Moderators unfamiliar with the rules of posting?

[Premier]

I've recently come upon this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82855&page=63). I've seen it before, and though I found no particular interest in it, I thought something was off in its present, locked incarnation. A brief read through the Official and hypothetically up-to-date Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=25&a=1) revealed what was off: the thread was locked by a moderator based on a rule that does not exist.

Yup. The rule that threads must be locked when they reach 50 pages but might be restarted? Doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, check the Rules: they say nothing to the effect.

Or to be more acccurate, a rule like that does exist here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8723). However, please note that the linked post lists the rules specific to the Silly Games subforum, and hold no sway on other forums.

I thought I'll draw attention to the issue. Now, sure, this particular thing doesn't come up all that often, but I think that's not the point. This is a question of principle. The moderator- and ownership of the GitP forums never spared any effort to make sure that the rules are always clearly communicated and rigorously enforced. If they're serious about that, they should either make sure that the enforcers of the rules themselves are actually familiar with the rules; or, if there has been an actual agreement on this specific matter somewhere down the line in some private Mod-forum, then they should keep the Rules of Posting up-to-date.

[RTGoodman]

It's not really a rule of posting, so it doesn't really belong with the rest of the rules - it's just standard practice in these parts. It happens all over the place (the Random Banter threads, the Simple Q&A by RAW threads, etc.) and helps to save server strain or something like that, as far as I know. It's definitely NOT just some offhanded way that they're unfairly closing threads - I SEVERELY doubt there were any warnings or infractions given for the thread being 50 pages, and Roland plainly said someone could start a new one.

[Emperor Demonking]

Its been in the PBPs for ages.

[crimson77]

Yup. The rule that threads must be locked when they reach 50 pages but might be restarted? Doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, check the Rules: they say nothing to the effect.

Or to be more acccurate, a rule like that does exist here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8723). However, please note that the linked post lists the rules specific to the Silly Games subforum, and hold no sway on other forums.

I am not a moderator and I do not think that the sheriff was acting out of context. To be honest with you most threads are terminated around 50 pages regardless of the section they are in. While this may not be in the official rules it is something commonly practiced. One only has to look at the previous "You," "Banter," or long running pbp threads to see this in effect outside silly message board games. Remember, the message board and rules are an evolving entity. Thus, there are some rules and practices that are unwritten and are created for certain things and are expanded to others as the need arises.

I think that the rule reducing page limits was due to bandwidth issues and smaller page numbers helps in the loading times. I remember before this rule was in effect and some threads would get into the 100s making page loading a lot slower.

[The Giant]

It's a procedure, not a rule. We lock threads that reach 50 pages because the message board software doesn't handle very long threads very well. It's not in the official rules because, frankly, it's not anything that the posters need to worry about. Rules are things we don't want posters to do, and we have no problem with threads reaching 50 pages. No one gets warned or infracted for a thread reaching 50 pages. We just have a moderator procedure for what to do with those threads to ensure maximum software speed: lock them, but with the understanding that we encourage posters to start a new thread on the same topic. This happens all the time in, for example, Friendly Banter; one thread has reached its 100th version, if I'm not mistaken.

Unlike rules, we have many moderator procedures that are not specifically disclosed to the public, regarding how we monitor and maintain the board. Since none of them require any action on the part of the posters here, they don't actually need to be communicated to anyone. Those that affect the public at all are usually mentioned when a certain action is taken - such as saying, "Hey, it's our policy to lock threads at 50 pages, but feel free to start a new one." The only reason it's mentioned in Silly Message Board Games is that it happens just about every single day there, whereas it only comes up every few months in the other forums.

After all, the rules you are referring to are called the Rules of Posting, not the Rules of Everything That Ever Happens On This Board. They only deal with actions we expect our posters to take, not what we expect our moderators to deal with. I mean, there's no "rule" that says we're going to back up the message board database every night around 4:00 am, but we're going to do it anyway.

[Jibar]

Plus, back before the board change having too many pages slowed the reply function down incredibly. Not so bad since, but the rule had become standard practice by the time we switched.
Besides, the last Deegan thread reached over 300 pages. Rule or not, that's just unecessary.

Edit: Or, hey, the Giant could simu me about me. It's coo'. Whatever.

[Renegade Paladin]

There's no board software that I'm aware of that handles exceedingly long threads very well; on boards I run and many boards I post on the cutoff is 25 pages. Message board software does not like dealing with threads that long. Some handle it better than others, but there's a point where it'll screw up the database no matter what software you're using.

[NerfTW]

Wow, Premier, you are now the number one conspiracy nut on this board. Congratulations.

May I ask how you possibly felt that a lock with an invitation to start a new thead was "wrong"?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Wow, Premier, you are now the number one conspiracy nut on this board. Congratulations.
Not really a conspiracy theory. A conspirancy requires competence. Given the wording, this was more an accusation of incompetence. That is, the trains were not running on time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheTrainsRunOnTime).

[Occasional Sage]

Wow, Premier, you are now the number one conspiracy nut on this board. Congratulations.

May I ask how you possibly felt that a lock with an invitation to start a new thead was "wrong"?

Nah. I think that the conversation about mods' power from last month's thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84559) is still number one. It wove through the first couple/three pages, iirc.

Although conspiracy theories amuse me. If there's better, please start a thread!

[Admiral_Kelly]

It's a procedure, not a rule. We lock threads that reach 50 pages because the message board software doesn't handle very long threads very well. It's not in the official rules because, frankly, it's not anything that the posters need to worry about. Rules are things we don't want posters to do, and we have no problem with threads reaching 50 pages. No one gets warned or infracted for a thread reaching 50 pages. We just have a moderator procedure for what to do with those threads to ensure maximum software speed: lock them, but with the understanding that we encourage posters to start a new thread on the same topic. This happens all the time in, for example, Friendly Banter; one thread has reached its 100th version, if I'm not mistaken.

Unlike rules, we have many moderator procedures that are not specifically disclosed to the public, regarding how we monitor and maintain the board. Since none of them require any action on the part of the posters here, they don't actually need to be communicated to anyone. Those that affect the public at all are usually mentioned when a certain action is taken - such as saying, "Hey, it's our policy to lock threads at 50 pages, but feel free to start a new one." The only reason it's mentioned in Silly Message Board Games is that it happens just about every single day there, whereas it only comes up every few months in the other forums.

After all, the rules you are referring to are called the Rules of Posting, not the Rules of Everything That Ever Happens On This Board. They only deal with actions we expect our posters to take, not what we expect our moderators to deal with. I mean, there's no "rule" that says we're going to back up the message board database every night around 4:00 am, but we're going to do it anyway.I respectfully disagree with this.

The 50-page limit may be limited as 'procedure' but it should be noted along with everything else. Otherwise it is unfair to the members of this board. Think about it.

[Jack Squat]

I'll admit, it is a little odd to have the limit...this is the only forum I read that does it. So I can see where the people come from that are saying it could be helpful to acknowledge this.

I also understand why it's neccessary. I remember the threads starting to bug out soon after the 50 page mark on the old YaBB Boards. IMO, whether or not this should be included in "Da Rules," it is neccessary to have the policy. As The Giant said, it's not a rule of Posting, as nothing happens to the people who get on page 51, but it may be helpful to add that in a board-wide annoucement or even in the "Info about the server bandwidth/load" thread...or in that FAQ that's in the works :smallwink:

[skywalker]

Wow, Premier, you are now the number one conspiracy nut on this board. Congratulations.

May I ask how you possibly felt that a lock with an invitation to start a new thead was "wrong"?

Being a jerk on the internet does not make you cool.

I think it's just a problem of people seeing threads locked with red mod text at the end and automatically assuming someone got in trouble. Roland did add a... chastisement? Is that the right word? Firefox is telling me that it is a word... Roland did add a chastisement that might make you think someone did something wrong, tho.

I guess if you hadn't been around FB or SMBG, you might get the idea that locks are always punitive, altho I think simply re-posting the announcement stickied at the top of this subforum(Board Issues) that states that locks are not always punitive would be easy, quick, and keep everyone happy. *Shrug* That's my idea.

[faerwain]

I respectfully disagree with this.

The 50-page limit may be limited as 'procedure' but it should be noted along with everything else. Otherwise it is unfair to the members of this board. Think about it.

I thought about it and still fail to see what the unfair part is.

It's not like we have to care about it. Thread reaches 50, some mod locks it. And as I've always seen them explaining that the reason is the lenght, and we should open a new one, it's not like there is much room for misunderstandings.


I think it's just a problem of people seeing threads locked with red mod text at the end and automatically assuming someone got in trouble. Roland did add a... chastisement? Is that the right word? Firefox is telling me that it is a word... Roland did add a chastisement that might make you think someone did something wrong, tho.

I guess if you hadn't been around FB or SMBG, you might get the idea that locks are always punitive, altho I think simply re-posting the announcement stickied at the top of this subforum(Board Issues) that states that locks are not always punitive would be easy, quick, and keep everyone happy. *Shrug* That's my idea.

I get the point that the first idea of people seeing a mod lock might be "uh-oh", but they simply have to read what the mod actually said(and therefore I think reposting the announcement would be be somehow redundant when they explain their lock anyway.)
Concerning this example, Roland clearly states that the lock reason was only the lenght of the thread, and "Feel free to start a new one if you'd like" doesn't sound much like "This topic's in trouble".

[Admiral_Kelly]

I thought about it and still fail to see what the unfair part is.

It's not like we have to care about it. Thread reaches 50, some mod locks it. And as I've always seen them explaining that the reason is the lenght, and we should open a new one, it's not like there is much room for misunderstandingsThe unfair part is that we, the members, actively make up this board and we should know the workings so we know we are not being joshed around.

My two cents.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I should also point out that that thread was also on notice for drifting into not-rules-kosher discussion topics; it was probably a combination of that and the length that lead to its closure and restart.

The "suggested" 50-page limit probably ought to go in the rules for full disclosure, but I don't think it's a big deal. Certainly not one of the things worth getting up in arms about freedom of speech over.

[SPoD]

The unfair part is that we, the members, actively make up this board and we should know the workings so we know we are not being joshed around.

Oh, man. You just really are under the impression that this matters AT ALL, aren't you?

We're not entitled to know anything except how we are expected to behave. If you go to visit a friend's house, you are entitled to know whether or not he will kick you out for putting your shoes on the couch. You are not entitled to know what product he uses to clean his couch after you leave. You can ask, but it's up to your host whether or not he answers.

It is not "unfair" to you just because you do not know something. I suspect there are many things about how the moderators review infractions that we are not privy to.

[Admiral_Kelly]

^That line of thinking leads to forum mod elitism.

This is not some friend's house. This site is owned by Burlew, and is overseen by the mods, but we make up the community. We, as the community for which this forum would not exist, deserve to know when and why our threads get locked. Those who oversee the community should be fair and reasonable about how they proceed about their actions especially when they effect us.

[Shadow]

I don't find it to be elitist in the slightest bit.

But as to the original query, think of it not as "The Rules of the Forum" that need to be spelled out for everyone, but rather as "The Custom of the Community" and there isn't a problem, in my eyes.

[Serpentine]

This is an extremely common, extremely well-acknowledged practice. I'm surprised the OP only just found one, because they're all over the place. The thread gets too big, a mod notes this fact, it's locked, a new one of the same name with a number is created, and the new-thread boogies commence. There is no need for it to be specified in the rules because as mentioned it's not actually a rule, and it is always pretty damn obvious why it's been locked, and there is absolutely no negative result with the possible exception of the inability to quote an old post. Get over it already.

[Castaras]

This is an extremely common, extremely well-acknowledged practice. I'm surprised the OP only just found one, because they're all over the place. The thread gets too big, a mod notes this fact, it's locked, a new one of the same name with a number is created, and the new-thread boogies commence. There is no need for it to be specified in the rules because as mentioned it's not actually a rule, and it is always pretty damn obvious why it's been locked, and there is absolutely no negative result with the possible exception of the inability to quote an old post. Get over it already.

This post has my full agreement, for all it's worth.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

This is not some friend's house. This site is owned by Burlew, and is overseen by the mods, but we make up the community.
Just 'cause he lets us in, doesn't mean this is any less Burlew's "house", "playground", "sandbox", or whatever other metaphor you want to use.


We, as the community for which this forum would not exist, deserve to know when and why our threads get locked.
Without a web server running the proper software, such as that paid for by Burlew, this forum would not exist. And that's a far more necessary requirement than a particular group of visitors. Whether or not a forum has to be active in order to 'exist' is a philosophical debate I'd rather avoid, though.

In any case, I believe Roland made it exceptionally clear why the thread got locked, and that message was timestamped. So I think that takes care of knowing both the why and the when your thread got locked.


Those who oversee the community should be fair and reasonable about how they proceed about their actions especially when they effect us.
I'm still not seeing what's unfair, or even unreasonable about this situation. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are under the impression that thread locking is an entirely punitive measure. This is simply not the case. It's really just a control and safety valve.

On a side note, anyone notice that the thread under discussion was listed as the third iteration of the Dominic Deegan thread? So this particular thread of discussion survived this practice twice over before this, and it looks like it's continuing to survive, as Mark IV is already on page 4.

[SteveMB]

I don't see what's allegedly "unfair" about it; it's not as if it prevents anybody from speaking their mind (within the established rules of the forum).

IMO the locked thread ought to capped off with a post explaining that it was locked for length and pointing to the new thread to clarify things for people who see the old thread before it sinks down the page, but even that is a minor issue.

[Devin]

I think it would be nice to put it in the official rules.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

IMO the locked thread ought to capped off with a post explaining that it was locked for length and pointing to the new thread to clarify things for people who see the old thread before it sinks down the page, but even that is a minor issue.
That's exactly what happens, except for the fact that the new thread doesn't exist yet when the old thread is locked, so it can't point to anything. It's up to the people posting in the thread, not the moderators, to decide if they even want a new thread to begin with, so the pointer thing just isn't going to happen. It shouldn't be too hard to find a "Part < * Whatever * >" thread anyway.

[Bookman]

In addition to all the other of reasons listed here (which are quite nicely done) another advantage of the 50 page cut off is someone new is allowed to post the new thread and get their brief "moment" of fame as their thread grows and evolves. (Note Random Banter where they literally name the thread after the poster). And if you're worrying about losing all of that "valuable" discussion then you just can include links of the other previous threads. (as it appears has been DONE in the aforementioned thread).

[Admiral_Kelly]

Just 'cause he lets us in, doesn't mean this is any less Burlew's "house", "playground", "sandbox", or whatever other metaphor you want to use.

Without a web server running the proper software, such as that paid for by Burlew, this forum would not exist. And that's a far more necessary requirement than a particular group of visitors. Whether or not a forum has to be active in order to 'exist' is a philosophical debate I'd rather avoid, though.Yes, Burlew has the sight and yes, we are obligated to follow his rules when we post here. However, we are not bound to allow him to throw crap at us (not that I am accusing Burlew of anything except one or two things I disagree with - really, this is not a major issue). At any given time, we could simply leave and not post here ever again. We all have that option. If it were not for us, this forum would not be what it is.

The mods should post along with the rest of the rules about the fifty-page limit. It may be classified as a 'procedure' because it does not dictate directly how we post but guess what? It is still technically a rule and it is something everything we should be aware of. One thing I cannot stand is when moderators jerk around its members all the while forgetting the above. As members should respect the rules and the supervisors; the supervisors should respect its members for taking the time to visit their site.

If you want to fall back on the 'visiting someone's house' metaphor, then keep in mind proper hosts should not be rude to their guests.

[Tormsskull]

One thing I cannot stand is when moderators jerk around its members

I agree, but I don't see this issue being such a case, not even remotely. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Charity]

Yes, Burlew has the sight

He does! Rich, Rich, can you tell me how the Hammers will do this season?


but guess what? It is still technically a rule and it is something everything we should be aware of.

So is marking with lines, esp. parallel straight lines, with the aid of a ruler or the like... shall we make them aware of this also? Seriously this does seem to irk you beyond all proportionality, it happens on every discussion site I have ever visited, it's common practice and was probably overlooked as such, or even deliberately excluded why does it matter?


One thing I cannot stand is when moderators jerk around its members all the while forgetting the above.

It's lucky this didn't happen then, or you'd have had something to complain about. RSJ is an excellent example of a 'good' moderator he patrols possibly the toughest district of this lil one horse town and does so with equanimity and steely resolve... I couldnt resist the obvious pun sorry

[Serpentine]

It is still technically a rule and it is something everything we should be aware of.Actually, it is technically not a rule and you have yet to inform us as to how, exactly, you are disadvantaged by this policy.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If you want to fall back on the 'visiting someone's house' metaphor, then keep in mind proper hosts should not be rude to their guests.
I am not of the opinion that neglecting to tell one's guests of every minor housekeeping detail on the offhand chance one of them might spill something or otherwise make a mess qualifies as rude. It's the kind of thing you don't really need to know until it happens.

[Charity]

Sorry Serp, but as rule has 24 definitions it was bound to be there

rule - noun, verb, ruled, rul·ing.
–noun
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.
23 more here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rule)

but still nitpicking over the definition of rule is like a broken pencil.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I have been curious about this for quite some time in actual fact. I too was confused by the fact that it seemed to be SMB rule applied elsewhere. I am glad that his has been made clear, but its inclusion somewhere in the rules post would be a good idea, along with the approximate time of the backup. After all this is a world wide community and the wee hours of the mourning for The Giant is mid morning for me.

Anyway thanks for clearing this up and I agree with the others who said that this is the sort of thing that might do well to be made clear, if only to avoid more of these threads.

[AKA_Bait]

It is still technically a rule and it is something everything we should be aware of. One thing I cannot stand is when moderators jerk around its members all the while forgetting the above. As members should respect the rules and the supervisors; the supervisors should respect its members for taking the time to visit their site.

Seriously, fellow, you need to relax. Any page limit is not, actually, something we need to know. We can always link back to the original thread in the first post of the new thread if that is for some reason crucial. Every rule and procedure need not be spelled out. If it was, then the rules of the forum would, I'm sure, be much longer than they already are. Few enough people seem to read them in full, adding things like page limit and all the other little details that we don't see or need to know about, would make the document unwieldy and even less likley to be read by all.

Also, if you think that the mod's here are rude and don't show respect for posters I can only wonder if you have been on the same forum I have been. The GitP mods are patient, explain things, and responsive to poster questions and concerns. Roland in particular, whose action of closing a thread inspired this discussion, is one of the best mods I have ever had the pleasure of posting on a site run by. When I got limited modding rights over at VP, I made a point of going through his old posts to see how he handled situations because I have that much respect for him as a moderator and knew I could learn from it.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Also, if you think that the mod's here are rude and don't show respect for posters I can only wonder if you have been on the same forum I have been.I was making a point about how respect between mods and members should be mutual, not pointing any fingers. In my opinion the mods here preform an excellent job. I think I had gone on a bit of a tangent earlier. The real issue is whether or not the 50 pages cap should be listed along with the rest of the rules; my thoughts are with EvilDMMk3 on this one along with the 4am backup.

[RabbitHoleLost]

I agree especially about the 4am backup.
The first time I experienced it, I thought someone was trying to hack my account, what with the little prompt window asking my username and password. And since it hadn't really been mentioned anywhere, I had NO idea what was really going on.

And, trust me, flipping out over something like that when I'm half asleep is not fun nor healthy.:smallwink:

May I also note I admire and respect the mods here very much and am not complaining about them in the least. I only wish that things be made known so incidents of me running all of my virusware and spybot destroyer frantically do not happen again or to someone else.

[Occasional Sage]

I agree especially about the 4am backup.
The first time I experienced it, I thought someone was trying to hack my account, what with the little prompt window asking my username and password. And since it hadn't really been mentioned anywhere, I had NO idea what was really going on.

And, trust me, flipping out over something like that when I'm half asleep is not fun nor healthy.:smallwink:

May I also note I admire and respect the mods here very much and am not complaining about them in the least. I only wish that things be made known so incidents of me running all of my virusware and spybot destroyer frantically do not happen again or to someone else.

Given past experience, I think it wouldn't help much. Existing and new users would simply neglect to read the mods' post about it.

That said, it sounds like you'd've been one of the rare exceptions. Sounds like that was a sucky night!

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Perhaps there needs to be a more informative message/alert/whatever when a non-moderator attempts to access the forum during backup?

[Shadow]

The pop-up/log-in box didn't confuse me at all. It was never there before the server change. It was there after. Made sense to me, but I can see how it might become a confusing point for new members who weren't around before the change.
Not really sure how you didn't figure that one out RHL. :smallconfused:.

[Occasional Sage]

The pop-up/log-in box didn't confuse me at all. It was never there before the server change. It was there after. Made sense to me, but I can see how it might become a confusing point for new members who weren't around before the change.
Not really sure how you didn't figure that one out RHL. :smallconfused:.

As he said: very late, tired, and therefore not thinking full speed. Pretty common at 4AM, whatever age you happen to be.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Plus, I had never been on that late before, and I had recalled in the email after the server change how some accounts security had been compromised.

[metallica48423]

I don't get it...

A solid technical answer is given as to exactly why this happens... and the argument continues?

No forum software is able to efficiently handle large threads. There are two softwares i can think of which minimize the effects but it is still a problem... but thats not relevant.

Im sorry and i certainly mean no offense to any of the great people here, but nobody should be crying elitism over this. It is just a tid bit ridiculous, no?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I don't get it...

A solid technical answer is given as to exactly why this happens... and the argument continues?

Yes, people are obviously trying to reach the 50 page mark to see what happens. :smallamused:

[RabbitHoleLost]

I don't get it...

A solid technical answer is given as to exactly why this happens... and the argument continues?

No forum software is able to efficiently handle large threads. There are two softwares i can think of which minimize the effects but it is still a problem... but thats not relevant.

Im sorry and i certainly mean no offense to any of the great people here, but nobody should be crying elitism over this. It is just a tid bit ridiculous, no?

