Come on, Lanz. You can say those things over here if you want.
or we can take it to PM and not get off the subject at hand.
Up to you. I just find the stuff you guys write about me to be hilarious.
God, are they up to it again? They have an infatuation with us, don't they.
Heh, I just did a quick egosearch over there.
Or "Drez awkwardly tries to confront people without using their names" forum.
Right, because making splinter forums to comment about what happens on this forum is such a bold way of confronting me, isn't it?
It really doesn't surprise me that the people arguing illogical nonsense in this thread post over there too.
A) That wasn't what it was made for and you know it. Please, tell me how on earth I'm being illogical. There is, quite frankly, no logical excuse for there not to be a unified stance on how to handle the breaking of a rule. This is not to say I demand mods to be omnipotent and know every infraction, no, I simply expect all of them to be handled in the same way. A rule is, as you said, a rule, but varying styles of handling that rule (in this case, some people are jailed, others not) is only asking for people to question that rule and breed contempt for the situation.
A) I don't know or care. I wasn't involved in the creation of the forum and have no desire to post there or read it, ever, so you can go tell the folks there that I won't rain on their little parade if you like. I've checked it twice because people have brought it up twice, and it really just comes off as a very spite-filled forum, particularly if you search for certain names - Drez, Uriel, CT, Duck, Whippy, TFS...30+ pages of hatred for some people...really. The chat threads seem to oscillate evenly between random topics and complaining about mods, specific forumers, and specific threads on PA. But, whatever, I don't care...you guys can go talk about whatever you want. It's just amusing.
You are being illogical because you are not thinking within the realm of logic. Hence, illogical. "but varying styles of handling that rule (in this case, some people are jailed, others not) is only asking for people to question that rule and breed contempt for the situation" you keep restating this very ugly and silly observation as if it is some sort of universal truth (it isn't). Adults recognize that rules are rules and try to live by them for the peaceful continuation of a community. The enforcement is completely unimportant.
Not to mention that "jailing" here is little more than a slap on the wrist. I would go so far as to say that jailing shouldn't even be considered enforcement of a rule, only banning is, so the rule is actually being enforced consistently - other than the spammers themselves, I don't think anyone was outright banned just for posting in a spam thread (I think two or three people were banned as a result, but only because of actions surrounding it or prior infractions).
Jailing is just a warning. And warning certain people acts toward warning others, by display, so I think it's doing its job.
SO... to rephrase that in the exact same way but with different wording
You are being illogical because you are being illogical. Hence, illogical.
Good to know.
Why isn't enforcement important? If rules are not enforced, what purpose is there for people to obey them? They will think the rule does not obviously matter or they will take it as a sign they are free to do what they wish.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I think you guys also might also want to take it upon yourself to PM the acting mod whenever you see something inconsistent, spammer related or no. I'm sure most of the mods here are willing to put in the 30 seconds or so it would take them to explain their thoughts.
I think you guys also might also want to take it upon yourself to PM the acting mod whenever you see something inconsistent, spammer related or no. I'm sure most of the mods here are willing to put in the 30 seconds or so it would take them to explain their thoughts.
You'd be surprised just how un-helpful and spiteful they can be when it comes to asking about a recent action they've just made.
I'm afraid to PM some of them jailings or lockings they've made because i'm afraid they'll jail me for questioning them or wasting inbox space.
I think you guys also might also want to take it upon yourself to PM the acting mod whenever you see something inconsistent, spammer related or no. I'm sure most of the mods here are willing to put in the 30 seconds or so it would take them to explain their thoughts.
You'd be surprised just how un-helpful and spiteful they can be when it comes to asking about a recent action they've just made.
Then PM Whippy or Alpha. I know there are a lot of folks who still like to burn Whippy in effigy, but he's honestly a decent guy, and will listen to complaints.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
Thread #1, while a poorly made OP, is a poll thread. It could be considered spam, but some of us posted legimate responses.
Yet everyone in that entire thread (myself included) was jailed.
Thread #2 was a clear spam thread, with just rabble rabble rabble in it. Yet no one was jailed despite this.
I made my point about thread #1, and was basically told too bad by the moderator, and was still jailed afterwards. I did not post in #2, so not much of an opinion hereforth.
Where is the line between spam, and just poorly-made threads? Pure-spam threads are getting locked with nary-inforcement, whilst threads with poor intentions are locked and with everyone jailed in it as well.
Also, enough of the splinter forums and the ego-searching bull. We do bitch about somethings, i'll admit that. However, going so far as to say thats all we do is pure crap. We bitch because you guys bring up the ego-search bullshit all the time.
I think you guys also might also want to take it upon yourself to PM the acting mod whenever you see something inconsistent, spammer related or no. I'm sure most of the mods here are willing to put in the 30 seconds or so it would take them to explain their thoughts.
You'd be surprised just how un-helpful and spiteful they can be when it comes to asking about a recent action they've just made.
I'm afraid to PM some of them jailings or lockings they've made because i'm afraid they'll jail me for questioning them or wasting inbox space.
Then PM me.
I've never jailed nor banned anyone for what they've sent me via PM. I won't say I'll be nice, but aside from blatantly NSFW/illegal/wholly inappropriate things (naked self-pics do not fall into this category :winky: ), I'm not gonna jail or ban you. You can even say mean things to me; I might cry myself to sleep at night because of it, but you won't get in any trouble for it.
While I don't think I can speak for them, I think pretty much all the mods feel this way about PMs. It's the area where you're supposed to approach us about decisions regarding jailing/banning/whatever.
This does not give the splinter forums license to perform a "PM raid" on me, however. I find out that some of you are pulling that, I'll ban the whole goddamn forum.
F-Zero, did you check the timestamps on those posts?
You mean how, in the earlier one, they say "from now on, we're jailing everyone who posts in these," then, in the later one, they jailed everyone who posted in it?
F-Zero, did you check the timestamps on those posts?
Not really, it was my bad then.
I guess i'm still a bit biased about how I was jailed in posting in the first thread.
Mainly though, I am seeing bad-OP threads and Spam-threads being lumped together in the same catagory, and people getting jailed over bad-OP threads, and people not getting jailed over spam-threads.
Spam threads and just plain awful threads don't have a topic, or a redeemable one, at least. Thus, they are better off locked and forgotten. Mods set up a rule directing people to stop posting in them. I'm not really seeing the part where it's a big issue.
Javen on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
I come down in the 'mock before the lock' camp. I've been operating under a few assumptions:
Assumption 1: Stupid posts are fair game. If you say something completely and utterly worthless on an Internet message board, prepare for a verbal beatdown. I've been on the recieving end several times myself, arguably as recently as last night. And I understand why.
Assumption 2: Spam posts are completely and utterly worthless.
Assumption 3: Posters tend to need a patsy to rage against every so often, for however brief a period. It gets it out of their system and keeps them from instead attacking a legitimate forumer. It's theraputic, so to speak.
Assumption 4: With the death of the G&T chat thread, many forumers are having a hard time adjusting, and SE++ doesn't really work well enough. Yes, the mods told the SE'ers to play nice, and that's all well and good, but it's just got too much of a reputation to shake off just like that. So G&T'ers use spam threads as a method to get THAT out of their system as well.
In short, it may be annoying, and it may be a minor thing to get rid of in theory, but in practice that's a real jarring thing to do to forumers who've already recently undergone the loss of the G&T chat thread (and Linksville to boot). If you're going to do it, do it, and I will abide by that rule, but it's something I'd really advise against doing right now, in such proximity to the other stuff.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
F-Zero, did you check the timestamps on those posts?
Not really, it was my bad then.
I guess i'm still a bit biased about how I was jailed in posting in the first thread.
Mainly though, I am seeing bad-OP threads and Spam-threads being lumped together in the same catagory, and people getting jailed over bad-OP threads, and people not getting jailed over spam-threads.
Well, the example you gave doesn't apply. I am not one who watches the G&T forums with an eagle eye, nor am I the enforcer, so I will not comment on the consistancy.
But I do feel that both should be lumped together, as far as punishment goes. Because the same idea follows: if you think a thread shouldn't be there, you don't post in it. If you think it's a bad thread, you show self control and do not declare it stillborn. If it is a spam thread, then you PM a mod and do not post in it.
It is a bad idea to passively aggressively declare a thread DOA while masking it with the intent of being on topic. i.e. "Oh man, this'll go places! :roll: But to answer your question, etc. etc."
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
I come down in the 'mock before the lock' camp. I've been operating under a few assumptions:
Assumption 1: Stupid posts are fair game. If you say something completely and utterly worthless on an Internet message board, prepare for a verbal beatdown. I've been on the recieving end several times myself, arguably as recently as last night. And I understand why.
Assumption 2: Spam posts are completely and utterly worthless.
Assumption 3: Posters tend to need a patsy to rage against every so often, for however brief a period. It gets it out of their system and keeps them from instead attacking a legitimate forumer. It's theraputic, so to speak.
Assumption 4: With the death of the G&T chat thread, many forumers are having a hard time adjusting, and SE++ doesn't really work well enough. Yes, the mods told the SE'ers to play nice, and that's all well and good, but it's just got too much of a reputation to shake off just like that. So G&T'ers use spam threads as a method to get THAT out of their system as well.
In short, it may be annoying, and it may be a minor thing to get rid of in theory, but in practice that's a real jarring thing to do to forumers who've already recently undergone the loss of the G&T chat thread (and Linksville to boot). If you're going to do it, do it, and I will abide by that rule, but it's something I'd really advise against doing right now, in such proximity to the other stuff.
Well, the assumptions are wrong, according to mods/admins. They've made that clear with the announced rule changes and guidelines that persist at the top of G&T.
Also, I think it is far worse to treat obvious spam threads as short-lived chat threads than to have one huge chat thread. I'm not going to debate whether the chat thread is a good or a bad thing here; what's done is done. But if you are suggesting that mods should be lenient because the chat thread is gone and people are using these little satellite threads as miniature chat threads as some sort of temporary outlet...well, I'm pretty sure that the people who disliked the single, consolidated off-topic chat thread feel that people treating spam threads as short-lived chat threads is even worse.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
It is obvious that they do not, hence the rules, hence the stupidity in posting in these threads and/or bitching about the enforcement of said rules.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
I think the harm is that the threads in question do not have topics that slide in Games and Technology, because usually they do not adhere to the "post about Games and Technology here" rule, so they should be left alone.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic about Dead or Alive 4 or Sony or something in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an act of rebellion, it's just how most people on most message boards operate. You see a dumb post, so you berate the poster. If someone makes a total dumbshit post, do you consider it a "stillborn post" and let it die? No, most people quote it and call the appropriate forumer(s) silly penis suckers. I think the only issue here is that people treat dumb posts and dumb threads as the same thing, which is apparently not the way that mods want them handled.
And it also comes back to the "these threads have no topic" issue. If a thread does not fit the criteria for the forum in which is it posted, it is locked. The "don't post in it and PM a mod" just seems like it is the most efficient way to get the bad threads cleaned up and out of everyones mind. Do I think that posting in one of these threads once should be an auto-jailable offense? No, not really, but in this case it just seems like something the mods are doing to convey "we're serious about this. Stop it now."
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an act of rebellion, it's just how most people on most message boards operate. You see a dumb post, so you berate the poster. If someone makes a total dumbshit post, do you consider it a "stillborn post" and let it die? No, most people quote it and call the appropriate forumer(s) silly penis suckers. I think the only issue here is that people treat dumb posts and dumb threads as the same thing, which is apparently not the way that mods want them handled.
