PDA

View Full Version : A Pointless Conversations Forum, where posts != Post count++


edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 11:45 AM
Sometime threads get sent to the wasteland, or locked or whatever for being pointless and being seen as spam threads to increase postcount ("OMG alomost at 500 posts!" etc. Well how about a subforum to the community forums where threads can be moved to where posts in that forum DON'T count towards post count (like the political forums)?

This way some of the fun threads that currently get trashed for being a waste of time can go in here, and it wont hurt anyone, and by posting in there no one gains anything (no spamming for postcount = status/avatar).

What do you think?

Laslo Panaflex
Sep 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
I like that idea, seems neat.

Sun Baked
Sep 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
So you're asking for something like the Political Forum?

Or you can just ask the mods to move that thread on "Bellybutton Lint" into the Political Forum, it should work just as well there as anywhere else. :o

Elan0204
Sep 24, 2004, 12:01 PM
This seems like an OK idea, but how do you decide if a thread is pointless? Some like the "I almost have 500 posts" ones are obvious, but a lot of the discussions in the community forum could be considered pointless by some, but not others. I think it will be a lot of extra work for the mods if they need to come to a consensus on whether any given thread is pointless enough to merit being moved out of the community forum, to this new "pointless thread" forum. If the whole process is left up to the person posting the thread, then they might feel their thread is not pointless, when the rest of us might disagree.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 12:03 PM
I'm saying that there are some theads which I think members would like to have continue, because there a laugh, but that the mods wasteland or lock because they're seen as spam to increase post count to gain status or get an avatar. If there was a subforum that was set just the same as the political forums where post in that forum DO NOT count towards post count that would solve the problem. Members get to keep their threads, and those who are only normally in it to gain post count would gain nothing from it, best of both worls it seems to me.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 12:05 PM
This seems like an OK idea, but how do you decide if a thread is pointless?That would really be down to the mods, if they would normally wasteland a thread because they view it as spam, they could throw it in this new forum instead (provided it's not a thread full of abuse or anything). Also those of us who know the type of thread that would normally get wastelanded could post to the forum direct if we knew what we were about to talk about would be considered spam in anyway.

stoid
Sep 24, 2004, 12:12 PM
Maybe it should be a whole sub-forum complete with "Ranters Lounge", "Poop/Drinking Threads", etc.

Seems like a decent idea to me. Maybe have those forums like the News forum, locked to new threads. Then the mods decide which threads belong there and move them. Though that does make extra work for our mods, and I'd hate for this to take away from the excellent job they are doing with the legit threads, esp. in arn's absence.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 12:15 PM
Maybe it should be a whole sub-forum complete with "Ranters Lounge", "Poop/Drinking Threads", etc.Those are fine example of exatly the type of threads I'm talking about. The mods/admins don't really like 'em becasue there's so much crap in 'em, but the members love 'em because they're good fun. A place to put these where there was no forum "gain" to be had from posting your jibberish would be perfect.

Mord
Sep 24, 2004, 12:37 PM
great idea, go ed.

asphalt-proof
Sep 24, 2004, 02:10 PM
As a member with less than 110 posts (OMG! almost 120!!!) :D I think its a fine idea to provide a forum for fluff used to inflate post counts.

t300
Sep 24, 2004, 02:21 PM
As a member with less than 110 posts (OMG! almost 120!!!) :D I think its a fine idea to provide a forum for fluff used to inflate post counts.

That is NOT the idea...And you're a prime example of what makes it not a good idea.

The sub forums about nothing, good idea...But they shouldn't increase rank.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 02:24 PM
As a member with less than 110 posts (OMG! almost 120!!!) :D I think its a fine idea to provide a forum for fluff used to inflate post counts.
Just to echo what t300 said. The entire point of these forums would be a home for those threads that are fun to keep going, but that normally would be percieved as spam and so closed. If they could be moved to a forum where posts did not count towards your post count, then only those there for the fun of it would be, as you have nothing to gain (post count).

Inkmonkey
Sep 24, 2004, 02:24 PM
Those are fine example of exatly the type of threads I'm talking about. The mods/admins don't really like 'em becasue there's so much crap in 'em, but the members love 'em because they're good fun. A place to put these where there was no forum "gain" to be had from posting your jibberish would be perfect.

