Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: YourMathTeacher on April 07, 2012, 11:57:19 PM
-
Why not delete the picture post and leave the discussion?
-
Yeah I did this in PMs. It's less rude that way.
-
I find it rude to move my thread to Quarantine when I didn't post a picture of a goat in it.
-
No response? Seriously?
So I can post a picture of a goat in any thread I don't like and it will get quarantined?
-
If it wasn't lumped in with the 8 or 9 other threads it wouldn't have been moved but right now there are just too many threads that are challenging the Prof to let anything go. If you want this to be exlusively between you and Prof U so that you can ensure it won't be "goat bombed" either use PMs or lock the thread and unlock it to respond to his unlock post lock.
-
I just responded to that PM before seeing this thread. But my basic idea to decide between post removal and thread removal is weighing the pros (in that case a thread that was already off-topic before the goat picture), and the cons (in that case a blatant testing of a stated limit by posting a goat picture). I felt like the original topic had been answered, and everyone knew where people stand, so the cons outweighed the pros in that case.
I agree with both YMT and lp, that there could be times where the pros could outweigh the cons, and in those cases, I'll just remove the goat picture, and leave the thread. But in the current forum environment of several people trying to push the limits, that equation is less likely to end up on the pro side. So I hope that everyone will stop posting these pictures and allow the forum to resume it's regular routines. It is now Easter, and I don't want to be spending it policing the forum.
-
If it wasn't lumped in with the 8 or 9 other threads it wouldn't have been moved but right now there are just too many threads that are challenging the Prof to let anything go. If you want this to be exlusively between you and Prof U so that you can ensure it won't be "goat bombed" either use PMs or lock the thread and unlock it to respond to his unlock post lock.
I had a serious post about the underlying issue. Instead of discussion, it is just gone. That's rude.
-
YMT, I know you are a Christian man, please do NOT act like this. I am obviously a bit busy trying to keep up with all the stuff going on right now, and just because I don't respond to your thread fast enough, you start posting pics everywhere. Please stop this.
-
YMT, I know you are a Christian man, please do NOT act like this. I am obviously a bit busy trying to keep up with all the stuff going on right now, and just because I don't respond to your thread fast enough, you start posting pics everywhere. Please stop this.
Choose your enforcement carefully. This was all explained in the thread you Quarantined.
-
I had a serious post about the underlying issue. Instead of discussion, it is just gone. That's rude.
Then send a PM to Pol asking him to stop posting pics of goats in your threads. I agree that it was rude of him to do that. And it has been noted. But your post was also worded in a way that I felt like again the pros did not outweigh the cons.
Choose your enforcement carefully. This was all explained in the thread you Quarantined.
Those are well-established threads that are not currently off-topic. Therefore the pros outweigh the cons (see above post). But please have some maturity here and stop trying to push the limits on things by purposefully trying to get threads locked that don't need to be.
-
Rude of me to give him fuel to burn? Idk about that :D
-
Then send a PM to Pol asking him to stop posting pics of goats in your threads.
That's the most ludicrous thing you have said so far. What other people post in my threads is not something I can control. My discussion should not end on someone else's decision to post a meaningless picture that hurts no one.
The underlying issue is still not resolved.
-
Seriously,
Behave. All of you.
-
Behave. All of you.
I admit that I have exceeded the threshold, but that was an intentional attempt to bring to light a serious problem with Moderator enforcement on this Message Board. You can call me childish and immature (both of which I am), but if the underlying issue is never addressed, then these boards are nothing more then a spewing ground for partisan political banter.
-
Rude of me to give him fuel to burn? Idk about that :D
Rude of you to rebel against the authority structure that is set up here. If you feel like my removal of goat pictures is an abuse of my authority as a global mod, then send a PM to Schaef about it. But unless he removes me from this position, then I have been put in a position of authority (on a small scale). And the Bible teaches that we are to submit to the authorities that have been placed over us (unless they contradict a higher authority, and the Bible doesn't say that you HAVE to post pictures of goats). So therefore you should respect my stated rule, and stop posting goat pictures.
It was also rude of you to post in that thread because you shut down a conversation that YMT really felt like he needed to have. This caused him to be incited to some other behavior that was also NOT in submission to authority. Therefore you caused your brother to stumble, which is also wrong.
So yeah, I think what you did was rude, and I'll add wrong to that. I really hope that you and YMT both know that I still love you guys totally as Christian brothers. And I'm really hoping that all this will be old news in a couple days. I am not even really angry about any of this. But I still stand by the policies that I've stated, and I ask you guys to respect that.
-
I really hope that you and YMT both know that I still love you guys totally as Christian brothers. And I'm really hoping that all this will be old news in a couple days.
Obviously it is nothing personal, and will be meaningless tomorrow. You know me. But you are right that I felt the issue needed to be discussed, which is why I started the other thread.
-
if the underlying issue is never addressed
I thought I had addressed the underlying issue of why I would quarantine threads sometimes and remove posts at other times. It is based on a subjective ratio of pros and cons. I might get it wrong sometimes, but I am trying my best to be objective and consider the overall forum situation (currently hyper-sensitive), the overall thread situation (sometimes established threads that are contributing to the overall forum, and sometimes threads that have just started and are testing limits, or pretty negative, and sometimes threads that have already been answered and have gone off-topic already), and the specific post situation (rebellious).
If that is not the "underlying issue" then I must have missed it and apologize for not dealing with it. Can you remind me what it is that I've missed?
-
If that is not the "underlying issue" then I must have missed it and apologize for not dealing with it. Can you remind me what it is that I've missed?
My thread was not about how to rebel, but how to prevent it. The rule you are enforcing is nonsensical. Why do you even have it?
Is it really sinful to just want to have fun and post about seemingly meaningless topics just for the enjoyment of its meaninglessness? Does every thread have to be about serious political and/or theological debates?
-
Words can't express how much I want to post a picture of a goat right now in this thread. That being said, I won't, because posting pictures of a goat is an art that has been disrespected often recently. CGD Forums behavior has been very disappointing.
-
Row row fight the powah
-
Words can't express how much I want to post a picture of a goat right now in this thread.
This thread is hereby "established," so your picture will be deleted.
At least I think so.....
..... which reinforces my point. There's no way for me to know if the picture will be deleted, or if the thread will be Quarantined...
-
I won't
I appreciate your self-control.
Row row fight the powah
This is NOT the right attitude to have on a Christian forum.
This thread is hereby "established," so your picture will be deleted.
Yep I would consider this thread established at this point. It also is still on topic. And I think it is contributing to the forum overall. Therefore goat pictures here would probably be better simply removed as specific posts, rather than locking the thread (unless people act immaturely and purposefully derail the discussion and use this freedom as an excuse to post a bunch of goat pics here, so please don't do that anyone).
My thread was not about how to rebel, but how to prevent it. The rule you are enforcing is nonsensical. Why do you even have it?
The first occurrence of goat pictures that I can remember here on the forum was a purposefully spammy thread that was created by a forum member who I think was actually even a double account (also against the rules). So goat pictures have ever since been viewed with the connotation of slight rebellion against the board policies. And since they don't serve a helpful purpose, I really don't think they need to be here. I can understand if you don't agree, and I can also even agree with you that it's really not a huge deal. But I do have some logic behind my thinking, so it's not "nonsensical".
-
Goats aside, then, what about other meaningless fun discussions? What about "No, you're thinking of..." types of discussions? This loose definition of "spam" has created an atmosphere of laughter oppression. There has to be more to come here for on a daily basis than one or two ruling questions sandwiched between hours of political rhetoric.
-
Row row fight the powah is about doing the impossible and seeing the invisible - not an act of rebellion.
-
I agree that simply posting pictures of goats is not offensive to anyone, and these forums aren't exactly brimming with activity on a normal basis.
I feel the control of spam really should be lessened. I don't think I have once seen the first page of Off Topic filled with spam. Besides, what other CRUCIAL topics would a thread about goats be taking the place of? What harm do threads about goats cause?
-
Goats aside, then, what about other meaningless fun discussions?
I'm actually fine with fun discussions most of the time. I have already stated that my personal things that I take action on are posts involving Goats, Buffaloes, Cheese, and people smelling like Tacos. All of these have connotations here on the board that don't need to be here. But I don't think the elimination of 4 topics stinks all the fun out of the boards.
What about "No, you're thinking of..." types of discussions?
The NYTO thread was actually started in the attempt to consolidate that type of post into one specific thread so that it wouldn't happen all over the forum and annoy people. However, that whole meme has seemed to have died at this point, and therefore that thread is no longer necessary (and unsurprisingly hasn't been posted on in a loooong time).
Row row fight the powah is about doing the impossible and seeing the invisible - not an act of rebellion.
In the current context, that is NOT the message that you are communicating. Please be more aware of your surroundings young grasshopper :)
What harm do threads about goats cause?
I also have one other reason why I am opposed to threads about goats (again due to connotations), but I am not willing to share that on the forum. Hopefully you guys know me well enough to trust me that it is a reason with some thought behind it, and show me some grace.
-
I also have one other reason why I am opposed to threads about goats (again due to connotations), but I am not willing to share that on the forum. Hopefully you guys know me well enough to trust me that it is a reason with some thought behind it, and show me some grace.
This is not something that we would know, though. Obviously if it was personally offensive to you, we would not have done it.
-
Liking Goats is so hipster.
Prof, if you have a very serious reason why you don't like goats beyond just this forum and it's actually well though out and legitimate, would you be willing to share that through a medium of your choice? Obviously, as one of the apparent tzars of the goat movement, if I would be convinced that your reason is legitimate, it'd probably go a long way to ending goats on this forum.
As a side note, I actually feel slightly bad that like 20 people post goats after I do. It's somewhat tacky to be honest. I think the goat tower is amazing. But since I know it will never be taken seriously here, I virtually have to present it in a facade trollish way to avoid simply being accused of putting it up there to troll. So, yes, I am saying I had to actually troll to avoid being accused of trolling and get my goat tower out there.
But seriously, it's a goat tower. I want to build one so bad!
-
I think what you have said begs the question, though: are you going extra hard on goat threads because you personally have a problem with goats? If so, what does that say about your qualifications to be the one removing them?
I have a personal problem with My Little Pony, I think it's rubbish and that 20-something people have an unhealthy obsession with the show for facetious reasons. However, I do not lock or quarantine Bronie threads on the entertainment board unless they violate some other rule. One could make the argument that goat threads are spam, but that points back to the whole bigger issue about what "spam" is. Nonetheless, if I locked Bronie threads and one of the reasons I gave is that I had a personal problem with MLP, I would be unfit to moderate Bronies.
*EDIT* Furthermore, Cheese was not spam in the first place. The deletion of the thread was an example of mismoderating that lead to MORE spam and "rebellion." Cheese may be "spam" now, but only because it's a symbol of when a legitimate thread was struck down just because someone without all the facts killed fun and discussion in a knee-jerk reaction. I can see smelling like tacos because that originated with something that was directed at a particular person who took great offense to it. Honestly I haven't heard of buffalo being a thing so I can't comment on that.
I am not meaning to say that Prof U is a bad moderator, and in fact, I generally approve of the job that the mods do on this forum. As a mod myself, I understand that there are sometimes things going on behind the scenes that can effect decisions in a way that doesn't make sense to non-mods. There are a few specific problems with the system, namely a too-broad definition of spam that is, in effect, fun-killing and too much leeway for mods and gmods to enforce rules subjectively and selectively. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that doesn't mean I am ok with the nuggets of poo floating around in it.
-
I think what you have said begs the question, though: are you going extra hard on goat threads because you personally have a problem with goats? If so, what does that say about your qualifications to be the one removing them?
I have a personal problem with My Little Pony, I think it's rubbish and that 20-something people have an unhealthy obsession with the show for facetious reasons. However, I do not lock or quarantine Bronie threads on the entertainment board unless they violate some other rule. One could make the argument that goat threads are spam, but that points back to the whole bigger issue about what "spam" is. Nonetheless, if I locked Bronie threads and one of the reasons I gave is that I had a personal problem with MLP, I would be unfit to moderate Bronies.
If it was you that changed the thread title, thank you.
-
I think what you have said begs the question, though: are you going extra hard on goat threads because you personally have a problem with goats? If so, what does that say about your qualifications to be the one removing them?
I have a personal problem with My Little Pony, I think it's rubbish and that 20-something people have an unhealthy obsession with the show for facetious reasons. However, I do not lock or quarantine Bronie threads on the entertainment board unless they violate some other rule. One could make the argument that goat threads are spam, but that points back to the whole bigger issue about what "spam" is. Nonetheless, if I locked Bronie threads and one of the reasons I gave is that I had a personal problem with MLP, I would be unfit to moderate Bronies.
If it was you that changed the thread title, thank you.
YMT edited the original post title.
-
Then thank you YMT
-
Then thank you YMT
;)
-
I think what you have said begs the question, though: are you going extra hard on goat threads because you personally have a problem with goats? If so, what does that say about your qualifications to be the one removing them?
Oddly enough I don't actually have a problem with real goats. In fact, I was recently talking to my wife about the possibilities of getting one. As for deleting their pictures here on the forum, I think my reasons that I have already stated are sufficient for removing the pictures despite any other reasons I have.
I agree with you that MLP is a lame show, and I'm shocked that teenage guys are such fanboys of it. However, I haven't cracked down on them. Many years ago, it seemed like half the posts in a day were about SSBM, which I was also rather annoyed with personally (since I don't play), but I never cracked down on that either. I think my record speaks for itself that I don't let my personal feelings dictate my decisions as a mod here on the forum.
Of course I am open to criticism (thus allowing this very thread), and glad to try to explain my thinking on things as long as it is done in an appropriate context.
-
Oddly enough I don't actually have a problem with real goats. In fact, I was recently talking to my wife about the possibilities of getting one. As for deleting their pictures here on the forum, I think my reasons that I have already stated are sufficient for removing the pictures despite any other reasons I have.
What's the difference between a real goat and a picture of a goat?
Many years ago, it seemed like half the posts in a day were about SSBM, which I was also rather annoyed with personally (since I don't play), but I never cracked down on that either.
This makes no sense to me at all. Many people discussed a popular game, and you were annoyed simply because you didn't play it? I really don't get why this annoyed you.
-
What's the difference between a real goat and a picture of a goat?
I think I've talked enough about goats for tonight. I've already shared the negative connotations of goat pictures here on the forum. Real goats aren't really relevant, I just wanted to let people know that I don't hold anything against these creatures personally :)
This makes no sense to me at all. Many people discussed a popular game, and you were annoyed simply because you didn't play it? I really don't get why this annoyed you.
I understand your confusion, but it really comes down to how I typically interact with the forum. When I get the chance to check the forum, I generally go to the "most recent posts" and then open all 10 pages as links (which shows me the most recent 100 posts). Typically I get on often enough that I can do that and not miss any posts (because there are less than 100 new ones since I was on last). However back during the SSBM days, people were posting on that one thread so often, that for a while, every time I logged in there were posts that I missed out on because too many had happened while I was away. I just skipped over the SSBM ones so they weren't a problem themselves, but they made me miss other threads, and thus annoyed me.
-
Honestly this thread just reeks of abuse of power. If goats ARE NOT directly punished in the rules then you have no reason to take them down due to the fact they are not directly against the rules. Same goes for cheese.
Mods shouldn't take ANYTHING down unless it directly goes against the rules.
-
Mods shouldn't take ANYTHING down unless it directly goes against the rules.
It would be foolish for mods to ONLY take into consideration the exact things that are posted without considering the context of them. There is nothing specifically in the rules that forbids people from writing posts containing curse words that are spelled backwards. According to your suggestion, mods should just overlook these nonsense words (as they would appear) without realizing that they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules.
Similarly, pictures of goats, and threads solely about cheese are not wrong at face value. However in the context of their history on this forum, they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules, and that is a very good reason to remove them.
-
I understand your confusion, but it really comes down to how I typically interact with the forum. When I get the chance to check the forum, I generally go to the "most recent posts" and then open all 10 pages as links (which shows me the most recent 100 posts). Typically I get on often enough that I can do that and not miss any posts (because there are less than 100 new ones since I was on last). However back during the SSBM days, people were posting on that one thread so often, that for a while, every time I logged in there were posts that I missed out on because too many had happened while I was away. I just skipped over the SSBM ones so they weren't a problem themselves, but they made me miss other threads, and thus annoyed me.
At last! THIS is the underlying issue. The fact is that the decision to quarantine a thread versus deleting posts is based on annoyance rather than an objective rule set. The cheese thread was a good example of this. There can be pages and pages of posts (which blocks the moderators queue) that are relevant to the topic, but as soon as someone makes an unnecessary post, it is decision time. Right now, the pattern appears to be that if the moderator just didn't like the topic, then it is quarantined. If the moderator was a part of the original discussion, then they simply delete the offending post. This is bias.
Imagine if you will that I had become a moderator. I loathe political discussions. Those discussions also take up pages and pages, and ultimately fill the Recent Posts queue. Would I then be justified to quarantine the thread when I felt someone got too heated? That would ultimately be every political thread. Can you imagine the outcry of the participants?
Right now your assertion is that those situations are "different." However, to those of us who do not participate in the one, but joyfully participate in the other, they are the same. Some people are entertained by pointless debate, while others of us are entertained by talking about cheese. You are not acknowledging that your own bias is what is causing the problem here, not cheese or goats.
Last night I decided to play by your rules. I used a political approach to getting your attention - nonviolent protest. Hopefully you can see what I see, that politics are annoying. However, if that is the only way to initiate change on this Message Board, then it is you that is forcing my hand, rather than vice-versa (as you perceive).
You want me to respect your "judgment" about goat threads, but you are not willing to trust my judgment about posting about cheese. I was part of the original cheese thread and I didn't find any of it offensive. There were no insinuations. It was just fun. There seems to be a more general bias against off-topics posted by certain youthful individuals on these boards. This, in turn, makes them feel treated unfairly, which ultimately leads to rebellious tendencies. Moderators are inciting the very rebellion that they are condemning. This is a vicious cycle that needs to stop. I have always spoken out on these boards when I feel that people are being treated unfairly. That is how I feel about this situation.
-
Mods shouldn't take ANYTHING down unless it directly goes against the rules.
It would be foolish for mods to ONLY take into consideration the exact things that are posted without considering the context of them. There is nothing specifically in the rules that forbids people from writing posts containing curse words that are spelled backwards. According to your suggestion, mods should just overlook these nonsense words (as they would appear) without realizing that they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules.
Similarly, pictures of goats, and threads solely about cheese are not wrong at face value. However in the context of their history on this forum, they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules, and that is a very good reason to remove them.
The more mods are allowed to dictate their own rules the more chances over abuse of power happens. Goats and cheese are not against the rules, the threads cause no one any harm. the only problem is you don't like them. If you legitimately discuss something it isn't spam unless a mod decides they want to get rid of it due to annoyance. I respect you Prof but I feel all the Goat/Cheese hate is 100 % unjustified.
-
Has there ever even been a thread about buffalo? If not, it seems to me they don't have an underlying context.
-
Hebrews 3:8
Genesis 27:9
And Happy Resurrection Sunday, everyone! :)
-
I still am not trying to rebel. My last goat picture was posted to see if YMT had successfully changed your (Prof Underwood) mind. I read through this and was laughing to myself the whole time because this whole thing is arguing over some silly pictures. Furthermore, if I was really trying to rebel, you'd see a lot more from me.
Furthermore, Happy Victory day! Jesus won! He is alive!
-
The more mods are allowed to dictate their own rules the more chances over abuse of power happens. Goats and cheese are not against the rules, the threads cause no one any harm.
Mods do not dictate their own rules. Mods enforce the existing rules with discretion.
Spam is specifically disallowed in the forum rules, therefore the threads in question were rightfully deleted. It is not for you to decide what does and does not cause the forum "harm", nor is Mark exercising any subjective notion of such. He is removing spam threads from the board.
The "quarantine" method was devised for one purpose only: to keep a record of a removed thread in response to complaints that a thread may be removed without cause. If a thread is deleted, there is no recourse. If it is quarantined, it can be examined by a peer group to keep everybody honest.
The rules for these boards are few, not difficult to understand and not difficult to follow. To continue arguing about them seems like a waste of time and energy, and posting additional threads for the specific purpose of rebelling against authority will not win anyone points.
-
The board is OFF-TOPIC there is NO spam because it is OFF-TOPIC. Some people enjoy what you brand as spam. Goats/Cheese harm nothing and would it not escape your minds that some people enjoy that? And I'm sorry but I have an opinion and no matter what any mod says I'm going to state it and if you mod/warn me for this it would only continue to assure me of my opinion's validity.
-
Similarly, pictures of goats, and threads solely about cheese are not wrong at face value. However in the context of their history on this forum, they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules, and that is a very good reason to remove them.
You see them as a symbol of forum rebellion, I see them as a funny little inside joke on the forums.
-
Similarly, pictures of goats, and threads solely about cheese are not wrong at face value. However in the context of their history on this forum, they are actually attempts to rebel against the rules, and that is a very good reason to remove them.
You see them as a symbol of forum rebellion, I see them as a funny little inside joke on the forums.
+1
-
The rules for these boards are few
Check.
not difficult to understand
Uh, no. The reason there are so few rules is that the rule against "spam" so so all-encompassing and amorphous that it's basically a rule against whatever it is the mods want it to be a rule against.
not difficult to follow
This is not true because of the previous point. With no definition of "spam," any post ever can be considered "against the rules" if a mod says so.
