Always on a quest...
Posts: 3,751 
Original Join Date: Apr 6, 2013
|
Post by ΛLISTΞR on Aug 7, 2014 8:05:30 GMT 10
Hi, sorry to trouble you, I`v just got re4 hd edition and I enjoy it , ive tried to use the ultimate item modifier but alas it wont work for me, im unable to get the 7C 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 up as requested in the video shown, can you help please, many thanks hi peterjacks please dont bump threads over 60 days old if you havnt already read the Rules
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 20:17:51 GMT 10
Hi, sorry to trouble you, I`v just got re4 hd edition and I enjoy it , ive tried to use the ultimate item modifier but alas it wont work for me, im unable to get the 7C 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 up as requested in the video shown, can you help please, many thanks hi peterjacks please dont bump threads over 60 days old if you havnt already read the RulesThat doesn't actually seem to be in that rules post. I did notice a header (written in horrible english) that mentions not bumping old threads, but it's not very specific. Bumping tends to imply posting just for the sake of raising the thread to the top, rather than posting in an old thread because you have something legitimate to say. While this guy's problem is trivial and he simply didn't read the instructions properly, he still had a problem rather than posting just to bring the thread up. I wouldn't call that bumping. This also applies to most of the posts I see you commenting on with this exact sentiment. It doesn't look like you're a mod. Are you sure your understanding of the rules is the correct one? I'd be interested to hear what a mod/admin has to say on the matter. Certainly a policy of "never reply to old threads, no matter how relevant your post" is not a very sound policy. It would invite people to flood the boards with a new thread for things that already have threads simply because the relevant thread is an old one. I can't imagine that's what the people who run things actually have in mind.
|
|
Always on a quest...
Posts: 3,751
Original Join Date: Apr 6, 2013
|
Post by ΛLISTΞR on Aug 7, 2014 20:35:01 GMT 10
hi peterjacks please dont bump threads over 60 days old if you havnt already read the RulesThat doesn't actually seem to be in that rules post. I did notice a header (written in horrible english) that mentions not bumping old threads, but it's not very specific. Bumping tends to imply posting just for the sake of raising the thread to the top, rather than posting in an old thread because you have something legitimate to say. While this guy's problem is trivial and he simply didn't read the instructions properly, he still had a problem rather than posting just to bring the thread up. I wouldn't call that bumping. This also applies to most of the posts I see you commenting on with this exact sentiment. It doesn't look like you're a mod. Are you sure your understanding of the rules is the correct one? I'd be interested to hear what a mod/admin has to say on the matter. Certainly a policy of "never reply to old threads, no matter how relevant your post" is not a very sound policy. It would invite people to flood the boards with a new thread for things that already have threads simply because the relevant thread is an old one. I can't imagine that's what the people who run things actually have in mind. its bumping when the last post in the thread was over 60 days old and in this case it was he could of pm'd the thread creator and at the top of every thread that is over 60 days old there is a warning either he didnt see it or he didnt care Ps mods also always backing me up when i tell people to bump so how about you just leave me alone and let me do my thing
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 21:28:52 GMT 10
For some reason it won't let me quote specific parts of your message. I'm trying to quote Can you provide a link?
|
|
Always on a quest...
Posts: 3,751
Original Join Date: Apr 6, 2013
|
Post by ΛLISTΞR on Aug 7, 2014 21:42:03 GMT 10
For some reason it won't let me quote specific parts of your message. I'm trying to quote Can you provide a link? here go through and find it , it was a person like you who seems to think he knows better then the rules and wants to argue about it and got himself temp banned for a week
|
|
Always on a quest...
Posts: 3,751
Original Join Date: Apr 6, 2013
|
Post by ΛLISTΞR on Aug 7, 2014 21:45:13 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 21:50:37 GMT 10
For some reason it won't let me quote specific parts of your message. I'm trying to quote Can you provide a link? here go through and find it , it was a person like you who seems to think he knows better then the rules and wants to argue about it and got himself temp banned for a week Man if you can't tell the difference between me honestly questioning your interpretation of the rules and this guy swearing at you there's an issue. This guy clearly deserved a ban for things that had nothing to do with bumping old threads. Him being banned is not (very strong) evidence of your interpretation of the rules being correct. Anyway I don't see any mod or admin comments in either of those links. Can you provide a link to someone who officially represents the site outlining the policy regarding bumping old threads in detail?
|
|
Always on a quest...
Posts: 3,751
Original Join Date: Apr 6, 2013
|
Post by ΛLISTΞR on Aug 7, 2014 21:53:13 GMT 10
Man if you can't tell the difference between me honestly questioning your interpretation of the rules and this guy swearing at you there's an issue. This guy clearly deserved a ban for things that had nothing to do with bumping old threads. Him being banned is not (very strong) evidence of your interpretation of the rules being correct. Anyway I don't see any mod or admin comments in either of those links. Can you provide a link to someone who officially represents the site outlining the policy regarding bumping old threads in detail? well if you actually looked you would see that both tocool and darksamus are mods here soo there now im done arguing with you cause rly u had no reason to reply to what i said and tbh ToCool74 or DarkSamus can sort you out
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 21:59:06 GMT 10
Man if you can't tell the difference between me honestly questioning your interpretation of the rules and this guy swearing at you there's an issue. This guy clearly deserved a ban for things that had nothing to do with bumping old threads. Him being banned is not (very strong) evidence of your interpretation of the rules being correct. Anyway I don't see any mod or admin comments in either of those links. Can you provide a link to someone who officially represents the site outlining the policy regarding bumping old threads in detail? well if you actually looked you would see that both tocool and darksamus are mods here soo there now im done arguing with you cause rly u had no reason to reply to what i said and tbh ToCool74 or DarkSamus can sort you out I know who the mods are. Neither of them responded to either of those posts, as far as I can tell. I responded to you because I've seen you, and only you, post about this, all over the site, and I wanted clarification on what the rules actually are. Because if this is just your personal crusade and no one with banning power actually cares, I'm going to just ignore you. If your interpretation is actually correct, though, and the mods have simply left it up to you, a random user, to enforce the policy (very unlikely), then I'd like to do my best to follow the rules, even if they don't make sense to me. Hence me asking for a link to someone official stating the official policy. Which you haven't provided.
