Mods: an appeal

[Ditocoaf]

I'm glad clapper has agreed to lay off a bit on threads that are arguably fun for some people. She still says she'll try to lock threads that are fun for only one or two people, but just annoying to others. This is probably for the best, and it's too bad that it relys so much on one person's judgment, but that's the only way it can really be.

and school= college and uni...not just high school

sigh,...sometimes the posts are spam...and to a few it is funny but to the majority it isnt....allot of times I do not do much about the thread unless the posters get carried away or bring it way off topic..or there are some complaints.but doing things like starting a thread that says...mods appeal...then posting just pictures, or a list of names and so on that have not very much to do with the tittle , well that is just spam to be annoying as like what juan did, as well as repeating the same tittle over and over again for numerous threads? just no need for it.

Ah yes, the good ol' non-spammy dubl post...

Thank you for contributing so helpfully. I'm glad you're so dedicated to resolving the clash between mods and other members. Way to show the clapper that our intent is not to annoy or push her!

allot of times I do not do much about the thread unless the posters get carried away or bring it way off topic..

I have an issue with this. If posters are getting carried away in a thread (50 "C" threads or "Mods: An appeal" threads are a different matter, however), that means that they're enjoying themselves and why should you ruin their fun? Also, if a thread was originally about Fascism and ends up about the nutritional benefits of banana's, so what? This is the "Off-Topics" forum, after all, and that's the way conversations go. I think that there should be a difference between being off-topic and trying to be off topic. Let me clarify; if a thread is about Fascism and what ever merits it may have and somebody walks in there and starts talking about banana's for no real reason, that would mean that the person is trying to be off topic. However, if the conversation gets there gradually, with overlaps in the conversation that are related (an example would be "Person X is banned" "Person Y was also banned" "Person Y was prominent in the Foundry" "Andy does a great job in the foundry" "Andy likes banana's" "Banana's are healthy") then I don't see a problem with that, because that's the way conversations go. And if people are talking about that, then obviously they want to talk about it. Making a new thread also has a tendency to kill the conversation and really, why should they? Using the coffee shop metaphor, it would be like "You can't talk about banana's in this coffee shop! Go to that one over there!" but you wouldn't really want to talk about banana's then, because you'd be rather pissed off at having your conversation so rudely interrupted and being kicked out and such.

I haven't seen very much prosecution of threads that wander off topic lately. It used to be a huge issue, but I haven't seen much locking of that sort lately.

[Dancing Mustard]

sigh,...sometimes the posts are spam...and to a few it is funny but to the majority it isnt

What mysterious majority is this? Seriously, I keep hearing that this group of posters doesn't find it funny, but where are they? How come their sole representative here appears to be theProwler? Do they exist, or are they a completely fictional group of users that don't actually frequent this forum and who don't need 'protecting'?

I mean, I appreciate your efforts to help these mysteriously silent posters out. But I sure would appreciate having them pointed out to us, what with them being so incredibly invisible and non-existent seeming.

[Dancing Mustard]

Because people always react well to condescending criticism. Right?

You certainly seem to think so... what with you filling your every post in this thread with it.

[pancakemix]

sigh,...sometimes the posts are spam...and to a few it is funny but to the majority it isnt....allot of times I do not do much about the thread unless the posters get carried away or bring it way off topic..or there are some complaints.but doing things like starting a thread that says...mods appeal...then posting just pictures, or a list of names and so on that have not very much to do with the tittle , well that is just spam to be annoying as like what juan did, as well as repeating the same tittle over and over again for numerous threads? just no need for it.

Back up a minute. Obviously, "the majority" doesn't agree with you, unless you're being selective on who "the majority" is.

People complain about what goes on here? I don't believe that for a minute.

Again, "the majority" disagrees with you. If you're going to moderate a community, you should at least get acquainted with it first.

[Ditocoaf]

sigh,...sometimes the posts are spam...and to a few it is funny but to the majority it isnt

What mysterious majority is this? Seriously, I keep hearing that this group of posters doesn't find it funny, but where are they? How come their sole representative here appears to be theProwler? Do they exist, or are they a completely fictional group of users that don't actually frequent this forum and who don't need 'protecting'?

I mean, I appreciate your efforts to help these mysteriously silent posters out. But I sure would appreciate having them pointed out to us, what with them being so incredibly invisible and non-existent seeming.

