Minimum Post Count For Community Discussion/Political Forum?

[adk]

Maybe this is just a rant, but I am bothered by the number of people who make their first posts in the Community Discussion and Politics, Religion, Social Issues Forums. I always thought this was a forum about macs, since all of the mac stuff is at the top and Community Discussion is at the bottom. It also seems that most of the Muckrakers in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum are newbies just trying to get a rise out of people for fun. Has anyone else considered whether or not it would be helpful to this forum to put a minimum post count on the community discussion forum?

[Blue Velvet]

There is a minimum post count for Politics et al... I think it's 100.

[ham_man]

There is a minimum post count for Politics et al... I think it's 100.
Yup yup (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=96656)

[PlaceofDis]

should this apply to the community forum as a whole though?

perhaps. perhaps not. i'm divided on this right now.

[Doctor Q]

adk's point is still valid for the main Community Discussion forum. Sometimes it's puzzling why somebody registers for MacRumors and posts only on non-Mac topics, but why let it bother you?

It's not always a mystery. Here are some reasons that we have members who don't "talk Mac":

1. Some members read the news threads but don't feel qualified or opinionated enough to post there.

2. Some members find the Community Discussion threads to be friendlier and easier while they are getting their feet wet using the forums.

3. Some members sign up because they know people who are already members.

4. Some members sign up because they found a particular thread using a search engine and want to join that particular discussion.

[Salasm]

Perhaps only macrumors 604 members should be allowed to post in Community Discussions. That would reduce the amount of chat posts many have to trudge through. But alas, we still have a certain mad jew to deal with. ;)

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

There is a 100 post minimum in the Political etc forum, but many of the threads there starts out as Community threads, without any posting restrictions... so newbies have a window to participate before the mods/gods move the thread...

[Doctor Q]

There is a 100 post minimum in the Political etc forum, but many of the threads there starts out as Community threads, without any posting restrictions... so newbies have a window to participate before the mods/gods move the thread...Our intent (which we're admittedly not perfect at observing) is to close or Wasteland those threads because the original poster didn't qualify to start the thread. Sometimes we make exceptions, such as for current events.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Ah, but I was (mostly) referring to newbie responses to threads, not threads started by newbies (I've not seen too many of these kinds of threads started by newbies, probably because they are deleted/wastelanded before I notice them ;)).

And some threads take a (little) while before getting "political"...

[Applespider]

Let's just stop everyone with under a hundred posts being able to post anywhere... :rolleyes:

[calculus]

Let's just stop everyone with under a hundred posts being able to post anywhere... :rolleyes:
That would certainly cut out all of the rubbish.

[Salasm]

Let's just stop everyone with under a hundred posts being able to post anywhere... :rolleyes:
That is a very good idea, Applespider. New users should not be allowed to post in any forum until they reach 100 posts. That will get rid of the trolls and spammers, yet keep the signal-noise ratio very high.

[Felldownthewell]

Let's just stop everyone with under a hundred posts being able to post anywhere... :rolleyes:

This is just like when my parents tell my sister she can't date until after she's married...

[Doctor Q]

This is just like when my parents tell my sister she can't date until after she's married...Remember that any member who is unable to register for MacRumors should ask for help by posting in the Site and Forum Feedback forum. ;) :D

[solvs]

You forgot the best part. Your post count doesn't go up when you post there. Why do you think mad jew stays out. :p Sorry, had to bandwagon on the 604s.

If they did count, I wonder what my ranking would be... seems like I've been stuck at 68040 forever.

[TheAnswer]

Let's just stop everyone with under a hundred posts being able to post anywhere... :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the high school editorial I wrote advocating mandatory retroactive abortion.

I'm going to bet that either people are truly opinionated and want to express themselves, and/or that people find it easier to post often in the political threads because you can more easily post and refine an opinion there than in the other advice and help threads. When you are giving advice, you want to make sure you first suggestion is the best you can offer, whereas in the more open topic threads, you can offer up an opinion and refine it as the discussion merits.

[mad jew]

You forgot the best part. Your post count doesn't go up when you post there. Why do you think mad jew stays out. :p Sorry, had to bandwagon on the 604s.


