Should we have guidelines on "why does anyone care" posts?

[Novorobo]

Idea came up in this thread.

I've noticed an annoying abundance of these kinds of replies. We all differ in things we care about, so some people are inevitably going to feel that NSG's list of threads doesn't reflect their priorities no matter what's on that list. How is this anything other than an arbitrary moot point? How has this platitude not come to be considered spammy yet?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I would love to see something like that implemented.

[Imperial Union of America]

Rules are ridiculous as it is.

I rather don't like people who think sports is a legitimate conversational topic. Let's ban that, too.

[Forsher]

Rules are ridiculous as it is.

I rather don't like people who think sports is a legitimate conversational topic. Let's ban that, too.

This is the equivalent of banning "inb4lock" or "in the summertime" or "lol" or " " not the banning of a subject area (not that NSG talks about sports much, maybe there are four or five threads that cater, literally, to entire seasons).

Naturally I assume that a detailed consideration of why the subject is irrelevant wouldn't be caught by, let's think, carenaming?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Rules are ridiculous as it is.

I rather don't like people who think sports is a legitimate conversational topic. Let's ban that, too.

This is more like banning people from going into a sports thread and saying "Isn't there anything more interesting that you could be talking about?", while adding nothing else to the conversation.

[Hirota]

Idea came up in this thread.

I've noticed an annoying abundance of these kinds of replies. We all differ in things we care about, so some people are inevitably going to feel that NSG's list of threads doesn't reflect their priorities no matter what's on that list. How is this anything other than an arbitrary moot point? How has this platitude not come to be considered spammy yet?

Well, if it would improve the quality of posting and actually get discussion progressing rather than inspiring derailing then I'm all for it personally. These posts are typically no better than than shouting "I DON'T LIKE THIS THING AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD EITHER!!!" Maybe any hypothetical ruling should be predicated on this being the only content of a reply.

Would this include replies where the only content is to criticise the poster for creating a thread that may or may not be tangentially related to another active thread? In my opinion that's an attempt to derail much the same as what is mentioned, but I would imagine we'd rather encourage posters to report flooding of the forums via moderation rather than bash them over the head with the modly stick/hammer.

[Great Nepal]

I'd say they're rather similar to "troll" posts - if there's some content on there after why does anyone care its fine since the person is actually explaining why it is a non issue which'd be entirely valid point which can develop into why it is an issue which should be cared about etc however posts that simply go "dont care" or "no one cares" etc don't add anything to the conversation and people posting those would be better served by simply not posting in thread they apparently don't care about.

[Alvecia]

In a way I suppose it could be considered a kind of baiting.
There's no good reason to go into a thread an say "this subject matter is worthless" unless you're intending to draw the ire of those who have taken an interest in the topic.

[Ethel mermania]

it is a legitimate point. Someone posts an issue they should be able to defend why it is important.

[The Archregimancy]

For reference, we are reading this thread with interest.

Not commenting quite yet, but reading with interest.


Edit:
What a waste of my 20,000th post, dammit.

[Flanderlion]

For reference, we are reading this thread with interest.

Not commenting quite yet, but reading with interest.


Edit:
What a waste of my 20,000th post, dammit.

Congratulations! And yeah, I agree, what a waste. 25k is more of a milestone though, so you can do it properly this time.

[Twilight Imperium]

it is a legitimate point. Someone posts an issue they should be able to defend why it is important.

Not necessarily, we discuss plenty of unimportant things on NSG.

Plus, the posts in question aren't usually "Fellow posters, I have read your arguments, and I am gravely concerned about whether this is important enough to consider/vote on/whatever". It's usually more "lol people are still on about this?" which is definitely more trolly/baity than thought-provoking.

[Ethel mermania]

it is a legitimate point. Someone posts an issue they should be able to defend why it is important.

Not necessarily, we discuss plenty of unimportant things on NSG.

Plus, the posts in question aren't usually "Fellow posters, I have read your arguments, and I am gravely concerned about whether this is important enough to consider/vote on/whatever". It's usually more "lol people are still on about this?" which is definitely more trolly/baity than thought-provoking.

