• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should P&N Formally Adopt a "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/etc" Rule?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
JEDIYoda said:
Lets talk about thread titles --
Patranus latest thread title was -- Someone Did Something Which Showed Something Somewhere

That has nothing to do with the article ands why could he not have used the title of the article??

Air-quality study: Electric cars out-pollute gas engines

Why use a thread title that has no bearing on the article or anything said in the article??
Click to expand...

Why are Radical Righties like Pat Ur Ass never sanctioned and have the Admins/Mods make them change their Title?
 
dank69 said:
Look at this thread for a great example. At one point, it looked to us like the story was complete fabrication. After further review and analysis, it turned out to be 100% true. What would have happened if a mod stepped in and closed the thread before the truth was discovered? Many people here would be more ignorant about the subject because of it, including me.
Click to expand...

This works out this way: the OP gets help if there is a derailment in the OP's topic. Treadcrapers & CO. get the shaft they deserve.
 
DominionSeraph said:
Proactive moderation to some external standard was not demanded. Reactive moderation is fine: "It's not a problem unless someone involved is having a problem with it."
Click to expand...

History in these forums has proven that proactive moderation is the only viable path to implementing new rules because the butthurt members cry foul, claiming mod bias is happening because they got infracted for their post but post A, post B, and Post C were not infracted.

Reactive moderation when new rules are implemented is a non-starter. I can't expect you to know this though, I have knowledge and experience which you simply aren't privy to in this regard.
 
JEDIYoda said:
Lets talk about thread titles --
Patranus latest thread title was -- Someone Did Something Which Showed Something Somewhere

That has nothing to do with the article ands why could he not have used the title of the article??

Air-quality study: Electric cars out-pollute gas engines

Why use a thread title that has no bearing on the article or anything said in the article??
Click to expand...

dmcowen674 said:
Why are Radical Righties like Pat Ur Ass never sanctioned and have the Admins/Mods make them change their Title?
Click to expand...

That specific thread title was chosen by Patranus as a mod-bait/mod-challenge in reaction to some extensive and unfavorable (for him) discussion with the moderators regarding another thread title of his. Patranus is currently on vacation in part for his actions relating to the subject of thread titles.

The exact rules for thread-titles is something the community needs to discuss. There are a couple schools of thought on it.

Right now, owing to limited moderator time and the expressed priorities of the community, misleading thread titles are investigated only when reported.

And at this time, a band-aid solution, if the thread title is the exact same as the title of the article cited in the OP (even if that is misleading in its own right) then I let it go for now.

Ideally thread titles would be held to an even higher standard, one which required the thread-title itself to be truthful even if a source can be cited containing an untruthful article title.

I'm curious to hear the community's thoughts on this.
 
Idontcare said:
History in these forums has proven that proactive moderation is the only viable path to implementing new rules because the butthurt members cry foul, claiming mod bias is happening because they got infracted for their post but post A, post B, and Post C were not infracted.

Reactive moderation when new rules are implemented is a non-starter. I can't expect you to know this though, I have knowledge and experience which you simply aren't privy to in this regard.
Click to expand...

Thats why no moderation in here is best. Then we KNOW there is no bias. But thats no fun right?
 
Idontcare said:
History in these forums has proven that proactive moderation is the only viable path to implementing new rules because the butthurt members cry foul, claiming mod bias is happening because they got infracted for their post but post A, post B, and Post C were not infracted.

Reactive moderation when new rules are implemented is a non-starter. I can't expect you to know this though, I have knowledge and experience which you simply aren't privy to in this regard.
Click to expand...
Okay, now I am thoroughly confused. Didn't you just start the new misquoting rule and isn't the moderation of that rule 100% reactive? 😕

I see you say in your next post that this is a temporary bandaid solution, but it still seems weird to me that you would say it is a non-starter when that is exactly what the mods are doing now.
 
dank69 said:
Okay, now I am thoroughly confused. Didn't you just start the new misquoting rule and isn't the moderation of that rule 100% reactive? 😕

I see you say in your next post that this is a temporary bandaid solution, but it still seems weird to me that you would say it is a non-starter when that is exactly what the mods are doing now.
Click to expand...

The very nature of the misquoting rule is that the affected party has to take exception to the misquote and bring it to the attention of the moderator before the moderator will take action.

Fundamental difference in the intent of the rule. The misquoting rule as it is currently defined cannot be enforced pro-actively. Moderators play a passive role by design with that rule.
 
Idontcare said:
The exact rules for thread-titles is something the community needs to discuss. There are a couple schools of thought on it.

Right now, owing to limited moderator time and the expressed priorities of the community, misleading thread titles are investigated only when reported.

And at this time, a band-aid solution, if the thread title is the exact same as the title of the article cited in the OP (even if that is misleading in its own right) then I let it go for now.

Ideally thread titles would be held to an even higher standard, one which required the thread-title itself to be truthful even if a source can be cited containing an untruthful article title.

I'm curious to hear the community's thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

Personally, I tend to copy the news headline as my thread title. Provided it is taken from a good source, such as FoxNews or MSN or CNN or the like it is fine. A parody site is a bad choice, as the title is obviously going to be untrue on purpose.

If the article turns out to be false, say CNN blows up Pintos or something, the fault cannot lie with the thread poster.
 
JEDIYoda said:
Actually if you read the article you will know its false and can make adjustments by stating it is false......
Click to expand...

Sometimes a story is thought to be true until something later comes along and shows it is not. Is OJ Simpson a murderer? You can find a ton of stories before the verdict saying yes, but the verdict says he is not. Our personal view is irrelevant to the verdict, so all the stories prior to then which seemed to be true suddenly were all false.
 
Something I don't understand. Often people get called out because of false or misleading titles. Does this policy change
 
cybrsage said:
Sometimes a story is thought to be true until something later comes along and shows it is not. Is OJ Simpson a murderer? You can find a ton of stories before the verdict saying yes, but the verdict says he is not. Our personal view is irrelevant to the verdict, so all the stories prior to then which seemed to be true suddenly were all false.
Click to expand...

As much as I like you I am not into these petty little exceptions to all the rules....so please respect me like I respect you!

We all know and believe OJ was guilty. But if the article says other wise as did the jury then he is not guilty. -- but In my opinion in your required commentary I see no reason NOT to speak your mind....

So the answer to your attempt at drawing an exception to the rule is you post exactly what the articles title is regardless of if the future proves it to be wrong or even more correct.

I have done that with threads that have to do with the middle east. I have also done that with other peoples threads that appeared to be correct and then turned out to be one sided.....
 
lol fun thread.

Icarealot has 16 hours a day to devote to modding p&n into what he envisions all you numnuts voted for. YOU ARE ALL VOTING FOR SOME UNDEFINED CRAZY OVERERACH. You will get what you deserve - A boring lifeless forum.
 
JSt0rm said:
lol fun thread.

Icarealot has 16 hours a day to devote to modding p&n into what he envisions all you numnuts voted for. YOU ARE ALL VOTING FOR SOME UNDEFINED CRAZY OVERERACH. You will get what you deserve - A boring lifeless forum.
Click to expand...

Boring is just fine by me.
 
JSt0rm said:
ol fun thread.

Icarealot has 16 hours a day to devote to modding p&n into what he envisions all you numnuts voted for. YOU ARE ALL VOTING FOR SOME UNDEFINED CRAZY OVERERACH. You will get what you deserve - A boring lifeless forum.
Click to expand...

really.....
Boring as in people will have to be respectful of others. Regardless of if they respect somebody`s opinion?
People will be expected to stay on topic and not thread crap?
People will need to leave other peoples quotes alone....or change them in a proper manner....
Seems like what some of us would call having an adult forum that does not in every instance degenerate into a Jr High School forum....
 
The interesting thing is that the people complaining are the ones who are going to push the envelope regardless of the set guidelines!
 
JSt0rm said:
lol fun thread.

Icarealot has 16 hours a day to devote to modding p&n into what he envisions all you numnuts voted for. YOU ARE ALL VOTING FOR SOME UNDEFINED CRAZY OVERERACH. You will get what you deserve - A boring lifeless forum.
Click to expand...

I think you're not liking the possible changes because it means you would have to control yourself a bit and be a little more civil.
 
I want to be able to tell a creationist he is a fucking idiot. I dont want someone to be able to start a thread on it without being contested. The righties and anyone with a strong position on these forums are loving this new idea. Its bullshit.
 
JEDIYoda said:
The interesting thing is that the people complaining are the ones who are going to push the envelope regardless of the set guidelines!
Click to expand...

I just wont post in here that much so what? Bunch of neanderthals in here anyhow.

Let me edit to say that these new rules will be welcome for anyone who debates from a position of ideology and that is SAD.
 
Last edited:
JSt0rm said:
I want to be able to tell a creationist he is a fucking idiot. I dont want someone to be able to start a thread on it without being contested. The righties and anyone with a strong position on these forums are loving this new idea. Its bullshit.
Click to expand...


Nice. And i want to be able to point at the muslims for the terrorists they are.

This new rule would really give absolute power to someone who makes flowcharts on how to moderate a forum...fuck that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top