A torch has been passed ...

[Azrael]

Hi.

My name is Azrael and some nice people have asked me to keep an eye on things 'round these parts. In addition, you may/will notice a generally higher moderator presence in this forum and some more newly-purpled faces as well. The management of this site is currently dissatisfied with the level and quality of debate seen in an area specifically created to house well-reasoned, logically-supported, civil discussion about important and serious content.

The rules for this area have been updated. Please use this thread to discuss any questions that may arise after you read them.

Thank you,

-Az

[Lucrece]

Where will the "blog posts" be moved to should they be deemed such?

To an appropriate forum. If one isn't readily apparent, they will simply be locked.

[roc314]

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.

[Princess Marzipan]

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.

[Azrael]

I will use discretion precisely because of the instances you mention and I request that the SB users do the same*. Admitting that you haven't read a 3 page thread, however, is unilaterally unacceptable.


* This is going to be a reoccurring theme

[existential_elevator]

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.

I would suggest also using the search function on big threads to check you're not flogging proverbial dead horses. Especially with aforementioned abortion thread[s] and the vegetarian thread.

[Princess Marzipan]

I would suggest also using the search function on big threads to check you're not flogging proverbial dead horses. Especially with aforementioned abortion thread[s] and the vegetarian thread.

Hm. Maybe have a 'dead horse' collection for certain threads, and edit the first post to include links to relevant parts of the discussion? This is an ass-ton of work, but people particularly invested in a thread may not mind sending Azrael post numbers of various important parts of the discussion.

[Azrael]

I'd be perfectly happy to edit first posts with index-like structures for very long threads. But I don't consider it enough of a priority to do the indexing myself.

[Zamfir]

If I am allowed to make a suggestion: do not punish people who write that they didn't read the previous pages.

The effect you would like to achieve is that people start reading previous posts. But I predict the effect will be that those people still won't read them, but will stop telling so in their posts.

So you gain nothing, as the ill-informed posts will keep coming. But you lose something significant: people warning in their own posts that are not worth reading. I usually skip posts that start with "I haven't read but..", and I would prefer that those warnings stay there...

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

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

[SecondTalon]

With a lot of the "I haven't read the thread past the first two or three posts, but.." in a 50 something page thread, it's very apparent that they haven't read the recent posts, given that their subject matter is dealing with what was on the first page or two and rehashing points made on the first page or two.

And if they can't be bothered to read the last few pages, do you think they're going to be bothered to read a rules page? (-this is not actually a sarcastic question. I believe they will likely not, but I may be mistaken)

[Azrael]

Spoiler:

itsatrap.jpg (23.94 KiB) Viewed 73156 times

SexyTalon: Is Serious Business.

[mosc]

The only solution is an auto-lock. I've proposed it before and it's been dismissed but running threads like "the abortion thread" or similar absurdities aught to simply lock on a certain point total and go away. Somebody can make a new thread and start a new discussion. 5 pages aught to work nicely for SB. Not reading the whole thread would be shunned and long running discussions would simply be capped and re-started and everyone could share in the same starting point rather than scattered across the thread.

SB suffers greatly due to discussions that meander (a good thing) and then get jumped on by outside people who do not read the whole thread or choose to reply to a small part of the discussion and derail the meaningful discussion. A 5-page auto-lock gets things back on track, if nothing else, every 5 pages.

[SecondTalon]

I think the rehashing problem would get worse with that sort of locking system, especially on particularly divisive topics (like Abortion). With the current method, with it all theoretically being in one thread, there's only one thread to search (And the search tools really are nice, especially when searching a single thread). With it stopping and starting up again every 5 pages or so, the same points will be brought up in every third resurrection, if not more frequently. And it will be harder for the responsible user to search to see if someone's already made their point, leading to fewer users even attempting.

[mosc]

They same points get risen over and over again anyway. People post "I believe X" in the middle of a running discussion on the nuances of something else. It's disruptive. You can say it will be worse, but I already avoid such threads (as do most other established users) so at worse you worry about alienating newer members? It would seem to be that they would be much more likely to read if it was 2 or 3 pages instead of 20. Nobody is going to read that whole abortion thread and I'd wager nobody has. Drop in on page 10 and tell me the difference between that and page 20.

[Azrael]

I'm leaving myself a little note to remember to add that:

Attributing Quotes is Serious Business.

[mosc]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Quotation marks do NOT imply direct replication of speech.

[Azrael]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Quotation marks do NOT imply direct replication of speech.

