Double Posting Solution

The reason for Kara suggesting this is beyond ridiculous but you are correct that the idea itself would be a decent one to implement, just because people like Kara can't simply click the edit button instead of double posting. It's sad that we would need to consider doing something like this (if possible) because some people can't follow such a simple rule.

Nonetheless this should've been in the Forum suggestion section not the People's assembly.

I had rather tell the people of my ideas than the site workers. What if my idea actually opens Pandora's Box? I would like to know that, and not many people go on Forum Maintenance.

Not really.

I also post a ton in general. It only makes sense I should double post to equivalent.

Meh.

Ya, I didn't know what the rule meant so I would like Quadruple post. Good times.

That was in February. What, 8 months ago?

So you created a double standard?

Technically you've only issue an infraction, not infractions. And again, I simply couldn't see I posted earlier. Of course, I had nothing to tell me I posted earlier and BAM - infracted.

Your right, not being able to completely change something at the drop of the hat is to be faulted for.

It's extremely annoying. And it will be further annoying if I get banned for it.

By that logic it's extremely easy to accidentally do it too.

It would actually be harder if they weren't posted minutes apart because it would be easier to see that I had posted and seen the thread AND it would be more likely someone else would post there.

The problem is mainly via my iPod. I can't see more than half an inch above and it's possible to edit in replies.

Not really.

There you go again, politicizing everything. Can't you just take a suggestion as a suggestion?

Your not paying attention. People don't intentional double post to be assholes, they do it on accident or because they don't know what it means. By putting in this in they'll never be able to and it will tell them how to edit if they didn't previously know. PLUS, everyone would get a million times less work because no one would need to infract, appeal, PM, etc. And you can do something worthwhile.

I literally just handed you the fucking solution to every problem you have with Double Posting and you spat at it. Your so biased that apparently you can't see a suggestion for what it is, a suggestion. It's not some massive political thing for my self-interest.

The PA is just as much a place for this. More so actually. It is a place to suggest site changes among other things.

Dude this is probably as far as you are getting. Just because one reasonable demand is actually being considered does not mean all of a sudden you are going to have all your ideas instantaneously agreed to by more than 3 people.

What the fuck are you talking about? Not only did you take that SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT, but you attacked me for it.

I don't even know.

Hardly.

I didn't know what it meant when I was banned, back when the forum was just finished setting up. You didn't even explain what it was in the rules, you just said not to do it. This was 7-8 months ago, mind you.

Ok, so I got a Double Standard for whatever reason and became temporarily immune to infractions from this. Then Chelsea got pissed for whatever reason, so you've created ANOTHER Double Standard to replace it.
What the fuck?

You've traded on lie for another. It seems that not only are you spoon-fed Chelsea's beliefs, you still can't properly understand them.

No it doesn't as you are told not to do it, so you shouldn't be double posting a lot no matter what your post count is.

This is why you are in trouble for it, our warnings in threads are received by a "meh" from you.

That matters how?

No, we are lenient with everyone on this rule. We warn in threads a lot before we take action.

Then check.

You were warned plenty.

The fact that you say "if I get banned for it" suggests you will not stop. If it is annoying then don't do it.

I have 4k posts and I have done it maybe twice max, my entire time here. It is easy to avoid accidentally double posting to the extent of getting a warning and if you don't understand the rule staff is always here to explain if you ask.

Doesn't excuse you from the rules.

I can, except I see that this is because you are upset that you got a warning because you couldn't follow a simple rule.

No I didn't spit at it, I spat at your reasoning. I said myself this would be decent to implement.

Kara I have more posts than you and I dont double post nearly as much as you do. So using the argument "I post a lot so it is natural for me to double post a lot" is absolute bullshit. I post from my iPod a lot and double posting has never been a problem for me while on my iPod.

Anyway is the consensus to pass the idea or are we going to debate Kara's double posting history.

Aight

Sure give unilogical more work for karas stupidity. I can see no problem in that............... :twisted:

edit instead of double post: maybe uni can go and proofread all my posts so i don't embarass myself with terrible grammar

Then your an exception? You also never seem to edit in much either, so you've avoided the whole thing in general.

I probably edit in further to my posts more than anyone (as I tend to reply to like 5 people at once during debates) on the Public Forums.

I also have over 5000 and never double post it isn't hard. I edit quite a bit.

Same boat as Sly then. And I don't think like 60 posts over is much to say >5k on.

No, most seem to be capable of not double posting much. How much you edit doesn't matter at all if you still double post a ton.

The Average Person has 1k to 500 posts. I have >5k. 5-10 more warnings than average merely makes logical sense. Observer is a mod, he is naturally below average. Sly would be an exception.

Furthermore, the amount I edit in would matter, as it seems those who edit in more tend to double post more.

Considering I have close to (rounding up) 2000 posts and have not had a single warning about double posting I call bs. You need to make the conscious decision to do it and you choose not to.