Well, I've offered what I feel is a valid suggestion, and potentially a solution worth some consideration. I honestly think it could work, and that it would alleviate pressure of workload on the mods...

...now if there is a reason why it's unworkable, impractal, undesireable or open to abuse(or perchance impossible for zerosleep to implement under current coding), would someone care to point it out?

 

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?


It's not a question of being exempt. It's a question of the thread owner wanting smaller, less intimidating threads restarted more frequently. Which works for this kind of thread. Whereas for the Baseball thread it works to keep all of the discussion of one season together, even if it means a larger thread.

 

farraday, depends what you deem, "everything". evidently there are some threads which shouldn't occur for the first time.

and i would assume the reason for the clone war threads would be because of the large number of replies each thread is bound to attract. although it's in a forum i never visit so i don't know the individual forums rules.

fate, a thread owner may want many a thing, but that in itself doesn't necessitate it happening.

 

Look, I know I'm repeating myself, and I accept that it's almost certainly very annoying, but if there is a reason why my proposal as a solution to this problem(which I've elaborated upon) is no good(perhaps it's been suggested before, and dismissed on very valid grounds of which I was not aware), then would someone care to enlighten me?

I only ask because this thread is now just a circular argument with conflicting opinions that show no sign of converging, and i don't think it's getting us anywhere.

Now, it may well be that what I've suggested is the most absurd proposal ever put before the Administration in this forum, but surely a suggestion for a solution(however unwise) is better than no suggestion at all, no?

could I be told why it's no good? ?

 

epic, what I mean is that just because something hasn't happened before can not be construed as proof it isn't allowed.

 

yes, because all the threads currently being left open in JCC are not being enjoyed by anyone.

That's my point. Current threads in the JCC are left open because there is some small portion of the JCC that likes them. Why are these threads being treated differently?

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

"Official" threads are almost entirely pointless in the JCC. When I first started posting, there was a new thread for the Simpsons every week to specifically discuss that episode. The thread would grow to about two pages, and die by Monday afternoon. That went on for several weeks. In June 2002, someone started an Official Simpsons thread (which is now part of the JCC thread index, so it's the definitive thread apparently). In 21 months, it has reached 7 pages at 50 posts per page. Page 7 ranges from April 2003 until February of this year. Whenever it's upped, it gets a post or two and then dies. How is that better than a new thread every week with new people involved that hits 50 replies?

Isn't the JCC about Community building rather than further dividing the forum into ever smaller cliques?

Amazing.

 

Isn't the JCC about Community building rather than further dividing the forum into ever smaller cliques?

don't tell me that there isn't a "group" of users that more frequently post in these amazingb threads than anyone else. in that regard, because new users generally aren't going to "get" these threads, aren't they also merely serving to divide the forum -- between new and old users?

more importantly, though, i agree with you about the community being better off without dividing the forum up. all these game threads and social threads do just that. i would love a forum where there are random threads created that last a night, a day or two, whatever, and then that's it. i enjoyed my time in community the most in threads just like those. they didn't have to be about anything. the most important thing was that anyone could come in and just joke around.

like i've said, if ignant, or you, or fate, or hob, or whoever else wants to just "hang out" without every single thread being about some strict formulative topic, then you can do just that -- you can create any old thread topic -- the fun isn't necessarily the topic but the banter that arises from it -- this would be helped by the removal of all these large social and game threads. but there is a difference between this and these current ignant threads which are specifically related to each other, made even more prominent by the ever-increasing #number. i agree that 200+ social threads are intimidating, but i also think that a joke thread which is obviously the xth incarnation is just as intimidating, especially when the new user has no means to "catch up on the joke".

if someone starts a thread about the removal of social and game threads, i'll be in full support of it so there CAN be more fun, banter-like threads that only last a day or two.

that being said, i don't even like the current mods that much so i don't know why i'm in here defending them so much.

 

But the restart is exactly so the jokes restart. ANd they do. There is an odd reference to previous threads, but it's by no means overwhelming. And new ppl do start posting in them. For example, you.

 

and i'd be fine with a new joke thread every day. but these jokes are reliant on the same premise. the "fun" of the threads don't lie in the premise at all, but the ensueing posts. but you can have that banter in any old topic, without intimidating new users who aren't going to "get it". (ie there is more to the threads, more to the "joke", obviously, than just the new "fact")

and by new users i mean users who haven't been around to see the previous threads, unlike myself.

