[Discussion] Testing page 3 lock

[Thanas]

As per the corresponding HoC thread, the issue is whether the page-3 lock policy on testing threads should be lifted or not.


***********
My personal opinion: I think the page 3 lock is a standard in testing that has become a staple of testingstan culture. To me, having testing without it would not be the same - it would simply be spamworld. I like a great deal about the culture of testingstan and this is it. Heck, one of the funniest threads in Testing was when a thread got to page eight without being locked. To me, having shortlived threads in Testing is part of the charm of testing.

EDIT: If you are wondering why I did not start a vote thread, it is because the rules prohibit me from doing so.

[Alyeska]

I am not a fan of spamming, even in a forum that allows it. Anything to keep spamming down, such as automatic lock of threads to ensure deletion is welcome in my book.

[Bounty]

The spam argument is nonsense; Testing's guidelines specifically forbid pure spamming and give the mods blanket approval to lock spam threads. Removing the page 3 lock would give more powers to the mods, as they'd have the choice between letting a productive thread continue or killing off a spam thread before it balloons out of control.

The page 3 lock is a relic that serves no purpose. The only arguments in favour of it are inertia, moderators' glee at displaying imaginary power, a general dislike of Testing - which, I need not remind anybody, consists in large part of posters in good standing who contribute elsewhere - and various convoluted fig-leaf justifications. Unless anyone in favour of the current policy can bring up an actual valid argument, I see no reason to vote against removing the lock.

[Connor MacLeod]

People basically spam the forum all the time, though to varying degrees. We get alot of pointless one liners are spam (someone even mentioned one liners IIRC early on) and that includes "I agree". and its quite frequent for unrelated threads to go off on a tangent. And its not specific to any one group (testing, etc) and I even admit to doing it myself from time to time. So i don't think you can assume that a place like testing would remain spam free simply because of a rule - if rules actually matter in testing that is.

Anyhow, I still want to know why we wouldnt lift the rule on a probationary basis. If nothing else I'd imagine the people who want the rule to stay in place might it because it would justify their assertions in the end, and if nothing happens, well and good.

[LadyTevar]

I believe this is something for the Admin to decide, not the Senate.

[CmdrWilkens]

I believe this is something for the Admin to decide, not the Senate.

It would be for the Admins to implement however the Senate is charged with discussing board policy and this certainly qualifies as board policy. As with all other things this is the Senate during the time of the Roman Empire: important for its discussions but powerless to implement any decrees short of imperial will. The Admins will or won't adopt any changes we propose but we do have the duty to discuss proposed changes.

That being said I honestly see no worthwhile purpose served by ending the auto-lock but that is just me.

[Kuja]

That being said I honestly see no worthwhile purpose served by ending the auto-lock but that is just me.

Well, let's take that statement and apply the reverse to it-



No worthwile purpose is served by ending the auto-lock.

No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.


Now, from the discussion both here and in the House of Commons, it strikes me that the second statement is perfectly valid. So really, let's consider - if both of these courses of action are equally useless, it seems to me that the second is simply the better of the two choices since the first requires to mods to actually put in effort keeping track of the length of testing threads and then dutifully closing them, when they really shouldn't have to bother - and ultimately, there is no concrete reason for them to do so.

It's my opinion that ending the auto-lock is simply the more sensible option.

[Alyeska]

No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

[Kuja]

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

Bullshit. Pure spam can still be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and indeed the page 3 lock rule hasn't prevented that in Testing. Testing threads have been locked on page 1 before for being pure +1 spam, and they still can be. And remember, the auto-prune subtracts the deleted posts from the post count of the person in question, so if it becomes clear that a thread in Testing is being sustained purely for the purpose of keeping post count up, it can be locked and dumped, no muss, no fuss.

[RedImperator]

No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

Right, because if we end the page 3 autolock, that means that the "spammers" (hint: almost entirely members in good standing who make substantive contributions in other forums) will have free reign to make 100 page +1 threads. Because all the mods will suffer crippling arthritis in their locking fingers or something.

Your argument is nonsense (and Bounty pointed it out once already; you apparently totally ignored him). Nobody's talking about taking away the mods' discretion, or leaving Testing totally unmodded. If a thread turns into nothing but +1, any mod can lock it, and 24 hours later, it's gone forever. What other "reward" is there? Even if anybody gave a shit about post counts anymore, Testing posts aren't included in them.

