All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
  • 0

    posted a message on Redefining the "Vague Thread" rule
    Quote from Dheatly23»

    Conclusion : It's a hard to describe rule. There's no guideline what details are required, but we can immediately go into contex.
    For example : we don't ask for pictures on save format change suggestion, but it's preferred in new aesthetic block.

    Preferred sure, but preference doesn't need to be a rule, and especially not a rule for locking threads if the rule itself can't be clearly defined.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Redefining the "Vague Thread" rule

    Yes, that's his stance on it. His position is that the vague rule is dumb. Your position is that it is needed. That's not the same as being closed minded.

    It'd be the same as if people were requesting a different change that you'd think is bad. For me, it'd be people requesting bumping rules be completely removed, I think it's an absolutely bad decision, but if someone can provide enough reason to change my mind then fine, I'll change my mind.

    If we're going grab a quote from his posts though-

    Quote from Gamelord»

    If you can create a good vague thread rule and show it to me as your idea, I will support it. But if I don't like it, I won't. That simple.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on Redefining the "Vague Thread" rule
    Quote from Dheatly23»

    Oh sorry, I'm tired by the time I wrote that. I've changed it now.

    And yeah Gamelord, I can't discuss this with you anymore. You've blocked your mind, so no matter how many time i say, you won't listen.

    Quote from Eggman111»

    Close mindedness always leads the wrong direction, he needs to open his mind.

    He's not being closed minded, he disagrees with you. Neither of you have presented any arguments that have swayed me in the slightest. You can claim he's closed minded as much as he can claim you are.

    If it's so easy, give me 2 examples. 1 of something that is just barely too vague, and 1 that has enough to not be locked. I can do that easy with swearing, flaming, spam, bumping, advertising, behaving maliciously, or engaging in illegal activity that violates United States law. Because all of those are either it is or it isn't, there isn't a scale to it, it's binary. Vagueness is not.

    Edit: In addition, all of the suggestion specific rules I can give an example of one that violates and one that doesn't without going to extremes.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 3

    posted a message on Redefining the "Vague Thread" rule
    Quote from Eggman111»

    . Who wouldn't want that? Oh wait.... the trolls.

    Some people simply don't want moderators policing something as subjective as vagueness.

    Besides that, your requirements are vague. What "facts and evidence" do you need to support adding a decorative block? Isn't "Well, I think it'd be nice to have" enough reason for why there are half the blocks in Minecraft? What do you need to say to justify having a hanging light added such as a wall mounted candle or chandelier, or a new decorative nether block, such as something hidden under the lava lakes like hardened obsidian or magma rock? If I were a new member, your requirements would make me feel like I can't post decorative ideas, because I can't find facts or evidence to support adding them, because there are already blocks that cover their functionality and decorative ones are never necessary. The why is basically going to amount to a variation of "because it'd be cool" or "because it'd be pretty." The how isn't clear what you're asking. How is it added, or how is it acquired, or how does it behave? All very different answer based on what you meant.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft forum is dead (imo)
    Which proves my point that some users are "protected" since you admit as much that you can flame with impunity. In the professional world, we call this "cronyism."

    No, I didn't say that at all. Not responding professionally does not mean flaming. I haven't insulted you at all. If I flame someone, I'll still get an infraction. Doesn't matter that I was a mod or was an admin.

    The time and time again isn't specifically at you, but I do admit I should have been more clear on that one since I do reuse the same words. For that I do apologize for my lack of clarity. In many occasions, I've had to clarify that I am not staff anymore, and my responses are not official statements.

    Additionally, I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with you, and then you make assumptions that I do not support or agree with and argue those. Much like I disagree with you saying that mods should be concerned with maximizing traffic. I disagree, site admins should be concerned with traffic, telling forum admins to make changes where necessary, which are passed onto moderators. Mods themselves should be concerned with anything beyond their job (which includes what the forum admins and site admins tell them).

    No, mods shouldn't get away with anything, they should be held to the same exact rules as everyone else, with the addition of a reminder that because of their title, what they say can and will be read as official in nearly every capacity.

    I also don't have a power base. I post here infrequently, normally I don't get into long posts like this because I don't have the time, but I felt like responding to you in short form wouldn't be ideal either, as I thought you'd likely feel I wasn't reading your entire post or were just quickly reacting to a single snip and not reading the context.

