Info: PlanetCalypsoForum Rules Discussion

[Serica]

This is why I would hope an additional functionality of personally weighting others' thumbs ups and downs might make results tuned to personal preference, regardless or even especially if there is 'forum pvp' going on.
Maybe a bit much of a difficult 'ask' about how forums could work, but still worth mentioning I think.

While vBulletin 4.x does have an Add-On called "Helpful Answers" (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=233296) which enables 'voting' on individual posts, I don't see any feature that would allow personal weighting of the votes of other members.

From what I can see, it's intended more for Question/Answer type forums, not more general discussion ones like PCF.

 

[Fiona Simmons]

With some breaks im around here for 11 years and somehow i was able to keep the friction between me and any moderator to an minimum. I believe this hold true for the overhelming part of our forum.

The people who have problems with moderators arn't bad persons but they have a problem with authority and not all but the most want to utilize the forum as a lobby to push their agenda on others. I like the freedom of self expression and i like the freedom of free speech but the internet is a place where you stay anonymous and it only need a spark to turn the summ of rational and logic thinking people into a lynch mob filled with hatred based on unverified rumours and half facts wich can do real harm to people.

I do understand why all those rules are here but i also feel empaty towards helena for example and the recent ban left a sour feeling in my throat . But no matter what happen in EU, this forum isn't a pile of logs meant to burn anyone like a medival witch even if in some cases the temptation is overhelming.

Im not sure if it would harm our forum too much to make a time limited TEST where the most debatted rules are softend up for like a month and the mods aswell as the faction that want change can prove who is right and who is wrong. Maybe a less strict moderation would not hurt pcf or maybe this turns into a feast for trolls, we only know if we move forward and try someting new. Its never too late to return to the current state but this debatte wont die out ever as long no side is moving.

 

[Alainax]

If I may add a point to the discussion...

I think this rule is overly harsh.

3.5 - Necroposting
Pointlessly bumping of dormant, inactive threads causes confusion for other members and visitors who may not notice the original thread post date. A thread is considered inactive if there have been no replies in the last four (4) months. Posting in an inactive thread is strongly discouraged, unless there is a very good reason for reactivating the thread. If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum.

4 months isn't very long in the grand scheme of things. Creating a new thread of the same topic every 4 months seems excessive. I know ( thankfully) this rule isn't enforced too regularly, perhaps it may be worth while revising it?

There are many types of threads which often contain a wealth of data and information which has been gathered over time, that would be a shame to lose every 4 months and start a new one, and quite annoying to bump the original mindlessly to stick to the 4 month limit.

 

[jetsina]

3.5 - Necroposting
...
4 months isn't very long in the grand scheme of things. Creating a new thread of the same topic every 4 months seems excessive. I know ( thankfully) this rule isn't enforced too regularly, perhaps it may be worth while revising it?

Yes, I agree. The annoying bit is when I don't notice how old the revived posts are, but often a reminder and revival of a thread topic is quite a good thing in my opinion.
I'd implement automatic colour-coding (or similar) of dates if I were to program a forum platform, to help keep wasted readership time down without wishing to simply close a necroed thread.

 

[e-lite]

If I may add a point to the discussion...

I think this rule is overly harsh.

3.5 - Necroposting
Pointlessly bumping of dormant, inactive threads causes confusion for other members and visitors who may not notice the original thread post date. A thread is considered inactive if there have been no replies in the last four (4) months. Posting in an inactive thread is strongly discouraged, unless there is a very good reason for reactivating the thread. If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum.

4 months isn't very long in the grand scheme of things. Creating a new thread of the same topic every 4 months seems excessive. I know ( thankfully) this rule isn't enforced too regularly, perhaps it may be worth while revising it?

There are many types of threads which often contain a wealth of data and information which has been gathered over time, that would be a shame to lose every 4 months and start a new one, and quite annoying to bump the original mindlessly to stick to the 4 month limit.

It is quite often that we don't enforce this rule if the thread has value.

 

[Mega]

Am I permitted to say:

This thread serves no purpose.

Therefore no point in my posting in it?

 

[Serica]

Am I permitted to say:

This thread serves no purpose.

Therefore no point in my posting in it?

/mod note/
Apparently you still have not yet read the first post of this thread.
I'll post the relevant part here again for you:

The purpose of this thread is to provide a centralized place for members and forum staff to discuss the rationale for and implementation of specific PCF Forum Rules.

The purpose of this thread is NOT for members to criticize individual forum staff members whom they may have an issue with, nor to condemn the overall administration or moderation of PlanetCalypsoForum.

This thread is for mature, constructive and civilized discussion of particular forum rules. Posts containing unnecessary aggression, flaming or other immature content will be deleted without notice.

...

 

[Finnigan]

to mods .. You might as well close this thread as most of it seems to get deleted anyhow...

 

[Alainax]

It is quite often that we don't enforce this rule if the thread has value.

Wouldn't it be worth revising then?

I have found myself dithering over bumping a 6 month old valuable thread or creating a new ( undoubtedly less valuable)one due to the rule. I would presume I am not alone.

 

[Finnigan]

Wouldn't it be worth revising then?

I have found myself dithering over bumping a 6 month old valuable thread or creating a new ( undoubtedly less valuable)one due to the rule. I would presume I am not alone.

good point there

 

[Oleg]

Wouldn't it be worth revising then?

I have found myself dithering over bumping a 6 month old valuable thread or creating a new ( undoubtedly less valuable)one due to the rule. I would presume I am not alone.

I totally agree with Bonnie here. If you're not enforcing the rule as it stands, and don't intend to, then change the rule so that it reflects your practice. The rule implies a blanket ban on posting in old threads, which is clearly not what's intended or how the mods interpret it.

My Mobs in MS Paint thread is a good example. That has been recently active again for the first time in a while. It gets revived occasionally, and whenever it does it's always a positive thing and is fun for people. If you followed the letter of the law, that thread would have been locked ages ago. It wasn't, and shouldn't have been, so the rule is wrong.

Maybe you could just add something that limits the rule to threads that don't add value or content, or are on obsolete topics.

 

[jaydub]

To me...

...the problem with necroposting is not the poster but a moderator's lack of action maybe?...if a thread has not had activity for a significant period of time is it ultimately the posters responsibility to not post on it or the moderator's responsibility to close it...if the moderator has not taken the action to close a thread is it not reasonable for the community to use the thread? These are reasonable questions.

Brick

 

[Serica]

Wouldn't it be worth revising then?

I have found myself dithering over bumping a 6 month old valuable thread or creating a new ( undoubtedly less valuable)one due to the rule. I would presume I am not alone.

If the thread has been posted in more recently than 4months, then by all means, continue with that thread rather than creating a new one.
A new thread on the same topic may in any case be merged with an active thread to avoid splitting the discussion over multiple threads.

Where it's been more than 4months since a thread was last discussed though, it's worth considering whether the topic under discussion is still relevant.

• Are the conditions under which the topic initially arose still the same?
• Has the matter been resolved or significantly changed, perhaps by a VU?
• Are you just posting 'bump' or are you actually making a constructive contribution that's relevant to the topic?
• Are you actually continuing that discussion or branching off from it to a similar/related - but not identical - topic?
• Is it a 'factual' or an 'opinion' thread. For example, adding a post with the location of a new teleport to the List of Teleporters thread would not be 'necroposting' even if the thread had been inactive for a year.
  If you have something to add to an opinion thread though, and judge that your contribution is related, but more up-to-date, it's generally best to start a new thread and link to the old, as many won't read through the whole of the old thread again to remind themselves of the matters previously covered just to get context for your post.
  This is particularly true of long threads.

When we look at a post reported (or that we happen to notice) as breaching rule 3.5, the above points are some of the things we're considering.

Other forums I've seen with similar rules set different periods, that they feel appropriate for their communities.
For example, I note that both Blizzard and PlayStation forums have rules containing a one month necro period.

Given that our community tends to have very long-term players compared to many other games, I think four months is probably a reasonable period of time for most threads to be considered dormant.

 

[Serica]

...the problem with necroposting is not the poster but a moderator's lack of action maybe?...if a thread has not had activity for a significant period of time is it ultimately the posters responsibility to not post on it or the moderator's responsibility to close it...if the moderator has not taken the action to close a thread is it not reasonable for the community to use the thread? These are reasonable questions.

Brick

There is no automated process for closing threads only due to no activity.
Any thread closure requires manual action by a mod.
Please bear in mind that we are not full-time paid employees doing this 8hrs/day, but unpaid volunteers doing this in our 'spare time'.

Also moderators do not arbitrarily close threads.
We generally do so only where:
1. The threadstarter requests it;
2. The topic of the thread is not permitted by the forum rules (eg real world controversial discussion);
3. There is violation of one or more rules, discussion of the thread's topic has ceased, and it is clear that the thread has been significantly disrupted.

 

[jaydub]

you just....

...back to back posted...shouldn't you mod yourself?

