Printable View
Hey Robert,
Would it be possible to allow the originator of a thread to moderate it? I mean - for example - in the case of the "Scannermax 506s" thread - mixedgas could trash all the off topic crap and have a great thread (potentially award winning - I'm guessing) with about 6 posts that contain something worth reading...
Just a thought, Brian
I think forums need to represent a true account of what happened.
Giving the thread starter powers like that could lead to some dodgy scenarios if they don't like a response for some reason.
I think that threads going OT can be a good thing, and is reflective of how conversations can drift around.
Presenting information in an ordered way ánd discussing them freely and openly are mutually incompatible.
If you want to sacrifice some of your spare time, you're free to distill the information into a Wiki
If a virtual post never gets listed on the thread - it never happened. The thread owner shouldn't have the ability to edit after the fact - just to say yes/no about accepting the post on his thread - It forces someone who wants to go off topic (as determined by the thread owner) to start his own thread. You could even flag your thread as non-moderated from the beginning and have it show up in red (or something) to attract the tangentially obsessed...Quote:
Originally Posted by norty303
While I understand your point and how "off putting" it can be when a thread sometimes goes off course, particularly in a negative way; for ME personally, I'd hate to see it end up being easily editable. Sometimes arguments and off topic tangents lead to good things, other times they don't. But to me, that's what makes this place so special and "real". Sometimes (as an example), Wayne tossing in a humerous comment or one of Andy's well timed "piss my shit's", is the laugh that may very well get me through a few minute "PL escape" from an otherwise bad day at work. Sometimes, in the end, an argument ends with the realization that it's ok to agree to disagree and everyone moves on. The power is still there for the admin to remove the really bad or offensive things should it ever escalate that far.
I like the idea of a respository (wiki) of good information though, and it would be cool if there was a managable way to move the highly educational parts of a discourse away from the chaff. I just don't know how that would best be accomplished.
That would mean threads can't go off topic.
In case you don't remember them, here are the rules. Which is more of a code. http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...Code-of-Ethics
In the words of Jack Sparrow... Keep to the code.
This is a Forum, which is a Latin word for "marketplace" or "central meeting place". People talk to each other in conversations. This is not equal to information being presented with a minimal noise level.
Ah... but does it really require a maximal noise level? Having the OP approve posts doesn't mean the thread can't go off topic - it just means the OP can force the virtual post to become a new thread (resting on it's own merits) when he feels his thread is being hijacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by colouredmirrorball
i'd suggest not directly delete such responses but just mark them as "irrelevant" or something
then you'd see "This post has been hidden as it's off-topic. To see it anyway click HERE" and that would reveal the post
you could set autohiding of off-topic posts in your profile
Why not implement a reputation system where people who get flagged off topic a lot loose reputation while people who provide good posts receive reputation? *retardo
lol that could be misused easily, why do you think facebook only has "Like" button? :D
I'm not suggesting deleting them - just tossing them out as a new topic where they can sink or swim on their own...Quote:
Originally Posted by dzodzo
I think I would stop using a forum that required a thread starter to review and approve every one of my posts, and I would find it a total pain in the butt to have to do that for people commenting on my threads.
Aside from the odd thread/user here or there, I think you are trying to fix a problem that probably doesn't need fixing, but I guess that all depends on what you want out of a forum or what your preconception of 'a forum' is.
As a community, I think we collectively have a responsibility to define what is/is not acceptable, and to set a 'tone' to proceedings. We don't/shouldn't need 'functionality' to achieve it.
Any sort of censorship is bad in my book - except maybe self-censorship. The fact that PL is little moderated is a big plus in my opinion. If I want to make an arse of myself (which I sometimes do) I can - as can others.
A place of free speech soon distils personalities, motives and character and I rather like it.
Keith
The nice thing about a feature is you don't have to use it - just turn it off - The current alternative is smiling and ignoring the buffoons, or wading in and punching it out to make PL a better place - and even if you're willing to turn the other cheek - the thread still gets hijacked by others who won't. I'm suggesting a rather pointed way of saying, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." Somewhere else!Quote:
Originally Posted by norty303
That could work because it's effectively doing what a very off-topic poster should have done in the first place. Also, because determining 'off-topic' is a thing for a brain, not a machine, and because too many cooks spoil stuff, it should either be possible by the thread originator, or not at all. (Depends on Spec's judgement and coding effort.).Quote:
Originally Posted by laserist
The thing the rest of us can do is decide how off-topic our post will be. A drift in subject is no problem, no real discovery or invention is achieved without it, but a direct challenge to a person arising out of a passing reference IS a thing that should get a new thread. The sooner that gets its own thread, the sooner discussion will follow that thread, so whatever it is, it should be done fast. For now, if you see a challenge likely to spawn a lot of angry noise unrelated, you could flag it to Spec because the opportunity is given to say why you're flagging it. If he agrees he'll probably move it. If he doesn't, then there's nothing we can do about it so we might as well shut up about it and drown out the noise with on-topic posts.