Nah, it's all those people who use nouns as verbs that keep me away from the ol' political forums. :p

Kidding mate. :D


Some of the most interesting threads I've read have been started by relative newbies, no doubt under the 100 post limit. If we take away newbies' rights to start threads (or even post in) the community section, I think we'll be losing a lot of potentially good members and possibly encourage even more useless posts in the news sections.

[celebrian23]

let's make mac users seem even more pretentious!

[baleensavage]

A lot of forums limit the "unrelated" topics that you cant post in until you reach a certain number of posts. Most of the time they wont even show up on the list unless you have a certain number of posts. I think this is a good idea, it helps reduce trolling and changing a forum's topic. Of course, I myself am not too high on my post count...

Restricting all topics to people with over 100 posts seems a little drastic to me ;) since no one could ever get to 100 posts if they can't post...

[Eraserhead]

Surely 50 or so posts would be OK for the political forums? Is anyone really going to post 50 times just so they can say some racist comment or other trolling in the political forums? Especially as they will get banned after one post?

[Salasm]

Restricting all topics to people with over 100 posts seems a little drastic to me ;) since no one could ever get to 100 posts if they can't post...
Sure they can since they already have over 100 posts. It's the under-100 crowd we want to restrict from all the forums.

[MacNut]

I would just assume get rid of the political forums all together, nothing good ever comes from down there. Its kinda like that creepy uncle that your parents never tell you to talk to.:p

[MacNut]

Surely 50 or so posts would be OK for the political forums? Is anyone really going to post 50 times just so they can say some racist comment or other trolling in the political forums? Especially as they will get banned after one post?There are people with over 500 posts that seem to be trolling around and stirring up trouble too with useless posts and threads, As this forum grows its just going to be more of a problem and we will just have to deal with it.

[Macmaniac]

There are people with over 500 posts that seem to be trolling around and stirring up trouble too with useless posts and threads, As this forum grows its just going to be more of a problem and we will just have to deal with it.
Some people want to spam to get a higher post count! I mean I would love to be a 604, but spamming is out of the question for me.

[Doctor Q]

There are people with over 500 posts that seem to be trolling around and stirring up trouble too with useless posts and threads, As this forum grows its just going to be more of a problem and we will just have to deal with it.Just let us know when you spot such things. Our cleanup crews are always walking around with their brooms and dustpans.

[IJ Reilly]

You forgot the best part. Your post count doesn't go up when you post there. Why do you think mad jew stays out. :p Sorry, had to bandwagon on the 604s.

If they did count, I wonder what my ranking would be... seems like I've been stuck at 68040 forever.

Likewise. When the mods decided to no longer count posts to the politics forum, my own post count dropped by something like 65% overnight after months of prior posting was subtracted from the totals. Not that I'm particularly proud of it, but my post count would probably be in the neighborhood of 7-8,000 now, if the politics forums posts weren't discounted. For the record, I've never entirely understood this policy. I read it as a form of punishment for having an interest in important things.

[solvs]

I would just assume get rid of the political forums all together, nothing good ever comes from down there.
People are going to post political stuff. Better to keep them there. Plus, 90% of the time I spend here is in there because it's one of the best.

Commie. :p

I read it as a form of punishment for having an interest in important things.
Do you want more spamming there? I'm ok with it, post count doesn't matter. Besides, we aren't all that interested in important things. Some of us just like to rant. :p

[IJ Reilly]

Do you want more spamming there? I'm ok with it, post count doesn't matter. Besides, we aren't all that interested in important things. Some of us just like to rant. :p

Speak for yourself, sonny-boy! ;)

No, I'm just saying, it's peculiar in my opinion to penalize the participants in only the one forum. I don't get the "mac community" value that the policy is supposed to represent. I realize it was done originally as a way to limit drive-by flaming, but I think the 100 post minimum is the policy that made that problem virtually go away, as well as an effective set of posting rules.

[Blue Velvet]

No, I'm just saying, it's peculiar in my opinion to penalize the participants in only the one forum.