I'm with ya. I'm all about the mindless chatter. Could care less about my post count. It'll get up there eventually.

MacNut
Sep 24, 2004, 02:53 PM
I agree, good idea, they is too much "fluff" on the boards, not that there is anything wrong with it but its clogging up the useful info. And Ed I love that avatar, best one yet.

Mudbug
Sep 24, 2004, 03:28 PM
this isn't too bad an idea, but then again, what's the point of having a forum full of threads that don't have any purpose of existance other than existance?

Mr. Anderson
Sep 24, 2004, 03:32 PM
Not only that, with a more lax set of rules, as you imply, things would get out of hand pretty damn fast. people would get annoyed, personal insults would ensue and we'd have to moderate even more crap.

If things are so bad that this is what you'd come here for (given all that is already available at this site) then you need to get a hobby. Or maybe another besides Kiera :D

D

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 03:32 PM
this isn't too bad an idea, but then again, what's the point of having a forum full of threads that don't have any purpose of existance other than existance?
You know, things like the geek thread, even my keira 80+ clicks thread, stuff like that. Things that we as members would like to keep going, but the admins might frown on as being used by some for post count boosters. There would still be a use for the wasteland, but I think this would have a good use too.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 03:35 PM
Not only that, with a more lax set of rules, as you imply, things would get out of hand pretty damn fast. people would get annoyed, personal insults would ensue and we'd have to moderate even more crap.

If things are so bad that this is what you'd come here for (given all that is already available at this site) then you need to get a hobby. Or maybe another besides Kiera :D

D
I'm not saying it should be an unmoderated free-for-all. I'm saying it should be a place for those threads (like i just mentioned in response to mudbug, as well as those mentioned by stoid earlier) where threads that are fun for the members, but are maybe viewed as spam by yourselves (the mods/admins) could be put. This way those that are actually posting because we are enjoying the conversation get to carry on, while those who are only interested in raising their status have nothing to gain.

zelmo
Sep 24, 2004, 03:37 PM
Not only that, with a more lax set of rules, as you imply, things would get out of hand pretty damn fast. people would get annoyed, personal insults would ensue and we'd have to moderate even more crap.

If things are so bad that this is what you'd come here for (given all that is already available at this site) then you need to get a hobby. Or maybe another besides Kiera :D

D


If you have only one hobby, you could do a lot worse... :D :D

Hmmm...is this one of those pointless posts edesignuk is referring to?

Inkmonkey
Sep 24, 2004, 03:39 PM
You know, things like the geek thread, even my keira 80+ clicks thread, stuff like that. Things that we as members would like to keep going, but the admins might frown on as being used by some for post count boosters. There would still be a use for the wasteland, but I think this would have a good use too.

I guess the question is do the moderators really frown upon things like the geek thread and keira 80+? Do they or should they end up in the wasteland? Has this become an issue that is getting out of hand?
Mudbug? Mr. Anderson?

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 03:43 PM
Bottom line:

I think it would be nice for there to be a place where we can chat away (within the normal rules, no personal abuse etc) without the thread being locked or wastelanded because admins view it as being a post count booster thread, if the forum posts didn't count towards users post counts then there would be no issues and we could just continue to natter away.

I think it would be nice, but it's not up to me....just putting the suggestion forward :)

Mudbug
Sep 24, 2004, 03:56 PM
of course you realize that if we were to make such a forum, and god forbid the 'drunk thread' get moved to it, half the members of the forums would immediately lose their avatars, and folks like wdlove would be considered a n00b once again. :D

I guess the question is do the moderators really frown upon things like the geek thread and keira 80+? Do they or should they end up in the wasteland? Has this become an issue that is getting out of hand?
Mudbug? Mr. Anderson?

it's really dealer's choice. We'll usually only act on a thread if it's been either 1) reported by another member as being spam or completely worthless and of no benefit to the forums or 2) we find it trolling through and think that it's of no value or existing to boost post count only.

some tried and true ways to get your thread deleted is to post a 'I've made 500 posts' thread - those get moved quick, but they've served their purpose in life by the time they get moved anyway, so they're actually fine to post in the first place, as long as you know it's short-lived.

Mr. Anderson
Sep 24, 2004, 03:57 PM
I think you're mixing up the concept of the community forum with the threads that actually get wastelanded and closed.

You can discuss plenty of topics in the community forum: things that get wastelanded are threads the end up in trouble, free iPods, explicit discussion unsuitable for minors (there are plenty here), personal attacks, spamming in general.

What kind of threads do you want to post in a free for all forum that you can't post in the community?

D

zelmo
Sep 24, 2004, 03:57 PM
Bottom line:

I think it would be nice for there to be a place where we can chat away (within the normal rules, no personal abuse etc) without the thread being locked or wastelanded because admins view it as being a post count booster thread, if the forum posts didn't count towards users post counts then there would be no issues and we could just continue to natter away.

I think it would be nice, but it's not up to me....just putting the suggestion forward :)

So basically, you propose that when a thread gets to the point of being viewed by a moderator as wasteland worthy, they would stop and consider whether or not the content is harmless or not. If it is harmless, they would drop it in a forum where we can still chat away without padding post count, correct?

I guess the only question is if this adds too much maintenance for the moderators. i think it is a worthwhile idea, but then again, I'm not a mod.

Mr. Anderson
Sep 24, 2004, 04:05 PM
So basically, you propose that when a thread gets to the point of being viewed by a moderator as wasteland worthy, they would stop and consider whether or not the content is harmless or not. If it is harmless, they would drop it in a forum where we can still chat away without padding post count, correct?

I guess the only question is if this adds too much maintenance for the moderators. i think it is a worthwhile idea, but then again, I'm not a mod.

No, I think he's just saying open up the Geek, Drunk and other closed threads, and start similar new ones in a Free-For-All forum.

It will cause more work for us because of its nature more people will get carried away and cause problems. All of the threads are in the wasteland for a reason - read through a few and you'll see why. Other threads have been closed down, that's a bit different, and there are far fewer of those.

D

baby duck monge
Sep 24, 2004, 04:06 PM
As a member with less than 110 posts (OMG! almost 120!!!) :D I think its a fine idea to provide a forum for fluff used to inflate post counts.

man. i read this thinking that he was saying it would be a good idea to have a forum with the intent to hold all the fluff that would otherwise go to inflating post counts, and that he was proud to have 110 real posts (though i would have to look at all this posts to decide if that was really the case or not).

everyone else seems to think he was misunderstanding the idea of this proposed new forum and was happy at the prospect of basically free increase in post count.

am i having a bad reading day, or is this one of the "glass is half full" kinds of things?

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 04:13 PM
of course you realize that if we were to make such a forum, and god forbid the 'drunk thread' get moved to it, half the members of the forums would immediately lose their avatars, and folks like wdlove would be considered a n00b once again. :DI'm not suggesting everything get's moved there. I'm suggesting we start from now onwards...:)
I think you're mixing up the concept of the community forum with the threads that actually get wastelanded and closed.No I'm not. Maybe Im just not communicating the idea properly.
You can discuss plenty of topics in the community forum: things that get wastelanded are threads the end up in trouble, free iPods, explicit discussion unsuitable for minors (there are plenty here), personal attacks, spamming in general.I'm talking about threads that you as a mod might see as a post boosting exercise, but that those having the conversation just see as a "fun" chat. Having a home where posts will not contribute to post count, so members have nothing to gain by posting (if that's all they're after), and so you don't have to wasteland it when we'd like to carry on. "I've reached 500 posts" is actually a perfect example of what this could be used for. People are really pleased when they finally get to this point, and often want to shout about it, and why shouldn't they? We're all here because we like it here, and reaching 500 and getting your 'tar is somewhat of an MR milestone. But, these threads are always trashed, when they really are doing no harm what so ever. This is a perfect example of a thread that could be moved to these new forums rather than trashed, so that we can talk about possible avatars and stuff, general chit-chat that anywhere else you might consider as post count boosters (for whatever reason :confused:).
What kind of threads do you want to post in a free for all forum that you can't post in the community?

DAgain, the idea is not for it to be a free for all...at least so far as the common rules go, no abuse, adult material etc, etc..

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 04:15 PM
No, I think he's just saying open up the Geek, Drunk and other closed threads, and start similar new ones in a Free-For-All forum.
I am not saying open up old threads that are already long gone. Just so we're clear :)

Mr. Anderson
Sep 24, 2004, 04:21 PM
an "I've got 500 posts" thread that discusses what to do for an avatar won't get wastelanded. There are a couple of those already.