And it also comes back to the "these threads have no topic" issue. If a thread does not fit the criteria for the forum in which is it posted, it is locked. The "don't post in it and PM a mod" just seems like it is the most efficient way to get the bad threads cleaned up and out of everyones mind. Do I think that posting in one of these threads once should be an auto-jailable offense? No, not really, but in this case it just seems like something the mods are doing to convey "we're serious about this. Stop it now."
Like I said, it's a claim I cannot back up as I didn't dig through post history...it just looked like certain posters kept posting in stillborn threads on purposes, but it was only a select few and I might be wrong.
And, yeah, I think if people just eased off a bit, calmed down, and tried to help clean G&T up a bit, then when the spam becomes less and less frequent, mods might not feel so inclined to automatically enforce the rule. Right now, spam is a serious problem as evidenced by this thread, and in no way is posting in said threads helpful.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic about Dead or Alive 4 or Sony or something in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
Rules are meant to be followed, I agree with this, so I don't post in the spam threads. But was the implementation of the rule really necessary? Once it's locked, is it still harmful? If the moderators are just tired of locking spam threads, asking people to stop posting in them isn't going to completely take care of it. You're never going to see a spam thread without at least one or two other posts in it not made by a moderator. New people will come along and respond to it thinking it was okay or that it was a real thread, or people who forgot the rules or have never seen it (people miss stickies, even if they are on top), or like you said, people who just want to screw the rules (in which case they should be jailed).
It just seems like a lot of work to enforce a rule that really isn't going to make much of a difference. Once a thread is there, it's there. Once it's locked, it can't be replied to anymore and falls off to be stemmed from the forums. So what difference did it make jailing everybody in it, or going through all the trouble of enforcing the rule, and dealing with all the argueing, and the PM's? In the end it's just going to be locked, whether it had posts in it or not.
I don't really see the problem or the harm in responding to a thread that's going to be locked anyways, especially since people enjoy it. Sure it pushes it back up to the top, but the thread was already created, the threads at the bottom of the page were already pushed into the second. And if it pushes a thread that was worth posting in to the second page, people can go back and reply to it.
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
What's the harm then?
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic about Dead or Alive 4 or Sony or something in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
Rules are meant to be followed, I agree with this, so I don't post in the spam threads. But was the implementation of the rule really necessary? Once it's locked, is it still harmful? If the moderators are just tired of locking spam threads, asking people to stop posting in them isn't going to completely take care of it. You're never going to see a spam thread without at least one or two other posts in it not made by a moderator. New people will come along and respond to it thinking it was okay or that it was a real thread, or people who forgot the rules or have never seen it (people miss stickies, even if they are on top), or like you said, people who just want to screw the rules (in which case they should be jailed).
It just seems like a lot of work to enforce a rule that really isn't going to make much of a difference. Once a thread is there, it's there. Once it's locked, it can't be replied to anymore and falls off to be stemmed from the forums. So what difference did it make jailing everybody in it, or going through all the trouble of enforcing the rule, and dealing with all the argueing, and the PM's? In the end it's just going to be locked, whether it had posts in it or not.
I think the philosophy (and even the reason for calling it a stillborn thread) is that if no one posted in it, it wouldn't even need to be locked. G&T is fairly active and even if no mods are around, as long as nobody bumped the thread, it would just die off of its own accord.
The fact that this doesn't happen is probably annoying to the mods and seen as counter-productive.
I agree, though, that there will be some innocents that get jailed...but really, jailing is not a huge deal. Your signature no longer attaches, your avatar is wiped and needs to be reuploaded when you are unjailed, and your post timer increases (I thought it was five minutes, but it seems to be less, actually). It's an annoyance, but even if a new person gets caught up in it, it is temporary and they weren't banned for it.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
So... you're an anarchist?
Uhh...no? Quite the opposite. I think social contracts and government (and laws and rules) are essential to maintain civility.
