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.
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.