Deleting threads about goats on New Card Ideas is good moderation because that's not what that board is for. Deleting goat towers in a ruling question thread is good moderation because that's not what that thread is for. But what is the off-topic board for? We've asked before if fun is banned on off-topic, can we have a fun board, and we didn't get a fun board. I can only conclude that means you intend off-topic to be the fun board. If so, please stop killing the fun.
-
Spam is specifically disallowed in the forum rules, therefore the threads in question were rightfully deleted. It is not for you to decide what does and does not cause the forum "harm", nor is Mark exercising any subjective notion of such. He is removing spam threads from the board.
"Spam" is subjective, and is wrongfully being defined as anything that a moderator views as irrelevant or annoying. I find threads about politics to be Spam. No one changes their mind, and everyone sits on their respective partisan pedestal and talks down to the other. There is no benefit to such discussions and may instead cause unnecessary divisiveness on the boards.
And yet, people are allowed to start one up and get people fired up anyway.
To me, having a bunch of us post incessantly about meaningless (but fun) topics is more productive than those political threads. So what, then, defines "Spam?" Right now, the overall implication is that Spam is defined by whatever annoys the moderator at the time.
My Rebellion thread was quarantined because someone else posted a goat picture in it. The Rebellion thread was intended to discuss what the underlying reason for the rebellion was, and to help bring a resolution. I posted that thread because the last time I tried to turn this debate to a more serious discussion, it too was quarantined because someone else posted a picture of a goat. I had to turn to an extreme because every attempt that I was making to seriously discuss the issue was being quarantined. That was not helping resolve the problem, ..... and there is a problem here.
Why can we not discuss this issue genuinely? Just delete Red's posts and stick to the issue. (Red, please stop posting in my thread. You are undermining what I am trying to accomplish).
-
By your definition, YMT, this thread does not exist because you are trying to discuss the situation seriously, and a biased or vindictive mod quarantined your thread to suppress the discussion.
And Polarius again pretends that the distinction between a thread about a topic and a thread specifically intended not to be about a topic is so impossible to discern that mods just make up whatever rules they feel like.
How many threads are actually quarantined under normal circumstances (normal meaning: not bombing the forum with multiple threads specifically intended to defy an authority figure and give Prof more work to do for no better reason than lashing out against perceived butthurt)? One, maybe two a month? And how many of those under the no-spam rule as opposed to references to Pokemon or people turning into Fighty McFighterson? I can hardly envision the mods being more permissive and/or less power-mad than the present situation, without returning to the days where people quite literally were leaving the community because the boards were overrun with crud and troll-bait.
-
By your definition, YMT, this thread does not exist because you are trying to discuss the situation seriously, and a biased or vindictive mod quarantined your thread to suppress the discussion.
Weren't you the one who always vehemently opposed people putting words into your mouth? I said my threads were quarantined because someone else posted a picture of a goat, not because the moderator was vindictive. The discussion was never allowed to flow because of a rigid "quarantine every thread with a picture of a goat in it" policy. It is the policy that I am challenging, not the moderator. The policy forces moderators to be subjective, which isn't fair to them either.
-
And this is not the discussion being allowed to flow?
-
And this is not the discussion being allowed to flow?
What are you talking about? Is there a picture of a goat in this thread?
We either are going to talk about the current Spam policy, or we are not. Which is it going to be? If you have already made up your mind to not change anything, then this is not a discussion.
-
So we are not talking about the spam policy right now? What do you think we are talking about?
-
So we are not talking about the spam policy right now? What do you think we are talking about?
What is the definition of Spam that is currently enforced?
-
You decline to answer my question? If the thrust of your complaint is that you don't feel you are able to voice your frustrations without the thread getting killed, and this thread is not getting killed, and you are not willing to say that you are not voicing your frustrations, I'm struggling to understand why there continues to be a problem along this line.
What is it that you think needs to be changed, such that you would no longer see a reason to prolong this discussion?
-
You decline to answer my question?
Ditto
What is it that you think needs to be changed, such that you would no longer see a reason to prolong this discussion?
The Spam policy.
-
Ditto
My problem with your question is that you are deflecting my question rather than engaging in honest, direct discussion. Your problem with my question seems to be flamiffamuggahemmmahuh.
The Spam policy.
You did not indicate what change would solve your problem. You have not even given consideration to the question of whether the continued discussion on this thread, here and now, speaks against part or all of the reasoning behind that problem.
-
You did not indicate what change would solve your problem.
The definition of Spam and how it is decided is the change that is needed, which is the definition that you refuse to give. I can only assume then, that the definition is completely up to the moderator at the time, whichis what I think is the problem, which is the answer to the question that you say I am not answering.
-
The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.
You may notice that the people opposing this policy are not defending the value of their contribution. They are only saying that zero-content posts should be allowed by virtue of the simple fact that they want to post them.
What I do not understand is why you think this policy is negatively impacting you specifically, or why you think the moderator's discretion creates a problem for what does or does not remain on the boards.
-
The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.
Thank you. Now we can discuss. ;D
You may notice that the people opposing this policy are not defending the value of their contribution. They are only saying that zero-content posts should be allowed by virtue of the simple fact that they want to post them.
Exactly. If the threads (not out-of-place posts, mind you) are just intended to be fun, then "zero-content" should not be an issue. The Spam policy should address unruly posts, not off-topic threads. Haven't you ever watched a comedy that had what others would consider "zero-content?" Sometimes meaningless banter is an outlet for an otherwise frustrating day. If no one is being harmed or targetted, and we are not committing outright sins, what exactly is the problem with "zero-content?"
What I do not understand is why you think this policy is negatively impacting you specifically, or why you think the moderator's discretion creates a problem for what does or does not remain on the boards.
There are times when I just want to unwind with silly jokes. Is that really so bad? Sometimes we all need to just lighten up, especially when the other alternatives on this Message Board are politically charged and give people headaches*.
-
I don't see the harm in having threads that are specifically intended to be nothing but fun. When did fun become spam? spam is either spice ham in a can or mass distribution of advertising to people who don't want it. I run a forum that has a no spam policy, but we have a general chat thread, a thread for post funny pictures (I remove any that are NSFW) and for the over 21 members a drinking thread that is not visible by anyone under the age of 21 except me because I'm the admin. None of these threads threaten the health of my forum in any way and as long the fun stays in it's specified threads it's fine with me and everyone involved. I have never once had anyone complain about those threads existing. I have never once had a flame war take place on my forums, nor had any grudges pop up between members. It's one of the most inviting environments I've ever found on the internet and I truly believe that is because of the rules I've put in place. They're strict where they need to be and lax were they should be as well. It's an open environment but it's far from chaotic and I think you would find that if you allowed ONE annoying to you goat thread A) all this rebellion would stop and B) the forums would be a better place as we would have a thread that was specifically for random silliness and fun. There is no harm in it.
-
There are 15,000 threads on the forum at present. A total of 70 threads have been quarantined since the inception of the concept, which incidentally is for the specific purpose of reviewing threads removed with the potential to re-instate if they were removed by mistake, a recourse we would not have if the thread were just deleted.
