Completed Limit Who Can Reply To Reports

[Shino]

So if you haven’t noticed this yourself, people tend to reply to reports with their input when not necessary. I suggest making it so that only the OP, user reported, and admins are able to respond to reports. This will help filter out unnecessary posts and/or “””””””post boosting.“””””””

EDIT: Or make any reply to reports require acceptance by staff.

 

[Deleted member 2120]

Or make any reply to reports require acceptance by staff.

Isn't that already the case? It is the same thing for admin apps so im pretty sure it is the same thing with reports.

 

[Shino]

Isn't that already the case? It is the same thing for admin apps so im pretty sure it is the same thing with reports.

no

 

[gore]

Isn't that already the case? It is the same thing for admin apps so im pretty sure it is the same thing with reports.

No, it isn't the same. Take an example from one of my reports.
https://blackwonder.tf/threads/massfreekilling.9637/
The person who replied only mentioned out the way I format my report, but it literally had nothing to help out with the report whatsoever. It wasn't additional information like how report-replies are meant to be. (or at least IMO that's what I think is the use of replying to reports by normal users)

Basically, what he's mentioning is the fact that they should really limit the access so that people who has NOTHING to do with the report, wouldn't reply and point out things that aren't even necessary and tends to take over the jobs of admins when they aren't supposed to. Or at least, that's my understanding. You may counter this if you wish to point out anything I have said that is considered false.

 

[Vick30]

I'm okay with it being limited to an extent where your message has to be accepted by the staff but that would spam their folder as there are many people who try to post everyday considering there are 20-30 reports everyday. If there's actually important info included in a persons message I think that admins should include his/her message.
Also, I am not so familiar with "post boosting" since people usually get warnings first time they include something unecessery. There's really no point in doing it unless you haven't unlocked the "apply for admin" button.

IMO you should allow people with useful evidence or info post as it can help the admins take actions. But if it's only a "proper" template/format that's missing there's no point in reminding the reporter since admins usually do that.

Also, what's so hard with deleting comments that has nothing to do with the topic or just not needed?

 

[gore]

Specifically only allowing witnesses of the situation that was reported, anyone who was not part of the event would not be able to reply. Because that generally isn't their business. (Admins has an exception, of course)

 

[will5023]

Absolutely yes. then we can verify comments/replies that actually add to reports as we do with admin apps and @MarkSatire drop that situation you're bringing it up everywhere and anywhere that you can and it's just not neccesary - to add to this, limiting who can reply to apps would stop situations like marks. the people who are voting no are probably people who comment on any reports they can to post boost and i dont see any reason why it shouldn't be limited to those with actual things to add to it.

 

[That Bird DK blw.tf]

I feel like it just need to be a general forum rule "don't reply to reports, appeals and applications for no reason"
So people that have something to add can still do that, and people that just post boost gets the warnings and punishments necessary.

 

[Deleted member 2120]

No, it isn't the same. Take an example from one of my reports.
https://blackwonder.tf/threads/massfreekilling.9637/
The person who replied only mentioned out the way I format my report, but it literally had nothing to help out with the report whatsoever. It wasn't additional information like how report-replies are meant to be. (or at least IMO that's what I think is the use of replying to reports by normal users)

Basically, what he's mentioning is the fact that they should really limit the access so that people who has NOTHING to do with the report, wouldn't reply and point out things that aren't even necessary and tends to take over the jobs of admins when they aren't supposed to. Or at least, that's my understanding. You may counter this if you wish to point out anything I have said that is considered false.

Oh alright then. Oh i'm just going to add that I know what the suggestion was about, its just that I thought there already was a system in place for the reports.

 

[will5023]

to do for bene

 

[Benedevil]

Done!