Author Topic: Post deletion vs. Quarantine (Read 17076 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #50 on:** April 08, 2012, 03:30:55 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 03:23:06 PM

By your definition, YMT, this thread does not exist because you are trying to discuss the situation seriously, and a biased or vindictive mod quarantined your thread to suppress the discussion.

Weren't you the one who always vehemently opposed people putting words into your mouth? I said my threads were quarantined because someone else posted a picture of a goat, not because the moderator was vindictive. The discussion was never allowed to flow because of a rigid "quarantine every thread with a picture of a goat in it" policy. It is the policy that I am challenging, not the moderator. The policy forces moderators to be subjective, which isn't fair to them either.

The Schaef · « **Reply #51 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:13:59 PM »

And this is not the discussion being allowed to flow?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #52 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:42:31 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 04:13:59 PM

And this is not the discussion being allowed to flow?

What are you talking about? Is there a picture of a goat in this thread?

We either are going to talk about the current Spam policy, or we are not. Which is it going to be? If you have already made up your mind to not change anything, then this is not a discussion.

The Schaef · « **Reply #53 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:46:22 PM »

So we are not talking about the spam policy right now? What do you think we are talking about?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #54 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:52:15 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 04:46:22 PM

So we are not talking about the spam policy right now? What do you think we are talking about?

What is the definition of Spam that is currently enforced?

The Schaef · « **Reply #55 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:58:40 PM »

You decline to answer my question? If the thrust of your complaint is that you don't feel you are able to voice your frustrations without the thread getting killed, and this thread is not getting killed, and you are not willing to say that you are not voicing your frustrations, I'm struggling to understand why there continues to be a problem along this line.

What is it that you think needs to be changed, such that you would no longer see a reason to prolong this discussion?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #56 on:** April 08, 2012, 04:59:53 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 04:58:40 PM

You decline to answer my question?

Ditto

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 04:58:40 PM

What is it that you think needs to be changed, such that you would no longer see a reason to prolong this discussion?

The Spam policy.

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:05:28 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 04:59:53 PM

Ditto

My problem with your question is that you are deflecting my question rather than engaging in honest, direct discussion. Your problem with my question seems to be flamiffamuggahemmmahuh.

Quote

The Spam policy.

You did not indicate what change would solve your problem. You have not even given consideration to the question of whether the continued discussion on this thread, here and now, speaks against part or all of the reasoning behind that problem.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #58 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:08:37 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:05:28 PM

You did not indicate what change would solve your problem.

The definition of Spam and how it is decided is the change that is needed, which is the definition that you refuse to give. I can only assume then, that the definition is completely up to the moderator at the time, whichis what I think is the problem, which is the answer to the question that you say I am not answering.

The Schaef · « **Reply #59 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:26:52 PM »

The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.

You may notice that the people opposing this policy are not defending the value of their contribution. They are only saying that zero-content posts should be allowed by virtue of the simple fact that they want to post them.

What I do not understand is why you think this policy is negatively impacting you specifically, or why you think the moderator's discretion creates a problem for what does or does not remain on the boards.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #60 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:34:47 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:26:52 PM

The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.

Thank you. Now we can discuss.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:26:52 PM

You may notice that the people opposing this policy are not defending the value of their contribution. They are only saying that zero-content posts should be allowed by virtue of the simple fact that they want to post them.

Exactly. If the threads (not out-of-place posts, mind you) are just intended to be fun, then "zero-content" should not be an issue. The Spam policy should address unruly posts, not off-topic threads. Haven't you ever watched a comedy that had what others would consider "zero-content?" Sometimes meaningless banter is an outlet for an otherwise frustrating day. If no one is being harmed or targetted, and we are not committing outright sins, what exactly is the problem with "zero-content?"

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:26:52 PM

What I do not understand is why you think this policy is negatively impacting you specifically, or why you think the moderator's discretion creates a problem for what does or does not remain on the boards.

There are times when I just want to unwind with silly jokes. Is that really so bad? Sometimes we all need to just lighten up, especially when the other alternatives on this Message Board are politically charged and give people headaches*.

lp670sv · « **Reply #61 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:48:16 PM »

I don't see the harm in having threads that are specifically intended to be nothing but fun. When did fun become spam? spam is either spice ham in a can or mass distribution of advertising to people who don't want it. I run a forum that has a no spam policy, but we have a general chat thread, a thread for post funny pictures (I remove any that are NSFW) and for the over 21 members a drinking thread that is not visible by anyone under the age of 21 except me because I'm the admin. None of these threads threaten the health of my forum in any way and as long the fun stays in it's specified threads it's fine with me and everyone involved. I have never once had anyone complain about those threads existing. I have never once had a flame war take place on my forums, nor had any grudges pop up between members. It's one of the most inviting environments I've ever found on the internet and I truly believe that is because of the rules I've put in place. They're strict where they need to be and lax were they should be as well. It's an open environment but it's far from chaotic and I think you would find that if you allowed ONE annoying to you goat thread A) all this rebellion would stop and B) the forums would be a better place as we would have a thread that was specifically for random silliness and fun. There is no harm in it.

The Schaef · « **Reply #62 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM »

There are 15,000 threads on the forum at present. A total of 70 threads have been quarantined since the inception of the concept, which incidentally is for the specific purpose of reviewing threads removed with the potential to re-instate if they were removed by mistake, a recourse we would not have if the thread were just deleted.

This means that the boards have a retention rate greater than 99.5%, not counting the purging of hundreds of threads predating 2009, and inclusive of all threads quarantined for all reasons, not only spam, and including the fact that thread-bombing can account for several threads all at once, driving up the total number based on a fewer number of actual incidents.

I do not agree with your assessment that the spam policy has detracted from the value of the forum in a statistically meaningful way, nor do I agree with the apparent emerging attitude that the only possible way a post can be entertaining is if it is entirely devoid of content. Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this funny video I saw"?

Also, I do not recall your specific complaint about your thread being that your thread was zero-content, so the spam policy is not the cause of your problem in this instance.

lp670sv · « **Reply #63 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:58:02 PM »

The real question is why is "look at this funny video" content but "look at this funny picture of a goat" is not? You may not find it funny. You may not find it even remotely entertaining. That's not the point. There are a select number of members on here who have a fascination with funny or interesting pictures of goats. There are also a number of members who have a fascination with ponies. From what Prof U has explained goats were labelled as spam because there was a thread about them that absorb a decent number of posts in an unusually short period of time. So what? So people were having harmless fun posting back and forth not hurting anyone or clogging any other threads with goat picture. Now what took place yesterday IS spam. When multiple threads were started about goats and a picture of a goat was posted in a bunch of pre existing threads that is out of line and should have been dealt with the way it was. But having 1 or 2 goat threads or other general for fun threads shouldn't instantly be labelled spam. It's not fair that just because you and Prof U don't find any entertainment value out of that you don't think anyone can and it is therefore spam. I didn't post any goat threads or pictures of goats but I did respond to a couple of those threads with conversational posts. The fainting goat thread I mentioned that a friend of mine has fainting goats and that when I get bored during the summer I go visit her and try to get those goats to faint. In the goat with horn thread I posted a simple picture of a pelican staring at a women with the caption "What you did there, I see it." In both cases I was both adding to the conversation and having a bit of enjoyment while not spamming anything.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #64 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:58:57 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

There are 15,000 threads on the forum at present. A total of 70 threads have been quarantined since the inception of the concept, ...

People are afraid to post "zero-content" threads for fun because they know it might be quarantined. The numbers you are putting forth support the idea that people are not intentionally rebellious, otherwise the numbers would be greater.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

I do not agree with your assessment that the spam policy has detracted from the value of the forum in a statistically meaningful way,...

The forum is about people, not statistics. People like to have fun, sometimes in seemingly meaningless ways.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

.... nor do I agree with the apparent emerging attitude that the only possible way a post can be entertaining is if it is entirely devoid of content.

You're adding words again. No one said "only possible." We are saying that it is a viable alternative.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this funny video I saw"?

That is just rehashing what someone else did. Some people need a completely unrehearsed creative outlet.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

Also, I do not recall your specific complaint about your thread being that your thread was zero-content, so the spam policy is not the cause of your problem in this instance.

I was part of the cheese thread.

lp670sv · « **Reply #65 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:01:16 PM »

there are also a few spam threads that weren't quarantined but merely locked so that throws the statistic off as well. If it hadn't gotten so out of hand yesterday those threads probably would have remained locked but quarantined.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #66 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:01:29 PM »

Quote

Should I believe that there is no entertainment value in "look at this goat"?

FTFY

It seems more and more that if a mod finds it funny, it's not spam, but if a mod finds it annoying or not amusing then it's spam.

It is not possible to have a zero-content post. A picture of a goat is content. A

is content. "lol" is content. It seems that the only difference between any of these things is that a mod subjectively decided they're not worthwhile content.

The Schaef · « **Reply #67 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:09:14 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 05:58:57 PM

People are afraid to post "zero-content" threads for fun because they know it might be quarantined. The numbers you are putting forth support the idea that people are not intentionally rebellious, otherwise the numbers would be greater.

So now your position is that people were NOT thread-bombing this weekend?

Quote

The forum is about people, not statistics. People like to have fun, sometimes in seemingly meaningless ways.

The policy is not about determining the fun quotient.

Quote

You're adding words again. No one said "only possible." We are saying that it is a viable alternative.

You are saying that people want to relax, and this is the way to do it. If it is not the only way to do it, then you have a way to relax without running afoul of the rules, so there should not be a problem here.

Quote

That is just rehashing what someone else did. Some people need a completely unrehearsed creative outlet.

Feel free to visit completelyunrehearsedcreativeoutlet.com to assuage your uncontrollable urge.

Quote

I was part of the cheese thread.

So you created this topic to question the cheese thread?

Moreover, people seem to gravitate more and more to the word "entertainment" the more it is emphasized that the issue is "content". This only further illustrates my point that no one seems to find the idea of "content" subjective, only that they want to blame the entire thing on a lack of a sense of humor and expand the "entertainment" scope of the forum, despite it not being the issue.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #68 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:11:37 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 08, 2012, 06:01:16 PM

there are also a few spam threads that weren't quarantined but merely locked so that throws the statistic off as well. If it hadn't gotten so out of hand yesterday those threads probably would have remained locked but quarantined.

That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs. I knew it would put me in the line of fire, but I felt the time had come to take a stand. This issue and its repercussions have been pushed aside long enough.

Schaef's continued dodging only proves that the issue will not be dealt with, so my efforts were futile.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #69 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:13:30 PM »

Quote

The policy is not about determining the fun quotient.

No?

Quote

then you have a way to relax without running afoul of the rules

What rules? The rules against spam? Please, enlighten us, what is spam?

The Schaef · « **Reply #70 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:17:37 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 06:11:37 PM

That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs.

Wait, I thought you said people were not being intentionally rebellious.

Quote

Schaef's continued dodging only proves that the issue will not be dealt with, so my efforts were futile.

You cannot point to one thing I have dodged. I answered your questions with specificity. I asked you a number of questions to increase understanding, most of which you blew off without doing anything to explain your side of the situation. I've allowed you a voice for whatever you feel has wronged you, and made an effort at due diligence, and you have not agreed to meet me on equal footing. Is blind capitulation the only response that can be treated as "dealing with" something?

@Pol - you are asking questions already addressed in the thread. Unless I am lying to you, you have the information you say you are seeking in your last reply.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #71 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:24:00 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 06:17:37 PM

I've allowed you a voice for whatever you feel has wronged you, and made an effort at due diligence, and you have not agreed to meet me on equal footing.

But we're not on equal footing, are we? I can not initiate change, even when I feel it is justified. The opinion of a 43-year-old veteran teacher of 13 years is not carrying any weight with you. I have found through the years that sometimes teenagers just need to release their creativity in seemingly meaningless ways, even during class. After years of being the Tyrannical Overlord, I discovered that letting those moments go (and even joining in from time to time) made the class run better after I brought the class back on topic. Talking about cheese during Calculus class may seem to have "zero-content," but it made the day infinitely more bearable when the class had to go deeper. For the deepest of thinkers, there comes a time that not thinking at all is the best remedy.

lp670sv · « **Reply #72 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:27:27 PM »

We are trying to shift the issue to entertainment because only a blank post lacks content. Anything that exists is content. As pol stated the word lol, while adding nothing to a conversation and completely unneeded in most cases, is content. A post should not be deleted simply because you or any mod do not see the value in it. We don't all enjoy the same things. There are threads on my forums about bands I cannot stand and think are complete garbage and not worthy of discussion. I have never once deleted them. It is not within the admin and mods priviledge to decide what is valuable. If a member of the forums find value in it, it is valuable. You all have been granted great power and with that comes the responsibility to use it to maintain a welcoming environment and keep abuse out. That does not include deleting anything you do not find of value.

The Schaef · « **Reply #73 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:30:33 PM »

Well, YMT, if you've decided without even considering my words that I'm not giving any weight to your words, aside from winning the irony award for the week, I don't see the point in even bringing the subject up. You've definitely shown me the futility of dedicating any more time to bringing this to a resolution. So go on campaigning for a stupid goat picture if that's what brings meaning to your life. Maybe with a little more effort you'll find someone else who will take a significant portion of his holiday Sunday to have a detailed discussion with you while, apparently, at the same time not caring at all about what you have to say.

Quote from: lp670sv on April 08, 2012, 06:27:27 PM

We are trying to shift the issue to entertainment because only a blank post lacks content. Anything that exists is content.

I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you. The fact that people have actively campaigned to allow zero-content posts demonstrates that both sides of the argument know what is meant by that term.

lp670sv · « **Reply #74 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:33:33 PM »

Your definition of content is subjective and it's completely unfair to enforce what YOU believe to be worthwhile over the will of your users. You would have gotten that if you had finished reading what I typed. There are many things that you yourself will find no value in that does not make them spam anymore than my lack of caring about baseball makes the threads about it on here spam to me.

News:

Author Topic: Post deletion vs. Quarantine (Read 17076 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef