[Discussion]N&P Cleanup

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2008-09-20 10:27pm

From the sweet young lass who has a strong opinion on this matter:

From a plebe who wishes to remain anonymous if quoted:

Cleaning up N&P is impossible until and unless the leadership of the forum commits to cleaning it up. I present to you three links to posts containing exactly the sort of bullshit post that people think are stinking up the joint. The first is from an ordinary poster:

Post A

The second from a Governor:

Post B

The third from Mike Wong himself:

Post C

As long as there is no moral standard from on high, it will continue to be a cesspit. If you want it to stop being a cesspit, you have to start at the top.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2008-09-21 11:07am

No moral standard? WTF does that mean?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-09-21 11:32am

Are we speaking about "bullshit posts" or about "bullshit threads and topics"? There'd be generic one-liners sooner or later and clamping down on all of them is impossible (most people try and hold themselves from posting too many one-liners, and if one passes over the limit, mods notice soon). I thought the issue was topics.

And "moral standard"? "Moral"?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-09-21 11:39am

Stas Bush wrote:Are we speaking about "bullshit posts" or about "bullshit threads and topics"? There'd be generic one-liners sooner or later and clamping down on all of them is impossible (most people try and hold themselves from posting too many one-liners, and if one passes over the limit, mods notice soon). I thought the issue was topics.

And "moral standard"? "Moral"?

I'd like to eventually eliminate most vapid one-liners, but the general agreement in this thread was to start small. That said, I think the anonymous plebe has a point: if the mods and Senators are irritated by one-liners, then we should be the first to stop posting them.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2008-09-21 02:08pm

Well she does have kind of a point. Alot of the lesser posters WILL seek to emulate alot of the more veteran people - cults of personality tend to form on the board too along similar lines, so improvement from Senators and Governors kinda does go along with that. Not neccesarily total elimination of it, but a great reduction in it (because lets be blunt, it DOES happen - I can also remember Patrick Degan and I think even Ender doing stuff that we are currently trying to stamp out.)

The only part I can't agree with is where Mike is involved. To be blunt, its Mike's board, and he can act however the fuck he wants. That's been a fundamental rule from the get go. He doesn't HAVE to change his behaviour, nor is there any way we can do so either. Let's face it, he's only as bound by the rules as he himself chooses to be, and if we don't like it, we should just leave. If Mike wants to restrict himself, well and good, but if not...

But on that same token, I realize there are probably alot of people who also seek to emulate Mike's behaviour on topics - Mike probably would be the biggest anyone would emulate, and also (as a result) have the biggest cult of personality on this board (not that I think he or anyone else the subject of such neccesarily encourages or wishes such, mind you.) - but people aren't Mike, and it has to be gotten across that because HE does stuff doesn't mean that everyone else is entitled to as well.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-09-21 03:14pm

There's the thing that whether or not the occasional one-liner is seriously frowned upon or not is often dependent on the general signal to noise ratio of the poster. If some of the heavyweights who generally contribute a lot of substantial posts make a few one-liners here and there, it is generally not seen as that big a deal. If one-liners and spammy shit make up the bulk of a person's posts, that has tended to garner irritated snarls from the moderators far more easily.

Yes, mods and senators should avoid posting one-liners and stick to good substantive posts as much as possible to provide an example, but some judgment obviously needs to be exercised.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-09-21 03:51pm

Comment from a regular poster

Ace Pace wrote:Comment to the senate:

To further on what Edi says, if a mod/senator makes a one liner and it's amusing, it's not a big deal. Said member also contributes real posts. But when the poster is basically piling on in a thread full of one liners, it implictly says "it's okay for you as well to do it."
If you want to crack down on one liners, everyone needs to be included starting from yourself. Members who do not like one liners and spam posts need to make sure they don't do it.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-09-21 06:16pm

Poll's close tomorrow evening so any of the 6 or so remaining votes please make yourself known.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-09-23 02:48pm

Huh. Turns out there was a silent majority after all.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-09-23 11:33pm

RedImperator wrote:Huh. Turns out there was a silent majority after all.

Well there was a significant minority, it does have majority support but since vote #1 (actually 2 and 3 as well) was a board policy vote it needed 60% to pass and it fell just shy. A 2 vote swing would have been sufficient in any combination (2 more abstentions instead of no, 1 abstention and 1 yes, or 2 yes). I think it also does give me a small bit of pride in the voting rules I slammed down everyone's throat. Given the narrow majority had we conducted this simply as a yes/no vote then there likely would have been great displeasure at the vote passing but by setting the bar higher then a victory has a much clearer and wider base of support. That being said this is the first time we have required a supermajority and had the vote carry a majority but not a supermajority.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-09-24 12:09pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Huh. Turns out there was a silent majority after all.
Well there was a significant minority, it does have majority support but since vote #1 (actually 2 and 3 as well) was a board policy vote it needed 60% to pass and it fell just shy. A 2 vote swing would have been sufficient in any combination (2 more abstentions instead of no, 1 abstention and 1 yes, or 2 yes). I think it also does give me a small bit of pride in the voting rules I slammed down everyone's throat. Given the narrow majority had we conducted this simply as a yes/no vote then there likely would have been great displeasure at the vote passing but by setting the bar higher then a victory has a much clearer and wider base of support. That being said this is the first time we have required a supermajority and had the vote carry a majority but not a supermajority.

I think your pride is well-deserved. The supermajority rules are spot on, even if they did cause my favorite pet idea to narrowly lose.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2008-09-24 11:57pm

RedImperator wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Huh. Turns out there was a silent majority after all.
Well there was a significant minority, it does have majority support but since vote #1 (actually 2 and 3 as well) was a board policy vote it needed 60% to pass and it fell just shy. A 2 vote swing would have been sufficient in any combination (2 more abstentions instead of no, 1 abstention and 1 yes, or 2 yes). I think it also does give me a small bit of pride in the voting rules I slammed down everyone's throat. Given the narrow majority had we conducted this simply as a yes/no vote then there likely would have been great displeasure at the vote passing but by setting the bar higher then a victory has a much clearer and wider base of support. That being said this is the first time we have required a supermajority and had the vote carry a majority but not a supermajority.
I think your pride is well-deserved. The supermajority rules are spot on, even if they did cause my favorite pet idea to narrowly lose.

Well, if it's any consolation, you can now ruthlessly oppress threads you dislike. That's gotta count for something, right?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin