Hello VC&G forum members and community at large,
The topic of noting the source of information in a thread's title is very much a reoccurring theme in this forum.
We have a recent example of this on our first page, but the response on behalf of the community is neither new nor unique to the existence of this thread.
The community sentiment has long been simmering in the background in regards to citing, or the lack thereof, the 3rd party source of information that is stated/presented as if it were established fact in the thread's title.
In an effort to better understand how the community here would like to have VC&G thread-titles managed regarding the statement of apparent facts originating from rumored-to-be-true 3rd party links, your VC&G Moderator Team would appreciate your feedback in the poll above as well as by posting your inputs and feedback in a post below.
Note: The poll is intentionally a public poll, we feel the topic of guideline amendments is important enough of a topic as to warrant a degree of accountability and formally going on record as having voted up or down (or lack of voting altogether) will only help to diffuse innuendo and suspicion going forward. This is your community and your forum, own it with pride.
Thanks in advance for your time and effort in making sure your voice is heard by voting in the poll! :thumbsup:
Your VC&G Moderator Staff,
BFG10K, Markfw900, and Idontcare
============ tl;dr Cliffs ============
What is being proposed in the poll here is to either leave the existing guideline regarding thread-title contents "as is" or to adopt an amendment that would require thread-titles to communicate the source of the information being stated in the thread title.
============ Examples ============
For example, instead of posting this "GTX595 runs at 950 core" the guideline would be amended to set the expectation that the thread OP note the source of the info if in fact the source is a 3rd party link, like this "FUDz: GTX595 runs at 950 core".
=========== Enforcement ===========
The specific implementation of the source citation would be up to the thread starter, the mods aren't interested in micro-managing the specific edification of the thread titles, merely interested in establishing a policy regarding them per the community's wishes and then enforcing that policy with the least amount of effort required on our behalf. (can you blame us?)
Obviously there will be mod-discretion in play in regards to how the policy will be enforced, if adopted we naturally want the result to be a net positive for all involved, info is power and we would hope more info only helps to empower members to make more fruitful decisions in regards to their posting behaviors and approach.
Variations in how thread-starters fulfill the requirement of citing the source of the info contained in the thread-title would be tolerated and expected.
======= Expiration/Trial-Period =======
If an amendment is adopted, the moderation team here recognizes this type of guideline is very much specific to the existing "community culture" and that this culture changes and evolves over time as members themselves change their viewpoints in addition to the community ranks growing with new members.
In the spirit of accommodating this reality the moderators intend to make the guideline policy amendment, as proposed in the poll, to be in effect for 3 months by having the policy expire 3 months from the date that it goes live.
After the 3month trial-period we would have another community poll to determine if the community still wants to keep the policy or if the community changed its mind based on the experience generated while the policy was in effect.
The topic of noting the source of information in a thread's title is very much a reoccurring theme in this forum.
We have a recent example of this on our first page, but the response on behalf of the community is neither new nor unique to the existence of this thread.
The community sentiment has long been simmering in the background in regards to citing, or the lack thereof, the 3rd party source of information that is stated/presented as if it were established fact in the thread's title.
In an effort to better understand how the community here would like to have VC&G thread-titles managed regarding the statement of apparent facts originating from rumored-to-be-true 3rd party links, your VC&G Moderator Team would appreciate your feedback in the poll above as well as by posting your inputs and feedback in a post below.
Note: The poll is intentionally a public poll, we feel the topic of guideline amendments is important enough of a topic as to warrant a degree of accountability and formally going on record as having voted up or down (or lack of voting altogether) will only help to diffuse innuendo and suspicion going forward. This is your community and your forum, own it with pride.
Thanks in advance for your time and effort in making sure your voice is heard by voting in the poll! :thumbsup:
Your VC&G Moderator Staff,
BFG10K, Markfw900, and Idontcare
============ tl;dr Cliffs ============
What is being proposed in the poll here is to either leave the existing guideline regarding thread-title contents "as is" or to adopt an amendment that would require thread-titles to communicate the source of the information being stated in the thread title.
============ Examples ============
For example, instead of posting this "GTX595 runs at 950 core" the guideline would be amended to set the expectation that the thread OP note the source of the info if in fact the source is a 3rd party link, like this "FUDz: GTX595 runs at 950 core".
=========== Enforcement ===========
The specific implementation of the source citation would be up to the thread starter, the mods aren't interested in micro-managing the specific edification of the thread titles, merely interested in establishing a policy regarding them per the community's wishes and then enforcing that policy with the least amount of effort required on our behalf. (can you blame us?
)Obviously there will be mod-discretion in play in regards to how the policy will be enforced, if adopted we naturally want the result to be a net positive for all involved, info is power and we would hope more info only helps to empower members to make more fruitful decisions in regards to their posting behaviors and approach.
Variations in how thread-starters fulfill the requirement of citing the source of the info contained in the thread-title would be tolerated and expected.
======= Expiration/Trial-Period =======
If an amendment is adopted, the moderation team here recognizes this type of guideline is very much specific to the existing "community culture" and that this culture changes and evolves over time as members themselves change their viewpoints in addition to the community ranks growing with new members.
In the spirit of accommodating this reality the moderators intend to make the guideline policy amendment, as proposed in the poll, to be in effect for 3 months by having the policy expire 3 months from the date that it goes live.
After the 3month trial-period we would have another community poll to determine if the community still wants to keep the policy or if the community changed its mind based on the experience generated while the policy was in effect.
Facebook
Twitter