Yes, I know that you don’t allow post-count padding or posting for the sake of posting. I understand that is the rule under discussion, and I’m not challenging it, nor do I have any particular problem with the rule, largely because, as you say, it’s so rarely an issue. But the rule isn’t some sort of natural law; it’s the product of human ingenuity. At some point in history, someone must have made a decision that the board would be better off in some way if those particular posts were disallowed. And someone, somewhere must feel that way today, or you wouldn’t continue to enforce the rule, especially given that “people would prefer that we not do it at all.”
But no one can tell me who that is or what benefit the rule provides! And I can’t figure it out myself, which is what really drives me nuts. Maybe it made sense back when the hamsters were young and weak, before game threads were allowed in the game room, when every click of the SUBMIT button caused explosions around Jerry’s console like the bridge of the Enterprise when the Klingons are attacking. And I suppose maybe it’s just a relic of that time. But tons of rules have changed since then, even rules about which it wasn’t true that “people would prefer that we not [enforce them] at all.” So someone must be making a decision today that this rule serves a purpose. Now, certainly no one owes me an explanation. TPTB can have any rules their eldritch hearts desire. But it still bugs me.
You’re a sociologist, Twickster! What’s the Durkheimian analysis here? What adaptive function does the rule provide?
It said “it was because the staff had instructed the poster in question to stop writing OPs about his mental health issues”. At the moment the mods haven’t said that I can’t post follow-up replies about my mental illness.
Indeed - so why can’t JohnClay be restricted to a single “my mental issues” thread, like the pigeon egg thread?
Seems that would be a sensible compromise. What is wrong with this idea?
For the record, I don’t mind JohnClay’s threads. If I did, I wouldn’t open them but I do because he is an inoffensive part of board culture and he is often interesting and I sort of care about him.
So how about it, mods? All JohnClay all the time, in one thread. That people can open, or not, as they wish.
In the hope of being helpful, I’m going to make a few guesses that are completely mine about the answer. This is addressing your more general question about silly and pointless OPs and not about any other particular issues. Maybe one of the guesses will ring true with you.
A reason I’ve seen given before in closing pointless MPSIMS threads is that they take up valuable real estate on the front page. In other words, they can crowd out more substantive OPs. It could be argued that the most popular threads will stay on the front page, but the most popular threads are often the ones with the most participation, so the more substantive OP will likely fall off the page. That creates a game-like culture of participation in MPSIMS. It may not be desired by some to have that culture.
As a corollary, the kinds of threads people can start creates the culture on a message board. If the culture is completely silly and pointless, it’s one type of culture as versus a culture requiring substance in threads.
Silly and pointless threads can also be hard to follow. The substance in the first post leads the discussion. But if the first post is pointless, then the resulting discussion can be hard to follow.
There’s also the idea that certain people are drawn to certain types of threads. The pointless and silly threads attract a certain type of crowd. If those threads are the bulk of MPSIMS, then the same people will be posting. If the standard is more substantive, that has the potential to draw in more people.
There are two questions here, content-free threads and JohnClay’s posts about his mental health. Both are being tightly regulated, and the reason for that regulation is the same in both cases: Board culture.
The SDMB is a place where people have conversations. Often those conversations are frivolous – but even the frivolous conversations have some content to them. “You,” “No you,” “No YOU” is not a conversation. Where is the dividing line between that and an MPSIMS thread that’s allowed? that is decided on a case by case basis by the moderators, as just about everything around here.
In addition, we have a long-standing rule – part of the registration agreement, in fact – allowing us to declare some topics off-limit for some posters:
Again, the decision to issue such instructions is made on a case by case basis by the moderators.
If JohnClay wants to post about his mental health issues, he should start a blog. He may provide a link to that blog in his signature and anyone who wants to read it may do so.
Here’s a hint that will always work while keeping you in the good side of the staff. If you have a question about a thread you want to post, PM a mod and ask. They are here to help us, not screw us. Give them the chance to help you, ask if you’re in doubt.
Making threads that are okay isn’t too hard. If anyone finds themselves wondering “Should I make this thread?” or “Would this be allowed for me to make?” then the answer is probably “no”.
There are, however, probably a million threads you could make where you wouldn’t have to ask yourself that.
I’m not white-knighting mods (for God’s sake) but I agree with the decision to throttle-down JohnClay’s thread-starting. When he first started posting, he was clearly posting things for their shock value. He has evolved since then but in too many of his threads he lays something out from his personal life to be looked at and commented on with no give-and-take with other posters. If called-on about this, he will defend himself in an innocuous manner but that’s about it. (To be clear, in any interaction I’ve had with him, he’s been unfailingly polite and direct.)
I would venture to say that posters in his threads have probably sent many reports to mods complaining about these sorts of things and that was probably what got the ball rolling on the moderation. I don’t think there is any evidence whatever that the mods “don’t like him.”
When someone basically tells not to post anything personal about yourself because reasons, it doesn’t exactly feel you with the warm fuzzies.
And as far as people complaining because John is being John, well that’s just silly, nobody is being forced to post in his threads.
I agree John shouldn’t be starting a hundred threads about his various existential problems but jeez, at least allow the guy to have one thread every so often. It wouldn’t hurt anybody.
That’s my feeling. Sometimes it’s helpful to reach out and run your life by others. The real problem here is that the mods have drawn a line. After reading John’s responses, I think it’s clear he does not understand exactly where that line is drawn and what’s included in the mod instruction.
I’ve seen many examples where mods here have given certain posters leeway due to medical or mental issues, but that’s apparently not the case here. On the other hand, I really don’t want to open the dope and see page after page on what it’s like to be John. But one, once in a while, I’m okay with.
Kinda sorta, but he wants feedback, I think. And I’m guessing he feels comfortable and known here.
To have and maintain a blog that gets responses is a lot of work. You have to promote it, you have to visit a lot of other blogs on a regular basis and post for quid pro quo. I was thinking restricting him to a single ongoing thread would keep him contained, but the mods have their reasons for deciding against that. (One of which, if that’s the bulk of what he posts, he would be violating the TOS, so there’s that.)
I don’t think this is accurate. I think their stance is one derived from disruption. Even though absolutely no one is forced to read John’s threads, a lot of new members, or those unfamiliar with him, wander into his threads and then are put off… think he’s deliberately trolling, inflammatory , insincere or whatever. And because of that, there’s a lot of governing necessary to keep his threads on track. Keeping folks from insulting him, keeping him from crossing lines, answering PMs and reports about questionable behavior and then reaching mod consensus on discipline. I’m sure, when those topics are broached, more than anything else they’re just trying to avoid the never-ending hassle.
[I’m not advocating how they deal with John one way or another. That’s just my take on what appears to be going on from their point of view / behind the scenes. Because I bet he’s more to “keep up with,” if you will, then most other posters here.]