My point is that given more leeway with the topics or lack of topics in a Free-For-All forum will just create a ton more work for us. We already get more than a handful of reported posts a day as it is....

My point is that there is very little you can't talk about on the forums as it stands that would require a new forum.

D

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 04:24 PM
Ok, looks like I'm fighting a loosing battle here...:( I can still see a place for it, but nevermind...maybe one day :)

Oh, and if the mods are too busy, then get more! You are a man down (haven't seen eye in ages), and there are a lot of responsible members here who could surely fit the bill.

yellow
Sep 24, 2004, 04:38 PM
Ok, looks like I'm fighting a loosing battle here...:(

Once more into the breech!

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 04:40 PM
Once more into the breech!
ARGH! WTF have you done to my avatar you $%!?@%$!. CHANGE IT NOW!!!!!!!!

MacNut
Sep 24, 2004, 04:41 PM
Its a good idea but maybe there can be a compromise of some kind to please everyone.

MacNut
Sep 24, 2004, 04:44 PM
I agree Yellow change it back, that aint right.

emw
Sep 24, 2004, 04:48 PM
I agree Yellow change it back, that aint right.

Another vote - I came to this thread specifically to bitch about the avatar when I saw it in another posting (tantamount to blasphemy, I tell you).

AndiePandie
Sep 24, 2004, 04:53 PM
If it's any consolation I understand what you are trying to say. There is another information forum I visit (this one is not Mac related but about boxers and also uses vBulletin) which has a "Chit Chat" forum which is like the Community forum here. All posts made in that forum and all replies do not count towards total post number. This prevents people from just going into the Chit Chat forum and posting a lot just to bump up their number. There are threads though that do still get trashed and closed if they are against the rules or get out of hand. However all posts in other forums count towards post total. Does that make sense?

So what if the Community forum here was made into a forum where posts do not count but threads can still be closed by Mods? This way there is a place where random silly posts can thrive but the really bad ones or ones that break the rules are able to be closed.

I'm still new so I probably have no right to make suggestions like that but I thought I would put it out anyway.
:)

Vector
Sep 24, 2004, 05:17 PM
Once more into the breech!

That is cruel! Just for that, i am going to have to change my avatar to cancel yours out.
:p

yellow
Sep 24, 2004, 06:12 PM
Wow. Didn't take long for the DTs to set in.

Well that was fun. I'll try to polish it up a bit more. I didn't have time for the snaggle teeth.

edesignuk
Sep 24, 2004, 06:13 PM
Girlfriend. Seriously. Get one. :D
Avatar. Leave it. As it is now. Thanks. :D

edit: hmmm....you removed this quote from your post...

AmbitiousLemon
Sep 24, 2004, 07:33 PM
of course you realize that if we were to make such a forum, and god forbid the 'drunk thread' get moved to it, half the members of the forums would immediately lose their avatars, and folks like wdlove would be considered a n00b once again. :D

:) That actually makes me think this might not be such a bad idea. Rather than creating a new sub forum that would be community forum uselessness squared, why not just turn off post counts in the community forum the same way we did in the politicals? rather than creating more work for ourselves this might actually cut it down. I wouldn't look forward to a dozen reported posts a day arguing which threads are classified 'useless,' but if all community posts didn't apply to post counts then perhaps it would allow members to 'have fun' with threads and not cause spam problems. I doubt this would be a popular option, but perhaps it would be the best compromise.

yellow
Sep 24, 2004, 08:06 PM
edit: hmmm....you removed this quote from your post...

Yes, I thought it a bit harsh and sophmoric. But it makes me laugh! :)

t300
Sep 25, 2004, 12:47 AM
When I think about it, a forum like this would not be such a bad idea. Because right now I have this question...Why are there so many shades of green? Now, personally I can't answer this question, so I come to the forums. But WAIT, everything is about Macs, and my question is about a color. Now, I really don't see where I could post this question and it be A-OKAY...So what do I do?

edesignuk
Sep 25, 2004, 05:15 AM
:) That actually makes me think this might not be such a bad idea. Rather than creating a new sub forum that would be community forum uselessness squared, why not just turn off post counts in the community forum the same way we did in the politicals? rather than creating more work for ourselves this might actually cut it down. I wouldn't look forward to a dozen reported posts a day arguing which threads are classified 'useless,' but if all community posts didn't apply to post counts then perhaps it would allow members to 'have fun' with threads and not cause spam problems. I doubt this would be a popular option, but perhaps it would be the best compromise.
Uh oh, what have I started!? :eek: I'll get abuse everywhere I go on MR if this was to go through. Most here have probably only earnt their avatars because of posts in the Community :eek:.

WinterMute
Sep 25, 2004, 05:54 AM
As Mr. A says, there's plenty of scope in Community for odd threads, the PPP thread got wastelanded, but got reprieved and is still there, threads that get OT or out of hand should be wastelanded, it's a reminder to post well, not often.

If there were a "no-count" forum for rank stupidity it'd become a battleground pretty quickly, and the mods would have to step in too often. The site has a reputation for quality that it should defend, the mods do that well enough already, and have enough to do without us adding more grief to the workload

AmbitiousLemon
Sep 25, 2004, 07:42 AM
Uh oh, what have I started!? :eek: I'll get abuse everywhere I go on MR if this was to go through. Most here have probably only earnt their avatars because of posts in the Community :eek:.

we will be sure to call it the edesignuk proposal when we announce it site wide. ;)

edesignuk
Sep 25, 2004, 07:44 AM
we will be sure to call it the edesignuk proposal when we announce it site wide. ;)I'll just leave quietly now then...:o

AL, I haven't seen you in ages, have you just popped back? Or are you know more or a lurker? :eek: :D

AmbitiousLemon
Sep 25, 2004, 07:51 AM
I guess you would say I've been lurking. Probably 99% of my posts lately have been in the moderators forum or responding to reported posts. the other 1% is answering questions in the various help sections.

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 25, 2004, 10:30 AM
I like the idea, but we have too many here that seem to "self-appointed guardians" of what is right or wrong with a thread.

Some members seem to have no self control.

MacNut
Sep 26, 2004, 01:47 AM
How about just a sub forum of the community where people can bs and talk about all the stupid stuff they want with no post counts, that way the community we all know and love can stay the same unharmed.

t300
Sep 26, 2004, 02:05 AM
How about just a sub forum of the community where people can bs and talk about all the stupid stuff they want with no post counts, that way the community we all know and love can stay the same unharmed.

Good idea, seeing as that is really what this whole thread is about...

edesignuk
Sep 26, 2004, 05:01 AM
How about just a sub forum of the community where people can bs and talk about all the stupid stuff they want with no post counts, that way the community we all know and love can stay the same unharmed.Yes, this is exactly (kinda) what the whole idea was in the first place.

2A Batterie
Sep 26, 2004, 07:17 PM
I don't understand... why do people want their post counts boosted? I really don't care how many I have. I understand trying to block spammers and those claiming to have free ipods, but I'm not sure why a regular on this site would want their post count upped. Does it make one better to have 1,000 posts as oppossed to 999?

King Cobra
Sep 26, 2004, 10:11 PM
You damn right it does. :D


I think we all need to clear out minds out here and focus on the purpose of a community forum before we go further into this "should we make []" or not issue. There have been yes and no arguments to one proposal, and yes arguments for another, so the issue is already hard enough to resolve. Additionally, we should clear out the issue of what is and isn't acceptable community discussion so as to clarify what specifically will be allowed in the forum for another year.

First, a community forum is/should be a forum for talking about random s***, to be blunt about it. People reading the forum title will most likely see it for its literal meaning, a community, which is (propose definition) an area in which a collection of people, or multiple collections of people, come together to engage in conversation about a desired topic. So any unwanted discussion within one collection (i.e. thread) of a community that goes off-topic is not considered part of the collection/thread. So we've ruled out off-topic discussions. Also, any discussion that tends towards flamewars also tends towards undesired personal insults, in which the original desired topic has been destroyed. (I'm implying that the original desired topic has no intent of initiating a flamewar.) So we've also ruled out direct personal insults. Furthermore, in community threads, there are bound to be posts that distract others engaging in the original topic of discussion due to repetition of posts, single-word or single-line responses that are unfavored by the discussers of the desired topic (both considered spam), and perhaps objectionable language/triggers. Thus, we've also rules out unwanted distractions within a desired topic from the intent of threads in a community. So now everything we've ruled out - unwanted off-topic discussion, spam, and unwanted distractions within a topic - sets most of the boundaries of the specific set of limitations to community discussion such that any behavior that steps out of bounds is most likely Wasteland material.

Second, let's consider the proposition of setting up another forum that does not include post count and that would take away the supposed limitations of what is considered Wasteland material for the Community Discussion. If we take away the boundaries I set forth above, we would have a combination of Wastelanded material and community material. In fact, I propose that if we did set up such a section for the sake of removing the above proposed limitations of the Community Discussion, it would on average be less popular than the current Community Discussion, only because the discussion in the community area will be kept on-topic and to the desires and wants of the posters involved for each thread, whereas discussion in the new forum would be less fulfilling for involvement. Sure, there is the initial feeling of excitement and curiosity to test out the limits of the new forum, but that feeling will go away due to excess in unwanted discussion. So for the user, it makes less sense to put up such a proposed new forum free from the above limitations of the Community Discussion. Now, for the administrative side, this argument is easy: If there is more unwanted discussion in the new forum, then there will be more responsibility to close and lock down threads (as Mr. A. hinted at earlier), and perhaps move or delete some of them. Hence, a second, more flexed community section would turn out unsuccessful and undesired.

Now let's tackle the issue of removing post count from the Community Discussion as it is. If we set the boundaries for the Community Discussion I proposed originally and then removed the post count, people would notice the sudden drop in posts; some would notice a 1000 post drop or more. It's instinctive for people to view post count as a sense of authority on a bulletin board, simply because of one trait: number. The bigger the number, the better. It's like a game in which if your score is more than everyone elses, then you win. It's simply memory-based. Reduce that number of posts, and you reduce that person's score, which will reduce the feeling of power of winning that people have on the forums. That reduction will lead to complaining from those people that need to have the post count back for the sake of having a high score. I propose that every registered member here has played at least one game in which [1] the central objective was to score more than your opponents, and [2] more than 1% of those people find a scoring-system in gaming important in forum count. So that means over 20 people would complain about the sudden drop in posts, which will put additional strain on the administration and, perhaps, a domino-like effect of complaining from other users.

But let's say that nobody will have a problem with the sudden drop in post count, or the lack of the addition of post count for posts in the community section, and that the limits of the community forum are stretched to allow discussion that goes outside the boundaries I have proposed. We would still have to deal with off-topic discussions, unwanted distractions, and, effectively, a downgrade in the quality and satisfication of the Community Discussion forum, because the added leeway allows for more unwanted discussion.

In short, leave the Community forum as it is, and let posters in that forum know specifically what is and isn't allowed there before moderation in the forum continues. For cases in which the ultimate administrative decision of a thread in question can lead to cyclical arguments among users and moderators, the boundaries I propose (subject to modification) will decrease strain on the administration and on others in the community.

MacNut
Sep 26, 2004, 10:12 PM
I don't understand... why do people want their post counts boosted? I really don't care how many I have. I understand trying to block spammers and those claiming to have free ipods, but I'm not sure why a regular on this site would want their post count upped. Does it make one better to have 1,000 posts as oppossed to 999?

The main reason is that people want to reach 500 posts to get an avatar. They don't want to do it the fair way so they decide to post stupid one sentence remarks to quickly up the post count. A lot of the posts are inflated so this would cut back on the fluff on the boards with more ligit comments.

MacNut
Sep 26, 2004, 10:22 PM
So king, whar your saying is that there should be more of an oversight in the community forums.

King Cobra
Sep 26, 2004, 10:29 PM
No, what I'm saying is: There should be a set of boundaries (such as the ones I made) for the Community section, and that all people that post in Community Discussion threads keep them in mind. I strongly recommend that we review those boundaries, modify them, and then finalize them into a sticky thread for the community section.

2A Batterie
Sep 26, 2004, 10:39 PM
The main reason is that people want to reach 500 posts to get an avatar. They don't want to do it the fair way so they decide to post stupid one sentence remarks to quickly up the post count. A lot of the posts are inflated so this would cut back on the fluff on the boards with more ligit comments.
I understand that people do this do get an avatar (ex. "only 400 more post till my 'tar!" thread), but I just don't understand what the big deal about an avatar is. I mean, spend the time playing a guitar or taking a walk... if you have something legit to post cool, but getting an avatar isn't really going to have too much impact on one's life. Sorry to be so negative, but I just don't understand this whole post count thing. I suppose I could be accussed of trying to boost my count by responding to this thread, or with some of my asinine remarks (ie. frank stallone) but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. I just like getting my info on this site and asking questions while also trying to help by giving feedback and the occasional Frank Stallone comment.

Mord
Sep 27, 2004, 04:41 AM
dont knock it until you got one. it's like a credibility stamp saying he/she's not some stupid **** because they have posted allot and not been kicked out, occasionally avatar weilding posters get kicked but thats very rare.

and the cpu number just plain looks cool under your avatar 970 here i come

hcuar
Sep 27, 2004, 08:01 PM
Actually... Your statement: posts != Post count++

Would equate posts with Post count, then increment Post count. So... In affect, the Post count would still increment. Sorry, I'm being pedantic. :rolleyes:

Man, I need to get back to coding at work... This paperwork is a real nightmare.

yellow
Sep 27, 2004, 08:05 PM
Actually... Your statement: posts != Post count++

Would equate posts with Post count, then increment Post count. So... In affect, the Post count would still increment.

To me that meant, posts does not equal post counts incremented. At least in C?

hcuar
Sep 27, 2004, 08:12 PM
To me that meant, posts does not equal post counts incremented. At least in C?

It does... However, even in a != statement, it will increment after the comparison. Seriously, try it. ;)

Opps... one more thing

variable++ increments after the comparison
++variable increments before the comparison

edesignuk
Sep 28, 2004, 03:17 AM
...someone had to go getting technical...:rolleyes:

:p

hcuar
Sep 28, 2004, 08:59 AM
...someone had to go getting technical...:rolleyes:

:p

Sorry, couldn't help it. :cool:

mvc
Sep 30, 2004, 08:12 PM
Why don't we just admit the truth, rename the political forum "pointless discussions", and put all the other stuff in there too?

Political discussion shouldn't be elevated for such special attention, its just another pointless discussion that people might want to have. Naming it correctly might give some people food for thought. ;)

iMeowbot
Sep 30, 2004, 09:21 PM
Why don't we just admit the truth, rename the political forum "pointless discussions", and put all the other stuff in there too?
Or just allow posting in Wasteland :eek:

mvc
Sep 30, 2004, 09:41 PM
Or just allow posting in Wasteland :eek:

A gloriously nihilistic suggestion, I bow to your superior cynicism :)

edesignuk
Oct 1, 2004, 03:04 AM
Why don't we just admit the truth, rename the political forum "pointless discussions", and put all the other stuff in there too?

Political discussion shouldn't be elevated for such special attention, its just another pointless discussion that people might want to have. Naming it correctly might give some people food for thought. ;)Now that's an idea!

blackfox
Oct 1, 2004, 03:52 AM
Why don't we just admit the truth, rename the political forum "pointless discussions", and put all the other stuff in there too?

Political discussion shouldn't be elevated for such special attention, its just another pointless discussion that people might want to have. Naming it correctly might give some people food for thought. ;)
As a frequent political forum poster, I kinda take offense at this suggestion...

Are the discussions therein more pointless than those revolving around shoes or sex on a car hood ( currently in the community section) for example?

I don't see any special-status invoked by naming the forum Political, as it is about politics.

I have always believed that PF posts did not count towards post-counts not because they were necessarily pointless, but because the subjects discussed often elicit opinions felt so strongly that it leads to threads difficult to moderate. By not allowing post-counts, this discourages participation by those not primarily motivated to post by the topic.

Anyway, I could be wrong. I also apologize for going OT. Thanks.

mvc
Oct 1, 2004, 07:12 AM
As a frequent political forum poster, I kinda take offense at this suggestion...

Are the discussions therein more pointless than those revolving around shoes or sex on a car hood ( currently in the community section) for example?

I don't see any special-status invoked by naming the forum Political, as it is about politics.

I have always believed that PF posts did not count towards post-counts not because they were necessarily pointless, but because the subjects discussed often elicit opinions felt so strongly that it leads to threads difficult to moderate. By not allowing post-counts, this discourages participation by those not primarily motivated to post by the topic.

Anyway, I could be wrong. I also apologize for going OT. Thanks.

No, you are taking the whole thing too seriously, a common approach frequently witnessed in places like political forums.

The point is, political discussion by non-politicians is virtually always adversarial, circular and fruitless in general terms of what it achieves in peoples lives, because the act of arguing does not in practice yield any change to the situation or peoples fundamental attitudes, good or bad.

And therefore its like many other equally non-productive adversarial conversational topics, discussing the merits of music genres, sports teams, religious ideas, fashions etc.

Sure, it may be fun for some, and it's something to do to pass the time, but it can't be compared to anything useful.

Just like this thread I guess :p

King Cobra
Oct 1, 2004, 08:59 AM
Look, mostly any thread someone makes for the sake of a specific discussion has to have some point, even if it means never having formal grounds. The political topics that end up in flames certainly do everyone else no benefit (unless you like the heat), as the originally intended discussion is destroyed. What one takes as personally objectionable material, rather than apologize and leave the debate, will return the favor to the supposed offender nearly all of the time. You thus have an endless recursion of objectionable material. Heated debates are heated debates, and in insulting or offending others in heated debates, you thus have a thread in which it has the fewest amounts of points to make for each inviting post. For those that find interpretations quicker to make in mathematics, #pts per post #inviting posts --> 0. Inviting posts encourage discussion with the total absence of insults, potentially objectionable material, or triggering references. This brings up the fact that inviting or objectionable posts are left to the determination of the reader. Yet, the ratio just a line or two above is a bad one. It is even worse when people in the political forum have a higher tendency to want to take notice of comments or references others make that might suggest an opposition of opinion than in, say, the Community Discussion, because the opinions people choose to defend so strongly in the political forum are political. The ratio is thus bad because the point of political discussion in those heated debates turns towards only heated debates and becomes as uninviting as possible, so the thread likewise becomes as pointless as possible.

But in contrast to everything I have just said in the last paragraph, some discussions are worthy reading and interaction, particularly for those involved in politics. As some people that choose to avoid most political discussions, they find such discussion not worthy of notice, thus, pointless by way of opinion. Yet those that dedicate an interest in the discussion of politics on MR will most likely find something inviting to read in the political section. Hence, to those people, there is a point in discussing politics. Even if there are many threads in the political section that a discusser of politics finds inviting, those same discussions can still be considered inviting by the person that avoids political discussion, yet that person will still consider the discussions as pointless. Therefore, the ultimate determination of whether or not a thread is pointless is left up to the reader.

Simply put, there isn't a right or wrong answer to whether or not the political threads are pointless, because, as I have shown, it's a matter of determination to each person. So before you two continue to debate whether or not political discussions have a point, keep that in mind.

Edit: Specifically to mvc, the only truth there is in the political discussions being pointless is subjective, which means open to interpretation and not necessarily a factual truth, as I have shown already. So keep that in mind as well.

Doctor Q
Oct 5, 2004, 01:50 PM
I have always believed that PF posts did not count towards post-counts not because they were necessarily pointless, but because the subjects discussed often elicit opinions felt so strongly that it leads to threads difficult to moderate. By not allowing post-counts, this discourages participation by those not primarily motivated to post by the topic.As I understand it, that's correct. I think it's the way it is because arn didn't want to disallow political/war discussions but at the same time didn't want to let them take over the forums and for that reason he decided to separate them, with the posts uncounted as a further disincentive to post there simply for the sake of posting.

Community Discussion is in between. Less serious than politics, less impassioned, less prone to flamewars and insults, yet equally off-topic for a site devoted to Mac news and rumors. Easier to moderate both because the discussions are usually good natured and because the News forum rule to keep threads on topic isn't as important.

A few of the suggestions above have been reasonable, and I think we basically all agree on the tradeoffs, just not on the conclusion to draw. Splitting off part of Community Discussion would make more work for moderators (sometimes me in particular) to sort threads by relevance (to what?). Changing the post-count-status of the current Community Discussion forum might cause howls of protest about drastically lowered post counts. Archving the current Community Discussion forum and starting a new no-post one would be a compromise, but make for an awkward transition. Renaming the Political Discussions & War Discussion forum would give us a place for threads that "shouldn't count" (would there be a "Have you ever been sober" thread?), but it would be very strange to mix those with the sometimes serious political threads. Even allowing posts in the Wasteland makes a bit of sense, although if that was allowed then the moderators would completely delete certain threads that are currently only Wastelanded.