Then explain why it is worthy of discussion. Why are we discussing this should be the first question raised in any conversation, much like in a court case jurisdiction is the first issue discussed.

[Idzequitch]

it is a legitimate point. Someone posts an issue they should be able to defend why it is important.

I think there's a difference between someone trying to get people riled up by saying a topic is unimportant without stating why, and someone legitimately questioning why the subject at hand matters and providing explanation.

I guess what I'm saying is, one liner "lol none of this matters" posts should be looked at, but there are times where the actual importance of a topic can legitimately be questioned, especially if the poster can explain why they think it is unimportant.

[Ethel mermania]

it is a legitimate point. Someone posts an issue they should be able to defend why it is important.

I think there's a difference between someone trying to get people riled up by saying a topic is unimportant without stating why, and someone legitimately questioning why the subject at hand matters and providing explanation.

I guess what I'm saying is, one liner "lol none of this matters" posts should be looked at, but there are times where the actual importance of a topic can legitimately be questioned, especially if the poster can explain why they think it is unimportant.

This is stupid, and unworthy of conversation is still a legitimate point. It is up to the orginator or defenders of the point to make it. A contrary arguement does not have to be long and weighty.

Bullshit is a legitimate response to something, As long as it attacks the point and not the poster, it should be ok.

[Twilight Imperium]

This is stupid, and unworthy of conversation is still a legitimate point. It is up to the orginator or defenders of the point to make it. A contrary arguement does not have to be long and weighty.

Bullshit is a legitimate response to something, As long as it attacks the point and not the poster, it should be ok.

Just because people can honestly believe it doesn't mean we should allow it willy-nilly.

A) you can't really argue that something isn't worth arguing without arguing it, which is inane.
B) Even if the poster thinks it's unworthy of discussion, clearly the people discussing it disagree - you know, since they're discussing it.
C) It's more or less always going to be a derail. It might be the ultimate derail, since for any given topic X, "topic X is irrelevant" is !X.
D) If we make people establish a baseline for relevancy on their topics, we'd never discuss anything.

Are some issues irrelevant on the modern stage? Sure. But I'd be hard-pressed to think of a topic too irrelevant to discuss on NS

Also, again, the proposed rule would be against one line bomb-posts, not actual-factual propositions that X is unworthy of discussion.

Addendum to above - we probably don't need a new rule to cover this, it would likely be covered under derail/trolling/etc as per above.

[Enfaru]

Ultimately it depends on intent, I do not think we need extra guidelines on this matter as we already have as others alluded to significant amount of rules and their scope, for example trolling and spam, is rather wide. Every post that is made is weighed according to these rules.

For example, if someone has posted a rather short, vague, unspecific thread with little opinion then ultimately the question may in fact have a valid purpose. Depending on where it is however, such a thread would be locked with extreme prejudice e.g. in Gameplay, (because Sedge is hot on this stuff) and General. In other areas like Nationstates or P2TM this may in fact be constructive getting the Op to expand and hopefully turn what is initially very little into something that is thought out. In this case, the intent will be derived from past behaviour. Is said person a frequent troll or spammer or are they a Role-play mentor?

From another perspective a thread could be posted that is well thought out and covers not only their opinion on the subject matter but other expert opinion. In which case, it is less than likely that the poster is acting with good faith and the argument that it is spam or trolling (something designed to get an emotional response out of someone) is greater. Of course by this time it already breaks the necessary rules and the poster would be admonished.

In conclusion then, there is no need for further rules, guidelines or indeed even special measures. Instead, if you're not sure whether a post is in good faith or not or you think it is spammy then the best thing you can do is to report the post along with reasons why in the Moderator forum. Ultimately only the mods can decide what does and does not break the rules and what is acceptable in this community. I find it hard to believe that this is a problem without an already implemented solution, just people who aren't sure whether they should report it to moderation or not. Report it, they're not going to bite your hands off. They'll tell you whether it is actionable and often why or why not.

[Alvecia]

Context is king.
But then if you're going to only go after the posts that are obviously done in bad faith, rather than a legitimate question, why wouldn't you punish them under the existing trolling/baiting rules?

[Hayashimo]

Rules are ridiculous as it is.

