Topic: My proposal to forum administration - page 2. (Read 2429 times)

People are not allowed to change their stance on an on-going discussion? Please tell me more.

You may want to read your comments and my replies again

Basically, you at first claimed one thing, namely, that it is impossible to happen ("using scenarios that didn't happen and likely wouldn't happen"). When I told that it already happened (ask hilarious if you doubt my words), you changed your stance 180 degrees and started claiming that "they [moderators] thought it would be more appropriate". Then you again all of a sudden changed your position basically trashing your previous stance (that moderators know it better and no further questions should be asked). I think you understand there is no sense in discussing the matter any more on my part. You can try to shift your stance as much and as often as you please, but do it elsewhere. Hope this helps

Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?

It may be *good* to know which thread was trashed/deleted. Should you know who trashed/deleted it? No. If moderators are risking to get publicly crucified for every decision, they may be reluctant to make one thus making their overall moderation worse.

This proposal is one of the worst that I've seen so far. This will never work (unless theymos promotes a few more admins that actually respond to all sensible PMs), nor is there a reason to do so.

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

I'm not sure what you mean by a no-op, but locking the thread doesn't combat the signature spam in any way. It is essentially telling people 'if you spam fast enough, you can spam and nothing will happen'.

Tough luck? The chances of there being a non-spammy post on a thread like 'if bitcoin went to $1 what would you do!!!' are incredibly low anyway.

Yes.

I've been critical of the moderation team in the past for this, however if you are expecting that to happen here after all this time you are being too idealistic. If we're living in the real world, deleting the spam eventually is better than accepting it simply because it is 'old', and is much more likely to happen.
Also, entire threads aren't deleted unless they are majority spam. I haven't got a clue where you get the idea that anything else happens from.

You gave no context. Learn to structure your writing better if this is the case.

Wrong. Just because something isn't punished doesn't then change the definition of it.
If I throw litter on the street and it is not moved, does that then mean that I wasn't littering?

Every example of a thread I have used has existed previously. You should probably pay more attention to reading rather than posting if you don't think this is the case.

I'm struggling to follow what you are saying, but I'm guessing that you mean deleting threads would cause people to do what you are doing currently. In this scenario, just like you have, they will be told to deal with it.

They shouldn't, and therefore they aren't. Spam threads, regardless of their age, should be deleted along with all spam posts in them.

I think that our different uses of language has made us both confused about what we are talking about. Let me summarize what I understood from the last few points relating to this so that we can possibly understand each other better.

• You said that necroposts were deleted when you felt they shouldn't have been.
• I said that if the staff saw it as appropriate, the posts should have been deleted.
• You then tried to relate said posts to a theoretical situation you came up with previously.
• I gave you a number of questions to try and clear up whether these deleted posts fit within said theoretical situation. I also reaffirmed that, regardless of what you and I think or propose, the staff's decision would be final.
• Instead of answering the questions, you now say that I am back peddling.

Please correct me if I was wrong at any part here, though to me it just seems that you're just avoiding the point.

---

I see, my apologies.

I am referring to my post not the quoted part. I had just put a horizontal line to designate it. Sorry for the confusion. Just quoted it to emphasize the given solution to the thread's suggestion or whatever.

EDIT: a closing remark to be precise.

So just locking the thread is a no-op?

If so, what about those non-spammy posts in it? These will get deleted too, as far as I can see? Did you ever wonder that it is a moderator's job to delete spam posts as fast as possible so that it never comes to deleting the whole thread (provided it wasn't a spam thread right from the start)? In the OP I meant specifically the threads that are no longer posted in, i.e. necrothreads (I thought it was evident from the context). The threads that are still active and old at that cannot be spammy by definition (as a whole, apart from individual posts), so they are just out of question altogether (it's no use trying to concoct impossible combinations here as it better suits your point), while deleting them would raise a lot of noise on their own. There were a few long threads about Gold vs Bitcoin, and they all had been locked, with only one remaining open. In short, I mean non-spammy abandoned threads created months if not years ago. Why should they ever get deleted and not locked (if necroraising is disallowed)?


Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)

If an old thread is full of spam and people using it for nothing other than to boost their account's post count/signature earnings, it is appropriate for a thread to be deleted in order to make it more difficult for those who used the thread for that purpose to fulfill it.

