So, about the Update forum rules

[LM 697]

Maybe we can cut the spergy tryhard posts down if we got rid of the thanks feature.

your just jelous because i have more than you

 

[Watcher]

Then the moderators don't have to police threads and it is all settled democratically.

If this was a feature on the board, yeah I guess. However I think it's even worse to know your post got deleted because multiple people decided they didn't want to see it, rather than just not meeting whatever strainer rules apply on the given board.

Personally I'd rather the userbase be the judge of that. Since it'd work twofold. People would know what posts are terrible visually because there'd be dislikes on it, and there'd be choice in the matter. Plus if OPL posted a new video and the update thread was flooded with new replies the moderators wouldn't have to work on overtime.

Maybe we can cut the spergy tryhard posts down if we got rid of the thanks feature.

your just jelous because i have more than you

I'm jealous you have 777 likes.

 

[Null]

Personally I'd rather the userbase be the judge of that. Since it'd work twofold. People would know what posts are terrible visually because there'd be dislikes on it, and there'd be choice in the matter. Plus if OPL posted a new video and the update thread was flooded with new replies the moderators wouldn't have to work on overtime.

Are the moderators not a part of the user base?

A forum isn't a democracy, it's not even a meritocracy. This is more fair than it has to be.

 

[Bgheff]

Any specific reason why the users over the modstaff? I'd be dislikeing the shit out of everything.

 

[CatParty]

Any specific reason why the users over the modstaff? I'd be dislikeing the shit out of everything.

I dislike this.

 

[Watcher]

Any specific reason why the users over the modstaff? I'd be dislikeing the shit out of everything.

I think it'd visually teach a person a lesson as to what exactly qualifies if gradually more and more people dislike a post rather than it being moved/removed.

 

[LM 697]

We have like forty mods and VIP people. That's more than enough to approve posts in that section.

 

[Bgheff]

Any specific reason why the users over the modstaff? I'd be dislikeing the shit out of everything.

I think it'd visually teach a person a lesson as to what exactly qualifies if gradually more and more people dislike a post rather than it being moved/removed.

Well, if your post doesn't get approved you can assume it was shit too. Difference is just who's making the calls. People like COMPY.

 

[Da Pickle Monsta]

It's going to take me a little bit to get used to the change but I'm cautiously optimistic. One concern that I'd raise, though, is that I can see every Chris update essentially becomg two simultaneous threads--one where people try to police themselves, the other DIE CHRIS.

If moderating every post becomes too much of a hassle, another option might be locking the "updates" discussion forums except to select users . . . people who have reached a certain post count, been here for a certain number of months, and who have the tacit approval of the mods to have access to that part of the board. This would still give the regulars a good venue for dissecting chris, and then the Chris general forum could be more a place for quips and also serve as a "proving ground" for new users, as well as encouraging them to meet quality standards when they first start out.

And finally, another option--although I hate to admit it, because I love the feature--might be the removal of the "thanks" button.

 

[Null]

People like COMPY.

die compy

It's going to take me a little bit to get used to the change but I'm cautiously optimistic. One concern that I'd raise, though, is that I can see every Chris update essentially becomg two simultaneous threads--one where people try to police themselves, the other DIE CHRIS.

Yeah, I'm trying to determine if this lets everyone win, or if this causes everyone to lose.

 

[tobacky_vapor]

One thing I derped on is if you edit a post, even if it's just fixing typos, the new post had to get approved. Just a heads up.

 

[Mourning Dove]

Hmm, does this mean that my posts have to be long, analytical, and insightful to be approved in the Update section now? I personally prefer to not overthink Chris; rather, making clever observations/snark is my specialty when dealing with this exceptional individual.

 

[Da Pickle Monsta]

Hmm, does this mean that my posts have to be long, analytical, and insightful to be approved in the Update section now? I personally prefer to not overthink Chris; rather, making clever observations/snark is my specialty when dealing with this exceptional individual.

Well, my understanding of the new rules is that the threads in "discussion" are more of a place for quick observations and speculation, whereas the "updates" section is being used for a more in-depth analysis of current events.

 

[CatParty]

the discussion forum is a little more current, though. for example the recent comments on chris's pokemons post by his friends and possible revelation of barb playing with him have not yet been added to update forum.

 

[sparklemilhouse]

The two separate threads thing seems really redundant.

 

[Null]

The two separate threads thing seems really redundant.

one's for shitposting, the other is for actually having something to say. i'll pick a good example.

They have developed the ability to communicate via scent alone.

wow such clever

A fucking ton of people on this board all post 1 liners. Like, that's all they do. I don't mind it, mods don't mind it, but the thing is a lot of admins, lurkers, and board members do. When you're only checking the forum once a week tops, keeping up to date on the forum is a pain in the ass. What's worse is that if there's a thread full of stupid, fucking, pointless, shit you miss content that Thetan drops or that Marvin/ABL open up about. The end result is that the value of the update threads is absolute nothing to a lot of people because they're simply not worth reading to find the good posts.

So, there's really two options here. I can completely ban these sorts of posts throughout all of the forum, or I can designate a "clean" area that only permits good posts. I don't mind mirror threads / split discussions because that way everyone who wants to go for the zing factor and rack up thanks can do so, and the updates still appear in an refined form for people just looking for posts with value.


And really, in case you guys can't tell, I'm tired of hearing the same arguments repeatedly.

"But monitoring posts are bad! We should be allowed to post whatever comes into our minds like a bottomless, vapid shit-spigot!"
No.

"Having two threads about the same thing are bad!"
Not if they serve different purposes.

 

[Holdek]

One thing I derped on is if you edit a post, even if it's just fixing typos, the new post had to get approved. Just a heads up.

Yeah, I just noticed this: not only does the edit have to get approved, but your original message is deleted until it does.

I'm just not going to make any edits on those, and because I'm sure the mods would appreciate not having to re-approve posts either.

 

[SPARKLETWAT]

Sometimes when I post, I want to respond just to the OP. I replied to something in the Updates thread and I quoted the original post. I need to get into the habit of that. I wrote why Chris's whining was lame by telling the kind of Thanksgiving day I had. I hope that didn't break the rules. His Thanksgiving message facebook post hit a nerve in me and I usually just laugh at Chris when he whines.

 

[A-Stump]

Who knew discussion about a guy who himself could be so serious

 

[SPARKLETWAT]

LOL i no rite

I realized my rant was stupid and just posted it again in the Chris section. I didn't realize the rules had changed. That's what I get for not checking, HERPDERP. I won't repeat that mistake. Mods, if you feel the need to delete my post to the Thanksgiving thread in the UPDATE section, go ahead. I messed up, sorry.