Not just the one. Marketplace posts no longer count either.

[MacNut]

Was the post count drop in the PC to try and stop the amount of postings there or was it to keep it away from the main forums.

[Doctor Q]

Was the post count drop in the PC to try and stop the amount of postings there or was it to keep it away from the main forums.I believe it was to keep people from posting there in order to build up post count totals. People may still try to do that in other forums, including the Community Discussion forum, but those forums are monitored more closely than the Political forum.

[solvs]

but those forums are monitored more closely than the Political forum.
I knew you guys didn't like mucking through there. ;)

Speak for yourself, sonny-boy!
I am... punny-boy. :p

[IJ Reilly]

I believe it was to keep people from posting there in order to build up post count totals. People may still try to do that in other forums, including the Community Discussion forum, but those forums are monitored more closely than the Political forum.

Perhaps, but I don't seen any of the trivial subject threads being locked and they often rack up hundreds of posts, all of which are counted. In fact some of the most popular threads in the forums are about the most inane subjects, and as we know, a few of the top-posters in the forums seem to specialize in starting them. But only the political forum was singled out for disapproval.

I am... punny-boy. :p

Go ahead, hit me where it hurts.

[Doctor Q]

I can't give facts about the levels of useless posts in the Political forums vs. the other forums, since, to coin a phrase, I don't like mucking through there.

I do agree that some political issues are actually more important than the "How often do you wash your socks?" threads we sometimes get. So post counts are a very rough measure of "regular forum participation", and people shouldn't read more than that into them.

[MacNut]

Maybe the community forum needs to be subdivided again into the useless forum where the "fluff" can be stored, call it the "back alley" and don't count posts.

I count at least 10 threads on the first page alone that would qualify.

[Doctor Q]

Maybe the community forum needs to be subdivided again into the useless forum where the "fluff" can be stored, call it the "back alley" and don't count posts.

I count at least 10 threads on the first page alone that would qualify.But how many person-hours a day would it take to monitor all those threads and make those distinctions? To do it fairly, it would require some kind of consistent criteria, and that would be very hard to define, except by gross categories. And that's what we've done, by separating three categories, keeping less of an eye on them, and not counting the posts. We could move a few more topics into the non-counted forum (threads about socks?) but would the difference really be that important?

The idea of counting posts is to measure the likeliness that somebody will become "known" to many other members. Talking about washing your socks in a forum where many hang out, with a bit of community and moderator oversight, actually serves that purpose, even if the topics are a bit mundane sometimes.

There's no perfect way to measure "knowability" with automating counting tools, but the system we use has been good enough, in my opinion.

[MacNut]

But how many person-hours a day would it take to monitor all those threads and make those distinctions? To do it fairly, it would require some kind of consistent criteria, and that would be very hard to define, except by gross categories.

There's no perfect way to measure "knowability" with automating counting tools, but the system we use has been good enough, in my opinion.Point taken, determining what counts as legit would be hard to do and the uproar from members would be more irritating then just letting the threads stand.

What is the criteria for wastelanding a thread or just closing it.

[Doctor Q]

What is the criteria for wastelanding a thread or just closing it.Moderator laziness! Well, actually, there's a bit more to it. Our general goal is to:

* Close a thread if it may still be of use or interest to those who posted in it or to others who may read it.

* Wasteland a thread if it would likely not be worth having other members read, i.e., it has little or no worth, should not have been posted, but won't cause harm if readable in the Wasteland.

* Completely remove threads that shouldn't have been posted and should not be left readable in the Wasteland either. In particular, if a business spammer or pyramid scheme promoter signs up and posts a blatant ad or pyramid scheme link, we may just remove it. However, if we can easily edit out links or names so that it can reside in the Wasteland without still serving the original poster's purpose, we may edit it and Wasteland it because we know there are a number of dumpster divers who like to know what we throw out.

The distinction between the first two cases is a judgement call, and I know we aren't entirely successful at consistency. Example: If a poster asks a question by starting the same thread in two forums at once (double posting), we may merge the threads (because they each got replies), we may Wasteland one (because it shouldn't have been posted), or we may simply close one, particularly if we reply in it to explain that it was a double post. Luckily, it probably doesn't matter in a case so minor!

[solvs]

Go ahead, hit me where it hurts.
Ah, you know I love the puns. Helps stop me from wanting to pull my hair out and curse like a sailor. Of course, I still do that anyway, but I'm sure the puns lessen the balding, potty mouthing.

to coin a phrase, I don't like mucking through there.
Feel free to use that one, no charge. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

There's no perfect way to measure "knowability" with automating counting tools, but the system we use has been good enough, in my opinion.

The point being, the discussion of trivial subjects is encouraged and the discussion of serious issues is officially discouraged. Barely tolerated in fact, and deliberately so is the message, from everything I've heard about the rationale. As it has been explained to me, the politics forum exists at the displeasure of the powers-that-be, because people will discuss these issues anyway, so just go off in the corner and do it, and every so often we'll remind you it's a ghetto that we really wish didn't exist.

[Salasm]

The point being, the discussion of trivial subjects is encouraged and the discussion of serious issues is officially discouraged. Barely tolerated in fact, and deliberately so is the message, from everything I've heard about the rationale.
I'll have to completely disagree with you.

First off, it's not a matter of discouraging serious discussion. These types of political, social, and religious topics don't really belong on MacRumors because these types of debates bring out the worst in people and people generally get hurt in these forums. If you want to take part in these types of discussions, you're free to do so, but not having a post count towards your total shouldn't discourage you. I see no good coming from debating religion or politics.

As for Community Discussions, the subjects remain light and topical, and discussions in this forum build and encourage more people to join. It BUILDS a sense of community. That, I think deserves getting posts counted towards a total.

[nbs2]

The point being, the discussion of trivial subjects is encouraged and the discussion of serious issues is officially discouraged. Barely tolerated in fact, and deliberately so is the message, from everything I've heard about the rationale. As it has been explained to me, the politics forum exists at the displeasure of the powers-that-be, because people will discuss these issues anyway, so just go off in the corner and do it, and every so often we'll remind you it's a ghetto that we really wish didn't exist.
I can sort of understand the policy - the Community threads tend to be much more friendly, while the PF often have a lot of anger issues flowing through them. The anger tends to correlate to a lot of posts by the same couple of people talking back and forth. Another benefit of not counting the PF posts is that the mods don't bother cleaning up the double and triple posts which sometimes is nice...

[Blue Velvet]

I see no good coming from debating religion or politics.

Why not? If anything's worth debating then surely it's these things?

Besides, you can't stop it without excessive moderation. The political forum was created in order to draw heated content away from community discussions and it does that very well...

I believe it has an important role to play here and have learned a lot from reading and occasionally contributing.

Personally, I don't care about post counts anyway. I know whose contributions I enjoy reading and post count has little, if nothing, to do with it.

[IJ Reilly]

I'll have to completely disagree with you.

First off, it's not a matter of discouraging serious discussion. These types of political, social, and religious topics don't really belong on MacRumors because these types of debates bring out the worst in people and people generally get hurt in these forums. If you want to take part in these types of discussions, you're free to do so, but not having a post count towards your total shouldn't discourage you. I see no good coming from debating religion or politics.

As for Community Discussions, the subjects remain light and topical, and discussions in this forum build and encourage more people to join. It BUILDS a sense of community. That, I think deserves getting posts counted towards a total.

IOW, you completely agree with me, that serious discussion is being discouraged. Your difference of opinion, apparently, is that you think it ought to be.

As for the political debates "bringing out the worst in people," I have to disagree. If discussing important matters "brings out the worst in people," then I fear for us. I believe debating important issues makes people think, and challenge their own beliefs -- a good thing, last I checked. I also don't see people getting hurt in the politics forum, hardly at all, and certainly not "generally." Quite a number of people actually enjoy keeping themselves informed on such matters, and discussing them with others. Also, it's worth keeping in mind, all of these forums are optional. Nobody needs to join into any discussion if they think they might get hurt.

