundreds of pages of back-thread people generally don't bother with, they don't check the first post for the same reasons, and you can easily run into cases where you're either unaware there was a thread warning 40 pages back because you only caught up on the last 10, or where you make a response to a post on page 5 of those 10 as you're reading up (and these were all posted recently, so you're not necroing), and you just haven't gotten to the thread warning that's on the 8th page of the 10 most recent pages yet, meaning you've violated the warning. I've had that happen, and by the time I got to the thread warning, I'd already been given an infraction for violating it. Which I had; I'm not complaining about that infraction or something. Just pointing to some issues with the current notification system.

A way to maintain an "active warning" on a thread, with a message at the top of the page akin to the message you get if you're currently banned, might help, but I have no idea how difficult implementation would be.

- - - Updated - - -



There's a lot of leeway. A lot of "off-topic" derails start out on-topic; thread warnings go out if/when they get too far afield and the mod things it needs to be brought back to the main point. The first posts on that tangent don't violate rules and the later posts are just following that conversation so there's no clear point where anyone's violating any rule until the mod puts in a warning.

yeah; best case would be to have an area at the top of each page with active thread warnings; though realistically I could settle for having to scan the OP for them.

[Ringthane]

Are the people you want to be affected by them/want to follow them really going to care, though? If someone's going to be a jerk, they'll be a jerk no matter what.

I think it's just as much a problem of moderation as it is anything else. Maybe if the mods didn't let some of those idiot threads where it's the same three people arguing the same two points for 350 pages (such as the She-Hulk thread, where those three people are arguing that a) one of them is just using logical terms wrong and "I'm gonna show the world how much I listened in logic class and even Plato and Socrates would bow down before me", and b) one of them is just distorting the argument to fit their own world-view, and c) one of them is just arguing that the other two are what's wrong with society and "I would never be seen as that because I'm just so much more superior to all of humanity"), maybe we wouldn't have to deal with all of this. Maybe there's something in that as well?

[Orange Joe]

Are the people you want to be affected by them/want to follow them really going to care, though? If someone's going to be a jerk, they'll be a jerk no matter what.

I think it's just as much a problem of moderation as it is anything else. Maybe if the mods didn't let some of those idiot threads where it's the same three people arguing the same two points for 350 pages (such as the She-Hulk thread, where those three people are arguing that a) one of them is just using logical terms wrong and "I'm gonna show the world how much I listened in logic class and even Plato and Socrates would bow down before me", and b) one of them is just distorting the argument to fit their own world-view, and c) one of them is just arguing that the other two are what's wrong with society and "I would never be seen as that because I'm just so much more superior to all of humanity"), maybe we wouldn't have to deal with all of this. Maybe there's something in that as well?

Yes, I've been hit by this very thing a few times. Even had 1 infraction over turned because of it. I would have never posted had I seen the warning first.

[micwini]

I agree. Good point. Imagine the 10.X speculation thread. You get infracted on page 2000 for a warning on page 138.

[Nymrohd]

I doubt they can do it. It's not about them wanting to, its the limitations of the forum code.

[MoanaLisa]

I mean, the reason warnings get issued on threads is because the current conversations are violating forum rules.

Sometimes. Sometimes it's a warning to back off before mod actions need to be escalated. It's better to get a thread back on track that way if it's at all possible.

As to how it would work with visibility: There are a number of problems with that. I don't see how top posting (start of thread) would help with threads longer than a very few pages. Those longer threads also might contain half a dozen or more warnings that are specific to individual accounts or posts and bear no relevance whatsoever for where the thread is days later, never mind how a page might look if it starts off with a dozen earlier warnings. That doesn't work at all for the mega-threads that might have thousands of posts.

It's difficult to see an easy solution.