A torch has been passed ...

[mosc]

quote sniping fests between 2 or 3 people dominate those threads interspersed with complete non-sequeter replies to the original post or topic. That's the content we're worried about alienating with auto-locks?

[clintonius]

Those aren't the only types of replies that happen in here. Plenty of times I've seen a perfectly interesting thread become the victim of petty squabbling; that doesn't mean the thread should necessarily be locked. If it's apparent that it's going nowhere, sure, but I feel like an across-the-board rule about locking after a certain number of pages doesn't leave room for moderator discretion. It also creates a tacit acceptance of the idea that someone is allowed to create a new thread about the same topic as soon as the current thread is locked. I can't imagine that going over well immediately after the preceding thread was locked for raucousness.

[22/7]

mosc, on the topic of auto-locking, I've been in a number of fairly direct (read, 2 to 4 people actually involved) debates in threads in SB, and I highly doubt that simply locking a thread and recreating another one would do much to stop that from happening unless it was locked with a post from a mod saying "we're done with this line of discussion", or something similar. Which is just modding in the first place. Otherwise, even with a new thread and OP, the exact same points are going to be brought up (probably by the OP, according to your list from earlier) and the same back and forth discussion will resume.

At least, that's what I would predict, were someone to ask me.

[davean]

That's pragmatic at best. What are you going to do, delete anyone who posts an "I believe X" message on page 20+ of the abortion thread?

And ban them if they do it again? Yes, why not?

That is disrespectful of the people trying to have a discussion.

This is a place for the people using it for serious discussions and as such they are catered to, not random posters. People who want to talk opinions have plenty of other sub-forums on this board alone.

[Mzyxptlk]

The thing is the moderators don't want the topics to meander like that because they blur into one another. The auto lock helps minimize the topic wandering. They also maintain a history because the old threads still exist. They are not that much harder to access.

They also reduce the depth in which topics can be examined by forcing people to go back to 1, encouraging a repetition of the previous topic. While this is also true of 20-page abortion topics (no one reads pages 5-15), auto-locking long topics is not a solution, it merely moves the problem.

[gmalivuk]

Locking after a certain number of pages is a bad idea and I feel pretty confident predicting that it definitely will not happen. It wouldn't actually solve any problems (since reading the shorter new thread in its entirety is no more or less difficult than reading the last couple pages of a longer thread, and people who aren't going to do one won't do the other), and it would create all the new ones others have been bringing up.

People can be forgiven for missing something that was discussed on page 15 of a 40-page thread, just like if they don't read all the previous locked threads with a silly auto-lock scheme. But if they clearly haven't read anything going on in the latest page or two, that's when we take some kind of moderator action.

[Azrael]

Clintonius is now* live as a second SB magistrate. All unsigned purple text added prior to now is (obviously) mine, but we'll strive to sign all of our moderation moving forward.

* (As of 10:10 UTC on 14Nov)

[clintonius]

Thanks to Az and the rest of the mod team for bringing me on board, and greetings, fellow lovers of Serious Business. Let's keep this place headed on the right track, eh?

Now, I want a good, clean fight, and no hitting below the belt.

[Jessica]

You could, I don't know, pick a different shade of red?

[Azrael]

But that color is pretty damn convenient in the selector bar. Ideally, we'll sign all moderation that's outside of our own posts.

[T-Form]

Well, if someone makes an analogy to illustrate the point they're making, don't take that as an invitation to destruct the analogy by introducing variations that invalidated it
(For an example of what I'm talking about, Noc's Plumbing Analogy in the Feminism thread, T-Form introducing permutations to try to invalidate the analogy, and Noc calling him on it.

Eh? I wasn't trying to invalidate the analogy, I was trying to show that it could have other valid interpretations - that while it does provide a useful and potentially informative model, it didn't automatically answer all of the questions we had been talking about, and that other perspectives can be explored in a similar manner.

