or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see - Page 19

post #271 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
Why is it important to tell people that? If it is dumb, then it'll get moved on its own. I see it far too often on threads that never get moved to DT.

How did we handle this before the invasion of internet-speak?

Well, given the shift in tone over the past few years, I think it's worthwhile to comment on that which doesn't belong in the regular fora. I mean, I'm all for fun and giggles, but for the casual lurker who knows little of SF, it just won't do for them to think we're a bunch of drooling knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers.

Well, I've never took issue with that categorization myself, but we have plenty of members who are better than that.
post #272 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
Why is it important to tell people that? If it is dumb, then it'll get moved on its own. I see it far too often on threads that never get moved to DT.

How did we handle this before the invasion of internet-speak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyll View Post
I kinda agree. It's not necessarily offensive, but it's generally just stating the obvious, and it's a really lazy way to say it. Old meme is old.

So what?

I think I get from Kent that he doesn't want all banter banned, just some of it that he and Jekyll consider "stating the obvious" or "old memes."

May I ask you kind sirs to draft the exact wording of the rule you are proposing, and the punishments for violations of said rule?

You'd just have a humorless, overmodded mess.
post #273 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
All the useless posts like "In b4 DT", "tl;dr", and to a lesser extent image macros, need to go. [...]

??
post #274 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
So what? I think I get from Kent that he doesn't want all banter banned, just some of it that he and Jekyll consider "stating the obvious" or "old memes." May I ask you kind sirs to draft the exact wording of the rule you are proposing, and the punishments for violations of said rule? You'd just have a humorless, overmodded mess.
Nah...I don't know exactly what Kent meant, but I don't think mods need to get involved. I was just agreeing that IBDT is....dumb.
post #275 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
I'm not proposing the removal of all banter, but the specifically Something Awful-type posts that are less than a sentence long and entirely in internet-speak. What is the point of "In b4 DT"? It's not clever or funny.
In the new implementation, we are working on a flag system where posts can be flagged for OT-ness, dumbness, helpfulness, offensiveness, spam etc. quickly and easily (1-click) and the user's view can be set to a threshhold of each/any/none. E.g. a post could be flagged 3(? variable obviously) times for OT-ness and then become greyed out or collapsed with "show this post anyway" link to expand it. That sort of thing. Helpful posts potentially could be rewarded somehow, etc. I agree it would be nice to be able to have a view of threads composed entirely of useful, on-topic posts, but to remove the others entirely would require thought policing that no one has time or inclination for, and more importantly, would pretty much wreck the fun of the forum.
post #276 of 357
^ This sounds nice in theory, but I have a feeling it will be too complex for some of us kids - well, me at least - to handle.
post #277 of 357
I see Kent's point, though I'd boil it down to this - why so many stupid posts that add NOTHING to the conversation. I think I've done a pretty good job of training myself not to post when I don't have something to say - there's way too much of that here. I don't mind it so much in the obvious dumb threads because I don't usually read those thread, or I skim them looking for posts from specific members. What I hate are the useless, unfunny posts in good threads. I really don't understand how people have the time. I have a flexible schedule, work for myself and spend way too much time here, and I somehow still don't get half the memes and in-jokes and post at relatively glacial pace compared to some of my uber-prolific brethren.
post #278 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by j View Post
In the new implementation, we are working on a flag system where posts can be flagged for OT-ness, dumbness, helpfulness, offensiveness, spam etc. quickly and easily (1-click) and the user's view can be set to a threshhold of each/any/none.

E.g. a post could be flagged 3(? variable obviously) times for OT-ness and then become greyed out or collapsed with "show this post anyway" link to expand it. That sort of thing. Helpful posts potentially could be rewarded somehow, etc.

I agree it would be nice to be able to have a view of threads composed entirely of useful, on-topic posts, but to remove the others entirely would require thought policing that no one has time or inclination for, and more importantly, would pretty much wreck the fun of the forum.

This is implemented in the comment threads of some blogs I read and it works well. At least I can say that any time I've clicked to "show this post," I've always agreed that it was better off hidden. The key would be to find that right level of -X that would most reliably indicate that a post should get hidden.
post #279 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron View Post
I see Kent's point, though I'd boil it down to this - why so many stupid posts that add NOTHING to the conversation. I think I've done a pretty good job of training myself not to post when I don't have something to say - there's way too much of that here. I don't mind it so much in the obvious dumb threads because I don't usually read those thread, or I skim them looking for posts from specific members. What I hate are the useless, unfunny posts in good threads. I really don't understand how people have the time. I have a flexible schedule, work for myself and spend way too much time here, and I somehow still don't get half the memes and in-jokes and post at relatively glacial pace compared to some of my uber-prolific brethren.

This rings true for me also.
post #280 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by j View Post
In the new implementation, we are working on a flag system where posts can be flagged for OT-ness, dumbness, helpfulness, offensiveness, spam etc. quickly and easily (1-click) and the user's view can be set to a threshhold of each/any/none.

E.g. a post could be flagged 3(? variable obviously) times for OT-ness and then become greyed out or collapsed with "show this post anyway" link to expand it. That sort of thing. Helpful posts potentially could be rewarded somehow, etc.

I agree it would be nice to be able to have a view of threads composed entirely of useful, on-topic posts, but to remove the others entirely would require thought policing that no one has time or inclination for, and more importantly, would pretty much wreck the fun of the forum.
That sounds pretty cool. If that kind of collective rating system can't start to separate the wheat from the chaff, then we've got bigger problems here, anyway.
post #281 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328 View Post
That sounds pretty cool. If that kind of collective rating system can't start to separate the wheat from the chaff, then we've got bigger problems here, anyway.

+1 (even though you're probably talking about people like me...)
post #282 of 357
in before dt, tl;dr, all those things are just like junior high gags. they might have been really funny the first time they popped up, but they have become progressively less funny each time they have been repeated ... which puts them someplace in the marianas trench by now. but, just like jr. hi, there will be the slow, lame or late who will insist on continuing to use them in hopes of being accepted into that mythical (?) inner circle.
post #283 of 357
You should leave the forum how it is, but make an invite section only. The mods and the older respected members can invite non-members to join if they have proven that their posts aren't constantly useless and are actually interesting. Yes, it would be elitist, but there is way too many bad posters to try and ignore.
post #284 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post
You should leave the forum how it is, but make an invite section only. The mods and the older respected members can invite non-members to join if they have proven that their posts aren't constantly useless and are actually interesting. Yes, it would be elitist, but there is way too many bad posters to try and ignore.

Uh uh. This sort of thing kills forums.
post #285 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyll View Post
Uh uh. This sort of thing kills forums.

How so?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see