EDIT: I also agree with Keith about the free speech effect. I never use forums that don't allow it pretty much unfiltered because they always act like they own our words and thoughts. In this case though, if a thread originator can move a very off-topic post to a new thread without changing its content, other than perhaps to add a link to the original thread for context, then it adds more to free speech than it removes. (Though like all things it may have unexpected and undesirable consequences we don't know about).
I agree with that too. If the thing gets so bad that we can't think straight, then the 'cleverer' a forum function gets, the more likely it is to be another way for us to go wrong. The best free-speech forum I remember had brutally simple code compared to today's forums, and arguably went downhill when later forum software was used.Quote:
Originally Posted by norty303
Great idea.
If only someone had thought of identifying something of no relevance years ago .....
Attachment 41754
Ouch. :) I don't think anyone's proposing a 'total cleansing' though. A better analogy might be to allow people holding a party to turn people away from their house if they look drunk enough to smash stuff up.
that's because you're just a plant...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galvonaut
And you know that plants like being talked to how? >:)Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
... such 'thread-cleaning' is best done by mods (or admins) not direct involved in the thread ... the OP or 'involved' users with such powers tends to kill discussions, even if they are not heated or totally OT ...
Viktor
Really? References?Quote:
Originally Posted by VDX
I get your point Laserist, you want purity. But thats not going to happen on an open forum. This is not Wiki, its a bunch of everyday people from different cultures around the world discussing topics we all relate to. Banter is part of the human condition. When you make a thread it is not your thread, its the forums property, and is allowed to be viewed and commented on by all who have interest. Thats how public forums work. If you want a closed discussion then you have to create that through email, PM, ect, and invite only the people you want to comment. Even then nobody wants to talk straight shop, and banter will still arise.
This also has the possibility of creating exclusivity of which users can and cannot post, even if on topic. If the OP so wishes, they could lock their thread to only those who they feel worthy of posting. It would most likely not happen but it could. In an open forum, I think the idea is a little ill-conceived even though I agree with what you're saying, Brian.
Besides, if things get too out of hand, the PL janitor will step in. This has happened before. Look up ILDA format 3.
I hate when threads go OT.
I have a question, what is the easiest way to identify the orientation of a PBS cube?
Sledgehammer?Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Well, as I need to add more characters, why the character limit?
http://nononprofitspam.files.wordpre...markasspam.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by colouredmirrorball
Ask it: gay, straight, bisexual, or none of the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Edit:
And when it has answered 'none of the above', try to annoy it further by asking it if it goes both ways.
hahaha....
typically pbs cubes have a little dot in one corner to show the orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
No way! typically the grounded sides with the diagonals are top and bottom.
In the end, PL is more about people then it is about lasers.
The rep system mentioned above is a terrible idea, for reasons I've already explained (the explaining of which is probably partly the motivation for this topic). Anyway, despite wishing I had editing power in a few of my own threads here, I'd vote against it. It might just fan the flames (so to speak), and increase animosity.
... I'm admin in RepRap-forums ... here it's often the same with powers vs. censorship in relation to the 'vividness' of threads ...Quote:
Originally Posted by laserist
In other words - because I said so...Quote:
Originally Posted by VDX
vividness - or annoying? If you measure success by the number of posts - then sure - maximal noise is by definition a good thing...
From Edmund:Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Attachment 41767
Dude - I'm pretty sure he was joking. Everyone agrees that a "rep" system is fundamentally flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eidetic
Adam
I believe that's the first time I've heard anyone here agree with me on that point. The first. And I don't believe he was joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Edit: OK, I looked at it again and missed the smiley face. My mistake. Should I correct myself with this edit, by cutting the sentence, or by cutting my whole post (in light of this thread's topic)? Should the OP be empowered to make that call?
Perhaps it's just that a lot of people don't like to drag up drama from LPF and post about it here. But privately, lots of people have bemoaned the rep system there, because it rapidly devolves into a popularity contest where people are judged not by their contributions to the community, or even their knowledge, but rather by the number of friends they have. That's no way to run a railroad.
Also, even though the post is now deleted, he did have the retardo-face smiley at the end of it. I interpreted that as a sarcastic dig at the flawed system that LPF uses. I could be wrong, but I figured it was a little tongue-in-cheek joke and nothing more.
Adam
I'd have had the same interpretation if I hadn't been flash-blinded by the rage put into my head by the suggestion. Again, my fault. But I'd still rather see threads left intact, warts and all.
Wait, what? Is it my post you're referring to? AFAIKT, still there http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...602#post281602 :confused:
And that was definately a joke! Sorry that wasn't clear, should have added more *retardo *retardo *retardo 's.
I'm not, and have never been, a member of LPF, but I heard people complain about the rep system there so I posted that comment.
Sorry - I thought it had been deleted. I went looking for it and couldn't find it. Guess I must have scrolled right past it without noticing. (Sigh - My eyesight must be failing me in my old age...)
But yeah, I had a feeling it was meant as a joke. Glad to see I read your intent correctly.
Adam
Just about the only thing I KNOW about LPF is that it has/had a tremendously flawed and abused rep system.
That would make it possible to stop people from writing the truth about certain companies.
I just started to wonder if that was an intention here, to allow some parties to add spam like threads to PL while preventing anyone adding what might be relevant comments to it.
Example Brian here starts a thread about his new product. Now lets say Brian copied that idea from somebody called Dave
Dave gets pissed and posts that Brian Copied his idea.
Brian can delete Dave's posts and take the credit for copying somebody else idea.
Posting on PL is good for google, and Brian gets a lot of views about the product he copied.
These are kind of communist/dictator methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laserist
Actually we're lucky we have Spec. THis way the record will remain intact, and all the huffing and puffing will eventually change to interest in whatever interests us most and life goes on. Best outcome, AND the course of least effort and least resistance. So we might as well get used to it because most of the time, I suspect that is how we like it.
I just love it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
Thanks, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to stride completely over the line - congrats...Quote:
Originally Posted by andyf97
I am pretty sure it was Dave's idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyf97
:) I think so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Amen to that. My high rep came from character, personality, not from furthering the hobby. But at least I did regularly contribute to the forum. The clowns on there just rep each other back and forth and dont contribute a thing. Rick Trent is has been furthering the hobby for years now, yet his rep is 1% of the clowns who rep each other on the "Win" and "Fail" threads. The only good thing about rep is buying, and selling. Chances are you can trust a person with high rep. But even then we had some long term, high rep members go south, so in reality its really useless. I've said this since day one on LPF. I used to tell people if they gave me a neg rep I'd give them a positive. I even asked the Admin to wipe my rep because so many people where complaining about how high it was. At one point you could even buy rep by making a donation. Thankful that didnt last.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
I never thought rep count, or post count meant anything. They are internet points for crying out loud. Why people get so rapped up with them is beyond me, but I guess some people need them to feel special in their otherwise non-special lives.
..Like the idea - empowering the 'Op' to do his / her own 'housecleaning' - but Spec is known for taking a super-left view of 'freedom of speech' (..unless it starts to get 'real-life threatening' / really, really-nasty, then, he himself will jump in and just drop aQuote:
Originally Posted by laserist
http://gifs.gifbin.com/052011/130703..._explosion.gif ..on everybody's arse, but... short of that, I doubt he will ever go for such 'controls'.. His view leans more toward that 'eventually, everything finds ground', and gets resolved...
ie: ..perhaps, for 'unrepentant trolls', an Op / others could simply ask them to leave / mop up their own sick in the thread, and if they are unwilling, threaten them with a 'bit of the ol' ascii-violence' ;) ie: Like some Loco I know, did recently.. :p
2 pence..
j
There really is no good solution for this problem.
An idea I've been playing with is the ability to promote threads to give them a resource tag or something that would cause them to stand out or *become* curated after a certain yet undefinable point. Kinda like locked wiki pages... but not.
Initially the wiki was going to serve the purpose of collecting all "good" data for future reference after a thread has hashed out the minutia then let the thread act as a communal conversation about it but that kinda didn't happen.
Technically: I am very limited with what I can do to make threads user moderated. The control system is not that granular unless I setup new usergroup permissions per thread that needs it and then move said thread into a new subforum where the usergroup "owns" it. That's really messy and a whole lot of bullshit for no purpose other than confusing people with nested redirects.
Vbulletin is not tEh smart.
Sorry for the delay. Life has been busy.
Sometimes valuable off topic information is added to threads. The value of it may not be obvious to the original poster or even to a moderator, but some 3rd party who isn't even actively participating might think it is. To have it deleted just because it doesn't fit in with the rest of the thread would be a shame. You might argue that only uninformative posts could be moderated/censored... but who decides what that is and how do you prevent abusing that? Leave things the way they are. It's been fine like it is for years.