When u bump a thread in CC...

[top]

Prepare for it to get locked even if it has the potential for discussion.

No but srsly whoevers modding this shit needs a harsh introduction

[top]

Inb4 lock

[Gradiant]

Your threads don't have potential for discussion though...

[top]

Im not talking bout my threads. Have i bumped anything recently? Jesus fuckin Christ youre not stupid man cmon

[top]

And this thread does have room for discussion AND debate,. If u cant see that then.... Oh god

[Deadlyx39]

Double post B&

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

Your threads don't have potential for discussion though...

this is said a lot but no one ever qualifies it

here, let me do it:

any thread with a declarative sentence in the body text has potential for discussion because this is asserting something that can be evaluated as true/false

thread with potential for discussion: "_________ [is/are] _______."

or anything along these lines, including implied "is" statements like "I feel that...", and "is" statements implied by questions

no potential for discussion:

"ouch!"
"zounds!"
"peter piper picked a pack of pickled peppers"
"aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu"
"john madden john madden john madden john madden"
"drop it drop it low girl drop it drop it low girl"
"ayyyyyyyyy macarena"

etc

this thread by top clearly does

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by Deadlyx39

Double post B&

I never did get the reason why that was a rule....well aside from a few users who use to post one sentence at a time for 18 posts.

Which hasn't happen since I was in college. A decade ago.

[Arch0wl]

so many of the rules are relics from back when the average age was 15 and we had no idea what we were doing

I proposed to be an admin for a day just to rewrite the rules

but noooooooooooooo

I might see staff forum

dis vato gonna snoop on you putas and snipe your chisme, gettin super hot succcc of dikkk jaja

no fam, pls

I don't care

you may forget about Dre

you just have rules that were written with the balance and scale of Monopoly, yes as in the board game

shit's broken dog

park place? what the fuck?

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

no potential for discussion:

"ouch!"
"zounds!"
"peter piper picked a pack of pickled peppers"
"aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu"
"john madden john madden john madden john madden"
"drop it drop it low girl drop it drop it low girl"
"ayyyyyyyyy macarena"

Huh

Originally Posted by top

Inb4 lock

Originally Posted by top

Inb4 lock

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

I might see staff forum

dis vato gonna snoop on you putas and snipe your chisme, gettin super hot succcc of dikkk jaja

no fam, pls

I don't care

you may forget about Dre

you just have rules that were written with the balance and scale of Monopoly, yes as in the board game

shit's broken dog

park place? what the fuck?

Just trying to figure out what huge discussions are coming out of this rather than 'inb4 lock' and 'mods suk, they gotta be straightened out' posts

[Hakulyte]

You don't need to be an admin to rewrite rules.

If you have ideas, you can write them and express them here.

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

"aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu aeoiu"

I'm not going to lie if that thread was posted in 2008 there would already be 25 pages and about 2 "technically it's..." from either eSqueek or Guido.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

Just trying to figure out what huge discussions are coming out of this

well, first, they aren't "huge". you said "discussions." if the requirement is huge discussions then very few topics, if any, on any forum fit.

but anyway, forums are an open discussion environment

so are parties; you can walk up to groups and be like "bblaaaahakhklggg" and power through their immediate disdain until you're funny enough to redeem yourself (and by "you can" I mean I do this kind of shit)

like parties, there are multiple conversations going on at any given time

this isn't a bad thing. it may be a bit disorganized but it works and people can follow at their leisure.

this thread is clearly a critique of modding rules and maybe practices. that much is obvious, and that's a legit thing to discuss. other than that, I don't know, but you seem to be expecting a lot. "discussion" is a low bar for entry, man.

[Hakulyte]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

this thread is clearly a critique of modding rules and maybe practices. that much is obvious, and that's a legit thing to discuss. other than that, I don't know, but you seem to be expecting a lot. "discussion" is a low bar for entry, man.

Do you mind explaining how it could be better?

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

You don't need to be an admin to rewrite rules.

