franabanana
Fanatic
Today @ 1:37 am Email ˇ Report ˇ Post #499
From the recap:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | franabanana
Fanatic
Today @ 1:37 am Email ˇ Report ˇ Post #499
From the recap:
Lorelai twists the knife: "Yeah, totally 12th of never. We don't play tennis or golf or bridge or any game that can be played in a foursome, except hangman and sometimes Pictionary." ["They're really missing out by boycotting mah jongg." -- Wing Chun]
Word to Wing Chun on that one. Mahjongg is awesome. Plus, what is four-person hangman? Never heard of that one.
<br>Wing's interjections are annoying enough. Don't encourage her.
Diana Lesky
30th October 2006 - 11:47 AM
| QUOTE | There was an uproar in the Gilmore Girls forum after someone posted a huge spoiler that had been in TV Guide in a non-spoiler thread, without black bars. The TV Guide case in particular is weird because bloggers for TVGuide.com like Michael Ausiello and Matt Roush are known to reveal pretty big spoilers on a regular basis. If nothing else, I think the mods should review and perhaps update the spoiler policies of the site.
<br>The one thing about the GG/TV Guide spoiler was that it was on the cover of TV Guide. I could see if it was in Ask Ausiello, but if you can read it just walking by TV Guide, I can see the thought that you wouldn't need spoiler bars.
roseland
30th October 2006 - 12:22 PM
| QUOTE | Something that's been bothering me lately: There's a reason they got rid of the recapper love threads, right? So WHY do posters INSIST on posting about recaps in the episode threads? Is it that hard to e-mail a mod? And funnily enough, the mods never seem to smack anyone down for giving glowing reviews to the recaps! Someone even gave props to Wing for one of her stupid interjections in a Gilmore Girls recap.
I believe they said that if you wanted to discuss the recap, you should do so in the appropriate episode thread. Of course, certain TWoPpers use this as a license to continue the big love to recappers.
Eris Rising
30th October 2006 - 12:48 PM
Erin just specifically stated that she'd prefer to have people email her.
Rex Dart
30th October 2006 - 04:01 PM
QUOTE (franabanana+) Word to Wing Chun Just never say this.
Denimjo
30th October 2006 - 10:48 PM
What I think would improve TWoP is a PM system. If they've had problems with people abusing it in the past, maybe they could enable it so that the only ones who can initially send PMs are moderators and if someone who's made a post that may or may not be considered objectionable can be notified privately instead of either a). being talked down to publically in a thread, and/or  . be given an official Warning when the only thing that needed to be changed was the phrasing. I generally don't have a problem with TWoP, but Alley seems to be on a permanent power trip, issuing warnings when they're not necessary and banning people when they try to ascertain precisely why they were given a warning/spoken to in a thread. She also seems to be one that has to have the last word (which generally is pretty petty and childish and explains nothing) which is another indicator of the 'power mad' attitude I mentioned earlier. Alley will also delete posts from people she doesn't like even if they're not objectionable in the slightest. This 9-year-old attitude really just sickens me (especially from someone who is rumored to be an actual adult). I actually have no problem with Sars, as she was at least polite to me when I managed to email her with a complaint about my treatment from Alley. In fact, I haven't had any encounters (positive or not) with any other moderator other than Alley so I can't really say how they could improve, but Alley really needs to change the way she treats posters. In my experience, she issued a Warning to me even when I made it explicitly clear (and twice no less) that I would be more than happy to alter a post I had made if she could simply be a little more clear about what her complaint about it was. Of course, this politeness was not good enough for her (and it was apparently impossible to partially edit said post, since only the initial paragraph seemed to have bothered her), so she felt the need to issue an unnecessary Warning and then banned me when I tried to figure exactly what her problem with it was. This is what I think needs changing.* Other than that, I haven't seen anything really that bad with the place (but my experience with the forums are limited only to the TAR area (which, unfortunately, she seems to be in sole control of). *Of course, if it's sheer laziness that causes these actions, then I doubt there's anything that'll be able to be done about it.
qb9b
31st October 2006 - 08:25 AM
| QUOTE | FiveString, I'm still checking because the FAQ has changed recently, so I don't want to point you in the wrong direction.
But, just for shits and giggles, basically, the 15/15 rule as stated means that, if the show airs on Monday, October 23rd, and by Saturday there are 60 pages of posts, you would have to read EVERY post since the first one, seeing as the show aired FIVE days ago. That's the lesser of the two fifteens. You could read 15 pages, but that's more than 5 days, ya see? It would seem that you only had to read the last 15 pages because that's less than 60 pages, but that's not what the rule means. It says read the last 15 DAYS or 15 PAGES, whichever is less. And, in this case, you'd only have to read the last 5 DAYS, so that would be less.
Let's use an example of a thread that has more than 70 days of posts and 80 pages. In that instance, you could choose to read the last 15 days, which may amount to 40 pages, or the last 15 pages, which may amount to just a few days. You'd have to read AT LEAST the last 15 days or AT LEAST the last 15 pages. In this instance, you'd be wise to choose the last 15 pages, since that's less than reading 40 pages of 15 days of posts.
<br>This is from Erin in the Hero's forum. It turns out that I was understanding the amended rule in the FAQ basically wrong. I agreed with the poster who wrote, she thought it was less. Did anyone else read it that way?
ILoveTAR
31st October 2006 - 08:45 AM
I am absolutely positive that when the 15/15 rule was first invoked, it was "whichever is less". Because they didn't expect people to wade through 90 pages of stupidity. It was, first, read the last 15 pages. Then, because some shows didn't get a lot of activity, they amended that to "or 15 days", so you wouldn't have to be reading irrelevant stuff from a year ago, on slow threads.
It's the power mad mods who want to punish people who make it "whichever is more". I think they are jealous. If they have to read every post, so do we.
That rule is the reason I don't bother reading any of the recapped show threads.
TeslaNewton
31st October 2006 - 09:48 AM
I just read enough to get by or, usually, don't bother posting.
Eris Rising
31st October 2006 - 09:57 AM
Or there's always the "Three pages and fake it" suggestion I made at one of our previous homes. However, I also generally don't bother posting, as while I don't want to break the rules, I also don't care to wander through more than five or six pages of squeeing and "That was so awesome!" posts in order to get to the more interesting points.
mambru
31st October 2006 - 09:57 AM
| QUOTE | But, just for shits and giggles, basically, the 15/15 rule as stated means that, if the show airs on Monday, October 23rd, and by Saturday there are 60 pages of posts, you would have to read EVERY post since the first one, seeing as the show aired FIVE days ago. That's the lesser of the two fifteens. You could read 15 pages, but that's more than 5 days, ya see? It would seem that you only had to read the last 15 pages because that's less than 60 pages, but that's not what the rule means. It says read the last 15 DAYS or 15 PAGES, whichever is less. And, in this case, you'd only have to read the last 5 DAYS, so that would be less.
<br>I...er...what?
It really would not have occurred to me to interpret the FAQ that way. If that's what it really means then they should clarify that it should be 15 pages or 15 days, whichever is longer and more onerous to read. But that might be too much truth in advertising for TWoP to stomach.
badgered
31st October 2006 - 10:02 AM
I always thought it was the lesser, too. Not that I ever bother reading an entire thread -- I usually skim a couple pages. Who's going to slog through 60 fucking pages of posts? If you post without reading, just don't announce that you haven't read the thread.
Magpie
31st October 2006 - 10:25 AM
I never would have interpreted the rule the way Erin did. Her application of "whichever is less" so that it twists around and make you read MORE just doesn't make sense to me.
p2c2e
31st October 2006 - 10:41 AM
Erin's logic does not resemble our earth logic.
TeslaNewton
31st October 2006 - 10:54 AM
I can't make sense of that 15/15 post.
skittlebrau
31st October 2006 - 11:07 AM
I am damn tempted to wait until that thread gets to a new page and then post "Can someone explain the 15/15 rule to me?"
Enzed
31st October 2006 - 12:17 PM
QUOTE (p2c2e+Oct 31 2006, 01:41 PM) Erin's logic does not resemble our earth logic. | QUOTE | You could read 15 pages, but that's more than 5 days, ya see?
<br>I've read this sentence 50 times and I still don't understand it, never mind the rest of what she wrote.
I always thought that even if the episode thread is up to 60 pages, like Lost used to be, then you still have to read every single page if its a new episode (ie aired in the last 15 days).
Because if people only read the last 15 pages of a 60 page episode thread, things just get rehashed to death.
Though that's mainly why I don't post in episode threads of popular shows, too much to slog through.
puretrash
31st October 2006 - 12:26 PM
| QUOTE | QUOTE
You could read 15 pages, but that's more than 5 days, ya see?
I've read this sentence 50 times and I still don't understand it, never mind the rest of what she wrote.
<br>I had to read it over and over, and I think I've finally wrapped my brain around it. Just looking at the number 15 and 5, the number 5 is less. So given the choice between 15 pages and 5 days, 5 is the actual lower number, even though it is much more to read. Hence the "whichever is less."
I agree they should just amend the rule to 15/15, whichever is more to read, since that's what they really want you to do.
p2c2e
31st October 2006 - 12:44 PM
QUOTE (puretrash+) I agree they should just amend the rule to 15/15, whichever is more to read, since that's what they really want you to do. <br>That is actually what it used to be but than they revised it to whichever is less. I dont' read the Heroes forum but apparently there have been a lot of people asking the same questions over and over again but that should be handled on an individual basis not demanding that the whole forum read a gazillion and a half pages.