I think that clapper is making an honest mistake, and that this thread will be the remedy. This forum's culture has evolved in such a way that posts and threads that, in most forums, would be nothing but spam and attempts to annoy people, are in this forum, actually just fun goofing-off posts. Most posters who are annoyed by the constant posting of rick astley lyrics have left long ago. But when a thread is locked, and another popps up right after with a similar name, then to her, it doesn't seem like a joke, it seems like a "FU MODS." Like I said, this was an honest mistake. I think from now on, it'll be much easier if we just remind clapper when a thread is just for fun, and she won't take it the wrong way. (She isn't wicked.)

...ugh, did that make any sense?

sigh,...sometimes the posts are spam...and to a few it is funny but to the majority it isnt....allot of times I do not do much about the thread unless the posters get carried away or bring it way off topic..or there are some complaints.but doing things like starting a thread that says...mods appeal...then posting just pictures, or a list of names and so on that have not very much to do with the tittle , well that is just spam to be annoying as like what juan did, as well as repeating the same tittle over and over again for numerous threads? just no need for it.

Back up a minute. Obviously, "the majority" doesn't agree with you, unless you're being selective on who "the majority" is.

People complain about what goes on here? I don't believe that for a minute.

Again, "the majority" disagrees with you. If you're going to moderate a community, you should at least get acquainted with it first.

my post will be in response to this, too...

I feel weird trying to bridge this gap. This doesn't feel like me.

[clapper011]

hehe exactly! If I were wicked...three quarters of this forum would be locked!
ps: wiki still love you!

[Dancing Mustard]

I think that clapper is making an honest mistake, and that this thread will be the remedy. This forum's culture has evolved in such a way that posts and threads that, in most forums, would be nothing but spam and attempts to annoy people, are in this forum, actually just fun goofing-off posts. Most posters who are annoyed by the constant posting of rick astley lyrics have left long ago. But when a thread is locked, and another popps up right after with a similar name, then to her, it doesn't seem like a joke, it seems like a "FU MODS." Like I said, this was an honest mistake. I think from now on, it'll be much easier if we just remind clapper when a thread is just for fun, and she won't take it the wrong way. (She isn't wicked.

Exactly!

That's what I'm driving at here. I honestly think that the way Clapper sometimes acts isn't accomplishing anything. I'm not having a dig at her when I say that, I'm just saying that I think she could better direct her (often much appreciated) efforts.

I mean, locking a small batch of threads that we're all finding amusing... why bother? If there genuinely are a bunch of posters who are finding it annoying, then sure, lock them down. But I honestly don't think those people actually exist in OT.
(Sure, people in GD might think they're annoying... but we think 'congrats on u rank' is annoying, and that doesn't get locked. There's just no point protecting people who aren't ever affected).

So yeah, apologies to Clapper (et al) if they think our parody threads, or the occasional Rick Astley related sojourn, are "FU Mods" actions... they're really not. It's just us enjoying ourselves and having a laugh. There's really nobody out there that minds it (and if there is, please say, we'd be fascinated to hear your views) and as such there's no reason to lock it all down and issue us with warnings... that's just moderation for moderations sake, and it just creates bitterness without actually righting a wrong.

I really don't want to bitch at mods here, I appreciate a lot of what they do. I just think we might be able to re-think how OT gets policed, saving both mods and community a whole lot of time and a whole lot of grief... with nobody losing anything along the way.


Come on Clappy, give us a hug. We can work this all out together if we put our minds to it.

[Nikolai]

Y'know, it's funny. I agree with most of what heavycola put up in the first post, as stated, particularly the commentary on staying on topic. But the more people expound upon what they mean by that, the more I find myself in a state of tremendous disagreement. The more I hear, the more I hear "I want what I want because I want it and I have RIGHTS goddammit!" Which is, in fact, a load of horse puckey. You don't have any rights on CC. You don't. Get it straight. Even those things that everybody takes for granted as rights, like Rule #1... aren't. They could be rescinded tomorrow, retroactively and specifically, and you wouldn't have a bit of legitimate reason to complain. You could stop coming here... but you couldn't complain.

I don't really think that's a very good way of operating...

Perfect example. So what? You don't like it. Poor baby. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Peanut Butter" for you. So? Present something specific with which you disagree. "I don't think this (problematic procedure here) is a good way of operating because this (example here) is the result, and it causes this (insert problem here) trouble." Then offer a solution that you believe would be acceptable to all parties involved... but is first acceptable to the mod/admin team. This thread started off well because it was an attempt to understand what drives moderation style and technique with the stated intention of using the understanding gained to find a middle ground that would first be acceptable to the mod/admin team, and would second be more enjoyable for the forum participants.

Oh, and you can put me down for part of the majority that clapper's talking about. Do you have any idea how obnoxious it is to be looking through the forum to see if there's anything interesting being discussed and have to wade through twelve different threads that are nothing but parody threads, and poorly done at that? It's very, very nice to have some of them locked up so I don't have to waste time on 'em. It boggles my mind that people post spam, knowing it's spam, even stating that it's spam, and knowing the designated response to spam... and then complain when that response comes. Go to Spamalot, if you really, really MUST SPAM.

[hecter]

Y'know, it's funny. I agree with most of what heavycola put up in the first post, as stated, particularly the commentary on staying on topic. But the more people expound upon what they mean by that, the more I find myself in a state of tremendous disagreement. The more I hear, the more I hear "I want what I want because I want it and I have RIGHTS goddammit!" Which is, in fact, a load of horse puckey. You don't have any rights on CC. You don't. Get it straight. Even those things that everybody takes for granted as rights, like Rule #1... aren't. They could be rescinded tomorrow, retroactively and specifically, and you wouldn't have a bit of legitimate reason to complain. You could stop coming here... but you couldn't complain.

I don't really think that's a very good way of operating...

Perfect example. So what? You don't like it. Poor baby. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Peanut Butter" for you. So? Present something specific with which you disagree. "I don't think this (problematic procedure here) is a good way of operating because this (example here) is the result, and it causes this (insert problem here) trouble." Then offer a solution that you believe would be acceptable to all parties involved... but is first acceptable to the mod/admin team. This thread started off well because it was an attempt to understand what drives moderation style and technique with the stated intention of using the understanding gained to find a middle ground that would first be acceptable to the mod/admin team, and would second be more enjoyable for the forum participants.

Oh, and you can put me down for part of the majority that clapper's talking about. Do you have any idea how obnoxious it is to be looking through the forum to see if there's anything interesting being discussed and have to wade through twelve different threads that are nothing but parody threads, and poorly done at that? It's very, very nice to have some of them locked up so I don't have to waste time on 'em. It boggles my mind that people post spam, knowing it's spam, even stating that it's spam, and knowing the designated response to spam... and then complain when that response comes. Go to Spamalot, if you really, really MUST SPAM.

So what? You don't like it. Poor baby. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Peanut Butter" for you.

[Nikolai]

Exactly. And you don't see me posting in all your stupid parody threads whining about it, do you?

[Ditocoaf]

Y'know, it's funny. I agree with most of what heavycola put up in the first post, as stated, particularly the commentary on staying on topic. But the more people expound upon what they mean by that, the more I find myself in a state of tremendous disagreement. The more I hear, the more I hear "I want what I want because I want it and I have RIGHTS goddammit!" Which is, in fact, a load of horse puckey. You don't have any rights on CC. You don't. Get it straight. Even those things that everybody takes for granted as rights, like Rule #1... aren't. They could be rescinded tomorrow, retroactively and specifically, and you wouldn't have a bit of legitimate reason to complain. You could stop coming here... but you couldn't complain.

I don't really think that's a very good way of operating...

Perfect example. So what? You don't like it. Poor baby. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Peanut Butter" for you. So? Present something specific with which you disagree. "I don't think this (problematic procedure here) is a good way of operating because this (example here) is the result, and it causes this (insert problem here) trouble." Then offer a solution that you believe would be acceptable to all parties involved... but is first acceptable to the mod/admin team. This thread started off well because it was an attempt to understand what drives moderation style and technique with the stated intention of using the understanding gained to find a middle ground that would first be acceptable to the mod/admin team, and would second be more enjoyable for the forum participants.

Oh, and you can put me down for part of the majority that clapper's talking about. Do you have any idea how obnoxious it is to be looking through the forum to see if there's anything interesting being discussed and have to wade through twelve different threads that are nothing but parody threads, and poorly done at that? It's very, very nice to have some of them locked up so I don't have to waste time on 'em. It boggles my mind that people post spam, knowing it's spam, even stating that it's spam, and knowing the designated response to spam... and then complain when that response comes. Go to Spamalot, if you really, really MUST SPAM.

So what? You don't like it. Poor baby. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Peanut Butter" for you.

No, you see, hecter... he's saying that if you don't like spam threads being locked, don't complain about it... go to spamalot. Nikolai isn't complaining... he's pointing out the solution to the problems spammers might have.

I tend to not wholeheartedly agree with him, though... I think some silly and/or trivial posts in NYB are acceptable, and even desirable. Certain posts have comedic value, but only when they are a public response to something else in the public forum.

[pancakemix]

Spamalot has negative connotations to some people. That idea runs deep in this forums veins. You can't just say "Go to Spamalot" because Spamalot panders to people with a certain sense of humor aside from the rest of the people here, and that's the problem with people who don't frequent this forum trying to tell the people who do what's best: They don't understand it.

[Ditocoaf]

Spamalot has negative connotations to some people. That idea runs deep in this forums veins. You can't just say "Go to Spamalot" because Spamalot panders to people with a certain sense of humor aside from the rest of the people here, and that's the problem with people who don't frequent this forum trying to tell the people who do what's best: They don't understand it.

I do frequent this forum, however... and I tend to think that the vast majority of spam should be in the designated usergroup. (If enough people with a different sense of humor join spamalot, then it'll change to accommodate the new people). The only sometimes-called-spam that should be given some leeway here is what I would argue isn't spam at all: joke threads, which are in response to something else in the forum. It has a purpose beyond empty posting, therefore is not spam (imo).

[Nikolai]

Spamalot has negative connotations to some people. That idea runs deep in this forums veins. You can't just say "Go to Spamalot" because Spamalot panders to people with a certain sense of humor aside from the rest of the people here, and that's the problem with people who don't frequent this forum trying to tell the people who do what's best: They don't understand it.

I do frequent this forum, however... and I tend to think that the vast majority of spam should be in the designated usergroup. (If enough people with a different sense of humor join spamalot, then it'll change to accommodate the new people). The only sometimes-called-spam that should be given some leeway here is what I would argue isn't spam at all: joke threads, which are in response to something else in the forum. It has a purpose beyond empty posting, therefore is not spam (imo).

I agree. Understand, I'm not saying that I don't find any spam funny. I've even found a parody thread or two funny. But most of it is pretty bad, panders to "a certain sense of humor" if to any, and serves absolutely no purpose beyong posting for its own sake - the very definition, as I understand it, of spam. So should the forum be forced to, in your words, pander to people with a certain sense of humor? I'd think if you felt that Spamalot carries negative connotations for that reason, you wouldn't be supporting concepts that would drive the entire forum to that point.

Btw, I'm not sure whether that comment about people who don't frequent the forum was directed at me or not, but for the record, I check in here several times a day and read most of what happens. I just don't feel the need to comment every time.

[Jenos Ridan]

Because if the majority votes for it, it must be right. Right?

Not according to the disciples of Bertrand Russell.

[TheProwler]

Because if the majority votes for it, it must be right. Right?

Not according to the disciples of Bertrand Russell.

Not according to anyone intelligent.

[F1fth]

Spamalot has negative connotations to some people. That idea runs deep in this forums veins. You can't just say "Go to Spamalot" because Spamalot panders to people with a certain sense of humor aside from the rest of the people here, and that's the problem with people who don't frequent this forum trying to tell the people who do what's best: They don't understand it.

I do frequent this forum, however... and I tend to think that the vast majority of spam should be in the designated usergroup. (If enough people with a different sense of humor join spamalot, then it'll change to accommodate the new people). The only sometimes-called-spam that should be given some leeway here is what I would argue isn't spam at all: joke threads, which are in response to something else in the forum. It has a purpose beyond empty posting, therefore is not spam (imo).

I agree. Understand, I'm not saying that I don't find any spam funny. I've even found a parody thread or two funny. But most of it is pretty bad, panders to "a certain sense of humor" if to any, and serves absolutely no purpose beyong posting for its own sake - the very definition, as I understand it, of spam. So should the forum be forced to, in your words, pander to people with a certain sense of humor? I'd think if you felt that Spamalot carries negative connotations for that reason, you wouldn't be supporting concepts that would drive the entire forum to that point.

Btw, I'm not sure whether that comment about people who don't frequent the forum was directed at me or not, but for the record, I check in here several times a day and read most of what happens. I just don't feel the need to comment every time.

But why bother locking these spam threads? Every time one has been left unlocked, one of two things happened:

a) if it's uninteresting/worthless, people don't post in it and it falls down the list.
b) if it's interesting/clever/what-have-you, then people post in it and it becomes a relevant thread (i.e. not spam).

I don't see a need for moderation in this case.

[hecter]

Spamalot has negative connotations to some people. That idea runs deep in this forums veins. You can't just say "Go to Spamalot" because Spamalot panders to people with a certain sense of humor aside from the rest of the people here, and that's the problem with people who don't frequent this forum trying to tell the people who do what's best: They don't understand it.

I do frequent this forum, however... and I tend to think that the vast majority of spam should be in the designated usergroup. (If enough people with a different sense of humor join spamalot, then it'll change to accommodate the new people). The only sometimes-called-spam that should be given some leeway here is what I would argue isn't spam at all: joke threads, which are in response to something else in the forum. It has a purpose beyond empty posting, therefore is not spam (imo).

See, this is proof that even you, somebody who frequents the off topics forum, doesn't actually understand what Spamalot is. It's not the "designated usergroup for spam", it's a group of people who share a certain sense of humour enjoying themselves, chatting, posting funny images, even the odd "more-serious" discussion. All members have to be pre-approved through a popular vote before they are let into the Spamalot forum and that's not going to change.

@ the Nikola post, I was just pointing out to him the fact that we was whining and complaining just like the people/topics he condemned in his post.

[jonesthecurl]

I didn't post in the recent spate of threads Juan opened.

Here is my reasoning:
Although they looked like spam, they had a serious purpose: to wit, to make the point that he was right in saying that the mods were not wrong, and that such posts as he was making were spam and should be locked. (I think).
So it wasn't spamn.
As it looke dlike spam but wasn't, I at first thought that it might be "ham". But, that's what spam is trying to look like, not vice-versa.
Thus (I reasoned) this must be anti-spam.
I was afraid of the consequences of posting real spam in an anti-spam thread, as when the two similar but opposed things met, they might cancel each other out resulting in a explosion of cosmic proportions.

Say, was anyone adding anti-spam to a spam thread just before the fora went all haywire?...

[pimpdave]

Say, was anyone adding anti-spam to a spam thread just before the fora went all haywire?...

Yes, I had recently posted a thread encouraging Spuzzell to Share His Views. Clearly, the LHC of posts.

[jonesthecurl]

Incidentally, on the subject of there being threads in NYB one doesn't want to read, sometimes: so what? Don't read 'em.
I find all the sports threads mind-numbingly dull, and it's especially irritataing when a thread title sounds intruiging but turns out to be yet another ha-ha we won and you lost thread.
I can live with that. There are other forum members who enjoy those threads.

[Simon Viavant]

Clapper does have sort of a point, though. Songs for example, the only reason people post lyrics is to tick clapper off, but then again, it's her fault for doing what you the OP wanted and locking it, if she just let it go it'd probably stop.

[b.k. barunt]

The only "harmful" spam i've seen around here is where someone floods a forum with a plethora of meaningless, humorless drivel in order to jack up their number of posts, like iliad, or in order to drive all intelligent life out of a forum, like whump/assprowler did in Flame Wars. We're talking about double and triple posting in that case, and every other post was "f*ck you".

Wicked whipped illy's ass into line, and his meaningless, humorless drivel is posted much less now, but nothing was done by twildo or the mods about the whump/assprowler Flame Wars spam situation, which is why no one goes there anymore.

Now we have certain mods like "nightstrike" who seemingly pick numbers out of the hat when locking a thread for "spam". This is done with no consistent rationale in mind, and is evidently just something for bored, indulged children to do when they feel a lack of attention. Lucky us.

The last time i made a negative comment about "nightstrike"'s modding style, he whined to twildo and i received a disciplinary warning for "flaming outside the Flame Forum". So if you don't see me around for a while . . .


Honibaz

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't post in the recent spate of threads Juan opened.

Here is my reasoning:
Although they looked like spam, they had a serious purpose: to wit, to make the point that he was right in saying that the mods were not wrong, and that such posts as he was making were spam and should be locked. (I think).
So it wasn't spamn.
As it looke dlike spam but wasn't, I at first thought that it might be "ham". But, that's what spam is trying to look like, not vice-versa.
Thus (I reasoned) this must be anti-spam.
I was afraid of the consequences of posting real spam in an anti-spam thread, as when the two similar but opposed things met, they might cancel each other out resulting in a explosion of cosmic proportions.

Say, was anyone adding anti-spam to a spam thread just before the fora went all haywire?...

Jonesthecurl, king of the off-topic forum.

[pancakemix]

Clapper does have sort of a point, though. Songs for example, the only reason people post lyrics is to tick clapper off, but then again, it's her fault for doing what you the OP wanted and locking it, if she just let it go it'd probably stop.