I rather don't like people who think sports is a legitimate conversational topic. Let's ban that, too.

I'm of this opinion.

The rules on this site are easily the worst part of it, and I have no desire to see them worsen.

The only reason this is even an issue is that making mountains of molehills is essentially an NSG pastime at this point, and sometimes people really do need to wonder why we should even care.

I will concede that some people say so in a... less then constructive manner, however.

[Forsher]

Context is king.
But then if you're going to only go after the posts that are obviously done in bad faith, rather than a legitimate question, why wouldn't you punish them under the existing trolling/baiting rules?

Firstly, I think "bad faith" is an unworkable standard. You should, as I alluded to in my first post here, instead just whack everyone who doesn't offer a substantial argument... this is much easier to determine and easier to defend (less subjective).

Secondly, if we consider "trollnaming" what actually made that a somewhat workable rule, in the sense it ended reflexive opposition to it, was shifting it into spam. However, if the mods hadn't taken their original approach, i.e. a broadly standalone rule, then I don't think anyone would have recognised that trollnaming was a Thing that ought to be reported. Clearly the solution is to have carenaming/careposting be given a catchy-ish name and then stuck under baiting (I think it fits best there). This way, if you announce the rule with appropriate drama, people will actually notice, but you avoid the "give me back my teddy bear" disagreement that trollnaming created.

Thirdly, to respond to the above discussion... When did NSG get notability rules? This isn't Wikipedia and as long as it is not bloggy (which is and will remain a terribly unclear rule) the subject is fine (notice that the anti-blog rules essentially capture anything particularly un-notable). If you imposed a burden to defend the thread's existence you would simply end up with longer OPs... and longer OPs tend to dampen discussion. If someone, and I have never seen this personally, actually made a substantive argument for why a thread's topic is irrelevant/trivial then that should become part of the thread's discussion if, and it is a big if, it actually reaches this point.

Rules are ridiculous as it is.

I rather don't like people who think sports is a legitimate conversational topic. Let's ban that, too.

I'm of this opinion.

The rules on this site are easily the worst part of it, and I have no desire to see them worsen.

The only reason this is even an issue is that making mountains of molehills is essentially an NSG pastime at this point, and sometimes people really do need to wonder why we should even care.

I will concede that some people say so in a... less then constructive manner, however.

You ever heard of IM? Well, basically, there's a poster who can post threads that have previously existed on NSG but because they're IM, everyone immediately starts careposting/denigrating the thread's existence. There is a problem here (although, possibly, this is griefing too).

It's spammy, it's baity, it's already against the rules* but no-one reports it because the rules don't specifically mention it.

*By this thread's tentative consensus.

[MERIZoC]

Problem comes when there are actual shitposts about irrelevant topics. Could people just not post in those? Yes, but I'm sure they will post nonetheless. And they'll just try to figure out ways to get around whatever hypothetical rule comes up.

[Socialist Nordia]

Honestly, why does anyone care about this topic?
it's just a joke please don't give me a warning

In all seriousness, if saying you don't care about a topic shouldn't be actionable in and of itself, but if the post is just a one-liner that has no constructive purpose, I guess it's not too unreasonable for that to be actionable.

[Twilight Imperium]

In all seriousness, if saying you don't care about a topic shouldn't be actionable in and of itself, but if the post is just a one-liner that has no constructive purpose, I guess it's not too unreasonable for that to be actionable.

This ^

Also to whomever said that the rules are the worst part of this site, I extend an invitation to go visit forums with less strict rules. Go on a tour even. Wallow in each of the excesses our mod staff curbs every day.

Then come back and thank God or Max or whomever for our ruleset and keep on keepin' on.

[Frank Zipper]

Yes it is annoying, but do we need to keep ratcheting up the number of rules? Isn't this something that Mods can already handle, at their discretion, by warning people who do it too much for spam?

[Alvecia]

Yes it is annoying, but do we need to keep ratcheting up the number of rules? Isn't this something that Mods can already handle, at their discretion, by warning people who do it too much for spam?

The more egregious cases will likely already be considered spam and warned accordingly, and someone asking a genuine question will not, so I suppose the real question is whether or not to lower the bar on what is considered spammish.