GeekLove
31st October 2006 - 12:47 PM
Has she read the FAQ? QUOTE ("TWoP"+) You are expected to read -- and not rehash -- the content in a thread from either the last 15 pages or the last 15 days, whichever makes the most sense.
Let's say you're in the Lost episode thread; if the episode aired the night before, the thread will not go back 15 days, so you must read at minimum the last 15 pages. On the Buffy forums, some of those threads go back for years; in that case, you read the last 15 days' worth of posts to bring you up to date. Which is actually pretty clear and doesn't jive with her "well 5 is a smaller number than 15, so you have to read all five days of content even if it's 60 pages" reasoning.
skittlebrau
31st October 2006 - 12:54 PM
If it's the day after the episode has aired, and the thread is already 15 pages long, I usually don't even bother to read or post. What in the hell could possibly be so goddamn exciting as to cover 60 pages in less than 5 days? Good God. Maybe with a show like "Lost" where it's mainly speculation and mystery, but so far I don't have anything special to add to the "Heroes" discussion, because I don't read the spoilers and I don't want to speculate on anything.
puretrash
31st October 2006 - 01:13 PM
I just try not to ask any questions unless I've been following the thread closely, and know the question hasn't been asked.
I do have to admit, my pet peeve regarding 15/15 is when people think they are making a clever joke, and it gets repeated over and over again. In the RR/RW challenge threads-it might have been the last challenge, I'm not sure-there was an episode where Kina said, "I'm a rich bitch" after she had won some money. So, posters came up with the oh-so-clever response, "Well, you're half right", no less than three times in the first two pages! It was so annoying. I wanted to post, "So we're not even reading one page back now?"
But I don't remember ever seeing a mod smackdown someone for repeating the same puns. I think the repeated questions annoy them more.
Gaol Bait
31st October 2006 - 01:21 PM
| QUOTE | So, posters came up with the oh-so-clever response, "Well, you're half right", no less than three times in the first two pages!
A lot of the time, though, I think that's because people are rushing to post the second the show ends, and so they're all typing (read: cutting and pasting) their posts at the same time, and there's a lot of overlap. Usually the first two or three pages (especially of the recapped shows) are pretty worthless because of this.
L van Van
31st October 2006 - 01:21 PM
Why must they make everything so technical and complicated? Why can't they just say something like, "Please don't be a dumbass and barge into a thread asking questions that were answered a mere few pages back, and don't barge into a thread and rudely and condescendingly post what you think are oh-so-original thoughts when your observations have been rehashed a million times already."
Also, I think that it's got to be accepted that there will be some repetition -- 60 pages in a day or two can't all be filled with unique comments and refreshing points of view. To me the worst thing is when someone posts a link that was recently posted. Scold those people and warn the repeat offenders, but the 15/15 rule is just dopey.
puretrash
31st October 2006 - 01:39 PM
| QUOTE | A lot of the time, though, I think that's because people are rushing to post the second the show ends, and so they're all typing (read: cutting and pasting) their posts at the same time, and there's a lot of overlap. Usually the first two or three pages (especially of the recapped shows) are pretty worthless because of this.
That's true. I think some people actually make notes during the show so they can just press "Enter" the second the show ends.
And I cringe whenever I see someone bust into a thread with, "I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but..." Geez, don't make an announcement.
qb9b
31st October 2006 - 01:53 PM
The 60 pages in 3 days threads are the reason most of my posting is done in the basement threads.
mmmelpomene
31st October 2006 - 06:50 PM
Erin's explanation makes no sense. I've spent my entire time on that site thinking "15 days or 15 pages, whichever is less" meant that in long threads that might reach 225 pages but do so slowly, you should read 15 days, whereas in the faster-trafficked threads, i.e. those of weekly shows, you should read 15 pages. Her explanation reads like something she was confused about, then asked another confused recapper, who put their own confused spin on it and then regurgitated it.
Larry Dallas
31st October 2006 - 07:07 PM
I'm ok with the 15/15 rule (the "whichever is less" version, not the Bizarro Erin version).
The whole point of posting on a message board is supposed to be to communicate with other people. Not reading other people's posts (while expecting them to read yours) seems arrogant to me.
And if that makes the boards for the more popular shows unreadable, it's no big deal to me. There's a point at which there's too many people to have a worthwhile conversation, so I'm fine with just skipping those.
But it doesn't seem to me that TWoP really enforces the 15/15 rule. Unless you're stupid enough to announce that you haven't read the thread (as so many do), it doesn't seem like anything is ever done. Unless all these people who are making the same jokes and asking the same questions from 2-3 pages ago are being warned behind the scenes. Ditto with the "quote a long post and add 'Wordy McWord'" gang.
jedzz
31st October 2006 - 07:53 PM
Anyone notice this? From the latest ANTM Recap: QUOTE (The Recap Proper+) Melrose helpfully tells the other girls that Dita Von Teese is married to Marilyn Manson. Eugena is all, "WTF is wrong with these honkies?" <br> QUOTE (The Pull Quote+) Melrose helpfully tells the other girls that Dita Von Teese is married to Marilyn Manson. Eugena is all, "What the fuck is wrong with these honkies?" <br>Chances are that this is nothing more than on overlook from one of TWoP's brilliant editors, but I thought it was interesting.
