Simply commenting under a suggestion / application with "support" "no support" or "neutral" when they have already reacted to the post with the corresponding reaction is not helpful to the original poster. I understand when people reply to posts with extra feedback / additional suggestions / critiques, but when they simply type "support" or "no support" with no extra information, or "reasons stated above" it's just not helpful, and in my opinion should be considered post farming. Including feedback in the reply can help the original poster in tweaking their application or suggestion, but simply replying with what they have already reacted to the post with has no benefit whatsoever, besides giving the person who replied a higher post count. This is a suggestion to revise the definition of post farming, and add this. (I will admit I have commented on a few applications / suggestions with "support" etc, but I have tried my best to give reasons for my decision in order to help the original poster) To be clear: this is not a suggestion to remove replies on applications or suggestions, this is a suggestion for people to either state their reasons (not just "stated above") for their decision, or just not reply to the thread at all.
Support Too many forums threads whether it's Mod Apps / Suggestions etc people just comment Support and No Support without actually evaluating why they chose that opinion. I've seen countless amounts of people do this and personally I think people look at it as a free forums message. If you're going to say Support and No Support, state your reasons fellas, just state your reasons.
I’m not sure about supports but no supports definitely- i think too many people no support without giving proper feedback or reasoning, and i think this leads to people no supporting most applications unfairly based on a grudge or just to be toxic/bash competition/or because they haven’t gotten moderator.
I feel like if you’re supporting an applicant you don’t have to say anything considering your just giving your support. If you’re gonna neutral or no support it’s good to give feedback so the applicant knows what they have to improve on. Same with suggestions if your supporting one you don’t have to say why you’re supporting it since you’re literally telling them “I like this idea”. But neutrals and no supports should have some sort of feedback included with them. Edit: I feel for some threads it’s alright to just say no support depending on what most of the responses are.
No support, but I could change to neutral if persuaded - It shows activity on the forums since there’s not much to respond to if there isn’t a general discussion on the forums, and how else are you supposed to get your post count up compared to staff? (due to ban logs, responding to reports etc staff tend to have higher message counts) - We previously had a system like this but I’m quite sure it didn’t turn out very well since people would just extend their reply with just unnecessary information - Well I guess you could extend a bit more on what someone said, but last time people would almost copy other replies but just rewrite them to sound different.. That’s just my opinion on this, reasoning bin my opinion would be welcoming but not mandatory
From a staff report: ^ No support. It’s whatever. There were rules on this and they’ve been re-discussed. No need to change anything.
I remember we used to have a similar system a few years back but we scrapped it. What Kinsey said is also true. Adding on with my own point (not too important) but also posting a message saying support in a thread can bump it, which helps the person who made it. But as Kinsey said again, resupporting or just constantly bumping someone elses thread is considered post farming, especially if they're not deleted afterwards. No support, sorry.
This thread should be locked if @Accepted has already made a suggestion thread about the topic. Regardless, I agree with what SniffMyToes said above, reasons stated above. (seemingly going against the suggestion ;)). No support.
Some of this can be understanding but it's just another system that can be easily judged. Just because people put Support on a thread doesn't mean they read it, they could have just clicked on the thread and went straight to the replies and typed Support without actually reading the thread which is a bit disrespectful if you ask me. However to know that your thread is actually being read by the community, stating reasons as to why you Support would be very ideal, otherwise people are always going to look at this as a way of Post Farming especially when it's done quite a lot. The past thread by Accepted which can be found here and this thread are similar, but not the same. That thread was encouraging the use of the Support / No Support buttons, not encouraging to comment Support / No Support with reasoning's behind them. Obviously as far as Moderator Applications go, sure writing Support is pretty sufficient enough as a whole opinion as Kinsey said, but for the other suggestions? There should be reasoning behind your Support. For example an infection map, if you support it say why, what you like about it and why it should be added can be good starting points. Overall, I just feel like if you evaluate your Supports / No Supports it really shows the creator of the thread that you're engaged in the thread rather than just writing a lazy reply of 'Support / No Support' For anyone saying this is a dupe of Accepted's thread, read this quote from that thread Doesn't sound like a dupe to me? This thread is completely targeting Supports / No Support as a comment without any actual reasoning behind them, that old thread targeted using the buttons more to PREVENT commenting Support / No Support. Very similar concepts but they are not the same.
The exact same premise with very only slight emphasis change. It’s the same suggestion. I can guarantee you that a large portion of the staff do this anyways. Those that do reply to things like moderator applications judge people based on their character (I just saw you comment on a moderator application solely supporting due to the person being active and an avid reporter, not due to their application). I see nothing wrong with not wanting to read a 15,000 word application. If I know an applicant has terrible character, I won’t even read it. Same with if a person shows themselves to be a good applicant. Close please. @ mods Edit: Here’s a thread saying it was implemented. Although it has been “re-discussed”, the best option is to just go back to enforcing these rules.
no support, i agree strongly with gb and sniff. supporting a thread through the comments just adds more power and builds sense of rallying behind the idea to the thread in my opinion. additionally, the bumping thing stated by gb is something i have to side with. i've had a lot of suggestions, mod apps, map subs, etc, in the past and having someone go down and say "support" is a lot stronger than the rating. as for the no supporting, if someone doesn't read the thread and says no support it simply means they don't agree with what's being proposed which is the point of no supporting. as for the few people who in the past have gone around just commenting "no support" on everything usually don't keep it up for that long. to finish off, the rules are clear. if you post farm, you face the punishments for it. i have in the past and there are many others who have to.