 

But you're suggesting that a number in the title is more intimidating than thousand of posts. I disagree.

At this point the smae argument is being stated over and over. No one is changing their mind. So, what's the point?

 

there is no point because i'm not a mod and can't do anything about it. i'm just providing my opinion. the mods can decide what they want. i still think the "compromise" is completely weak, though.

and having completed my knock knock joke and the fact i'm already sleep deprived as it is, i'm out o here.

 

"At this point the smae argument is being stated over and over. No one is changing their mind. So, what's the point?"

Indeed, Paul, totally with you. That's why I made the suggestion that I did. I'd still love to know, from any mod or ex-mod, if it is such a ridiculous solution, might I be put out of my misery and informed of why it's a ridiculous solution?

I don't feel it's unfair to ask, as coming up with a proposal, no matter how unworkable, and based on very limited knowledge(which I confess), is surely more worthwhile than just the back and forth of "I'm right, you're wrong" that seems to be going on here.

Just my thoughts.

 

Wouldn't your suggestion require unlimited edit times in the YJCC Thraxwhirl? And therefore wouldn't regular users be able to unlock threads that have been locked by a mod? If so, then that would be pretty bad!

 

I'll oblige, Thrax.

"Well, is it possible to extend auto-lock time(ie. 'auto' as in 'by the author' as in 'autobiography', rather than 'automated'), to an indefinite period?"

Not without extra coding by zerosleep, and that doesn't seem too likely right now (especially since there are more important things that should be added or fixed right now). Right now, the only edit times that can be picked are applied to every post. Some forums (Fan Sites and I believe Fan Fic, for example), have unlimited edit time to allow users to update the titles of threads to let people know when they've been updated. However, this unlimited edit time also extends to every other post in the forum. I don't think that unlimited edit time on every single post is a good idea for the JCC, so I don't think this can be implemented with things how they are right now.

 

Everton. Don't misunderstand me, if you start a thread and then lock it in the allowed 30 mins, I can't unlock it again because the lock facility is specific to 'editing' the initial post. Unless you're a mod/admin, you can only edit your own posts.

YodaJeff seems to have hit the nail on the head though.

I'm with you, YJ, it's due to principle that the coding doesn't permit different edit times for one post over any other yeah? So it's by necessity 30 mins for all posts across the board. Thank you for clarifying for me.

A couple of questions though. Is there a reason why it's been set to 30 mins for YJCC and 90 mins for other boards(all of 'em as far as I can tell)? I do recall too that the board we had temporarily for JC Elections had unlimited editing time.

What's the thinking behind setting a smaller window for YJCC? I'm not asking that to be argumentive, just wondering what the reason is.

Shame about the coding biz though. I grant you I'm biased(since it was my idea), but I can see that although it would involve work on zerosleep's part, in the long run it would pay dividends for threads like 'Sexiest JCer Auction' and restarts of Social threads/games etc. Not to mention locking threads which the author him or herself knows has become redundant or unnecessary a few hours after clearing up the initial inquiry or whatever. Rather than mods being PMed and asked to do these things everytime.

Hey ho. Not a bad little idea... hmmm ? but, yes, I would be the first to concur with you, YJ that if it needs a serious rewrite to set different edit times for specific posts rather than forums, then yeah, zerosleep almost certainly does have more important stuff to be doing.

[shrugs] Oh well, just a thought. Thanks anyway, YJ for giving it a considered response and satisfying my curiousity.

A welcome break from the 'pantomime' of "oh yes it is," and "oh no it isn't" that this thread seems to have become.

 

Everton. Don't misunderstand me, if you start a thread and then lock it in the allowed 30 mins, I can't unlock it again because the lock facility is specific to 'editing' the initial post. Unless you're a mod/admin, you can only edit your own posts.