If you have ideas, you can write them and express them here.

you don't need a master's in mathematics or philosophy to write professional papers in mathematics or philosophy

nonetheless, good luck otherwise.

if I suggest rules, here is what will happen:

1. admins look at list
2. admins discuss list
3. admins adopt like 5-10% of things
4. admins go back to business as usual

being an admin for a day makes the whole package need to be accepted at once

while they could certainly reverse the rule changes I made as admin too, this:

1. makes them change something actively instead of rejecting something passively
2. behavioral econ / social psych shows they are less likely to do this unless the rule is just obviously bad, so the only changes they do make will be the substantial ones

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

Do you mind explaining how it could be better?

yes. I will give one example because I could write about 2000 words on what needs to be changed with FFR rules so to avoid overspending time I will just go with a sample

FFR rules do not distinguish by intent. at all. they are intent-blind. all sustainable/sensible legal systems factor intent into decisions.

note here I said "FFR rules", not "FFR mods". the rules should be written so that mods do not have to make this interpretative call. they should be unambiguous.

[Untimely Friction]

problem here is post quality is ust really poor, what did you want to discuss exactly? This is literally ust a salty callout for not getting your way on not your website, kinda nonsense lol.

Edit: @ Arch you're writing 4000 words (Across a lot of bad threads) to ustify why you wont write 2000 words worth of suggestions, when if you stopped ustifying and ust did the thing STUFF MIGHT GET DONE WOAHHHHH, it's like you're wasting a massive ammount of time pointing out that you dont like things instead of suggesting the fixes, 10/10

[Arch0wl]

* this has nothing to do with my website, I have no idea where you got that from

* I'm responding to two threads with similar but different content, not "a lot"

* suggestion of fixes has problem I just mentioned. I don't want to rewrite rules if they're open to like, one thing. that's 5 hours I could have spent doing something.

[MixMasterLar]

So wait, I think you're talking about alot more rule changes then you did in previously attempts to do so.

Posting rules really do not need to be updated, as they can easily be ignored until the circumstance that the rule smooths out actually occurs (Examples: bumping old threads when traffic is high; double posting when so many people are trying to respond; off topic post in a otherwise very serious thread; quoting giant walls of text just to write "QFT" under it, etc). It'll be nice to do for professionalism's sake, but not really needed.

Now the issue of mods taking rules more serious then they probably deserve with our all time low low traffic? I'm down to having that conversation although I kind of feel like nothing too sinister really happens around here.

[Hakulyte]

Originally Posted by top

Prepare for it to get locked even if it has the potential for discussion.

No but srsly whoevers modding this shit needs a harsh introduction

Your thread is pointless if you don't provide more in-depth explanation about what you mean.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

you don't need a master's in mathematics or philosophy to write professional papers in mathematics or philosophy

nonetheless, good luck otherwise.

if I suggest rules, here is what will happen:

1. admins look at list
2. admins discuss list
3. admins adopt like 5-10% of things
4. admins go back to business as usual

being an admin for a day makes the whole package need to be accepted at once

while they could certainly reverse the rule changes I made as admin too, this:

1. makes them change something actively instead of rejecting something passively
2. behavioral econ / social psych shows they are less likely to do this unless the rule is just obviously bad, so the only changes they do make will be the substantial ones

That's kind of how things were back in 2008, staff changed, things evolved, the site is moving in a different direction.

If I was you, I would use this as an opportunity to contribute and see if anything positive can be done about it.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

yes. I will give one example because I could write about 2000 words on what needs to be changed with FFR rules so to avoid overspending time I will just go with a sample

FFR rules do not distinguish by intent. at all. they are intent-blind. all sustainable/sensible legal systems factor intent into decisions.

note here I said "FFR rules", not "FFR mods". the rules should be written so that mods do not have to make this interpretative call. they should be unambiguous.

I agree with you once again, but the way you've been posting lately has been in direct contradiction with what you're currently preaching for in this example. You're unlikely to get admin status if you don't follow your own logic on how things should be.

Are you interested to care enough to provide more information about how you think things should work? I know it sounds silly, but if you're hoping for a change about something, you really have to sit down and write up an essay if you want to get feedback and things implemented. We can't fix problems if we don't know what's wrong in the first place.

I believe it's worth the time if you really care.