Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Pointless Conversations Forum, where posts != Post count++
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
You damn right it does. 
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.
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.
2A Batterie said:
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.
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.
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.MacNut said:
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
and the cpu number just plain looks cool under your avatar 970 here i come
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.
Man, I need to get back to coding at work... This paperwork is a real nightmare.
Would equate posts with Post count, then increment Post count. So... In affect, the Post count would still increment. Sorry, I'm being pedantic.
Man, I need to get back to coding at work... This paperwork is a real nightmare.
It's simple...
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.
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!mvc said: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...mvc said: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.
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.
blackfox said:
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
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.
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.
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.blackfox said:
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.