Thoughts on new policy (sorry guys, but lite-spam)

[C Elegans]

As has already been stated by several people including Buck Satan, the new thread post limit was implemented primarily to make it easier for the SYM mods to read and moderate the threads.

An secondary reason was the increasing time these hundreds and hundreds of pages takes to load. You may not have thought of this, but there are members who connect to Gamebanshee with a dial-up modem.

My responses to some of the issues raised in this thread, bear in mind thought that I am not a SYM mod but a game forum mod so I speak only for myself:

Why would it be easier to moderate several shorter spam-threads than a long one?

Apart from what others have already posted, I'd like to add that moderating at SYM, which contains more jokes and social chitchat compared to the topic specific game forums, requires much more reading back in order to consider the context of a post. When we post, we often quote out of context for instance, so a shorter thread simply means fewer posts to read back.

Will the new policy increase or decrease spamming?

No, why should it? It was not implemented to influence spamming in any way. The only change is the minor inconvenience of having to start a new thread after 1500 posts.

Was the new policy implemented in order to control spam?

No, spam has been and will continue to be, viewed according to Forum Rules. Off-topic spam in topic specific forums and SYM-threads has always been regarded as non-desired spam. Social chitchat threads and joke threads are allowed at SYM, as they have always been. The definition of "excessive spam" is the same as before. The 1500 post limit will not change the acceptance for various types of spam in various types of threads.

Why weren't the members asked first?

Because it is a moderating issue what makes SYM easier or more difficult to moderate. There is no reason to ask the members what format of threads makes the time consuming task of moderating SYM easier. Since the beginning of SYM in 2000 there have only been seven SYM mods and the four ones we have today all have several years of experience.

What about the cliques at SYM? Are there pro- and anti spam groups?

Maybe there are cliques at SYM as everywhere else in society. It's global to the human way of forming social relationship. There are however, as far as I know, no specific pro- or anti-spam groups, there are only people who enjoy posting a lot of spam and those who don't enjoy it. There is a small group of members who appear to believe that we who post more in serious threads have something against spam just because we don't participate. Now, I prefer to post in science threads. I am sure you don't think science should be disallowed, or cease, just because you don't personally enjoy posting in science threads.

But...too many things have happened that don't seem to be a coincidence. Isn't there a conspiracy against spam?

No. Certainly not. Again, the view of spam has not changed, at SYM or elsewhere. Conspiracy theories is a popular way to interpret events that one does not have full knowledge or insight in. Members and moderators come and go for various reasons that have never been announced in public. A few members seems to believe that some kind of conspiracy exists, but to those of you who hold such beliefs I would like to point out that we are 30000 users, 23 moderators + Buck on this board, and what you hear from one or two single people who happen to be your friends, is not necessarily the whole story.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, if somebody is interested:

So what is your personal opinion of spam and the definition of spam?

I prefer to post in serious discussions. When I have time I also enjoy social chitchat, but I very rarely have any time for this since I have plenty of RL friends who I already neglect enough as it is. I do not enjoy spam that is based entirely on internal jargon and internal references among a small group of people. Threads like the Spam Factory or the Succeeder Stronghold are not entertaining to read for this reason. Frankly I don't know about anyone who find such threads entertaining or useful in any way, except for the group who posts there. New pub threads/chat threads with similar content will not interest me neither.

[Hill-Shatar]

30,000 actual users, I believe.

[C Elegans]

30,000 actual users, I believe.

I don't know how to check active users?

[Hill-Shatar]

Neither do I, but inactive accounts were deleted a while ago, as well as some more suspicious accounts. 40,000 members kind of overdoes the 29-30,000 members actually listed.

[Luis Antonio]

As an once again member, concerned with the board, I must tell that I completely disagree with the rule, and utterly abominate the very idea of it, because it was an unilateral discussion and so far all my arguments on the mod forum were classified either "emotional" or "ad hominems" by moderators who had commited ad hominems themselves. And they gave me no damn attention, and they asked not to the board if this policy was, at least, appropriate, nor questioned about the number of maximum posts, nor were educated when closing such threads. I remember, in a brazilian forum, that after a consensus everyone stopped posting on a thread because it was at his limit. And that would be done here as well. Or at least, people could have been warned.

Apart from what others have already posted, I'd like to add that moderating at SYM, which contains more jokes and social chitchat compared to the topic specific game forums, requires much more reading back in order to consider the context of a post. When we post, we often quote out of context for instance, so a shorter thread simply means fewer posts to read back.

No, because the number of postings may be the same. Mods are thought to read all posts every day, as I did when I used to be a mod. Therefore, if a new thread has 300 replies, 300 replies must be moderated, even if each of those has 10000 characters. In fact, it is even worst to keep track of threads if you have more than one to moderate, and as was mentioned you-know-where-but-it-is-top-secret, I think things will be harder and harder. Myself? I dont know. I think I'll watch it from the outter side from now on.

No, why should it? It was not implemented to influence spamming in any way. The only change is the minor inconvenience of having to start a new thread after 1500 posts.

Member A has a thread which reached a number of people. Then, after months of social interaction, the thread is closed. Pam. Without warning, just an announcement, a short note on the thread saying it is closed. It means, to the owner of the thread, that while scientific, cultural or anything content is ok, social interaction is not.
Maharlika points in this thread that spam is tolerated, but excessive ammounts will not be tolerated. Well, since this policy was never applied to the spam threads that came before the "mastodon" (not mastodont) kind of thread, but they were forced due to forums limitation to close the threads after a certain ammount of posts, I dont see why shouldnt we be asked to close or stop posting in our threads after 10000 posts instead of just having it arbitrarially closed.

I have discussed this several times in you-know-where. I suspect soon I will receive a warning, or two, or maybe I'll be watched over. I dont mind. I'm pointing this as the only thread where I may end up contributing to the forum, except for the goodbye thread for the next few months, if I dont change my mind or if I'm not kicked from the members group for some obscure reason.

This is vulcanized rubber, and I find it hard to digest.

[Chanak]

I feel CE summed up things pretty well. I personally believe there really isn't much to explain since apart from a 1500 post cap, nothing in SYM is changing at all. As always, SYM is a welcome mat for the serious conversationalist, and the light-hearted chit-chatter. Buck Satan informed everyone of that in his announcement, and I'd like to encourage everyone to read it so you'll understand why the post cap was implemented.

Personal opinions on "spam" and "serious discussion" don't figure into the equation here. It was decided that from a moderation point of view, the post cap would work best. I realize that we have many fresh faces on SYM these days, and I don't come around as much as I once did...so I might forget that many of you weren't around during the days before the previous post-cap was lifted. SYM is a dynamic board, going this way and that, and I assure you that it will continue to do so. Straightjackets are still available. Padded rooms are still around for rent. And rest assured that Weasel still lurks in the shadows, planning his return. Prepare for the Return of Weasel XVIII...or would that be XIX now?

[Ravager]

Personal opinions on "spam" and "serious discussion" don't figure into the equation here.

Umm, Chan, the VAST majority of your arguments and those of others were nothing but ubsubstaniated personal opinions. Mah said on here his views were based on opinions too...granted, those are based on mod experience, but they're still opinions regardless.

[Denethorn]

As has already been stated by several people including Buck Satan, the new thread post limit was implemented primarily to make it easier for the SYM mods to read and moderate the threads.

An secondary reason was the increasing time these hundreds and hundreds of pages takes to load. You may not have thought of this, but there are members who connect to Gamebanshee with a dial-up modem.

I realise I am nitpicking here, but from a technological point of view, I fail completely to see how the length of a thread affects loading times to any degree. I find it somewhat amusing. I'm not an expert on bulletin board systems. But in regards to the bandwidth: upload of a request to change page to the next, download the appropriate amount of data for the page. Regardless of page number, I don't forsee a reason for bandwidth to change.

[Hill-Shatar]

Vb 2.0 can handle massive thread sizes, just to clear that up. While it might slow down the database eventually, the pages would have to be in the tens of thousands.

[Chanak]

@Ravager: I think you're misconstruing what Mah meant in his response. I also think you should refrain from generalizing and becoming too emotional, since it doesn't help matters one whit. As I (and others) have said, a post cap doesn't change a single thing here in SYM, other than the necessity of opening up a new pub thread after post 1500 is hit. It was that way on SYM in the past, and it certainly didn't put a damper on anyone having light-hearted fun then. I know, since during those times I engaged in my fair share of it.

[Ravager]

@Ravager: I think you're misconstruing what Mah meant in his response. I also think you should refrain from generalizing and becoming too emotional, since it doesn't help matters one whit. As I (and others) have said, a post cap doesn't change a single thing here in SYM, other than the necessity of opening up a new pub thread after post 1500 is hit. It was that way on SYM in the past, and it certainly didn't put a damper on anyone having light-hearted fun then. I know, since during those times I engaged in my fair share of it.

And I believe I said that you should back up your outlandish claims with proof...I'm not posting some emotional argument by default if I disagree with you.
Regardless, I won't rehash points I mentioned and you ignored previously. *shrugs*

[Hill-Shatar]

Chanak, whether or not something changes due to a post count is pure opinion. Back when DW made the thread in SYM, I supported it because I expected something to change, and with this thread, it's quite obvious more changed than I wanted.

For the record, having an emotional investment in something is not dangerous to the point, rather, it just makes it hard for those who are unwilling to look at the point directly to do so. No, I'm not blaming you of anything, Chanak, however, I do feel that bringing someone's emotional state into a thread is slightly beside the point, unless it derails the topic entirely.

As for SYM in the past, having read through the majority of SYM, I know that many things have changed with the massive shift in membership. I can only find three or four members who are really active that posted from the first page, compared to the dozens of news ones from 2005 and 2006. Simply put, shifting the first time can be very different than shifting the second time.

Either way, who is to say that not having a restriction set in the first place in SYM, to leaving it open for so long, will not change how these threads are percieved? There was no reason to complain when they got longer threads, however, some members might have reason to complain when the threads were allowed to get no longer.

[Chanak]

@Hill Shatar: Having too much of an emotional involvement at times does indeed serve as a handicap, for demonizing others and characterizing their thoughts, opinions, and statements in a histrionic manner is something that needs to be avoided at all costs if order and a shred of decency is to be preserved. This does nothing but send matters spiraling to the worst lows possible. Honestly Hill Shatar, setting up others in effigy as straw-men to bash around accomplishes nothing whatsoever. It doesn't effectively communicate feelings, opinions, nor thoughts. I thought you would know that. Never have I once stated here that any position contrary to the post-cap was emotional. I stated that Ravager was far too heated and emotional in his response to me, which should be quite obvious to other readers. That is all.

Again, Buck has the best of intentions in mind for SYM, and he supports the SYM moderation team in their duties on the board. As with anything else, if it turns out that it's not the best, I'm sure he would be of a mind to change it. I don't think anyone - especially myself - is belittling anyone else here for having an emotional investment. I am drawing the line, however, at the bashing of straw-men, saber-rattling, and acting without thinking towards other members here on the forums. I don't think that's unreasonable or uncaring - do you?

[ch85us2001]

I disagree, Chanak.

Hill Shatar and I used to be pretty much one in the same, yet I still recieved a warning from him when he was a mod. Two, really.

[Ravager]

I stated that Ravager was far too heated and emotional in his response to me, which should be quite obvious to other readers. That is all.

That being due to people lacking the complete information, namely the matter discussed without member input.
I could in fact call some of your accusations of me emotive, though respecting the rules, I won't post those.

[Hill-Shatar]

Hrm, Chanak, where are you going with this? While Ravager might have been aggressive, I have seen no proof (well, that's not hard to believe) that what he said was untrue. I find flaming while not flaming is more damaging to SYM, and people, including myself, have become used to it and are now expecting it in every post.

Ravager may very well be over-emotional in his response. I decided that I disagreed and posted my opinion. However, please note I missed Ravager's second response in this thread, and I am gauging this from the first. I also wish to state I said nothing about you feeling that the entire side was emotional, as I guessed you were speaking about Ravager. Besides that, yes, I do know what I should know.

I know Buck has the best intentions for SYM. I was mentioning my disbelief that emotion in posts should be avoided at all costs. There is a limit, sure, such as hissing rage, etc.

Damn, it's so hard to reply to this. Explaining my thoughts have become difficult as of late again. Apologies, although I seem to have missed something, as Chus has posted something about me warning him when I was a moderator.

Final note, I didn't see any bashing of you in the first post -- I missed whatever tone you're picking up from the second.

[Ravager]

However, please note I missed Ravager's second response in this thread, and I am gauging this from the first.

Yeah...I'll accept that particular response was a little on the emotional side...though I believe that accounts of a minority of my posts...

[Chanak]

That being due to people lacking the complete information, namely the matter discussed without member input.
I could in fact call some of your accusations of me emotive, though respecting the rules, I won't post those.

I just don't think anything else will be served by going on about this, because it will just keep going on and on and on. I would love to discuss it more with you, but at this point it needs to be via PM. You're welcome to do so at any time you want, Ravager. Buck made his statement regarding the post cap, and I mirrored it. If the SYM mods feel it will help, it's worth a shot.

[Maharlika]

A point to consider.

If the SYM mods were against spam, then wouldn't it be easier to just delete these types of posts and give sanctions to the members who would post them?

Did we do such a thing?

Did we?

I mentioned the issue on excessive amounts of spam simply because some people are too quick to think that SYM is a place for sky-is-the-limit spam thereby conveniently ignoring that there are certain limits to spamming.

I'm a tad irritated when people imply decisions made by mods as mere "opinions." What is this? Must I seek the approval of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, not to mention Jill, Jane, and Maria before I make a decision?

If you have problems with the way our "opinions" were put into action, then PM Buck and the other mods. If you have a point and if it was decided against my "opinion," then I wouldn't think twice of reversing the action initially made by my "opinion."

If such would happen, I wouldn't be emotional about it and see it as a personal attack on me just because my initial decision has to be reversed.

Trabaho lang, walang personalan. (It's just work, nothing personal.)

The issue on the policy is for moderating reasons.

It isn't about a war on spam or stepping on other people's rights.

Now, if you were a SYM mod for several years of moderating this type of forum and you tell Buckthat such a policy wouldn't help moderating in any way, I assure you, Buck would listen and perhaps wouldn't have an easier time in deciding to enforce the policy.

What people tend to forget is that the mods do not decide things outright when it comes to major decisions.

It is Buck who has the final say.

It is quite insulting really, if the decisions of the Master of the house is questioned openly as some sort of tyranny or despotic type of management simply because the visitors couldn't have their way.

[Chanak]

Hrm, Chanak, where are you going with this? While Ravager might have been aggressive, I have seen no proof (well, that's not hard to believe) that what he said was untrue. I find flaming while not flaming is more damaging to SYM, and people, including myself, have become used to it and are now expecting it in every post.

Ravager may very well be over-emotional in his response. I decided that I disagreed and posted my opinion. However, please note I missed Ravager's second response in this thread, and I am gauging this from the first. I also wish to state I said nothing about you feeling that the entire side was emotional, as I guessed you were speaking about Ravager. Besides that, yes, I do know what I should know.

I know Buck has the best intentions for SYM. I was mentioning my disbelief that emotion in posts should be avoided at all costs. There is a limit, sure, such as hissing rage, etc.

Damn, it's so hard to reply to this. Explaining my thoughts have become difficult as of late again. Apologies, although I seem to have missed something, as Chus has posted something about me warning him when I was a moderator.

Final note, I didn't see any bashing of you in the first post -- I missed whatever tone you're picking up from the second.

Hill - blurting out that my stance on the thread cap was "...nothing but ubsubstaniated personal opinions," is in my view the act of straw-man bashing. I did not enter this thread with a similiar charge against anyone else. To go forward defending someone engaging in that act might imply that you're bashing the straw-man along with them. And that is my point, which I think you did indeed miss.

I do want to assist in letting newcomers (well, relative newcomers) to SYM know that the post cap, while something new to them, has been around before and it is incapable of changing SYM. SYM is not defined by a post cap or no post cap, and there have been quite a number of excellent threads made here during a time when such limits existed.

At this point in time, attempting a civil discussion with a person incapable of that sort of exchange is not unlike driving down a one-way street against the flow of traffic. That was the heart of my question directed to you. I'm sorry you missed it.