Brick

 

[Oleg]

Serica, the problem is that everything you said is reasonable, but none of it is reflected in the wording of the rule.

 

[JohnCapital]

If you're not enforcing the rule as it stands, and don't intend to, then change the rule so that it reflects your practice.

Serica, the problem is that everything you said is reasonable, but none of it is reflected in the wording of the rule.

In fairness, that's not a very good assessment. The ability to write a rule that accurately covers all contingencies is almost impossible and you know it.

• Cases (Such as the occasional "necroposting" Serica and you gave examples of) where employing the rule hurts the community more than simply letting it pass
• Cases where someone is simply trying to use the rule (by appealing to a minor technical issue) as a weapon against their rival.
• Etc. etc.

Law/rule-makers always try to write their rules to cover these, but then there are loop-holes used by bad people.

The truth is that whenever using laws/rules such as those we abide by here on the forum, we must allow the guardians/police/enforcers the chance to use their own opinions on whether enforcing the rule helps the community or not. Such as when a police officer decides to NOT give someone a ticket for technically going 5 mph/kph over the speed limit.

Oleg you were a soc leader. Did you enforce every rule for every situation regardless of the details?

Technically, since I am disagreeing w/ Oleg, someone could try to argue this violates rule 2.3 - Personal Disputes. See?

 

[Serica]

I totally agree with Bonnie here. If you're not enforcing the rule as it stands, and don't intend to, then change the rule so that it reflects your practice. The rule implies a blanket ban on posting in old threads, which is clearly not what's intended or how the mods interpret it.

My Mobs in MS Paint thread is a good example. That has been recently active again for the first time in a while. It gets revived occasionally, and whenever it does it's always a positive thing and is fun for people. If you followed the letter of the law, that thread would have been locked ages ago. It wasn't, and shouldn't have been, so the rule is wrong.

Maybe you could just add something that limits the rule to threads that don't add value or content, or are on obsolete topics.

Perhaps it wasn't clear from e-lite's post, but let me post the rule again here and go through it:

3.5 - Necroposting
Pointlessly bumping of dormant, inactive threads causes confusion for other members and visitors who may not notice the original thread post date. A thread is considered inactive if there have been no replies in the last four (4) months. Posting in an inactive thread is strongly discouraged, unless there is a very good reason for reactivating the thread. If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum.

Note the word 'pointlessly' in the first sentence. What that covers are the 'bump' or emoji-only type necro-posts that add nothing to discussion of the topic. However, members who haven't checked the date on the first post may respond based on no more than the title, and perhaps the last post containing text. I've seen threads over 10yrs old bumped this way, sometimes garnering several additional posts before someone finally checks the thread start date.

Note also that posting in an inactive thread is only "strongly discouraged", not "not permitted", but that you need "a very good reason" for reactivating the thread.

That implies that members should make a 'value judgement' when deciding whether to post in dormant threads, and that mods must go through a similar value judgement in deciding if such posts breach rule 3.5. Which is what we do.
e-lite's comment "It is quite often that we don't enforce this rule if the thread has value." simply states that where we make a value judgement that the thread continues to be relevant, we don't arbitrarily remove a post or close a thread due to rule 3.5, simply because it has passed the nominal 4 month period since the previous post.

Your suggestion that the rule be limited to posts "that don't add value or content, or are on obsolete topics" implies a similar - one might say almost identical - value judgement by both members and mods respectively.

 

[jaydub]

The point is...

Perhaps it wasn't clear from e-lite's post, but let me post the rule again here and go through it:


Note the word 'pointlessly' in the first sentence. What that covers are the 'bump' or emoji-only type necro-posts that add nothing to discussion of the topic. However, members who haven't checked the date on the first post may respond based on no more than the title, and perhaps the last post containing text. I've seen threads over 10yrs old bumped this way, sometimes garnering several additional posts before someone finally checks the thread start date.

Note also that posting in an inactive thread is only "strongly discouraged", not "not permitted", but that you need "a very good reason" for reactivating the thread.

That implies that members should make a 'value judgement' when deciding whether to post in dormant threads, and that mods must go through a similar value judgement in deciding if such posts breach rule 3.5. Which is what we do.
e-lite's comment "It is quite often that we don't enforce this rule if the thread has value." simply states that where we make a value judgement that the thread continues to be relevant, we don't arbitrarily remove a post or close a thread due to rule 3.5, simply because it has passed the nominal 4 month period since the previous post.

Your suggestion that the rule be limited to posts "that don't add value or content, or are on obsolete topics" implies a similar - one might say almost identical - value judgement by both members and mods respectively.