Rules are meant to be followed, I agree with this, so I don't post in the spam threads. But was the implementation of the rule really necessary? Once it's locked, is it still harmful? If the moderators are just tired of locking spam threads, asking people to stop posting in them isn't going to completely take care of it. You're never going to see a spam thread without at least one or two other posts in it not made by a moderator. New people will come along and respond to it thinking it was okay or that it was a real thread, or people who forgot the rules or have never seen it (people miss stickies, even if they are on top), or like you said, people who just want to screw the rules (in which case they should be jailed).
It just seems like a lot of work to enforce a rule that really isn't going to make much of a difference. Once a thread is there, it's there. Once it's locked, it can't be replied to anymore and falls off to be stemmed from the forums. So what difference did it make jailing everybody in it, or going through all the trouble of enforcing the rule, and dealing with all the argueing, and the PM's? In the end it's just going to be locked, whether it had posts in it or not.
One of the major issues was that in the first Britney Porn thread, it had, like, two or three pages of posts, yet not one person had bothered to PM a mod. Maybe there wasn't anyone from G&T on, but I guarantee you that at least one of us was on, and not one of the wankers who posted in it bothered to PM us. So, yeah, that was one of the things that brought around this rule; not only were they not directing mods to it, but they were keeping it at the top of the page, with a pornographic image in it.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
So... you're an anarchist?
Uhh...no? Quite the opposite. I think social contracts and government (and laws and rules) are essential to maintain civility.
Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
So... you're an anarchist?
Uhh...no? Quite the opposite. I think social contracts and government (and laws and rules) are essential to maintain civility.
Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed.
Doesn't sound like it.
Do you know what the conditional is? "Should," as in "even lacking enforcement, it would be good if people followed the rules."
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
So... you're an anarchist?
Uhh...no? Quite the opposite. I think social contracts and government (and laws and rules) are essential to maintain civility.
Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed.
Doesn't sound like it.
Do you know what the conditional is? "Should," as in "even lacking enforcement, it would be good if people followed the rules."
That's exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.
Posts
I don't think that most bots have teeth to kick, so this could be a problem.
Good to know.
Why isn't enforcement important? If rules are not enforced, what purpose is there for people to obey them? They will think the rule does not obviously matter or they will take it as a sign they are free to do what they wish.
It sounds like you have a very poor concept of how people tend to act.
please do not toe the line
You'd be surprised just how un-helpful and spiteful they can be when it comes to asking about a recent action they've just made.
I'm afraid to PM some of them jailings or lockings they've made because i'm afraid they'll jail me for questioning them or wasting inbox space.
Then PM Whippy or Alpha. I know there are a lot of folks who still like to burn Whippy in effigy, but he's honestly a decent guy, and will listen to complaints.
I expect better of people than you apparently do. I expect them to understand that rules are rules. I expect them not to be as ignorant as you seem to. People are more intelligent than you make them out to be, or maybe you are just naive, but a pattern of enforcement doesn't make acting a certain way acceptable. The role of enforcement is only to make sure rules are being followed. Take away enforcement and those rules should still be followed. I'm kind of puzzled that you think this is debatable.
I believe the point of inconsistency in moderation can be best described with these two threads:
Here
and
Here.
Thread #1, while a poorly made OP, is a poll thread. It could be considered spam, but some of us posted legimate responses.
Yet everyone in that entire thread (myself included) was jailed.
Thread #2 was a clear spam thread, with just rabble rabble rabble in it. Yet no one was jailed despite this.
I made my point about thread #1, and was basically told too bad by the moderator, and was still jailed afterwards. I did not post in #2, so not much of an opinion hereforth.
Where is the line between spam, and just poorly-made threads? Pure-spam threads are getting locked with nary-inforcement, whilst threads with poor intentions are locked and with everyone jailed in it as well.
Also, enough of the splinter forums and the ego-searching bull. We do bitch about somethings, i'll admit that. However, going so far as to say thats all we do is pure crap. We bitch because you guys bring up the ego-search bullshit all the time.
So cut the crap.
I've never jailed nor banned anyone for what they've sent me via PM. I won't say I'll be nice, but aside from blatantly NSFW/illegal/wholly inappropriate things (naked self-pics do not fall into this category :winky: ), I'm not gonna jail or ban you. You can even say mean things to me; I might cry myself to sleep at night because of it, but you won't get in any trouble for it.