It means that unattributed quotes like this are annoying as hell, especially if it weren't directly below the original.

[++$_]

So wait, it's okay to do this, right (breaking up a quote with only the first box attributed directly)?

My name is Azrael and some nice people have asked me to keep an eye on things 'round these parts. I'm still pretty green regarding this whole deal, so I'm starting a topic to say 'Hello' for now .. and not much more. Sometime in the next 48 hours I'll figure things out, and unlock this thread so we can talk.

Hi Az. You look more purple than green IMO.

In the meantime (and moving forward) please use the report function early and responsibly to report duplicate threads, off-topic tangents, request thread splits and similar administrative needs.

I'll be sure to do so.

[Azrael]

So wait, it's okay to do this, right (breaking up a quote with only the first box attributed directly)?

Of course. I don't think the extra "effort" of attributing them all is really that tedious, but the first quote from each poster (if you're quoting multiple people) is the bare minimum to keep the discussion readable.

[SecondTalon]

Obviously you should re-attribute as you go along. If I'm commenting on three posts, two from mosc with one from ++$_ in between, I'd expect the quoteboxes should go

Point 1.

Refutation of 1

Point 2

Refutation of 2

Point 1 Refutation

Addition to Point 1, request for Clarification, slight refutation.

Refutation to ++$_'s Point 1 Refutation

Re-refuting Point 1

[Intercept]

Honestly, I think the best solution for the huge super threads like religion and abortion etc. are just to allow separate topics dealing with the different issues of the subject.

[Princess Marzipan]

Honestly, I think the best solution for the huge super threads like religion and abortion etc. are just to allow separate topics dealing with the different issues of the subject.

Wouldn't work; they'd all bleed into each other.

[Intercept]

Honestly, I think the best solution for the huge super threads like religion and abortion etc. are just to allow separate topics dealing with the different issues of the subject.

Wouldn't work; they'd all bleed into each other.

As opposed to putting all the blood together to begin with?

I'm just saying, if there was threads on very specific subjects within the subject, and it was known that you are not to discuss the other parts of the topic, people wouldn't if even a few offenses meant being banned from SB. If they did then good riddance.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

We don't need a thousand threads about socialism.

[Azrael]

Transparency: It's Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat!

For the record, I report to the rest of the mod team, and as the new player in the game I've been keeping them informed about my thoughts, efforts, attempts and failures in this forum.

That being said: I can't ban people from SB (FYI: I was vested with this power at an indeterminate point after writing this post). If you find yourself banned from this area, sending me a PM first is the appropriate response -- if the situation was not made clear enough to you between official warnings you have received prior to action and the ban notice you received from which ever Prelate or Administrator actually banned you, I will try to clarify.

Being a dick about it in public serves no one's interests and no meaningful purpose.

[Ixtellor]

I feel that more liberty and consideration should be made to 'off topic' posts.
When having a debate or discussion about big ideas, you will be forced to veer off course to make a point.
You can't attack socialism without a radical departure into macro economics. You can't defend socialism without a turn into morality. Having a 20 post debate over Cuba in a thread about socialism is GOOD. Now if the discussion turns to cuban food versus american food, then obviously that is totally off topic.
But having a hard rule about 'off topic' doesn't take into consideration basic debate strategies that are entirely relevant when making a point.

Topic: 4chan is bad for America.
This topic could have any number of discussions that would ultimatly be relevant, but might be deemed off topic.

Ixtellor

[SecondTalon]

I feel that more liberty and consideration should be made to 'off topic' posts.
When having a debate or discussion about big ideas, you will be forced to veer off course to make a point.
You can't attack socialism without a radical departure into macro economics. You can't defend socialism without a turn into morality. Having a 20 post debate over Cuba in a thread about socialism is GOOD. Now if the discussion turns to cuban food versus american food, then obviously that is totally off topic.
But having a hard rule about 'off topic' doesn't take into consideration basic debate strategies that are entirely relevant when making a point.

Ixtellor

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.

You could, of course, simply say that "You cannot boil a topic as complex as the interactions of X and Y into a baseball metaphor" and then go on making whatever point it was you were trying to make that's still within the scope of the thread.

Now, in discussing socialism, you are right in that it's hard to discuss the entirety of it without getting in to macro-economics. You can get in to it without discussing morality, because morality is subjective. That said, when you're discussing macro-economics in the socialism thread, if you're not directly tying everything that you're saying in to why socialism does or does not work on the macro scale, but have instead veered into debating how much capitalist economies need to be regulated on the free market.. well, you've obviously jumped the shark and have gone off-topic.

I suppose you could always, before you hit submit, doublecheck the thread your in and make sure your post directly ties in to the thread. If it doesn't, re-work it until it does, maybe.

But..really, that's one of my complaints with this place - that a discussion on Socialism becomes a twenty-page debate on global economics.

[Intercept]

We don't need a thousand threads about socialism.

I agree, but, we do anyway so maybe that's a poor example. However, abortion for instance could have threads such as:

1) When does life truly begin and does it matter?
2) Under what circumstances should abortions be allowed? (Note, one could just use the general term, before life begins in this thread to stop bleeding.)
3) Men's Rights in abortion.

And so on. Combined with very swift punishment for offending repeating topics (Or, better yet, having to specifically ask a mod if a topic is too similar before creating it for certain issues such as: Religion, atheism, socialism, abortion, etc.) could lead to less threads. I would disagree that these forums (All of them, not just SB) have too many threads anyway.

[mosc]

Auto-lock is the answer.

You have one thread on socialism and you don't have to be so damn strict when the topic leans into morality similar. They're obviously on topic. I hate that we're so shielded about this stuff. Natrually, after a certain number of pages, it auto-locks which gives people a perfect break to get back on topic. It's automatic.

[Intercept]

But if they perceive the problem as a lot of topics, then that won't help, as there will be many dead locked topics. Unless they perceive the problem as open topics.

[mosc]

Here's what I propose for auto-lock

1) Thread gets a more flexible "on topic" moderation stance.
2) It reaches the 6th page
3) The moderator should start watching the thread looking for a good point to lock
4) Moderator locks the thread
5) Moderator makes a new thread on the discussion topic which includes a link to the previous thread and optionally a place for the moderator to put a summation or some specifics for the discussion beyond the title
6) Back to 1

Topic is not really ever locked really, it's just restarted.

[Princess Marzipan]

Here's what I propose for auto-lock

The post your face, introduction, fleeting thoughts, and confessions threads (maybe not FT and conf, but definitely intro and pyf) were all originally locked once they reached a hundred pages. Eventually it was decided to just not lock them and let the forum have a few gigantic threads, as they're much easier to deal with than multiple threads that are all really the same thread but they're located in myriad different places.

If the point is keeping people 'on the same page' (haw haw haw) then seriously - just read the current page and the last two. You'll be caught up enough to understand the current point of discussion. If you have a contribution that's related but sort of off-topic kinda, make a new thread and go from there.

[++$_]

No auto-lock please. The long threads are long for a reason -- they have relatively broad topics (such as "religion"). It makes sense for those threads to be long and to take extended forays into one area of the subject, only to shift to another topic later, and possibly back again. Closing them needlessly breaks up the discussion and deprives people of an opportunity to respond to others.

Also, the history is kind of nice. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has read back issues of the Religion thread. This way, I know where to find them without having to do a search.

[mosc]

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.

The long threads on general are totally different. Nobody expects you to read anything in those threads. Posting without reading the last reply is perfectly acceptable. That should not be true in SB. The general threads are essentially chat rooms with a running history and a common theme. They're not discussion forums at that point.

[existential_elevator]

If the point is keeping people 'on the same page' (haw haw haw) then seriously - just read the current page and the last two. You'll be caught up enough to understand the current point of discussion. If you have a contribution that's related but sort of off-topic kinda, make a new thread and go from there.

This.
Make it the rules.
Anyone who doesn't have the attention span to read the rules should not be posting.
If they do post, their posts are invariably pointless and/or unhelpful. The more people like this put off from posting here, the better, frankly.

[clintonius]

Hammer had stickied something to that effect a while ago, and I'm wholly in agreement that it should remain/be reinstated as a rule, even if it's just a subset of "staying on topic."

[mosc]

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?

[existential_elevator]

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?

Yes, if it's irrelevant.

I've been deleted often enough in this forum to have sympathy for why. A non-committal opinion thrown in after 20 pages with no consideration of anything else already said does not count. You do that in general, not here.

[clintonius]

Right. And what's wrong with pragmatism?

Also, there's a difference between posting your opinion when you're not informed of the fact that it was stated several pages earlier (and/or several times earlier) because you're lazy, and posting something that doesn't align with the previous several posts when the topic has dried up or has turned into a quote-sniping fest between two people. The former is the one I'd like to see prohibited.