About this new Communications policy....

What happens when a question has been answered, but someone else arrives with a better answer than the one alredy given, only to find the thread locked? What happens then?

 

Basically if a thread is no longer functioning as a thread based on an issue to do with the boards, and becomes a chat, it will be locked.

This I don't understand (sorry if this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in, and just don't have the time to read every post pervious). If a thread has it's question answered, and turns into a psudo chat session about that topic or even other topics why does it then need to be locked? As long as there is no flaming/trolling/whatever going on.

I understand that this question could be answered with a simple "that's just how we want to run things" and that is fine.


!snap

 

You really shouldn't have said that, !snap.

//Runs out of thread to avoid PB's rampage.

Seriously, I have no problem with the new policy. I think it will definately make sure that this forum remains on topic, which is good.

 

Snap, I'm sure you're well aware that off-topic threads are severely frowned upon. So yes, it is a problem when the thread has served its purpose and degenerates into a chat session. For one thing, it invites spam with people posting merely to up their count.

 

PB, I think Spiderdevil's question was in response to the person who asked what the Communications Policy problem was. It was sort of rhetorical, pointing out the whole point of this thread. I don't think he was asking for an answer, but he was giving one. Here's a repost of what I said in a different thread about this issue:

I can really see both sides of the "Mod dedicated to Communication" debate. On the whole, I believe it would not help to improve communication, which is what the forum is for. We would have really great communication with one mod, who could relay things to the mod staff, but I think it would deteriorate communication with the mod staff as a whole. I would rather have good communication with some of the mod staff (the ones that care enough to go in the communications forum) than have a representative for another level of confusion. Remember when the whole tonyf incident occured? For a long time, noone could tell us exactly what was going on. Think of what would happen if we added another layer. We would have to ask the communication mod, who would ask the mod in charge of the decision, who would ask Josh and Scott, etc. It's already hard enough to get answers as it is, I don't see any reason for someone who's not responsible for what's going on be in charge of communication between us and those that are.

 

So I guess what I was questioning was a JC policy, not just the "new" Communications policy.


!snap

 

thats the problem with the net, you can't use bodylanguage to discourage unwelcome visitors

 

The reason, snap, is that this is the forum for communicating problems about the boards to the administration and other users. There are 180 odd other forums that are all for chatting, so we really don't need to clog this place up with more of it, pushing out potential problems because people can't see them.

 

I'd love to come up with some body langauge that means certain things on the JC.

Just imaging the body language for "I find you or any other female poster to be highly attractive, and I want to make you my mate." makes me roll around the floor with giddy laughter.

 

Kadue basically said what I was going to say

I know what you mean PB, sometimes doesn't quite cut it!

 

Vertical,

I don't think the point I was trying to make has been made clear by myself.

The idea was to have a Mod who RELAYED concerns from members back to Admin forum then back to the members. Thus it would clear up the debates that Admins get into and eventually override members with in threads. He would be more the 'middleman' than a sole decison-making mod.

For example:

If I wanted an EpIII forum, I would post my message in this forum. The forum MOD would acknowledge it and take it back to the Admins. The Admins would discuss it in the Admin Forum while the rest of the members discussed it in the Comm. thread. This keeps the admins/mods etc decisions out of it and lets the members solely discuss it.

If the admins make a decision, the MOD would relay it back to the thread for the members.

****

The idea is to get several ADMIN decisions out of the threads and let the members discuss it.

Just wanted to clear that up.
Ternian

 

We already do that, but the number one responsibility for every Admin is for them to do their own investigative work. Anyone who does not, accepting the word of others as pure fact instead looking into it when they have the privilages to do so, should leave.

 

although the admin that would do the relaying job would become pretty powerful, as the fountainhead of the members, the voice of popular opinion even, maybe he/she could wear a small understated silver crown, in case their body language lacks impact

 

I must say, though I see both sides of the argument, this place did look pretty ugly when I finally ventured into it after a couple of months. I agree with whoever else said that locked threads seem redundant, inappropriate, etc, i.e. threads I don't need to read, when in fact they might be. And they can be fairly intimidating.
As for your off-topic comment, PB, be careful with that, or it'll be swords under the bridge at dawn.

 

You'll have to make some sense if you want me to consider your view.