Sorry if I'm still getting the wrong end of the stick, but say the YJCC is set up so that authors of threads have unlimited edit times in the initial post. Say someone starts a thread that is maybe redundant or inappropriate, and a mod/admin locks it down. Say the author of the thread disagrees with that lock... couldn't that author then proceed to edit the initial post over the mod/admin's lock and unlock the locked thread because all initial posts have unlimited edit time? Surely authors would be able to do this days after a thread had been locked by a mod/admin??? Or, once a mod/admin has locked a thread, would the initial post become 'un-editable' to prevent the author re-opening it????

Have I got it wrong.?

 

A user could do that, but if they did they'd be banned.

 

"What's the thinking behind setting a smaller window for YJCC?"

Mainly that it's a busier forum, and 30 minutes later, there's a good chance that the discussion has moved on to something else. In other forums, things don't move quite as quickly, so there's a good chance that if you think of something else to add to the discussion 90 minutes later, you can edit it into your other post, and it won't be buried in the middle of a discussion, where the changes are likely to get overlooked. This is also true for mods reading over threads - an edit that adds a flame is less likely to be overlooked the sooner it is edited in. The more time that has passed since a particular post, the less likely it is that a mod or someone else will (re-)read it.

 

This is what I get for not checking Comms, I guess.

When Ignant started the second one of these threads, I PM'd him and said that he had a choice - either keep all the threads in one or have the previous thread locked when a new one opened. He asked that we just lock the previous one so that the newer, smaller thread would be the only one to exist. So, that's what I did. Each time I saw a new thread, I locked the old one so we wouldn't have the front page inundated with them (which was never even an issue).

Apparently, no other mod ever paid attention to that fact since after Carmen, Dags and I left, these threads didn't get locked. Good grief, when I would come online, I would check all the activity since I had last logged on and make sure I knew what my fellow mods were doing so I could be consistent. Do you guys not pay attention to what everyone else is doing? Why didn't anyone bring this to my attention before? There were many threads created before I left, but no one ever stated there was a problem. Now, all of a sudden this is a major problem? I'm sorry, gang, but this is lame. Don't blame this on having complaints about the threads - we get complaints on all sorts of threads. Blame it on people thinking Paul is getting special treatment and me being gone. That's really what I think this is about.

Most every thread in the JCC is "spammy". Many people start inane threads about similar topics. Isolating this because it's something that's never been done before is ridiculous. They aren't parodies. So what if they have the same "theme"? Shorty can start multiple threads a day/week about bodily functions and they're fine - why is this type of thing such an abomination in the forum?

Guys, really, this kind of thing is just ridiculous. It's a community forum. Let people have fun as long as they aren't trolling or causing trouble. These threads aren't a big deal and if people are truly disturbed by them, they should go outside and ride a bike, to get their perspective on life back.

 

Guys, really, this kind of thing is just ridiculous. It's a community forum.

I see. So the people who complain aren't a part of the community.

Got it.

 

Guys, really, this kind of thing is just ridiculous. It's a community forum. Let people have fun as long as they aren't trolling or causing trouble. These threads aren't a big deal and if people are truly disturbed by them, they should go outside and ride a bike, to get their perspective on life back.

Hear, hear!





I would like to put forward what I would like to call the ?Raven proposal for Community reform.? It?s very long and complicated, so pay attention to the finer nuances:

Point 1)
If a post or thread is not spam, is intended to be the only thread of its specific kind on the front page, flames no one, and fits within a reasonable definition of the TOS, then it should be allowed.

Point 2)
If a post or thread does not meet the criteria of point 1, it should be edited or locked or removed as is appropriate.

Thank you to everyone who managed to reach the bottom of this. I realize that it presents a lot of wild and crazy notions, but in my opinion it?s the best thing for the forum.

 

tl; dr.

 

So the people who complain aren't a part of the community.

Depends on your definition of community and how much time each person spends in it.

Action should depend on the merits of each individual situation. Complaints can come in about something from multiple sides, so it takes more than just complaining to show that something should be done.

I'd like to think so, at least.

 

so it takes more than just complaining to show that something should be done.

It rarely takes more than that to lock a thread, if there's something egregiously wrong with it.

In this case, the matter was discussed amongst several mods and then a decision was made. At which point, a riot has apparently ensued.

This, to me, is really no different than someone appealing a ban. They may not understand why, but once the decision is made it's generally final.

 

Ah yes, the collection of people here quesitoning this ruling are ignorant. Please dp4m tell me you have something more then that?