Author Topic: Post deletion vs. Quarantine (Read 17074 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #75 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:38:10 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 06:30:33 PM

You've definitely shown me the futility of dedicating any more time to bringing this to a resolution.

The "resolution" was already predetermined before the discussion began.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 06:30:33 PM

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.

I thank you for your time, even though I don't agree with your unwillingness to change.

The Schaef · « **Reply #76 on:** April 08, 2012, 06:43:55 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 06:38:10 PM

The "resolution" was already predetermined before the discussion began.

This is completely incorrect, and after the amount of time we've shared on this forum I can only describe your assessment as disappointing.

Quote

I thank you for your time, even though I don't agree with your unwillingness to change.

I am forced to question the depth of your gratitude considering the extremely low opinion you have of whether I bothered to invest anything in the discussion.

Quote from: lp670sv 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.

You conflated "content" and "value" again.

And if there is enough agreement that people are arguing in favor of posts that they concede to be zero-content, that belies the notion that it is subjective. Further, by arguing that zero-content posts have value, that creates a distinction between content and value. Therefore, modding based on content is not a judgment of your notion of value.

You accuse me of not reading what you typed but I read all of it. I just don't agree with your premise. How much of your anger towards me is about things that have actually taken place, and how much of it is about you assuming malicious intent on my part when in fact I have none?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #77 on:** April 08, 2012, 07:17:57 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 06:43:55 PM

This is completely incorrect, and after the amount of time we've shared on this forum I can only describe your assessment as disappointing.

I am equally disappointed, but I did not say "ditto" this time because I was afraid that would trivialize the matter. I was trying to share a lesson I learned over the course of 13 trial-and-error years with regard to allowing "zero-content" discussion.

Quote from: The Schaef on April 08, 2012, 06:43:55 PM

I am forced to question the depth of your gratitude considering the extremely low opinion you have of whether I bothered to invest anything in the discussion.

There is no need to question it. My gratitude is sincere, I assure you. You have indeed invested time (today of all days) so you deserve thanks.

---------------------------

I will not be posting any more in this thread, so that you will not have to devote any more time for rebuttals. You are welcome to respond to this post and then lock it. I would also request that you remove the "Forum Jester" from my name and return it to normal. I will no longer be serving in that capacity on this Message Board. I thank you sincerely for allowing me to keep that title for this long. I know you were making an exception for me, and took some flak for it.

Christ is risen indeed. That is all that matters moving forward.

The Schaef · « **Reply #78 on:** April 08, 2012, 07:34:35 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 07:17:57 PM

I am equally disappointed, but I did not say "ditto" this time because I was afraid that would trivialize the matter. I was trying to share a lesson I learned over the course of 13 trial-and-error years with regard to allowing "zero-content" discussion.

It was a point you brought in at the very end of a lengthy discussion, and only after repeatedly accusing me of a complete lack of consideration for your perspective.

Your anecdote is noted but it still implies a direct correlation between allowing this specific manner of posting and allowing any sort of levity within the forum, but the point here is that many different forms of humor fall within the existing forum guidelines, and many topics that have nominal "cultural contribution" run their course. Your own forum title belies the idea that mods and admins don't allow a fair amount of levity on the boards. Again, entertainment is not the issue, only the (lack of) content.

If you want me to remove the title, I will, but I don't see any immediate need to do so. Send me a confirmation PM in that regard if it's genuinely what you want, but I won't take any action without that confirmation. I also am in no hurry to lock this topic if others feel they want to continue pressing the issue - I typically do not lock topics until they've gone way over the line - but all users have the ability to lock their own topic if they wish, so as the OP, you are free to do what you wish with it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #79 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:07:28 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 08, 2012, 08:48:38 AM

At last! THIS is the underlying issue. The fact is that the decision to quarantine a thread versus deleting posts is based on annoyance rather than an objective rule set. The cheese thread was a good example of this.

This post doesn't make any sense based on previous statements that I have already made.
#1 - I didn't lock the SSBM thread despite it annoying me.
#2 - I don't lock My Little Pony threads despite them weirding me out.
#3 - I didn't lock the cheese thread.
#4 - I have already stated my rule set for deleting posts/quarantining threads.

Quote from: Sean on April 08, 2012, 11:57:09 AM

I still am not trying to rebel. My last goat picture was posted to see if YMT had successfully changed your (Prof Underwood) mind.

This could have been done much more respectfully by simply asking if I had changed my mind rather than testing me by posting another picture of a goat. Your method of determining the answer to your question was unnecessarily rebellious.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 08, 2012, 01:23:36 PM

You see them as a symbol of forum rebellion, I see them as a funny little inside joke on the forums.

The forum has plenty of inside jokes (less than zero percent, buckler rules, black is weak, over 9000, etc.) I don't come down on those things because they do not have negative connotations on this forum.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 08, 2012, 06:01:29 PM

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.

Again, this doesn't fit with what I've already stated about SSBM, MLP, etc. See above.

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. I knew it would put me in the line of fire, but I felt the time had come to take a stand.

Now don't go all Tienanmen Square on me. You posted all those goat pictures because you were very upset at me for not responding fast enough to this very thread, without knowing that I just hadn't seen it yet due to responding to PMs from lp.

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

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.

As Schaef pointed out, we're talking about less than 0.5% of the threads on the forum. I really don't think that indicates a heavy-handed police state of censorship and abuse of power.

lp670sv · « **Reply #80 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:25:22 PM »

just because there is only 0.5% of fun threads doesn't mean that killing that .5% isn't still overzealous.

The Schaef · « **Reply #81 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:37:16 PM »

When the mods are doing nothing more than enforcing policies that predate their assignment, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

Especially when, as stated before, that 0.5% consists of all threads removed for ANY reason, spam being a relatively small percentage, and does not account for hundreds of threads purged due to age or for the statistical skew caused by thread-bombing.

And again, you conflate "content" with "fun". The threads are not removed for "being fun".

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #82 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:43:03 PM »

Define "spam" please. You don't like us saying it's just whatever you decide it is, but then you refuse to give a stated definition. That's suspicious.

lp670sv · « **Reply #83 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:43:33 PM »

I'm saying that them being just for fun should exempt them from having to fit in to your content rule. They aren't hurting anyone they're aren't advertising anything, that aren't detracting from conversation in other threads. In the end my opinion doesn't matter. This is my last season playing this game and my last season on these boards. I just don't see why you have to enforce archaic rules of no fun unless it's constructive. Not everything in life has to be constructive. all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.

The Schaef · « **Reply #84 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:04:00 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 08, 2012, 10:43:03 PM

Define "spam" please. You don't like us saying it's just whatever you decide it is, but then you refuse to give a stated definition. That's suspicious.

I will afford you the chance to demonstrate that it was an honest mistake on your part to overlook a direct answer to this question. It is just about the limit of my patience, however, with your ongoing implications that I have not been holding this discussion honestly.

Quote from: lp670sv on April 08, 2012, 10:43:33 PM

Not everything in life has to be constructive.

Since the rule is not that "all content must be constructive", I can maintain the existing policies without running afoul of your philosophy.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #85 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:06:08 PM »

Me: What is the definition of spam.

You: Spam is "..."

That's all the conversation needs to sound like. Y U NO?

soul seeker · « **Reply #86 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:11:14 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.

He did define it on the last page, and he worded "the definition is" like you wanted.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #87 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:12:34 PM »

Oh, well that resolves that issue. Now we just need to figure out how so many people are managing to post blank pages.

The Schaef · « **Reply #88 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:17:13 PM »

About the same number of people that derive enjoyment from semantic games.

Which is fewer than the number of people that understand the definition well enough to advocate the existence of posts that fall under that definition.

FWIW, you still have several posts specifically accusing me of refusing to supply a definition when asked.

lp670sv · « **Reply #89 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:17:36 PM »

Something doesn't have to be constructive to it your defintiin of content the what exactly is your defintiin of content an why does it seem so arbitrary to rather or not you and the mids like it?

The Schaef · « **Reply #90 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:19:39 PM »

... what?

lp670sv · « **Reply #91 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:22:03 PM »

IPod.
If something doesn't have to be constructive what does it have to be and why does it seem so arbitrary

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #92 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:25:02 PM »

Yeah, sorry, I missed it in skimming a back-and-forth between you and YMT.

It's not a semantics game. The cheese thread was productive. We were talking about our favorite kinds of cheeses and wondering if we could turn a hot glue gun into something that would melt cheese sticks for cheese decoration. Those both sound pretty dang constructive and content to me, but the whole thing was deleted as spam anyway. Where is the line drawn? Yes, you gave us a concrete definition for spam, but that definition was itself just another open-ended and arbitrary buzz-word. What is the definition of zero-content?

The Schaef · « **Reply #93 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:42:57 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 08, 2012, 11:25:02 PM

Yeah, sorry, I missed it in skimming a back-and-forth between you and YMT.

Thank you for that at least, though the prior accusations still stand in prior posts.

Quote

It's not a semantics game.

Cheeky comments about "blank posts" are semantics. The other conclusion would be that you don't have the brainpower other than to think I actually meant that. That line of thought wouldn't lead me anywhere.

Quote

The cheese thread was productive... Those both sound pretty dang constructive and content to me, but the whole thing was deleted as spam anyway.

And in response to that honest mistake, an additional buffer was put into place to make sure that, if it ever happened again, someone could go back and put things right, instead of it being gone forever. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, eh?

Meanwhile, I will repeat to you that people are not complaining that their posts do not run afoul of the rule, as the cheese thread apparently did not, they are complaining that they should be allowed anyway.

lp670sv · « **Reply #94 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:50:43 PM »

Why are goats considers spam? You defined spam as not content but you have defined what content us so you really haven't helped us understand why goats are against the rules

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #95 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:53:41 PM »

Quote

Yes, you gave us a concrete definition for spam, but that definition was itself just another open-ended and arbitrary buzz-word. What is the definition of zero-content?

The Schaef · « **Reply #96 on:** April 09, 2012, 12:05:52 AM »

Well, you two, please feel welcome to continue navel-gazing on the issue while the others who acknowledge their proper understanding are asking simply to abolish the rule. YMT gave a rather impassioned dissertation on the value of zero-content posts, he didn't seem thus encumbered.

lp670sv · « **Reply #97 on:** April 09, 2012, 12:13:27 AM »

So in other words to you for have an answer.

lp670sv · « **Reply #98 on:** April 09, 2012, 12:16:06 AM »

You dont have an answer

Man I hate my ipod

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #99 on:** April 09, 2012, 12:25:30 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 08, 2012, 11:50:43 PM

Why are goats considers spam?

Based on how it was remembered on the other thread, the goats thing all started with a doppleganger who purposefully tried to flaunt the forum rules (by creating a duplicate account) and to troll everyone (even choosing the member name "notatroll"). Some forum members found this rebellious behavior to be funny, and so it has survived as a meme of sorts that every once in a while someone will post a goat picture to refer back to that event, and perpetuate the rebellion.

The whole cheese thing is really the same at this point. Although it was originally an honest mistake (which I appreciate Schaef referring to it this way), the response at the time was a cry against censorship and the heavy-handed administration of the forum. Several forum members added the little cheese wedge ascii picture to their profile in protest. Ever since then, the cheese thread has been a rallying cry to those who want to "stick it to the man".

News:

Author Topic: Post deletion vs. Quarantine (Read 17074 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef