Right, at last I'm back. Before I make this post, I just want to note I just went bowling and had a handful of beers, so some of my points might not be as concise as they would be if I was sober, but I like to think / pretend that they're the same.
First off, this forum / site is not ACF or any forum Gabe ever visited (I'm at his post right now, just making a semi-quote here). We make our own decisions, separated from ACF or other forums. I have to add that I have one major example when it comes to managing a site / forum, a Dutch tech site (
http://tweakers.net) that has the largest (Dutch) tech forum, ranked 56th on big-boards.com with 18 million posts in its ten years (or so) of existence. Just noting that it does not have a spam section, the closest thing that comes to it is the 'huiskamer' (translates as living room), which is pretty much the site's off topic forum, which can only be accessed if you've been a member for six months, etc. Reeks of elitism, but it seems to be working for them.
But enough about that, where was I?
On Gabe's suggestion on a '121 section' like on FFOF, I told Mako (I think) this morning that I'm opposed to the idea. The usernote's 'conversation' system is exactly meant for that purpose, with enough functionality for you to have a conversation with your friend(s). I don't see at the moment what a forum aimed at exactly that purpose would add to the existing functionality, nor do I think that it's in line with the overall theme of this forum at this time.
Also, again @ gabe (and I really shouldn't be picking apart posts here, but I'd just like to get this out of the way), on his comment about disabling postcount - postcount doesn't count at all. I'll kick V in the nuts if he ever posts a top 50 e-penises list again - there's a good reason that postcount isn't displayed in the postbit, and that's to keep people from comparing their e-cocks. I made a note in staff or some other thread that I'd even consider disabling postcount for all sections and reset everyone's postcount just for the sake of this particular point. All posts are slash should be valid, hence no segregation between 'poastcount' or 'non-poastcount' sections should be made. I think that all sections should be roughly equal in terms of 'worthiness', and I just think that a spam section would seriously go way under that 'worthiness' factor - even if it was quality spam.
I also read a comment back somewhere on this forum that I was 'part of' the ACF spammers, but I'd just like to note that I haven't been active in that section for probably the last three years or so of its existence - i.e. I hardly know any of the people that have been most fervently in favor of a spam section in the last few days.
On the 'agressive' thread closing, I can be short: If a moderator closes a thread and you disagree with it (which, in this case, was due to a misunderstanding / mis-post of mine), have the decency to just PM that moderator and ask him about it, quote me, ask me if that's what I meant, etcetera. How it was handled on 'your' side (to which I refer to the people that opened up loads of threads on the subject) is far from a positive, professional and mature way of handling such cases. Opening a number of threads going the proverbial 'BAWWW' is what made ACF known for its 'drama', and I don't think that's the proper way of going about things or disagreeing with a moderator's decision.
If you have a problem with a moderator's decision, contact that moderator and get your point across, highlight why you believe the closing of the thread was unwarranted, etc. If you and the moderator / staffer in question can't come to an agreement, go to another one or to someone higher up (if that one exists).
But I don't think I need to write such a procedure down - I'm pretty sure I can assume that everyone realizes that that's a much better way of getting your point across than to have you and your friends make a couple of new threads and hundreds of posts about the subject, going back and forth in a massive and uncoordinated circlethread.
On that subject, props to X for making this thread and, as such, attempting to limit the amount of posts made on the subject. Part of the problem of ACF's old drama was that there were just too much posts and too much people were involved. If one person was banned or warned (for example), there'd be a dozen people that would make hundreds of posts about the subject, dragging the subject on and on and on and on.
On that, I've proposed to add a section to this site's general forum policy (which is currently in draft and has been for probably two weeks now) about disagreeing with a person's banning. The short version is that if you're banned and disagree with it, you can contact the staff through the contact forms on either the forums or the frontpage and make your point, ask why you were banned (if that isn't obvious), and make your case. The policy itself will also make a note about creating duplicate accounts while banned or suspended (i.e. instant doubling of your suspension without argument), and about your friends or acquaintances making a case about the matter (i.e. won't happen - a member getting banned is a case between that member and staff, third parties have nothing to do about the matter). But more on that later, when we get the draft ready.
On the chit-chat thread, it works fine for some regular, not too serious conversations. Gabe (yes, I'm still at his post, I fail and this post will be the longest post I've made in years, probably
) notes that there are members that don't really talk about FF that much. Which makes me wonder - for what purpose are you really here then? I can get that you want to talk with your friends on a forum, but would this particular one really be the most suitable for that purpose? I can imagine you want a spam section or 121 section or whatever so you can talk to your friends, but if that doesn't happen (which it won't, by the way), what are you going to do? Complain about it, demand it, get all your friends to spam the site up? Or simply go to another forum that does allow it?
I can get that 'all your friends are here', but if they're really your friends, what's stopping you from creating your own site where you and your friends can do all that they want? Sure, you'd probably miss out on new members, but would it be that much of a problem to go here to make new friends in line with the forum's policy and rules, and do your own thing your own way on your own forums?
(Note in between: 'you' is not aimed at anyone in particular)
Note that I'm not trying to chase you away from our forums - I know that some of you have been a valued asset to some discussions, and I'd hate to have to chase people away or to ban people, but I just want everyone to be on the same level, to have their noses pointed in the same direction when it comes to how this forum operates. There might be people that disagree with this site's policy on certain matters, but whose problem is that then? The site, for having a policy that a minority of members does not agree with, or the minority that wants to force the policy to change in a way they see fit?
(Another note in between: 'the policy' is how the majority of staff and members want this site to be, and can be altered as time progresses. Before you start though: No spam section, considering the trouble it's caused even without it existing)
On becoming more lenient on spammy stuff in GC (and I told this to V this morning or last night as well): Where to draw the line? What would be considered spam? How much is too much? Defining spam would involve a lot of time writing up a definition, collecting examples of what is and isn't spam, and then there's the problem of people's difference in interpretation - person X would consider thread Y spam, whilst person Z wouldn't.
One fixed line should be drawn at one point, and going lenient about some spam but warning other cases will only cause confusion and, as a result, complaints, disgruntlement, and drama.
I'm almost through Gabe's post, and just want to add that ctrl + r is sooo... I dunno when. F5 ftw. Also, there's a hack on vB.org that will automatically check for new replies on an 'active' thread, so that newer posts will automatically be appended to the thread you're viewing without you having to refresh the whole page. The author of the hack claims that it's a lot more efficient as well, which I can understand since only the new post has to be parsed / inserted, etc.
My can 'o beer is empty,
.
Back on my previous comment on not considering myself a spammer back on ACF and reading Pixel's post, I too have to admit that I never felt like I belonged in there. There was just so many people having so many internal conversations and jokes and whatnot, that I just didn't feel like I was part of it. As I said before, I believe that all sections should have roughly equal rights, and adding to that, I believe all sections should offer equal opportunities for people to belong to. Back on ACF, you only (seemed to, from a probably incorrect personal opinion) be accepted into spam's atmosphere if you proved yourself, passed some unagreed hazing ritual, or were a cunt in general. But I'm not sure about that.
But that's one thing I want (and wanted) to prevent when I made the statement about not wanting a spam section. I know that not everyone can talk as much about the Compilation, but then, what's this site about then? I don't think it is or should be a site that's aimed at chit-chat and spam, but to be about a common interest, a common theme. And if you (again an impersonal 'you' btw) don't share that common interest, is this site really suitable for you?
Repeating a previous statement again, but now summarized and quotable-saying-ized:: Try to fit into the site, instead of trying to get the site to fit you.
Sprite makes a good comment at the stat of his post, in that the staff would 'lose face' if we made a spam section right now. I prefer not to call it that way, but I can say that if we would open up a spam section now, would we ever be taken seriously again? Next up, people will start posting porn, we say 'that's not allowed', and they go 'LOL tahts funnay!111' and not take our policy on the matter seriously. I can already tell that we wouldn't even consider the topic anymore in the next few months due to this recent development, simply because I haven't seen a proper, mature argument in favor of a spam section in which the site's general interests were respected, or which wasn't a repeat of an earlier thread.
True, spam might not have been the main problem of ACF's problems (Sprite's comment again), but it does seem odd that, one way or another, a lot of the regulars of the spam section were somehow involved in the matter. Back then, I considered (and still do) their complaints and grievances, as well as my own, and the resulting discussions evidence of true caring about the site, but I disagreed and disagree with the used methods at times. Not that it would happen - even the most serious attempt, the 'member representatives', fell completely on deaf ears and solved nothing whatsoever due to a head staff that just wouldn't listen / agree / do something.
A lot of dramas on there was related to spam or its regulars, one way or another.
Finally, Sprite's final say on why spam is win just isn't convincing for me.
I'm going to make my first quote in this post now:
monster said:
And, in the end, it's about what Yop wants.
I actually disagree with this statement, and would like to alter it to 'I have a large say in some matters'. There's seriously a load of more important matters (imo) to consider than a spam section right now - i.e. the site itself. I don't particularly see how a spam section would make our site more popular, attract more visitors, provide our frontpage with additional and informational context, or in any other form prove a valuable asset to our site and forums in general.
With Arianna, endless posts upon endless threads is a waste of suffering. There's 14 pages in the tread I made a large post in last night, but I can't be arsed to read any of it unless I have far too much time to waste - that's over 200 posts made by a number of people which, really, doesn't succeed in its purpose, and because of that, is a waste of effort and time, which really isn't necessary.
I have no clue who this 'Channin' is (although I have my suspicions, cba to look it up), but just want to add: Way to make an argument, highlighting a signature bit of behaviour from one particular member really emphasizes your point, and REALLY changes our opinion on this particular case. As do the comments about 'lame', 'gay', 'ridiculously stupid', and 'fucking dorks'. The previous statement is obviously meant in a sarcastic manner, by the way If you can't make a proper argument about your case, don't even bother.
Phew. From the vast majority of comments, I can assume that the majority of the memberbase doesn't see the need, hence doesn't want a spam section. I'm confident that if this particular discussion would go to a poll, there'd be a majority against the idea. Not that we're considering putting up a poll at this time, mind.
I also find it terribly ironic that yesterday's problems were mainly cause by those that at one point belonged to a spam section. I'm pretty sure that's the exact proof of 'our' point(s) right there - we don't even have a spam section yet and we're already getting problems.
I'd also like to express my hope in that this incident remains as such - an incident, and doesn't become a habit. If there's ever an occurrence like this, and this is aimed at everyone, stop and think about the matter, before opening new thread(s) or making heaps upon heaps of posts about the matter. It doesn't help you get your point across.
Also, it seems I spent well over an hour writing this post - I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears. If you have anything in particular you'd like to discuss, I'm often available through PM's and MSN (although I'm not sure if the latter's in my profile atm - I'll go check and add it if it's not there yet), so feel free to contact me. Just keep in mind that I might tell you I'm at work or cba or something though,
.
(PS: Ended the post with a cookie monster for good measure)
