Twickster, a question on a closed thread

[Little Nemo]

You closed PICTURE GALLERY: Girls With Tattoos with the reason that it lacked a point. I thought MPSIMS was intended for pointless threads. It's a forum for OP's that say nothing more than "hey look at this".

[Telemark]

Not trying to junior mod, but from the sticky at the top of the forum:

Post-Padding and Truly Pointless Threads

Even this forum—with its spectacular name—has its limits for truly pointless threads. We will be closing threads which cross that line, or exist merely for post-padding reasons. This includes any post count parties.

We understand that determining what is or isn't pointless is a subjective process, but we reserve the right to make the final decision. We will, however, be as consistent as possible, with the caveat that as human beings with families, jobs and other distractions, we'll probably foul up once or twice.

[Little Nemo]

I realize the moderators can close a post for whatever reason they feel like or no reason at all. But personally I'd feel a "truly pointless" thread would be something like "Let's post the integers in consecutive order. I'll start: 1."

[mhendo]

Well, astro certainly has a habit of starting fairly content-free threads, but it seems to me that this particular one was no more pointless than plenty of threads that get started in MPSIMS. Half of Siam Sam's threads in the forum (example 1, example 2) don't seem to have much more in the way of content.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I realize the moderators can close a post for whatever reason they feel like or no reason at all. But personally I'd feel a "truly pointless" thread would be something like "Let's post the integers in consecutive order. I'll start: 1."

Hasn't there been a thread something like this?

[Argent Towers]

Yes, and there have been other ridiculous, cryptic threads about stuff that maybe 12 people "get," and there have been threads that are interesting to maybe 1 or 2 people and get 3 replies and then just fade away. Girls with tattoos is kind of an interesting topic for a thread so really, I think that one should have been left open.

[NineToTheSky]

I'll say what I always say when this comes up:

I think it's up to the user base to decide. If it's truly pointless, it will get no responses and will fade away, needing no intervention from a mod. If it gets responses, then someone, somewhere sees a point. And these sort of threads can sometimes end up being a lot of fun.

I think it's a bit school-ma'amish (no offence twickster ) to say 'Stop it, boys, you're just being a bit too silly'. Everyone needs to let their hair down sometimes. No harm is being done.

I'll admit that this isn't one of the most earth shaking issues of our time, but still...

ETA: twickster: if he had added 'and what do you think about girls getting tattoos?', would you have left it open?

[twickster]

MPSIMS is, indeed, the place for discussing mundane and pointless stuff, which definitely includes girls with tattoos (though presumably the tattooing process itself involved a point, or at least a needle). Since there is a clamor for this particular bit of mundane pointlessness to be open, I'll be happy to unlock the thread.

The reason I closed -- not disappeared -- the thread (leaving the link intact, I had no problem with it) was specifically because astro started it. He has a very, very bad habit of starting OPs with no actual content (and, frankly, I don't consider "look at this" to be content), and I am involved in a quixotic quest to get him to stop doing it. He's outlived plenty of mod careers and shows no indication of being any more responsive to me on this issue than he's been to anyone else, but a mod can dream.

So: it wasn't about the subject, it wasn't a value judgment about the worth of the subject, it wasn't a prediction about the degree of interest that the thread might have or the number of people for whom it would be of interest -- it was solely and exclusively part of my ongoing effort to get astro to stop starting threads that consist of nothing more than a link and a "yo."

[ToeJam]

This has been like the 3rd or fourth time you've gotten a comment about it, twickster. It's amusing to see pretty much every few times this happens another thread like this always seems to appear in ATMB.
Keep dreaming the dream though! A Mod's gotta have hope!

[ZenBeam]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I realize the moderators can close a post for whatever reason they feel like or no reason at all. But personally I'd feel a "truly pointless" thread would be something like "Let's post the integers in consecutive order. I'll start: 1."

2!


(sorry)

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

So: it wasn't about the subject, it wasn't a value judgment about the worth of the subject, it wasn't a prediction about the degree of interest that the thread might have or the number of people for whom it would be of interest -- it was solely and exclusively part of my ongoing effort to get astro to stop starting threads that consist of nothing more than a link and a "yo."

Out of all the responses I thought you might have made, this was definitely not one of them. A crusade? Bring on the trebuchets.

I just had to add that when I googled trebuchet to check the spelling, the first ad was for trebuchets at Amamzon. I thought, surely not? Sadly, it was only for books about them.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by twickster

The reason I closed -- not disappeared -- the thread (leaving the link intact, I had no problem with it) was specifically because astro started it. He has a very, very bad habit of starting OPs with no actual content (and, frankly, I don't consider "look at this" to be content), and I am involved in a quixotic quest to get him to stop doing it. He's outlived plenty of mod careers and shows no indication of being any more responsive to me on this issue than he's been to anyone else, but a mod can dream.

That's fine, but I don't think you should be using your mod powers to pursue that quest.

[twickster]

The point of MPSIMS is to discuss things. A link without commentary doesn't start a conversation, it sends people off the boards to look at something else. If you're using that link as a evidence of a phenomenon you'd like to discuss, or as the inspiration for something you have thought, or are thinking, about that you'd like to hear opinions from others about -- fine, great, perfect, exactly what we do around here. If it's just "hey, look at this" -- nope, that doesn't start a conversation, and I'm going to lock it.

I will close threads where I see this happening -- it turns out that astro does this really consistently, so I'm more apt to check out his OPs to see if he's done it again, and if he has, lock the thread.

It's not a vendetta or a matter of hostility -- he and I are perfectly friendly towards each other -- just something he does, frequently, despite knowing that I (am the latest in a long series of mods who) want him to write OPs with a sentence or two of commentary.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

The point of MPSIMS is to discuss things. A link without commentary doesn't start a conversation, it sends people off the boards to look at something else. If you're using that link as a evidence of a phenomenon you'd like to discuss, or as the inspiration for something you have thought, or are thinking, about that you'd like to hear opinions from others about -- fine, great, perfect, exactly what we do around here. If it's just "hey, look at this" -- nope, that doesn't start a conversation, and I'm going to lock it.

I will close threads where I see this happening -- it turns out that astro does this really consistently, so I'm more apt to check out his OPs to see if he's done it again, and if he has, lock the thread.

It's not a vendetta or a matter of hostility -- he and I are perfectly friendly towards each other -- just something he does, frequently, despite knowing that I (am the latest in a long series of mods who) want him to write OPs with a sentence or two of commentary.

Can you answer the question I asked earlier: if he had put something like 'what do you think about girl's tattoos', would you have left it open?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by twickster

The point of MPSIMS is to discuss things. A link without commentary doesn't start a conversation, it sends people off the boards to look at something else.

Yes, and then they come back to discuss what they went to look at.

How does this thread start a conversation any more than astro's did? All of the content from the OP is lifted straight from the link itself. There is not proposition offered by the OP, no argument, no opinion, not a single word that tells us how he feels about the issue.

The only difference is that, because astro is linking to images, he literally can't paste them into his OP, and has to send us to look at them instead.

I think that maybe next time he should just start a thread with the same link, and simply add something like, "I really like tattoos on women. What do you think?"

It would have no more substance than the one you locked, but it might mollify your over-active need to determine what threads people should and should not be able to participate in.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by NineToTheSky

Can you answer the question I asked earlier: if he had put something like 'what do you think about girl's tattoos', would you have left it open?

Yup, probably. Even more so if he had included his own opinion, as mhendo suggests.

Originally Posted by mhendo

How does this thread start a conversation any more than astro's did? All of the content from the OP is lifted straight from the link itself. There is not proposition offered by the OP, no argument, no opinion, not a single word that tells us how he feels about the issue.

True. I'll start encouraging Siam Sam to provide content in his OPs as well.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Yes, and then they come back to discuss what they went to look at.

All I'm asking is that the OP suggest what that discussion should be about. An unadorned link isn't good enough. (Didn't someone get banned, eventually, because he wouldn't stop doing that in the Pit? I'm not planning to start agitating to get astro banned over this -- I'm just sayin', I'm not the only mod who's ever gotten a burr under her saddle about it.)

