Minimum Post Count For Community Discussion/Political Forum?

[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. 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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.