Testing Limit of Autodelete

[Duckie]

Why not? Posts on SLAM aren't spam, but they don't belong in OSF. There are criteria a testing-posting person uses to determine whether to post in testing which Relvenous just outlined, and which I can outline in detail my own person criteria that I consult unconsciously every time I consider where to make a topic if you wish. You can't just say it "rings hollow" to dismiss it when clearly for a large segment of the board it held true.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Knife, there were plenty of thread topics that were interesting to discuss, but most likely would have been locked for their content if in the respective forum. There is a place between the main forums' standard of posting and spamming. Testing filled that gap, allowing people to post humorous or slightly less serious threads that still led to debate and discussion. I'd bring up some examples, but seeing as how they are all deleted now, kind of hard to. Because the staff took this action without any warning, there was no possibility of those in support of Testing arguing it's worth, and now that all the threads that were created before this auto-delete was implemented are gone, there is no supportable way to do so now.

See, I have a problem with this attitude. If you have a topic to discuss, your saying there isn't a place for it here. Why? The whole, Testing isn't spam, but we can't post it any where but Testing just rings hollow.

Vast amounts of Testing content grew from the fact that a stupid thread was posted, a tangent was created, someone elaborated on that tangent or asked a question about it, and then a real discussion was born. This is possible because you don't have to stay on topic or have strict moderator supervision requiring ANSWER POINTS NOW OR BANHAMMER ect. Just fucking around and indulging curiosity or desire to elaborate on something without writing out a master's thesis is what created those particular snippets.

[rhoenix]

See, I have a problem with this attitude. If you have a topic to discuss, your saying there isn't a place for it here. Why? The whole, Testing isn't spam, but we can't post it any where but Testing just rings hollow.

...No, that's an oversimplification. Your interpretation of the argument implies that no matter what anyone says, everything posted in Testing is spam, and everyone who posts there does so specifically to make spam posts. The debate has been framed with that unspoken assumption.

The very fact that threads are uplifted out of Testing and placed elsewhere shoots a hole in that assumption.
The very fact that there's a "Spamworld" event shoots another hole in that assumption.

I request proof of the blanket claim that all posts in Testing are spam, and therefore useless.

[Havok]

Knife, as well as many others are being obtuse on purpose, or talking about something they know nothing about (i.e. I never go into testing), which last time I checked, was not acceptable behavior on this board.

There is clearly a place for Testing and what it has come to represent on the board, if there wasn't, Mike himself would have shut it down years ago, as he actually does go in there and posts now and then. So do many of the mods and Senators.

I can't imagine that people can't comprehend that a discussion may be wanted that isn't 100% serious requiring citation and references, but yet is capable of sustaining itself but NOT be suitable to a forum on the rest of the board.

[Knife]

...No, that's an oversimplification. Your interpretation of the argument implies that no matter what anyone says, everything posted in Testing is spam, and everyone who posts there does so specifically to make spam posts. The debate has been framed with that unspoken assumption.

Not really, not when the post above this says;

Vast amounts of Testing content grew from the fact that a stupid thread was posted, a tangent was created, someone elaborated on that tangent or asked a question about it, and then a real discussion was born.

With all the people trying to defend the 'purpose' of Testing, it's coming off contradicting. You can't have it both ways, if it is a place where you were supposed to be silly and semi spammy, accept that and accept that the staff doesn't like that. If it was a place to have conversations, then put them in OT and don't expect the spam along with it.

The very fact that threads are uplifted out of Testing and placed elsewhere shoots a hole in that assumption.

No, that makes the assumption that they shouldn't have been there at all and in another forum. You are apparently operating under a misconception that Testing was a free zone, it's very purpose has been a hit and miss topic for a long time, and recently there's been some warning that a crack down was coming. But sure, if you want to open up a 'What is the purpose of Testing' to go right next to the 'What is the purpose of the Senate' thread, go for it.

I request proof of the blanket claim that all posts in Testing are spam, and therefore useless.

lol, I request proof that Testing was/is what you thought Testing was/is?

[Duckie]

For people who do not often post in Testing and thus cannot reasonably be expected to know the exact criteria for what sort of thread belongs in Testing, I'll outline my personal criteria for posting in testing:

---

- Is a thread ultimately short-lived with little possibility for response, but still worthwhile to post? See: "Guys let me tell you something about my day" (eg, "I made a 15 year old poop hismelf today"), "Open invitation to play Gears of War/Borderlands/Two Worlds/Pokemon Snap in 4 hours", "Guys Ubykh is one crazy language let me tell you about it".

- Is a thread ultimately not seriously debate provoking? If there is an actual debate to be had, it belongs in (SLAM/OT/N&P). For example, "Reagan was a Terrible President" was a testing thread. "Who is the worst president?" belongs in N&P. "Should Bush be prosecuted for War Crimes?" is N&P. I cannot think of any serious debates that have happened from a testing thread, mostly because people know where to post those in advance.

- Would the board be negatively impacted by this thread being deleted within a few days? If so, for instance, a FAQ thread or a large and important art project, it should go somewhere permanent. An example of something crossing this threshhold and being moved is Pick's Comic about the Skoll, and Republicans.txt (turned into "Scary Right Wing Quotes"), both of which are sensible movements to keep something alive from testing which should be preserved for more than a day or two, while most other things on testing, while interesting for a day or two, are not necessarily worthy of such uplifting.

- The converse: If you posted this thread in another forum, would it ultimately clutter it up with wasted space after a few replies, such as a minor RAR? If so, it probably should be deleted after a couple days, and you should post it in Testing. For example, the parodies of the SDN in X threads.

- Very Minor Criterium: Does the post fit with testing culture and intended audience moreso than any other board? For instance, is it about things like Kamen Rider, the Chinese Language, Phasers with Trigger Guards, Youtube Videos, or other things? In actuality, usually this criterium is reversed: when posting x in testing, give it a testing feel. When posting x outside of testing, give it a serious feel. However, the audience is definitely a factor- for instance, Stark's Gears posts are in testing because he is generally addressing them to people regularly in testing such as Havok. Similarly, I once posted an open letter to Lusankya in testing, because it had a testing feel to it, was about Chinese, Lusankya is often in Testing, and I felt it an interesting enough topic that would justify a few responses to post it for open consumption while still satisfied that it would be deleted within a day and thus not be wasting space with an ultimately superfluous topic of "attn lusankya and other people look at this ugly chinese romanisation"

- Is a key part of the thread an image and it doesn't belong in AM&P due to not being made by you? If so, reconsider posting it because it's probably a lame image macro, but if it's relevant and a worthwhile post it is probably testing.

- Is the key part of the thread a joke or other comedy? If so, it belongs in testing unless it is not testing material as defined above.

- Is a thread serious? If not, it belongs in Testing, unless it meets a "don't post this in testing" criterium such as being debate-provoking. Serious is defined as pretty much the opposite of testing: provoking major debates, being controversial, causing arguments and flames, being made of hard science or other definite other-forummaterial, or otherwise disturbing harmonious board zen. For instance, a justified move out of testing due to Seriousness was the split of the Armageddon Literary Criticism thread, as it went over the threshhold of controversy.

Additional types: Things split from History because they incurred the ire of Thanas, avatar testing, sig testing, and other non-discussion posts.

---

That's about it, although it's not an exact replica of my brain's decision flowchart, it's a pretty good imitation of exactly where I divide between Testing and Not Testing. Generally, the 'Is this worth preserving for more than a few days' is most important, and I err on the side of posting an interesting thread in testing than posting a terrible thread in a non-testing forum.

Is this the original purpose of testing? Probably not, although it's always been something like this and I think people are remembering 'good old days' that never existed. For one, testing is (was?) a lot less spammy and a lot more thoughtful than it used to be, to the point wherein there was wide agreement that letting testing threads go on for longer than 3 pages would foster interesting discussion.

However, I don't think that just because testing is no longer operating under strict 'test things here' that this proves it is a terrible board.

For one, Stardestroyer.net itself is no longer operating with Star Wars vs Star Trek as its primary topic, as people have suddenly noticed recently with the discussions over what to do about SWvST, PSW, and PST boards. This is in spite of that being what the entire board was founded around. Clearly, just because Testing is not doing what it says on the tin is not a reason to immediately discount its potential as a useful forum of discussion within the spectrum of all topics possible to speak about.

[Havok]

Hey! I just said that!

[ThomasP]

However, I don't think that just because testing is no longer operating under strict 'test things here' that this proves it is a terrible board.

For one, Stardestroyer.net itself is no longer operating with Star Wars vs Star Trek as its primary topic, as people have suddenly noticed recently with the discussions over what to do about SWvST, PSW, and PST boards. This is in spite of that being what the entire board was founded around. Clearly, just because Testing is not doing what it says on the tin is not a reason to immediately discount its potential as a useful forum of discussion within the spectrum of all topics possible to speak about.

This ties into some comments I made in the other thread; specifically, the board ultimately has to decide what it wants to be.

If things are going to remain Serious Business, then uber-silly aspects of testing may not be compatible with that.

However by all appearances, a good chunk of the board culture likes the testing concept, and it does seem to help by provide a "silliness outlet". For good or bad, that does keep the "crap" off the other forums (for those that see it that way) and it does help with the social aspects; it's nice to have a spot where everything isn't Serious Business.

It seems there's a conflict between what the ownership/staff wants, and what the overall board culture is becoming, though. I've seen mention in other threads about transitioning towards a less-harsh "discussion" board, vs. being a debate board, and that does seem where things are heading.

Ultimately the staff is going to have the final say, but realistically (meaning, if the board is to continue existing as an entity), some common ground is going to have to be reached.

I do have to say that the recent lack of transparency almost certainly isn't helping that along, though.

[Alyeska]

For people who do not often post in Testing and thus cannot reasonably be expected to know the exact criteria for what sort of thread belongs in Testing, I'll outline my personal criteria for posting in testing:

---

You know what Duckie, I don't give a shit what you say the criteria is. You don't make the rules. You are now playing the "Us vs Them" strategy by claiming that outsiders don't know how you conduct yourselves. It seems a great many people in testing thought they created their own nice little culture and they deserve a place on SD.net. I hate to break it to you, but not everyone agrees.

[rhoenix]

With all the people trying to defend the 'purpose' of Testing, it's coming off contradicting. You can't have it both ways, if it is a place where you were supposed to be silly and semi spammy, accept that and accept that the staff doesn't like that. If it was a place to have conversations, then put them in OT and don't expect the spam along with it.

So the entire modstaff and the entire Senate doesn't like Testing, without exception?

If its just Mike saying "ok, I'm pulling rank because I don't like Testing," then I'll grumble, but accept it - it is, after all, his forum and his domain.

However, if you're attempting to imply that nobody in the mod-staff or senate likes Testing and that is why Testing got clearcut, I'm going to demand evidence of this consensus, especially in light of the fact that a number of mods post there.

No, that makes the assumption that they shouldn't have been there at all and in another forum. You are apparently operating under a misconception that Testing was a free zone, it's very purpose has been a hit and miss topic for a long time, and recently there's been some warning that a crack down was coming. But sure, if you want to open up a 'What is the purpose of Testing' to go right next to the 'What is the purpose of the Senate' thread, go for it.

Pardon me for saying so, but this implies that the signal-to-noise ratio for the Senate is actually worse than that of Testing, if there's been unquantified rumbling about it for a very long time, and then a massive purge occurs in the midst of some serious discussion about forum policy when it comes to debate and discussion on the forums here at large.

lol, I request proof that Testing was/is what you thought Testing was/is?

