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

[Ravager]

Actually, I said a 'vast majority of posts were nothing but unsubstantiated opinion', I didn't say all. I was replying to your contradictory point that personal feelings and opinions didn't count in this.
[QUOTE=Mah]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?[/QUOTE]
I, for one, didn't do that. I said your views that were unbacked by any sort of statistical proof and uncorroborated by anything else were opinions.

The decisions made by a mod hold power, Mah. What you say can influence a decision to make any sort of change that impacts on a great number of forum users. That's what makes it more important to provide some proof of your claims.
You can't just say Member X is a flamer without proof, can you? You can't ban a member simply because you say you do not like them. This is just the same.

[Chanak]

Actually, I said a 'vast majority of posts were nothing but unsubstantiated opinion', I didn't say all. I was replying to your contradictory point that personal feelings and opinions didn't count in this.

I can understand that, Ravager. Thanks for clarifying.

[dj_venom]

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.

That's so true. I mean, I used to access this place on dialup, and it sure was a bugger to load. Which is why I found a great trick. I could go to the homepage, and access the latest threads easily, saving me from accessing the individual forums, or the general one. Yeah, I found that saved a lot of loading time... pity that half the new threads are now spam threads, now the people have to go through each forum looking. Additionally, you may not know this since you haven't spammed in a long time, but a good trick is to simply stay in the thread and hit refresh everynow and then. It's a lot easier than having to change threads.

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?

Of course, you were the one who locked CM's thread, preventing him from having these types of posts. Of course, you didn't apply sanctions, but I'll get to that in a minute.

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.

Once again, excessive is never defined, therefore without an authority making the decision, the definition is left in the hands of the members. How is it they are expected to decide, yet by default they could be wrong.

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?

One would hope so, or arguments would be a little bland if we were expected to simply accept what you say.

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."

In law, if a group of people have a case against one person, you launch a class action. Why? Because it makes it a lot easier for everyone envolved. This is no different, as Buck has said, he's been overworked by all this... now, imagine having to reply to 20 different pms, or just one central thread.

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.

Nor would many others. Infact, I have maintained my emotions fine in this argument, though then again, many of my points have been convieniently ignored (you never really addressed my post in return to yours). Why is this? Perhaps I'm seen as a little buzzing fly, who knows? Regardless, I'll keep posting. And you wonder why Rav/Luis might be a little emotional. Let's see, having lost their mod, with no warning, and a limited explaination, they might be a little frustrated. But I forget myself, emotions are bad, domo arigato mr. roboto.

The issue on the policy is for moderating reasons.

One of the reasons.

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

Having had one of the new spam threads locked for a little joke, one might be mistaken to believe otherwise.

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.

But if you were members who would be affected by this, members who raised points back by statistics, members who actually spam and understand what happens, it's irrelevant? You can say it helps moderating all you want. But you know what makes moderating dead simple? Having 1 post per day. So let's limit each person to that.

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.

Speaking of final say, I noticed he unlocked the thread you locked, yet Xan then locked it again. Are we sure about that?

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.

It's really quite insulting to me, that you would expect members to take what they are given, and not have opinions on the topic. You urge people to have serious discussions, yet here you are expressing your disgust at when we do.

To quote an old Australian politician, 'Please explain'.

[Aegis]

How is it the Moderating staff has been placed on trial for doing their job? It is a truly vexing predicament. Many demand qualification and justification for the new policy, yet few (if any) provide substantial reason to not have the policy, much less how it is so atrociously against their cyber rights. It is the very point I was attempting (though blatantly ignored, citing 'insults' and 'condescending comments', conviently focusing on the shock statement, instead of the actual content) to make.

First off, 'excessive' spam is not undefined, as some of you seem to think. In fact, excessive spam was one of the first things to be defined upon the creation of SYM, and the seperation of SYM from the rest of the forums. It has always been seen, and moderated, as being short, non-descript posts which add little, or nothing, to the overall quality or content of the thread. Essentially, much of what makes up a casual social conversation. Now, before citing the instances of pub threads, let me remind you that much of the pub thread holds more than one-liners, and one word replies. Much of it contains bits of thought out humour, descriptors creating an almost story like feel, and a general feeling of pub atmosphere, hence their reason for exisiting. Compare the average 100 post pub thread to the average thread that breaches 1000 posts, and you can see a vast difference in quality of content.

Now, before I am labeled a Pariah by the people I once so vehemently fought for, I am not 'condescending' or belittling the quality of social conversations, as like most normal people, I have them on a day to day basis. The difference, I have them using instant messagers, or more likely, in face to face contact. I do not post simple comments like "Hi, (insert name)", or "ROFL (smiley face)" (I realize this is very much a simplification, but one that is to make a point, while maintaining little distance from the truth). That seems to be what a vast amount of the posts in this massive threads consist of.

Now, onto the actual point of the policy, which is not to halt this sort of conversation and posting, as for some reason so many believe it to be. It is a custodial effort, as well as an effort to help patrol threads. It gives the visual appearance of vibrance and change on the forum, as well as giving the Moderating staff the ability to close down threads before a server bottleneck is created in the attempt to load one massive thread, and many smaller ones. It is a similar experience as when Mr. Sleep first broke the board with the infamous 'Goody' thread. Too much posting, too fast, and in one location. By closing down these large threads, it only minorly disrupts the flow of discussion, and causes a brief migration to a new thread. Is that so wrong? It also means a visual moderating presence, which to some, can be comforting in an online community.

Now, on to this whole democratic binge that seems to be appearing. This is the internet. This is a website on the internet. This is a website on the internet owned and operated by one Buck Satan. I have news for you regarding this: He can do whatever the hell he wants for his website, especially if he feels it will create a more efficient and organized site and forum for you posters. Who are we to complain?

So, stop attacking the mods. There is a lot more going on in the background that never sees the light of day to the average poster, so do not start to assume you know what is going on, much less what is best for the website which you do not administrate. Attacking those who volunteer their time help keep these forums as they are will not solve the problem. Instead, attempt to listen to their reasoning, instead of jumping on the first statement you do not like. Aside from a couple people, I have seen almost no rational arguments for or against this policy. Instead, I see a number of upset people, angry that they are not being listened to, and that is directed at certain people on both sides.

As far as I am concerned, the Moderators and Buck have done nothing to deserve the flack going their way on account of the new policy.

[dj_venom]

It seems the points raised about why not to do it have been missed, so I shall attempt to reiterate them all, at least, the ones that come to mind.

However, before I get stuck in, let me provide some technical knowledge. In social circles, this is regarded as a debate. Now, a debate has an ettiqute to follow, which, when regarding threads involving the implementation of change, is very clear. The affirmative side (for the change), must outline the reasons for a change, the benefits. The negative side must show that these benefits are non-existent. However, if feeling confident/wishing to demonstrate further, they may flip the debate on its head by arguing not only why it would be bad, but why keeping what is there is actually beneficial. This is not required, and not expected, but if you so sorely require these points regardless, then at a later time I shall write some, but I don't have the time at the moment. And why, I hear you ask, must not the negative team argue pro-status quo? Simply because, if there's nothing to be gained by a change, it shouldn't be done. It just upsets the balance, and creates problems for people... as has been demonstrated perfectly by the change. So, with the formalities out of the way (and yes, if you feel that I'm off the point, I would love to engage you on the finer points of debating, having been a major participant in it), on with the show.

Due to most of these points having already been said, I shall not be going in-depth. If you wish to argue the point, please, find where it has been mentioned already, so there is some content to rebutt. If you rebutt the general, then you're simply encouraging a circular debate, which goes nowhere.

Why the changes are not beneficial
*The aforementioned, risks of the reaction to a change
- Having to get used to
- People not understanding
- Change of rules, possible change of expectation

*Increased number of spam threads
- Knocks down other threads
- Creates confusion
- Reduces the effectiveness of the GB 'top ten threads'

*The moderating benefits are largely a fallacy
- Number of posts to read are still the same
- Thread switching is required, more work there
- Cross-referrencing means it takes longer to determine context, more time used
- More threads -> more to remember when determining what you last read

*The effect on new members
- Locked threads are threatening (a lock is a lock and that's a lock)
- Stricter rules make a person wary of mod wrath
- Old references about where to spam are out of date, less likely to then say hi

*Cliques (the buzzword)
- You haven't ever posted in the thread, so you don't know how we react, which is favourably
- The new members (DR, Gog etc.) have embraced spamming, and we have treated them equally
- You've seen the referrences to 'Dark Flames', well now we'll be doing references to the SS/Succeeder Stronghold
- A clique can't exist (unless you consider anyone who spams as a part of one) if there is only one option for spam, now it can exist
- A large focus of spam threads is 'talk about anything, do anything', now, a clique would stop this behaviour

*Effect on the SYMians
- People having their conversation potentially cut in two if they reach 1500
- It seems we were punished... what did we do wrong (a lock is a punishment)
- Discontent at having this imposed, we can't control how people feel, whether feelings are justified or not
- While not listed as a spam deterrent, it is targeted at (since the spam threads are the ones that breach) the threads, so it's no wonder it is taken as that

---

Yes Aegis, it is not a democracy, Buck can do whatever he chooses. However, as you and I both realise, a forum is no good if there are no members. Yes, I know that SYM is a small part, and that it is a game forum. But many posters here post a lot in the other forums and help, less help, less success. Less success, less visitors. Less visitors, less money.

And you say excessive is known. However, a major problem with studying ancient cultures is that having oral traditions, they change overtime. This is the same as a rule, as excessive can vary greatly. You say it's decided, you point out where in an obvious and easily accessible place, so people know.

---

There are more arguments that exist, and more that have been raised, however I'm just posting these to demonstrate arguments have been stated, so don't simply dismiss us as emotional.

[Luis Antonio]

There are more arguments that exist, and more that have been raised, however I'm just posting these to demonstrate arguments have been stated, so don't simply dismiss us as emotional.

I'm still waiting for replies, because all I've told here and you-know-where or the-place-we-cant-mention werent replied. The best thing I have so far is Buck's stickie in the top of the forum, yet I had seen NO arguments like that in the mod forums except for my ex-fellow mods opinions. But mine were dismissed.

[Aegis]

@DJ_Vemon: Until, I have attempt to not respond directly to any one person, in hopes of maintaining some generalizations (and avoid potential he said/she said sort of arguments), but after reading your last post reagrding the 'reasons' against the policy, and I can only shake my head.

*The aforementioned, risks of the reaction to a change
- Having to get used to
- People not understanding
- Change of rules, possible change of expectation

This, being your first mention, will be the first I comment on. To begin, having to get used to it can hardly be considered a viable argument against. I am sorry to say this, but things do not always work in your favour, and everyone has to 'get used to' something, sometime or another. This is a personal argument, one which holds no merit in the techinical or practical implementation of these forums. As for people not understanding, I fail to see how a statement as simple as 'threads will now be closed at 1500 posts' is hard to understand. I tend to give the average poster here more credit than that. And the change of expectations, I do not even know where that one came from, because no change in the rules occured. You were not told to stop doing anything, you merely told that at a point, you would simply have to shift to a new thread.

*Increased number of spam threads
- Knocks down other threads
- Creates confusion
- Reduces the effectiveness of the GB 'top ten threads'

This issue you raise is directly correlating to you, and the others who participate actively in the threads most affected. There will be no large influx of spam threads, as long as some coordination occurs, and everyone does not jump the second a thread is closed. It is a simple matter, one which has been handled effectively in the past, and should be no different now. Confusion? Well, if you and the others spend so much time talking and socializing together, there should be no confusion. And effectiveness, well that hardly is an issue, especially considering I am unfamilar with were this 'top ten' list is. I see the list of most recent posts, and usually that is already dominated by SYM threads, so how will it change?

*The moderating benefits are largely a fallacy
- Number of posts to read are still the same
- Thread switching is required, more work there
- Cross-referrencing means it takes longer to determine context, more time used
- More threads -> more to remember when determining what you last read

Here is a fun one, considering you have simply fabricated seperate issues where they should not be. Cross-referencing and thread switiching a moot point, considering a flame is a flame is a flame, no matter the context. And considering the fact that often quotes can be quickly linked back to the originating thread, that lessens the issue. The only real viable comment here is the fact the number of posts does not change. What does change, however, is that it is easier to navigate, and locate specific posts in smaller threads than it is in larger ones. That is simply something learned through the act of moderating web forums. And as for more threads meaning more to remember, do not even try to feed me that one, as you contradict yourself. More threads does not mean more to remember, especially, as you state, the number of posts remain the same.

*Cliques (the buzzword)
- You haven't ever posted in the thread, so you don't know how we react, which is favourably
- The new members (DR, Gog etc.) have embraced spamming, and we have treated them equally
- You've seen the referrences to 'Dark Flames', well now we'll be doing references to the SS/Succeeder Stronghold
- A clique can't exist (unless you consider anyone who spams as a part of one) if there is only one option for spam, now it can exist
- A large focus of spam threads is 'talk about anything, do anything', now, a clique would stop this behaviour

This was not even brought up until one of the anti-policists brought it up. Nor has these 'cliques' even remotely influenced the decision, as 1500+ post threads existed long before the first SYMian clique did. Frankly, this has no place in the issue at hand, and should not even have been raised in the first place. The only reason my initial comments are there on it were because of other members mentioning of it. Clarification of certain things was required, and duely ignored.

*Effect on the SYMians
- People having their conversation potentially cut in two if they reach 1500
- It seems we were punished... what did we do wrong (a lock is a punishment)
- Discontent at having this imposed, we can't control how people feel, whether feelings are justified or not
- While not listed as a spam deterrent, it is targeted at (since the spam threads are the ones that breach) the threads, so it's no wonder it is taken as that

Before you even begin to argue this one, SYM was, at one time, under a 1000 post limit to threads. It survived then, and it will survive now. The reason it appears the spam threads are, as you put it, 'targetted' is because none of the other members are complaining about their threads. I have seen many of DW's or other members pub threads breach 1500, and yet their pubilc indignation appears to be non-existant. Why is it that you and the others that participate within the epicentre's of spam are taking so much offence to this otherwise innocent and simple policy?

The majority of your arguments appear to be personal, as opposed to ones based on techincal and practical reasons. Not only that, but many of them appear to simply be the same issue, though reworded to appear to be something different. IF you wish to actually debate this, perhaps you need to take your own advice and offer up some feasbile defence of why the policy should not be in place, instead of offering emotional and reactionary arguments.

Lastly, until this post, I had no thoughts of emotional arguments, nor had I dismissed anyone as such. So, before you go accusing me of having done so, sit down and read my posts through again. After this last post, however, that stance has changed, and I will no longer be allowing the benefit of the doubt until some substantial, practical points are made.

I have taken the time to read, and comprehend the arguments made for, and against. Perhaps it is time the same curtosy is bestowed to the administrative staff here.

[ch85us2001]

First off, 'excessive' spam is not undefined, as some of you seem to think. In fact, excessive spam was one of the first things to be defined upon the creation of SYM, and the seperation of SYM from the rest of the forums. It has always been seen, and moderated, as being short, non-descript posts which add little, or nothing, to the overall quality or content of the thread. Essentially, much of what makes up a casual social conversation. Now, before citing the instances of pub threads, let me remind you that much of the pub thread holds more than one-liners, and one word replies. Much of it contains bits of thought out humour, descriptors creating an almost story like feel, and a general feeling of pub atmosphere, hence their reason for exisiting. Compare the average 100 post pub thread to the average thread that breaches 1000 posts, and you can see a vast difference in quality of content.

Actually, your dead wrong.

2) Keep the spam relevant. By this we mean make it entertaining or at least sociable. Not just nonsense such as "Spam is good" or counting down to landmark posts. These sorts of posts will be deleted. Also please don’t spam topics in which the poster has requested no spam.

Fun, That.

requires much more reading back in order to consider the context of a post[/b].

Fun, That.

[dj_venom]

This, being your first mention, will be the first I comment on. To begin, having to get used to it can hardly be considered a viable argument against. I am sorry to say this, but things do not always work in your favour, and everyone has to 'get used to' something, sometime or another. This is a personal argument, one which holds no merit in the techinical or practical implementation of these forums. As for people not understanding, I fail to see how a statement as simple as 'threads will now be closed at 1500 posts' is hard to understand. I tend to give the average poster here more credit than that. And the change of expectations, I do not even know where that one came from, because no change in the rules occured. You were not told to stop doing anything, you merely told that at a point, you would simply have to shift to a new thread.

I am merely reusing an argument for the other side mentioned it earlier. It was, that people will get used to it, and life goes on. However, as shown, there is conflict, because SYM is an ants nest. We each have our little place, and go about our business. But change it around, and we'll swarm. This is not a personal argument, it is just a realisation, that change causes confusion, confusion causes havoc, havoc can ruin things. The not understanding was referring to the lack of information supplied with the new policy. It was the basis for starting this thread (or at least, one of), as before it was extremely lacking, and as humans, we have curiosity. I am just commenting on social standards, that if you implement change, people want reasons. Whether or not they need them is another matter, but that is not the point. As mentioned, there was information lacking. We the members don't know if the expectation has changed, it's more gray matter in the rules, gray matter that is confusing most of us. If there had been a lengthy post with the arguments debated in the mod forum, showing the final reasons why, then I would have probably been content. However, now I'm not sure if there are other unspoken things occuring (especially if decided in the secret forum).

This issue you raise is directly correlating to you, and the others who participate actively in the threads most affected. There will be no large influx of spam threads, as long as some coordination occurs, and everyone does not jump the second a thread is closed. It is a simple matter, one which has been handled effectively in the past, and should be no different now. Confusion? Well, if you and the others spend so much time talking and socializing together, there should be no confusion. And effectiveness, well that hardly is an issue, especially considering I am unfamilar with were this 'top ten' list is. I see the list of most recent posts, and usually that is already dominated by SYM threads, so how will it change?

Of course it relates to me, otherwise I wouldn't have any knowledge on the matter. Unlike how some others may have chosen to argue, I refuse to assume knowledge, instead, I will only say something if I have grounds to back it up. But Aegis, how could coordination occur? We had approximately 5 hours from when the policy was announced until the locking occured. It's very difficult to coordinate, perhaps if we had some more time, possibly. Once it happened, people wanted to spam, they made a thread for it. Okay, it was the most recent posts, and it's 8, I didn't get around to checking. Yes, it may be dominated by SYM threads, but it does change, because now they are all spam, whereas previously there would be discussion. In my personal experience, I have a way of posting worked out in SYM. I post in the serious threads, then the joke threads, then spam. Now, on dialup, I would access the serious threads off that list, then once they had loaded, I could start loading the main SYM page, and flip between to prepare it all for me. I realise this is a personal example, but it is quite difficult to find a survey on the internet dealing with this kind of thing.

Here is a fun one, considering you have simply fabricated seperate issues where they should not be. Cross-referencing and thread switiching a moot point, considering a flame is a flame is a flame, no matter the context. And considering the fact that often quotes can be quickly linked back to the originating thread, that lessens the issue. The only real viable comment here is the fact the number of posts does not change. What does change, however, is that it is easier to navigate, and locate specific posts in smaller threads than it is in larger ones. That is simply something learned through the act of moderating web forums. And as for more threads meaning more to remember, do not even try to feed me that one, as you contradict yourself. More threads does not mean more to remember, especially, as you state, the number of posts remain the same.

When someone mentions a previous post, they will not say the thread. You could do a search of the main thread, and in 99% of cases, find it. Now, you have to go through all the threads looking, in my opinion, the more searches you carry out, the longer it takes. Also, if we want to get technical, as Buck has said before, searches drain the resources, so it benefits GB to have to conduct only one search. You have to remain three page numbers, rather than just one. It was a light point, I admit, but I simply added it because it has been mentioned (and I tried to bring in all that was said), but also because some of the pro-mod points are light, yet they get through because they 'have experience'. I have experience in remembering (or not remembering, for that matter), so it qualifies it.

This was not even brought up until one of the anti-policists brought it up. Nor has these 'cliques' even remotely influenced the decision, as 1500+ post threads existed long before the first SYMian clique did. Frankly, this has no place in the issue at hand, and should not even have been raised in the first place. The only reason my initial comments are there on it were because of other members mentioning of it. Clarification of certain things was required, and duely ignored.

I agree with you here, but the word use was becoming more frequent, so I had to address it.

Before you even begin to argue this one, SYM was, at one time, under a 1000 post limit to threads. It survived then, and it will survive now. The reason it appears the spam threads are, as you put it, 'targetted' is because none of the other members are complaining about their threads. I have seen many of DW's or other members pub threads breach 1500, and yet their pubilc indignation appears to be non-existant. Why is it that you and the others that participate within the epicentre's of spam are taking so much offence to this otherwise innocent and simple policy?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I had no idea about past rules brought in, which is why I asked for clarification on that matter. Of course it survives, but it changes, people get fed up and leave, and similar things. The policy wasn't aimed to do that, and I don't want it to do that, which is why I want to sort it out before half the group walk out in disgust. The two threads that were mentioned were the HC and the SS. Now, these were 2/3 of the most recent, popular, spam threads, the other being the already closed, SF. And they aren't complaining about other threads, because they didn't get locked. I'm not standing up for the SS, I couldn't give two hoots who made it, what it was called, and what's been written in it. It's what it represents, and it's what I've enjoyed, and it's what I believe is worth fighting for. I am taking offence, because it is hardly an innocent policy. Afterall, the topic was brought up in SYM recently (for me, awhile ago, older people, recently). It was shown that there was disagreement for, and that people were quite outspoken against it. I realise it's simple, but as I've said, the explanation was too simple too.

The majority of your arguments appear to be personal, as opposed to ones based on techincal and practical reasons. Not only that, but many of them appear to simply be the same issue, though reworded to appear to be something different. IF you wish to actually debate this, perhaps you need to take your own advice and offer up some feasbile defence of why the policy should not be in place, instead of offering emotional and reactionary arguments.

I admit that some of them are personal, but in my defence, it's hard to argue technical when you're not a mod/admin. I have no access to stats relating to the running of this site, so I can't argue that. As for practical, some of them are. But they are personal, as the forum is about people, and people keep this site running. The mods may view the public as little sheep to be herded, but being down on the ground, I argue with my personal opinions. Why? Because I believe each person is entitled to their opinion, and I thought members were valued. And if I don't have major statistics accompanying, why is that relevant now? Afterall, the majority of points posted for and against had no stats, so we'd better go back through it all. As mentioned earlier, I am resaying a lot of arguments, so people had their own take, and as such, it may sound similar. And Aegis, since you are one of the few people to be taking the care to reply sufficiently to my posts, perhaps you could do a recap on why it should be in place? And lastly, as I have said several times, the forum is about the people. If you treat us like doormats, then people will leave. You may call it reactionary, you may call it emotional, but it's a member having his say. If you can't respect that, then it's truly not fair.

[dj_venom]

Lastly, until this post, I had no thoughts of emotional arguments, nor had I dismissed anyone as such. So, before you go accusing me of having done so, sit down and read my posts through again. After this last post, however, that stance has changed, and I will no longer be allowing the benefit of the doubt until some substantial, practical points are made.

I'm not accusing you, the point of the '---' was to show that I was no longer referring directly to you. I am sorry you took it this way, but I was rushed for time, as I needed to get it finished before my show started (I made it, the start was playing when I turned it on). Sorry about that.

I have taken the time to read, and comprehend the arguments made for, and against. Pehaps it is time the same curtosy is bestowed to the administrative staff here.

And I thank you for that. Really, I am glad someone is taking the time (even if you aren't a mod, you are a past mod), since it's giving me more knowledge of what may have taken place, as I have absolutely no idea. I have bestowed the same courtesy to the staff, as I read Mah's post throughourly, however I haven't had the chance to extend that further.

--

Uhh, Chu, I think you misread Aegis's post (or I did).

And we have to keep in mind, Aegis isn't a mod, so things have probably changed.

[TonyMontana1638]

My one big question still hasn't been answered, the question that truly will determine whether or not this was strictly a decision for managerial purposes (to help the mods and the board performance) or whether underlying feelings and motives expressed a while back by certain members prompted, or at least helped carry through, the decision: was this change first brought up by an SYM mod/Buck or somebody else? Nobody here is obligated to answer me, but I would sincerely appreciate it.

Basically speaking, come out of your hole, open eyes, and see what the rest of this online community is doing, instead of using this location an out-of-date instant messaging service. That is not what it is, it is a forum. If you want mindless, or meaningless, social conversation, take it to MSN. If you want discussions, bring it here, and leave it in a place where more than a fraction of the gamebanshee community will ever see it. BEcause, if you do not, then it is not really posted with the intention being seen by all, but rather by a demographic that is like minded.

It saddens me to see that nothing much has otherwise changed and that people who prefer centralized spam are still considered by some as hermits who never leave the safety of their castle and contribute nothing to the forum as a whole.

[Aegis]

It saddens me to see that nothing much has otherwise changed and that people who prefer centralized spam are still considered by some as hermits who never leave the safety of their castle and contribute nothing to the forum as a whole.

The proof is in the posts. When you look at the ratio of posting and their locations, for the most part, spammers do reside in primarily a couple key threads.

[TonyMontana1638]

The proof is in the posts. When you look at the ratio of posting and their locations, for the most part, spammers do reside in primarily a couple key threads.

I'm not going to argue this with you Aeg because it never gets anywhere, but those same spammers do post elsewhere and do make other threads and even the ones that truly confine themselves to one place are still contributing to this forum, just in ways that yourself and others don't agree with. If people can't see this then I can do nothing for them. The crossroads of this argument has been reached.

[Aegis]

I'm not going to argue this with you Aeg because it never gets anywhere, but those same spammers do post elsewhere and do make other threads and even the ones that truly confine themselves to one place are still contributing to this forum, just in ways that yourself and others don't agree with. If people can't see this through their arrogance then I'd reccommend they pay better attention. The crossroads of this argument has been reached.

Tony, read the post. I said look at the ratio of where those posts are going. I have not once said that they post only in spam threads, simply that in the great scheme of posting, that is where a large percentage is being posted. I also never said that they are not contributed.

If you wish to participate in this thread, cease accuring me of making statements and claims which I have not, and actually read the posts I put up, because I am trying to help you guys understand the new policy, not force it down your throats.

Anyway, I am feeling a bit ire begin to rise. I am taking off for now. Probably will not be back until tomorrow evening, or Sunday. Depends. No bloodshed while I am gone. I hate cleaning up messes.

[Kipi]

Okay, here is my point of view on this topic:

I'm neither for nor against this new policy yet, since it's too new. Most of the side effects, if there even will be any, haven't came out yet, and there may be some time before that happens.
-----
About spamming:
I'm not going to argue what is "good or tolerated ammount of spamming", since as most of you know, I can be counted as a spammer too. I have been posting in SF, SS, and now few posts in new threads. BUT, it should be also remembered that I do post elsewhere, and very actively lurk in different forums. Fallout -forums are quite good examples of this (as Xandax, for example, can agree ).

Will this new policy reduce spamming? Hardly. I would say that if the spamming is going to change, it will only increase. Why? Because when we had only 2 or 3 different spamming threads, There were limits of how much I was able to post in these forums in total, based on the maximum speed of discussion on those threads. Now when we have more spamming threads, this total sum can and will be increased in case of some members, because they have more threads to post in.

I know this policy hasn't made for reducing spam, but still I do not wonder that some maya take it as such, especially when they have read this thread and especially the part of discussion considering spamming. There has been some quite strong arguments which, even though the posters claim that the policy doesn't have anything to do with ammount of spam, may give others such image. And because this comment is not meant to offend anyone, I'm not giving any examples or names here.
-------

Will this new policy make moderating easier?
Well, I'm not moderator, but I'll still but here what I think.

First of all, the numbers of post won't reduce. In fact, it quite surely will rise, as stated here already by others, new members will join conversations more easily when there are several shorter threads.

Secondly, surely the chore of finding out where the moderator left when last time reading the thread will be much smaller, since there ain't so many pages to scroll down. Also, quite much linked on this, the fact that there are hundreds of new post in a single thread waiting for reading may be too much for moderators. Less posts per threads and more threads is much better for the sanity of moderators, since the job doesn't seem so bad that way.

------

About closing threads without warning:
Yes, I was too kinda shocked when I found out SS closed. At that time, when nobody wasn't able to imagine this to happen and suddenly the thread is closed, it sure could have bit too harsh way. IMO they should have been given at least a bit time to get used to the policy and the fact that they have to make a new thread. If this had been the case, I'm sure there wouldn't have so many new spam threads made by ex-members of SS.

Now, when everybody (should) have been got used to this, I see no problems on closing threads when the limit has been reached. In my opinion the appearing of this policy should have been a bit softer to the members.

------

Finally, I have one question regarding sticky-threads:
If a thread which has been made sticky reaches the limit, what shall be done to it? Shall it stay sticky or not?

[Xandax]

<snip>
Finally, I have one question regarding sticky-threads:
If a thread which has been made sticky reaches the limit, what shall be done to it? Shall it stay sticky or not?

The thread will be closed, unsticked and if the need for the sticked thread still exists, a new will be created with a link to the old one.

[Kipi]

The thread will be closed, unsticked and if the need for the sticked thread still exists, a new will be created with a link to the old one.

Thanx.

That clarified the last thing I have been wondering of this topic

[Fiberfar]

I don't like the new policy.

Why?
Because it's a change, and as far as I am concerned not for the better. But my vote or opinion don't count.

[mr_sir]

I don't like the new policy.

Why?
Because it's a change, and as far as I am concerned not for the better. But my vote or opinion don't count.

If it does cause more problems than it solves then I'm sure Buck will take this into consideration. Its too early to really say what the actual outcome will be until it has had time to settle in. Personally I think that once everyone gets used to it then nobody will really notice it and I don't honestly see it causing any problems in the long run.

[Fiberfar]

If it does cause more problems than it solves then I'm sure Buck will take this into consideration. Its too early to really say what the actual outcome will be until it has had time to settle in. Personally I think that once everyone gets used to it then nobody will really notice it and I don't honestly see it causing any problems in the long run.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not positive to changes without the members being able to take a part in the decision. I would maybe be more positive if Buck allowed both Mods and members to say what they thought.