[DISCUSSION] F7 Autoprune

[Vienna Eliot]

I probably am not the best person to make this thread, but my past involvement with the NSG Senate, and the current goings-on with its claimed successor incline me to start a discussion.

I've lost probably a dozen threads to the F7 autoprune — sometimes accidentally, sometimes just because I didn't think or care at that moment to get them archived. And while I'm sure those responsible for archiving threads would be loathe to admit it, sometimes archive requests get missed or ignored.

The precedent for F7's autoprune feature are vague at best. Do we need it?

[Kyrusia]

F7 is intended specifically for spammy thread games. That was its original intention. This is unlikely to change and, as a consequence, autoprune is unlikely to ever be disabled, as such would bloom the post counts of players obscenely whilst they make largely unsubstantive posts.

Threads which are onerously active and "spammy" without being outright spam (insofar as they have either a high activity volume or a high individual thread requirement count) belong on this board specifically for this reason.

[Vienna Eliot]

F7 is intended specifically for spammy thread games. That was its original intention. This is unlikely to change and, as a consequence, autoprune is unlikely to ever be disabled, as such would bloom the post counts of players obscenely whilst they make largely unsubstantive posts.

So posts on F7 would count without the autoprune? I figured that the fact that posts don't count toward post count and that threads prune were unrelated.

[Kyrusia]

F7 is intended specifically for spammy thread games. That was its original intention. This is unlikely to change and, as a consequence, autoprune is unlikely to ever be disabled, as such would bloom the post counts of players obscenely whilst they make largely unsubstantive posts.

So posts on F7 would count without the autoprune? I figured that the fact that posts don't count toward post count and that threads prune were unrelated.

No posts in F7 count to your post total seen on the forum post sidebar; they do count in your profile total (which you can see in your User Control Panel), I believe.

[Vienna Eliot]

So posts on F7 would count without the autoprune? I figured that the fact that posts don't count toward post count and that threads prune were unrelated.

No posts in F7 count to your post total seen on the forum post sidebar; they do count in your profile total (which you can see in your User Control Panel), I believe.

So mainly, spam is constituted by posts that prodigiously increase the post count visible on a profile page? Notably, the intention — whether or not they are made for the purpose of increasing the post count — is not relevant to determining whether or not a post is spam in the context of its place in F7.

[Kyrusia]

No posts in F7 count to your post total seen on the forum post sidebar; they do count in your profile total (which you can see in your User Control Panel), I believe.

So mainly, spam is constituted by posts that prodigiously increase the post count visible on a profile page? Notably, the intention — whether or not they are made for the purpose of increasing the post count — is not relevant to determining whether or not a post is spam in the context of its place in F7.

You can read our rubrics of spam here.

Posts intending simply to spam, get treated as spam. F7 is home to threads which have a high thread activity with little substance to their posting, or thread styles which have an exceptionally large amount of threads in general; due to such, we tend to apply the spamming rules with less vigor, overall, to F7 to accommodate this greater tolerance.

[Vienna Eliot]

So mainly, spam is constituted by posts that prodigiously increase the post count visible on a profile page? Notably, the intention — whether or not they are made for the purpose of increasing the post count — is not relevant to determining whether or not a post is spam in the context of its place in F7.

You can read our rubrics of spam here.

Posts intending simply to spam, get treated as spam. F7 is home to threads which have a high thread activity with little substance to their posting, or thread styles which have an exceptionally large amount of threads in general; due to such, we tend to apply the spamming rules with less vigor, overall, to F7 to accommodate this greater tolerance.

I'm particularly interested in the number of threads metric, for obvious reasons. F7 is intended specifically for spammy thread games. Usually those wouldn't be archived, because that would bloom the post counts of players obscenely whilst they make largely unsubstantive posts. But any exception to that which also appears in F7 (e.g., thread styles which have an exceptionally large amount of threads) can be archived, right?

[Kyrusia]

You can read our rubrics of spam here.

Posts intending simply to spam, get treated as spam. F7 is home to threads which have a high thread activity with little substance to their posting, or thread styles which have an exceptionally large amount of threads in general; due to such, we tend to apply the spamming rules with less vigor, overall, to F7 to accommodate this greater tolerance.