Regarding the bolded part, that is irrelevant. You talked about old threads in the OP, not necessarily those that have been necrod. Old threads included those mentioned by hilariousandco that he deleted. You can see what I feel about necro posts in my last post in this thread:
Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Whoopsy daisy.

Unless the rules have changed since that old spam thread was created, making it no longer appropriate to be available.

See my first point.

While any thread on the forum is open, it is susceptible for spam to be posted in it. Therefore, every thread on the forum should be locked and no new threads should be allowed to be made.

That using scenarios that didn't happen (and likely wouldn't happen) in order to push an agenda is silly. By making up my own random story, I hoped to show that.

Were the posts deleted in these threads posted by more than one person/account? Were the posts deleted in these threads of any actual quality, meaning they added something to the discussion? Was the act of these posts being deleted a single isolated incident? If you answered yes to any of these questions, the act doesn't line up with your theoretical and thus this is a moot point.

In addition, the acts that happen on this forum (with and without your proposal) are always open to a moderator or admin's discretion. Whatever an administrator or moderator thinks would be most appropriate is what would happen, whether you or I think it is right or not. I don't see what argument you're trying to make here.

The answer to this really depends on what you mean by here.

If you're referring to this thread, I'm trying to make it clear why your suggestions are silly and are for nothing other than to benefit your own income.
If you're referring to the forum, it is because I enjoy posting here and discussing things with members that I would otherwise be unable to. I have met a number of people that I trust and respect through this forum, and I would like to continue trying to find said people and enjoying myself.

---

First of all, I will say the same thing to you:


Your question has already been answered.

---

It's impossible to lock every old threads just because it can be "resurrected". There are many reasons for a thread to be bumbed, though people create new threads normally. And, hilariousandco has already said *only* trashy threads are deleted. If it is a good old thread and was spammed, only spam posts are deleted and maybe locked too!


Your post is deleted *only* if it is spam. If it trashy thread, it is deleted and posts in it go along with it to the trashcan. But in your opinion, you shouldn't blame even if the post is spam and shouldn't hold users accounted for it?

#its_all_mods_fault  #Power_abusing

Truly. That's why I am kinda disappointed when his intention in creating this thread has shown its true colors. I thought he was just like curious but then again it is because of his signature campaign. Well personally, I do not care if my posts are deleted since it happens to me like I reply to a topic saying that it has been posted with a link then the OP would delete the thread or maybe a mod then that's it. There are also some cases where I don't know what was deleted but it is the least of my concerns. I can quote some who also feels this way.



And these guys don't even make a big fuss from it.


Making a big fuss because his signature campaign earnings are reduced. Going through economy and whatsoever. Oh I almost forgot that he also goes through my imaginary wife since I don't have one.

---

---

Ok bye.  

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

You won't be able to name even one (apart from purely technical issues such as lack of disk space, etc). If there is an old spam thread, it pretty much means that it had been a mod's fault not to delete it right away. Anyway, just locking it would suffice. Further, I'm myself against raising necrothreads, but if they are left open, mods should expect that they might be and one day will be resurrected, and there is absolutely no reason to blame folks for doing that (let alone delete their posts in these threads)


I don't understand where you are getting at and how it is relevant to this topic


Oh, I remember that at first, you claimed that I talk only about what could (theoretically) happen (meaning that it might not happen at all), and now, after the fact, you tell me that "they thought it would be more appropriate"

So what is the purpose of you posting here?

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted. For threads that offer nothing but a place for people to build up their post count, they should be deleted (as you said).

I agree.


He suggested to lock old threads instead of deleting them.

I think trashy old threads need to be deleted so people won't participate in such threads again which could reduce trashy/spam threads/posts.

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones. Think back to all of the shit threads that got removed, such as the ones that hilariousandco mentioned:
Do you honestly think that leaving these threads readily available, and thus enabling spammers to bleed the forum, is something that should continue?

"But I said that theymos would have to approve the deletion"
theymos has proven, by his lack of action towards it, that he cares little about signature spam. In addition to this, not only is theymos already busy with his other projects, but then asking him to approve a load of deletions (that are common sense to anyone not skewed by BTC they receive for posting) would be stretching him even thinner than he is already - therefore removing his time from things that actually matter.