The argument isn't over whether or not it should be done, its about whether it should be cited as a rule if it is to be treated as such.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

but still nitpicking over the definition of rule is like a broken pencil.
And in any case, we'd still come back to the fact that it's Rules of Posting. So is this 50-page thing really something that we have to keep in mind when we're posting? Evidently, only in the Games forums where it happens often enough that the mods request we police ourselves. It seems they're content to keep it as a Rule of Maintenance in all other places. And only the mods and administrators need concern themselves with those. If they wanted us to care about this thing when typing up our post in other places, they'd put it in the rules.

[Occasional Sage]

Also also, there's a problem with posting this in the rules: it not universally adhered to (see, for instance, the Avatar Request thread, several iterations of the RAW thread, etc). Posting a "rule" and then not "enforcing" it would be rather detrimental to the Forums in general.

[Admiral_Kelly]

but still nitpicking over the definition of rule is like a broken pencil.And in any case, we'd still come back to the fact that it's Rules of Posting.You are doing exactly what that guy was saying; nitpicking over definitions. So they are the rules of posting, who cares? It covers many other things anyway.

@Occasional Sage: The solution to the 'problem' is listing said thread as an exception.

[metallica48423]

The argument isn't over whether or not it should be done, its about whether it should be cited as a rule if it is to be treated as such.

Ahh, then nevermind me for misunderstanding the progression of this thread!

[Jack Squat]

So they are the rules of posting, who cares? It covers many other things anyway.

Examples please?

[Occasional Sage]

You are doing exactly what that guy was saying; nitpicking over definitions. So they are the rules of posting, who cares? It covers many other things anyway.

@Occasional Sage: The solution to the 'problem' is listing said thread as an exception.

Sure, except that 1) the board software doesn't do this, people do, bringing in human error and watering down the perceived enforcement of The Rules; and 2) there doesn't seem to be a list of threads which are "exceptions" to this policy.

Really, by not creating a thousand minute details for us to read, remember, and interpret the interaction of, the mods are leaving the system simple, flexible, and trusting us to take their locking of a thread at face value. Personally, I appreciate that.

My thought is that the locking happened in part because the 50 page mark occurred right as a number of threads needed to be scrubbed for touching on forbidden topics; Roland even mentioned those in his locking of the thread. Probably (Roland, correct me if I'm off base here please) it was easier to lock that thread for reaching a problematic size, rather than risk needing to hand out violations and potentially ban members if that particular conversation had gone further.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You are doing exactly what that guy was saying; nitpicking over definitions.
No more so than The Giant, who first made the "Posting" distinction.

Rules have to be precisely defined to be useful on a large scale. So, really, I think it's important to pick certain nits.


So they are the rules of posting, who cares? It covers many other things anyway.
Only those things that are necessary to place the rules and the consequences of their violation in context.

[Evil DM Mark3]

So, really, I think it's important to pick certain nits.

First, love how you turned that phrase (and into a tight parking spot too).

Second, I now realise that in the past I have been on several threads (mostly web comic threads) that hit the 50 page limit and kept on going. If I had known I would have started the next thread myself, because I feel that anything that causes strain on the server, slows down the site, etc., causes a worsening of what is in effect a digital communal space. And like all communal spaces it is the responsibility of everyone who uses it to look after it and treat it properly and as the British Supermarket giant Tesco says You Will Obey, um, I mean, Every Little Helps.

It never occurred to me that it may be a problem because, unlike some people on this forum, I an techno-literate, not techno-savvy. I can use this stuff, dunno how it works.

[Admiral_Kelly]

No more so than The Giant, who first made the "Posting" distinction.I disagree with Burlew on this issue as I said before?
Only those things that are necessary to place the rules and the consequences of their violation in context.This is necessary to post in the rules.

This argument is absurd really; why would you want to hold this knowledge back? These two procedure-rules brought up should be made known to everyone; it makes no sense to hide it so you only find out when you happen upon it. Let us clear up confusion, not regress into chaos.

[Occasional Sage]

I disagree with Burlew on this issue as I said before?This is necessary to post in the rules.

This argument is absurd really; why would you want to hold this knowledge back? These two procedure-rules brought up should be made known to everyone; it makes no sense to hide it so you only find out when you happen upon it. Let us clear up confusion, not regress into chaos.

As I said recently, not codifying this makes the system work better.

I really don't think that the Forum staff is "hiding" anything. This isn't something that causes an infraction or even really inconveniences anybody too much; starting a new thread takes a couple of seconds, and if you really need to quote something from the old thread it takes a couple of extra moments to cut and paste it. There isn't a way that this can ambush you and cause problems later, is there?

It's just... easier, sometimes, to not have rules for every single thing. We're not whatever replaced Modrons. Grey areas are all over the place in our lives. This is just one of those things that, imo, ain't broke.

[Jack Squat]

This is necessary to post in the rules.

How? I mean I understand the whole "restarting a locked topic" bit, but it's either posted where it's common (SMBG), a moderator points out it out (the thread in question...most others) or it's just kinda known practice (Random Banter, You, anything else in Friendly Banter that has a number). The last section is where it could cause confusion among some posters, but to my knowledge, no one's ever popped into one of these threads and asked why we were continuing a locked topic.


This argument is absurd really; why would you want to hold this knowledge back?

It's not held back...our posts aren't being edited to remove this topic from them. It's just not something that anyone needs to worry about, so why go through the trouble of adding this minor detail into the rules?


These two procedure-rules brought up should be made known to everyone; it makes no sense to hide it so you only find out when you happen upon it. Let us clear up confusion, not regress into chaos.

