Thread Cap in JCC

Lawsuits.

 

Just because we had to restart threads on UBB doesn't mean we should do it now that we don't have to. It's easier and better for continuity's sake to stay with the old thread. Also, there aren't many 5000-post threads anyway. I counted five among the first five-hundred threads in YJCC.

 

Lawsuits? Like anyone we'd piss off could figure out how to file one.


"I got clowned on an internet message board! I'm suing!"

 

That's what I meant.

 

At least while they're all scratching their heads in cunfusion they won't be posting new threads.

 

How will the SC handle morons who post regardless to anything else?

 

Complete eradication.

 

This seems like a good idea...

But, when you delete some old threads, will that affect people's post count? It would suck if I went from my nice 1200 to only a couple of hundred posts.

 

Does the SC have a newsletter I can subscribe to? Your philosophies are very provocative.

 

Deleted messages are still included in your profile post count. Does it really matter, though? I, for one, wouldn't really care if my count dropped.

 

Over-inflated post counts will be considered grounds for immediate dismissal.

 

Quite frankly on the issue of newbies being afriad of long threads, the data is on my side.

I have to agree with farraday on this one.

//OMG! Twice in one thread I am agreeing with farraday?! Call Ripley! He won't believe it! //

Anyway......whenever I start a new Dark Lords' Thread, the interest in membership immediatly rises. Just food for thought.

And as for archiving.....I am also starting to save threads to my hard drive.
If help is needed in this respect, let me know, as I would be glad to lend a hand.

 

Gundark, we may have gotten off on the wrong foot in the past, but I'm starting to appreciate your philosophy more and more.

AYBABTU?

 

True, there are only 5 threads right now that this directly effects.
Although the singles thread will make it 6 shortly.
But there will be more, and since I have seen no persuasive arguements against this it will be put into effect.

I would ask that over the next week those 5k+ threads start over.

 

No persuasive arguments, huh? Well, I guess not, unless you count the fact that these threads have been shown to be harmless and such a minor issue that this really isn't worth all the fuss. I think this is just an effort to say "Look at all the good we're doing in Community! We're really straightening things out over there!" The fact of the matter is, this is a diversion from the real problems in Community -- spam, trolls, and generally crappy threads that are allowed to exist indefinitley. Locking up established, successful threads with a long history for no other reason than that they have 5000 posts is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The real problems remain, while the Administration gets to show that they're "doing something about it."

AYBABTU?

 

What AYBABTU said.

Get rid of the idiots, first. The biggest problem the JC has, is that it attracts the most and the biggest fools the Internet farts out. Fools, trolls, steerless idiots -- all starting threads like mad and never returning to them.

Do something about that. Yes, it's a tough job -- but you're mods, so get working and don't settle too quickly on vague, half decisions.

 

AYBABTU if you have a persecution complex I'd be happy to give you something real to complain about.

But lets be serious for a moment.
This isn't punishment.
Starting over hurts nothing. Ask the EUC threads which have turned over, ask the Dark lords, or the light side. ask how they've been harmed by starting anew.

 

"But there will be more, and since I have seen no persuasive arguements against this it will be put into effect."

Uh, what the hell are you talking about?

I thought you guys were trying to change the attitude of "we don't care what the regular members think."

 

We do care, you just don't realize you're not in the majority on this decision.

 

But there haven't been any persuasive arguments for this policy. You're just going to go ahead and implement without thinking it through properly. Even if I am in a minority, it's a sizeable minority, and you should not be so quick to dismiss valid concerns. This policy is almost completely pointless, because it affects so few threads. It would do more harm than good.

 

"AYBABTU if you have a persecution complex I'd be happy to give you something real to complain about."

Beautiful. I make a valid criticism of a pointless half-action and farraday starts throwing his moderator weight around as if it means something outside of his basement. Perhaps this identifies another problem with the JC -- moderators who show no repect to the TFN Community at large and think themselves better than "regular" members. This is pathetic, and a very telling sign of where this board is headed.

And frankly, farraday, you are the quickest moderator to point out that you're a moderator everywhere you go. Even if it is often in jest, continually threatening to ban someone just to show everyone around that you have the power is quite tasteless. You're a moderator. We get the message.

AYBABTU?

 

A similar policy has been in effect in the EUC for quite some time. This is not something we just came up with last night over a few beers and thought it would be a hoot to institute it.

We have thought it through, and it seems to me your arguements are the same as the ones they tried. We're punishing you for being sucessful, that it somehow hurts the thread to be in two parts instead of one long one.
And you know what, it hasn't hurt the threads in the slightest. It isn't a punishment. Your fears are baseless.

And there are threads that, if the mods were being strict would be locked and deleted.
Tell me Jeff 42, and think very carefully about this, do you want me to be strict about what I might consider spam?

 

Just ban everyone who has the word "Darth" in their username. That should solve most of the problems.

 

What would that mean, that you would ban yourself?

The Golden Age Cafe has been going for over 16 months. Starting over would hurt the thread. Why? Several reasons:

1. Historical value. A thread like that should not be locked and eventually deleted. Saving it and putting it on another site is all well and good, but it's better to have it still ongoing at the JC, and provides more of a sense of continuity.
2. Having it at the JC also makes it easier to look through the thread, and to find specific posts in it.
3. If it was started over, it might be over-run by newer members. I'm not saying that only oldbies are welcome there, but it is kind of nice to have a place like that where most of the registration dates start with 9. I know other people agree with me.

Deleting the thread would save what, a few hundred kilobytes of server space maybe? That's not much. And it wouldn't even happen for at least six months, right? Who knows if we'll even be on Snowboard anymore by then?

I still see no point in this policy. There are better ways to address the server space issues. And if it is implemented, I would suggest making exceptions for threads that already have over 5000 posts.

 

DOWN WITH DARTHS!