This is about threads that get moderated, and posters are directed to do or say something, or not do or something, or whatever. Posters are responsible for following mod instructions. But it’s unreasonable to expect people to read every post in a thread when there are already hundreds or thousands of posts.
I don’t like the idea of capping thread sizes, I only mention it as something hat might be feasible if not prefereable as a means of this issue, if it is an issue.
But could moderator posts that include instructions to all future posters be moved up the thread? Could post #200 become post #2? Or both (copied to the top and also left in place and context)?
And then posters who only read the last page of a thread will miss the mod instructions.
I don’t think there is any replacement for the idea of “read the thread before you post to it”. If it is too much work to find out what other people, including mods, have said already then don’t post to the thread.
The Republican Ideas Pit thread has 20,000+ posts. Probably nobody has read them all, or has forgotten most of them. There’s no way on earth that someone coming to new to that thread is going to read them all, nor should they be expected to.
I’m trying to find some means of identifying mod posts that need to be read before replying. Maybe something visual, like changing the colors of the bars above and below those posts?
Normally I like the chronological format of these “traditional” forums, and don’t like the reddit style. But for massive threads, the reddit style is the only way they are really usable. To be honest I don’t have any interest in, or participate in, all the “mega meta-threads” which try to create a monopoly on a given topic.
Actually to be honest, I find I use the forums less than I otherwise would because lots of interesting topics we no longer do individual threads on, but have a “meta thread” to discuss “every thing under the sun that falls into this category.” I find those threads unpleasant to sift through/read from a user experience perspective and just don’t participate in them, while I would if they were individual threads instead of combined ones.
Boyo Jim can you give an example where this has been a problem? A Pit thread probably isn’t the best example since by design there are few mod instructions given and it usually takes a while to sober up Miller enough to do anything.
I doubt there is a mod here that would warn someone in post 1003 for not following an instruction in post 53 unless it was someone participating throughout. It just means a little more work for us.
The thread that inspired the comment is a not a real good example – the one where tomndebb IMO re-write the OP in post 20 and ask people to respond to it rather than the OP.
But you’ve been here a long time, and I’m sure you’ve seen it many times. I 've lost track of the times I’ve heard a poster get warned or noted, and claimed they never saw the instructions that they just violated. I’m nure not every poster was sincere in this claim, but I’m sure plenty of them were.
I’m just looking for some workable idea to make mod posts stand out from the rest. I’m not wedded to any particular means or any particular number of posts that should trigger … something.
The mods have already said that mod notes buried in the bowels of a thread, prior to the poster in question entering it, would not held against those who missed them. It’s basically a judgment call on their part.
But then tomndebb posted this…
So I guess you have to read the thread before posting in it. Good luck with very long threads.
This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. As Loach says, will take into consideration the length of a thread when deciding whether to moderate violations of instructions.
What do you mean “we no longer do threads on?” What’s stopping you from starting a thread on an individual topic that you find interesting?
Sometimes threads on basically the same topic are merged, but mods don’t create these mega-threads, posters do. So evidently some people don’t mind them.
If you take things out of context, perhaps. tomndebb’s remark was in reference to a thread that was 18 posts long when he moderated it. There is no reason to consider that to override what you’ve been told about instructions on long threads in general.
I don’t know that they would. Isn’t this a lot easier than the expectation that they read every post before they reply?
Another idea that I know the mods COULD do, would be oversized and/or colored fonts. Again, just something to make them stand out visually from the others.
No, because whatever we do, people could still claim to have missed it. And we don’t want to entirely absolve people from having to pay attention to what’s going on in a thread.
I usually do bold the title of my moderating posts.
It’s not even a “solution” in search of a problem, since an actual “solution” hasn’t been found yet. It is a search for a solution in search for a problem.
Anyway, how long could it take to quickly scan the scant 463 pages of the SRIOTD thread?
It isn’t enough easier to make any practical difference. Do you think people are going to scroll thru every page of the Republican Ideas thread you mention, even if they don’t read every post?
If information is available but you choose not to avail yourself of it, go ahead, but that does not absolve you of anything. The mods are usually pretty good about doing the “TWEET!” thing or '/moderation" or whatever, to mark Mod Notes and Warnings and such. And they have been (IMO) quite reasonable about taking into consideration the fact that a given Mod Note was three pages back.
We are grown-ups here, mostly. We shouldn’t have to be spoon-fed. If you want to post to a thread without reading it, go ahead, but it is nobody else’s problem if you do.
Now I understand why TWOP had a rule to read either the last 15 pages, or the last 15 days (whichever was shorter),of a thread before posting. People couldn’t claim they missed a mod note.
How about having the same mod note appear as the first post on every page?