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

[Darzog]

According to who?

There was a very lengthy discussion about this. Ik started the thread in late 2005 and DW revived it in mid 2006.
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... 69318.html

Personally I don't really care one way or another about the change. The profusion of spam threads right now is just due to the abrupt closure of the SS. Give it a week and it will settle on one or two major spam threads and a couple tagging along with minimal bumps, just like it always has been. The amount of spam the last day or two is just because people are trying to keep all of the new threads going... people will get sick of it and only one or two will still be going heavy in a week is my bet. And the number of threads isn't a consequence of the new policy, it is because the SS closed so quickly that no one formed a new place for everyone to get into right away so several popped up. *shrug*

I don't think this changes the mentality of the forum in any way, it doesn't change the presence or absence of cliques in the spam threads, it doesn't change the acceptance of spamming in general. All it means is we'll have to change to a new thread every few weeks. And we'll probably have 2-3 threads pop up each time something gets closed but it'll work itself out.

Okama game sphere.

[Dowaco]

I am not a fan of spam anyway. My feeling is if you want a real-time conversation, use a chat room, instant messaging, the telephone or go out and talk to people in person.

Computer resources, while seemingly infinite, do have limits and filling storage with hundreds of pages of senseless drivel is wasteful.

There are good technical and economic reasons for this policy that should be evident even if you are a spamaholic.

[Luis Antonio]

I am not a fan of spam anyway. My feeling is if you want a real-time conversation, use a chat room, instant messaging, the telephone or go out and talk to people in person.

Computer resources, while seemingly infinite, do have limits and filling storage with hundreds of pages of senseless drivel is wasteful.

There are good technical and economic reasons for this policy that should be evident even if you are a spamaholic.

The number of posts will be the same, Dowaco, theorethically speaking, and it was not something done to stop spam or make it smaller.

And if that kind of socializing does not suit you, fine. But it aint senseless drivel (to use your words) to those who appreciate it.

[Aegis]

The new policy raises a couple factors which could go either way, or at least it does as I see it.

It is a possibility that it will increase the amount of spam threads (not necessarily spam), which would in turn bump the more serious topics from the front page. This is something that had been discussed even when I was still a Moderator. Additionally, the whole 'clique' argument was one that has come up mutliple times (And, will you people stop being so offended by it. Everyone in SYM is part of some clique or another, much like in real life), and often in conjunction with the notorious spam threads. This in turn lended itself to the argument that it would be intimidating or difficult for a new poster to enter the mix on account of the conversation having attained a personal feel, or a flow that appeared fragile enough to be broken upon a new voice entering. Essentially, easily disruptable.

The largest issue I see with the policy (and it really is not much of an issue) would be the creation of replacement spam threads. Unless the resident conversationalists organize, every time one thread closes, three will take its place. This leads the thrwad bumping (as mentioned above) as well as what appears as dead threads, which to a new member, can give the appearance of a dead forum. LAstly, it will create a sort of roller coaster effect for mods, where once every couple weeks, they will have to look out for a couple of extra spam threads to moderate, before everyone congregates to one central thread.

All in all, it is not a bad policy. In fact, I was an ardent supporter of this policy when I was a mod. I just recall everyone scoffing at me, and making certain assumptions I shall not name here. I think this is the best way it could have implemented, so, like I said, I am all for it.

[Vicsun]

Okay, is there anyone who thinks the policy was a bad idea? So far the replies are evenly divided between "I'll have to wait and see" and "this sounds like a pretty good plan".
Word on the street is some people are feeling very bitter about the change, but until they stop being passive-aggressive and post a rational argument as to why they think closing threads at 1500 posts detracts from the forums, I'm declaring their opinions null and void

[Dowaco]

And if that kind of socializing does not suit you, fine. But it aint senseless drivel (to use your words) to those who appreciate it.

Senseless drivel was a euphemism. True spam is annoying unwanted advertising and not allowed on many forums. The emoticon only responce to a one word post that is being called spam for the purpose of this discussion can, I suppose, be called socialization. True, it does not suit me, but "appreciate" as a verb applied to "spam" seems a contradiction. Afterall, spam is gelled processed meat-like product in a can. It is not meant to be appreciated, just to be not rancid. Why suffer spam when you can have steak?

[dj_venom]

@Dowaco:

So, spam is tolerated here, and as a result, most cases of spam in this forum relate to people not making world-shattering posts. Just people having fun, and as said, socialising.

Okay, is there anyone who thinks the policy was a bad idea? So far the replies are evenly divided between "I'll have to wait and see" and "this sounds like a pretty good plan".
Word on the street is some people are feeling very bitter about the change, but until they stop being passive-aggressive and post a rational argument as to why they think closing threads at 1500 posts detracts from the forums, I'm declaring their opinions null and void

I was against the policy when it was brought it. But then, I had some of my queries answered, so my opinion kinda shifted, but I'll raise a few points here...

1) Similar to what Aegis said, it could appear unfriendly. The comparision I made was walking down a street with shops on it at night time. If you see a bunch of roller doors pulled down covering them, you think it's a rough neighbourhood. If you're a respectable sort, the place doesn't appear like the place you'd like, so you leave. If you're the reverse, a trouble maker, well, it looks like heaven, so we might get either more juvenile members, or simply people trying to cause havoc, spamming (incorrectly), trolling etc.

2) As also mentioned, more threads relating to spam crop up, heaps of cross quoting and the like make it havoc for the mods.

3) It comes off as me as though it's punishing us (though I know it really isn't), for doing something wrong. No matter how hard you try, a thread being locked isn't a good thing.

4) Inconvience, if your conversation with someone is split halfway, or you want to continue something that has been going before you got there but it's locked, well, that gets annoying.

- I've only just woken up, so I don't have more at the moment.

[ch85us2001]

Okay, is there anyone who thinks the policy was a bad idea?

Yes, I do.

For one, you'll see alot of Spam Threads popping up. All willy-nilly like. Without organization, this forum will run rampant. You can see it already.

Numero Dos. It's really just quite unwelcoming. Good times are had in a thread, then it gets closed right underneath ya? Not cool.

THREE!!!! A spam thread can easily cover 200 posts on a good day. Sometimes more. That leaves us at what . . . 2 weeks per thread? That's just settling in time.

4, I find it plain annoying.



@ Dowaco: While I respect your opinion, I must respectfully disagree. If the site owner wishes mee to stop, I will cease and desist immediately. I would understand completely. However, think of how many hits Spammers generate each day!!! I've had a few hundred per day before!! It generates Revenue. It's really up to Buck. It's not like he doesnt know its happening.

[Chimaera182]

Before this thread's reply-rate skyrockets, I'd like to hear what you people think the consequences (negative or positive) of the policy will be, since I can't honestly envision that many.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see any long-lasting consequences either way. Yes, it was a bit of a shock to wake up and suddenly find the Stronghold closed, but life goes on. It might've been nice to have gotten some kind of warning--maybe we did, I don't read anywhere but SYM anymore--to lessen the shock value. But I think I'm with Darzog on the situation:

Personally I don't really care one way or another about the change. The profusion of spam threads right now is just due to the abrupt closure of the SS. Give it a week and it will settle on one or two major spam threads and a couple tagging along with minimal bumps, just like it always has been.

The popping up of the several spam threads has been a bit irksome, though, and I mentioned that in some post somewhere on Monday. I've completely missed going through a couple of the new threads, others I've tried to read through and kind of caught up partially. One of them I know i'm pretty up to date on (or was before yesterday, since I spent so much time offline I wound up missing several pages of action which I'm not likely to scroll back for).

Besides, with a new spam thread gaining momentum and popularity, wouldn't you like to be able to say, "I remember when I posted on the first page of that thread" and claim to be there at its birth?

[C Elegans]

Yeah, Sib, I'm not saying any particular mod is responsible. I don't know who was for or against, I just heard that SYM was in support, and that overall there was a majority.

Where did you hear that?

[Xandax]

<snip>
However, think of how many hits Spammers generate each day!!! I've had a few hundred per day before!! It generates Revenue. It's really up to Buck. It's not like he doesnt know its happening.

Not even by a long shot. Advertisment at the very least counts unique visits per day. That you and a handfull of other people "hits" 200 times a day still counts as a handfull.
Then comes the things which counts - advertisments - it is extreemy rare that advertisment pays per view (and if they do it is a low low price per view). At the very least it is per click, and again - it needs to be unique click, and it needs to be "real click". The clicking on an advertisment simply to idle on the next page or imideately closeing the other page counts nothing.

[penguin_king]

let's say, for example, somebody wanted to quote from a popular thread. in the old days the could open the thread and find the post... now they'll have to find wich volume of said thread they want then find the post

[Minerva]

To be honest, I don't understand why people even want to discuss about the new policy.

We, dare I say the old timers, used to have "1000 post per thread limit", and there's no problem. If the discussion continues after that limit, we simply made the same thread with no. 2 or 3 or no.329 part 43 or something, and continue the talks. That shouldn't be a problem. And, only thread I can think will hit 1500 posts limit is pub type threads anyway.

[dj_venom]

Where did you hear that?

You're the second to ask that question, I'll forward you the pm I sent to Xan.

To be honest, I don't understand why people even want to discuss about the new policy.

Morbid curiosity, that, and it was inevitable, so rather than jumping on the bandwagon, I'm the driver . But no, I was just curious, and I felt that while it was partially discussed before (perhaps several times prior to my joining), they always escalated into the law breaking, regret making threads.

[Ashen]

Well in my experience, and I've been a mod on a popular forum, this is actually a good thing, this splitting of threads. There are still a lot of people on dial up, it easies it immensely for them, heck even my old adsl had issues sometimes. Then the newbies tend to jump in more often, they do see less posts and feel less intimidated. The old hands just open a new thread and that's it.

We've had this very issue/talk among members when we introduced this policy and our experience was that it was a good thing, people adapted easily, and it was good for new members, so in that way I think it's more than fine.

[Denethorn]

My thoughts,

The new policy didn't strike me as being negative or positive either way when I read about it. I've never frequented spam threads all to often, so it doesn't greatly affect me.

I do wonder about the reasoning behind the move: how at all the policy improves moderating efficiency? Furthermore, claims of reducing the load on the board system are somewhat contradictory to the unwritten laws that you should try to stick to one spam thread, as opposed to many - as many threads slow the board.

On the other hand I can see the policy helping newcomers to get stuck in. I forsee it being alot easier for someone to start posting in a brand new thread, rather than having to start posting in a thread over 2000 pages long, with its own dialects/sociolects and in-jokes (I still have no idea what is going on with "bunny-ays", never managed to retrieve an answer ). SYM is rather cliquey for a webforum, and very rigid in certain social aspects; maybe this policy will combat this somewhat.

[Vicsun]

To be honest, I don't understand why people even want to discuss about the new policy.

People get wound up over the strangest things.

[TonyMontana1638]

I was annoyed at first with the change, but I've decided to give it some time... It's not like we can do anything about it anyways.

I do have some questions about the changes, as I'm confused on a few of the issues:

1. I'm not sure I understand what makes moderating the larger threads a problem. It seems to me that simply going to the very end of the thread and working your way back every day or every other day and would be pretty effective, same as in any other thread: hell, it would even keep so many random spam posts together in one place so that yeah, you may spend quite some time in there but at least you don't have to skip your way through 37 differet threads like now. I'm not a mod, however, so I suppose a simple 'you're wrong' from XTM would effectively dispel this confusion, but that's just how I saw it.

2. If there was noticeable slowdown in the big threads that could contribute to board issues, why weren't they closed before? Obviously Buck's job is to prevent such things from happening, a job which he is super-amazing at and doesn't get enough credit for , so why weren't the big threads discontinued a while back? Instead the Citadel, the SF and the SS have all flourished for many months and just now they've been locked down. That also doesn't make much sense to me.

3. If I may ask, how was this issue raised amongst the mods? I don't know how you guys operate with each other (I'm assuming pms), but was this a debate or did Buck just up and say "here's a change I want to make but want some input?" Was it Buck that brought it up or was it a mod, whom Buck just ended up agreeing with? Better yet, was it an SYM mod?

[Hill-Shatar]

People get wound up over the strangest things.

Funny, I apologize, but I don't see any "wounding up", Viscun. Perhaps I'm just being ignorant to anything but the point of the posts again to pick up tones. I seem to have a problem with that.

@ Tony:

1. I would have thought you guys to get together and think about who makes the next thread and what it's on, anyways. However, in relation to moderation, I stopped reading through spam because it was too difficult. Finding the page things started on and catching up with each new page is a chore, that I just stopped doing.

In any case, the front page of SYM looks positively vibrant. That's why I generally agreed with DW in that thread linked back in 2005.

2. General board slowdowns might not have been detected immiedately since they take a while to build up. However, vB 2.0 can support threads with 125,000 posts and up easily.

3. Moderators have a super secret moderator forum. This is no secret, either, you can find references to it everywhere in the forum. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't know. Aside from that, Buck more than likely recieved somethng from moderators about closing longer threads, but, considering I'm not a moderator anymore, that's pretty much all I know.

[dj_venom]

1. I would have thought you guys to get together and think about who makes the next thread and what it's on, anyways.

We might have, however the SS was closed within hours of the announcement, so not much talking could be done.

Apart from either Vicsun, or the couple of mods who said they were not part of the discussion, are any mods going to come in and represent any views? (and apart from a clarification by Xan)