Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I have a questions about locking threads.

I can see how sometimes it is a good move by the mods. If a thread has deteriorated into a situation where every user involved is spamming and/or attacking, then it is useless and belongs in the spam vault.

But in cases where it only a few users who are spamming or whatever, why not delete their posts and suspend the offenders?

Here's a scenario I've seen. A user makes a post on a topic another user doesn't want to see discussed. So the second user starts spamming it and attempting to turn the discussion into a flame war so the entire thread gets locked and the topic is no longer considered.

I think in most cases, deleting the offending posts and warning or suspending users will do more good in the long run.

_________________

You can check the Spam Vault and see that we have done that on numerous occasions and it hasn't worked.

_________________

What do you mean by "it hasn't worked"?

_________________

Most of the time after we have removed the posts, the thread descends back to the state it was before the posts were removed and it leaves us no choice but to lock the thread.

_________________

So what you're saying is the people who were spamming or attacking keep doing what they were doing.

Um, in that case, maybe a temporary ban would be required (see my original post).

_________________

Legal double post.

It seems to me that the mods here put "being everyone's friend" at the top of their priority list, instead of what is good for the forum.

If they attempt to enforce the rules, they get jumped on and intimidated, then back down. Every time.

It's official, the inmates run this asylum.

_________________

Lahi, I just have one thing to ask.

Why do you still post here, if you hate it so much?

_________________

If all the rules were enforced this place would be some sort of fascist camp. Random Thoughts would become "Share your rainy day activities AND I MEAN DO IT NOW OR THREE WEEKS IN THE HOTBOX" and all the fun (well, fun for most of us) would be gone.

In real life not all the rules are enforced. With some cash and a hooker officials turn the other way and let crap happen every day. All the rules can't be enforced all the time. But the modmins still work hard, despite what some people think. And some of the time majority rule is taken into consideration (I think it should be taken into consideration more but I'm fine with things the way they are now). Just because this isn't a by-the-book hellhole doesn't mean that it's an asylum.

_________________

Actually, your two posts were only about two hours apart. The rules of the Forum state that double posts should be at least three hours apart.


On occasion, if a thread is heading in a bad direction, a modmin may lock it to let it have a "cool down" period. Of course, this is not only the case, and it is mainly up to the interpretation of those in charge on whether or not the thread should be brought back--some threads just don't have a chance of maintaining a stable conversation.

Modmins could delete posts, sure, and they've done so in the past (as well as threaten to do so), but would you really want to constantly waste time deleting everything that turned into an off-topic rampage? In a situation like that, modmins can simply tell the thread to get back on topic, and it generally works out.

Also, bans are not the solution to everything. Giving somebody a temporary ban from this place for contributing to some spam will probably start making them have negative feelings of the Forum after awhile. Heck, it has in the past with many members.

_________________

We do temporary bans, you should know, you just came back from one a few weeks ago. We only do it when we deem them necessary.

_________________

Crud. That's what I get for being bad at math. Feel free to lock the thread.



I don't hate it here. I think some things could be improved, but I like it here.



Random Thoughts is exempt from rules about Spam.



I am fully aware of it. But you seem to indicate that you are helpless against people intentionally defying your warnings. If you delete someone's posts for spamming or attacking and they keep right on doing it, maybe a ban would help them behave. You have to do something.



I see. And that's acceptable to you?

If the rules are bad, change the rules.

It sets a bad precedent if we say "just ignore the rules that we don't agree with." In America, if a law is wrong, we work to change the law. We don't tell the police to stop enforcing it.



And having an excessively spammy forum gives other members negative feelings, too. Telling members to GTFO gives members negative feelings.

Look, if the members and mods are all in favor of turning this place into another HRWFWF, then that's fine. I'll understand. I just want to make sure we understand that's where we are headed.

_________________

_________________
Meanwhile as The Faceless Evil closes in on the hapless, sleeping, populace...
Across town in a shanty one-bedroom, an old woman feeds her parakeet.

Fair enough. Like I said, if the people and mods feel that certain rules are unnecessary, then by all means, let's have a free for all.

EDIT: That said, I like(d) this place because it was somewhere I could come to have good discussions about stuff. Now, anytime one begins, Rusty or COLA or Ace jump in and start making inane comments and the conversation degrades. That's one of the problems with spam.

_________________

so yeah, I know this will probably kill my internet cred, but I agree with Lahi on this point. The forum's rules aren't some set-in-stone constitution.

That being said, about the whole "if we get rid of the rules it'll become like the HRWFWF" thing:

Changing or removing a few rules won't turn the forum into a pit of chaos overnight. Ultimately, it's the people that shape the forum, not the rules. I know of some forums that have little or no rules and yet the members get along just fine, for the most part, because they never needed the rules to begin with.

So, my suggestion to the mods: as an experiment, relax the rules for, say, a month or so and see what happens. Maybe create a seperate test forum for this purpose if you don't want to change this one.

As surprising as it may sound, people are capable of being civil without the administration breathing down their necks.

_________________

The point of my thread is that no one is breathing down anyone's necks. In essence, outside of ramrod sorta kinda threatening to enforce the rules last night, moderation has been extremely light lately.

Oh, except that I was banned for a week. Which makes my argument all the more interesting, in my opinion.

_________________

Nice assumption. I'm just saying that things can't be enforced all the time.



>: (

Letting people say GTFO isn't going to turn this place into the rotting hellhole of cancer that you seem to think HRWFWF is. Neither is all of the little stuff you seem to be complaining about.

_________________

I agree with Lahi here as a matter of fact. It's an issue that's been brought up a few times but never seems to get resolved. We can't solve all our problems by locking threads and hoping unrest disappears. What we need to do is deal with it then and there, and if someone is spamming a thread, delete their posts, and warn/ban them (depending on the nature of the infraction).


How is this different than the suggestion of "if a large majority of the people feel one way then it should have some kind of influence" I put forth in the previous thread? Not trying to be a wise guy here, I'd just like some clarification.


Thanks, man. You know, I AM still a mod, and I DO still do my job well. Ramrod and StrongRad would have demoted me if they didn't think I was doing anything right. You can ask any of the users here: I will never refuse a request to help them out with anything (ie splitting, moving, deleting posts, hearing them out). Whether I like you guys or not (I always joke I hate you all when I like almost all of you) is a moot point anyway. I'm not a moderator because I can be your friend: I was made a mod to do a job and interpret the terms of this job as I personally see fit, and I think I've done a fine job.

Nor can I remember the last time I've completely derailed a thread with my "inane comments". Besides jumping in every so often with something stupid (ie saying GTFO to Ju Ju when he said not to do it, as a joke), I've never completely killed conversation with irrelevant crap. And even if we do get off track, it's still conversation.


By the way, you guys, HRWFWF (Serious Inc now) is not a "pit of chaos". There is playful ribbing between all of the members, but I highly doubt we've ever had serious drama there. All of us get along with one another because we understand what we can and can't do, and don't push the boundaries or each others' buttons. Perhaps that's what needs to happen here. I dunno.

_________________

A little off topic here, but I'm finding it hard sometimes not to make posts that are just "I agree with Ace."

And Lahi, I suggest you read up on the straw man fallacy. You're distorting others' arguments, which doesn't make for a good debate at all.

_________________

Potatoman, I know what a strawman fallacy is. Feel free to explain how I'm using it.







I am only going off how it was when I was there. Unfortunately, Jello banned me a while ago, so I can't see what's going on now.



Exhibit A:









Exhibit B:

_________________

Exhibit A: Thread was already over and locked at that point

Exhibit B: I was definitely not the only one there. Not to mention the thread was back to normal one post after.

You can't single me out as a major source of spam just because you don't like me.

_________________

Neither of those points really derailed the threads they were posted in, did they? Sure, one of them got locked, but it was already falling apart from other users' posts anyway.

EDIT: Curse you, Ace.

_________________

No it wasn't. Ramrod attempted to steer the thread back to its original subject and you flat-out spammed it into oblivion before locking it yourself.

_________________

I did not lock it.

Swear to God I didn't.

_________________

BTG locked it, and Ace posted in it shortly afterward.

EDIT: CURSE YOU, ACE!

_________________

I don't think it was locked because normal users could post in it but Ace didn't flat-out spam it. I don't think three semi-angry posts are flat-out spamming. Flat out spamming is "hagfhfhhguutireuieuteuytuttcvnkdhku

_________________

Lahi, do you want me to do my job as a moderator and interpret the rules as I see fit, or would you rather see all moderators removed and the admins running everything? Just wondering what your position on that is, because you don't seem to wish to respect my views, or those of BTG for that matter, at all.

Feel free to answer that or not, I don't really care. We're off topic again. The purpose of this thread was to determine whether locking threads in the event of spam works or not. As I've said, I agree with you that a better course of action would be to delete the posts and act against the offending user.

_________________

Oh my god, what the heck are we all fighting about? Things are fine now! Why are we complaining about anything at this point? This forum is perfect in my eyes, and I don't think anything could make it any better. Let me tell all of you this: If this forum were not perfect, would we all be getting along outside of these threads?

_________________

We don't all get along outside of these threads, though.

_________________

Who don't we get along with? Yes, we take an occasional playful jab at someone, but other than that, we all seem to get along fine (Outside of R&P, of course.)

_________________

See: Rusty and everybody (but i love u dawg)

_________________