That's actually my point - Testing was purged, so there's no evidence to support your claim.

(EDIT: Clarified open paragraph)

[Duckie]

Are you kidding? I'm playing Us vs Them because I'm saying that people who don't post in testing often probably don't understand what testing is used for because it's not immediately obvious? I should think that should be apparant to anyone and not be a controversial statement. Some things are not immediately obvious about boards and what to post there- for instance, would a thread about SDN in Star Wars (RAR) go in Off Topic as it is a RAR or PSW as it is about the Star Wars Galaxy? Does a thread about news of some religious parent doing something stupid to their kids go into N&P for its news content or SLAM for its religious content?

These are things you must gauge via knowledge of how topics on Stardestroyer.net work, and I have no idea personally where either would go due to lack of experience with SLAM and PSW compared to N&P. The latter has historically caused actual confusion and double-posting and mergers. Why should testing be any less opaque about exactly what goes in it, especially since it's far more eclectic than the other boards, or the outlining of one's opinion and reasoning behind on what exactly one posts where there be offensive just by its very existence?

It seems a great many people in testing thought they created their own nice little culture and they deserve a place on SD.net. I hate to break it to you, but not everyone agrees.

I have no opinion on the prior quote, as my post was not about "testing culture" (a strange word which I think has very little utility in these discussions) but about what posts of mine I believe to belong in testing according to my own mental rubric (which has failed surprisingly little, given I have never had a post sent to testing or removed from testing before its destruction, telling me I am within pretty good margins on knowing what goes in there and what doesn't if posts in the wrong forum are usually moved.), since people have expressed an opinion that testing is 'meant' to be used for certain things but not others, I thought I would share my opinion on what it appears to be in actuality in my experience to be used for.

[Stark]

You know what Duckie, I don't give a shit what you say the criteria is. You don't make the rules. You are now playing the "Us vs Them" strategy by claiming that outsiders don't know how you conduct yourselves. It seems a great many people in testing thought they created their own nice little culture and they deserve a place on SD.net. I hate to break it to you, but not everyone agrees.

In previous discussions (now irrelevant), some stated the attitude that testing is spam/100%/pretty much all spam and then admitted they didn't know what was in testing.

Frankly, if the rules were clear on these issues there would be no problem, and no discussion. It's not 'making rules' to expect people to make statements supportede by evidence, nor is it 'making rules' to delete everything and say 'ha ha'. I'm certainly content to make the 'useful testing' threads in OT and see what happens.

[fgalkin]

I don't have a lot of time online, but its been several hours and I think an explanation is in order.

So, folks, here's what happened.

There's been some discussion in the mod forum recently as to the future of Testing. The thing that brought in on was, that, whereas beforehand whatever stuff was contained to Testing, now it is spilling out to the rest of the board, like so and so and adversely affecting the quality of the discussion elsewhere. Testing's existence was detrimental to the board as a whole. Zod's post in G&C was the last straw, at which point, a one hour auto-delete was proposed.

In case you are wondering, this comes from the top, and yes, this is, as I understand it, an attack on the "testing culture" as a whole. Sorry, folks.

I suppose you're correct in that it's nothing more than a jab at the members therein than a reasonable proposal. I'll likely just amuse myself by posting "Vive le Québec Testing!" in testing whenever they whine about their distinct society.

I would prefer to point out that the word "distinct" is not synonymous with "worthwhile"

At which point, Mike made the following post.

Shit. When we talked about the 1-hour prune, we simply assumed that it was allowed in the board software. As it turns out, the board software counts pruning time in days, using an integer variable. In other words, we can't auto-prune every hour. 1 day is the lowest possible time.

I'm now thinking we should just declare that whenever one of us gets the urge, we should just manually purge the Testing forum. Just be careful; if you do things like that too often, you'll probably get careless sooner or later and do it to the wrong forum by mistake.

Some of the mods, myself included, immediately began enforcing the rule. And yes, we did not make an announcement right away, because we wanted to gloat a bit at your reaction, and the threads have provided some of the best entertainment in months.

I left, and came back to the board only to discover that, to my surprise there was still no explanation hours later about the change, but a lot of discussion as to the tone of the announcement. So, consider this a stopgap measure until we write up a proper rule.

In any case, we have temporarily stopped enforcing the rule in Testing, and preserved all the threads in it as evidence for Mike's review when he returns to the board. If he gives the final go ahead, so shall it be, if not, I'll apologize for acting hastily.

That's all I got to say folks. See you all tomorrow.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stark]

This is why I like you Fgalkin; you're a cunt, but an honest one.

Anyway, which post in GnC was it? I was curious if something like that, given Mike's recent attention and statements led to him being fed up.

It's pretty funny (and not in the ha ha way) that rules were changed and decisions made and nobody was told because it turned the mods on.

[J]

It's pretty funny (and not in the ha ha way) that rules were changed and decisions made and nobody was told because it turned the mods on.

Well, what can I say, SD.net now has a fully functional Banana Republic government.

[fgalkin]

This is why I like you Fgalkin; you're a cunt, but an honest one.

Anyway, which post in GnC was it? I was curious if something like that, given Mike's recent attention and statements led to him being fed up.

It's pretty funny (and not in the ha ha way) that rules were changed and decisions made and nobody was told because it turned the mods on.

I linked to it in the post. And Strak, your posts made my day. Thanks for the entertainment, mate, you made a boring day at work a hoot

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Duckie]

Well, it's disappointing to say the least. If some people who have posted in testing making spammy posts essentially damns the entire concept of testing by association, then I guess that's it for testing. Even if I think it'd be more logical to punish people harshly whenever they make stupid posts rather than destroy the thing called "testing culture" to attempt to increase non-stupid post quantity, one can't really argue with the decisions of the ownership.

[Stark]

I linked to it in the post. And Strak, your posts made my day. Thanks for the entertainment, mate, you made a boring day at work a hoot

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You see this is the difference between POSITIVE attention and NEGATIVE attention.

[Mr Bean]

Anyway, which post in GnC was it? I was curious if something like that, given Mike's recent attention and statements led to him being fed up.

It's pretty funny (and not in the ha ha way) that rules were changed and decisions made and nobody was told because it turned the mods on.

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2&t=137799

Zod post from the Half-Life thread

Why is the half life series as well known as it is?

Marketing. Fat nerds are one of its best forms of marketing.

[Stark]

Yeah, sorry Bean, I didn't check Fgalkin's links first.

[rhoenix]

Well, thank you at least for giving the full explanation, fgalkin.

I guess all I can say is I hope this brings about the end result the mod staff was hoping for.

[aerius]

ISo, folks, here's what happened.

There's been some discussion in the mod forum recently as to the future of Testing. The thing that brought in on was, that, whereas beforehand whatever stuff was contained to Testing, now it is spilling out to the rest of the board, like so and so and adversely affecting the quality of the discussion elsewhere. Testing's existence was detrimental to the board as a whole. Zod's post in G&C was the last straw, at which point, a one hour auto-delete was proposed.

Got a question for you. Were any of those offenders warned to cut that shit out?

[The Spartan]

Isn't HOSing the same thing?

[fgalkin]

The offending posts were HoSed. Nor was it a first offence. I think that counts as a "yes"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[chitoryu12]

If anything, Testing will be much spammier than usual now. I wouldn't be surprised if threads that would ordinarily have been placed in Testing for the various reasons Duckie stated are now going to pop up in other threads. What exactly happens to them, I can't say. They could end up being locked, moved, deleted, merged, split, whatever, but I can't predict anything.

I just find it quite ridiculous that the fact that several Testing regulars making some spam posts, among a much larger amount of contributions, somehow justifies enacting such a policy. Simply punishing the people who MAKE stupid posts rather than making an entire forum much stupider would have been more in line with the standards of the board: acting intelligently and making policies intelligently.