Jump to content

Low content topic starts


John Wright
 Share

Recommended Posts

There has been a surge in topics being opened, with just a link and a quote from another forum, website or media site , and no comment opinion or analysis from the OP.

 

These have attracted reports and adverse comment.

 

In future, when seen, these will be removed.

 

We removed newsbot link because it just littered the forums, as do these.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come this announcement is from John Wright, who's position I thought was advisor, and not the Admin or Mod team? I've no problem John filling those either of those roles but if he has an official role - and making official announcements suggests he does it would be helpful if that was clarified.

 

Secondly, doesn't this set the moderation team up as editors, deciding whether a new thread has sufficient content seems like the act of an editor?

 

Thirdly, I not entirely sure if the harm the threads you wish to censor do? They either stimulate debate or they drop down the active topic list.

 

Finally, haven't you created a rule to deal with one person? The Soft Moon. Even he has mostly caused upset to Albert, who as the Onchan Traffic Lights incident shows, Albert has a blind spot where the Soft Moon is concerned.

 

Creating a rule to deal with extreme cases that affects all is never good practice. Wouldn't it be better to tackle the Soft Moon / Albert situation, then banning people from making the occasional threads saying "I've seen this ... Discuss".

 

For example, you could limit the number of thread starts allowed in a day to 1 per newbie, 3 per Regular, 5 per subscriber, 0 for the Soft Moon.

Edited by Declan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come this announcement is from John Wright, who's position I thought was advisor, and not the Admin or Mod team? I've no problem John filling those either of those roles but if he has an official role - and making official announcements suggests he does it would be helpful if that was clarified.

 

It's clear to me that John does have an 'official' role here, perhaps he can't commit to being a full time Admin/Mod due to time constraints but instead puts his time in when its available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declan...I haven't reported any of TSM'S posts or TJs for that matter. It's not just me titzed off with its forum 'etiquette', and all the news-spam.

 

I'm simply not bothering to comment on sick posts or spam waffle anymore. Eventually, I'm sure they'll break the rules enough and be the authors of their own demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then give him a title that reflects that role Spokesperson, Advisor etc.

 

Otherwise, let the announcements come from Ans or Unisol. Certainly, don't have him chastising people publicly referring to information from reports and other mod only (as he did to TJ the other day).

 

Either he has a role or not and if he does that should be clear.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey! Was there ever a more petty, mean spirited policy clearly aimed at a single poster (ie, me!) than this one? I'm beginning to think Tatlock might be John Wright's sock puppet! You never see them online together!

 

But seriously, this is quite a radical change in editorial policy. What might be the ramifications of it? For example, here's a thread that would have attracted reports and adverse comment and would therefore have been removed. 52 replies and nearly 1300 views, that in future won't get an airing. Or would it have been removed? I suggest it wouldn't. It is about about a subject close to John Wright's heart after all. In fact, a cursory glance here at the first page of threads I've started, most of which would have been removed under this new editorial policy, shows that of 25 threads only 2 have no replies. Subsequent pages show similar statistics. Nuts and sledgehammers? (Undoubtably the former!)

 

In the interests of evenhandedness (lol, I know, but hear me out anyway!) this thread would have gone too. And this one. And this one. And etc, etc, you get the idea. Can the new policy be thus summarised?

 

No user shall start a thread without commenting on it, even if they don't hold an opinion on the content but are interested in what other forum users have to say on the matter.

 

I dunno. Strikes me as a confused policy. I think Zammo Maguire has hit the nail on the head really.

Edited by The Sick Moon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the approach proposed by John. There has been a huge spike in links to media websites with no comments on recently which is just boring to be honest. We can all access these stories from the original source and start a thread with our views if we so wish.

 

TSM you have been particularly "guilty" of this recently, however, I am just as unimpressed with the examples you cited from Albert Tatlock.

 

I have not complained about any of the threads and choose not to read them or comment on them, however, I have noticed that the Local News forum has been filled with such posts recently with the entire front page showing very few replies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...