And, FWIW, I get flamed more often discussing Mac issues than I do discussing politics.

I can sort of understand the policy - the Community threads tend to be much more friendly, while the PF often have a lot of anger issues flowing through them. The anger tends to correlate to a lot of posts by the same couple of people talking back and forth. Another benefit of not counting the PF posts is that the mods don't bother cleaning up the double and triple posts which sometimes is nice...

On the first point, I don't know. I don't get into many of the "favorite color" or TV show threads. But I will say, the political forum is well self-policed. If people get out of hand, it's usually the participants rather than the mods who restore order. The forum is far better behaved than many of the others, in my experience. On the second point, you may be right. I do enjoy the occasional pun-war, which it happened in another forum, the mods might be inclined to intercede.

[solvs]

The point being, the discussion of trivial subjects is encouraged and the discussion of serious issues is officially discouraged. Barely tolerated in fact, and deliberately so is the message, from everything I've heard about the rationale. As it has been explained to me, the politics forum exists at the displeasure of the powers-that-be, because people will discuss these issues anyway, so just go off in the corner and do it, and every so often we'll remind you it's a ghetto that we really wish didn't exist.
Well, yeah. I get what you're saying, but how is that different from the rest of society? People can talk about computers and other crap all they want, and we can crawl into our hole and argue (though mostly agreeing lately it seems) beyond the pettiness of post counts and the pointlessly mundane. I don't know about you, but I'm just happy that forum exists at all and we are (generally) free of spammers and the mindless (generally) who would care about things like rankings. It is too bad people don't talk about these things more openly and that we aren't more informed as a society, but for those who are or want to be, we can enjoy our ghetto free of most of the rules of the "civilized" threads. So we get the good with the bad.

Wouldn't it be kinda ironic if this winds up in the Political Forum?

[IJ Reilly]

Well, yeah. I get what you're saying, but how is that different from the rest of society? People can talk about computers and other crap all they want, and we can crawl into our hole and argue (though mostly agreeing lately it seems) beyond the pettiness of post counts and the pointlessly mundane. I don't know about you, but I'm just happy that forum exists at all and we are (generally) free of spammers and the mindless (generally) who would care about things like rankings. It is too bad people don't talk about these things more openly and that we aren't more informed as a society, but for those who are or want to be, we can enjoy our ghetto free of most of the rules of the "civilized" threads. So we get the good with the bad.

Wouldn't it be kinda ironic if this winds up in the Political Forum?

Ha. Let's not do that.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm happy the forum exists as well. But I can't resist getting this off of my chest once in a while. I'd like to think it's worth letting the mods know that all of us denizens of the politics forum don't particularly like being treated as second-class citizens of MR. Heck, if "community" is what we're after, I get more of it from the politics forum, where you really get to know people, than from those random threads about nothing much.

[nbs2]

I understand what you are saying, and I'm happy the forum exists as well. But I can't resist getting this off of my chest once in a while. I'd like to think it's worth letting the mods know that all of us denizens of the politics forum don't particularly like being treated as second-class citizens of MR. Heck, if "community" is what we're after, I get more of it from the politics forum, where you really get to know people, than from those random threads about nothing much.
I've been thinking about your point. It makes sense that politics should be discussed in the open, but it is such a divisive topic, that it (and religion) is normally not discussed in polite company. I mean, I can think of plenty of places where bringing up the topic will get you hushed. It's not out of oppression or lack of political will to discuss, it's more the idea that you go somewhere to be social and friendly, and those two topics can raise tension very quickly.

I guess the point of my ramblings is that there are a lot of stupid threads in Community, and most end up dying a fairly quick death. The ones that last usually have some introspective discussion, or something everybody can talk about without getting angry. You get into politics, and there are plenty of people who get riled up. I'm tempted to start a poll(!) in Community, just to see if people never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always check out the PF. I'd bet that most people are rarely or never, and their reason is that there is so much tension there....

[IJ Reilly]

I've been thinking about your point. It makes sense that politics should be discussed in the open, but it is such a divisive topic, that it (and religion) is normally not discussed in polite company. I mean, I can think of plenty of places where bringing up the topic will get you hushed. It's not out of oppression or lack of political will to discuss, it's more the idea that you go somewhere to be social and friendly, and those two topics can raise tension very quickly.

A uniquely American point of view, I think. In most places in the world, politics and other important issues aren't pariah topics for polite discussion. To editorialize on this idea for just a moment, I think Americans in particular tend to wallow in trivia. Maybe it's because we're bombarded by it day in and day out, or because it makes us feel better about the state of the world. I don't know why, but it seems to be true.

I also happen to believe that it's good practice for the "real world" to be able to disagree with people without registering anger, not to mention, a valuable intellectual exercise to allow your own most dearly-held world views to be challenged. So what if people get riled up some? So long as they don't cross that fairly bright line to ad hominem, then what's the problem?

[MacNut]

Every time I wonder over to the PF I want to kick something because the debates seem to be so one sided and if another point of view comes in they get flamed so bad that nothing gets accomplished. It turns into a shouting match and not a real debate anymore and more anger comes out of there then normal conversation. That is the reason why they are separate from the main forums not because its taboo but because tempers are always running high.

[IJ Reilly]

Every time I wonder over to the PF I want to kick something because the debates seem to be so one sided and if another point of view comes in they get flamed so bad that nothing gets accomplished. It turns into a shouting match and not a real debate anymore and more anger comes out of there then normal conversation. That is the reason why they are separate from the main forums not because its taboo but because tempers are always running high.

As a regular in the forum, I can't agree with this characterization. If someone wants to represent an opinion in the forum, they need to back it up with something more than "because I think so." This is actually a posting rule, and you will be reminded of it if you don't provide substantiation for your views. Further, you are expected to stay and defend your opinions, not simply drop-kick it into the forum and run. This is not "flaming," it is "debate." In fact I find I am flamed more often in the other forums, which I would define as making unsubstantiated claims or personal attacks, often hit-and-run.

I understand that not everyone likes political debate. That's fine. But it also doesn't mean that anyone who does is "shouting" or "running a temper." This can and does happen everywhere, but it's by no means the normative condition in the politics forum. If it was, I would not be a regular in the forum.

[solvs]

Ha. Let's not do that.
Not on purpose. ;)

I'd like to think it's worth letting the mods know that all of us denizens of the politics forum don't particularly like being treated as second-class citizens of MR.
What, you don't like being persecuted? :p That's the best part. Need to get you one a them martyr complex dealies. Keeps me feeling like the self righteous prig I am. :D

That is the reason why they are separate from the main forums not because its taboo but because tempers are always running high.
Them's fightin' words. Seriously though, come in and play, even if you're opinion is different then the majority (used to be the other way around BTW, for the record). We like opposing viewpoints actually.

Who wants to sit around agreeing with everybody all day?

[IJ Reilly]

Who wants to sit around agreeing with everybody all day?

Me. And what's it to you?

[solvs]

Me. And what's it to you?
Them's fight words. But maybe I'm just itchin' for a fight. Too much coffee I suppose, and not enough sleep.

Is it too early to invoke the wrath of Godwin (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/)?

[adk]

Believe it or not, I went to start a new thread on the "post count requirement for Community Discussion" concept, and when searching for a similar topic I noticed that there was already a thread for this that had been started two years ago by none other than... me!

It seem that lately there have been a lot of newbies making their first post on MR in the community discussion forum on topics such as relationship advice and student loans. I understand the appeal to the community discussion section as you can talk about pretty much anything, but it seems like MR posters should at least get their start talking about macs.

I'll admit that Community Discussion is where I've been hanging out lately, but my first few hundred posts were mac-related questions. I still use other topic sections occasionally, but I've just become a little complacent as far as tinkering with my mac goes.

It seems to me that something as asinine as a 10 post count requirement for the community discussion forum would be perfect. I realize that digging up an old thread is somewhat taboo, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion again.

[Doctor Q]

When the topic comes up now and then, my impression has always been that the proposal to restrict access to the main Community Discussion forum, or not include it in post counts, has had many more naysayers than supporters.