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by NineToTheSky

Out of all the responses I thought you might have made, this was definitely not one of them. A crusade? Bring on the trebuchets.

I just had to add that when I googled trebuchet to check the spelling, the first ad was for trebuchets at Amamzon. I thought, surely not? Sadly, it was only for books about them.

you can get trebouchets at Edmunds Scientific ... I just got their catalog =)

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

Yup, probably. Even more so if he had included his own opinion, as mhendo suggests.

My point is then that you post something on a message board where the whole modus operandi is that others respond to the OP. You don't need necessarily to specify what response you want, as, by linking to photos showing tattooed girls, you've introduced the subject. As I've said, if it is too pointless, it will get no responses and wither on the vine. You (twickster) don't need to make the decision for us. We'll do it.

[twickster]

I understand your point. I trust you understand mine.

[TWDuke]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

you can get trebouchets at Edmunds Scientific ... I just got their catalog =)

And in post #18, we get something interesting (at least to two people) and factual that we would not have gotten if someone had closed the thread after the first couple of posts (or if a moderator had told NineToTheSky "This is not a thread about trebuchets; please take it to the appropriate forum).

The best way to see if something will develop into a conversation of interest is to give it a chance to develop into a conversation of interest.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

I understand your point. I trust you understand mine.

Well, not really. You've decided to have a vendetta againt astro's style of posting, and you have decided that it's up to you alone to decide if there's enough stimulus in an OP to generate responses. Now, I accept you're the mod here and can do pretty much anything you want, but I don't think your remit should stretch that far.

[twickster]

I think the OP should not have an exemption from participating in a thread that he or she wants to start. Thus, he or she should include some indication of why he or she considers a topic of interest, including, hopefully, his or her own opinion or commentary on the topic. To say, "Here, you guys entertain me by riffing on this topic, I can't be arsed to do anything more than provide a link..." isn't good enough.

Again, I don't have a vendetta against astro -- feel free to ask him if there's any animosity there, there's certainly none on my part -- but he has a long track record of plopping these OPs out and never coming back. Siam Sam at least continues to participate in the thread once he starts it.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

I think the OP should not have an exemption from participating in a thread that he or she wants to start. Thus, he or she should include some indication of why he or she considers a topic of interest, including, hopefully, his or her own opinion or commentary on the topic. To say, "Here, you guys entertain me by riffing on this topic, I can't be arsed to do anything more than provide a link..." isn't good enough.

For you, for you. As I've said, you're the boss: you call the shots, but what harm does it do to see what we make of it; we're the customers.

[twickster]

Feel free to open a new thread on any of these topics you want to discuss -- just remember to start off with a few words indicating your interest/opinion/question.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by twickster

Feel free to open a new thread on any of these topics you want to discuss -- just remember to start off with a few words indicating your interest/opinion/question.

Now you've got me confused: 'any of these topics'? Which topics? I can see only two: trebuchets, which certainly should be in a new thread, and you closing what you claim are pointless threads.

To be honest, in a perfect world, I'd like to see a prompt or two in an OP - but that's my style. I wouldn't dream of dictating my posting style to others. I love the variety here.

What I don't understand is that all you've said is 'I don't think OPs without obvious written stimuli should be allowed'. Don't you accept that we're intelligent enough to decide if we can find enough in the link to discuss? What, apart from your dislike of it, is the harm?

[twickster]

By "any of these topics," I meant any of the bajillion -- er, hundreds -- no, wait, dozens -- okay, five or six -- of these threads that I've closed.

Why do I do it? To indicate that there are good ways to start a thread and bad ways to start a thread, and to encourage people to write OPs that will lead to interesting conversations.

[TWDuke]

Originally Posted by twickster

he has a long track record of plopping these OPs out and never coming back

If he were peppering the boards with multiple posts a day it could force more interesting threads off the front pages, but how many threads has he actually started in the past month? Looks to me like he's averaged about one a day, some of which have included commentary in the OP, some of which have developed into active threads and some of which have quickly withered and died.