Slippery slope argument. You mention that by hiding any information, we fall into chaos. These boards have held up thus far, why would it change anything to keep it this way? Also, as said before, it's not hidden; this topic just isn't that important and doesn't come up in normal conversation. It's like wanting it edited into the rules why we have custom smilies.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I disagree with Burlew on this issue as I said before?
My point being even if we ignore the pedantry about the word "rule" we still have the debate on "Posting".

And I really don't see how it makes a direct effect on anyone's posting ability, outside the fact that the title might be "My Thread II" rather than just "My Thread."


This argument is absurd really; why would you want to hold this knowledge back? These two procedure-rules brought up should be made known to everyone; it makes no sense to hide it so you only find out when you happen upon it.
This isn't being hidden. This information is available upon request. It's no more hidden than the microfilm archives at the public library are—it might not be out in the open, but the information is available if you ask.

And what inconvenience is inflicted exactly, when one only learns of this rule/procedure/whatever through demonstration rather than reading about it in advance?

[Admiral_Kelly]

Guys, your points are absolutely invalid.

These procedures have been causing confusion and people do need to know these things because it affects them. It should not be brought up by surprise, you have utterly failed to give an adequate reason why they should not be included in the rules of posting, especially the non-point about the semantics of 'rules of posting not rules overall' - which is an absurd reason for thier disallowing.

[Jack Squat]

Guys, your points are absolutely invalid.

Hasty Generalization, probably a few others if I wanted to read into it enough.


These procedures have been causing confusion and people do need to know these things because it affects them. It should not be brought up by surprise, you have utterly failed to give an adequate reason why they should not be included in the rules of posting, especially the non-point about the semantics of 'rules of posting not rules overall' - which is an absurd reason for thier disallowing.

Burden of Proof - You're the one wanting change, you should give adequate reasons as to why things should be changed.

How does it affect posters enough to warrant adding this into the rules? Why do people absolutely need to be informed of this policy up front? Is it really that traumatizing for someone to see that a thread they were reading was locked because it's getting too long, but they're free to continue talking about it in a new one? Why is this mundane detail so important to you?

[Admiral_Kelly]

Burden of Proof - You're the one wanting change, you should give adequate reasons as to why things should be changedDUDE! If you are going to point out fallacies, get 'em right. Pointing out your lack of reasons for not changing is perfectly valid. I have repeated over-and-over again why this change is necessary:

1) It has caused confusion, and that is no good for forum members.
2) The posters are the better off with this knowledge. If they are on at 4am Eastern when the forum closes, they will know why. They will also know ahead of time if a thread is going beyond the 50-page cap then they will need to make a new one. Especially if they want a hold on it (like, say for a comic on Arts and Crafts forum).
3) Better ties between forum mods and members.

I am not repeating myself again. This change is perfectly logical and not changing is, frankly, a violation of common sense.

[Jack Squat]

DUDE! If you are going to point out fallacies, get 'em right. Pointing out your lack of reasons for not changing is perfectly valid. I have repeated over-and-over again why this change is necessary:

I've given reasons, you just refuse to accept them as such. I've explained that this is a minor enough detail that it doesn't affect the day-to-day lives of posters. How often do threads reach 50 pages outside of SMBG? Once every couple weeks?

Honestly, I thought you'd probably call me out on the generalization fallacy, because I wasn't quite sure if it fit the hard and fast rules of it, but it seemed close enough.


1) It has caused confusion, and that is no good for forum members.

How has it caused confusion? I have yet to see any thread or post wondering why a thread that has reached 50 pages was locked, or why people were allowed to start up said thread again. If you have any proof of this, please link to it, otherwise it's an unfounded claim.


2) The posters are the better off with this knowledge. If they are on at 4am Eastern when the forum closes, they will know why. They will also know ahead of time if a thread is going beyond the 50-page cap then they will need to make a new one.

It's been posted several times that these things exist. All this information is avaliable to the average poster here; nothing is stopping them from knowing what is causing these things. They'll just have to look around for it some...about as much as they would have to to find it in the rules.


Especially if they want a hold on it (like, say for a comic on Arts and Crafts forum).

Could you define "hold on it" please? I don't quite understand the phrase in this context.


3) Better ties between forum mods and members.

I'd say the ties between mods and members is quite good already and doesn't need to be improved. Most of the mods are active posters, and you don't really see the others around much doing modding duties anyways. This site isn't like most others where mods have a seperate account so they don't get hassled when they make non-mod posts. Mods here are basically just normal posters that have the resources to make sure things don't get too out of hand here.


I am not repeating myself again. This change is perfectly logical and not changing is, frankly, a violation of common sense.

Poisoning the Well - Anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have common sense.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I've given reasons, you just refuse to accept them as such. I've explained that this is a minor enough detail that it doesn't affect the day-to-day lives of posters. How often do threads reach 50 pages outside of SMBG? Once every couple weeks?That is not a reason not to include them - since the issue comes up at all that is reason enough.
Honestly, I thought you'd probably call me out on the generalization fallacy, because I wasn't quite sure if it fit the hard and fast rules of it, but it seemed close enough.He who points out the most fallacies does not win the argument. That is, in fact, known as 'fallacy by fallacy'.
How has it caused confusion?Read over earlier some earlier posts in this thread please.
It's been posted several times that these things exist. All this information is avaliable to the average poster here; nothing is stopping them from knowing what is causing these things. They'll just have to look around for it some...about as much as they would have to to find it in the rules.Why should they have to look around for it instead of finding it along with the rest of the rules they need to know? Sounds pretty dumb.
Could you define "hold on it" please? I don't quite understand the phrase in this context.What I mean is this: Someone starts a thread. That thread hits fifty and gets locked. The original thread starter should get the chance to repost the thread himself.
I'd say the ties between mods and members is quite good already and doesn't need to be improved.No such thing as perfection. If there is room for improvement, then let us go for it.
Poisoning the Well - Anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have common sense.Wrong. Anyone who disagrees with my side of the argument is lacking common sense in this issue. Do not twist my words around. Though technically you are right; that has nothing to do with the validity of my argument - which is proven by other means.

[Occasional Sage]

That is not a reason not to include them - since the issue comes up at all that is reason enough.

Obviously the issue has come up, hence this thread. I would contend, though, that the issue is a very small one. AK, can you show enough concern about this that it would really warrant an added layer of bureaucracy, more rules to follow, and everything that comes with those things?



What I mean is this: Someone starts a thread. That thread hits fifty and gets locked. The original thread starter should get the chance to repost the thread himself.

The thread can be reopened, as Roland quite clearly stated when he closed the thread that started this conversation. In the case of a general discussion like DD, though, who starts the thread seems immaterial.



No such thing as perfection. If there is room for improvement, then let us go for it.
Sure. Engaging mods in conversation and making suggestions for the site certainly work toward that. But suggesting that rules are being hidden and that practices generally seen as reasonable (to the posters in this thread, at least) are punitive or unfair works against that goal, imo.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Obviously the issue has come up, hence this thread. I would contend, though, that the issue is a very small one. AK, can you show enough concern about this that it would really warrant an added layer of bureaucracy, more rules to follow, and everything that comes with those things?I am not asking for more rules - I am asking for a couple of rules on the books to be included with the rest of them. Adding more is not what I am arguing for.
The thread can be reopened, as Roland quite clearly stated when he closed the thread that started this conversation. In the case of a general discussion like DD, though, who starts the thread seems immaterial.To clarify; the same poster who started the first thread should know ahead of time about the fifty-page lock rule so he can know to create a thread himself when the time comes is specifically what I meant.
Sure. Engaging mods in conversation and making suggestions for the site certainly work toward that. But suggesting that rules are being hidden and that practices generally seen as reasonable (to the posters in this thread, at least) are punitive or unfair works against that goal, imo.I do not see your point with this one :smallconfused:.

[Shadow]

Are you guys STILL arguing?
Seriously?

[Jibar]

I know, it's ridiculous, huh?
I mean, we had a post asking, it got an answer from a mod, the mod, answering the question. Should be done. But it's not.
:smallconfused:


To clarify; the same poster who started the first thread should know ahead of time about the fifty-page lock rule so he can know to create a thread himself when the time comes is specifically what I meant.

And they do, since they can see "Hey, I reached 49 pages. Guess I'll have to start a new thread in a bit."


That is not a reason not to include them - since the issue comes up at all that is reason enough. Read over earlier some earlier posts in this thread please.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but... 1 person has found this a problem. The thread starter. And Premier is in fact one of our oldest posters, so the only reason this has come at all was personal ignorance (no offense mate), since he's been here to see it be in effect for years.
Besides, the only thing that's had any real support for being popped up somewhere has been the 4am downtime, which, frankly, is 4am. And lasts for about 10 minutes. It, like this whole 50 pages thing, is a minor inconvienance, and one which really should not bother people as much as it does.
I remember when it lasted for about half an hour. And we had less complaints then.

[Rawhide]

On backups:
The backup message states "Database backup in progress, please try again in 30 minutes."

On 50 page locks:
We don't lock right on 50 pages all the time, some will spill over and some we will allow to come to a natural switching point (play by posts for example). But if we are doing our jobs correctly, none should go for more than 55-60 pages. Sometimes we will miss one that has somehow reached 300 pages by accident (oops) or such. The exception was Random Banter #100 which was allowed to go to exactly 100 pages, no more.

When we lock for reaching 50 pages, we will clearly state that this is the reason why and that a new thread can be stated. If the person who restarts it is not important, we will say that anyone can restart it, if it is important, we will specifically mention that that person may restart it.

If, for some reason, why we have locked the thread is not clear, we will happily answer a posters questions on why.

[Jack Squat]

That is not a reason not to include them - since the issue comes up at all that is reason enough.

This isn't an issue, or at least not enough of one to cause a problem. as I have stated before, I have yet to see any post that expresses a poster's confusion about this policy.


He who points out the most fallacies does not win the argument. That is, in fact, known as 'fallacy by fallacy'.

I don't include them to try and win the argument, that's why it's not the only thing I post. I point them out because I've been forced to proofread one too many essays and it's habit when I see an argument. However, I will refrain from it this point forward if you wish.


Read over earlier some earlier posts in this thread please.

What post in this thread has had someone who didn't know about the policy? This thread was brought to light with the OP knowing full well that the policy existed and what it was.


Why should they have to look around for it instead of finding it along with the rest of the rules they need to know?

Because this isn't something they need to know to be a contributing poster. The 50 page limit isn't something you need to remember with every post you make, and as mentioned several times, and is even in the thread in question, the mods explain this when it happens.

Let's say you were in my house, and I had a TV sitting off in the living room. Would it be expected of me to explain what channels I have as soon as you walk in the door, or should I wait until you want to turn it on? What what books are in my library, or where my CD player is? Some things just don't really need to be told to everyone up front because it's not important.


What I mean is this: Someone starts a thread. That thread hits fifty and gets locked. The original thread starter should get the chance to repost the thread himself.

He does...and why would he specifically need to know about needing to start a new thread before the old one gets locked and the moderator explains the 50 page limit? I mean the only time I know of where someone would need to know is if someone calls making the new Random Banter, and that doesn't happen all that often anymore.


No such thing as perfection. If there is room for improvement, then let us go for it.

How would adding some minor policy to the rules improve mod/non-mod relations? I wasn't aware that it was that big of a barrier between the two groups.

[Tom_Violence]

I can't help but get the impression that if the 4am backup was set in stone and then just once it didn't get backed up til 4.10 someone would kick up a fuss about this wanton 'rule breaking'.

Rules here seem to me to be hard and fast imperatives and really only apply to the posters, at least as far as we're aware of them. I'm sure the mods have their own rules and guidelines to adhere to, but that's none of our business. There's no contractual arrangement between the posters and the mods here, they don't owe us anything, and we are not a necessary factor in their existence, but rather they are necessary for us to be here. I'm sure Rich enjoys having a forum here for his fans to come together and chat to each other, but I'm also pretty sure that if he had to choose between having to cater to every single person's every whim or having no forum at all he wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

Thankfully it doesn't come to that, since the mods here are good decent people. Not because they have to be, but just cos they are. Tis their playground, and we're grateful that they let us kick about in it. I don't see any reasons to go making demands on them to tell us everything, and if they feel they want to not put things in writing I'm cool with that. And even if I wasn't its their call, not mine.

Its one thing to politely ask what the situation is, but its another entirely to tell the mods that they should make rules to actually restrict their own activities, which is what this would do. It is quite thankfully at the mods' discretion when a thread gets locked, when the place gets backed up, etc.etc., and I see no good reason at all to encroach on that.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

What I mean is this: Someone starts a thread. That thread hits fifty and gets locked. The original thread starter should get the chance to repost the thread himself.
Why? Why does it matter who re-starts the thread?

Especially since by the time a thread reaches 50 pages, it is invariably well out of the original poster's hands. Discussions evolve. Save for a few exceptions, no one, not even the original poster, really "owns" a thread.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Why? Why does it matter who re-starts the thread?

Especially since by the time a thread reaches 50 pages, it is invariably well out of the original poster's hands. Discussions evolve. Save for a few exceptions, no one, not even the original poster, really "owns" a thread.

And sometimes, as also mentioned in this thread, the moderator locking the thread will give directions as to who may restart the thread (e.g. Giacomonk's guide) or even do it mod-self (e.g. Simple Q&A threads).

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And sometimes, as also mentioned in this thread, the moderator locking the thread will give directions as to who may restart the thread (e.g. Giacomonk's guide) or even do it mod-self (e.g. Simple Q&A threads).
Those being among the aforementioned "few exceptions." :smallwink:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Those being among the aforementioned "few exceptions." :smallwink:

Yes, just elaborating a little on those. :smallwink:

And I still would not call them "owners", except possibly for Roland.

[Charity]

I'm sure there is only one guy that wants to own the Giacomonk's guide Silv... If we are on pedant row and all... :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'm sure there is only one guy that wants to own the Giacomonk's guide Silv... If we are on pedant row and all... :smallbiggrin:

Well the thread has already owned quite a few of the involved posters, so I am naturally excited :smalltongue: about the second edition when/if it comes about.:smallamused:

Ohh, and you should see how much orphan threads are going for on ebay at the moment. :smallwink:

[Oracle_Hunter]

We don't lock right on 50 pages all the time, some will spill over and some we will allow to come to a natural switching point (play by posts for example). But if we are doing our jobs correctly, none should go for more than 55-60 pages. Sometimes we will miss one that has somehow reached 300 pages by accident (oops) or such. The exception was Random Banter #100 which was allowed to go to exactly 100 pages, no more.

As a poster on the 300 page thread, may I say "thank you" for letting us reach such an epic length - accidentally or not. :smallbiggrin:

50 pages is a fine limit, and it is done for very good reasons. It might be nice to have that limit placed somewhere, just so that people don't get spooked, but between the Mod messages on such threads and the sheer number of rules already listed, I completely understand why it hasn't been stuck somewhere. I'm sure we'll all survive somehow without it being written in stone :smallwink:

So, keep up the good work Mods, and the good humor.

[skywalker]

Well the thread has already owned quite a few of the involved posters, so I am naturally excited :smalltongue: about the second edition when/if it comes about.:smallamused: Dude, I leave for a couple days and that thread finally gets it?


Rules here seem to me to be hard and fast imperatives and really only apply to the posters, at least as far as we're aware of them. I'm sure the mods have their own rules and guidelines to adhere to, but that's none of our business. There's no contractual arrangement between the posters and the mods here, they don't owe us anything, and we are not a necessary factor in their existence, but rather they are necessary for us to be here. They curse in their mod forum!!! I know they do! I've seen it! I'm the messiah hacker with the unknowable knowledge!! They in their modforum, their Valhalla, their Olympus!! Well I say nay! I am Prometheus! I bring the mod-fire from the mod-mountain!

[MeklorIlavator]

Does that mean that you're now gonna get chained to a rock and have a vulture eat your regrowing liver out ever day? Maybe you want a different analogy.

[The Giant]

We do not recognize the right of "ownership" of a thread by the person who starts it. Once you create a thread, it is released into the wilds of the forums, with the exception of various play-by-post games that require a GM or such. That's why you can't request us to lock a thread when the discussion takes a turn you didn't like, or ask that a thread be moved or deleted. It's not yours anymore once people respond to it.

Therefore, the original poster has no special status with regard to it being locked or being given some sort of special notice about it; they do not get the right of first refusal to be the thread starter on a given topic for the rest of eternity. Our position is that no one gets to reserve the right to be the OP on all future threads, even if they were the first to think of a topic. This is simply not going to change.

Further, this thread is drifting away from its original topic, which was asked-and-answered anyway.