This means that the boards have a retention rate greater than 99.5%, not counting the purging of hundreds of threads predating 2009, and inclusive of all threads quarantined for all reasons, not only spam, and including the fact that thread-bombing can account for several threads all at once, driving up the total number based on a fewer number of actual incidents.
I do not agree with your assessment that the spam policy has detracted from the value of the forum in a statistically meaningful way, nor do I agree with the apparent emerging attitude that the only possible way a post can be entertaining is if it is entirely devoid of content. Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this funny video I saw"?
Also, I do not recall your specific complaint about your thread being that your thread was zero-content, so the spam policy is not the cause of your problem in this instance.
-
The real question is why is "look at this funny video" content but "look at this funny picture of a goat" is not? You may not find it funny. You may not find it even remotely entertaining. That's not the point. There are a select number of members on here who have a fascination with funny or interesting pictures of goats. There are also a number of members who have a fascination with ponies. From what Prof U has explained goats were labelled as spam because there was a thread about them that absorb a decent number of posts in an unusually short period of time. So what? So people were having harmless fun posting back and forth not hurting anyone or clogging any other threads with goat picture. Now what took place yesterday IS spam. When multiple threads were started about goats and a picture of a goat was posted in a bunch of pre existing threads that is out of line and should have been dealt with the way it was. But having 1 or 2 goat threads or other general for fun threads shouldn't instantly be labelled spam. It's not fair that just because you and Prof U don't find any entertainment value out of that you don't think anyone can and it is therefore spam. I didn't post any goat threads or pictures of goats but I did respond to a couple of those threads with conversational posts. The fainting goat thread I mentioned that a friend of mine has fainting goats and that when I get bored during the summer I go visit her and try to get those goats to faint. In the goat with horn thread I posted a simple picture of a pelican staring at a women with the caption "What you did there, I see it." In both cases I was both adding to the conversation and having a bit of enjoyment while not spamming anything.
-
There are 15,000 threads on the forum at present. A total of 70 threads have been quarantined since the inception of the concept, ...
People are afraid to post "zero-content" threads for fun because they know it might be quarantined. The numbers you are putting forth support the idea that people are not intentionally rebellious, otherwise the numbers would be greater.
I do not agree with your assessment that the spam policy has detracted from the value of the forum in a statistically meaningful way,...
The forum is about people, not statistics. People like to have fun, sometimes in seemingly meaningless ways.
.... nor do I agree with the apparent emerging attitude that the only possible way a post can be entertaining is if it is entirely devoid of content.
You're adding words again. No one said "only possible." We are saying that it is a viable alternative.
Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this funny video I saw"?
That is just rehashing what someone else did. Some people need a completely unrehearsed creative outlet.
Also, I do not recall your specific complaint about your thread being that your thread was zero-content, so the spam policy is not the cause of your problem in this instance.
I was part of the cheese thread.
-
there are also a few spam threads that weren't quarantined but merely locked so that throws the statistic off as well. If it hadn't gotten so out of hand yesterday those threads probably would have remained locked but quarantined.
-
Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this goat"?
FTFY
It seems more and more that if a mod finds it funny, it's not spam, but if a mod finds it annoying or not amusing then it's spam.
It is not possible to have a zero-content post. A picture of a goat is content. A +1 is content. "lol" is content. It seems that the only difference between any of these things is that a mod subjectively decided they're not worthwhile content.
-
People are afraid to post "zero-content" threads for fun because they know it might be quarantined. The numbers you are putting forth support the idea that people are not intentionally rebellious, otherwise the numbers would be greater.
So now your position is that people were NOT thread-bombing this weekend?
The forum is about people, not statistics. People like to have fun, sometimes in seemingly meaningless ways.
The policy is not about determining the fun quotient.
You're adding words again. No one said "only possible." We are saying that it is a viable alternative.
You are saying that people want to relax, and this is the way to do it. If it is not the only way to do it, then you have a way to relax without running afoul of the rules, so there should not be a problem here.
That is just rehashing what someone else did. Some people need a completely unrehearsed creative outlet.
Feel free to visit completelyunrehearsedcreativeoutlet.com to assuage your uncontrollable urge.
I was part of the cheese thread.
So you created this topic to question the cheese thread?
Moreover, people seem to gravitate more and more to the word "entertainment" the more it is emphasized that the issue is "content". This only further illustrates my point that no one seems to find the idea of "content" subjective, only that they want to blame the entire thing on a lack of a sense of humor and expand the "entertainment" scope of the forum, despite it not being the issue.
-
there are also a few spam threads that weren't quarantined but merely locked so that throws the statistic off as well. If it hadn't gotten so out of hand yesterday those threads probably would have remained locked but quarantined.
That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs. I knew it would put me in the line of fire, but I felt the time had come to take a stand. This issue and its repercussions have been pushed aside long enough.
Schaef's continued dodging only proves that the issue will not be dealt with, so my efforts were futile.
-
The policy is not about determining the fun quotient.
No?
then you have a way to relax without running afoul of the rules
What rules? The rules against spam? Please, enlighten us, what is spam?
-
That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs.
Wait, I thought you said people were not being intentionally rebellious.
Schaef's continued dodging only proves that the issue will not be dealt with, so my efforts were futile.
You cannot point to one thing I have dodged. I answered your questions with specificity. I asked you a number of questions to increase understanding, most of which you blew off without doing anything to explain your side of the situation. I've allowed you a voice for whatever you feel has wronged you, and made an effort at due diligence, and you have not agreed to meet me on equal footing. Is blind capitulation the only response that can be treated as "dealing with" something?
@Pol - you are asking questions already addressed in the thread. Unless I am lying to you, you have the information you say you are seeking in your last reply.
-
I've allowed you a voice for whatever you feel has wronged you, and made an effort at due diligence, and you have not agreed to meet me on equal footing.
But we're not on equal footing, are we? I can not initiate change, even when I feel it is justified. The opinion of a 43-year-old veteran teacher of 13 years is not carrying any weight with you. I have found through the years that sometimes teenagers just need to release their creativity in seemingly meaningless ways, even during class. After years of being the Tyrannical Overlord, I discovered that letting those moments go (and even joining in from time to time) made the class run better after I brought the class back on topic. Talking about cheese during Calculus class may seem to have "zero-content," but it made the day infinitely more bearable when the class had to go deeper. For the deepest of thinkers, there comes a time that not thinking at all is the best remedy.
-
We are trying to shift the issue to entertainment because only a blank post lacks content. Anything that exists is content. As pol stated the word lol, while adding nothing to a conversation and completely unneeded in most cases, is content. A post should not be deleted simply because you or any mod do not see the value in it. We don't all enjoy the same things. There are threads on my forums about bands I cannot stand and think are complete garbage and not worthy of discussion. I have never once deleted them. It is not within the admin and mods priviledge to decide what is valuable. If a member of the forums find value in it, it is valuable. You all have been granted great power and with that comes the responsibility to use it to maintain a welcoming environment and keep abuse out. That does not include deleting anything you do not find of value.
-
Well, YMT, if you've decided without even considering my words that I'm not giving any weight to your words, aside from winning the irony award for the week, I don't see the point in even bringing the subject up. You've definitely shown me the futility of dedicating any more time to bringing this to a resolution. So go on campaigning for a stupid goat picture if that's what brings meaning to your life. Maybe with a little more effort you'll find someone else who will take a significant portion of his holiday Sunday to have a detailed discussion with you while, apparently, at the same time not caring at all about what you have to say.