While I don't think I can speak for them, I think pretty much all the mods feel this way about PMs. It's the area where you're supposed to approach us about decisions regarding jailing/banning/whatever.
This does not give the splinter forums license to perform a "PM raid" on me, however. I find out that some of you are pulling that, I'll ban the whole goddamn forum.
Not really, it was my bad then.
I guess i'm still a bit biased about how I was jailed in posting in the first thread.
Mainly though, I am seeing bad-OP threads and Spam-threads being lumped together in the same catagory, and people getting jailed over bad-OP threads, and people not getting jailed over spam-threads.
Spam threads and just plain awful threads don't have a topic, or a redeemable one, at least. Thus, they are better off locked and forgotten. Mods set up a rule directing people to stop posting in them. I'm not really seeing the part where it's a big issue.
Assumption 1: Stupid posts are fair game. If you say something completely and utterly worthless on an Internet message board, prepare for a verbal beatdown. I've been on the recieving end several times myself, arguably as recently as last night. And I understand why.
Assumption 2: Spam posts are completely and utterly worthless.
Assumption 3: Posters tend to need a patsy to rage against every so often, for however brief a period. It gets it out of their system and keeps them from instead attacking a legitimate forumer. It's theraputic, so to speak.
Assumption 4: With the death of the G&T chat thread, many forumers are having a hard time adjusting, and SE++ doesn't really work well enough. Yes, the mods told the SE'ers to play nice, and that's all well and good, but it's just got too much of a reputation to shake off just like that. So G&T'ers use spam threads as a method to get THAT out of their system as well.
In short, it may be annoying, and it may be a minor thing to get rid of in theory, but in practice that's a real jarring thing to do to forumers who've already recently undergone the loss of the G&T chat thread (and Linksville to boot). If you're going to do it, do it, and I will abide by that rule, but it's something I'd really advise against doing right now, in such proximity to the other stuff.
Well, the example you gave doesn't apply. I am not one who watches the G&T forums with an eagle eye, nor am I the enforcer, so I will not comment on the consistancy.
But I do feel that both should be lumped together, as far as punishment goes. Because the same idea follows: if you think a thread shouldn't be there, you don't post in it. If you think it's a bad thread, you show self control and do not declare it stillborn. If it is a spam thread, then you PM a mod and do not post in it.
It is a bad idea to passively aggressively declare a thread DOA while masking it with the intent of being on topic. i.e. "Oh man, this'll go places! :roll: But to answer your question, etc. etc."
It just seems like to much of a little thing to worry about. Especially since the moderators seem to be getting really frustrated over it, and dozens of people are getting jailed.
Though I do agree that posts like "This thread is useless/stupid/wrong!" and the like are silly. Especially since it's only pointing out the obvious.
Well, the assumptions are wrong, according to mods/admins. They've made that clear with the announced rule changes and guidelines that persist at the top of G&T.
Also, I think it is far worse to treat obvious spam threads as short-lived chat threads than to have one huge chat thread. I'm not going to debate whether the chat thread is a good or a bad thing here; what's done is done. But if you are suggesting that mods should be lenient because the chat thread is gone and people are using these little satellite threads as miniature chat threads as some sort of temporary outlet...well, I'm pretty sure that the people who disliked the single, consolidated off-topic chat thread feel that people treating spam threads as short-lived chat threads is even worse.
That's the same argument against closing the chat thread. Simply because you don't see the harm or problem in people enjoying those threads doesn't mean the harm isn't there or that the moderators/admins need to agree with you.
It is obvious that they do not, hence the rules, hence the stupidity in posting in these threads and/or bitching about the enforcement of said rules.
What's the harm then?
I think the harm is that the threads in question do not have topics that slide in Games and Technology, because usually they do not adhere to the "post about Games and Technology here" rule, so they should be left alone.
Well, I'm sure the validity of a rule against chatting in G&T is still up for debate, but it's not one I'm participating in right now...the rules are what they are right now and arguing against them is one thing, but here people are just arguing about their enforcement. I didn't make the rules and I haven't really thought about them, so I haven't really decided for myself if they protect me or G&T from harm. But it doesn't matter, because those are the rules, and for such a small thing such as the right to post in spam threads it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
I honestly think some people post in the stillborn threads as an act of rebellion. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not saying anyone arguing right now does that...but it just seems like some people are railing against the decision any way they can and to me, that behavior IS harmful. Maybe a chat thread isn't harmful, overall. Maybe it is. But bumping a bunch of off-topic nonsense on purpose is harmful.
edit: The "vision" of G&T as far as I understand it is a forum filled with on-topic threads and posts that are games and/or technology related. Even if someone posts something on-topic about Dead or Alive 4 or Sony or something in a thread that says "I fucked Britney Spears," it's an off-topic thread and that post just bumped it up. That is harmful to the "vision" (tm).
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an act of rebellion, it's just how most people on most message boards operate. You see a dumb post, so you berate the poster. If someone makes a total dumbshit post, do you consider it a "stillborn post" and let it die? No, most people quote it and call the appropriate forumer(s) silly penis suckers. I think the only issue here is that people treat dumb posts and dumb threads as the same thing, which is apparently not the way that mods want them handled.
And it also comes back to the "these threads have no topic" issue. If a thread does not fit the criteria for the forum in which is it posted, it is locked. The "don't post in it and PM a mod" just seems like it is the most efficient way to get the bad threads cleaned up and out of everyones mind. Do I think that posting in one of these threads once should be an auto-jailable offense? No, not really, but in this case it just seems like something the mods are doing to convey "we're serious about this. Stop it now."
Like I said, it's a claim I cannot back up as I didn't dig through post history...it just looked like certain posters kept posting in stillborn threads on purposes, but it was only a select few and I might be wrong.
And, yeah, I think if people just eased off a bit, calmed down, and tried to help clean G&T up a bit, then when the spam becomes less and less frequent, mods might not feel so inclined to automatically enforce the rule. Right now, spam is a serious problem as evidenced by this thread, and in no way is posting in said threads helpful.
Rules are meant to be followed, I agree with this, so I don't post in the spam threads. But was the implementation of the rule really necessary? Once it's locked, is it still harmful? If the moderators are just tired of locking spam threads, asking people to stop posting in them isn't going to completely take care of it. You're never going to see a spam thread without at least one or two other posts in it not made by a moderator. New people will come along and respond to it thinking it was okay or that it was a real thread, or people who forgot the rules or have never seen it (people miss stickies, even if they are on top), or like you said, people who just want to screw the rules (in which case they should be jailed).
It just seems like a lot of work to enforce a rule that really isn't going to make much of a difference. Once a thread is there, it's there. Once it's locked, it can't be replied to anymore and falls off to be stemmed from the forums. So what difference did it make jailing everybody in it, or going through all the trouble of enforcing the rule, and dealing with all the argueing, and the PM's? In the end it's just going to be locked, whether it had posts in it or not.
I think the philosophy (and even the reason for calling it a stillborn thread) is that if no one posted in it, it wouldn't even need to be locked. G&T is fairly active and even if no mods are around, as long as nobody bumped the thread, it would just die off of its own accord.
The fact that this doesn't happen is probably annoying to the mods and seen as counter-productive.
I agree, though, that there will be some innocents that get jailed...but really, jailing is not a huge deal. Your signature no longer attaches, your avatar is wiped and needs to be reuploaded when you are unjailed, and your post timer increases (I thought it was five minutes, but it seems to be less, actually). It's an annoyance, but even if a new person gets caught up in it, it is temporary and they weren't banned for it.
That is the harm.
Too bad "better" is so subjective.
It is, definitely...but sometimes you just have to roll with the punches when you don't hold authority. *shrug*
"Haha, SE++ rules, G&T sux."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar