It wouldnât have helped this time, even when the rules were pointed out to him he still chose to ignore them.
Besides, do the majority of people even read rules/user agreements? If a user agreement on a wĂšbsite is too long for me to concentrate on I walk away, but most people I know would just accept it without reading. Reminds me of the NSFW South Park humancentipad episode.
I doubt it. Ever seen those EULAs on software where it disables the âAcceptâ checkbox until you actually scroll the whole document from top to bottom?
The next iteration will be where they actually time you to make sure you donât flash-scroll it. At which point I will immediately abandon the software and switch to an open source solution.
I had the same thought, but how do you know a speed reader from a slow one.
I do wish they would write them in everyday English, simplified and to the point.
Of course its in their interest to not do so
Sure. Nothing prevents the first crap in the public space, unless you turn moderation on (if the software even allows that).
And thatâs only needed if your siteâs being attacked by a gang. Which happens. Then either moderating, or just no updates for a day or two, bores that sort and they quit signing up and go away, when they donât get their fun.
I suggest affirming having read the rules on signing up â at least Rule 1 â to preclude ongoing argument about the rules (e.g. by sock-puppets) when an account is deleted because itâs been breaking the rules.
It says right there in Rule 1 thatâs a consequence. Canât argue with that.
Sometimes a site will start attracting people who enjoy disputation, for a while, til they get bored.
Long argument about the rules is part of that pattern, e.g. the link I posted earlier: Confessions of a Community College Dean: Victim Bullies
Even worse, the next iteration will probably be like those silly âGalleryâ style articles where you have to click thirty times to read thirty sentences full of useless drivel while looking at pictures that have nothing to do with the click-bait title that got you there. :smiling_imp:
Right, I agree that this could happen. But so far most of the people here arenât arguing about the rule on banning for rudeness, theyâre just confused about why it happened in this case because there is no record of the trash he posted.
When something isnât right you should say something about it, right? Itâs a civic duty to say âHey, wait a minute, Iâve been cheated.â The questions is How much should should you say? Were should you say it? And when? If someone has a beef or thereâs problems with a GB then usually the recent posts page endures several days if not more of rancor, finger pointing, venting, nevergonnabuyfromthatsobagain chatter In one or two threads until SB has to come in and lock them because we canât behave. I donât like the idea of ratings for every individual member, what Iâm thinking of is a review system for sellers or those that run group buys that is easily accessible but doesnât clutter up a thread or the recent posts page. A link in the op only of any thread of that type that shows reviews as a way to find out how good a job they do rather than reading through thousands of developmental posts littered with the usual debris. It would provide a dedicated place, directly associated with the offer in question, but not in the thread at large or the recent posts page, where reviews would go for that product by that seller.
I donât wish to ask others to clam up but I also donât wish to wade through it unless Iâm looking for it. Thatâs something I would rather do only once prior to making a commitment.
A certain J Team member named âSharpieâ decided to message me and lecture me in a very rude manner. I wanted to mark his PMs ârude,â but there was no option to do so, so I blocked him.
I now see why this had to be implemented. Itâs a shame, but there are some truly rude and inconsiderate members here now.