Enzed
1st November 2006 - 05:04 AM
QUOTE ("puretrash"+) I had to read it over and over, and I think I've finally wrapped my brain around it. Just looking at the number 15 and 5, the number 5 is less. So given the choice between 15 pages and 5 days, 5 is the actual lower number, even though it is much more to read. Hence the "whichever is less." Ah.. gotcha. Thanks. I was confused with the pages and days, because that's like apples and oranges to me. I still don't want to think about it too much, its all taking up too much space in my brain as it is. QUOTE And I cringe whenever I see someone bust into a thread with, "I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but..." Geez, don't make an announcement. Or, just as bad is "I haven't had time to fully process all this. More later." Thanks for that. Can't wait! QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | And I cringe whenever I see someone bust into a thread with, "I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but..." Geez, don't make an announcement. |
Or, just as bad is "I haven't had time to fully process all this. More later." Thanks for that. Can't wait!
Also, I think that it's got to be accepted that there will be some repetition -- 60 pages in a day or two can't all be filled with unique comments and refreshing points of view. To me the worst thing is when someone posts a link that was recently posted. Scold those people and warn the repeat offenders, but the 15/15 rule is just dopey. The repetition that annoys me is asking the same question, usually preceded by a "Hey, noone's mentioned this, but did you guys notice x?" when its been hashed to bits in the first 25 pages.
Darn
10th November 2006 - 05:43 PM
Can someone explain to me the purpose of a read-only archive for a show like...Windfall? Six Degrees? Runaway?
ladybug
10th November 2006 - 05:45 PM
I guess to avoid a VM from happening. * shrugs*
fritosman
11th November 2006 - 01:12 PM
QUOTE (Darn+Nov 10 2006, 05:43 PM) Can someone explain to me the purpose of a read-only archive for a show like...Windfall? Six Degrees? Runaway? Because Glark doesn't want to delete posts?
Eris Rising
11th November 2006 - 01:15 PM
Also, various discussions will happen in multiple threads, and this allows people to not have their conversations derailed when the show is switched to single-thread format.
p2c2e
11th November 2006 - 01:26 PM
Plus, a number of TWOP posters are completely insane and will in fact bitch if their musings on even a show like Runaway are stripped forever from the internet. Easiest way is to treat all PH'd shows the same to eliminate the bitching.
Eris Rising
11th November 2006 - 01:30 PM
True. I find it preferable to the periodic thread prunings now that they have the space to store them. God knows we lost a lot of funny entries when they snipped the AI Diaries thread.
Darn
11th November 2006 - 07:21 PM
QUOTE (p2c2e+Nov 11 2006, 04:26 PM) Plus, a number of TWOP posters are completely insane and will in fact bitch if their musings on even a show like Runaway are stripped forever from the internet. Easiest way is to treat all PH'd shows the same to eliminate the bitching. You say that like TWOP cares at all about our complaints. It's not a big deal to me, I just find it annoying when I use the drop down menu, it's so looooong now.
TeslaNewton
14th November 2006 - 09:07 AM
Is Glark humping the servers again?
siebal
14th November 2006 - 09:11 AM
I once dated a guy who humped servers. Reading that statement brought back some very unpleasant memories, Tesla Newton.
fofanna1
14th November 2006 - 09:25 AM
| QUOTE | I once dated a guy who humped servers.
Wilting hearth, is that you??
Hootis
14th November 2006 - 06:26 PM
No, TWOP won't improve. They are convinced that their forum moderation is correct, no matter how completely anti-discussion it actually is. Witness this recent FAA exchange between myself and the mod for the TAR forum: QUOTE Baelzar: I'm new here, and only have experienced your "The Amazing Race" forums.
I cannot reconcile your FAQ with the modding of the TAR area.
As an example, I have searched the TAR forum topics for both "bunching" and "bunch." No results found.
Bunching is mentioned many times in the few individual threads within the forums (mostly show recaps) but is not allowed as a topic itself. In my opinion, it is a topic worthy of discussion. Many people disagree about it, but are forced to inject their opinions in off-topic threads. I believe it deserves it's own topic.
I guess I am confused as to why reasonable topics of discussion are locked based not on your FAQ nor Rules, but on personal preference of the moderator.
In the TAR sections, it's pruned so severely that there are very few threads (as compared to other forums) that each hold so many posts, it is self defeating. The philosophy seems to be that if you cannot fit your discussion within the few mod-approved threads, it is not worth discussing.