To indicate that there are good ways to start a thread and bad ways to start a thread, and to encourage people to write OPs that will lead to an interesting conversation.

Sorry, but the best indication of a good start for a thread is what kind of thread it evolves into. By locking the thread, you remove that source of feedback and replace it with your sole judgment. Of course there are times when it's appropriate to do so, but your feeling that it won't prompt a discussion isn't one of them. If you're right, it sinks on its own with no hard feelings. If you're wrong, then you've needlessly squelched user interaction, which seems contrary to the purposes of a forum.

[tacoloco]

Originally Posted by twickster

Why do I do it? To indicate that there are good ways to start a thread and bad ways to start a thread, and to encourage people to write OPs that will lead to interesting conversations.

It is not your job to control the content of the board. It is your job to make sure the rules are followed. Deleting a thread that has not (yet) broken any rules is NOT DOING YOUR JOB.

We don't need a nanny, ffs.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by tacoloco

It is not your job to control the content of the board. It is your job to make sure the rules are followed. Deleting a thread that has not (yet) broken any rules is NOT DOING YOUR JOB.

We don't need a nanny, ffs.

One of the rules is that certain posts are too mundane for MPSIMS. Yeah, it's a nanny rule, but so is "No personal insults" or "Don't be a jerk." Adults shouldn't need any of these rules.

I personally hate that the mods have the power to lock an ongoing discussion, as I think a board should have room for anything its members want to talk about. But we can't change it.

Oh, and twicks, I don't see a purpose in wrist-slapping someone if they are really breaking the rules. Obviously, locking threads hasn't worked in the past, so something harsher is necessary to get the poster's attention. Either enforce it like you would any other rule (allowing punishments to escalate), or don't enforce it at all.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by twickster

True. I'll start encouraging Siam Sam to provide content in his OPs as well.

Originally Posted by twickster

Siam Sam at least continues to participate in the thread once he starts it.

Some of what I post, like the silent monks singing Hallelujah or the Panda Cam, is "Stuff I Must Share," as the name of the forum goes, but which does not seem to warrant much content in the initial post. But often, if there's evident interest, such as with the Panda Cam, I later think of more details I can share. Apologies if this has proven annoying.

[MsWhatsit]

I like your threads, Siam Sam. People, could you stop giving twickster more examples of people that she should pursue personal crusades against?

The idea of a mod openly having a crusade against specific posters seems really weird and wrong to me anyway.

[bucketybuck]

My opinion of the mods here ain't a pretty thing, but in this case,

To see a mod actually taking action as she sees fit to improve the quality of the board, well for that I will give Twickster praise.

To those jumping on a rules lawyer bandwagon, this is the wrong fight. More common sense moderating like this and the SDMB would be a better place. So get off Twickster's back, and perhaps put that false outrage Astros way for posting crap again and again and again...

Or is that less fun for the petty?

[tacoloco]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

So get off Twickster's back, and perhaps put that false outrage Astros way for posting crap again and again and again...

Or is that less fun for the petty?

Please.

Moderators preempting a thread because they think it might not be good isn't acceptable.

There's no mock outrage here.

Go away.

[ToeJam]

I think it's moderators preempting a thread because there's no content, only a reference to a link. I don't think the inherent "goodness" of the link comes into play. I'm sure if he had done any link with that same post it would have been closed.

[NineToTheSky]

There are two issues here: being too pointless, and a posting style twickster is not happy with.

Being too pointless is one of those rules where it has to be a personal call. In my view, it's just too vague and unnecessary. I made a long, well reasoned and passionate OP that disappeared without a trace - not a single response; so that is, whatever I thought of it, a pointless OP. The people spoke with their feet.

The problem is that twickster isn't just enforcing a rule. She has said that in astro's and Siam Siam's cases, her objection is not that it is necessarily too pointless (she has admitted that there might be merit in discussing girls' tattos), but there is not sufficient stimulus in the OP. That issue is not (AFAIK) covered by the rules; it is a personal value judgement made by twickster.