It is applicable to everyone that comes to this forum to post for the wrong reason. Normal people - who either don't participate in signature campaigns or see their earnings as a bonus and nothing else - couldn't care less if they have posts removed.
Mitchell has had over 1,000 posts removed from his post count due to these changes. Lauda has had around 700. Your 64 posts are nothing, especially considering the huge amount that you already have, and yet you're still here trying to act like you're not doing this simply out of greed.

I'm eagerly looking to replace the governing body at [insert your country of residence here]. Are you scared about me charging you with crimes and sending you to prison?

And yet they deleted it anyway, as they thought it would be more appropriate. What disgusting abuse of their power, right?

I think you got it all wrong dude, really

But you may have to walk to the beginning of this thread and read again the OP. If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it? It is no use trying to make me look or feel guilty in this way (this is what you are going after) since this is applicable not just to me, which I also made clear and which you also chose to ignore. Apart from that, you may want to refresh your memory as to who was so eagerly looking to become a new global moderator here not so long ago, so we were not in fact very far from actually getting into the mess which I think is still possible. To tell the truth, I already witnessed posts deleted by a mod from a resurrected necrothread where just locking it would suffice for all practical intents and purposes (so, in a sense, we are already there)

Despite all of the needlessly long paragraphs, all I gathered from this was 'I had less than 0.5% of my posts removed and now I want moderators to be stripped of one of their most important abilities so that I don't lose out on any more precious signature campaign earnings'. I don't think this is worthy of any attention by moderators or administrators.

If you're not happy with trusting global moderators and the administrators you are polling (as they are the only people able to delete the majority of threads on this forum) to not wage some personal vendetta on you, then you shouldn't be on this forum.
Referencing Lauda in this situation as an example of what could happen isn't appropriate, as Lauda's power even as a previous staff member was severely limited to Newbies and posts within their sections. By this, if you wanted to negate all risk of someone like them waging war against you, all you had to do was not post in the sections they were moderating. The scenario you are envisioning can only be done by perhaps 4 to 5 members on the forum, all of which have bigger things to think about than removing some posts of a specific user to stop their signature campaign earnings.

I'm am also 1 of the affected reduced post count in my account. And i think its not a problem since a new post are not deleted and only the oldest post are got deleted i think you can inform the signature campaign manager to check your present post instead of the old post.
I notice my post count was reduce and i think its not a big deal anytime you can contact the manager who manager your campaign.. Since the signature campaign of coinroll is automated bot counts it can really affected your post count the same happen to someone join in bitmixer campaign that i think better to contact the manager of your campaign.
And i think mods/admin are always doing the right thing for everyone not only to you or me..

You're still neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

So just answer this: Does the forum owes you a living?

A good attempt to lick, I second that

The problem is that both of you are taking things out of context and trying to put them into a different one. Obviously, this won't work since there is no point to debate in this specific context (you will lose anyway). Basically, I have come up with a proposal to limit mods' rights to prevent them from covertly abusing these rights. Why hillarious is against that (as least so it appears) is understandable, but it is not quite clear what makes you, a sig campaign participant like me (and not a mod at that), back him up (apart from what I already mentioned above). I would be utterly curious to see it when you find out one morning that half of your posts has been trashed for no reason and without a trace. As you can see, my post count didn't change due to a mod's deliberate action, but I still support my stance since this is just a matter of time when some rogue moderator does something like that (not necessarily to me). We have already seen that (a mod waging a personal vendetta against a certain user), so there is no reason to think that it won't happen again. In this way, you can no longer parrot it like it all comes down to "petty complaining" and forum "owing me a living". Those who followed me in this section know that I'm always in favor of giving users more freedom and limiting rights as well as abuse of these rights by the mods. For example, I was one of the few strongly opposing the idea of introducing the "banned" rank suggested by some former moderator

Actually you don't make any sense. And I didn't ask any question nor any do except you. So the forum now owes you a living?


I guess we should stop this argument. I'd like to emphasize this:


P.S. You're neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

This is the whole point

That question was to show how meaningless are such questions in and of itself. You don't have a wife (which is what I expected to hear), but the question that I asked assumes, first, that you have a wife, and, second, that you are (were) beating her. It is essentially the same with the questions like "what does the forum owe you" or statements like "the forum doesn't owe you a living", because such a question (and statement) assumes that a forum can potentially owe you (or anyone) something (or anything) in the first place, which it simply can't. Hope this helps