P.M's

[ForgetMeNot]

I could have swore someone told me you have to have 50 posts to do PM, and the first time I tried to PM it told me I only needed 50. Why is it telling me I need 100 now?

[Bougainvillea]

Because the limit was raised.

[ForgetMeNot]

Aw shoot. Thank you, just when I thought I could finally PM, when was it raised?

[Bougainvillea]

Last month, I believe? Or near mid-May.
Somewhere around there.

[ForgetMeNot]

Damn, thanks again... looks like I have 50 more post to get before I can PM.

[Nexus]

I really don't understand the logic behind restricting PM use for lack of posts. So much for takin' it to PMs, eh?

[Iron Man]

The PM limit was raised to 100 because of members contacting other members through the PM system to get Email addresses to trade explicit materials. Most of those members only joined for that reason, along with not having to post a whole lot before the rule. The visitor messaging system was reinstated to allow communication to other members, but are moderated.

[ForgetMeNot]

It makes sense... it just kinda sucks when you want to have a PM with someone and you can't. DX

[Harley Quinn]

I really don't understand the logic behind restricting PM use for lack of posts. So much for takin' it to PMs, eh?

I don't really understand yours. Isn't it pretty obvious that it's been raised to stop people sending each other explicit messages, or hooking up for camming. For the safety of the site, and the member that are actually here to get help - and not be pervs - the limit was raised and visitor messages were implemented. This is because they can be moderated to stop the sending of email addrsses. Well, if you can't take it to pm's then take it to vms, no one said you can't use them to talk, and if you're here for a good reason, it won't matter that it's public, or that it's moderated. The rule isn't changing any time soon, so it's best you just get used to it.

[Origami]

The best logic would be making ONE topic explaining when and why the PM limit was changed. Include all the regularly asked questions, or hell, all the asked questions if you must. It's much more "logical" than 100 topics to explain the same damned thing, don't you think? Instead of typing a mess of garbled crap and fights and arguments starting, as they so often do, a mod can simply post a link and end it there instead of dragging a topic out for pages.

[Giles]

The best logic would be making ONE topic explaining when and why the PM limit was changed. Include all the regularly asked questions, or hell, all the asked questions if you must. It's much more "logical" than 100 topics to explain the same damned thing, don't you think? Instead of typing a mess of garbled crap and fights and arguments starting, as they so often do, a mod can simply post a link and end it there instead of dragging a topic out for pages.

Even is such a topic was to be made, some fools would still somehow miss it and ask the same questions over and over again.

[Harley Quinn]

The best logic would be making ONE topic explaining when and why the PM limit was changed. Include all the regularly asked questions, or hell, all the asked questions if you must. It's much more "logical" than 100 topics to explain the same damned thing, don't you think? Instead of typing a mess of garbled crap and fights and arguments starting, as they so often do, a mod can simply post a link and end it there instead of dragging a topic out for pages.

that's what the previous announcement was for, not that people read it, so there will always be questions on the same topic because people are too lazy to read, or look around. If there was one giant thread, people still wouldn't read, or take notice and the same questions will be asked making the thread pointless.

[MacMilker]

I thought I remembered pming way before posting stuff. Did it ever use to be no limit?

[Kaius]

Yeah, it used to be like that

[Harley Quinn]

Yeah, it used to be like that

used to be 25 posts :P

[Origami]

that's what the previous announcement was for, not that people read it, so there will always be questions on the same topic because people are too lazy to read, or look around. If there was one giant thread, people still wouldn't read, or take notice and the same questions will be asked making the thread pointless.

Of course they're not going to read it, they're teenagers; however, that doesn't make it pointless. Instead of dragging these threads out, which, when you post the same answer 100 times, it's just spam, you could simply give them a link.

"PM count blah blah blah"
"Please read this thread to answer your question: www.virtualteen.org/forums/what_the_fuck_ever"

Not only the PM thing, but when the same exact questions on the same exact topics occur 100 times, then the simple and "logical" solution is giving them one simple link thus ending a 14 page topic before it begins.

[nick]

I could have swore someone told me you have to have 50 posts to do PM, and the first time I tried to PM it told me I only needed 50. Why is it telling me I need 100 now?
Actually I'm surprised no one else has commented or noticed that the OP is simply wrong or confused. The required for number of posts to PM has not changed in the time that they have been a member of the site.