If a mod gets complaints about this issue, there might be a reason for her to act, but I don't believe that is within a mod's remit to dictate posting styles.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by NineToTheSky

There are two issues here: being too pointless, and a posting style twickster is not happy with.

Being too pointless is one of those rules where it has to be a personal call. In my view, it's just too vague and unnecessary. I made a long, well reasoned and passionate OP that disappeared without a trace - not a single response; so that is, whatever I thought of it, a pointless OP. The people spoke with their feet.

The problem is that twickster isn't just enforcing a rule. She has said that in astro's and Siam Siam's cases, her objection is not that it is necessarily too pointless (she has admitted that there might be merit in discussing girls' tattos), but there is not sufficient stimulus in the OP. That issue is not (AFAIK) covered by the rules; it is a personal value judgement made by twickster.

If a mod gets complaints about this issue, there might be a reason for her to act, but I don't believe that is within a mod's remit to dictate posting styles.

I guess I don't see the difference. If the OP just posts a link, that indicates that the topic is so pointless that they don't have anything to say about it. They obviously aren't establishing a point to their post. So that makes it even more pointless than other posts in MPSIMS.

I remember that MMP were considered too mundane by a lot of people, and they cited the same reason. The post doesn't start a conversation.
The only reason the MMP stays around is that the pointlessness essentially became a topic in and of itself.

[Siam Sam]

I seem to keep being mentioned in this thread. What, is MPSIMS supposed to be more like Great Debates or IMHO? I honestly didn't realize every single thread was necessarily supposed to be a springboard to lengthy discussion. But I notice that astro's tattoo thread did get a bit of discussion once it was actually given a decent chance.

Not that I feel I was being too pointless. I don't know if mhendo was taking exception to my threads or just pointing to them as the first example that came to mind. The Panda Cam was mentioned in post #4. Well, I don't have any kitty pics or puppy pics, so I thought this was a cool alternative. I still do. It garnered some good word. Sure, I posted 12 Places to Go If the World Goes to Hell, but I'm hardly alone in that. Others also post lists of 15 of this or the top 50 of that. There are some others in MPSIMS right now, but I don't want to specify any, because I don't care to single anyone out for action.

I can't remember a mod having a problem with any of my threads for the three years I've been on the Board. Or I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, maybe on their Mod Board they've all been saying they wish I'd pipe down, and twickster is the first to say anything about it. Well, I've tried very hard not to act like a jerk or break any rules, but I guess you can't make everyone happy. Possibly I've misinterpreted exactly what MPSIMS is supposed to be for.

[twickster]

There's all kinds of mundane and pointless stuff in MPSIMS, always has been, always will be. That's what the forum is. The issue isn't levels of profundity (or lack thereof); the is issue whether there's anything to the content of an OP that will lead other people to respond, to be something beyond passive viewers of whatever your link sends them to.

Rule of thumb: If you don't actually have anything to say about the link you're posting, probably no one else will either, so think twice about whether it's worth sharing.

[NineToTheSky]

FWIW, there's only one style of thread that I've never seen the appeal of: the sequence threads. For example, Poster A: January. Poster B: February - and so on. No wit, no challenges, no debating, just boring.

But they happen, and they are well populated, so people must love them, so even those I wouldn't close down. Horses for courses.

[tacoloco]

Originally Posted by twickster

the is issue whether there's anything to the content of an OP that will lead other people to respond, to be something beyond passive viewers of whatever your link sends them to.

Here's what you don't seem to get. You don't get to decide this. The only criteria is whether people actually have some interest and post or if the thread falls off the front page quickly.

You have no idea what people might find interesting and discussion worthy. I happened to be interested in the girls with tattoos thread but since you apparently know better than me what I find interesting, there is no opportunity to do so.

Rule of thumb: If you don't actually have anything to say about the link you're posting, probably no one else will either, so think twice about whether it's worth sharing.

Uh huh. Right.

[tacoloco]

Originally Posted by Siam Sam

Possibly I've misinterpreted exactly what MPSIMS is supposed to be for.

All of us who post here are subject to the whims of the moderators and admins. Some of them are awesome, some well, less awesome.

[Little Nemo]

I still disagree with the decision to close that thread. Quite frankly, I have no idea who astro is and what his or her past posting history has been. But that particular OP was no more pointless than dozens of others in the same forum. There was no reason to assume it couldn't have been an inspiration for others to comment on. And if nobody felt like commenting on it, it would have died on its accord.

[Electric Warrior]

Originally Posted by BigT

One of the rules is that certain posts are too mundane for MPSIMS. Yeah, it's a nanny rule, but so is "No personal insults" or "Don't be a jerk." Adults shouldn't need any of these rules.

I personally hate that the mods have the power to lock an ongoing discussion, as I think a board should have room for anything its members want to talk about. But we can't change it.

Oh, and twicks, I don't see a purpose in wrist-slapping someone if they are really breaking the rules. Obviously, locking threads hasn't worked in the past, so something harsher is necessary to get the poster's attention. Either enforce it like you would any other rule (allowing punishments to escalate), or don't enforce it at all.

So in your opinion, what should mods do?

[twickster]

Originally Posted by tacoloco

You have no idea what people might find interesting and discussion worthy. I happened to be interested in the girls with tattoos thread but since you apparently know better than me what I find interesting, there is no opportunity to do so.

Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Electric Warrior

So in your opinion, what should mods do?

Well, first off, in the perfect world I was describing, we wouldn't need them. We'd have a couple administrators to do things with the software (that ordinary Jo won't know how to do without messing up), but that's it.

In the real world, I would just prefer a more democratic process. Have the rules agreed upon by everyone. Have the mods only enforce those rules. I would prefer that locking a thread be saved for the most egregious cases. While we are always told that we can start a new thread, it never seems to happen. The mods' action puts a damper on the thread.*

It seems that closing a thread is punishing the innocent with the guilty. At the same time, it's still just a slap on the wrist unless there's an opportunity that getting multiple threads killed will lead to escalation**. So the good people feel sad that their thread died, and the bad people don't care, since they aren't personally going to be punished.

*Particularly for people like me who are avid thread readers, and not posters. So, even though I want the thread to continue, I don't have anything in particular to say about it (or nothing substantial) so I can't justify starting a new thread. I figure this is why threads often don't get restarted.

**Compare a mod note, which if you disregard it, will often lead to a formal warning. It's one of my favorite tools, actually. Only the people who need to read it will. I mean, I figure I've crossed the line a couple times. I already know when I've screwed up, so I usually restrict myself from participating in that thread. This means I don't need the note, and since I'm not looking, I don't have to read it either.

On Preview: I want to also point out that tacoloco seems to be talking about a different board. The SDMB has always reserved the right for Mods to make judgment calls that are not explicitly in the rules. Arguing they don't have the right to do something is, well, stupid. When you signed up for this message board, you agreed to either do what the mods say, or be punished. While we have the right to disagree with their actions, they still have the right to make them.

You may not want them to be able to make that decision, but, as you've already seen, it is still something they can do. And Twickster even indicated it was a long standing tradition, so it's not like she's going rogue with power.

I do wonder if you actually think all the rules for all the forums are mentioned in the rules threads. The mods have come down very much against that style of thinking. They claim that, the more official rules you have, the more people will try to figure out loopholes. It seems the rules serve more as a guideline for our behavior, rather than an exhaustive collection of all the reasons someone can be punished.

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by twickster

Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it.

MOD BURN!!!

[tacoloco]

Originally Posted by twickster

Well, except that I reopened the thread a day and a half ago. If you had any actual interest, you could go post in it.

So I'm supposed to go look for a thread you closed when I had no idea it was reopened?

[twickster]

Originally Posted by tacoloco

So I'm supposed to go look for a thread you closed when I had no idea it was reopened?

Post #8, my first appearance in this thread:

Originally Posted by twickster

...Since there is a clamor for this particular bit of mundane pointlessness to be open, I'll be happy to unlock the thread.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Stop, I beg you, before you kill him!