StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr. Coffee wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to give a reasoning for continuing the page three lock that isn't a variation of "cause that's what we always done..." or "because our mods are really this bored and don't have anything useful to do with their time".

Page Four Sniped

Someone already did- somebody was going on about how testing isn't a legitimate forum (self-evidently, apparantly) but rather is a sewer (It reclaims old threads for reuse on other forums?).

I'll be frank. The page 3 lock actually degrades the quality of Testing threads. Seriously, so many people complain about Testing's low signal-to-noise ratio, then spend a lot of energy making sure that any Testing thread that has the potential to be signal is moved or locked. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because when denizens of Testing attempt to improve the quality of the forum with silly/funny/strange/interesting threads, their attempts are sabotaged by removing all the wheat and leaving the chaff, then people try to justify the mandatory locks by pointing out that there's only chaff.

If Testing is not important, why does it need mandatory thread locks? If it's not important, and the posts don't matter, mandatory locks are just a waste of energy.

I'd also like to add that if somehow the lock policy gets lifted in spite of inertia, please don't just continue the policy as if nothing happened. Arbitrary thread locks are more meaningful if they actually are arbitrary, and continuing a defunct policy for its own sake just makes the people doing it look vindictive.

Civil War Man wrote:I'll be frank. The page 3 lock actually degrades the quality of Testing threads. Seriously, so many people complain about Testing's low signal-to-noise ratio, then spend a lot of energy making sure that any Testing thread that has the potential to be signal is moved or locked. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because when denizens of Testing attempt to improve the quality of the forum with silly/funny/strange/interesting threads, their attempts are sabotaged by removing all the wheat and leaving the chaff, then people try to justify the mandatory locks by pointing out that there's only chaff.

If it is good enough to be moved to the serious section on the forum, then it should be moved.

And of course we have Ray to make an unsupported assertation contradictory that Civil War Man was refuting in his very post.

Duckie wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to give a reasoning for continuing the page three lock that isn't a variation of "cause that's what we always done..." or "because our mods are really this bored and don't have anything useful to do with their time".

Page Four Sniped

Someone already did- somebody was going on about how testing isn't a legitimate forum (self-evidently, apparantly) but rather is a sewer (It reclaims old threads for reuse on other forums?).

Oh, yeah... I forgot to add "because some people are unfunny asshats with large sticks lodged in their backside with a grudge against Testing".

Civil War Man wrote:I'll be frank. The page 3 lock actually degrades the quality of Testing threads. Seriously, so many people complain about Testing's low signal-to-noise ratio, then spend a lot of energy making sure that any Testing thread that has the potential to be signal is moved or locked. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because when denizens of Testing attempt to improve the quality of the forum with silly/funny/strange/interesting threads, their attempts are sabotaged by removing all the wheat and leaving the chaff, then people try to justify the mandatory locks by pointing out that there's only chaff.

I'll be frank too, testing was allowed to be what it is for the chaff, not the wheat. It is not self-fulfilling prophecy, it is realizing it's design.

If Testing is not important, why does it need mandatory thread locks? If it's not important, and the posts don't matter, mandatory locks are just a waste of energy.

It's not important for the Admin or staff because it is supposed to be temporary repository for spam so as not to encroach upon other forums (whether or not you think it is successful is another question); however, the very nature of the place, even if unimportant, doesn't necessarily mean it does not take work and effort by the staff just due to the activity in the forum.

I'd also like to add that if somehow the lock policy gets lifted in spite of inertia, please don't just continue the policy as if nothing happened. Arbitrary thread locks are more meaningful if they actually are arbitrary, and continuing a defunct policy for its own sake just makes the people doing it look vindictive.

While I know there are some mods with a hard on for fucking with Testing, I also find it funny how the argument in this thread for removing the 3 page lock rule because of the auto delete. Remove the cap and active spam threads, or even the jewels in testing that could get moved into another forum, will probably garner more activity delaying their auto delete. We already know that Testing has become a sub culture here (Testingstan) and removing a page cap is just a transparent move to make it a little more permanent and not preserve 'good' threads. If they were that good, they'd be moved into OT or another appropriate forum.

You can frame it as staff suppression, but if Mike wanted SPAMWORLD a permanent sub forum, you'd already have it. Taking tools away from staff to limit what was supposed to be a very limited and very temporary relief valve should take more than this. Then again, I have zero clout and zero power, so take it for it is, IMHO.

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.

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.

Then be careful what you ask for, since some of the mod staff thinks of Testing as very arbitrary. A 3 page lock rule gave the Testing regulars three pages of spam; removing it and going to mod discretion might be a bad thing for Testing regulars.

Knife wrote:I'll be frank too, testing was allowed to be what it is for the chaff, not the wheat. It is not self-fulfilling prophecy, it is realizing it's design.

I don't think we are using the same analogy. When I compared wheat to chaff, it's "funny and/or interesting" versus "shit".

The lock policy effectively punishes any attempts to make the former. Suppose you get an interesting and funny Testing thread? Sometimes it gets moved to another forum. If it's funny and interesting, but not relevant to another forum, it gets killed as soon as it reaches a certain length, regardless of whether the thread could have gone on another 1, 2, or even 10 pages on its own steam. It's like a forum equivalent of Logan's Run.

Meanwhile, making shit threads in Testing carries absolutely no ramifications as long as they don't break any rules.

If the attitude towards Testing is "You can't have nice things!", just get it over with and remove it from the board.

It's not important for the Admin or staff because it is supposed to be temporary repository for spam so as not to encroach upon other forums (whether or not you think it is successful is another question); however, the very nature of the place, even if unimportant, doesn't necessarily mean it does not take work and effort by the staff just due to the activity in the forum.

So what? This still doesn't answer the question. If Testing is not important enough to be given the same amount of consideration that other forums are given (ie letting threads die on their own), why is it important enough to merit the extra moderation specifically required to enforce its unimportance? We don't need mandatory thread locks to make Testing temporary, because there's already autopruning and no post count incrementation. It's already temporary. Page 3 locks are just unnecessary and redundant.

While I know there are some mods with a hard on for fucking with Testing, I also find it funny how the argument in this thread for removing the 3 page lock rule because of the auto delete. Remove the cap and active spam threads, or even the jewels in testing that could get moved into another forum, will probably garner more activity delaying their auto delete. We already know that Testing has become a sub culture here (Testingstan) and removing a page cap is just a transparent move to make it a little more permanent and not preserve 'good' threads. If they were that good, they'd be moved into OT or another appropriate forum.

You can frame it as staff suppression, but if Mike wanted SPAMWORLD a permanent sub forum, you'd already have it. Taking tools away from staff to limit what was supposed to be a very limited and very temporary relief valve should take more than this. Then again, I have zero clout and zero power, so take it for it is, IMHO.

Look, Testing is not like the Right Wing nightmares about gay marriage. Removing the page three lock is not going to suddenly turn every Testing thread into 32 page behemoths that will spill out and invade the other boards. Most Testing threads die in the first two pages. Of those that get locked, only a few have legs to actually be long threads. Removing mandatory thread locks takes nothing away from the mods. If they want/need to lock a thread, they still can. Removing the mandate to lock the threads also does nothing to make Testing content any less temporary, because all threads get autodeleted after a certain amount of inactivity and all threads, even Testing threads, eventually run out of steam.

Also, Spamworld is only what people who never read Testing think Testing is.

Knife wrote:Then be careful what you ask for, since some of the mod staff thinks of Testing as very arbitrary. A 3 page lock rule gave the Testing regulars three pages of spam; removing it and going to mod discretion might be a bad thing for Testing regulars.

Honestly, if mod discretion leads to mods going out of their way to completely lock down Testing out of some bizarre grudge, that's their problem. "Accept this arbitrary and draconian limit because we have staff who want to be even more draconian" is not going to solve anything.

So let me see if I can summarize all the arguments in favor of continuing the old policy so far:

1. It's for Testing's own good to have constant thread turnover (even though somehow this doesn't apply in any other forum).
2. It's how we've always done it, and if there's anything SDN holds sacred, it's tradition.
3. You'd better not lift the page 3 lock, because if you do, the mods will start acting like douchebags.
4. Fuck you.

Am I missing any here?

5. I like it. Which has nothing to do with tradition.

Thanas wrote:5. I like it. Which has nothing to do with tradition.

I think that's included under number 4.

Thanas wrote:5. I like it. Which has nothing to do with tradition.

Yeah, that would fall under "Fuck you".

RAR. FUCK U PLEBS.

I think N&P could use a three-page lock, if only for those godawful beasts where everyone quotes and replies to every single word Axis Kast writes, for ten pages straight.

Civil War Man wrote:Honestly, if mod discretion leads to mods going out of their way to completely lock down Testing out of some bizarre grudge, that's their problem. "Accept this arbitrary and draconian limit because we have staff who want to be even more draconian" is not going to solve anything.

I think I speak for the staff when I say that if the rules changed, we would either follow them or quit. If you want to get legal about it, the mods cannot choose not to enforce rules that the administration sets up, because that's not the responsibility we've taken on at Mike's request. What you're asking for is not for the moderators to be nicer to testing, but for the entire setup of testing to be changed, including many of its rules and its purpose. For that, you have to go right to the boss himself, because that's his decision, and I can't think of anyone else on staff save maybe Dalton who would dare change testing policy without his say-so.

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.

RedImperator wrote:1. It's for Testing's own good to have constant thread turnover (even though somehow this doesn't apply in any other forum).

Let us now pretend surprise and confusion at the assertion that Testing is not like other forums.

Lagmonster wrote:

Civil War Man wrote:Honestly, if mod discretion leads to mods going out of their way to completely lock down Testing out of some bizarre grudge, that's their problem. "Accept this arbitrary and draconian limit because we have staff who want to be even more draconian" is not going to solve anything.

I think I speak for the staff when I say that if the rules changed, we would either follow them or quit. If you want to get legal about it, the mods cannot choose not to enforce rules that the administration sets up, because that's not the responsibility we've taken on at Mike's request. What you're asking for is not for the moderators to be nicer to testing, but for the entire setup of testing to be changed, including many of its rules and its purpose. For that, you have to go right to the boss himself, because that's his decision, and I can't think of anyone else on staff save maybe Dalton who would dare change testing policy without his say-so.

*blinks* Since when did asking for the revocation of a single rule which wasn't always in place get translated to asking "for the entire setup of testing to be changed, including many of its rules and its purpose"?

Want to know what happens to the rules of testing if this passes? One gets removed.

Want to know what happens to the purpose of testing if this passes? Nothing.

Want to know what happens to the content of testing if this passes? A slight increase to the duration of popular threads and pagecounts.

Want to know the side-effects to other forums it this passes? A slightly greater chance of decent, topical threads getting moved there from testing.

1) Changing this one rule will not lead to the horrible destruction of the forums.
2) Testing will remain largely the same, filled with spammy nonsense that mods can move through and lock at whim, depending on how dickish they feel at the time.
3) All this does is increase the probability that fun, productive threads will occasionally pop up in testing.

I mean, holy shit, people from testing are arguing for something that will be a net benefit to the forum, and several of the mods are dead set against this. So the question is: Do these mods value their own ability to be dicks over something that could benefit the forum as a whole?

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.

Civil War Man wrote:
I don't think we are using the same analogy. When I compared wheat to chaff, it's "funny and/or interesting" versus "shit".

The lock policy effectively punishes any attempts to make the former. Suppose you get an interesting and funny Testing thread? Sometimes it gets moved to another forum. If it's funny and interesting, but not relevant to another forum, it gets killed as soon as it reaches a certain length, regardless of whether the thread could have gone on another 1, 2, or even 10 pages on its own steam. It's like a forum equivalent of Logan's Run.

I'm having a hard time seeing the problem with this. I was supposed to be arbitrary and not any sort of permanent place for such things. Truth be told, I'm surprised the sub-culture that has developed here hasn't gotten their own private group or taken over BotM that was originally pretty close to what the Testing regulars do in Testing. The only thing I can think of is that they've staked their claim on Testing as their slice of pie and don't want to give it up and rather see it grow instead of a private group or something similar.

Meanwhile, making shit threads in Testing carries absolutely no ramifications as long as they don't break any rules.

Sure.

If the attitude towards Testing is "You can't have nice things!", just get it over with and remove it from the board.

So what? This still doesn't answer the question. If Testing is not important enough to be given the same amount of consideration that other forums are given (ie letting threads die on their own), why is it important enough to merit the extra moderation specifically required to enforce its unimportance?

You are confusing 'unimportant' with 'effortless'. IIRC, the staff let the spam go on in Testing precisely because it gets locked and deleted after some point. If people wanted a permanent place to store their fun threads, other options are available. Just because the staff think of Testing as spam and worthless, does not mean it is automatically effortless and/or should be left unattended by the staff.

We don't need mandatory thread locks to make Testing temporary, because there's already autopruning and no post count incrementation. It's already temporary. Page 3 locks are just unnecessary and redundant.

Correct me if I am wrong, but autopruning kills old threads with no activity. Without a page lock, an active testing thread will not be deleted. Taking out a page lock, and thus ensuring an autoprune will not kill an active thread totally redefines what Testing was, is and will be. Those acting like this is some sort of minor issue are being dishonest, this creates a brand new forum that as long as a thread is active, it stays.

Look, Testing is not like the Right Wing nightmares about gay marriage.

You are right; however, it is this boards version of /b tards at 4chan (or what ever they are called).

Removing the page three lock is not going to suddenly turn every Testing thread into 32 page behemoths that will spill out and invade the other boards. Most Testing threads die in the first two pages. Of those that get locked, only a few have legs to actually be long threads. Removing mandatory thread locks takes nothing away from the mods. If they want/need to lock a thread, they still can. Removing the mandate to lock the threads also does nothing to make Testing content any less temporary, because all threads get autodeleted after a certain amount of inactivity and all threads, even Testing threads, eventually run out of steam.

It fundamentally changes the idea and function of Testing. Not all threads will become huge behemoths, but without the cap, some will. So stop tapdancing around the issue and address why you feel the basic function and roll of Testing should change, and if so, why another option like private user groups or perhaps a dedicated sub forum won't suit your needs.

Also, Spamworld is only what people who never read Testing think Testing is.

Odd, I read both and came to my conclusion. I guess I'm not people, or you are making a horrible generalization.

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.

Knife wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but autopruning kills old threads with no activity. Without a page lock, an active testing thread will not be deleted. Taking out a page lock, and thus ensuring an autoprune will not kill an active thread totally redefines what Testing was, is and will be. Those acting like this is some sort of minor issue are being dishonest, this creates a brand new forum that as long as a thread is active, it stays.

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

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.