[JCC] The Policy On ?Non-Social Threads Turned Social Threads?

So, I was just browsing the JCC and I noticed that my Challenge Thread to Bib was closed. Nothing against Quix, but I certainly feel this thread was wrongly closed. It wasn't made in the anticipation that it should turn into a social thread, of course. Nowdays every time someone even utters ?social thread?, the whole JC oscillates around like inmates in an asylum. Now, what's the point in this? Isn't every thread in the JCC a social thread? Isn't every thread in the JC in itself a social thread? Every time someone gives an off-topic comment, it's like they're an outlaw. What's the point in all of this?

I never meant for my thread to be in the shunned nature of a social thread. It was simply a light-hearted challenge thread, and it just happened to turn into something more. Dashy's previous thread was in the same nature as mine, and yet it was allowed to stick around for over a year.

Now, it's enevitable that someone will say ?get on the waiting list?. Yeah, my thread's reign was meant to be intact for a year or so. So, I'm expected to wait a year to get on this waiting list, only have my thread open for a month and then have it closed after that? I think not. That's absolute bull.

So, what's wrong with having threads turn into social threads?

droideka EDIT: locked at author's request

 

Well, it's worth noting that some of the most well known social threads in JCC history didn't start out as social threads. The Target girl thread is probably the best known example of that.

 

Firstly, it was not only QS, i asked him what he thought, and he agreed with me. So i back up the decision 100%.

Your thread was perfectly fine for the first 50 posts or so, but the thread quickly went from a light hearted challenge thread to a "hi how are you i just got home from school" "oh that's nice i am eating popcorn" "oh yay i like popcorn" kind of thread.

If it wasn't locked for being a social thread, it could have been locked for being wildly off topic.

And "oh it's on topic because see we're upping our post counts with totally random posts which is part of the challenge" just doesn't cut it. That's a ridiculous excuse.

It probably should have been locked last night when i made my post, but i gave it till today to see if the behavior was going to continue or not.

And of COURSE threads turn into social threads... classic social threads... that's the best way for them to form in my opinion. And we have had a few form in the last year or so.

But quite frankly, a thread that's a few days old with less than 200 posts.... 50 of which actually pertain to the topic at hand.... hardly qualifies for that in my opinion.

If you want to randomly up your post count, that is fine. DO so in appropriate threads. If you want to have the thread restarted and actually try to stay SOMEWHAT on the topic at hand, we can probably be fine with that (although I'd have to check the other guys' opinions).

 

I see, I see. Well, thank you for getting a second opinion on this issue.

Is there any possible way this thread could be reopened if the discussion would be more topic-centered?

 

That's part of the reason it got locked... i mean it's really not THAT hard to stay on topic, since it's a pretty wide topic. Give us a little bit to consult and reach a consensus.

 

Okay, will do.

 

How much is there to discuss about how well you're all able to spam the boards?

IMO, the thread (and Dashy's original thread that it is copying off of) should have been locked immediately simply for encouraging nothing but spam and high post counts.

 

Well, to each his own. The thread wasn't encouraging spam, per se. We were only having a contest as to who has the highest post count on a certain date. No more, no less.

 

My thread was original and has become somewhat classic (26-28 pages now?). Why should this even be an issue? When readinhg your original post, I couldn't help but sense a 12 year old brat mentality whereas if you can't have your way then you take down everyone else with you. I think you're a bit better than that, Smuggler.

 

The mods are said to be reviewing the issue right now. We'll just see what they say.

 

dashy's thread should remain open. Lock the other one. Dashy's thread was the original thread pertaining to this topic and it stayed mainly on topic with slight everyday socialization added to the posts. The new thread got way off topic very fast from it's inception. At least Dashy's for a good part of the posts pertained to Bib and his post count.

 

Dashy's thread will not be locked.

 

Captain_Typho posted on 7/25/05 3:21pm

---

dashy's thread should remain open. Lock the other one. Dashy's thread was the original thread pertaining to this topic and it stayed mainly on topic with slight everyday socialization added to the posts. The new thread got way off topic very fast from it's inception. At least Dashy's for a good part of the posts pertained to Bib and his post count.[hr][/blockquote]

Some of the latter posts in my thread pertained to the contest as well. In total, the discussion in my thread got off-topic. That was why it was closed. I'm only requesting that the mods reopen my thread so we could continue an on-topic discussion.

 

Again, I ask how discussion of obtaining high post counts, and of a CONTEST to see who can get a higher post count does anything but encourage spam.

 

In that case, anything could encourage spam. Bib's post count could inspire it, even.

I repeat, we weren't encouraging spam. Posting a lot doesen't alway mean you're spamming. Yes, when my thread got off-topic, we were spamming but not until then.

 

In that case, anything could encourage spam.

Theoretically. But a thread specifically designed to encourage spam does, in fact, encourage spam, based on the definitions of the words involved.

Amazing.

 

It could be seen as encouraging someone to spend a ridiculous amount of time online. I mean, should we lock stupid threads because they will encourage stupid replies which is practically like spamming?

I don't really see a huge problem with the "contest" both of them know if their posts break rules they will get in trouble. I would prefer to just mod at the post level.

 

I mean, should we lock stupid threads because they will encourage stupid replies which is practically like spamming?

Best idea ever proposed by the administration, provided it is expanded to include banning stupid members.

Amazing.

 

it happens a lot nowadays. Many threads turn social

 

droideka27 posted on 7/25/05 4:59pm

---

I don't really see a huge problem with the "contest" both of them know if their posts break rules they will get in trouble. I would prefer to just mod at the post level.[hr][/blockquote]

Nor I or [b]Bib[/b] ever meant to encourage members to go spam threads just to jump up their post count. There are indeed rules against spamming, and you're right, those rules shouldn't be broken. One [i]is[/i] capable of posting a lot and yet still managing to make quality posts.

 

Some people, maybe. The users in question here... probably not. But does it have to be a contest? How does a contest do ANYTHING but promote spamming? The contest was for the quantity of posts, not the quality.

 

Yes, true. However, I've never heard of a contest for quality posts. That would be quite hard to track for a year, anyway. The truth is that the thread has already been made and the challenge has already been set. All I'm asking for is that my thread is reopened so we could restart the discussion only that it would be more topic-oriented this time around.

 

I'd much rather see Smuggler's thread open than a lot of the threads in that forum. It was essentially harmless - yes, it encouraged post counts, but it was a clean thread. It didn't have cursing, pics of half-naked women, discussion of fecal matter, or anything of that nature. On that basis alone, I rank it much higher in quality than many of the threads in the JCC forum.

 

Whoa, I didn't even notice it was locked. For shame, Mods, for shame.

 

Whoa, I didn't even notice it was locked. For shame, Mods, for shame.

If you don't agree to why it was locked, why should we reopen it?