Legitimate complaints about the General forum

[Saint Clair Island]

NA already gave a bit more detail, but since I agree wholeheartedly with his three points there, I'd like to expand a little, too. (And I'm totally cool with this issue getting its own thread, but it's 1 AM and I'm way too tired to compose a coherent OP to sum the issue up, so if you make one, feel free to move this post there. :p )

Eh, I'll take this one. I'm feeling uncharacteristically optimistic right now <.< EDIT: Here.

(I'm not totally sure I agree with you and NA, mind. I don't think moderators should be expected to act as judges, or considered as such. I always think of them as more like janitors or troubleshooters ["they find trouble and shoot it"]: cleaning up messes, making the place look neat, having authority over the key to the closet where the mop is kept, et cetera, with the added responsibility of shooting escorting troublemakers off the premises. Of course, I also don't believe such subjective offenses as "trolling" should be in the rulebook, and it's those subjective offenses that cause the vast majority of problems. There's been no mod interest in this view though.)

[Bluth Corporation]

Except the other post did which is actually another point I raised earlier on in this thread. But you can be Stevie Wonder all you want except covering your ears and not actually paying attention the the posts. So I guess you just evolved to Helen Keller.

Your argument for allowing gravdigs was that they would add to the conversation. You gave two examples. If you cannot show how they added to the conversation and instead stoop to petty insults, you are admitting concession. Thank you and good night.

He's not claiming that the particular posts you're harping on added to the discussion, but rather that there were indeed posts (obviously not the ones you keep insisting he justify) that did add to the discussion.

What bothers me is that I think you know that, and yet you insist on clinging to this strawman regardless.

[Daistallia 2104]

Your argument for allowing gravdigs was that they would add to the conversation. You gave two examples. If you cannot show how they added to the conversation and instead stoop to petty insults, you are admitting concession. Thank you and good night.

He's not claiming that the particular posts you're harping on added to the discussion, but rather that there were indeed posts (obviously not the ones you keep insisting he justify) that did add to the discussion.

What bothers me is that I think you know that, and yet you insist on clinging to this strawman regardless.

His argument, and yors as well, as I understood it, was that gravedigs should be allowed infinitely far back because there might be something of substance to add to the conversation. When challenged to present an example of gravedigging posts that added to the conversation, that's what was presented. The request was not for posts following a gravedig that added to the conversation, as that was not the argument being made.

The argument you sem to be making now is rather a different one - that gravedigging spam ought to be allowed in the hopes that eventually a conversation will be revived.

[Bluth Corporation]

He's not claiming that the particular posts you're harping on added to the discussion, but rather that there were indeed posts (obviously not the ones you keep insisting he justify) that did add to the discussion.

What bothers me is that I think you know that, and yet you insist on clinging to this strawman regardless.

His argument, and yors as well, as I understood it, was that gravedigs should be allowed infinitely far back because there might be something of substance to add to the conversation. When challenged to present an example of gravedigging posts that added to the conversation, that's what was presented. The request was not for posts following a gravedig that added to the conversation, as that was not the argument being made.

The argument you sem to be making now is rather a different one - that gravedigging spam ought to be allowed in the hopes that eventually a conversation will be revived.

What you call "gravedigging spam" is in no way exclusive to gravedigging. Why is it worse when it's done on an inactive thread than on an active one? It in no way diminishes the existence of, or possibility for, further quality, constructive posts--so if it's the "spam" posts you're worried about, why can't they just be removed/sanctioned while still leaving the thread free and open for anyone else? After all, they're not allowed regardless of the activity level of the thread in question.

[Bluth Corporation]

He's not claiming that the particular posts you're harping on added to the discussion, but rather that there were indeed posts (obviously not the ones you keep insisting he justify) that did add to the discussion.

What bothers me is that I think you know that, and yet you insist on clinging to this strawman regardless.

His argument, and yors as well, as I understood it, was that gravedigs should be allowed infinitely far back because there might be something of substance to add to the conversation. When challenged to present an example of gravedigging posts that added to the conversation, that's what was presented. The request was not for posts following a gravedig that added to the conversation, as that was not the argument being made.

The argument that has been made all along is that there is no reason to close an inactive thread--especially one not on a current-events or recurring topic--because there is always the possibility that someone may make a constructive response to one of the specific points made within that particular thread. NO ONE has claimed that they were immune to the same type of spam to which active threads are just as prone, or that such posts should be allowed to let slide. It's perfectly possible to delete spam posts/sanction the individuals making them and still leave the thread open for constructive responses.

[NERVUN]

Any chance of a recap of current proposals on the floor and mod positions on them?

Certainly.

My original set of propsals was here: viewtopic.php?p=4070573#p4070573

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and spoiler'ed (Especially when quoting (And please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case)). Memes are still forbidden.

In other words, randomly posting

will make us all

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a shelf life of 3 months as long as the post does add to the discussion and the topic itself is not one of NSG's Greatest Hits. For example, posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...). Posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.

Of them, #1 has had no objections from either plays or Mods and looks good to go. #2 has had a slight objection and has been changed to read "and spoiler'ing is encouraged; however they MUST be spoiler'ed when quoted (Especially when quoting (And please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case))." This too has been accepted by the Mods (Well, no one has complained yet. ) and also looks fairly good to go. #3 is the current issue. TBR made this proposal: viewtopic.php?p=4085084#p4085084

Here is the simple solution to gravedig posts:
It must meet every condition or iLock

Is the content more than a single sentence?
Does the post fit into a different thread in the first three pages of the forum?
Is the content timely? (Saying Merry Christmas on the 4th of July isn't timely)

Boom, so now we have established that the post is relevant and that it isn't a rehash. The next logical test is that of whether or not it spurs discussion.

Give a relevant bump an hour, if no one responds iLock or just let it sink.

Thank me later.

And amoungst some conversation with the Mods, it's been more or less decided to try out the following:

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a "life" of 2 weeks before considering the thread a zombie. It will still be possible to bump a thread after that for up to 3 months if it meets the following conditions:

1. The post must consist of more than a single sentence or single thought. I.e. posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...).
2. The post must not fit into a current (Active and posted within a day) thread. This means that posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.
3. The post must be timely. Attempting to continue a discussion about the election that happened three months ago is not timely.
4. The post seems likely to promote new discussion. In other words, posts that seem to be addressed to one person only or cover points already brought up and discussed in the thread is more likely to be considered a gravedig.

After three months, a thread in General is considered dead and will not be revived unless there is some major change in the topic that can best be addressed in that thread. For example, a thread talking about a legal case may be bumped once the verdict is released in order to preserve some well written posts offering legal insights to the case.

I admit that we're cutting the baby in half with that one and I am sure it will please no one, but since that is what compromise IS, it should be sucessfull. But, like I said, we are thinking of trying this out and seeing if it works. The annoucement shall be made sometime today. We're still gathering people's thoughts.

Edit: Er, it might be helpful to write out the whole bloody thing so everyone can see it, wouldn't it?

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and and spoiler'ing is encouraged; however they MUST be spoiler'ed when quoted (Especially when quoting; please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case). Memes are still forbidden.

In other words, randomly posting

will make us all

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a "life" of 2 weeks before considering the thread a zombie. It will still be possible to bump a thread after that for up to 3 months if it meets the following conditions:

1. The post must consist of more than a single sentence or single thought. I.e. posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...).
2. The post must not fit into a current (Active and posted within a day) thread. This means that posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.
3. The post must be timely. Attempting to continue a discussion about the election that happened three months ago is not timely.
4. The post seems likely to promote new discussion. In other words, posts that seem to be addressed to one person only or cover points already brought up and discussed in the thread is more likely to be considered a gravedig.

After three months, a thread in General is considered dead and will not be revived unless there is some major change in the topic that can best be addressed in that thread. For example, a thread talking about a legal case may be bumped once the verdict is released in order to preserve some well written posts offering legal insights to the case.

[Bluth Corporation]

I still don't understand why there needs to be a time-limit on non-current-events and non-recurring-topic threads at all.

[Dyakovo]

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and and spoiler'ing is encouraged; however they MUST be spoiler'ed when quoted (Especially when quoting; please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case). Memes are still forbidden.

In other words, randomly posting

will make us all

3. We will relax the rules on gravedigs to allow a "life" of 2 weeks before considering the thread a zombie. It will still be possible to bump a thread after that for up to 3 months if it meets the following conditions:

1. The post must consist of more than a single sentence or single thought. I.e. posts such as "Me too" or "I disagree" without much elaboration would still be considered a gravedig. Posts that address a previous post and expand would not (I.e. I agree, but I think that we need to look at X, Y, and Z because...).
2. The post must not fit into a current (Active and posted within a day) thread. This means that posts that do expand but are in a topic that comes up constantly in General (Such as abortion) will be still considered a gravedig as chances are we've got another thread on the topic already going and we really don't need 4 or 5 threads on the same topic.
3. The post must be timely. Attempting to continue a discussion about the election that happened three months ago is not timely.
4. The post seems likely to promote new discussion. In other words, posts that seem to be addressed to one person only or cover points already brought up and discussed in the thread is more likely to be considered a gravedig.

After three months, a thread in General is considered dead and will not be revived unless there is some major change in the topic that can best be addressed in that thread. For example, a thread talking about a legal case may be bumped once the verdict is released in order to preserve some well written posts offering legal insights to the case.

Looks good to me.

[Galloism]

Nervun, what's the technical response to the autospoiler suggestion?

I'm telling you, we already have tons of trouble with people breaking the page with that accursed spoiler tag. Make it so they have to search and spoiler images within posts they're quoting, and, well, find me a thread page that ISN'T broken.

[NERVUN]

Nervun, what's the technical response to the autospoiler suggestion?

I'm telling you, we already have tons of trouble with people breaking the page with that accursed spoiler tag. Make it so they have to search and spoiler images within posts they're quoting, and, well, find me a thread page that ISN'T broken.

We've brought it up to technical and... are waiting for the answer.

As soon as we know...

[Galloism]

Nervun, what's the technical response to the autospoiler suggestion?

I'm telling you, we already have tons of trouble with people breaking the page with that accursed spoiler tag. Make it so they have to search and spoiler images within posts they're quoting, and, well, find me a thread page that ISN'T broken.

We've brought it up to technical and... are waiting for the answer.

As soon as we know...

Ok let me know.

Until such time, though, I'm telling you that forcing people to edit in spoilers inside quote tags is going to lead to a few things:

1) A whole lot of rulebreaking with failure to comply, for no great reason. (sorry are, it's like a 25mph speed limit on I-4 in Orlando. Will do nothing)

2) A whole lot of broken pages (accidents).

3) A whole lot of pissed off people when 1 or 2 happens.

Just because my BAC is .766 doesn't mean I can't make a good point, you know.

[Mousebumples]

Nervun, what's the technical response to the autospoiler suggestion?

I'm telling you, we already have tons of trouble with people breaking the page with that accursed spoiler tag. Make it so they have to search and spoiler images within posts they're quoting, and, well, find me a thread page that ISN'T broken.

We've brought it up to technical and... are waiting for the answer.

I don't see a post in Tech (and my apologies if I missed it), so I'm guessing that's the Super Seekrit Modly Tech Forum.

However, there is this phpBB mod that may be useful? http://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/c ... ges_to_url

It doesn't spoil quoted images, but it changes them to a url, which should (essentially) solve the issue - just in a different way.

[Galloism]

We've brought it up to technical and... are waiting for the answer.

I don't see a post in Tech (and my apologies if I missed it), so I'm guessing that's the Super Seekrit Modly Tech Forum.

However, there is this phpBB mod that may be useful? http://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/c ... ges_to_url

It doesn't spoil quoted images, but it changes them to a url, which should (essentially) solve the issue - just in a different way.

*didn't look at the code. Too drunk to underStand anyway*

Only inside quotes?

[Mousebumples]

Only inside quotes?

As I understand it, yes.

Example (and my apologies for the "image spam" in Moderation, but I think it may help to illustrate the point.) ...

Here is my post with a great argument, blah blah blah, hear me roar.

Quoted, this would then become:

Here is my post with a great argument, blah blah blah, hear me roar.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/readthestickies5la.jpg

[Katganistan]

Only inside quotes?

As I understand it, yes.

Example (and my apologies for the "image spam" in Moderation, but I think it may help to illustrate the point.) ...

Here is my post with a great argument, blah blah blah, hear me roar.

Quoted, this would then become:

Here is my post with a great argument, blah blah blah, hear me roar.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/readthestickies5la.jpg

If we can, I would LOVE this.

[The Blaatschapen]

I can live with the new rules. I do would like to change the "2 weeks" in the gravedig rules into a "fortnight" if possible, but that's really a personal preference for archaic or at least uncommon words

[Vonners]

As I understand it, yes.

Example (and my apologies for the "image spam" in Moderation, but I think it may help to illustrate the point.) ...

Here is my post with a great argument, blah blah blah, hear me roar.

Quoted, this would then become:

If we can, I would LOVE this.

excellent! that would certainly be a solution.

I remember that there was a mobile user (phone) who was complaining about the images being a pita...I'd advise mobile users who don't have wifi or 3G access to turn images off...that is pretty much the only solution.

[The Archregimancy]

1. Social threads will be back in General as long as they lead to some kind of discussion OR are aimed at General. What this means is that silly news, what's your favorite X, and the like will be acceptable as well as threads like Sexiest NSG'er. Threads that are chat threads (Such as the Bistro), game threads, rate the X above, and RPs will still call F7 home. We're going to try to use the OP's original placement as a guide, but we still might move threads that obviously seem out of place.

2. Pictures will be back in General as long as they are somewhat relevant to the discussion (In other words not just pics for pics sake) and spoiler'ed (Especially when quoting (And please note Ard is threatening much violence in this case)). Memes are still forbidden.

And for the record, I'm currently running a thread in NSG specifically designed to give us an idea of how the above two points might work in practice.

[NERVUN]

I can live with the new rules. I do would like to change the "2 weeks" in the gravedig rules into a "fortnight" if possible, but that's really a personal preference for archaic or at least uncommon words

I'd rather not start the arguing about that.

[NERVUN]

Ok, here's the official announcement, we are LIVE with the suggestions. We may change on the gravedig policy after seeing how it goes and IF the techies give the OK for the modification, the pic rule will change.

But, other than that, thank you all for your suggestions and time. Here's hoping it helps give us the community in General that we want.

[The Archregimancy]

I can live with the new rules. I do would like to change the "2 weeks" in the gravedig rules into a "fortnight" if possible, but that's really a personal preference for archaic or at least uncommon words

I'd rather not start the arguing about that.

If it's any consolation, the British mod will always prefer to use 'fortnight'

[Bluth Corporation]

Why does there need to be a time limit on non-current-events, non-recurring-topic threads at all?

[Vonners]

Why does there need to be a time limit on non-current-events, non-recurring-topic threads at all?

no idea...personally I think its pretty silly...can't think of a reason why this is...not any more given that the user base has dropped as compared to what it was on jolt...

[Panzerjaeger]

I nominate myself Whipping Boy for all the Crimes of NSG! Problem solved?

[St George of England]

I nominate myself Whipping Boy for all the Crimes of NSG! Problem solved?

That depends... have you been a naughty boy?

Ok, here's the official announcement, we are LIVE with the suggestions. We may change on the gravedig policy after seeing how it goes and IF the techies give the OK for the modification, the pic rule will change.

But, other than that, thank you all for your suggestions and time. Here's hoping it helps give us the community in General that we want.

It's a first step, I think.