[clintonius]

This thread is for dialogue about SB rules and regulations -- not a place to defend posts made in other threads. SexyTalon's point still stands. Feel free to argue the specifics in the appropriate place.

[mosc]

How about a 1 month lock on these long threads? Ban necros on these long ass threads if nobody's posted for more than a month. Perfect chance to start a new thread without all the baggage. Obviously the running discussion has ended. Hell, even 2 weeks would be enough.

Next time somebody wants to talk about slurs, age of consent, Marijuana, or eating meat, lets start new threads.

[22/7]

How about a 1 month lock on these long threads? Ban necros on these long ass threads if nobody's posted for more than a month. Perfect chance to start a new thread without all the baggage. Obviously the running discussion has ended. Hell, even 2 weeks would be enough.

Next time somebody wants to talk about slurs, age of consent, Marijuana, or eating meat, lets start new threads.

The problem with that (surely this has been brought up before?) is that we end up in the endless loop of making the same arguments over and over and over, and for those of us who have been around for awhile and plan to be around awhile longer, this means that every time a thread that we're participating in falls to the bottom of the pile and another one is formed, we get to say everything we've already said before, but to new people who couldn't be bothered to see if it had been brought up in the past. It also starts to get into the realm of "now which abortion thread was that in again?" territory.

[mosc]

Using the same old thread does not prevent that in any way. Your previous comments are buried regardless. It is a tomb of dead posts either way.

[Azrael]

Exactly, if people won't read past 2 pages ago (if we're lucky) then they won't read a previous thread, no matter the length of either the current or past threads.

So why go to the trouble of creating / regulating / locking dozens of threads?

There does not seem to be *any* benefit that can be derived from shorter auto-locked and indexed threads.

[clintonius]

Plus you lose the ability to do a quick search within the thread, because there isn't just that one thread any longer.

I'ma go ahead and say it's not happening. If in a couple months you care to reignite the discussion with some fresh points, go ahead. For now, I'd like this thread to move away from the "auto lock" discussion.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I don't know about auto-locking necro'd threads, but I do think it would be nice to slacken up a bit on this forum's tendency to combine related threads about the same subject and combine new and old threads.

Sometimes there are benefits to having different threads where different people discuss different aspects of a topic, instead of, for example "Religion—Discuss." And once a thread's original discussion peters out, it should be left to die naturally. But then we don't need 500 threads about Communism, either, so there's a balance to be maintained.

[GhostWolfe]

If a topic can be demonstrated to be discussed without crossing over into existing arguments, then the thread will be allowed to remain. The policy is not about auto-merging, but about keeping relevant discussions in the one place.

/angell

[clintonius]

Ah, wouldn't you like to know.*

Also, GhostWolfe is very right: continuity is a major factor when Az and I decide whether or not to merge/lock a thread. In addition, sometimes threads just "fit" better in a different place. I presume this question was prompted by today's thread merge. The thread regarding Big Brother contained conversation better suited to N&A than to SB. This is not an insult to any posters in that thread (you may notice that I post a helluva lot in N&A, and do so in a way that wouldn't fly in SB). It's simply a judgment call -- some discussions are bred for SB; others are tolerated there; and still others clearly (in our minds) fit somewhere else.

*Lack of question mark intentional.

[BrainMagMo]

I'd like to say, the addition of an "index" in the OP of long thread is a REALLY good idea.
Much better than auto locking b/c then the thread is search-able, and other points already brought up.
However, I'm not so sure on how i would be implemented. :/

[clintonius]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by an index?

[Azrael]

I'm assuming he means something like what Nougat mentioned here. And just like when Nougat mentioned it, if someone is willing to index a thread, I will edit it. Otherwise, no.

[Azrael]

Rule Update as of 30Nov08. Please reread them at your earliest convenience.

[scwizard]

The anti quote sniping rule is really helpful, it really does get in the way of good discussion.

I think you should link some kind of "what is quote sniping and why is it bad?" article in the rules though, people would find it quite helpful.

[clintonius]

If you can dig up an article/explanation feel free to post it, and I'll link it in the rules.

[Quixotess]

Rule Update as of 30Nov08. Please reread them at your earliest convenience.

It would be helpful if you left a line in small text at the end of the rules post saying, briefly, what was changed.

[clintonius]

And hey, to break up the wall of purple here: I just learned about a great resource that I think I'll be making liberal use of for my personal reading, and I thought it'd be something that a bunch of you scholarly article-reading types might be interested in, as well. Google scholar has a bunch of resources that are difficult to find elsewhere. Dig in, fellow nerds.

[diotimajsh]

Whoa, did something get decided in mod-land over the last few days? I'm suddenly seeing much more involved post moderation, with the expectation that SB posts live up to more demanding standards. Or maybe it's the past few weeks, not days.

Anyhow, I'm honestly not criticizing (I haven't objected to any of the edits I've seen, and actually I'm impressed because it seems like that much more work for the mods), I'm just a little surprised and curious. Or is it not that the moderation changed, rather that there's been an unusual rash of sub-par posts? Or perhaps I'm just unobservant, and I've previously only kept up with threads requiring less moderation?

[Azrael]

Ostensibly, moderation of this section has been significantly increased since the 7th of November in an effort to increase the overall quality of the debate.

That being said, over the holidays I've had a significant surplus of available time to moderate. Whether there has also been an increase in sub-par posts compared to, say two weeks ago, is not clear to me - perhaps I'm just catching more of them.

[diotimajsh]

Ah, okay. Good to know, thanks.

[clintonius]

And I've been getting my sweet little tushy smacked all over the place at work, thus preventing me from spending too much time here.

Speaking of which -- I do believe it's time to play catch-up.

[Azrael]

The next time someone can take the time to type "If this is in the wrong place, etc" but can't be bothered to have instead used that time to figure the answer out for themselves, I am going to punch a baby.

So this is fair warning to anyone who might bring a baby near me while I'm on the forum.

-Az

[Quixotess]

Is it okay to PM you to ask about the correct place for a topic?

[Azrael]

Of course it is.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you did there.

[The Mad Scientist]

Earlier today a moderator edited my post for no good reason* and when I pointed this out, I was told that there's an exception for humorous edits. I read the forum rules, the Serious Business rules, and this entire thread. I have found no mention of this supposed exception.

* The preceding statement is incorrect. -Az

[Quixotess]

I foooooound it!

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Could you be more specific about the correlation-and-causation thing? How do people "get it wrong"?

Edit: Also, the rules thread could probably also be marked 9DEC09 now.

[Azrael]

Thanks for catching the date change.

Look, I want the exercise of properly understanding and applying correlation or causation to be left to each participant - kind of how I'd like everyone to have a basic understanding of statistics, probability, simple logic and ... baking. But in short, before uttering that phrase ever again, be incredibly sure that the other party is incorrectly asserting that correlation does imply causation.

Remember: correlation is not useless, catch phrases are.

[xgpt]

May I ask that posts containing the phrase "I didn't read the thread but..." be added to the banned list?

Absolutely, that line should be reported immediately and with great prejudice. I will roll that into the SB Rules at my next edit.

I vehemently second this, as do you, Azrael, but within reason: I don't think it's fair to expect someone to read, like, all twenty pages of the abortion thread before weighing in. I think 'strongly suggesting' that you read the current page and the previous two should make sure any new posts are sufficiently on topic, since that covers an average of the past 100 posts.

Agreed. Being annoyed with someone who has read the past few days of posts in a months old thread should be welcomed into the discussion, if you remember something they might have said that might be considered a re-post or might regress the conversation, be proactive and let them know! Don't regress the conversation further by flaming the regressors.

It's just unwelcoming to newcomers who want to get in on the conversation.

Why not delete the posts, but not tell anyone that you're going to delete them?

That doesn't accomplish much...

It's exceedingly poor form to double post in a thread discussing the forum rules. Might I suggest you re-read them?

-Az