But the assumption that we should have read the entire thread and be current on any moderator guidance in the thread when posting is a bit much, IMHO. And given moderators’ thread-editing super powers, it seems easily rectified.
So here’s my proposal:
If a moderator puts instructions or guidance in the thread that is directed at anyone who posts in the thread, s/he should:
Add a note to the thread title like “(See mod notes in OP)”
Edit the OP to say something like “Read posts #141 and #316 for moderator guidance before posting” at either the top or bottom of the OP.
It’s not. But we’ve been over it before and they can’t be bothered to do it. You don’t see this sort of in-thread on-the-fly decree-making elsewhere for obvious reasons. It would be a marginally more acceptable policy if the go-to-first-unread-post button actually worked. But it doesn’t.
I actually agree with the mods’ position. Even in the absence of moderator instructions, posters should read the thread before posting, as a matter of courtesy.
As a newcomer to this board, I’ve never understood why there is not a rule to read the thread before replying. Seems the whole point of internet message boards would be to read messages. People coming in to blurt something out like it’s new info, when several others have already said the same thing, is frustrating to read.
As D’Anconia notes, it seems impolite.
I imagine there have been discussions in the past why reading threads is not a requirement, but I have been unlucky in finding any by searching.
Reading the entire thread is not a requirement - that would be cumbersome to enforce and put barriers to someone participating. As a courtesy, I think it’s a good thing to do. Posters have always been responsible for any instruction given in a thread however, so even if reading the entire thread is not required, at least scanning for instruction is a good practice.
Fast moving threads happen, and in those cases it is understandable that mod instruction can be missed. I check time stamps when referring back to threads where notes/instruction have been given. If it is plausible that the instruction could have been missed, then I tend to give a lot of leeway.
No matter what step is taken to indicate a note/instruction was given, it would be possible to miss. My way of reading is actually to go to the last post in the thread and start from there. In long running threads I may scroll up to see where I left off. I have my default view set to display 100 posts so even my page breaks are different than those that view at 40 posts/page. But in multi page threads, I’m not going to revisit the first page so an indication there could easily be missed. Even changing the thread title could be missed if you leave the window open and just hit refresh on it. Given multiple notes, thread title editing would also become problematic.
Combine that with the fact that it takes a bit of extra work, especially from my phone, and I’m thinking it’s not a standard I want to hold myself to. I’m open to it, but comparing the frequency at which it is an issue vs. the increased level of effort all the other times doesn’t seem like it comes out on the plus side of cost benefit.
What about changing the text color along with the bolding when instructions are given? Then the instructions can easily be seen on scanning the threads and I think it would be a relatively easy step to add when posting notes or warnings.
Posters still have to read the threads, but it would make things easier.
I think what happens is that the mod instructions are at the bottom of page 22. Someone responds to something half-way down page 22, and by the time they post it, it shows up on page 23. They never read the last 3-4 posts on page 22–they never know they even exist. They just keep going. It’s not willful not-reading, it’s just a pretty reasonable mistake.
That said, I’m pretty okay with it as long as people don’t get actual warnings.
theres no way to say make a sticky type post before the op after a thread starts?
i ask because on a game forum the mods can make a sticky before the first post to post that weeks game goals and keep them updates so we don’t have to ask the same Q’s over and over …
The moderator in that thread couldn’t even be bothered explaining his ruling IN the goddamn post where he made it. His instructions were a model of opacity. And now you’re requesting that he take the time to provide an EXTRA guideline in a completely different part of the thread? You, my friend, are an optimist.
No, the second moderator in the thread did that. The post by Bone was fine, but it was only necessary because the first moderator had made a contribution that was as clear as mud:
This was in a thread in its 11th page. What the hell was the “it” that Jonathan Chance was referring to?
As I tell my students, one of the most basic rules of good writing is that you make clear for your reader what the antecedents of your pronouns are. So, if you’re going to use “he” or “they” or “them” or “it” in a sentence, make sure that you have, previously and recently in your story, identified for your reader who “he” or “they” or “them” or “it” actually is.