50. Though I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Being annoyed by people who use the forum as a lowly chat doesn't need to also be annoyed by low content per page. Though it is just another annoyance for me. Most people on this forum have the setting at 10 posts per page and most people also don't bother to check previous pages. Which means some posts will be lost due to unnecessary spamming. We can't really have people missing out on my glorious posts just because of other people being thoughtless dicks.

But these are just ramblings of an old man who was around at a time where forums were more than just opportunities for idle small talk.

Not an alt account. You make a good argument. I can't think of anything good to respond with, other than it could have been handled better by both parties. However I still stand by my post.

It's strange. All the complaints that I've heard about warnings for multiple short posts in a row (which when you get to over three is a problem, but I disagree that two is an issue) and yet this is arguably the first time I've heard someone argue for a firmer treatment.

I'll respond properly when I have access to my laptop, but your argument means that a number of assumptions have to be made (how long was between two threads? Did someone only look in a certain forum? How can we be sure it isn't an honest mistake because of confusing names?) and such threads are easier to lock than anything else. However, ask Ryng. He kept posting the sales thread in the wrong forum and he was indeed moderated for it to my recollection. Repeat offenders for an obvious issue ca, and have, been moderated.

As for posts, yes two one line posts can and should be combined but I'm not about to ban people for it, unless they do it every post. As for quotes, a workaround would be for a multi quote button but there's not much I can do about that. Someone else might...

So in short, are there solutions to this "problem"? Perhaps, but you have to ask just how big the problem is in the first place, and whether or not formal moderation is the solution as opposed to making suggestions to improve and providing the benefit of the doubt. Being too harsh could detract thread creation due to the fear of a double thread, and while double posts are annoying it's an infrequent occurrence and repeat offenders are brought up on it. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine as it is. This seems like an overreaction, to a minor annoyance.

And you'd better send this phone. Damn trains.

There's a difference between speaking the truth and flaming a user. You forget Redgrave's first ban. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7108893

It's for the whole thread, but you get the idea. In this instance I can confirm we discussed the behaviour of the OP, however we felt that the initial post was well enough reasoned and his responses not inflammatory enough to warrant more formal moderation. 

Now we look at Redgrave. He criticises then straight up attacks. This is indeed in line with previous behaviour, and as he's shown no signs of improvement he was banned for a longer length of time. Why should we be lenient to someone who is not learning from his mistakes, in what was in this case a relatively unprovoked attack? I don't think we should and, as such, I believe the moderation is fair.

There's a reason that people don't get moderated and others do. It's perfectly possible to disagree without flaming the other party. Similarly it's possible to take a step back, report the post and calm down rather than becoming part of the issue itself. If you don't do that and you show a pattern of this behaviour, then you'll be moderated more and more severely. Aside from that, is it really that difficult to just be courteous of other posters? 

Rol also explained the matter nicely, and I agree with his perception of the events. 

Oh definitely, I do agree with the ban and that his behavior should have been different. I was more lamenting the fact that some users make threads asking for opinions and then say opinions are wrong. Cfins is not the best example, but it sparked my post

I don't think treating these issues is anymore difficult than deciding what constitutes an offensive post. Of course it has to be treated with nuance but one would assume you already do this with each other moderation. I find it very easy to discern between honest mistakes and just not putting in enough effort. But even so, an honest mistake is still a mistake and it should be actively worked against people commiting further mistikes, how honest they might be.

If you see a dupe thread and then check "Latest Topics" and you see another thread on the same page that is clearly recognizable from its title then it was very easy to avoid. People who really care about dupe threads would check at least 2 pages. Then there is a quick look into the correct forum section. It's even easier to see previous threads to the same topic there. That is of course if people would put their threads in the right sections.

That's two very quick checks for every thread creator to make to filter out at least 90% of dupe threads. Is that too much to ask from thread creators?

I don't really give a shit about the search function because it's just not worth it. You can't search more than once in a one minute interval and it usually turns out either empty or with too many posts. So using only the search function would not be a viable defence.

Prime example recently; OP makes a dupe sales thread and tries to excuse it with having used the search function. One quick look into the appropriate forum section shows the thread that was duped was at the very first spot and there for at least 5h. Fun fact: Said thread was also in the wrong forum section.

The takeaway is that this unnamed very frequent thread maker did not care enough to check for dupes before making the thread. Also the very same frequent thread make still has it not ingrained that you should check the forum you're posting in.

My firm believe is that if people received a formal warning at least once they would think twice when making their next few threads.

Of course I'm not suggesting that from now on every moderater has to check every thread if it is an avoidable dupe. That's what reports are for. And if I know for sure that behavior like taking thread creation too lightly would be moderated I'll gladly push the report button on those.

I disagree with Burek's recent ban. I just wanted to get that out in the open just so others know.

Because the post by itself was not an attack on MS, any fanbase or person. By itself, it wasn't baiting. People should be punished because of a post that breaks the rules by itself then their posting history should only play a part in the severity of their punishment.

Posting history shouldn't make it easier for someone to get punished regardless if their posts actually break any rules or not. It simply makes it to where if someone shows any bias, they'll just be walking on thinner ice over time. They get banned more easily and for longer lengths of time. 

Stealth trolling/stealth attacks are the biggest issue with this community. When you have users who know the rules, but skate the line is a huge issue. A moderator's job is to identify those attacks and end it, which they did very well in this instance. Burek's post was a prime example of this as well; hence the ban. Post history is the most important key is identifying this sort of behavior, therefore it needs to be taken into account.

Kapi explained it perfectly, nice post!