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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
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. 
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.
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?
Please.
Moderators preempting a thread because they think it might not be good isn’t acceptable.
There’s no mock outrage here.
Go away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.