[Maverick]

Actually I'm surprised no one else has commented or noticed that the OP is simply wrong or confused. The required for number of posts to PM has not changed in the time that they have been a member of the site.
Shes not confused, she just went by what someone had told her. And she could have received outdated information.

[nick]

Shes not confused, she just went by what someone had told her. And she could have received outdated information.
OK, sorry then, but she did say "I tried to PM it told me I only needed 50" which makes it sound like that was a response from the software not from a person and I didnt see how that could be true given her joining date.

[Iron Man]

Logically speaking, the only way she would have received outdated information is if the person giving the info is a member but hasn`t logged in before the new regulations were implemented.

[Sith Lord 13]

The requirement was never 50 though. It went straight from 25 to 100.

[Giles]

The requirement was never 50 though. It went straight from 25 to 100.

It did indeed.

Nick I'm not sure where you're coming from...

[nick]

The requirement was never 50 though. It went straight from 25 to 100.

It did indeed.

Nick I'm not sure where you're coming from...
I'm not "comming from" anywhere. My point was basically that the requirement has not changed in the time that the OP has been a member, its always been 100.

With regard to Ant's comment, reading again I can see that I hadnt picked up on where she says someone told her it was 50, apologies for that.

[Nexus]

I never did get the opportunity to reply to this when it was still fresh.


I don't really understand yours. Isn't it pretty obvious that it's been raised to stop people sending each other explicit messages, or hooking up for camming.

And no, that was never obvious to me, because I didn't use PMs for that reason, nor did the people that were PM'ing me on a regular basis before the restriction.


For the safety of the site, and the member that are actually here to get help - and not be pervs - the limit was raised and visitor messages were implemented. This is because they can be moderated to stop the sending of email addrsses. Well, if you can't take it to pm's then take it to vms, no one said you can't use them to talk, and if you're here for a good reason, it won't matter that it's public, or that it's moderated.

I'm sorry, but that's complete and utter bs. The mere fact that some users would like to take a conversation out of the public eye subjects it to being in violation of the rules?

Maybe I would like to ask someone a question that I'm not comfortable with scores of other users seeing as they drop by random visitor walls.

For all you know, this could be my only outlet of communication with someone that I'm close to. But I can't message them because a few careless users decided to send explicit images, right? No, I think my point makes perfect sense. It's essentially saying "We're just going to penalize everyone with under 100 posts because we don't want to regulate the PMs in question.

There's ways of enforcing rules, even in PMs (vBulletin mods that allow PM filtering, for example), that don't include thwarting everyone's basic forum abilities.

The rule isn't changing any time soon, so it's best you just get used to it.


And just who are you to make such a baseless assertion? If other alternatives can be used in place of a post to pm restriction, I see no reason why they can't amend the rule.

[The Batman]

I never did get the opportunity to reply to this when it was still fresh.




And no, that was never obvious to me, because I didn't use PMs for that reason, nor did the people that were PM'ing me on a regular basis before the restriction.You could never be too sure besides 100 posts isn't that much.




I'm sorry, but that's complete and utter bs. The mere fact that some users would like to take a conversation out of the public eye subjects it to being in violation of the rules?

Maybe I would like to ask someone a question that I'm not comfortable with scores of other users seeing as they drop by random visitor walls.

For all you know, this could be my only outlet of communication with someone that I'm close to. But I can't message them because a few careless users decided to send explicit images, right? No, I think my point makes perfect sense. It's essentially saying "We're just going to penalize everyone with under 100 posts because we don't want to regulate the PMs in question. It was more than just a few people it was a majority of the members under 100 posts and it isn't to penalize you guys it's to help keep this site safer. It's more obvious now who's spamming so they can pm and who's actually here to use the forum for it's main purpose.

There's ways of enforcing rules, even in PMs (vBulletin mods that allow PM filtering, for example), that don't include thwarting everyone's basic forum abilities.




And just who are you to make such a baseless assertion? If other alternatives can be used in place of a post to pm restriction, I see no reason why they can't amend the rule.

We aren't going to amend the rule because it's working. It has really helped bring to light more of those members and as long as it does I don't see why it needs to be fixed. And if someone really needs to pm an individual then they could still pm staff or just get 100 posts.

[Azunite]

Yeah people I first complained too put 100 posts isn't too much.
I registered yesterday and i am over 100 now

[CaptainObvious]

And just who are you to make such a baseless assertion? If other alternatives can be used in place of a post to pm restriction, I see no reason why they can't amend the rule.

She was a mod, when she posted that.

I'm sorry, but that's complete and utter bs. The mere fact that some users would like to take a conversation out of the public eye subjects it to being in violation of the rules?

Necessarily? No, there are many reasons one might not want to talk in public.

Empirically? Yes. Most of the time, people whining about not being able to PM <100 posts want to PM for reasons that violate the rules or lead to said violations.

Maybe I would like to ask someone a question that I'm not comfortable with scores of other users seeing as they drop by random visitor walls.

This is generally the reason one PMs, yes.

For all you know, this could be my only outlet of communication with someone that I'm close to. But I can't message them because a few careless users decided to send explicit images, right? No, I think my point makes perfect sense. It's essentially saying "We're just going to penalize everyone with under 100 posts because we don't want to regulate the PMs in question.

There's ways of enforcing rules, even in PMs (vBulletin mods that allow PM filtering, for example), that don't include thwarting everyone's basic forum abilities.

Any filtering that would catch sufficient numbers of bad PMs would catch so many legitimate PMs that we would be put in the position of essentially monitoring a massive number of PMs. That is an even bigger invasion of privacy.

Anyways, the answer to this, overall, is simple: we're a help forum. We primarily exist to support people on the forum. Unless you almost never post, this requirement is not a problem. In your case, it appears that most of your posts have come after the requirement was instituted. Unfortunately, all I can tell you is that you are not using the forum as it is designed to be used whether or not you are breaking the rules. While we didn't make this rule to punish you, we're also not going to change it to allow people to PM who have rarely or never posted because that's not what this forum is for.

[nick]

if someone really needs to pm an individual then they could still pm staff or just get 100 posts.
You guys wont face the facts that many of the staff are seen as unfriendly and unhelpful. Some of you are the last people anyone would pm with a personal problem. This is a help site, to my way of thinking, as I've said before, its wrong to cut off routes that allow people to seek help in the way that is appropriate to them. If someone only really has one personal and private question that they want to ask the need to make 99 other pointless posts is a barrier.

In reply you will quote statistics, or hint of them anyway, about how successful the policy is because it has led to so many bans. But you have no statistics about how many people have turned away from VT because they are unable to ask confidentially for help on what is supposed to be a help site.

[The Batman]

You guys wont face the facts that many of the staff are seen as unfriendly and unhelpful. Some of you are the last people anyone would pm with a personal problem. This is a help site, to my way of thinking, as I've said before, its wrong to cut off routes that allow people to seek help in the way that is appropriate to them. If someone only really has one personal and private question that they want to ask the need to make 99 other pointless posts is a barrier.

In reply you will quote statistics, or hint of them anyway, about how successful the policy is because it has led to so many bans. But you have no statistics about how many people have turned away from VT because they are unable to ask confidentially for help on what is supposed to be a help site.

No one is going to join this site just so they can pm people for help and if they do it's not going to be the type of help you're allowed to give. If someone really wants help they'll post it in the forums if not then they'll just find help elsewhere this isn't the only help site online. The safety of the members here comes before anything and that's why the PM limit is there.

[nick]

if not then they'll just find help elsewhere this isn't the only help site online
Ah, OK, so you've just admitted you dont care if members are driven away to other sites because they cant ask for the help here


The safety of the members here comes before anything and that's why the PM limit is there.
No, sorry, I know you believe it, but all the same its bollucks. You (collectively, the staff) are obsessed with one sort of safety and that means you shut out everything else. Serious self harm or suicide is rather more dangerous than having someone ask you to go on web cam. Unless you are an idiot you just say no. So keeping every possible channel of communication open to those with serious needs should be far more important on this particular site than this obsession with pm/photo requests. All anyone that receives one needs to do is report it.

[Maverick]

You guys wont face the facts that many of the staff are seen as unfriendly and unhelpful. Some of you are the last people anyone would pm with a personal problem.
I think that viewpoint is more so fueled by your own personal feelings of the staff much rather than the VT Audience as a whole. If the staff were that negatively viewed this site wouldn't run as well and orderly as it does right now. It would be chaos.

This is a help site, to my way of thinking, as I've said before, its wrong to cut off routes that allow people to seek help in the way that is appropriate to them. If someone only really has one personal and private question that they want to ask the need to make 99 other pointless posts is a barrier.
Anyone that needs help has options here. However Virtual Teen primarily revolves around the forums.

In reply you will quote statistics, or hint of them anyway, about how successful the policy is because it has led to so many bans. But you have no statistics about how many people have turned away from VT because they are unable to ask confidentially for help on what is supposed to be a help site.
Like I said above we revolve around the forums for help. If someone is not comfortable posting on the forums then obviously a forum site is not suitable for them and they need to find another support channel that suits them.

This is our policy. You can either take it or leave it.

[The Batman]

Ah, OK, so you've just admitted you dont care if members are driven away to other sites because they cant ask for the help here
No I stated the truth, if people don't find what they want here they go somewhere else.

No, sorry, I know you believe it, but all the same its bollucks. You (collectively, the staff) are obsessed with one sort of safety and that means you shut out everything else. Serious self harm or suicide is rather more dangerous than having someone ask you to go on web cam. Unless you are an idiot you just say no. So keeping every possible channel of communication open to those with serious needs should be far more important on this particular site than this obsession with pm/photo requests. All anyone that receives one needs to do is report it.

You're acting as if every member of this site is responsible and will report all cam/pic requests when in reality a good majority of them will agree to it or request it from others. Everyone else(except those under 100 pm's) understands why we have the limit yet you are like the only active member voicing against it and you're choosing to turn a blind eye towards a huge problem of this site. It's leading me to believe that this is more of a personal issue.

[nick]

I think that viewpoint is more so fueled by your own personal feelings of the staff much rather than the VT Audience as a whole. If the staff were that negatively viewed this site wouldn't run as well and orderly as it does right now. It would be chaos.

I dont think that's fair Ant, and maybe your answer reflects your personal feelings about me. I wasnt saying that the site wasnt well run or that I had negative views of the majority of the staff. I doubt if many of your staff would disagree with what I said. I didnt say that they ARE unfriendly or unhelpful, just that they are seen that way. I think many times they would agree.

For the record this is a well run site. Doesnt make every decision correct though.


Like I said above we revolve around the forums for help. If someone is not comfortable posting on the forums then obviously a forum site is not suitable for them and they need to find another support channel that suits them.

This is our policy. You can either take it or leave it.
There is logic to that, but the biggest failing of site management here is that the answer to any constructive criticism is "if you dont like it piss off". Its no way to argue a case.

[Maverick]

I dont think that's fair Ant, and maybe your answer reflects your personal feelings about me. I wasnt saying that the site wasnt well run or that I had negative views of the majority of the staff. I doubt if many of your staff would disagree with what I said. I didnt say that they ARE unfriendly or unhelpful, just that they are seen that way. I think many times they would agree.

For the record this is a well run site. Doesnt make every decision correct though.


There is logic to that, but the biggest failing of site management here is that the answer to any constructive criticism is "if you dont like it piss off". Its no way to argue a case.
We've argued it many times. Its been explained with our countless threads. But it gets to a point where if you cannot be pleased its time to move on. Arguing the same thing over and over is a waste of time. Its been challenged but we are set on our policy. You can either respect that or just accept it, or don't and find a different site that suits your needs.

[Scarface]

I dont think that's fair Ant, and maybe your answer reflects your personal feelings about me.

No, he is looking out for the safety of the site as well as enforcing the rules already implemented.


I doubt if many of your staff would disagree with what I said.

The staff may not like it or any others, but it's not what someone wants it's what is what is best for the site and they found that 100 posts is suitable for the limit and I don't think trying to argue about it solves anything. You work with the rules that are in place.

I didnt say that they ARE unfriendly or unhelpful, just that they are seen that way. I think many times they would agree.

So enforcing the rules and making sure everyone is safe is making things look unwelcoming? Look this is the way this site is run. They even said in an earlier post that it's pointing out more spammers and unwanted people so what's so wrong with keeping away the creepers?

Doesnt make every decision correct though.

In regards to this one yes it does.

There is logic to that, but the biggest failing of site management here is that the answer to any constructive criticism is "if you dont like it piss off". Its no way to argue a case.

No, that's not always the case. It's just after a questions has been asked 1000's of times AFTER a rule has been placed and discussed by staff it's in stone. They make every decision for a reason, not to make things unfair, but to look out for the members that are actually here for the purpose of the site.

[nick]

No, he is looking out for the safety of the site as well as enforcing the rules already implemented.

The staff may not like it or any others, but it's not what someone wants it's what is what is best for the site and they found that 100 posts is suitable for the limit and I don't think trying to argue about it solves anything. You work with the rules that are in place.

So enforcing the rules and making sure everyone is safe is making things look unwelcoming? Look this is the way this site is run. They even said in an earlier post that it's pointing out more spammers and unwanted people so what's so wrong with keeping away the creepers?

In regards to this one yes it does.

No, that's not always the case. It's just after a questions has been asked 1000's of times AFTER a rule has been placed and discussed by staff it's in stone. They make every decision for a reason, not to make things unfair, but to look out for the members that are actually here for the purpose of the site.
Ronnie your comments make no sense in respect to what I said and are typical of the way in which you will post anything that you think sucks up to the staff and will get you promoted in the future.

My comments were not intended to be anti-staff, some of whom are close friends. Read what I said - they are SEEN in a way whether it is merited or not, may be just a pitfall of the job, but doesnt make what I said wrong. I know that some of them would agree with that and that it upsets them.

[Scarface]

Ronnie your comments make no sense in respect to what I said and are typical of the way in which you will post anything that you think sucks up to the staff and will get you promoted in the future.

No, I am simply stating that you disrespect towards staff is unacceptable and makes you look bad. It made perfect sense. Though the fact that I disagree with you makes me look like I'm sucking up. The rules are in place for a reason. Simple. You just have to find some way to argue and that's NOT how it works.

[Jess]

Yeah people I first complained too put 100 posts isn't too much.
I registered yesterday and i am over 100 now

I hope you didn't spam to get 100.

[nick]

No, I am simply stating that you disrespect towards staff is unacceptable and makes you look bad. It made perfect sense. Though the fact that I disagree with you makes me look like I'm sucking up. The rules are in place for a reason. Simple. You just have to find some way to argue and that's NOT how it works.
This is off topic. Nowhere in this thread have I shown disrespect towards staff. They have my full support and I would imagine I do as much as any other non-staff member to help in the policing and well running of this site.

[Scarface]

Nowhere in this thread have I shown disrespect towards staff.

Oh you haven't? :rolleyes:

They have my full support and I would imagine I do as much as any other non-staff member to help in the policing and well running of this site.

Well this argument pretty much invalidates that on your part. The rule is simple why argue about it?

EDIT: Plus it has no bearing on your part as you have more than 100 posts.

[Nexus]

Anyways, the answer to this, overall, is simple: we're a help forum. We primarily exist to support people on the forum. Unless you almost never post, this requirement is not a problem. In your case, it appears that most of your posts have come after the requirement was instituted. Unfortunately, all I can tell you is that you are not using the forum as it is designed to be used whether or not you are breaking the rules. While we didn't make this rule to punish you, we're also not going to change it to allow people to PM who have rarely or never posted because that's not what this forum is for.

You don't have a morsel of a clue in regards to my situation if that's how you see it. My posts are not my sole reasoning for arguing this, and you're clearly splitting hairs if you think my discontent is a result of my own post count. I'm arguing on a neutral platform.

You speak of private messaging as if it's some kind of forum-breaking privilege. PMs border along essential forum abilities. The fact that the problematic users' abuse of the the system has caused an increased of post requirement to unlock the ability is near text book definition of a penalty, regardless of your inability to admit it.

[nick]

Oh you haven't? :rolleyes:

Where? You're backseat modding here anyway. They would infract if you were right. I certainly havent intended to show disrespect. Disagreement is not the same as disrespect.


Well this argument pretty much invalidates that on your part. The rule is simple why argue about it?
No it doesnt. I dont think the current ruling is right but that doesnt mean I wouldnt report against it if I was able. I work to what the rules are, not what I think they should be. Doesnt turn me into some sort of thoughtless zombie that cant express an opinion.

[Patchy]

You're backseat modding

And you don't

Got a problem? Don't fight in public go to the PM's or grow up and stop bickering both of you.

I'm sensing this thread is going to go round and round
http://blog.myphysicaltherapyspace.com/WindowsLiveWriter/merry-go-round-16-12-2005.jpg

Question answered thread locked