Testing Limit of Autodelete

[Darth Wong]

I just find it quite ridiculous that the fact that several Testing regulars making some spam posts, among a much larger amount of contributions, somehow justifies enacting such a policy. Simply punishing the people who MAKE stupid posts rather than making an entire forum much stupider would have been more in line with the standards of the board: acting intelligently and making policies intelligently.

What makes you think such a policy is unreasonable in the first place? What exactly do people think the Testing forum is for? It's for disposable threads. It's always been for disposable threads. No one ever promised that the threads in Testing would be treated as anything other than disposable threads. The disposable nature of the threads is the entire reason that people were allowed to behave in a manner considered unacceptable in the rest of the forum in the first place! Why the FUCK do you think people have been given such leeway there? It's because those goddamned threads are considered DISPOSABLE. Get it?

If the people in Testing think these threads should not be treated as disposable threads, then someone had better come up with a good reason why we should continue to allow them to flagrantly violate the rules enforced on the rest of the board.

[Havok]

I'm failing to see how those examples of G&C posts, where the majority of the FORUM is 'THIS IS AWESOME' with the rebuttal 'NO IT IS STUPID' and no clear answer because most of the topics in there are purely subjective, which were ON TOPIC somehow correlate to 'testing culture'?

Has it occurred to any of you big brains that the rest of the internet is still out there, and it is influence from that and not 'OMG EVIL TESTING' that is what is creeping in?

[Darth Wong]

Has it occurred to any of you big brains that the rest of the internet is still out there, and it is influence from that and not 'OMG EVIL TESTING' that is what is creeping in?

Has it occurred to you that I don't give a shit exactly where it comes from? I don't like seeing it anywhere on the forum, at all, for any reason. We have traditionally allowed it in Testing for one and only one reason: the fact that Testing was considered largely disposable. But now I'm starting to hear that Testing denizens think they have some sort of Bill of Rights, which no one ever heard of and which is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the rules.

[Duckie]

Chitoryu: Well, I think that it would be preferrable, if more energy intensive, to focus on punishing Bad Post(er)s more than Bad Forums too, but there's not really any point arguing against a policy Wong decides. Certainly he could change his mind, but haranguing him about it isn't going to help make your case.

Well, in the good news, if anything, this will give me a reason to actually make a Grand Linguistics Thread with all the collected linguistic things I can remember talking about in Testing, and whatever I promised to eventually get around to talking about. I think I'll put it in OT, since SLAM is more devoted to hard science and Linguistics is about as soft a 'science' you can get without being economics, cultural anthropology, or magic.

Edit- Eesh, too late for you. I was too busy looking up who had that bizarre degree from Berkeley to get this post in sooner.

Edit2- Wording cleared up since I don't want my opinion to be confused with Havok's

[Havok]

Has it occurred to any of you big brains that the rest of the internet is still out there, and it is influence from that and not 'OMG EVIL TESTING' that is what is creeping in?

Has it occurred to you that I don't give a shit exactly where it comes from? I don't like seeing it anywhere on the forum, at all, for any reason. We have traditionally allowed it in Testing for one and only one reason: the fact that Testing was considered largely disposable.

Right, and what changed? The threads were still being auto deleted with the exception of like five or six that had momentum.

But now I'm starting to hear that Testing denizens think they have some sort of Bill of Rights, which no one ever heard of and which is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the rules.

Dude, what are you talking about? The only thing that has been going on about testing is that some people wanted the page 3 lock removed. How is that some sort of 'bill of rights'.

[Darth Wong]

Right, and what changed?

Nothing changed. There was NEVER anything in the rules which even remotely suggested that Testing threads would be treated as anything other than disposable. They can be deleted on a whim, because the Moon is full, or because Nostradamus prophesied it.

The threads were still being auto deleted with the exception of like five or six that had momentum.

But now I'm starting to hear that Testing denizens think they have some sort of Bill of Rights, which no one ever heard of and which is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the rules.

Dude, what are you talking about? The only thing that has been going on about testing is that some people wanted the page 3 lock removed. How is that some sort of 'bill of rights'.

The fact that Testing people actually think that admins and mods need to explain themselves when Testing threads get deleted. The fact that YOU are here right now, acting as if some kind of crime has been committed.

[rhoenix]

But now I'm starting to hear that Testing denizens think they have some sort of Bill of Rights, which no one ever heard of and which is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the rules.

For my own perspective, this isn't my problem with what happened. It was the clandestine decision-making that led to Testing's purge with no warning, it was the timing of that during discussion of greater board policy regarding posting & debate decorum seeming to still be in progress that Testing gets nuked.

Now, you can rebut those points with "We're not required to give anyone advance notice of jack shit," and "purging Testing can be done on a whim, because I don't want to have its influence elsewhere," and they'd be valid. This is your forum, after all.

However, it puts lie to any conception of an open and honest forum for discussion of board policy, if the Senate gets utterly bypassed during the time when serious discussion was being raised as to its necessity; it sends the message that the mods agree that the Senate is without merit, but that the transparency point of the Senate to have discussions visible to the greater forum populace about board policy and procedure is no longer necessary either.

Again, your forum, your decision. However, if one of your goals is to expand membership of this forum to allow for more voices here, don't the above changes make that userbase expansion less likely, if the general rules appear to all have the "except by mod fiat" disclaimer given present evidence?

Again, to be clear - Testing getting clearcut I have much less of a problem with than the clandestine nature under which it was done, especially during the midst of discussion about the Testing forum in the Senate, and discussions about debate policy.

[Darth Wong]

However, it puts lie to any conception of an open and honest forum for discussion of board policy,

What are you, a goddamned retard? For the umpteenth fucking time, there has been NO CHANGE IN POLICY. No one EVER promised that Testing threads would be treated as anything other than disposable.

What's really happening here is that some people got the idea into their heads that there were rules governing the things mods can do in the Testing forum even though no such rules ever existed. And now peckerheads like you and Havok are demanding an explanation for this "change" even though there was no fucking change at all, because you seem to have forgotten what the Testing forum is.

[Havok]

Show me where I complained about it. Oh that's right, you can't.

I simply find it highly amusing that you are jumping on the Duchess bandwagon of 'OMG it is testing's fault! Ban 75% of the board members!' when YOUR real problem isn't any one forum, but lack of moderation.

Edit: Or demanded an explanation.

[Darth Wong]

Show me where I complained about it. Oh that's right, you can't.

You're doing it right now, jackass. You're demanding explanations for something that requires no explanation.

I simply find it highly amusing that you are jumping on the Duchess bandwagon of 'OMG it is testing's fault! Ban 75% of the board members!' when YOUR real problem isn't any one forum, but lack of moderation.

Yes, we have inadequate moderation. But that's not why I said it was OK to nuke Testing. I said it was OK to nuke Testing because it's always been OK to nuke Testing, and some people seem to have forgotten what Testing is. I know perfectly well that nuking Testing won't magically solve the spammy poster problem on the rest of the forums. It will, however, remind people what the Testing forum actually is.

[rhoenix]

What's really happening here is that some people got the idea into their heads that there were rules governing the things mods can do in the Testing forum even though no such rules ever existed. And now peckerheads like you and Havok are demanding an explanation for this "change" even though there was no fucking change at all, because you seem to have forgotten what the Testing forum is.

You mentioned yourself that the issue with properly enforcing proper debate tactics here is due to a lack of enough moderators - so why take it upon yourselves to make a change (bypassing the medium you set up to take care of board policy - e.g. the Senate, by the way) that will require more moderator intervention when there was a discussion underway in the Senate about Testing's policies?

Nobody's arguing about whether or not mods have the right to clearcut Testing. I'm pointing out that in this case, the mods superceded the Senate. I raise this issue because I had gathered the picture before that you wished to leave most decision-making and such to the Senate, and the Senate was currently in the midst of a discussion about Testing policy when the decision to clear out Testing was made.

[Havok]

Show me where I complained about it. Oh that's right, you can't.

You're doing it right now, jackass. You're demanding explanations for something that requires no explanation.

Uh, no jackass, I am simply engaging in the debate. You are aiming at the wrong person. I have never been under any allusions that the mods or admins were required to explain anything unless I felt that one of your rules wasn't being adhered to.

I simply find it highly amusing that you are jumping on the Duchess bandwagon of 'OMG it is testing's fault! Ban 75% of the board members!' when YOUR real problem isn't any one forum, but lack of moderation.

Yes, we have inadequate moderation. But that's not why I said it was OK to nuke Testing. I said it was OK to nuke Testing because it's always been OK to nuke Testing, and some people seem to have forgotten what Testing is. I know perfectly well that nuking Testing won't magically solve the spammy poster problem on the rest of the forums. It will, however, remind people what the Testing forum actually is.

And that does what exactly? No one, in all these discussions has thought that testing has been anything other than what it was. I personally have offered suggestions and ideas on what it could become based on how it appeared to evolve as a it's own entity, but that is it. In fact, I've asked to be allowed to mod testing just so I could randomly nuke the whole forum at whim.

[fgalkin]

What's really happening here is that some people got the idea into their heads that there were rules governing the things mods can do in the Testing forum even though no such rules ever existed. And now peckerheads like you and Havok are demanding an explanation for this "change" even though there was no fucking change at all, because you seem to have forgotten what the Testing forum is.

You mentioned yourself that the issue with properly enforcing proper debate tactics here is due to a lack of enough moderators - so why take it upon yourselves to make a change (bypassing the medium you set up to take care of board policy - e.g. the Senate, by the way) that will require more moderator intervention when there was a discussion underway in the Senate about Testing's policies?

Nobody's arguing about whether or not mods have the right to clearcut Testing. I'm pointing out that in this case, the mods superceded the Senate. I raise this issue because I had gathered the picture before that you wished to leave most decision-making and such to the Senate, and the Senate was currently in the midst of a discussion about Testing policy when the decision to clear out Testing was made.

No we didn't. As Mike pointed out, the policy has always been in place, so no Senate action was required.

What happened before is that the Mods were constrained by the opinions of the denizens of Testing, even though they shouldn't have been. We know that to be true, because many times Mods have locked or deleted outright all threads in Testing, and received no reprimand, even though certain people and Senatecritters were complaining furioisly.

Now, we have permission from the very top to do what we please and ignore all complaints. A very good thing, IMHO.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

Uh, no jackass, I am simply engaging in the debate.

By inventing various made-up explanations for why I might have given the OK for mods to nuke Testing threads and then complaining that those reasons make no sense. First you complained that I can't magically clean up spammy posts from the entire forum by nuking Testing, then you complained that I was jumping on Marina's bandwagon. There is NO JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED, so there is no point inventing these imaginary justifications for the action and then complaining that they don't work.

And that does what exactly? No one, in all these discussions has thought that testing has been anything other than what it was. I personally have offered suggestions and ideas on what it could become based on how it appeared to evolve as a it's own entity, but that is it. In fact, I've asked to be allowed to mod testing just so I could randomly nuke the whole forum at whim.

"And that does what exactly?" For someone who insists he isn't complaining, you certainly sound like you are demanding a justification. It would be nice if you could be honest about this.

[rhoenix]

No we didn't. As Mike pointed out, the policy has always been in place, so no Senate action was required.

What happened before is that the Mods were constrained by the opinions of the denizens of Testing, even though they shouldn't have been. We know that to be true, because many times Mods have locked or deleted outright all threads in Testing, and received no reprimand, even though some people were complaining furioisly.

Now, we have permission from the very top to do what we please and ignore all complaints. A very good thing, IMHO.

Alright, thank you for the explanation - the part of this I'm confused on is this "constrained by the opinions of the denizens of Testing" - would you mind elaborating on this?

[Ghost Rider]

I'd like to bring up the point about Testing. This was something that was always there, but never used in force. Testing had leeway in silent agreement with most moderators because when Dalton made his listing of regulations and rules, it seemed appropriate in accordance to the level of spam. The times have changed and thus going back to the old format.

The point of including the Senate was through my actions of banning which was a case of myself being rather rule nazi rather then taking into considerations of other avenues. His want of things of that nature he'd rather have not handled just because of the supermoderators get antsy. It can lead to a garden variety of insane bannings for nothing more then minor to non existant reasonings. Thus are honestly two seperate issues.

[Darth Wong]

No we didn't. As Mike pointed out, the policy has always been in place, so no Senate action was required.

What happened before is that the Mods were constrained by the opinions of the denizens of Testing, even though they shouldn't have been. We know that to be true, because many times Mods have locked or deleted outright all threads in Testing, and received no reprimand, even though some people were complaining furioisly.

Now, we have permission from the very top to do what we please and ignore all complaints. A very good thing, IMHO.

Alright, thank you for the explanation - the part of this I'm confused on is this "constrained by the opinions of the denizens of Testing" - would you mind elaborating on this?

In plain English, they were just concerned that certain people would get upset. Unfortunately, this led to those people thinking that there was some imaginary protective policy in place.

[rhoenix]

I'd like to bring up the point about Testing. This was something that was always there, but never used in force. Testing had leeway in silent agreement with most moderators because when Dalton made his listing of regulations and rules, it seemed appropriate in accordance to the level of spam. The times have changed and thus going back to the old format.

The point of including the Senate was through my actions of banning which was a case of myself being rather rule nazi rather then taking into considerations of other avenues. His want of things of that nature he'd rather have not handled just because of the supermoderators get antsy. It can lead to a garden variety of insane bannings for nothing more then minor to non existant reasonings. Thus are honestly two seperate issues.

With that explanation, this situation makes much more sense - my thanks to you, fgalkin, and Darth Wong. I now formally withdraw my complaint.

In plain English, they were just concerned that certain people would get upset. Unfortunately, this led to those people thinking that there was some imaginary protective policy in place.

I see what you mean - something becoming an unofficial rule through simple lack of enforcement over time. Thank you.

[fgalkin]

I would like to address the argument of the board becoming more spammy due to this. If people make Testing posts outside of Testing and spam up the main board, the Mods will do what they have always been doing in such cases- split off the spam and discipline those involved.

This is why we have a Mod staff in the first place.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Duckie]

As far as I can tell the story has been

Essentially, in the Page 3 Lock issue, it was (from what it appeared to most people) agreed upon that page 3 lock should be rescinded so that terrible threads die a natural death, while good threads could remain open for several pages over 3 before sinking away due to lack-of-things-left-to-be-said or mod intervention if a thread sucks but won't die.

However, for some reason (perhaps procedural errors, or just nobody proposing a vote due to forgetting they could?), the Senate never actually voted on this, it just seemed to kind of have the debate peter out and the change implemented without a vote. But since the page 3 lock actually was stopped, it appeared to most people to thus actually be the consensus, even if no vote was taken.

Apparently implementing such a change in moderation strategy for Testing was not the correct method for increasing quality in testing, and the policy has been amended to 'wipe everything at random times', which appears to be a reset to the original rules.

This would be my explanation for my surprise at the change. So if the removal of the Page 3 Lock was not actually a legitimate decision but some kind of strange error, then this decision (or rather, lack of decision, since there really was no testing policy change at all) makes a whole lot more sense. Regardless, there's no point in tugging on superman's cape, so this topic is really over.

[Knife]

I keep saying it, but you folks don't listen. This 'it was agreed upon' crap was only in the minds of the hard core Testing folk who were repeating it like a mantra. There were folk in all those threads, and more to boot I'm sure, who did not 'agree upon' shit. You were so content on congratulating yourselves on your consensus, you didn't pay attention to what was being said. There have been mods always ready to nuke Testing, I had an argument recently on Testing and if it should be moved to a private group or what, Wong has made several posts that telegraphed something was happening. You're just so wrapped up in 'not being a Testing culture, but damn those who want to nuke testing culture' to see it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I must say that this is an outrage! Testing should secede from the main board over this! We have taken enough abuse! An uprising is in order! RAWR!


This whole whine-fest is utterly ridiculous, really. Testing is the place where intelligence goes to die. Or maybe take a nap. Either way. As has been said repeatedly, Testing is where the threads and topics that are ultimately not worth keeping go. Either by being punted there or by being born there. One hour, 24 hours, seven minutes... Ok, so your audience will be a little smaller. Whoody-doo.

I'll admit, I enjoy Testing. It's a chance to just goof off, to get a look at what kind of sense of humor various posters have.

Now that the "Flush for the lulz" policy is actively being practiced , we may miss out on good topics that may have come along. But, to be entirely honest, those were rather rare. And hell, there's still a chance for some amount of ascension should a topic prove to be interesting enough to warrant discussion. If a topic gets interesting, there's still the option of starting a thread for it in a section of the boards that isn't for when you want to take the jackass pill. Hell, link to the Testing post with a note it's to Testing and if a roaming mod/admin decides it actually is interesting enough to keep the entire thing, kick-and-merge can still happen.


Yeah, it's nice to know what the hell the deal was. I never recall there being mention of a policy about Testing being subject to purge-on-a-whim. I would like to point out, though, that /b/ on 4chan has a policy of the mods being able to purge threads for any or no reason at all. Much like Testing. That's not to say that Testing is SDN's /b/. For one, there are actual rules of conduct for the posters beyond "Don't piss off the FBI. Seriously." For another, the general intelligence level seems to be a bit higher. I can enjoy the Testing atmosphere. As to /b/... I avoid it entirely because it's too sophomoric and stupid.

The sheer volume of drama I've seen over this is a bit amusing, I'll admit. Disappointing, too. "WHAH! You've reduced the audience of my wit!" I mean, really? It isn't like the mods and admins just decided to actively pick on the denizens of Testing. The Testing regulars haven't been banned for violating the overall board rules. And yet there's a handful of people who are treating this like there was a mass-banning of Testing regulars.


If it's that big a deal to you, give it a few weeks, a few months at most, and the novelty of purging Testing will have worn off, and things will probably go back to business as usual, or something like it. As has been stated already, there's no option for auto-deleting everything in Testing on an hourly basis. I highly doubt Mike's going to go off and find a hack for the forums to change that. I'd imagine he'd find it to be a waste of time and effort.

[rhoenix]

I keep saying it, but you folks don't listen. This 'it was agreed upon' crap was only in the minds of the hard core Testing folk who were repeating it like a mantra. There were folk in all those threads, and more to boot I'm sure, who did not 'agree upon' shit. You were so content on congratulating yourselves on your consensus, you didn't pay attention to what was being said. There have been mods always ready to nuke Testing, I had an argument recently on Testing and if it should be moved to a private group or what, Wong has made several posts that telegraphed something was happening. You're just so wrapped up in 'not being a Testing culture, but damn those who want to nuke testing culture' to see it.

Oh woe and calamity, that we did not listen to the hard-won wisdom and compassion of Knife. His sorrow that the innocents did not listen is only compounded by his desperate pleas to have them understand that had they only listened, all of this terrible time could have been avoided.



If this was your attempt to feel relevant to this discussion, you failed in an extraordinarily epic fashion.

[Knife]

Oh woe and calamity, that we did not listen to the hard-won wisdom and compassion of Knife. His sorrow that the innocents did not listen is only compounded by his desperate pleas to have them understand that had they only listened, all of this terrible time could have been avoided.



If this was your attempt to feel relevant to this discussion, you failed in an extraordinarily epic fashion.

Desperate pleas my ass, but keep on with your bullshit arguments about it instead of listening to what other posters were saying. Oh wait, you won't now, cause you listen to Wong. It doesn't matter that people point out the stupidity of 'we had a mutual agreement' or 'Testing is X' when it wasn't. Nope, no siree. The epic failure was yours man.

[Havok]

This is pretty funny considering it was Red Imperator and Hotfoot spearheading the whole Page 3 lock issue. But yeah, it was all just a hardcore group of testing people.