StarDestroyer.Net BBS

General Zod wrote: Couldn't auto-pruning parameters be slightly modified so that the pages are auto-deleted regardless of activity?

I don't know, but that's a good question.

Kendall wrote:Well if the BoTM was originally what Testing has become, then why don't we just move our asses over there and do it? It would revitalize a basically dead user group, give the Bear something do other then post random stuff and leave Testing for actual testing. Most of the active members in Testing are part of the BoTM anyways IIRC.

Another good question.

Knife wrote:

General Zod wrote: Couldn't auto-pruning parameters be slightly modified so that the pages are auto-deleted regardless of activity?

I don't know, but that's a good question.

Kendall wrote:Well if the BoTM was originally what Testing has become, then why don't we just move our asses over there and do it? It would revitalize a basically dead user group, give the Bear something do other then post random stuff and leave Testing for actual testing. Most of the active members in Testing are part of the BoTM anyways IIRC.

Another good question.

The BotM has a lot more "adult" oriented material that wouldn't be appropriate for board general posting, unless you really want to make it an open usergroup that anyone can post to.

General Zod wrote:
The BotM has a lot more "adult" oriented material that wouldn't be appropriate for board general posting, unless you really want to make it an open usergroup that anyone can post to.

A glance in the BoTM shows about an average of one "adult" oriented post a month, actual porn being far rarer recently. How many posters under 19 do we have on the board?

I think Thanas fascism regards to Testing and this RAR FUCK U PLEBES thing should get some attention because it makes me think that Thanas doesn't have a vendetta on a single person, but rather a vendetta against an entire forum and that is conduct not befitting an old aristocratic Prussian officer and gentlemen with monocles and iron cross medals and helmets with pointy things on them but something more like a jackbooted wildly gesticulating madman with a red armband and ridiculous facial hair.

Or we could just put a suitcase full of plastic explosives under Thanas' table on July the 20th and try to blow him up.

Just kidding, I love you Thanas!

Hotfoot wrote:I think the argument for the removal of the third page lock in testing basically boils down to this:

The mods presiding over testing can really lock any thread at any time, and delete any thread at any time. Instead of enforcing an arbitrary rule which forces more busy work and less quality control, threads that may have promise outside of testing are shut down prematurely. Meanwhile, lame threads with no point can get to three pages of utter shit.

I sincerely doubt that anyone is saying let Testing go unmoderated, just that arbitrary moderation just for the sake of continuing a tradition is pointless.

I think Hotfoot summed it up best. The arguments in favor of repealing the 3-page lock make sense to me - it's an outdated board measure that, when put under scrutiny, really has no legitimate purpose anymore.

I think the senate should discuss and vote this. Frankly I am already surprised no other Senator has put this forward for discussion on the senate floor.

I'll put up a senate thread.

Ghetto edit:

And here it is.

Really? I'm not surprised at all. I feel that the majority of the Senate and a few of the mods genuinely dislike testing and anyone that posts in there on a regular basis.

Despite my arguing in favor of not having the lock, I tend to agree with Thanas, that it makes testing a little more fun, if childish, to try to 'beat the lock'. IIRC 12 pages is the record.

Can we start commentary for this new senate thread, like it's the state of the union or something? I vote yes. Let's.

I like how any post in testing is automatically spam, so therefore limiting spamming (posting) is best served by locking testing threads. I demand that we immediately close testing, or better yet reduce the post limit to 1 page or maybe just 5 posts. That will prevent far more posts (spam) than a 3 page lock even if it's less universally enforceable. If that's undoable due to mod overwork, then 'destroy testing' would be the logical solution.

My logic is irrefutable and I think you can clearly see the benefits of my plan.

Do you need to view a thread to lock it? If so, then whether or not this rule is changed the mods would still have to actually open the thread, so they might as well skim through it to ensure that it isn't in fact unfunny spam. If the software does let you lock threads without viewing them ( ), then never mind.

Comedy option because I don't give a shit either way.

Duckie wrote:Can we start commentary for this new senate thread, like it's the state of the union or something? I vote yes. Let's.

I like how any post in testing is automatically spam, so therefore limiting spamming (posting) is best served by locking testing threads. I demand that we immediately close testing, or better yet reduce the post limit to 1 page or maybe just 5 posts. That will prevent far more posts (spam) than a 3 page lock even if it's less universally enforceable. If that's undoable due to mod overwork, then 'destroy testing' would be the logical solution.

My logic is irrefutable and I think you can clearly see the benefits of my plan.

But without Testing, all those spammers will clog up the serious boards. We'd better be safe and ban everyone who posts in Testing while we're at it.

Darth Yoshi wrote:Do you need to view a thread to lock it? If so, then whether or not this rule is changed the mods would still have to actually open the thread, so they might as well skim through it to ensure that it isn't in fact unfunny spam. If the software does let you lock threads without viewing them ( ), then never mind.

I have something called a "moderator control panel" which basically makes any forum I have power over pretty much look like an e-mail inbox. The top 50 or so threads are assembled for my perusal, each with a check box. At the bottom of the interface is a dialog box that asks me what I want to do with the threads I have marked. So yes, I could roll into a forum and ruin its shit without reading a single post.

I have never done that, but thanks for pointing out that I could.

I figured that was the case, but it's always nice to know.

Knife wrote:

General Schatten wrote:I thought that was the fucking point of the HoC? If we bring up something that has merit, the Senate has something to piss & moandebate about and if necessary they can ask Mike. After all if I'm remembering correctly it is the Senate's job to advise Mike on possible changes to the rules, according to that thread at the top of this particular section of the board that details the purpose of the HoC & the Senate.

The point of HOC was a place where such things could be discussed, yes. The very existence of this thread pretty much validates the role of the HOC. The roll of the Senate was similar, but for the staff to listen to if they wished, and it was never something Mike HAD to listen to.

Not to be a dick, but I want you to look over my post and see where I said Mike had to listen to the Senate, 'cause I'm pretty sure I just said that it was the Senate's purpose to advise him on possible rule changes when Lagmonster said that it was Mike's decision.

Okay I have two questions:

1.) Would it be possible to extend the "auto-lock" to page 4? Would that somehow cause problems? What would the problems be? Alternately, can the parameterrs for auto lock be changed (IE rather than reaching a certain page, can it auto-lock after a certain number of days?) Can the board be modified to do so? Can someone be bothered to come up with it?

2.) Why are people unwilling to at least TRY it. This isnt a democratic board and this is hardly a place where something that gets done remains permanant if the staff really hates it. It's in the rules (which I admit amuses me that people complain about something the mods are doing - I guess the Senate isn't doing its job right to draw ire ) that "I feel like it" can pretty much be a reason. At least for Mike, although quite likely anyone else so long as he doesn't care.

Anyhow, why not lift the rule on a probationary basis? I dont know how long would be a good testing period, a month or six months or whatever, but if it actually makes things better in testing (something I am all in favor of) and noone abuses it it could continue. The condition for this is essentially a one strike policy - it gets abused once, then its back in place automatically. No vote, no appeal, nothing.

There would be some conditions I would attach to this also (IE some idiot newbie fucking up wouldn't count, and we put someone who is NOT in favor of keeping it locked or has a vested interest in unlocking it in the arbiter's position, etc.)

Now, it may actually work if we lift it, it may backfire. We wont know until we try. And if it backfires.. well.. we can just put the rule back like I said. I see no harm in at least giving them one chance.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Okay I have two questions:

1.) Would it be possible to extend the "auto-lock" to page 4? Would that somehow cause problems? What would the problems be? Alternately, can the parameterrs for auto lock be changed (IE rather than reaching a certain page, can it auto-lock after a certain number of days?) Can the board be modified to do so? Can someone be bothered to come up with it?

There is no "auto-lock". There are mods who go through and manually lock every thread that has reached three pages. That's why there's been discussion about 'stealth' threads which manage to exceed three pages when, occasionally, the mods haven't been paying attention. There is no change to board software being discussed, but rather a change to the rules so that "It's page 3" is no longer a valid excuse for locking a testing thread.

Thanks for the correcton. so then why not modify the rule so that things can get locked if they get to page 4? Or if thats a problem, the lower half/third of page 3, or something to that extent?

The problem is not where threads are cut off, it's that they get cut off regardless of content, seemingly for no other purpose than to make the mods feel all special and precious.

Has anyone actually gone to Testing to read Dalton's guidelines? The mods can kill any +1 thread. They can kill any spam. They can kill any thread that goes off-topic. Except they don't. All they do is insist on hanging onto an old rule to kill productive threads because that gives them an excuse to go locky-locky and feel all high and mighty while hiding behind a rule set in stone.

If the mods are serious about not having spam in Testing, they can get off their asses and kill spam according to the Testing guidelines. If they want to leave Testing as a release valve for the board, they can revoke a rule that serves no purpose but to annoy people. And if they just want to entertain delusions of potency in the board's kindergarten for retards, appearances of fairness be damned, they can simply come out and say it rather than hide behind some nonsensical idea of posting standards and fighting spam. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Am I the only one who's spotted the irony of the 'I'm a dick' wing of the anti-testing faction using arguments of similar maturity to what they dislike in Testing in the first place?

On a more serious note, even without the 3-page lock, the autoprune still makes maintaining a testing threat an exercise in building sandcastles in front of the tide. All it does is allow people to build sand-dikes in front of it if they care enough about their castle. No change to the concept of the forum, just additional architecture options.

EDIT: And as a side-note, I barely ever touch testing, beyond the occasional chuckle.

This is getting silly. If you want a 'silly' forum, petition for a 'silly' forum, you want to change an existing one to suit your needs. Fine and dandy, but at least be honest enough to call it what it is.

I'd like to petition to delete testing again, since a silly forum as defined by Knife does not exist according to him.

Therefore Testing's purpose never changed years ago, so clearly it cannot exist and this time paradox should be resolved to avoid Marty McFly vanishing.

I'd also like to petition to ban gay marriage in the US and remove reclaimed status from words such as 'bitch', because redefining a term is always explicitly a terrible thing. This is clearly obvious.

Petition? Testing is already a 'silly forum'. It has changed into that over the time of the board's existence. Honestly, does this have to be spelled out for people?
No one is asking for a change in the forum. Do you think if the page three lock stays in place, testing will all of a sudden go back to it's 2002 form? Or that without it, it will break out in spam? No, it will just stay the way it is now. Juts with or without the page three lock.

Besides, we already have a 'silly' forum. It gets hardly any usage anymore and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than a few posts every month or so. On top of the fact that it rarely admits new members.


The Senate.

Knife wrote:This is getting silly. If you want a 'silly' forum, petition for a 'silly' forum, you want to change an existing one to suit your needs. Fine and dandy, but at least be honest enough to call it what it is.

Or we could just, you know, use Testing. Seriously, Knife, do you have anything besides "um, this is how we always done it" and ridiculous bullshit about how we're trying to supposedly turn Testing into a new forum?

Aly has a good point in the latest senate post. If people are allowed to post in a thread, people will post in a thread. And posting is bad.

We shouldn't be talking about ending the Testing Page 3 Lock, we should be discussing adding it to N&P, SLAM, and other high volume forums so that people can't spam up a thread endlessly.

If more information comes up, say, in an updated news story for N&P, we can just make a continuation thread. Monster threads like the Baghdad Tiger and Can McCain Win In 2008 would be prevented that way.

Alyeska wrote:

Kuja wrote:No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

Man, I wish I could be a mod so I could make sweeping generalizations, state my opinion as fact and make accusations about an entire forums posters.

Havok wrote:

Alyeska wrote:

Kuja wrote:No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

Man, I wish I could be a mod so I could make sweeping generalizations, state my opinion as fact and make accusations about an entire forums posters.

I'm pretty sure "not rewarding spammers" was the whole point in making is so testing posts don't add to your post count.