We are trying to shift the issue to entertainment because only a blank post lacks content. Anything that exists is content.
I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you. The fact that people have actively campaigned to allow zero-content posts demonstrates that both sides of the argument know what is meant by that term.
-
Your definition of content is subjective and it's completely unfair to enforce what YOU believe to be worthwhile over the will of your users. You would have gotten that if you had finished reading what I typed. There are many things that you yourself will find no value in that does not make them spam anymore than my lack of caring about baseball makes the threads about it on here spam to me.
-
You've definitely shown me the futility of dedicating any more time to bringing this to a resolution.
The "resolution" was already predetermined before the discussion began.
Maybe with a little more effort you'll find someone else who will take a significant portion of his holiday Sunday to have a detailed discussion with you while, apparently, at the same time not caring at all about what you have to say.
I thank you for your time, even though I don't agree with your unwillingness to change.
-
The "resolution" was already predetermined before the discussion began.
This is completely incorrect, and after the amount of time we've shared on this forum I can only describe your assessment as disappointing.
I thank you for your time, even though I don't agree with your unwillingness to change.
I am forced to question the depth of your gratitude considering the extremely low opinion you have of whether I bothered to invest anything in the discussion.
Your definition of content is subjective and it's completely unfair to enforce what YOU believe to be worthwhile over the will of your users. You would have gotten that if you had finished reading what I typed. There are many things that you yourself will find no value in that does not make them spam anymore than my lack of caring about baseball makes the threads about it on here spam to me.
You conflated "content" and "value" again.
And if there is enough agreement that people are arguing in favor of posts that they concede to be zero-content, that belies the notion that it is subjective. Further, by arguing that zero-content posts have value, that creates a distinction between content and value. Therefore, modding based on content is not a judgment of your notion of value.
You accuse me of not reading what you typed but I read all of it. I just don't agree with your premise. How much of your anger towards me is about things that have actually taken place, and how much of it is about you assuming malicious intent on my part when in fact I have none?
-
This is completely incorrect, and after the amount of time we've shared on this forum I can only describe your assessment as disappointing.
I am equally disappointed, but I did not say "ditto" this time because I was afraid that would trivialize the matter. I was trying to share a lesson I learned over the course of 13 trial-and-error years with regard to allowing "zero-content" discussion.
I am forced to question the depth of your gratitude considering the extremely low opinion you have of whether I bothered to invest anything in the discussion.
There is no need to question it. My gratitude is sincere, I assure you. You have indeed invested time (today of all days) so you deserve thanks.
---------------------------
I will not be posting any more in this thread, so that you will not have to devote any more time for rebuttals. You are welcome to respond to this post and then lock it. I would also request that you remove the "Forum Jester" from my name and return it to normal. I will no longer be serving in that capacity on this Message Board. I thank you sincerely for allowing me to keep that title for this long. I know you were making an exception for me, and took some flak for it.
Christ is risen indeed. That is all that matters moving forward.
-
I am equally disappointed, but I did not say "ditto" this time because I was afraid that would trivialize the matter. I was trying to share a lesson I learned over the course of 13 trial-and-error years with regard to allowing "zero-content" discussion.
It was a point you brought in at the very end of a lengthy discussion, and only after repeatedly accusing me of a complete lack of consideration for your perspective.
Your anecdote is noted but it still implies a direct correlation between allowing this specific manner of posting and allowing any sort of levity within the forum, but the point here is that many different forms of humor fall within the existing forum guidelines, and many topics that have nominal "cultural contribution" run their course. Your own forum title belies the idea that mods and admins don't allow a fair amount of levity on the boards. Again, entertainment is not the issue, only the (lack of) content.
If you want me to remove the title, I will, but I don't see any immediate need to do so. Send me a confirmation PM in that regard if it's genuinely what you want, but I won't take any action without that confirmation. I also am in no hurry to lock this topic if others feel they want to continue pressing the issue - I typically do not lock topics until they've gone way over the line - but all users have the ability to lock their own topic if they wish, so as the OP, you are free to do what you wish with it.
-
At last! THIS is the underlying issue. The fact is that the decision to quarantine a thread versus deleting posts is based on annoyance rather than an objective rule set. The cheese thread was a good example of this.
This post doesn't make any sense based on previous statements that I have already made.
#1 - I didn't lock the SSBM thread despite it annoying me.
#2 - I don't lock My Little Pony threads despite them weirding me out.
#3 - I didn't lock the cheese thread.
#4 - I have already stated my rule set for deleting posts/quarantining threads.
I still am not trying to rebel. My last goat picture was posted to see if YMT had successfully changed your (Prof Underwood) mind.
This could have been done much more respectfully by simply asking if I had changed my mind rather than testing me by posting another picture of a goat. Your method of determining the answer to your question was unnecessarily rebellious.
You see them as a symbol of forum rebellion, I see them as a funny little inside joke on the forums.
The forum has plenty of inside jokes (less than zero percent, buckler rules, black is weak, over 9000, etc.) I don't come down on those things because they do not have negative connotations on this forum.
It seems more and more that if a mod finds it funny, it's not spam, but if a mod finds it annoying or not amusing then it's spam.
Again, this doesn't fit with what I've already stated about SSBM, MLP, etc. See above.
That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs. I knew it would put me in the line of fire, but I felt the time had come to take a stand.
Now don't go all Tienanmen Square on me. You posted all those goat pictures because you were very upset at me for not responding fast enough to this very thread, without knowing that I just hadn't seen it yet due to responding to PMs from lp.
You all have been granted great power and with that comes the responsibility to use it to maintain a welcoming environment and keep abuse out. That does not include deleting anything you do not find of value.
As Schaef pointed out, we're talking about less than 0.5% of the threads on the forum. I really don't think that indicates a heavy-handed police state of censorship and abuse of power.
-
just because there is only 0.5% of fun threads doesn't mean that killing that .5% isn't still overzealous.
-
When the mods are doing nothing more than enforcing policies that predate their assignment, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it means.
Especially when, as stated before, that 0.5% consists of all threads removed for ANY reason, spam being a relatively small percentage, and does not account for hundreds of threads purged due to age or for the statistical skew caused by thread-bombing.
And again, you conflate "content" with "fun". The threads are not removed for "being fun".
-
Define "spam" please. You don't like us saying it's just whatever you decide it is, but then you refuse to give a stated definition. That's suspicious.
-
I'm saying that them being just for fun should exempt them from having to fit in to your content rule. They aren't hurting anyone they're aren't advertising anything, that aren't detracting from conversation in other threads. In the end my opinion doesn't matter. This is my last season playing this game and my last season on these boards. I just don't see why you have to enforce archaic rules of no fun unless it's constructive. Not everything in life has to be constructive. all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
-
Define "spam" please. You don't like us saying it's just whatever you decide it is, but then you refuse to give a stated definition. That's suspicious.
I will afford you the chance to demonstrate that it was an honest mistake on your part to overlook a direct answer to this question. It is just about the limit of my patience, however, with your ongoing implications that I have not been holding this discussion honestly.
Not everything in life has to be constructive.
Since the rule is not that "all content must be constructive", I can maintain the existing policies without running afoul of your philosophy.
-
Me: What is the definition of spam.
You: Spam is "..."
That's all the conversation needs to sound like. Y U NO?
-
The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.
He did define it on the last page, and he worded "the definition is" like you wanted.
-
Oh, well that resolves that issue. Now we just need to figure out how so many people are managing to post blank pages.
-
About the same number of people that derive enjoyment from semantic games.
Which is fewer than the number of people that understand the definition well enough to advocate the existence of posts that fall under that definition.
FWIW, you still have several posts specifically accusing me of refusing to supply a definition when asked.
-
Something doesn't have to be constructive to it your defintiin of content the what exactly is your defintiin of content an why does it seem so arbitrary to rather or not you and the mids like it?
-
... what?
-
IPod.
If something doesn't have to be constructive what does it have to be and why does it seem so arbitrary
-
Yeah, sorry, I missed it in skimming a back-and-forth between you and YMT.
It's not a semantics game. The cheese thread was productive. We were talking about our favorite kinds of cheeses and wondering if we could turn a hot glue gun into something that would melt cheese sticks for cheese decoration. Those both sound pretty dang constructive and content to me, but the whole thing was deleted as spam anyway. Where is the line drawn? Yes, you gave us a concrete definition for spam, but that definition was itself just another open-ended and arbitrary buzz-word. What is the definition of zero-content?
-
Yeah, sorry, I missed it in skimming a back-and-forth between you and YMT.
Thank you for that at least, though the prior accusations still stand in prior posts.
It's not a semantics game.
Cheeky comments about "blank posts" are semantics. The other conclusion would be that you don't have the brainpower other than to think I actually meant that. That line of thought wouldn't lead me anywhere.
The cheese thread was productive... Those both sound pretty dang constructive and content to me, but the whole thing was deleted as spam anyway.
And in response to that honest mistake, an additional buffer was put into place to make sure that, if it ever happened again, someone could go back and put things right, instead of it being gone forever. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, eh?
Meanwhile, I will repeat to you that people are not complaining that their posts do not run afoul of the rule, as the cheese thread apparently did not, they are complaining that they should be allowed anyway.
-
Why are goats considers spam? You defined spam as not content but you have defined what content us so you really haven't helped us understand why goats are against the rules
-
Yes, you gave us a concrete definition for spam, but that definition was itself just another open-ended and arbitrary buzz-word. What is the definition of zero-content?
-
Well, you two, please feel welcome to continue navel-gazing on the issue while the others who acknowledge their proper understanding are asking simply to abolish the rule. YMT gave a rather impassioned dissertation on the value of zero-content posts, he didn't seem thus encumbered.
-
So in other words to you for have an answer.
-
You dont have an answer
Man I hate my ipod
-
Why are goats considers spam?
Based on how it was remembered on the other thread, the goats thing all started with a doppleganger who purposefully tried to flaunt the forum rules (by creating a duplicate account) and to troll everyone (even choosing the member name "notatroll"). Some forum members found this rebellious behavior to be funny, and so it has survived as a meme of sorts that every once in a while someone will post a goat picture to refer back to that event, and perpetuate the rebellion.
The whole cheese thing is really the same at this point. Although it was originally an honest mistake (which I appreciate Schaef referring to it this way), the response at the time was a cry against censorship and the heavy-handed administration of the forum. Several forum members added the little cheese wedge ascii picture to their profile in protest. Ever since then, the cheese thread has been a rallying cry to those who want to "stick it to the man".
-
You dont have an answer
Ask YMT. If there is no answer, then what was he going on about? What are the others asking for, if they can't possibly know what it is they want? Why did that not factor at all into your response?
And why is it that the only part of my response you choose to process is the part that allows you to be combative with me rather than conciliatory? Especially after previously accusing me (wrongly) of only reading part of one of your posts - conveniently, allowing you to set yourself against me again?
-
I am not ymt so stop asking me to decen his argument
-
Several forum members added the little cheese wedge ascii picture to their profile in protest. Ever since then, the cheese thread has been a rallying cry to those who want to "stick it to the man".
The cheese wedge in my signature is an innocent inside joke, not a serious rallying cry.
Same goes for various jokes in Redemption, like Buckler being the best card.
-
I am not ymt so stop asking me to decen his argument
I'm not. I'm saying if my answer can't appease you, maybe he can help.
-
The cheese wedge in my signature is an innocent inside joke, not a serious rallying cry.
Your defense would be more convincing if it weren't for the evidence against you.
While I was trying to deal with the goat-picture bombing of the forum, you were posting supportively (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/not-a-goat/msg474634/#msg474634) in one of those threads, posted the phrase "Viva La Cheesolution" (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/question-about-why-goats-lock-threads/msg474399/#msg474399) in another one (which sounds surprisingly like a rallying cry), and even went so far as to start another one (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/first-strike-30249/msg474558/#msg474558) of the threads yourself.
So your actions do not support the innocence that you are now proclaiming.
-
The cheese wedge in my signature is an innocent inside joke, not a serious rallying cry.
Your defense would be more convincing if it weren't for the evidence against you.
While I was trying to deal with the goat-picture bombing of the forum, you were posting supportively (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/not-a-goat/msg474634/#msg474634) in one of those threads, posted the phrase "Viva La Cheesolution" (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/question-about-why-goats-lock-threads/msg474399/#msg474399) in another one (which sounds surprisingly like a rallying cry), and even went so far as to start another one (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/first-strike-30249/msg474558/#msg474558) of the threads yourself.
So your actions do not support the innocence that you are now proclaiming.
Every single one of those was posted with humorous intent. Is it wrong for me to have some fun on these forums?
However, I was specifically addressing your comment about the cheese wedge in my signature, which I have used long before this current series of events.
-
I am not ymt so stop asking me to decen his argument
I'm not. I'm saying if my answer can't appease you, maybe he can help.
Perhaps if you would actually answer the question I would be appeased. Right now I have no idea what is unacceptable to post on these boards.
So far you have said that spam is not allowed. Your definition of spam is zero-content. So far your definition of zero content is
It may or may not be fun
It may or may not be productive
That's not very helpful. The only thing I know for sure isn't allowed is goats. That is also not helpful. So for the six or seventh time you have been asked this what is zero content and how do you decide if a thread falls in to that category and will therefore not be allowed. Don't tell me to ask YMT, don't deflect. Answer. The. Question.
-
A post intended to be of zero content is not difficult to understand. If it's not about anything, and you know it's not about anything, cause that's the point, and you post it, it is zero content by your own intent.
If this was so impossible for you to understand, why were you previously arguing for this type of post to be included? What were you arguing for, if you had no way to know what it meant? What was YMT arguing for, if he had no way to know what it meant? What was Lambo arguing for, if he had no way to know what it meant? What was Red arguing for, if he had no way to know what it meant?
This has been a point made several times, and for reasons that completely escape my comprehension, you have ignored it in favor of responding to things only in part, and perpetuating the argument. While you and Pol have decided to claim ignorance on an entirely inconceivable idea, other people have been content in their knowledge to argue, not that they do not understand, but that these posts SHOULD BE ALLOWED ANYWAY. You, in fact, have made this argument, contradicting the notion that its beyond your grasp.
-
I am basically just trying to get you to admit that the spam rule is enforced solely on the grounds of rather or not the mods and admins find value in something, not rather or not it actually has value. You have no way of knowing a persons intent when they post a thread, the cases of goaty rebellion aside, therefore you cannot label something by your definition zero content. I'm not denying that the people who posted a bunch of goat threads and pictures were unwise to do so but it arose from an air of restriction on these forums that you seem to be the only one that can understand. Rather or not something is allowed to stay is being left up to the mods and admins discretion as to rather or not they see value in a particular discussion. We have previously had a
post funny pictures" thread that was locked for the reason of "not setting a precedents" but I don't see any value in that. What is the harm with having one thread for the posting of humorous pictures? Who is that going to offend? That is a perfect example of a "zero content" thread that actually has plenty of value. It's entertaining, it's fun, and it promotes sharing. What is so wrong about that?
-
The only thing I know for sure isn't allowed is goats. That is also not helpful.
Actually it is very helpful. It lets you know that you shouldn't post a picture of a goat.
As for definitions of spam, I don't think it really matters, because my experience is that when a thread is turning spammy, the mod usually posts a warning to that effect before locking the thread. That gives an opportunity for the people in the thread to then defend why their continuing comments there are truly adding content, and therefore the thread shouldn't be locked.
And as for what is considered rebellious or inflammatory, I think everyone is pretty clear on that at this point as well (pictures of goats, excessive posts about cheese, buffaloes, smelling like tacos, other personal insults, and cursing). I think people actually have a good idea at this point, what is allowed to stay and what isn't.
So like Schaef is saying, it's not that they don't know what will happen to a post with a goat picture in it, just that they don't want that to happen.
-
I am basically just trying to get you to admit that the spam rule is enforced solely on the grounds of rather or not the mods and admins find value in something, not rather or not it actually has value.
Since that is not factually correct, I find no gain in saying something that is incorrect.
... but it arose from an air of restriction on these forums that you seem to be the only one that can understand.
The only one, except for most of the other mods, and nearly everyone who has had something to say in this thread.
That is a perfect example of a "zero content" thread that actually has plenty of value.
I fail to see how you can draw this conclusion while being simultaneously, utterly unable to understand what the term means. And anyway, in making such a statement, you basically are stipulating the distinction between "content" and "value" that I have been saying from the beginning, AND that the removal of these threads is not based on a value judgment.
-
Fun thread=locked thread? Looks that way....(if you are gonna kill one forum meme kill the rest aka death to the buckler if we can't have goats.)
-
When I first read this, I really thought you all were playing some kind of extended joke with arguing about cheese and goats, etc. But after reading this, everyone here is either really committed to this joke or you're actually serious with this conversation. Both sides remind me of elementary school.
I've had no part in any of this. Until yesterday I was completely unaware any of this had happened.
I really don't understand the rules here or the definition of zero content. I can point to a couple things now because you have labeled them as such but I would have 0 ability to predict whether some other topic would be zero content or get removed.
Without stumbling on this thread, I would have no idea that I wasn't supposed to post on those things and I still have no idea why other than because "we say so" and I don't want to pick a fight.
A couple days ago, I saw a picture that someone posted of a rock climbing goat and I thought it was pretty cool. I don't understand how that can be zero content. If it was done as some part of larger rebellion then that was immature but taken by itself it seems no different than many other threads or posts on these message boards.
I know that if I were to post pictures of goats, etc. it would be because it was interesting and would have no rebellious intention. I won't right now because apparently it will be assumed that it is.
Still can't believe that this is an issue or that there is an argument about it. :dunno:
-
Fun thread=locked thread? Looks that way....
Only if someone were blind :)
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-march-madness/multi-4-egyptian-magicians-vs-5-damsel-with-spirit-of-divination/) where people pick their favorite EC just for fun.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/entertainment/dubstep/) where people discuss their feelings about a music style.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/entertainment/kinect-star-wars/) where people make fun of a video game.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/entertainment/your-favorite-authors/) where people discuss their favorite authors.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/sports/peyton-manning-is-a-bronco-now-tebow-to-be-traded/) where people discuss the future of NFL players.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/open-discussion/obama%27s-speach-on-43/) where people discuss Obama's speech and the price of higher education.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/open-discussion/hunger-games-am-i-wrong-to-be-bothered-by-this/msg471941/#msg471941) where people discuss the merits and dangers of the Hunger Games movie.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/i%27m-batman!-(a-tdkr-tribute-thread)/) where people post pics of people wearing Batman costumes.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/april-fools-day-pranks/msg472909/#msg472909) where people share April Fool's jokes with each other.
-
Fun thread=locked thread? Looks that way....
Only if someone were blind :)
...
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/open-discussion/obama%27s-speach-on-43/) where people discuss Obama's speech and the price of higher education.
Thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/open-discussion/hunger-games-am-i-wrong-to-be-bothered-by-this/msg471941/#msg471941) where people discuss the merits and dangers of the Hunger Games movie.
Based on these two threads, I think we have different definitions of fun.
-
Based on these two threads, I think we have different definitions of fun.
I didn't say that I found all those threads fun. In fact, I haven't participated in most of them. Of course different people find different things fun. I tried to include a variety of threads to demonstrate that everyone can find something here on the forum that they find fun, and none of those threads above are locked or quarantined.
-
One question I still have, and had briefly mentioned earlier... These forums are not exactly super active, Off-Topic especially. As of this posting, the last post on the bottom thread was from February 24th.
I really don't think spam is a huge problem here, and every time it happens, it's contained in only a handful of threads. Do we really need to deal with spam so swiftly?
-
I really don't think spam is a huge problem here, and every time it happens, it's contained in only a handful of threads. Do we really need to deal with spam so swiftly?
Again, I don't think we do deal with spam swiftly. Usually a warning proceeds threads being locked for spam, giving the chance for the people participating to get back on topic or make their case.
-
I really don't think spam is a huge problem here, and every time it happens, it's contained in only a handful of threads. Do we really need to deal with spam so swiftly?
Again, I don't think we do deal with spam swiftly. Usually a warning proceeds threads being locked for spam, giving the chance for the people participating to get back on topic or make their case.
Then why was there no warning with the first goat thread that Sean posted?
-
Then why was there no warning with the first goat thread that Sean posted?
I've already explained that. Pictures of goats, discussions of cheese, and buffaloes fall into a special category of spam that I consider to have rebellious connotations here on the forum, and therefore I deal with those specific issues more stringently than regular spam (as I also do with personal insults with history such as smelling like tacos).
-
Then why was there no warning with the first goat thread that Sean posted?
I've already explained that. Pictures of goats, discussions of cheese, and buffaloes fall into a special category of spam that I consider to have rebellious connotations here on the forum, and therefore I deal with those specific issues more stringently than regular spam (as I also do with personal insults with history such as smelling like tacos).
This post smells of Tacos. Lockmeplz?
This is getting pretty repetitive. We should probably just deal with the fact that until someone lets us have a spam forum, goats are always going to be frowned upon despite the content we try to provide with them.
-
>I've haven't been on this forum in some time
>One of the first things I See is This Thread
>Lots of Text, Something Something Goats,Something Something Spam
>What
>Not Sure How to Respond
-
Lockmeplz?
I will lock this thread so that the Mods will not have to. You have insulted the very ideal that this thread was intended to accomplish.