Off Topic Suggestion Thread

[XelaKebert]

An OP of  a thread could request a lock regardless - OP's have  always been able to request their threads locked, so Xela, your point seems kinda redundant ):

Also, you guys need to get out of the mentality of locking threads/disabling future discussion. : p Like i said before, just let the thread die, which happens plenty of times. this allows future people to rebring up discussion without having to create a new thread.

It's not that it's redundant, it becomes a rule for discussion threads and here's why. As you stated, once everything that could be said on a topic has been said then it becomes a big spam magnet. Why should a topic remain open just for people to randomly derail the thread when the discussion is over? If the discussion is over then it is over, there is no need to keep it around and therefore should be closed. However, when the topic reaches this point is not always up to staff, the OP should be sharing the responsibility in looking over the thread. The majority of threads I locked were just plain spam threads or became more trouble to moderate than they were worth.

[Deejaye]

It's not that it's redundant, it becomes a rule for discussion threads and here's why. 

I think you got my points mixed up, Xela. I said that an OP has always has the ability to request their thread to be locked, so you saying this:

 

Maybe something that can go hand in hand with some more lax moderation is that the OP of serious debate threads can request their thread be locked once they feel everything that can be said about the topic has been said.

is redundant, because they can already do this.

 

 

As you stated, once everything that could be said on a topic has been said then it becomes a big spam magnet. Why should a topic remain open just for people to randomly derail the thread when the discussion is over? If the discussion is over then it is over, there is no need to keep it around and therefore should be closed. However, when the topic reaches this point is not always up to staff, the OP should be sharing the responsibility in looking over the thread. The majority of threads I locked were just plain spam threads or became more trouble to moderate than they were worth.

All this is is a difference in moderation style. In my personal opinion, I would rather a thread die in the depths of OT and maybe be necro'd every now and then rather than the last 20 pages of OT's threads be filled with locked threads that no one can post in.

[KingofChess]

It's not that it's redundant, it becomes a rule for discussion threads and here's why. As you stated, once everything that could be said on a topic has been said then it becomes a big spam magnet. Why should a topic remain open just for people to randomly derail the thread when the discussion is over? If the discussion is over then it is over, there is no need to keep it around and therefore should be closed. However, when the topic reaches this point is not always up to staff, the OP should be sharing the responsibility in looking over the thread. The majority of threads I locked were just plain spam threads or became more trouble to moderate than they were worth.

Deejaye is saying that locking so many threads can also be bad. See, if a page gets like 2 or 3 pages of spam when it's dead then yeah, lock it. But if a thread is still on topic but isn't used anymore, there's no point in locking it because it may serve as a helpful thread another day where someone can ask a question and it can be answered.

[XelaKebert]

All this is is a difference in moderation style. In my personal opinion, I would rather a thread die in the depths of OT and maybe be necro'd every now and then rather than the last 20 pages of OT's threads be filled with locked threads that no one can post in.

 

If a thread is that far down in the section should it even exist at that point just for someone to maybe necro? The answer is no. It makes the section look dirty because there are more dead topics than active topics. I'm not saying the last 20 pages of OT should be locked threads because those should be trashed after a certain amount of time as it is. If someone wants to start the discussion again I fail to see how reviving a 2-3 year old thread is better than just starting a fresh one.

 

Deejaye is saying that locking so many threads can also be bad. See, if a page gets like 2 or 3 pages of spam when it's dead then yeah, lock it. But if a thread is still on topic but isn't used anymore, there's no point in locking it because it may serve as a helpful thread another day where someone can ask a question and it can be answered.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if a discussion has run its course at that time why should it stick around just to be spammed? If there is no more discussion to be had then the OP should request a lock. A moderator should only step in on a discussion if it moves into a realm that should not be discussed on these forums. This not only gives a more relaxed atmosphere, but ensures that inactive discussions don't just rot in the bowels of OT just because someone might someday revive the topic.

[Tyrone]

What about having tags in front of OT Thread titles such as [Serious], [Joke], etc.

So it becomes clear what kind of posts go in what kind of thread. This way the mods only have to remove unappropriate content in [Joke] threads and Off-topic (yes this is possible) in [Serious] threads.

[Deejaye]

 

If a thread is that far down in the section should it even exist at that point just for someone to maybe necro? The answer is no. It makes the section look dirty because there are more dead topics than active topics. I'm not saying the last 20 pages of OT should be locked threads because those should be trashed after a certain amount of time as it is. If someone wants to start the discussion again I fail to see how reviving a 2-3 year old thread is better than just starting a fresh one.

Because if you make a new topic, it'll just be the exact same discussion and the process will repeat?  

