[Question] Post Count Has Gone Down *NOW* with Ex Post Facto Rant!

I had a post count of a little over 400, but now it is just under 400. Does anybody know what happened?

I am assuming that when they moved the PCF Arrow Game and the Word Connection Game to The Game Room (where the posts do not count), those posts that were in our post counts were automatically deducted from the post count total.

Yeah, damn shame too, I was pushing 1000...

j/k, I didn't go down more than twenty anyway...

Actually I hate spam and I don't think it's fair for those who participate in said games to benefit too heavily from it. It was a good call to not let them count.

That seems a bit odd. Not counting posts after the thread was moved, sure. But retroactively lowering post counts? If that's what happened, it doesn't seem fair, at least to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Bentar That seems a bit odd. Not counting posts after the thread was moved, sure. But retroactively lowering post counts? If that's what happened, it doesn't seem fair, at least to me.

I don't see anything wrong with it...it isn't as if having a lot of posts really matters much, anyway. Besides, it isn't as if Krang can control it; once he set up the new forum, all of the posts in said forum no longer matter regardless of whether they did before, so of course the post counts are going to go down. It's in the nature of the system.

I have to agree with Hanyou; there's nothing wrong with participating in those games, but they have a chance to get out of control fairly quickly. We also need to consider bandwidth, so we can't afford to let the threads go out of control. I'm sure there were a good number of people who would post in those threads simply to raise their post count, and since posting in those threads no longer do so it might discourage them to post; that's very good for the forum's bandwidth.

If the system simply does it as a byproduct of moving a thread from a post-incrementing forum to a non-post-incrementing one, I think it is completely understandable. I simply didn't realize the system worked that way. I'm not in too terrible a rush to get to the 'Golden 1000' anyway. I guess I may have a bit of a sore spot concerning ex post facto laws and such.

Thanks for pointing that out Xineohp Nellaf Eht

haveing a high post count never matterd to me

its a bonus

i just like being an asshole and making funny remarks

after all, when the arrow game was moved, i lost like 50 posts....

I just played the arrow game because it was fun

I know I lost some, but not many! I think I talk too much

quote:

Originally posted by susan haveing a high post count never matterd to me its a bonus i just like being an asshole and making funny remarks after all, when the arrow game was moved, i lost like 50 posts....

Ehh, the arrow game confuses me. I posted in the other stuff, though, but I only lost like 5 or 8 posts. Hmm. Well, I'm glad they were moved to a no-post-count forum, they were highly spamerific.

Yeah, a lot of people would just post to increase their post count.

it's not like they moved the MFL there...so it didn't affect me as much ^_^


....

spoiler (highlight to read):

FP IF YOU DO THAT I WIN HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU!! @#%&$^!&)$(*~!!

....

Perhapse I have been too gentle in trying to make my point. I was initially thinking some sort of sql refresh had been done that had failed to complete. This apparently wasn't the case. While I agree with Xineohp Nellaf Eht and the other posters in this thread, that having lots of posts doesn't really matter, I disagree with XNE's opinion that there is nothing wrong with it.

[steps up on soapbox]

The concept of an ex post facto (retroactively applied) rule/law/regulation change is an abomination. It is a concept without merit or honor. In any case where rules/laws are established to govern over a certain situation, peope involved with that situation are expected to abide by the rules as they are stated, not by what they might be changed to at some point in time in the future. If people do not follow said rules, they can be punished, sometimes harshly, for breaking said rules. The concept of retroactively amending rules violates the entire concept of rules being fair or just. Perhapse some examples are in order.

I go out and borrow money (issue bonds) to build a nuclear power plant. I very carefully make doubly sure that I am meeting all regulations, and have all permits carefully approved. I near 90% completion on the plant, when the feds say all pipe fittings must be triple X-rayed before assembly to insure quality. Only the feds make the rules change retroactive. So I have to rip out all the existing pipes, buy new pipes, and X-ray them 3 times before assembly (instead of the 2 times I had done with the earlier pipes). I near 80% completion on the reconstruction, when the feds pass a new retroactive law, that all pipes must have twice the thickness of the pipes I have just finished reinstalling. And people wonder why there are cost overruns of 500% to 1000% on costs of nuclear power plants. Needless to say, things similar to this have actually happened to the nuclear power industry, pretty much killing it in the USA.

Congress passes a retroactive tax increase (yes, they have actually done retroactive tax increases). So when tax time comes, I wind up owing an additional $2500 (above what I had already paid in taxes). Am I suppose to be able to produce the money out of thin air? Not to mention the fact I could have spent my money differently- limiting or avoiding the tax entirely, had I known of the tax increase in advance.

You go to work for a new employer for $2000/per month, turning down many similar offers. After a month of employment you get your first paycheck and it is for the amount of $1500. You ask your boss about the descrepancy - he responds that yesterday he desided to retroactively cut your pay by 25% on days ending with a 'y'. Is your boss an asshole, or are you a moron?