Neutral/Support. If you don't want to read this entire reply, it basically says "I don't disagree with your suggestion, however, I think something has to be done about the "re-supports"." I'd consider it more of an "unneeded" post rather than "post farming". pretty much everyone that knows me knows about my hatred towards just replying with "support/no support" - it's just annoying. It takes about 5-6 minutes to write out an explanation on why you like/dislike the suggestion, and if you don't want to write it, just rate the thread. If you want to bump the thread, just use "bump". There's absolutely no need to bump a thread when someone else has already replied an hour ago. However, I can understand why people dislike this idea, but I think we can all agree that replying with "re-support/re-neutral/re-no-support" is just unnecessary if you're not adding anything else to it. Although it can be seen as a bump, you shouldn't be bumping a thread if the original writer has already bumped it themselves. EXAMPLE: First reply: Support! I like this idea as I think it can increase the player activity on the server. Second reply (after the original owner already bumped the thread): Re-support, it can increase activity. To everyone saying that it could be considered a bump: What on earth are you contributing to the thread if the thread is already in the most recent posts? You're just contributing to your posts. Reporting players and helping out others in the help threads is a great way to start. I went from 300 posts to 1000 posts in about a few months just by reporting players. Writing out your reason to suport/no support the thread is also another way to increase your posts. Welcoming players in introduction/farewells threads is also another option. I can't say anything to the other two as I wasn't there when the system was implemented. If you want to bump a thread by replying with "re-support", delete your old supports just like how you should delete old bumps. ps: this took me 5 minutes to write!
Yes because the genuine reasons not to want the suggestion implemented / concerns about you as an applicant gets forgot about in the many pages of "support" and "re-supports". The reason behind the thread Sniff linked (doesn't apply anymore because bman left) is because it helps devs/admins read what actually matters. The consequence is that suggestions just become a wasteland of posts that never get looked at by those who can implement them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Either way I'm neutral. I think getting a post for taking your time to leave a quick opinion and help the forums feel more alive is well worth it. If there's no way to show what previous responses you agree/disagree with (like swift suggested), I don't think this should be implemented. I think the issue itself lays with a few people excessively abusing the fact that they can just comment "support" and treat the forums like a grinding game. This isn't infection or op prison. *looks at porky, gb and atom*
i do love a bit of controversial in the morning c: I agree with this. I've had people "no support" my suggestions purely because they don't like me, without giving any actual reason as to why they don't support the suggestion. that's what the support reaction is for! :D i know of quite a few non-staff that have gotten their post-count up by reporting, contributing to discussions & replying to help threads. replying to threads with "support" "no support" "neutral" isn't contributing much to the community at all, except their own post count. (plus; it would be easier for non-staff to catch up in this way if staff stopped commenting in this way on threads too :p ) I agree with kinsey's point here, no supporting without sufficient reasoning isn't okay, the original poster deserves to know the reasons behind their decision. however, supporting on its own when someone has already reacted to the original post doesn't add anything new to the suggestion or application, it would be nice if they could include reasoning as to why they have supported, or just leave it at a rating. additionally, when stating "reasons stated above", this doesn't help the applicant / suggestion maker as they don't know what reasons they mean specifically. it would be helpful if the suggestion in this thread was implemented to help prevent this, or if the person would specify what reasons they mean. I agree, this is a good point, but aren't bumps meant to be deleted afterwards as it's considered post-farming if they aren't, so wouldn't this be too? haha, funny. sorry i had no clue there has already been a suggestion made like this!! thanks for the support tho, great minds think alike :D the clarification you made here in your suggestion i completely agree with, but mine is more aimed towards people commenting under posts with notes, good or bad, not just using the buttons provided. as I said above, my suggestion is slightly different to that one (i didn't know that one existed seeing as the last reply was in 2019 and I joined back mid-2o2o). mine is more of an encouragement to reply to the thread with opinions rather than just "no support" "support" or "neutral", whereas that one is stating to use the reactions rather than commenting (which i also agree with). i completely agree, thank u <3 you're right, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to read an application. there is something wrong however, with replying / reacting to that application / suggestion when you haven't read it. there could be information in the original post that may cause you to change your mind, or contradict whatever reasons you put with your decision. if you don't want to read someone's suggestion / application, don't reply to their thread. simple. it's a good point, but i have to go back to; if bumps & resupports used to bump a thread have to be deleted, and people use "support" to bump a thread, why aren't those supports deleted / considered post farming? if they don't read the thread and then no-support it, their reasons could be contradicted by what is stated in the thread, but they wouldn't know because they didn't read it :/ PREACH PREACH X2 PREACH X3 bumping can be done by the original poster, and adding "support" "no support" "neutral" as a form of "bump" should be deleted along with other bumps in my opinion. i completely agree, the comments under a thread should contain critiques / feedback of the original post, so the poster knows what to improve on. it makes it so much harder to apply feedback when half of the replies to their thread are just strings of "support". I agree with this, in the sense that leaving an opinion along with the decision can aid the original poster in knowing what to improve on / what is liked about their suggestion or application.
Not what I meant, the initial support would bump it. After that they shouldn't be re supporting anyway, that's considered post farming.
no support mainly cus it shows like a group of ppl who support it instead of just looking at the numbers