 

 

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if a discussion has run its course at that time why should it stick around just to be spammed? If there is no more discussion to be had then the OP should request a lock.

Also, making the assumption that people will "spam" threads when they necro one isn't a very optimistic viewpoint. That's also preemptive moderation - "close it because what might happen" - which isn't a good way to moderate something (in my opinion) as well as being something a lot of OT posters don't like anyway.

 

 

A moderator should only step in on a discussion if it moves into a realm that should not be discussed on these forums. This not only gives a more relaxed atmosphere, but ensures that inactive discussions don't just rot in the bowels of OT just because someone might someday revive the topic.

this seems to contradict itself but idk, maybe I'm reading it wrong. 

 

Honestly tho, I'm sorry Xela, you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not sure if there's not really a point in me discussing this with you because as I stated earlier, a difference in moderation style. We're not going to convince eachother otherwise because we're set in how we see how things should be.

 

 

What about having tags in front of OT Thread titles such as [Serious], [Joke], etc.

So it becomes clear what kind of posts go in what kind of thread. This way the mods only have to remove unappropriate content in [Joke] threads and Off-topic (yes this is possible) in [Serious] threads.

not every section on the forum needs [Labels]. and lol silly

Edited June 28, 2015 by Deejaye

[KingofChess]

What about having tags in front of OT Thread titles such as [Serious], [Joke], etc.

So it becomes clear what kind of posts go in what kind of thread. This way the mods only have to remove *inappropriate* content in [Joke] threads and Off-topic (yes this is possible) in [Serious] threads.

I like dat idea.

[XelaKebert]

Because if you make a new topic, it'll just be the exact same discussion and the process will repeat?  

 

 

Also, making the assumption that people will "spam" threads when they necro one isn't a very optimistic viewpoint. That's also preemptive moderation - "close it because what might happen" - which isn't a good way to moderate something (in my opinion) as well as being something a lot of OT posters don't like anyway.

 

 

this seems to contradict itself but idk, maybe I'm reading it wrong. 

 

Honestly tho, I'm sorry Xela, you're a cool guy and all, but I'm not sure if there's not really a point in me discussing this with you because as I stated earlier, a difference in moderation style. We're not going to convince eachother otherwise because we're set in how we see how things should be.

 

How is having a fresh thread for the same discussion any different from reviving an old thread? If it's the same exact discussion then the process still repeats. The difference between the two is that with one style the thread rots after the discussion dies with the other the OP requests a lock and the thread gets moved to the trash.

 

I'm not making the assumption that a thread will be spammed, this only applies to a small handful of threads as it is. What I'm saying is that if the discussion has run its course why should it just stick around and rot because somebody might someday revive the topic? The OP should be keeping an eye on their discussions in order to see when it has run its course. Prior to OT being closed there were 100+ pages of dead threads that nobody had any interest in reviving, only a small handful were ever revived. Most, if not all, discussions that take place in OT are one time events that die once they've run their course. Those threads then just rot in the bowels of OT waiting for someone to have an interest in reviving them which makes the section very cluttered and disorganized.

[LadyMori]

Then delete anything past 2 months or beyond. Don't close something that had "yesterday" posted. Closing active threads because a mod FEELS like its going south doesn't mean automatically it will. The problem is that moderators feel empowered to impose their thoughts and feelings over the people who live in that thread. That's like foreclosing our OT house before we can even make the rent because you the "landlords" feel like we will miss the due day automatically and using the lords part as literal term. Don't kick us out before you know. Simple yet effective metaphor. Another reason why we call for an OT mod that's an OTer is a way that represents us both mutually, he/she will be an admin while also being one of us. We'd rather have a familiar face moderate us than someone we never see come in and impose themselves onto us. Sure they would post one or two things but we would appreciate if we had a familiar regular mod in here. That's my two cheeks on this matter

Edited June 28, 2015 by LadyMori

[Gunthug]

I don't really understand why off topic needs to be closed while changes are being discussed/approved. Your job is to moderate the forums, not just close the section and absolve yourselves of your responsibilities. Hey, you know what would make all the mods jobs easier? If the entire forums were closed!

[Plague]

How would Off Topic posters feel about not having a set moderator for the section? Instead it would just be looked at by Global Mods+ to make sure all is okay (a bit like how General is modded except more off topic-ish). 

 

This is probably the right way to go. Let OT self-moderate unless a GM needs to swoop in and handle something that actually goes against the forum rules. If you do want an OT Mod to make GMs' lives easier, someone like Deejaye/Gilgamesh (aka someone who's familiar with OT) would be best.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Plague

[londark]

If you do want an OT Mod to make GMs' lives easier, someone like Deejaye/Gilgamesh/King (aka someone who's familiar with OT) would be best.

 

Agreed

[Gilgamesh]

How would Off Topic posters feel about not having a set moderator for the section? Instead it would just be looked at by Global Mods+ to make sure all is okay (a bit like how General is modded except more off topic-ish). 

 

Just my two cents. I'd rather we not have our current GMs be the only ones moderating the forum whilst there is somebody on the team that seems to think we do nothing but shitpost and can't have meaningful conversations. We just need a new mod who is well received by the community and knows the community enough to moderate actual inappropriate content like personal attacks as opposed to friendly banter. Deejaye will do it, I'd do it, fuck we could both do it. There's also a lot more people who are capable but it's not really up to me to decide.

[Munya]

Just my two cents. I'd rather we not have our current GMs be the only ones moderating the forum whilst there is somebody on the team that seems to think we do nothing but shitpost and can't have meaningful conversations. We just need a new mod who is well received by the community and knows the community enough to moderate actual inappropriate content like personal attacks as opposed to friendly banter. Deejaye will do it, I'd do it, fuck we could both do it. There's also a lot more people who are capable but it's not really up to me to decide.

 

In a moderating position where moderators are so close to the community, and in some cases friends, its best to have people from both sides of the fence to work certain things out, since an unbiased opinion doesn't exist here.

[Gilgamesh]

In a moderating position where moderators are so close to the community, and in some cases friends, its best to have people from both sides of the fence to work certain things out, since an unbiased opinion doesn't exist here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're assuming that somebody who is close friends with the community isn't capable of doing an adequate job of moderating the section without somebody from the outside.

 

I have utmost confidence that most of the people who have had to put up with the shit in OT for the last couple of years are more than capable of moderating the section without bias. Just because you're friends with the community doesn't mean you can't do your job properly.

[Munya]

And thats the sort of bias that exists when they are friends that I was talking about completely.

[Rigamorty]

I'll mod the shit out of Off-Topic.

[Heimann]

Kinda feel like this is becoming one of those stereotypical movies.

Throwing a random white person(Mod) into the hood(OT) and expecting them to be accepted and cause some sort of change.
When instead you could promote a member of the hood who is respected among the others. (Dj,Emlee,Gilga,OS,Plague etc)

[Darkshade]

Kinda feel like this is becoming one of those stereotypical movies.

Throwing a random white person(Mod) into the hood(OT) and expecting them to be accepted and cause some sort of change.
When instead you could promote a member of the hood who is respected among the others. (Dj,Emlee,Gilga,OS,Plague etc)

 

That's a pretty moot analogy since nobody is looking to garner respect from Off Topic regulars, we're aiming to moderate the section.

[King]

I'll mod off-topic so hard it won't walk for a week

[Vorred]

That's a pretty moot analogy since nobody is looking to garner respect from Off Topic regulars, we're aiming to moderate the section.

 

If I were in the hood, I wouldn't do crack if OS told me not to

[Emlee]

I heard Emluu doesn't want to mod ot. ;OO 

 

 

To respond to Noad, Tyrone and Brightshade:

 

Moderation choices are up to you, I am fine with Globals+/a mod. At this point I just want OT back and to move forward. 

 

There isn't a need to delete old threads IMO. That doesn't solve or change anything. 

 

No need for tags because it's silly for mods to have to moderator based on a tag, as in enforcing different rules for different tags. Too complicated. 

 

The goal of OT should be that people can go there, post what is on their mind (within rules), not be harassed, and maybe end up with some fun or interesting discussion. Nothing less and nothing more. IMO. I don't think that this is as complicated as it's been made out to be.

[fredrichnietze]

That's a pretty moot analogy since nobody is looking to garner respect from Off Topic regulars, we're aiming to moderate the section.

just as munya does not speak for staff when he types, not everyone in this thread speaks for off topic as a living entity. pls remember this when considering nuking ot.

[axx]

That's a pretty moot analogy since nobody is looking to garner respect from Off Topic regulars, we're aiming to moderate the section.

this is something you all pretty much fail at, how can you make the moderation easier if you dont get your community to respect you?

don't you think i'd be way easier if someone who actually respects/is respected by the community was in charge?

think about it, OT people pretty much gona pick on a mod the less they respect him/her, which drives into shitposting for the sake of "fuck da police

[Gilgamesh]

And thats the sort of bias that exists when they are friends that I was talking about completely.

Do you wanna tell me why you think somebody who is friends with the community can't adequately moderate the forum without being biased?

 

Or are you just going to leave it up in the air and call me biased?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Gilgamesh