A person is winning a game of Monopoly - its the fifth time around the board, and he owns all the orange and purple property. However the owner of the game doesn't like the way the game is going, so he retroactively (to the beginning of the game) makes a rule singleing out the winning player - he no longer gets $200 for passing go - since the rule has been retroactively changed to the beginning of the game, the winning player now owes the bank $1000.

The point I am desparately trying to make is that retroactive rules/laws/regulation changes are ALWAYS wrong. It doesn't matter whether they are in your favor or not. It doesn't matter whether you are affected at all or not. It is still wrong. Very wrong.

[steps down off soapbox]

That being said, let me reiterate: While I have stated before that the lost of posts was 'understandable' I did not mean to infer it was right. What I should have said was while I was irritated that the number of posts would be decreased for that reason, I likewise would not want to even suggest that Krang or Shredder (most likely Krang) should spend any of their valuable time in rectifying the situation, as I am quite sure they have enough to do already. But the concept of the board software 'changing the rules for the posts after they were made' as XNE has stated is quite wrong, and completely lacking in honor. But this is the fault of the software apparently, and not human intervention.

You may think I am making a mountain out of a molehill - you are right. I am trying to bring a very harsh light to the situation to make as clear as possible why I think retroactively changing rules (and thusly lowering post counts) is not fair.

This is truely not an attempt to get my post count increased. It is simply a matter of honor and principal for me, and I wanted to make that point clear. Retroactive rules/laws revision is always wrong whether in a game, a forum, or real life. I hope that everyone who reads this thread understands the point I am trying to make - before they are someday receiving the 'ugly end of the stick' in their own life.

I just realized how bad I worded my post...the reason why I said "there was nothing wrong" with losing the posts was because there wasn't any way to control it...

If there were a way to control it, then I could certainly see why you'd be upset, Bentar...in no way do I approve of retroactively changing rules as you presented in your post.

quote:

Originally posted by Xineohp Nellaf Eht I just realized how bad I worded my post...the reason why I said "there was nothing wrong" with losing the posts was because there wasn't any way to control it... If there were a way to control it, then I could certainly see why you'd be upset, Bentar...in no way do I approve of retroactively changing rules as you presented in your post.

I sincerely apoligize for misinterpreting you. And the fact that it was done automatically by the BBS sw does make all the difference to me. I do not want Krang bothering even thinking about how to get around it. I am simply a bit prickley sometimes, concering matters of principal and honor, and I just felt the point I was trying to get across might have been misunderstood.

And I'm not really upset with the lost of posts - it was a dozen or so posts max difference for me. I just see the 'retroactive' concept applied far too often in the 'real' world, and I guess I just needed to vent. Thanks for lending an understanding ear.

quote:

Originally posted by Bentar I sincerely apoligize for misinterpreting you. And the fact that it was done automatically by the BBS sw does make all the difference to me. I do not want Krang bothering even thinking about how to get around it. I am simply a bit prickley sometimes, concering matters of principal and honor, and I just felt the point I was trying to get across might have been misunderstood. And I'm not really upset with the lost of posts - it was a dozen or so posts max difference for me. I just see the 'retroactive' concept applied far too often in the 'real' world, and I guess I just needed to vent. Thanks for lending an understanding ear.

No problem. I understand the need to rant; I do it every so often myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Bentar You may think I am making a mountain out of a molehill - you are right. I am trying to bring a very harsh light to the situation to make as clear as possible why I think retroactively changing rules (and thusly lowering post counts) is not fair.

I see your point, but it doesn't apply here. Nowhere in the forum rules, FAQ, or anywhere else does it say "if you post, your post count will increase by 1." This is only assumed. If I wanted to, I could make all posts increase the count by 2, or remove post counts entirely (and maybe I will consider it if people keep making such a big deal over them), and it would have no effect on the rules here. If I had known it would cause this much of a problem, I would have informed people earlier that I was planning to move the threads, but it's too late for that now. And the reason I didn't move them earlier is that I was still deciding whether or not the threads would cause enough of a problem to deserve a separate forum, but when I saw that people were using them just to increase their post counts, I decided to go ahead and move them.

As mentioned before, the forum software automatically decreases the post counts when a thread is moved into a forum that doesn't increment post counts. If it didn't do that automatically, it would do it anyway when I refresh the post counts to correct the occasional error of real posts not counting toward post counts when the server is particularly slow. The only way around this would be to find the exact time that I moved the threads, count everyone's posts in that forum up until that time, save the totals in a separate file, and manually add them to each user's post counts every time I refresh them. As you can see, that would take alot of work, and I don't think it's worth the trouble. So if it's a choice between doing that or being considered "unfair or unjust" over something so minor, then I'd rather remove post counts entirely to avoid the situation.

You are of course correct, Krang. I am in error. I misinterpreted the section on rank and rank images. Nowhere does it say each post adds one to the post count.

More importantly, my post seems to have been blurry distinguishing between blaiming the software for being unjust and blaiming you Krang. But since you have pointed out my lack of knowledge of the actual rules, I was unjust in even accusing the software of being unfair.

I deeply regret the irritation I have caused you.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. And no problem, we all need to rant sometimes.