Hill-Shatar wrote:Funny, that, other threads being closed did not necessitate (this one didn't either) the creation of six new threads, not even the spam factory.
I'm not certain on what you're referring to, whether it's spam threads being closed, or threads in general being closed.
If it's spam threads, well the last time a thread was closed was chosen by the threadmaker (Chu/SF), so after all the whinging and fighting associated with it, no one really felt like making a post - that, and the HC was being used at the time. After this, there was no other thread, and people wanted to talk, so they made one; and the HC was bumped, but it didn't last.
If it's threads in general, well that's because there is a (an unspoken?) rule regarding not making a thread (at least immediately following) a topic that has been locked. If it was locked due to flaming, it's so people can calm down, otherwise it's seen as trolling. If it was locked due to incessant spamming, then that will simply occur again, so a mod will lock and possibly warn the creator.
However, in this case, no rules were broken for the thread to be closed, so it gave people free reign to make threads. Also, as stated in the policy, it's perfectly alright to make a similar thread regarding the old one, so we were allowed/expected to do it.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Spam is mindless, I do believe this is one of the major tenants of either the Spam Factory or the Succeeder Stronghold.
I might agree with you on saying it is unncessary, but I can't agree it's mindless. If we respond to the true definition of the word, then, 'lacking intelligence', is proved false. There are witty comments made in there, which require brainpower. Ideas are bounced off people, who in return contribute their own (a recent example was in one of the spam threads last night, when I was asking for help on a logo, Darzog listed about ten possibilities). Or, 'having no intelligent purpose'. Well, I'd disagree with this too. When I read someone's post, I take into account what I know of that person's personality. If I know they are someone who often jokes, then I may not take it seriously. If I have never seen them be less than perfectly serious, well I'd be less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Due to this, there is less misunderstandings, allowing for the debate to progress, rather than stalling on clarifications.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Funny, in my time in the KotOR forums, I was the only one from SYM answering questions. Chanak was away, and Xandax and Fable sometimes answer questions, but generally, it was membership who had never gone to SYM.
I have never been there, since I have never played the game, but this could be logically explained. I'll draw a comparision with the Fable forums (while as I said, I cannot make a completely informed decision). I played the game (twice), and knew a fair bit of stuff. For awhile I was active on the forums, and I'd help the new comers. But then I stopped going for a number of reasons:
a) The major people there were grossly immature (no offence to people)
b) As a result of that, the language used was next to indecphirable
c) There were so many infringements (no offence to the mods as they do a great job), in my opinion I had no idea how the mods survived, because I would lose count.
Now, I don't know how many (if any) of those comments are relevant to Kotor. Additionally, Hill, you might be forgetting something... you used to be quite the spammer. You and Rav were neck to neck with post counts, and you'd always be in the spam threads. Try as you might to forget, or simply having stopped, you did heavily at a point, so you do prove my point.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Which is sad, too, so many left before I wanted them to. Anyways, I've helped people outside of those threads, even when I was a major participant in the Spam Factory (my 3,000 posts were pretty early on in it's history, hence why I said "even when"), because they made a new thread asking for help.
I am well aware you helped new people, afterall, you did introduce me to spamming.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Just because people like to post more in these threads than others, does not make it wrong. As far as I know, it is not damaging this board in any way, while, in my personal opinion, the Succeeder Stronghold may have, my reference to my post being Dragon Wench's post some time ago in SYM in which we discussed the reasoning behind the Succeeder Stronghold.
As someone mentioned earlier, (not sure who, haven't gone back to check), if you call SS/SF cliquey, then you have to acknowledge that all such threads were, and not only that, but SYM is. Heaps of people have pointed the blame at the SS, but it is simply the latest one, made by newer members, so it's seen to be evil. The only reason it got so many posts, was that very few new spam threads were being made. No one was motivated to start one, so they just stuck with what was there.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Hmmm, perhaps you are right, two off topic forums on two massive boards are not similar at all, I see. While I can see what you mean that they are not relevant, it's an experince I have, and unless there is an exact duplicate somewhere else, you can't get much more relevancy when comparing boards.
Actually, scrap what I said before. I misread what you wrote. I read it as ' Ravager, if I see a member on anther site not contributing in any forum, including the Lounge, I can report him, and they will be punished'. Missing the key phrase of posting... hence the statement about Iron fist rule. I apologise for that, as reading what I wrote makes it sound a lot harsher than what was intended.
Sorry about that.
Hill-Shatar wrote:He also has the ease of having references in the few last pages, usually, as well. However, let me put it this way -- in my time moderating, there have been two things I've had to do regarding similar topics:
1. Clamp down on the threads and place everything into one, massive thread. This is what I did once here, in the KotOR III forum, when we had so many storylines coming up that I just started melding them into the same thread, thanks to the help of a few who kept those reports coming.
2. Try and break topics out of a thread. Too often do things get so compact only one thing is talked about at the same time. I don't want a General Movies thread for Star Wars, as an example, I want a thread for some aspects of the discussion, for example, the General Thread could have addition threads housing Han Solo and Luke Skywalker's love triangle, with another one handling Death Star Combat.
In this case, the SS was in the latter. If I wanted to open it up, I would close that thread. Having multiple threads allows for the steady progression of multiple targets, whether they involve worshipping Juni, DW, CE, and the other SYM ladies as the goddess' they are or not.
I will agree with you, that many of the topics discussed in the spam thread could have been made into threads. But, the reason I didn't, was because I valued the opinion of people who I would regularly (when possible), talk to. After talking to them, I found which were the people I considered to be 'nice' (for want of a better word), and things I had similarlities (to an extent) with. As such, I would want to hear what they said. However, I was not interested in the opinion of someone who I have never talked to, because as has always been my philosophy in life, I don't care what strangers think, which is good and bad. I'll be posting a small, insignificant question in there, in which I'll receive informal and informative answers, and my problem will be solved. If I make a thread out of it, then it'll be answered quite soon and be quite pointless, and I don't make threads lightly.
Hill-Shatar wrote:However, in the end, exessiveness is measured by how useless a post really is, like almost postfarming (less than ten letters) to measure if they are under the bar between spam and crap.
Intrinsic satisfaction. Some people enjoy posting for posting's sake, some people enjoy game threads (such as Person above
Your thread). I never found them interesting, so I don't post there. Some people don't find spam interesting, so they don't spam. Each to their own. It's speak your mind, by allowing people to do what they want (within reason), it caters for more people, is a more successful forum and is why GB is such a great place.
Hill-Shatar wrote:Which has more discussion value and content? What happens to those that want to discuss these topics? Heated threads are just as good, as long as some members keep their cool and some others leave their arrogance at the door. Spam is good, as long as it follows the acceptable guidelines and rules that Buck has put forth. Closing one thread for flaming is easy and simple, disallowing further discussion, that is not the same for Spam topics.
I know heated threads are good, I've always loved arguing/debating, and hopefully, always will. I was just saying, those require stricter moderating, since people can easily be set off (especially if it's religously related for example).
But, you say closing a thread for flaming is easy, whereas it does not apply to a spam thread. In the times when I have been moderator, when deciding whether to lock a thread, I would ask the question, is the breach of rules a result of the purpose of a thread, or a result of someone's actions. In a thread that escalates to flaming, it's the thread, since it raised the topic and prompted debate. In a spam thread, it's whatever the person had on their mind at the time, so locking it is pointless, and it doesn't stop any future occurances (in other threads), and isn't fair to other innocent members.
- Part one