And yeah, anybody who says Testing is nothing but spam either never goes there or is just nursing a grudge. Testing has become SDN's court jester, social forum, and repository of goofiness that just doesn't fit anywhere else. It also has enough good people hanging around there that threads often accidentally wander on topic. Frankly, it's the only place on the board anymore you can discuss certain topics without the usual banshees descending from the rafters or the usual tryhards slithering out from under their rocks. The page 3 lock has been obsolete for years, and other than Thanas, nobody's made an argument for keeping it that doesn't boil down to "it's tradition" or "fuck you".

My personal opinion: I think the page 3 lock is a standard in testing that has become a staple of testingstan culture. To me, having testing without it would not be the same - it would simply be spamworld. I like a great deal about the culture of testingstan and this is it. Heck, one of the funniest threads in Testing was when a thread got to page eight without being locked. To me, having shortlived threads in Testing is part of the charm of testing.

I actually kinda see where you're coming from here, but I think the auto-prune is much more important to the charm of the place. I think the fact that you know your post is going to disappear loosens inhibitions. The page 3 lock just accelerates that. I don't think Testing is going to turn all srs bizniz or lose its goofiness or stop mocking the rest of the board without the lock.

[Steve]

Considering the arguments I concur with Red, Bounty, and Kuja. The page 3 lock is generally unnecessary at this time. The potential damage of undoing it is minor and if needed it could be reinstated easily.

There's really no compelling reason to keep it from what I've seen, so why not err on the side of letting posters have some more freedom?

[Connor MacLeod]

I still want to know why this issue is being treated as an "either/or" option. Its not exactly as if anyone is going to "force" things to stay changed if removal of the rule does in fact prove to be a bad idea.

[Bounty]

Minor point: these are the current active Testing threads, automatically designated "spam" by some:

- A discussion of the merits of The Sopranos vs The Wire
- A discussion of the show The Big Bang Theory
- A thread with anecdotes about meeting celebrities
- A thread where participants Photoshop an image according to a theme
- A sig test
- A question about an MMO
- A thread that started with a serious question about a 19th century cartoon which then strayed into Latin, beards, and drinking games

Oh the horror. People are using a forum to have an entertaining discussion about Roman emperors. How shall we stop this menace?

[Stark]

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

What reward? Posts don't count, and nobody even CARES about postcount.

[Lagmonster]

Bullshit. Pure spam can still be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and indeed the page 3 lock rule hasn't prevented that in Testing. Testing threads have been locked on page 1 before for being pure +1 spam, and they still can be.

Let's be honest; we can lock a thread based on length without ever having to even open it; a far less time-consuming job than moderating it as we do other forums, namely reading each post for content. Which mod would you propose review testing? Bear in mind the fact that this mod would retain his ability to lock content he doesn't think is worthwhile.

[Lagmonster]

Incorrect. It serves the purpose of ensuring that a thread never survives and grows to a monster size. Spammers should not be rewarding for being able to spam a thread.

What reward? Posts don't count, and nobody even CARES about postcount.

He's likely hinting towards something nobody has really addressed yet: The possibility, however unlikely, that someone might not want content on the board unless it's intelligent or relevant to a particular subject. Granted, the possibility that Mike would just as soon flamethrower every person who posts chatroom threads is close to zero, but certainly it's possible that some of the staff feels that way. Dalton's list of testing forum policies pretty clearly exposes such bias.

[Stark]

What does that have to do with 'reward'? How are spammers being 'rewarded' when the policies say spam isn't acceptable in the forum? How would removing the lock 'reward' anyone?

It's hilarious that people are apparently applying standards (like 'intelligent or relevant') that are applied to 'real' forums on a spotty or case-by-case basis. Is this that great nutshell of 'why change anything unless it's a 100% improvement' thinking?

[Lagmonster]

Minor point: these are the current active Testing threads, automatically designated "spam" by some:

- A discussion of the merits of The Sopranos vs The Wire
- A discussion of the show The Big Bang Theory
- A thread with anecdotes about meeting celebrities
- A thread where participants Photoshop an image according to a theme
- A sig test
- A question about an MMO
- A thread that started with a serious question about a 19th century cartoon which then strayed into Latin, beards, and drinking games

Oh the horror. People are using a forum to have an entertaining discussion about Roman emperors. How shall we stop this menace?

I haven't seen these threads, but if the content is relevant, why aren't these people following rule PR8? We already have Off-Topic, History, G&C, and AMP. Is it at all possible that some of these threads aren't there already because in the 'main' forums, people wouldn't be able to toss in one-liners about tits? I actually don't object to bullshit for bullshit's sake as long as the rules allow it, but it'd be nice if people posted whatever interesting discussions they have in the relevant forums so as to save the staff the hassle of splitting/moving them.

[Stark]

Wow, I think Lagmonster is finally getting up to speed with the whole board phenomenon of 'posting in the testing forum'.

Haven't you noticed that threads are relatively frequently uplifted these days, because actual discussion (on non-news/science topics) can often start there? You admit you don't even look into testing, so what are you basing any of your statements on?

[Stark]

I still want to know why this issue is being treated as an "either/or" option. Its not exactly as if anyone is going to "force" things to stay changed if removal of the rule does in fact prove to be a bad idea.

I think the whole discussion is a demonstration of conservatism and inertia on the part of the entire senate. I bet if it was repealed and in xyz months it was up for discussion again (because it wasn't a good idea, had negative results or whatever) it would be just as hard to get a consensus, because change seems to be automatically resisted around here.

[Bounty]

Is it at all possible that some of these threads aren't there already because in the 'main' forums, people wouldn't be able to toss in one-liners about tits?

Is it possible people know these threads will get punted back to Testing anyway or would get swamped by the mouth-breathers in the main forums?

[Lagmonster]

Is it at all possible that some of these threads aren't there already because in the 'main' forums, people wouldn't be able to toss in one-liners about tits?

Is it possible people know these threads will get punted back to Testing anyway or would get swamped by the mouth-breathers in the main forums?

You need to be more clear; Are you arguing in favour of letting people post whatever content they want without any restrictions on one-liners and spam, or are you arguing that testing's content, whatever it is, isn't covered by the other forums?

And what's wrong with the people in the main forums that they would spoil a testing thread if it was presented to them?

And Stark is absolutely right; I made the mistake of assuming that testing didn't require me to review the threads because testing was only a temp forum to be used as a technical aid and spam pit, and that nobody would bother to post any topic-relevant discussion anywhere where it would simply be locked and deleted.

[RedImperator]

Keep in mind, a lot of Testing threads wander on-topic by accident. I might start a thread titled "ATTN HAV: I FUCKED YOUR MOM", and by page 2 Duckie and Lusankya are explaining the difference between tonal languages and non-tonal languages. It belies the whole idea that everyone in Testing is some kind of /b moron on a sugar buzz; the Testing regulars are, by and large, active contributing posters in the other forums, and it shows when a discussion wanders onto a main topic.

[Alyeska]

Minor point: these are the current active Testing threads, automatically designated "spam" by some:

- A discussion of the merits of The Sopranos vs The Wire
- A discussion of the show The Big Bang Theory
- A thread with anecdotes about meeting celebrities
- A thread where participants Photoshop an image according to a theme
- A sig test
- A question about an MMO
- A thread that started with a serious question about a 19th century cartoon which then strayed into Latin, beards, and drinking games

Oh the horror. People are using a forum to have an entertaining discussion about Roman emperors. How shall we stop this menace?

If that is the case, the majority of the threads should never be down there in the first place.

[CmdrWilkens]

That being said I honestly see no worthwhile purpose served by ending the auto-lock but that is just me.

Well, let's take that statement and apply the reverse to it-



No worthwile purpose is served by ending the auto-lock.

No worthwile purpose is served by maintaining the auto-lock.


Now, from the discussion both here and in the House of Commons, it strikes me that the second statement is perfectly valid. So really, let's consider - if both of these courses of action are equally useless, it seems to me that the second is simply the better of the two choices since the first requires to mods to actually put in effort keeping track of the length of testing threads and then dutifully closing them, when they really shouldn't have to bother - and ultimately, there is no concrete reason for them to do so.

It's my opinion that ending the auto-lock is simply the more sensible option.

I wanted to mostly counter on the point in terms of mod work load. Right now, and I think its relatively clear, auto-locking based on length is MUCH easier than content-sorting through the threads. Many examples have been raised of testing content which probably could be promoted to OT, AMP, G&C or some other general forum but there isn't the follow on thought of why that isn't happening. Mod resources, particularly time since it is volunteered, are limited and we are in the balance point of which is a better use of that resource. We can have mods auto-lock which requires much less time or we can have then content search which is much more time intensive, ending the auto-lock policy would require significant additional time invested in tracking the content of testing threads and either promoting, locking, or ignoring as thread content dictates. Personally I think we'd be far better off keeping the auto-lock and leaving it up to posters in a thread which wanders on-topic to request the thread be split up to the general forum so it can stay alive.

Anyway tracking threads for content is much more time consuming than tracking threads for length and I don't think there is a valid purpose served by the additional call on volunteer resources.