    Also, seeing as how I am not staff, why should my concern be specifically be retaining you as a customer?


    I see Beltir just posted, so I'm gearing up for another flame. Ugh.

    I do not see what I am doing as flaming, but very well, I will stop. Didn't see this before I had already made this post. Sorry if you did not want to continue the discussion, I will not respond further.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft forum is dead (imo)

    At nearly any job you don't respond to a customer, even one that is complaining, with the sneering contempt you displayed here. You would never say "Please, if I was so bad for the job, why don't you go find what I did wrong. I'll wait."

    You're accusing me of doing my former job wrong. I'm perfectly entitled to respond, and since I'm retired I don't have to respond in a professional manner. While I was an admin, would I have responded like that? Probably not, but I'm not an admin anymore.
    If you walk up to a person who retired from being a manager at WalMart, told them they were doing their job wrong because they got moved up too fast and weren't properly trained, do you think they're going to respond professionally? I don't, they don't have to. I'm fairly sarcastic an snarky in person, so I'd respond the same way. "Haha, do you have any proof of that?" Same thing here. I'm not staff, I don't have to behave in a professional manner at all times of my life just because at one time I was a forum admin.

    As for being retired staff, technically you were never "staff" if you were never paid. That also speaks to the overblown sense of purpose forum moderators have, as if this were an Engineering or C-suite position. It's not. Interns have more authority and rights to call themselves "staff" than forum moderators.

    We call ourselves staff, we call moderators staff, and we call those who retire "retired staff". It isn't an overblown sense of purpose, just an easy to use word that fits well enough.

    Hey, I'm sorry if you took personal offense, but I was talking about moderators in general, and you and the others stepped in and made yourselves Exhibit A, B and C. That was probably not a wise thing to do, since with each post, you show -- again and again -- the very traits I was talking about, including a complete lack of awareness of customer perception.

    Now who's showing an overblown ego? No, I didn't take personal offense, yes I disagree, so I responded. Time and time again, I need to repeat, I am not staff. Time and time again, I seem to have to explain how moderators don't need to concern themselves with site hits, traffic, etc. they only need to concern themselves with their job. You also quote my post in a way to misrepresent what I was saying, and set it up to seem like I'm responding to something I wasn't is intentionally misleading.

    I think that's the core of the problem: moderators don't view forum guests as "customers." They treat them like ungrateful cattle, and no one ever trains moderators about the relationship between the site guests and how without them, the site disappears. When that happens, then the moderators disappear too, and you all become "retired staff."

    No, you aren't treated like "ungrateful cattle". People are responding and discussing things with you. If you were ungrateful cattle to us, my post would have been "shut up and do as you're told". That, even if I'm not staff, isn't something I would do.

    If I didn't care at all, I wouldn't respond, but you're taking disagreeing as poor treatment of customers. That's simply untrue. We're responding because we disagree and if we can find mutual ground, that's what would be best. How you're acting, however, is very abrasive and is going to elicit more passionate responses because you're telling all of us that 1) You're bad/were bad at your job 2) If we reply with anything but "Yes, I'll take that into consideration", we're bad at our job/former job.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft forum is dead (imo)
    I said:

    Beltir said:

    This is the typical moderator contempt of the customer that reveals the entire problem.

    That quote was responding to something else. I don't have contempt for customers, but trying to take something out of context and stripping the last sentence to make it seem like I'm targeting a specific group over giving a comparison of two difference groups that no matter what we do with the rules, there will be a group that doesn't like it and says we're doing our job wrong doesn't really do much to help.

    As for your training, let's take a look. By your own admission, you were given the job because (1) you had to replace someone else, (2) you had the time to do it. Meaning the topmost qualification was that you showed up.

    "1) Volunteered to help take care of a massive back log, cleaning nearly 600 reports myself in one night (I think that's around the number), which included multiple page problems.
    2) Volunteered to assist in multiple sections which they did not have enough staff.
    3) Did my job without need of correction.
    4) Spent many, many, many hours nearly every day on the forums, almost exclusively moderating until the report levels at a low number.
    5) A forum admin had to quit due to health reasons, and I was the best fit to cover his position."
    Yeah, there was more to it. See 1 and 3. More of a "quantity and quality" than simply time.

    You then kept the job because you were able to get through a backlog of 600 posts, which raises questions about the quality of the work you did, seeing as how you were basically rushing a pile of overdue work. That perfectly summarizes the typical "volunteer position" problems, in that people are given authority based on their willingness to do the work, not their ability to do the work. Then, provided they simply don't quit, they get to keep the job.

    No, I didn't keep forum admin because I went through the back log. This happened before I was forum admin. As for quality, no I didn't have a quality issue at all, and 600 reports, not 600 posts. You're making assumptions based on what? Maybe you should know I spent nearly 12 hours doing just that. It wasn't rushing, not by my standard. Again, I did all of that without a single incident of quality, yet you're questioning the quality?
    If a moderator can't do the work, they don't just get to keep it. I've fired people from moderator position for not doing the work, for doing the work wrong, or for abusing their power in any way.

    Relative to ability, you said you had to read three threads, and had a discussion. That's it. Then you underwent observation. Observation is not training, it's observation. No training on relation to the customer, no training on how your work may impact on revenue, no training on site hits or web views, nothing.

    Again, because a mod shouldn't be concerned with that. They should be concerned with the job they're doing, not the website itself. My job was to enforce the rules as fairly as I can to every person and every report. That's what the training was for.

    (I never said anything about going to school, that's just more snarky straw man silliness.)

    I am sure that any training at all seemed like it was something, since most forums don't do that much. But to anyone from the outside, it's woefully inadequate.

    Which is why that was a mere mention to make sure I am being clear. No, I wasn't trained via a school or something, everything was done on site. Read material on how to do my job, read material on what to/not to do, read material on additional information. At the time, then I talked to an admin about it, asked questions, then was told go ahead and get started, and any time I wasn't entirely sure, I was to ask how to handle it.
    Later, when I was admin, I added a requirement of me or a specific other person if I was too busy with something else to walk through a report with them. It isn't how I was trained, but it is how I thought it could be improved. Again, even after the walkthrough with me, I told them if they are unsure at all, just ask, don't go with their gut unless they're 100% sure.

    Then of course, there's this, which tells us everything about the antisocial nature of moderators and the lack of the most basic training in customer service:

    Again, if you were a $5/hour McDonalds burger flipper, you'd be fired by now.

    Let me end by quoting myself, with something that quickly turned prescient:

    1) I'm not staff anymore, I'm retired.
    2) Fired for what? For telling someone I wasn't just "given" something? For asking them to find where I made such a major mistake, since they're telling me that I must have been doing my job wrong? So no, I wouldn't be fired. The customer isn't always right and doesn't get what they want just because they said it.
    3) Yeah, what do you want me to do? I'm not a mod, so I can't do mod stuff. I'm not an admin, so I can't do admin stuff. I'm effectively the same as a member, so I can do member stuff, including replying to things I want to reply to. The things I wanted to reply to are things I disagree with, which happens to have been your post.

    As for not wanting to make this about mods, your entire first post is about how the mods are driving away customers. I disagreed and responded as a member with prior experience of being a mod/admin not as a mod or admin. Instead of responding to how aggressive moderation is actually effecting traffic and revenue (since I don't have the numbers it would be pointless for me to respond to those), I address your points specifically.

    You have a weird view of what deserves people get fired over. In most jobs, complaints don't go directly to the person being complained about, and if they do, that person is told to tell them to go to the proper people to file complaints. They aren't supposed to handle it, they're told to ignore it and direct them to the proper place.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 3

    posted a message on Minecraft forum is dead (imo)
    I didn't mean to turn this thread into a discussion about moderators, although by mentioning them in the least, it typically results in thin-skinne, defensive posts by mods themselves. (See above). But let me ask you this: they made you a mod and two months later you were a forum Admin. What training did you receive? Any at all? My guess is that this forum, like nearly every other forum, has no formal training program at all for moderators, since it's an unpaid volunteer position, and as such it's largely dismissed as not something the site owners are going to spend money on.

    If by training you mean "Sent to a school somewhere", none. Everything was done on site, in which I had to read 3 large threads (each about the size of your post, probably longer), have a discussion with admins telling me how/what to do, telling me if I don't know something don't immediately act on it, ask for help. After that, for about the first week, my mod actions were monitored to make sure I wasn't abusing power.

    Now, why did I advance so quickly? Probably because at the time I
    1) Volunteered to help take care of a massive back log, cleaning nearly 600 reports myself in one night (I think that's around the number), which included multiple page problems.
    2) Volunteered to assist in multiple sections which they did not have enough staff.
    3) Did my job without need of correction.
    4) Spent many, many, many hours nearly every day on the forums, almost exclusively moderating until the report levels at a low number.
    5) A forum admin had to quit due to health reasons, and I was the best fit to cover his position.

    As a result, volunteers with no training are instantly given a position of authority. That combination attracts a certain type of person (in general, as I said, there are some very nice mods here) that is drawn to authority, but who lacks the temperament for concern about paying customers. So you have mods acting as "control freaks" forgetting, nearly universally, that the people they are controlling are the customers of Mojang, have spent money on the product, and are likely to keep spending money in the future. Alienating them through aggressive moderation and posts that complain about forum users (see your "mentality" gripe above) works against the basic business model, and increases the risk that Mojang will lose customers. It means Curse loses more -- it loses those valuable site hits, and thus ad revenue.

    People don't become mods just by asking for it, and we try our best to weed out the ones who lack the temperament for it. No, we aren't perfect at it and sometimes a bad egg does get in the mix, but we've also tried to quickly get rid of them as mods when found out. It isn't like we can't look into what a mod did and determine they aren't a good fit for the role.
    As for aggressive moderation of paying customers, no matter how the rules are structured, people will complain. People complain because there are any rules at all and they want a free for all. People complain because they think we're too harsh on some things, and not harsh enough on others. We've had people leave due to both reasons.

    Mods nearly never connect the dots. They don't think "if I am overly aggressive, or openly dismissive of forum users, we may lose them as a customer, and our site revenue will drop." Instead, it's typically a personal thing, "mods have to deal with idiots, you don't understand." To which I say, if you don't like dealing with people, don't become a mod. Simple.

    Mods don't connect those dots and shouldn't. Their only requirements to the forums should be enforce the rules and follow the rules. The Site Admins are and should be the only ones that care about the revenue directly, and if there is a problem, they tell the forum admins, who tell the mods to change how they're doing things. Of course when someone gets a temp ban, they might never come back, should we not ban then because it hurts our ad revenue?
    As for the example you're giving, yes a mod can be dismissive. Admins (Site and Forum) are the ones that can't just be dismissive, and complaints of that scale should be directed to the admins anyways. When I was a moderator, I don't know how many times I got told I was abusing my power because I deleted a flaming post by a well liked user. Or gave someone an infraction for literally multiple pages of bumps. I got accused of being friends of a certain server and protecting that server because another group was harassing them, and I was the mod responsible for taking care of the thread that was an ongoing flame war. It was so bad that I had to temp lock the thread in order to catch up to where they currently were, just because deleting posts was taking too long for me to do just by myself.
    Yes, mods deal with all sorts of things here: flaming, spam, whatever gets reported, and they should expect some level of "dealing with idiots" and know how to handle themselves. Most of them do. The ones that don't need to be talked to. Simple as that.

    It takes a specific skillset and temperament to moderate a forum board. You don't throw people in and then "two months later" give them promotions to Admins. That's just the site owner (Curse) ripping off the mods themselves, by exploiting their willingness to do free work. It never works out.

    Haha, you think I was just "given" it like I did nothing to deserve it? Please, if I was so bad for the job, why don't you go find what I did wrong. I'll wait.
    I was "given" FA during a time when the entirety of Mapping and Modding basically didn't trust admins/mods. So that was fun. Rather than simply doing whatever I wanted, I put a few things to public vote, see what our users wanted, and based my further implementations on that feedback. I got the section to go from hatred and distrust to the majority that were invested in that section liking me and my staff.
    Did I feel exploited? No. I could've told them "No, I don't want to be a forum admin" and that would've been the end of it. I wasn't forced into anything, I volunteered for every single thing I did. If I had a problem doing any of it, I wouldn't have done it.

    I literally just had a huge post deleted for a rule invented entirely out of thin air. It wasn't flaming, it was just deemed "off-topic" and erased, even though the post discussed (at length) the exact topic at hand. Fortunately I kept a copy, and was able to repost it elsewhere. But the mod didn't care that he took something of mine, that took some time to write, and simply erased it. Then, of course, discussing the deleted post risked further deletions (and eventual ban) because talking about the deletion WAS off-topic. So I was forced to shut up. I reported it to the Admin, but nothing was done.

    This kind of thing makes me not want to come back. It puts a bad taste in my mouth about Mojang and Curse. It makes me resent giving them my money and my site hits.

    How many other people felt this way, and abandoned this site? That's my point.

    As I can't see deleted posts, I can't particularly comment on this.
    The few things I can say are: Yes, talking about deletions are off topic. Make a thread in Forum Discussion (where you can talk about it no problem) or send a PM.
    Off-topic isn't a rule made out of thin air. Just because it isn't undo "do not" doesn't mean nothing of it is enforced.

    Moderators coming here and posting a defense of their actions won't help. Instead, the site management needs to take a careful, introspective look at what its own staff are doing to alienate people, and if that has an impact on the decline of the site overall.

    Of course moderators are going to defend their actions, they have every right to do so. Just because a mod or admin responds to you doesn't mean they didn't listen to anything you said. They're discussing with you, just like in my old thread multiple mods/admins discussed with me. They didn't see the same problem I did, or didn't agree with it, so I continued talking until it was clear. Responding with mods/admins was useful to clearing it up on both sides and ending with an discussion that I was happy with.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on Minecraft forum is dead (imo)
    Quote from BigGrayGolem»

    Certainly the trolls and flamers need to be moderated. But far too often mods interject by citing rules they just made up, and which aren't reflected at all in the actual documented rules. One time, someone told me their account was deleted entirely because a moderator thought it was me sockpuppeting, simply because he (she?) agreed with a post I made that the mods didn't like. They couldn't imagine that two people might have the same viewpoint, I guess.

    Of course, just mentioning this here (for example) puts me at risk of a ban. Yikes!

    Moderators have to enforce the rules. If you get a rule that is just "Made Up" then report it to an admin to be handled. As far as I'm aware, mods select which rule was violated through a drop-down with an "other" selection for rules that are not currently specifically listed but certainly violate the spirit of the rules, or are clearly done by someone trying to circumvent or push how far they can push the rules before they get an infraction.

    In addition, just because someone says X doesn't mean X is correct. Considering I've been told by some members that staff banned people who just left the forum, told we banned someone for no reason when they were sending PMs threatening violence or implying satisfaction over violence towards a specific race, and it doesn't take into account anything else that is recorded previously into account... It could have been a multitude of other reasons + maybe they're a sock puppet, but they only tell you that one part.

    Finally, no, you aren't at risk of being banned. They made me a mod. Two months later, they made me a forum admin. While I understand what you're feeling if you feel the need to post "this might get me banned," that doesn't happen. When people do get infractions/banned for "complaining", it's normally because they either went off the deep end on "well, if I'm getting banned I might as well make it worth it" mentality, and the few that aren't are because they're still violating rules a dozen times while voicing their complaint. Normally flaming, lots of flaming.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Update the Vague and Confusing Rules!

    Something to note between rules and if an infraction will be applied is generally the first time you'll get an informal warning unless it is something very clearly defined or you did it to an excessive degree, or if you do something to try to circumvent a rule.

    Some examples would be if a server spammed the word "bump" for multiple pages (we've seen this plenty of times). Even if it was your first warning, chances are it wouldn't be informal if you had several pages of bumps, because it's clearly in the rules not to do it and it's done to an excessive degree. Another one I've seen is people literally starting off a post with "I know it's against the rules, but..." normally right before they insult someone.

    Other than cases like above, the first infraction should be informal just as a reminder to read the rules real quick.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Necroposting // A rule and system update suggestion. [Correct Sub-Forum?]
    Quote from DuckPhynx»

    I think that necroposting allowance should be dependant on your post count. Everytime you get a new title, your allowance increases by 14-28 days. Thanks for clearing up that rule for me too!

    Typically speaking, moderators will try to take into account what is actually said when a post is necro'd and make a judgement call on whether or not an infraction is justified. An accidental post by a new person that probably found the thread via google and didn't look at the post date at all (happens quite often) may just get an informal warning to remind them "Hey, make sure you look at the post date next time." If it's something where someone is obviously just reviving a dead thread with no new discussion value, that's when they get an infraction.

    Necroposting is only bad if it is pointless. Post count has nothing to do with whether or not the post you make has any value.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on Help! I'm a "hater"!
    Quote from Killer_Pixie»

    (This is not a hate thread or anything, sometimes, the things that bother me are just small mistakes, and that's how a forum works. I need some advices so this doesn't bothers me so much) I'm writing here because I really need help with a trouble I have. The thing is certain threads or posts annoy me a lot, and sometimes they don't even deserve it!!! The things that bother me the most are these:

    1. When someone makes a thread in the obviously wrong forum, especially when it's an WIP map outside the WIP section.

    2. When some mom or dad makes an account only to ask for help so they can make something either obviously impossible or extremely easy for their four year old son, and they don't even bother about adding an avatar or a signature.

    3. When someone makes an account only to make a bad thread, about anything.

    4. When someone doesn't even care about proper grammar.

    5. When someone basically wants a challenge map done for them, and they still consider the map theirs.

    6. When someone makes stupid questions.

    7. When someone sponsors themselves in another persons thread.

    Please help!

    1. Report the thread to be moved and a moderator will handle it.
    2. Not all parents are great with computers, and they're trying to do something for their child to enjoy. They also don't always intend to spend a lot of time on the forums, so why should they have to take the time to fill out their profile to ask a single question?
    3. People make accounts for various reasons. There were some people that only made accounts only to participate in off-topic sections. If you don't like the thread and it isn't breaking forum rules, ignore it and find another thread.
    4. This forum is used by people of many different ages, and by people who learned English as a second/third/fourth/fifth/etc. language. Their level of competency of English isn't important.
    5. Why care how someone wants to have fun? Again, there are people of all ages on this forum, sometimes when a child can't complete something, they want someone else to do it so they can just explore around "their" map and have fun again.
    6. Something obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. Slightly relevant XKCD time-

    7. Depending on the context, report it. If someone makes a thread looking for a server, and someone tells them a server that fits the description they want, no problem. If someone advertises their map in someone else's map thread, report it.

    And, as said before, if any of them bother you, just ignore them and find a thread you like. Thousands of posts are made every day, some of them are bound to not be something you enjoy.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on Threadiquette - General Etiquette Thread for the Forums
    Quote from FlyingFlames13»

    Okay, here it is.

    EDIT: I was trying to get it to link to the page but I couldn't figure that out.

    [url=""][img width='500' height='100'][/img][/url]
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Forum Mechanics Suggestion: Last Word System
    Quote from ZAYNE_W0LF»

    1If the OP (or anyone for that matter) can post on a locked thread, it basically renders that function useless. Besides, if they post more, they may 2continue breaking a rule the thread was locked for... Or worse, start retaliating against a mod or admin that locked the thread publicly. Hence we don't want them to do anything about it. In my opinion, that's worse negativity than any negativity gained from being advised of the rules in a locked thread. 3You'd be surprised. I have had users private message an apology to me, warning or not. That, and if it were a huge issue to be seen as the OP as a locked thread, maybe a mod or admin would delete it for them. It would be up to said mod/admins discretion.

    So, I for one do not support this suggestion. I don't see it ever being implemented to be honest. Regardless I say thanks for the input.

    In addition to this- It'd also bring locked threads back to the top of the list. So, say there's an event that makes people want to post their own threads even though there is a mega thread (IE, some big announcement that affects Mojang and the future of Minecraft), a dozen or so redundant topics are locked, but they keep being posted in by the OP ("This is unfair!" comments or just "updating" the thread anyways even though it's locked), and suddenly the front page stays full of threads that most users can't post in and non-redundant threads have to compete with them.
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 2

    posted a message on How do you give "thanks"?

    Giving thanks is that little green button. You can only give it once, and then it becomes and X that you can choose to take away, and you can only give it to posts that are not your own.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.