Moderators unfamiliar with the rules of posting?

[Premier]

I've recently come upon this thread. 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 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. 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. 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.

[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 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

[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 misunderstandings

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.

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.