Moderators unfamiliar with the rules of posting?

[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

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.

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.

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. .

[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. .

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.

[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 changed

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:

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.