...that necroposting IS allowed. Just make sure that it is not pointless and has a VERY good reason. Just no or ?

Brick

 

[Oleg]

I see your point Serica, and I agree there has to be some subjectivity involved.

However when interpreting the rule as you describe, the last sentence, "If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum." is redundant and confusing, because it implies that posting in an old thread is not allowed under any circumstances, contradicting the other parts of the rule which you highlighted.

I would therefore suggest removing this sentence.

 

[Billy Jean Ruby]

Can't resist to reply in this issue and support those who asking some flexibility in old posts.
Guides, info's and topics that are interesting for the community shouldn't apply to the rule.
btw That rule cause a misunderstaning and was the reason I personally abandoned Ark forum!
Too much moderation makes me sick sometimes.
PCF have good moderators and I believe they will find a solution.

 

[Serica]

I see your point Serica, and I agree there has to be some subjectivity involved.

However when interpreting the rule as you describe, the last sentence, "If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum." is redundant and confusing, because it implies that posting in an old thread is not allowed under any circumstances, contradicting the other parts of the rule which you highlighted.

I would therefore suggest removing this sentence.

To give some history for those who weren't members at the time:

The current 'necro post' rule was added in late 2008, together with Rules 2.15, 3.12, 3.13, 4.4, and 5.7, and they were discussed extensively (for some 20 pages) here: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?131253-EntropiaForum-Rules-Discussion

So far as I can see, all the additional rules were created to address specific issues that had been observed as either disrupting the forum, or creating significant additional work for the forum staff at the time.
In particular, there were several threads by members shortly before that time, complaining about not just threads being necro'd but also about multiple new threads being created on active topics.

(Remember the constant 'search is your friend!' posts?
I notice too, that at the time 711 suggested introducing an 'auto-lock feature' on some forum sections, but members seemed to feel that would be too restrictive so the idea was abandoned.)

So rule 3.5 was introduced to give some common sense guidance to members about necroposting - and also, conversely, multiple threads on the same topic, as the same 4mth period is generally applied to merging those.

Personally I don't think that last sentence in Rule 3.5 is redundant.
To be pedantic, the key word is 'from' not 'of'.
(ie: 'an issue or topic from', not 'the issue or topic of')

To break it down:
Why do we have the rule in the first place?

Pointlessly bumping of dormant, inactive threads causes confusion for other members and visitors who may not notice the original thread post date.

What is meant by 'dormant' or 'inactive'?

A thread is considered inactive if there have been no replies in the last four (4) months.

What about if there's a good reason for that particular discussion to be continued?

Posting in an inactive thread is strongly discouraged, unless there is a very good reason for reactivating the thread.

What about if there's something mentioned in the dormant thread that you think should now be discussed further?

If you feel an issue or topic from an inactive thread deserves renewed discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum or subforum.

 

[LMTR14]

since I was unfairly banned for a week, I won't post here anymore.

 

[messi91]

since I was unfairly banned for a week, I won't post here anymore.

We can't thank you enough if you keep your promise.

 

[Valmaix]

--deleted--

 

[Valmaix]

--deleted--

 

[Darkaruki]

How can I delete my forum account? I pm. moderator, no answer 2 weeks.. There have to be a way to delete my account and all the information???

its funny how i get ignored.. do i have to start spamming ugly stuff to get banned and deleted?

Oh, sorry, I saw this post the first time around but was really busy at the time and ended up forgetting to address it.

I haven't received any PM from you, with that said I'm not sure I can *delete* your forum account, however, I can fulfill a ban request if that's all you want.

 

[Valmaix]

since I was unfairly banned for a week, I won't post here anymore.

Dont belive you were banned unfairly since you still keep posting insults every single day on people profiles. You see some post you dont agree, you start -rep and insult every single day like mad. Take your pills and keep your promise please!

 

[Saphira Lucky]

since I was unfairly banned for a week, I won't post here anymore.

Dont belive you were banned unfairly since you still keep posting insults every single day on people profiles. You see some post you dont agree, you start -rep and insult every single day like mad. Take your pills and keep your promise please!

LMTR14 has -rep and insulted me as well PM'd him and asked why, no answer. I don't mind -rep if it's constructive criticism or similar. His -rep was highly uncalled for.

 

[Venture Bros]

It would be great if the mods followed the rules.

An example being that I cannot post about my entropia related website for absolutely no reason other than the mods having a hate boner for me. The rules state that I should be able to. Rewrite your rules or enforce them properly.