|
|
Resident Button Modder
Posts: 4,537
Original Join Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Post by DarkSamus on Aug 7, 2014 22:24:20 GMT 10
2 things I want to say here. 1. lolbifrons Do not bump old threads, the rules are very clear on this. Consider this a warning. 2. ΛLISTΞR Can I please also point out that you are also technically breaking rules as well because what you are doing is a form of "Backseat moderating". Instead of confronting people who break the rules may I advice that you just report there posts so a mod/admin can deal with it. Confronting people yourself is only causing pointless arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 22:29:56 GMT 10
2 things I want to say here. 1. lolbifrons Do not bump old threads, the rules are very clear on this. Consider this a warning. 2. ΛLISTΞR Can I please also point out that you are also technically breaking rules as well because what you are doing is a form of "Backseat moderating". Instead of confronting people who break the rules may I advice that you just report there posts so a mod/admin can deal with it. Confronting people yourself is only causing pointless arguments. Can you clarify your definition of bump please? Would you prefer I PM you with questions? I am not trying to be belligerent, I'm simply looking for clarification. I don't understand why I'm being warned.
|
|
Resident Button Modder
Posts: 4,537
Original Join Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Post by DarkSamus on Aug 7, 2014 23:19:00 GMT 10
The rules state you are not to bump threads that have not received a post for 60 days.
And no, I don't want you to PM me in the case that it has been over 60 days, you should PM your questions/comments to the creator of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 7, 2014 23:55:34 GMT 10
The rules state you are not to bump threads that have not received a post for 60 days. And no, I don't want you to PM me in the case that it has been over 60 days, you should PM your questions/comments to the creator of the thread. That's not what I mean. I have questions about the specific definition of terms you are using in the rules. I am asking you if I should PM you about those questions rather than continue the discussion here. Seeing as I'm replying anyway, and I haven't seemed to be able to get what I mean across, I suppose I'll just ask them here.
Which of the following do you consider "bumping", i.e. that which you cannot do to a thread which is "at least 60 days old": 1. Replying with a message that just says the word "bump", causing it to move from lower in the topic list to the top. (Obviously this is a yes, the baseline) 2. Replying with a message of praise, e.g. "great mod, thanks!", when the thread is already at the top of the topic list and therefore replying does not actually move its position at all 3. Replying with a previously unreported bug on a mod release, causing it to move from lower in the topic list to the top 4. Replying with the answer to a legitimate question/problem that was asked in the thread and never answered, causing it to move from lower in the topic list to the top 5. Replying to your own mod release with a significant update, including change log, screenshots and a new download, causing it to move from lower in the topic list to the top
My naive definition of bumping includes ONLY number 1 out of these 5. Number 2 doesn't qualify as bumping, in my opinion, because it literally does not bump the thread - it has nowhere to go. Numbers 3-5 bump the thread, but are not "bumping" afaik, because they are content, and I was under the impression "bumping" was short for "dedicated bumping," i.e. posting with the primary intent of bumping the thread. It's perfectly fine with me if your definition is different, I just want to know, so I can follow the rules as you see them. I'd also like to know, for each of 3-5 that you do consider bumping, what I should do instead of replying to get this information out there.
Another question. Which of the following are "at least 60 days old": 6. A thread in which the latest reply was over 60 days ago. (Again, obviously yes, a baseline) 7. A thread that was created over 60 days ago, where there was a gap of at least 60 days between two consecutive replies in the thread, but the latest reply was yesterday 8. A thread that was created over 60 days ago, but there has been a reply every week since it was created, so that there has never been a gap of 60 days between any two consecutive posts
Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult or annoying. I simply do not understand the rules as written, and I wish to. I find it plausible that other people may not understand either, but they may not have felt like speaking up. I may be mistaken; maybe I'm just an idiot. If so I apologize.
|
|
Resident Button Modder
Posts: 4,537
Original Join Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Post by DarkSamus on Aug 8, 2014 0:34:06 GMT 10
1. Yes
2. Yes if the newest post is over 60 days old.
3. PM the creator of the mod.
4. PM person who had question to answer it for them.
5. Bumping for this purpose is fine.
6. Just as you said. Obviously a yes.
7. This would be fine seems it should only happen due to number 5.
8. These threads are fine to post in.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolbifrons on Aug 8, 2014 0:42:13 GMT 10
1. Yes 2. Yes if the newest post is over 60 days old. 3. PM the creator of the mod. 4. PM person who had question to answer it for them. 5. Bumping for this purpose is fine. 6. Just as you said. Obviously a yes. 7. This would be fine seems it should only happen due to number 5. 8. These threads are fine to post in. Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Granted, I feel like I can make a case that would change your mind on your policy in regards to numbers 3 and 4, but you probably don't care or want to hear it. If you're interested, though, let me know. Aside from that I figure this will be my last post in this thread. I feel like we've already gotten off topic enough :P
|
|