I'm particularly interested in the number of threads metric, for obvious reasons. F7 is intended specifically for spammy thread games. Usually those wouldn't be archived, because that would bloom the post counts of players obscenely whilst they make largely unsubstantive posts. But any exception to that which also appears in F7 (e.g., thread styles which have an exceptionally large amount of threads) can be archived, right?

Threads which Moderation judges to have a qualitative value beyond spammy thread games can be archived by Moderation, yes. An example includes the "Complete the Story"-style threads or the "Construct a Language Together"-style of threads.

[Vienna Eliot]

Threads which Moderation judges to have a qualitative value beyond spammy thread games can be archived by Moderation, yes. An example includes the "Complete the Story"-style threads or the "Construct a Language Together"-style of threads.

It follows then that quality is the determinant of archival merit. Why are certain threads with qualitative value ("Complete the Story"-style threads or the "Construct a Language Together"-style of threads) given a higher standard of review than others (roleplays)? The latter are automatically archived (they are never pruned); the former must be be approved for archiving (or they will be pruned).

[Kyrusia]

Threads which Moderation judges to have a qualitative value beyond spammy thread games can be archived by Moderation, yes. An example includes the "Complete the Story"-style threads or the "Construct a Language Together"-style of threads.

It follows then that quality is the determinant of archival merit. Why are certain threads with qualitative value ("Complete the Story"-style threads or the "Construct a Language Together"-style of threads) given a higher standard of review than others (roleplays)? The latter are automatically archived (they are never pruned); the former must be be approved for archiving (or they will be pruned).

Simply put: they are greater than the sum of their parts. Thread games - such as the eponymous "Above Nation" threads - do not typically meet this rubric. It is, entirely admittedly, a judgment call.

In the case of the NSG Senate, and its successor(s), it was a case judgment based on a number of factors:

1. The NSG Senate spawned an exceptionally high number of threads at a relatively higher pace than would be tolerable in P2TM, where new thread creation is slower;
2. The NSG Senate was, at its height, exceptionally active in terms of rote player involvement, certainly of a greater level of activity than would be tolerable in p2TM, where individual postings tend to occur at a slower pace;
3. And lastly, the P2TM was fundamentally designed for non-NS related roleplaying, as a split from F7, which once houses both non-NS related roleplaying and threadgames. The NSG Senate, while not fully a thread game, largely met the rubric for F7 on its other counts (activity and thread volume), hence its case judgment.

As a compromise to this, Moderation was willing to readily archive the Senate's threads, since activity certainly was not a question, and said threads rarely became subject to auto-prune, spare in the event an OP forgot to lodge an archival request, unless I am mistaken. (I know I've archived my fair share of them, for example.)

[Vienna Eliot]

Fair enough. I still think the autoprune does a disservice — not just to roleplays in F7, but to forum games as well, which already have the potential to count toward post counts through archiving — but I can't say there's any real flaw in Moderation's logic for why it exists.

[Kyrusia]

Fair enough. I still think the autoprune does a disservice — not just to roleplays in F7, but to forum games as well, which already have the potential to count toward post counts through archiving — but I can't say there's any real flaw in Moderation's logic for why it exists.

Strictly speaking, there are two problems here:

1. F7 is no longer, strictly speaking, for roleplays at all;
2. The NSG Senate, could, variously, qualify as what is called a chill/chat location thread; these are now entirely prohibited, wholesale. During the initial moratorium against these thread styles, the NSG Senate was given, once again, a special case judgment to exclude them from this description, even though they met some of the criteria.

Hopefully that helps illustrate why this is such a sticky issue, both for its players and for Moderation: it can't be a C/CLT, those are prohibited, and thus would be banned outright and the entirety of its successors locked; it's not entirely a thread game, either; even so, it's ongoing activity volume and thread amount precludes it, yet still, from P2TM by sheer volume. Hence, once again, a special case judgment and compromise was provided by Moderation to it: F7 and continued archival upon request, or limiting thread amounts and relocation to P2TM - a compromise akin to one of the originals provided, and linked elsewhere.

[Nilrahrarfan]

The NSG Senate, could, variously, qualify as what is called a chill/chat location thread; these are now entirely prohibited, wholesale. During the initial moratorium against these thread styles, the NSG Senate was given, once again, a special case judgment to exclude them from this description, even though they met some of the criteria.

I don't get it, at all. Why not create a new board for C/CLTs? Or at least make a new region with its RMB acting as a C/CLT?

[Jebslund]

The NSG Senate, could, variously, qualify as what is called a chill/chat location thread; these are now entirely prohibited, wholesale. During the initial moratorium against these thread styles, the NSG Senate was given, once again, a special case judgment to exclude them from this description, even though they met some of the criteria.

I don't get it, at all. Why not create a new board for C/CLTs? Or at least make a new region with its RMB acting as a C/CLT?

Short version: C/CLTs invariably descended into cybering and other rulebreaking/potentially illegal (as in breaking national and/or international laws IRL) shenanigans, and that only got curbed when the mod team stepped in, then went right back to the gutter when people thought the mods had stopped looking. Moderation got tired of having to constantly step in when players didn't police themselves in those threads.

It got bloody ridiculous. Moderation decided, rightly, IMHO, to just not put up with it.

[Nilrahrarfan]

I don't get it, at all. Why not create a new board for C/CLTs? Or at least make a new region with its RMB acting as a C/CLT?

Short version: C/CLTs invariably descended into cybering and other rulebreaking/potentially illegal (as in breaking national and/or international laws IRL) shenanigans, and that only got curbed when the mod team stepped in, then went right back to the gutter when people thought the mods had stopped looking. Moderation got tired of having to constantly step in when players didn't police themselves in those threads.

It got bloody ridiculous. Moderation decided, rightly, IMHO, to just not put up with it.

Well, then, why don't we make a new category for regions called "C/CLT"? It would be a nice replacement. Besides, regional moderators can hunt down the bullocks anyways. That would basically make C/CLT's obsolete.

[Gandoor]

Short version: C/CLTs invariably descended into cybering and other rulebreaking/potentially illegal (as in breaking national and/or international laws IRL) shenanigans, and that only got curbed when the mod team stepped in, then went right back to the gutter when people thought the mods had stopped looking. Moderation got tired of having to constantly step in when players didn't police themselves in those threads.

It got bloody ridiculous. Moderation decided, rightly, IMHO, to just not put up with it.

Well, then, why don't we make a new category for regions called "C/CLT"? It would be a nice replacement. Besides, regional moderators can hunt down the bullocks anyways. That would basically make C/CLT's obsolete.

Well one important aspect of the current ban on C/CLT threads is the fact that this was the second time the mods had to ban these threads and only allow a single mod-approved one. And honestly, speaking as someone who's never had any interest in these types of threads, the fact that the moderators are still allowing the current Ram's Head Saloon thread is, IMO, incredibly lenient because I would've completely banned any C/CLT threads from happening because if the mods have had to issue a ban on them twice, then that would clearly demonstrate that the userbase who participates in these threads either have no interest in following the rules or no interest in stopping rulebreakers from posting in the threads before moderation intervention was necessary.

The mods should not have had to use this course of action twice, let alone even once.

[Jebslund]

Short version: C/CLTs invariably descended into cybering and other rulebreaking/potentially illegal (as in breaking national and/or international laws IRL) shenanigans, and that only got curbed when the mod team stepped in, then went right back to the gutter when people thought the mods had stopped looking. Moderation got tired of having to constantly step in when players didn't police themselves in those threads.

It got bloody ridiculous. Moderation decided, rightly, IMHO, to just not put up with it.

Well, then, why don't we make a new category for regions called "C/CLT"? It would be a nice replacement. Besides, regional moderators can hunt down the bullocks anyways. That would basically make C/CLT's obsolete.

Because it wouldn't solve the problems that the ban addresses. Just having the C/CLs on an RMB instead of the forums isn't going to change the fact that most of them devolve into actionable and/or illegal content. In fact, it'd make the problem arguably WORSE, given the number of regions and the headache of keeping up with them, and the fact that the mods had to step in so often is, again, part of why C/CLTs were banned in the first place.

[The Sherpa Empire]

There's nothing to stop anyone from using their RMB as a C/CLT space under the current rules. If you want to do that, go found a region and do it.

Don't start cybering, though.

[Valentine Z]

There's nothing to stop anyone from using their RMB as a C/CLT space under the current rules. If you want to do that, go found a region and do it.

Don't start cybering, though.

Ok, I never know about that one. Granted, I've been in some regions that does that (the C/CLT, not the cybering), but sure, thanks! ^^