About this new Communications policy....

It's bad enough that some of the questions asked can already be answered in Communications FAQ.

But seeing many threads locked can give the impression that all these threads are redundant and these matters should not be addressed anymore, even if there are valid points to be brought up. I don't see anything wrong with leaving a thread open if nobody is posting in it anymore, because we would know that there is no further discussion in there and not touch it anyway. In that manner, there wouldn't be "400 questions" left to be answered just because the threads are not locked.

 

DLM- No, this isn't the time to be bringing up your fascination with me; a few others moderators feel the same way. Even Vertical, while he might not agree with my solution, agrees that there is almost no consistant coverage of Communications by 90% of the Admin force. Quite frankly, you can take your consistant singling out of me and bury it

 

Valiowk- Should I threaten users who feel it necessary to constantly "up" threads, then?

 

I'm sorry about that, PB, I've stopped upping the Info threads in Communications except the FAQ...

From what I see, most threads that are upped (not for chatting purposes) normally are because somebody has a further point to ask. Perhaps I'm wrong about that...

And BTW, please don't threaten anybody.

 

First off, I was being half serious with that statement. The majority of threads that I see "upped" are without any reason except the "up". It makes me go through the WHOLE DAMN THREAD again and you can bet it irrates me when I reach a few new added posts, followed by "UP". Then I look at the date of those added posts I haven't seen, and slam my head into the wall when I see they are 4 months old.

 

So I guess "UP!!!!" is a no no...

 

PB: No problem. I guess I just took the post too seriously. Sorry about that!

I also encounter the same problem when I see threads being upped without a "proper" post related to the topic. Most of the time, I like to make the threads that I have seen into visited links so that I can be sure that I have seen all the posts in that thread. Thus, it gets irritating when I see that I have to open all those threads just to ensure that I know I have seen all the latest posts, even if they are not proper ones.

However, I still think that it is better not to lock all these threads so quickly once a response has been made. Perhaps threads can be locked only if this kind of "Up" incident happens to it more than once?

 

It will probably be a little less strict than what I set forth in my first post of 3 rules. Once everything is completely satisfactory, lock.

 

My fascination with you has nothing to do with it, PreacherBoy. Is my logic solid, or not? Seriously. If I had an idea to which dozens of people raised perfectly fair and logical objections, I would reconsider. At least a few of those people who are objecting probably have decent points.

I prefer the idea of leaving open all topics that you consider "finished" for an absolute minimum of 24 hours. If leaving a thread open after a discussion seems to have wound down is conducive to spam, so be it; it's better to have a thread full of spam than even a single user frustrated by the lack of "communication" on this board when he or she is unable to get some input in on an important topic. I think admin-member relations are of great concern to almost everyone here, and you will be causing the JC as a whole a great deal more harm than good by "reducing" the number of topics you have to address. That's true regardless of the number of admins who check in on this forum on a regular basis.

The state of the Communications forum shouldn't be a club with which you beat other admins over the head to try to get them to pay more attention to member relations. There are many ways of bringing about change that are both more positive and easier.

EDIT: Oy... the boards are going crazy.

 

I prefer the idea of leaving open all topics that you consider "finished" for an absolute minimum of 24 hours. If leaving a thread open after a discussion seems to have wound down is conducive to spam, so be it; it's better to have a thread full of spam than even a single user frustrated by the lack of "communication" on this board when he or she is unable to get some input in on an important topic.

Unfortunately, it's quite impossible to consider when a thread is really "finished". Also, most threads that are brought up with valid points are only brought up after a few days.

As for whether a thread should be left open if it is full of spam - I think that leaving it open if the question has not yet been answered should be allowed, but if the question has conclusively been answered, then perhaps it may be all right to do so. The spam gradually dies down, anyway, and perhaps only if a thread containing spam that was allowed to sink is brought up just to continue it, then it should be locked.

 

Better yet, just ban the members who are spamming the thread and delete their posts, or both.

 

that's work and takes time, probably more time than he wants to expend here.

 

hmmm...


!snap

 

Was this policy discussed in the Admin forum before it was initiated? It seems that some key mods/VIPs have some concerns about it.

 

This way of handling Communications was in place before you registered here.

I let everyone know what was going on, and did it. It is not like too many people are seriously affected other than Vertical.

 

It may of been in place before I registered here but it wasn't really practised from what I can see. Well, in the last year or so so since "I registered". IMHO.

Humour me here. Are mods who are responsible for a certain forum allowed to make rules like this? If so do they not seek advice from other mods before initiating them or do they put them in place then ask for feedback. This is a serious question which I am interested in. I would of thought there would be some kind of systematic approach to things like that. I'm not being critical of the policy or of PBoy BTW, I'm just interested in how it works.

 

It wasn't practiced, only because when someone did go against the understood rules of Communications, we dealt with it and that was that. Now it has become an almost daily occurance, and no one is stopping it. If I'm only visiting the JC to answer questions in Communcations, there's a problem.

 

Forgive but that's what I understand the rule to be. Once a question is answered the thread is locked. Which means on the whole you will be just answering questions because a thread will not be able to develop in to anything else.

Anyway, while I understand the reason for implementing the rule (I'm sure it's hard work with a few mods policing in here) I'm not sure it's the right decision.

That's my 2 pence worth for what it's worth.

 

i may be doing the wrong thing, but if something is temporarily screwy with my account (for example, at one point my posts weren't upping threads, similar to what happened in this thread), rather than start a thread about it in communications, i PMed a mod, figuring that if it was a serious issue, the mod would report it however they do that.

if it's preferable to start a thread about that sort of thing in comm, then i do see the concern about locking threads, because that is the sort of thing that newbies would be posting about. but if it's better to do it in private, then i wonder what sort of posts newbies would be making in comm. also, if they read the threads, they'll see that they're not being closed vehemently, but instead because their purpose was finished.

also, what's so bad about newbies being hesitant to post a thread? i work support on a website where everyone knows that asking a quesiton in support is quicker than looking up the answer themselves, so the majority of our answers are FAQ references. if they're a little hesitant to start a thread, they'll probably look a little harder to find the answer, and there won't be as many threads that can be answered with a little bit of research.

i do see both the pros and cons to implementing this policy, and they both bring up valid points. perhaps a "24 hour warning" would be appropriate, that if nothing important was added in the next 24 hours, it will be locked.

 

locking the thread after the question has been answered dicourages users from posting useless, but not spam, posts which has plagued this forum from the start.
Whenever I see someone ask a question at least 5 members swoop in and say something pointless just to up their post count.

I understand that closing threads decreases discussion about the topic, but if you have something worth saying it's not that hard to PM the person with the question or an admin to open it.

Communications looks so much cleaner and easyer to admin with this policy.

 

Personally, I think bans should be instituted for all those who begin to spam in an informational thread. Like every forum, Communications should have its own rules that foster necessary and informative discussions.

Back to the issue at hand, closing all threads once the question is asked. I would change from my previous attitude supporting this. I think an index should be created (and have my minions planning it out) that clearly directs newbies to common questions, problems and concerns. Yes, we have had things like these in the past, but I believe it is time for a new one that we take seriously.

Also, I propose (since we are never going to avoid them) an official "Why was ***** banned?" thread. People can do all their whining and arguing in one, coherant thread and it cuts down on many needlessly created threads.

 

No, they can PM an Admin about it. Then, when they find out which Admin banned X, they can PM that Admin and discuss it.

"Why was X banned?" threads usually become "Bash the responsible Admin or forum policy" threads.

 

I agree, but those threads will pop up irregardless of what the Administration says. I say we head off the problem with an official solution (ala Jasman's Official Spam thread).

 

No, we don't do that, because it will lead a 100 pages that an Admin will one day feel obligated to go through.

If a thread pops up and it can be handled a better way, leave a message and close it.

For example, your "Why was User X banned?" thread would be handled like this: "Admin Y banned User X, I suggest you take it up with them." followed by a lock.

 

Continuing the Devil's Advocate route...

The suggested thread does not assure us of a PM arguement between the whiner and the admin. It can lead to a new thread started, because not everyone is smart enough to take it to the admin in PM form.

We can only inform folks of what is kosher; we cannot force everyone to adhere to it. It's unfortunate.