YJCC Mod Issue/ Policy Question

Longer is not inately better for humor threads, even ones surrounding the same topic.


Because people stop responding epic. They read and they laugh and they stop responding and the humor posts eventually are right next to each other with maybe one or two people posting between.

Are you going to doubt me on that? These aren't threads for discussion or even chatting, they are threads for humor and as such shorter is better.

There is not a single mold you can force every thread into.

 

If I may rephrase the question then...

If all teams of a given sport have to be in the same thread, why not all bands of a given musical genre?

And why aren't the Buffy and Angel threads combined for that matter?

 

The "large, cliquish threads" you refer to have names: social threads.

E.g. Dark Lords, Dantooine Base Bonanza, Geriatric Ward.

What are being posted about Teh B are not social threads. They are threads in the vein of the WWF thread, or the MLB thread, etc.

The point still stands that the WWF and MLB threads are free to become as large as they like (thereby travelling down the road toward Social Cliqueish threads) while the B threads should be free to keep it fresh and separate in smaller threads.

 

If all teams of a given sport have to be in the same thread, why not all bands of a given musical genre?

I'd support that. I hate music.

And why aren't the Buffy and Angel threads combined for that matter?

Because they're quite different shows. You'd find an easier time condensing Buffy and Alias, than Buffy and Angel.

If, on the other hand, you wanted one thread for sci-fi fantasy TV, one for dramatic TV, etc. then you can open that debate.

However, there's not a new Buffy or Angel thread each time there's a new season ( ), they're all put into the existing thread.

The point still stands that the WWF and MLB threads are free to become as large as they like (thereby travelling down the road toward Social Cliqueish threads) while the B threads should be free to keep it fresh and separate in smaller threads.

Why should new threads be allowed to be created about the same topic (B) when it's already NOT allowed for the other types of threads (e.g. MLB, NHL, NFL, etc.)?

 

I think you'll get clique-ishness in most threads that become large(whatever their purpose/topic) unless the regular, consistent posters in there try to be welcoming of new arrivals. Not easy to regulate that. All you can really do is discipline them from being abusive.

dp4m. In principle, I am in agreement with what you say about Buffy and Angel. However, they are the same mythos, and obey the same 'canon' source. I myself have no problem with two threads on it, but it could be argued that they are essentially the same thing in the same way that different teams of a given sport are the same, wider, subject. You and I both enjoyed discussing B5 as I recall, in a thread I started. But if I had then opened up a seperate thread for B5 Crusade, another for Legend of the Rangers, another for the books, and another for computer games, it would be frowned upon, yet is it not the same as having seperate threads for two Joss Whedon shows that are two halves of the same tale? Or multiple threads for different bands of the same music genre?

I grant you I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, and no offence is intended, but what I'm trying to get at is that the whole thing is de facto open to subjective interpretation vis-a-vis what should be all one topic and what shouldn't.

 

"one long thread encompassing many small threads of the same intent is better."

As long as there is only one thread on the first page of the JCC 95% of the time, does it make much of a difference? It isn't like there are always 5 of the "Things you didn't know..." on the first page at all times. In this case, with individual threads, there's typically only one on the first page. With a long thread, there'd only be one on the first page. Since I'd venture to say 90% of JCCers don't venture off of the first page (and the majority of the 10% who do are looking for a specific thread to up), I don't see a difference. Especially if the old threads are locked around the same time as the new one being posted.

 

Because people stop responding epic. They read and they laugh and they stop responding and the humor posts eventually are right next to each other with maybe one or two people posting between.

Are you going to doubt me on that? These aren't threads for discussion or even chatting, they are threads for humor and as such shorter is better.

so then there should be different rules for threads that are considered "humourous"? i don't doubt what you said. but perhaps, by the time in a thread where few people are bothering to post anymore, and the "humerous" updates are right next to each other, it could be said that the "humour" has reached it's climax?

if ignant created a humerous thread without relying on the exact same premise for the joke each day, then there would be no problem.

YJ, see my points concerning new users and also precedence.

 

People apparently still find them humerous it's not up to you to deicde they shouldn't since they follow strictly the rules.

 

Why should new threads be allowed to be created about the same topic (B) when it's already NOT allowed for the other types of threads (e.g. MLB, NHL, NFL, etc.)?

It is allowed for the other threads. When the threads get too big or the season ends or whatever they lock the old one and start a new one. The same goes for the B threads, they just happen to restart more frequently.

 

It is allowed for the other threads. When the threads get too big or the season ends or whatever they lock the old one and start a new one. The same goes for the B threads, they just happen to restart more frequently.

No, it's not. You cannot start a thread on any facet of the baseball season outside of the MLB 2004 thread.

That's the difference.

ONE thread to bind them all, and so on...

 

farraday, i'm not saying that at all. i understand people find them humerous. however if i was to start a topic about baseball, it would be locked and redirected to the MLB discussion thread. there is an inconsistency here that has nothing to do with my appreciation of any threads humour.

 

But you WOULD be permitted to start a thread devoted to a rock band already under discussion in the Heavy Metal Mosh Pit. It has happened on occasion already.

 

Except there isn't because the thread is the "official" one, it just gets restarted more frequently then other official threads.

since there has never been a ruling pased on how frequently threads can be restarted it's okay. Since the mods never mentioned a ruling, or even discussing it, it's okay. all they've done is tried to target one thing for elimination because... well I'm not sure why except that maybe they don't understand the rules, they just understand what they want to do.

 

No, it's not. You cannot start a thread on any facet of the baseball season outside of the MLB 2004 thread.

That's the difference.

ONE thread to bind them all, and so on...

If you locked the MLB 2004 thread, you could start a thread on ANY facet of the Baseball season you wanted to.

Where's the difference?

 

So you, by definition then, believe that there should be mandatory thread caps and reboots. For example, the WWF thread in the JCC should be restarted immediately since it's intimidating and cliquish, right?

I didn't say anything about mandatory. I said that if the creator of the thread wants it to be kept small, it should be allowed to stay small. And if the creator of the threads wants a large, one then they should be able to make it large.

However, there's not a new Buffy or Angel thread each time there's a new season ( ), they're all put into the existing thread.

There's a new survivor thread every season - is that wrong?

 

I really don't see how it's so different from JM22's "so-and-so hot chick is hot" threads. I've yet to see those banned, so that should prove that there's not a double standard.

Honestly, I like anything that breaks up the monotony of the top 25 threads being games that 99% of the commmunity couldn't care less about and social threads that less than that enjoy. Seriously, what is it hurting other than mod egos?

And KK, I know you wanted to co-opt these harsher standards for the Senate and Comms -- which is fine -- but they don't fit the JCC.

 

"YJ, see my points concerning new users and also precedence."

New users aren't going to want to read a 300+ post thread to jump in and have fun, especially with how cliquey larger threads tend to be. I think they'd be more likely to join in at Things... #45, with 32 posts. The threads don't build off of the other ones that much.

Precedence seems to show that (1) threads can be locked upon request of the author, and (2) once threads are locked, they can be restarted (unless locked for breaking the rules - flaming, etc.).

 

I think it just varies from thread to thread and likewise for subjects.

I'd hate to see the MLB thread divided into multiple versions during the same season. However, I also don't want to see multiple seasons in the same thread (something that has happened with the NHL thread, and given the lack of posting there, I think it shows what happens when threads go on too long without being restarted).

The 2002 MLB thread reached about 2,000 posts, and the 2003 thread was a bit more than 3,000 posts. The current one is about 550 posts, and the official season starts this week. Each year has had its unique subplots, discussions and groups of regulars. As long as people stay open to people who want to join in the discussion for the first time, I think it ends up being okay.

I know I also don't want to see classic threads locked, or long-running discussion that seems to be going steady, even if it's not being posted to every day).

People just need to be aware of new people who want to join in discussions.

And finally, I think it depends a bit on the forum. A thread that's longer than a 2,000 posts stands out a lot in the Senate, and I tried to keep a lid on them there (though the Iraq threads sort of changed that last year). In the JCC, they don't stand out too much.

 

farraday, ignant would be completely free to make an "official" discussion of facts relating to amazingb. see, that would be a compromise.

although you could say that a new fact each day, confined to one thread, wouldn't be as funny. so does that say something about the humour of the content, or the humour of... having a new thread each day? it seems the "joke" is reliant on the new thread each day, not that it provides an easier way for users to post.

fate, do you see the benefits of keeping all baseball related discussions to one thread?

a new survivor thread each season is fine, because it's going to last for months and gather a large amount of related posts. similar to... the MLB thread, etc etc.

Hob, i don't like the fact the first page is full of game and social threads, either. when i tried to get them removed into a new forum, thus freeing up the community, no one liked the idea. so hey, we're left with what the mods decide. for better or for worse.

 

An interesting one for me was Darth-Floyd's recent ink floyd albums 'line by line'. D-F began it as seperate threads, but was made to do it all as one thread, with the title being updated each time we started a new album - 'Currently Doing' Wish you Were Here or Animals or whatever. now, unless D-F had been temporarily given mod editting powers unknown to me, it must have required input from a YJCC Mod(or any mod) to alter the title every time. Same with Sexiest JCer auction I guess.

IF it were possible for thread authors to edit or lock the opener indefinitely then it would remove the need for this. D-F could have either locked dark Side of the Moon(allowing it to sink and get out of the way) and then opened up - for argument's sake - Meddle, or editted the title to reflect the current album in a large thread without placing additional work on a mod needed to perform the task.

Could this be implemented? Are there valid reasons why we're not able to do this? It would permit Paul to have as much info on his chosen user as he so wishes... going one of two ways:

either the tile changes in a bigger thread "things you never knew" #x, y, or z...

...or a series of locked threads no longer current, which sink and are no longer in the way.

It would alleviate work required by mods for those long threads that need their title updating at leas(such as the Auction, as I say).

Any thoughts?

Edit: epic, valid point about games(I must I confess I started one of 'em). It mightn't have been a bad idea to open a seperate forum for such games and maybe one for the societies too, like DLs, LS, BYS etc.

I guess it would require extra moderators though.

 

Wxcept epic what he does is make an "official" thread on the topic and then restart that "official" thread with regularity.

although it is true that a new fact each day, confined to one thread, wouldn't be as funny.

That's not what I said, what I said is people stop responding because there are only so many times you can have a posts that says " " in the same thread.

 

fate, do you see the benefits of keeping all baseball related discussions to one thread?


I do, which is why the current system works well for the Baseball threads...but that doesn't mean it will work well for all threads.

 

Hob, i don't like the fact the first page is full of game and social threads, either. when i tried to get them removed into a new forum, thus freeing up the community, no one liked the idea.

Actually, I think several of us in the AC supported it -- though I can't remember exactly who. At this point I'd support it even more strongly.

 

and there is a reason why there is no other "official" thread that follows this same pattern, farraday.

also, the point about them not being as funny wasn't to do with your earlier remark.

fate, so why do you believe these threads should be exempt? because it wouldn't be as funny if it was contained within one thread?

hob, i guess that only further points out what was indeed the futility of the AC. the same can be said for the focus groups, but that's another thread. in anycase, i would still strongly support the notion of removing all game/social threads out of community.

like i said, if ignant made a new humerous with an actual new joke each day, then everyone would be free to post in them without trouble.

 

Everything has to happen for a first time somewhere epic.

Although I'd point out that the clone wars short TV shows have a new thread for each episode, even though they occur every weekday for two weeks, rather then one large thread for the entire thing.