New people are going to come to the boards, as I have, and dutifully SEARCH for words in topic headers, then post new topics because they cannot find them. And their topics will be locked. Unreasonably, in my opinion. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Baelzar: I'm new here, and only have experienced your "The Amazing Race" forums.
I cannot reconcile your FAQ with the modding of the TAR area.
As an example, I have searched the TAR forum topics for both "bunching" and "bunch." No results found.
Bunching is mentioned many times in the few individual threads within the forums (mostly show recaps) but is not allowed as a topic itself. In my opinion, it is a topic worthy of discussion. Many people disagree about it, but are forced to inject their opinions in off-topic threads. I believe it deserves it's own topic.
I guess I am confused as to why reasonable topics of discussion are locked based not on your FAQ nor Rules, but on personal preference of the moderator.
In the TAR sections, it's pruned so severely that there are very few threads (as compared to other forums) that each hold so many posts, it is self defeating. The philosophy seems to be that if you cannot fit your discussion within the few mod-approved threads, it is not worth discussing.
New people are going to come to the boards, as I have, and dutifully SEARCH for words in topic headers, then post new topics because they cannot find them. And their topics will be locked. Unreasonably, in my opinion. |
Miss Alli: I certainly have no "personal preference" regarding what threads are present, other than what has made sense and worked well over the five years that I've been moderating that section. I assure you that whether it feels to me like something needs a separate thread has absolutely nothing to do with any judgment about whether it's "worth discussing." It's strictly a matter of where it can best be discussed so that we don't have the same discussion going on in multiple places.
There's certainly nothing personal about the closing of threads. Avoiding cluttering the section with extraneous threads is about trying to keep the section functioning well. The fact that the episode threads are long is, frankly, the result of a lot of people giving their opinions of the same things, not the result of things that aren't about the episode being stuck in the episode thread.
Since your issue seems to be with that section only, you can email me if you have other questions. Now, I might be new to the TWOP forums, but I'm not new to forums. The TAR forum over there consists of very few threads, mostly created by the moderator (??!), and each with a ridiculous number of pages to wade through. And they fully expect you to do that. They think it's reasonable that a few threads should hold any and all discussion about every element of the show, and whatever tangent you want to discuss had better-by-god fit into one of those approved threads. You can't argue with people like that. That's the way they want it, no argument welcome. 
dumont
14th November 2006 - 07:02 PM
QUOTE (TeslaNewton+Nov 14 2006, 09:07 AM) Is Glark humping the servers again? Glark needs to respect the servers. If I were a system administrator I wouldn't disrespect the servers by running MySQL on them.
skittlebrau
14th November 2006 - 07:25 PM
I think the problem with the TAR forums (besides the obvious) is that the show is like, what, 10 seasons old? So, five, six years? Thread accumulation is going to happen over a long period of time. Just because a spoiler thread is like, 1500 pages long, it doesn't mean you have to read the whole spoiler thread. They may make rules like 15/15, but they're dreaming if they expect anyone to actually follow them. I don't think you should take the thread locking personally. You're lucky Alki didn't tell you to fuck off and then ban you.
La G
15th November 2006 - 12:06 AM
QUOTE (dumont+Nov 15 2006, 03:02 AM) QUOTE (TeslaNewton+Nov 14 2006, 09:07 AM) Is Glark humping the servers again? Glark needs to respect the servers. If I were a system administrator I wouldn't disrespect the servers by running MySQL on them. I used to have a boyfriend who humped servers and he always used to get on at me to cook Welsh rarebit. Sorry, too tempting.
maggie
15th November 2006 - 01:01 AM
QUOTE (SP+) I can see why TWoP sets different policies for the recapped-show forums, but in practice I think it's hard to keep everything straight and leads lots of people to break the rules when they think they're keeping their noses clean. I don't think it would be that difficult if say, certain mods actually used their Show FAQs to establish that. The main FAQ does say to check them before posting. Also, it'd be nice if the official spoiler policy matched what really happens on the boards. Yes, Daniel. I'm talking to you and your have-it-all-ways wishy-washiness. Clearly the board has set its own rules. It'd be nice if you recognized them. QUOTE (p2c2e+Oct 31 2006, 12:44 PM) QUOTE (puretrash+) I agree they should just amend the rule to 15/15, whichever is more to read, since that's what they really want you to do. |
That is actually what it used to be but than they revised it to whichever is less. That FAQ rule has been all over the place. June 22, 2005 says greater. However, August 10, 2005 says "at least the last fifteen pages or the last fifteen days" leading many to believe it's less (although that might be the version from the Dos and Donts). Wing weighs in on this in the Forum Questions thread and insists it's greater. That caused a bit of a ruckus at TSucks at the time. I remember Wing/Glark going back and putting the phrase back in, because by Sept. 26, 2005 has it back to greater; and May 28, 2006 finally does the sensible thing and changes back to less. Now apparently, they've tried to clarify it yet again by making it even more unclear. Not to mention it doesn't seem to match their crib Dos and Donts version. And that's only since I've been bothering to pay attention to the actual FAQ. Whatever went on earlier someone else will have to fill in. For years before that, I'd always learned it as less. Apparently, that's what many of the mods thought it was as well, when they first posted about it over at TSucks. QUOTE (Erin+) But, just for shits and giggles, basically, the 15/15 rule as stated means that, if the show airs on Monday, October 23rd, and by Saturday there are 60 pages of posts, you would have to read EVERY post since the first one, seeing as the show aired FIVE days ago. That's the lesser of the two fifteens. You could read 15 pages, but that's more than 5 days, ya see? It would seem that you only had to read the last 15 pages because that's less than 60 pages, but that's not what the rule means. It says read the last 15 DAYS or 15 PAGES, whichever is less. And, in this case, you'd only have to read the last 5 DAYS, so that would be less. With the 15/15 whichever is less, you read the least amount of pages. If an active thread has 15+ pages in 15 or less days (like Lost, which gets 30 pages in one day), then you only read the last 15 pages. If a thread is inactive enough that it doesn't gather more than 15 pages in the last 15 days, then you only have to the pages that have been added in the last 15 days--even if it's only one page. Thread A: X>15 pages in 15 or less days--->Read last 15 pages Thread B: X<15 pages in 16 or more days--->Read pages in the last 15 days Or, to adapt Wing's quote: | QUOTE | You're supposed to go by the last fifteen days or the last fifteen pages, whichever is less. If fifteen days is less than fifteen of your pages, there's your answer.
<br>Whichever is less is definitely the rule they need to keep, especially for people on the West Coast. Otherwise it penalizes the later time zones 'cuz they're forced to read all the pages, whereas the Eastern Time Zone gets to post 2 minutes after the show ends and then never come back to read all the "scintillating" conversation that will ensue for the subsequent 50 pages.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You're supposed to go by the last fifteen days or the last fifteen pages, whichever is less. If fifteen days is less than fifteen of your pages, there's your answer.
<br>Whichever is less is definitely the rule they need to keep, especially for people on the West Coast. Otherwise it penalizes the later time zones 'cuz they're forced to read all the pages, whereas the Eastern Time Zone gets to post 2 minutes after the show ends and then never come back to read all the "scintillating" conversation that will ensue for the subsequent 50 pages.
It's the power mad mods who want to punish people who make it "whichever is more". I think they are jealous. If they have to read every post, so do we.
That would be Sars. It's laughable that the rule now says "whatever makes the most sense." She was insisting you read the whole thread even when the FAQ specifically said "whichever is less"; and more importantly, when the thread had 200+ pages.
QUOTE (Enzed+) Because if people only read the last 15 pages of a 60 page episode thread, things just get rehashed to death.
15/15, whichever is more, really doesn't prevent that. Especially over at Lost.
And another thing? Damn that FAQ is friggin' unwieldy. I didn't think it was possible to get worse from what it was, but they managed it. It's not even close to being user-friendly.
Eris Rising
15th November 2006 - 09:07 AM
Or to keep it simple: If you read back five pages or so, don't act like you're saying anything new, don't say something stupid like "I don't know if anyone has said this," or "I didn't have time to read the whole thread," then I suspect that no one will care.
Rex Dart
15th November 2006 - 09:14 AM
Hootis happened to pick the one time in TWOP history that they actually responded to a question in a respectful way  I do certainly agree that they don't usually listen and that they do all sorts of things that don't facilitate discussion, but I honestly don't see that response as an example of that. Although I think it's not even among TWoP's top 10 problems, it does seem to have become an issue that threads are just too freakin' big. In that situation, it's no wonder that people don't read others' posts and that threads wander all over the place. They should really re-think the entire way that system is working.
BeatrixK
15th November 2006 - 11:10 AM
Not sure if it's a badge of honor or not, but I got myself warned about a year ago. They removed my posting priviliedges. Thanks, SARS, you crotchety old self-important sea hag. (ooppss. I said that outloud, didn't I!)
If memory serves, I believe my transgression was posting during an awards show...WHILE IT WAS STILL ON!!! (How the servers managed to keep from spontaneously combusting and subsequently ripping a hole in the time-space continuum is beyond me, but that fancy physics stuff was never my strong suit). I hadn't gotten any warnings before on anything, and didn't realize that 5 minutes before a show ended was apparently something that sticks sharp and pointy in SAR's craw.
I still lurk there occasionally, and find it odd that there are people who manage to post before the end of a show, but I still see their posts. So, in a magical time and place, it would rock if the mods could, I dunno, give you a warning before banishing you to the leper colony that is being a former poster...answer a freakin email asking 'Wha?'...or restore your status after a reasonable period of time. (over a year, and my ID is STILL restricted from posting.) Crazier yet...apply the sames standards to all users. (I know..next I'll be asking for World Peace. I'm loony like that.)
Or another suggestion might be for them to post a calendar of when SARS is PMS'ing, since clearly breaking her rules during that time is the cause of TWoP Leprosy.
blah blah blah bittercakes. tee. hee.
skittlebrau
15th November 2006 - 05:38 PM
You know, I've seen it mentioned before, perhaps in the FAQ, that you can't post your minute-by-minute reactions to the show, but people do anyway, and it's annoying. They should really enforce that rule a lot more than they do. First of all, your minute-by-minute reactions are fucking boring. Second of all, your minute-by-minute reactions are fucking boring. And third of all, no one cares so shut up.
The "How Many Pages Should I Read?" question should really be answered with "Just use some damn common sense. Learn to skim and don't declare that you haven't read every post. If you have a question, make sure it hasn't been asked and answered already, or we get to beat you to death with a wiffle bat. The end."
It probably wouldn't be so hard to find questions already asked if their search engine was worth a damn.
Hootis
16th November 2006 - 06:55 AM
What's funny is, TWOPpers are very quick to point out the Search function to noobers if they think what you posted has been posted before (assuming the mod hasn't erased it yet).
But on a forum that is so tightly strangled, the Search function is nearly useless.
The words you search for aren't going to be in the Topic header because there's too few topics, and they're mostly mod-created and have cutesy names anyway.
If you search inside the posts, your search term is likely to be mentioned 100 times in each thread, because there's very few active threads, each with a thousand posts. On purpose.
I happened upon the TWOP forums by Googling "The Amazing Race forum." I was looking for a specific subject (bunching) to discuss. After searching for and not finding a topic, I started one. BAM! Locked.
I actually emailed Miss Alli about it, and received a reply that bunching had been discussed to death and she thought it was fine so no more discussion was needed, thank you.
What the fuck is that? Pre-emptive poor moderation? "I don't agree with your assertion, therefore it is not worthwhile."
I don't care how long they've been doing it. They've been doing it wrong.
dumont
16th November 2006 - 10:40 AM
QUOTE (Eris Rising+Nov 15 2006, 09:07 AM) Or to keep it simple: If you read back five pages or so, don't act like you're saying anything new, don't say something stupid like "I don't know if anyone has said this," or "I didn't have time to read the whole thread," then I suspect that no one will care. And there's also the old CYA standby "As mentioned upthread..." and variants. The intent of the 15/15 rule is obvious and I agree that with a little common sense it's pretty easy not run afoul of it. I think the FAQ posting rules are actually pretty simple: Stick to the topic which is the show, don't repeat the same inane drivel over and over again, don't be an asshole, and don't be rude to other people. If some posters don't have the self-awareness to realize when they are out of line, I don't think the problem is with the FAQ.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 11:14 AM
QUOTE (dumont+) I think the FAQ posting rules are actually pretty simple I have to completely disagree with that. You may have summarized the general themes behind the rules, but they have tried to think of and list every way that a person might violate them. That has ended up creating a monstrosity that is confusing and unreadable, and as an added bonus, basically becomes completely self-defeating once people catch on that they can violate the spirit of the rules all they want as long as they avoid violating their letter. If they went back to those basics and asked individual mods to do whatever (and only what) was needed to ensure that those general principles were at work, that'd be a huge improvement.
WildHoney
16th November 2006 - 11:21 AM
On the idea of starting a "bunching" thread in the TAR forums...
The more I read the forums, the more I hate the episode threads. I don't post in or read the TAR forums, but I do participate in the Survivor forums. They aren't quite as active, but I've abandoned the episode threads all together. Once Candice and Jonathon "mutinied" I discussed it on their individual contestant threads, rather than the episode thread. If it's possible, I'd suggest you try to do the same with the TAR forum. If bunching affects a certain team, go to their thread. You might find a good discussion about bunching. You'll probably be reported as posting off-topic sooner or later, but maybe you can direct some interesting discussion to this site's TAR thread.
No one is talking to each other on the episode threads. It's like a bunch of people rushing to pin a note on a giant bulletin board.
Miss Alli-
| QUOTE | The fact that the episode threads are long is, frankly, the result of a lot of people giving their opinions of the same things
...and trying to run up their post count.
floundering
16th November 2006 - 11:37 AM
QUOTE (BeatrixK+)
If memory serves, I believe my transgression was posting during an awards show...WHILE IT WAS STILL ON!!!
Banning for something like that is beyond ridiculous. The warning system was supposed to allow the mods more leeway in their reprimands, but apparently most of them use dynamite in their homes to kill ants. The difference between you and others is that you probably got reported, for whatever reason. It's the wheel of fate. (Or someone with a grudge was taking the opportunity to ding you.)
p2c2e
16th November 2006 - 11:44 AM
The banning for posting during awards show is that usually there is at least one post for a mod saying that they will do just that in the thread.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 11:46 AM
I'll grant that I've heard of a number of unfair bannings due to unclear rules, but I've always thought that the "No posting while the show is on" rule was pretty straightforward and clear.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 11:54 AM
Yeah, but I reject the idea that it's ok for them to be pricks (and I do think banning for a minor infraction is, in the abstract, prickish) as long as they warn you beforehand that they're going to be pricks. I mean, yeah, that beats being a prick without prior warning, but it's a false choice to think that those are the only two options.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 11:58 AM
But are they being pricks, really, or simply nipping an annoying chat-style show thread in the bud? I've been to forums where people will post during a show without moderatorial interference, and it always runs like this:
Poster 1: OMG! Did you see that!
Poster 2: Totally!
Poster 3: What just happened? I missed it!
Poster 2: She totally kissed him
Poster 3: OMG!
Poster 1: That's what I said!
Pages upon pages of it. I find it to be a reasonable rule, and I while I respect your point of view, I have to disagree with you on this one. Especially since you can always come back under another nic, hopefully with a new respect for the more simple and straightforward rules.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 12:00 PM
Oh, yeah, I totally agree that that's to be avoided. But in TWOP terms, it should be a "warn", and in terms that people who respect each other might use to communicate with each other, well, there wouldn't be "warnings" or "bannings" unless you really and truly fuck up.
MickiRae
16th November 2006 - 12:03 PM
The no posting about the episode while it's airing rules is one I actually love. Because if there's anything more annoying than those "these are my thoughts as the episode is occurring" cumulative posts that clog up the first few pages of some fora, it's the same "thoughts" but with even less context.
Banning? Harsh, if no warning has been administered. But I am still grateful for that rule (I remember a time when it wasn't a rule, or at least not one that was enforced) and grateful for the no "diary of an episode" rule enforced with at least a few of the shows.
Little Bear
16th November 2006 - 12:05 PM
I agree that it's a reasonable rule, but I'd also have to agree it's a bit silly to go ahead and ban someone for violating it without any prior warning. It's easy enough to stop doing. People make mistakes. And yes, you can just sign back up, but the fact that you should have to do that following that kind of minor infraction seems needlessly harsh to me.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Rex Dart+Nov 16 2006, 12:00 PM) Oh, yeah, I totally agree that that's to be avoided. But in TWOP terms, it should be a "warn", and in terms that people who respect each other might use to communicate with each other, well, there wouldn't be "warnings" or "bannings" unless you really and truly fuck up. So it's more a matter of degree of punishment, then? I can see where you're coming from. On the other hand, while I agree that running afoul of some of the more obscure or complicated rules (like 15/15) should merit a warning at most, I can't get too worked up over someone being banned for violating one of the clear and concise ones.
Gladly
16th November 2006 - 12:36 PM
I think posting during an award show should be particularly forgiveable since it happens in so many other threads at TWoP, like the Meet Markets or the awards threads of nominated shows, while the show is airing.
p2c2e
16th November 2006 - 12:40 PM
Speaking as a West Coaster, I could not disagree more. Seriously when people post during the award shows (before they are deleted) it is literally page after page of:
Did you see that!
What is she wearing?
Could that be stupider.
It's a total bitch even to scroll through.
Gladly
16th November 2006 - 12:46 PM
I'm not saying that it should be sanctioned and practiced--just not grounds for banning. Especially since there's discussion going on all over the site during the show, that isn't in that thread.
With the new board features, maybe they'll just timelock the broadcast thread for those shows so they don't open until the show has ended (or at least come close to ending).
Hootis
16th November 2006 - 12:55 PM
QUOTE (dumont+Nov 16 2006, 11:40 AM) I think the FAQ posting rules are actually pretty simple: Stick to the topic which is the show, don't repeat the same inane drivel over and over again, don't be an asshole, and don't be rude to other people. If some posters don't have the self-awareness to realize when they are out of line, I don't think the problem is with the FAQ. Yeahhhhh....no. I did exactly what the vast multitude of TWoP FAQs told me, including this one: Q: I'd like to start a new thread. How can I make sure I'm not starting a duplicate thread for the same subject?
A:
1. Go to the search page via the link in the "login bar" near the top of the page.
2. In the Search by Keywords field, put the name of -- or a word from -- the show (or character, etc) you are searching for (e.g. put "Clone High" or "Clone" for the show Clone High). Asterisks are wildcards, so Clone* will return Clone High, as well as Star Wars: Clone Wars, and Clonemania, if such a show existed.
3. In the Search Where area, choose All Forums, which is at the top of the menu.
4. In the Refine Search > Search posts from... area, choose Any Date.
5. In the Refine Search > Sort results by... area, choose whatever you prefer.
6. In the Refine Search > Search Where area, choose Search titles only.
7. In the Refine Search > Result Type area, choose Show results as topics.
8. Click Perform the Search.
If you don't get any hits, feel free to start a new thread for that show/character/whatever.I follow the FAQ. The moderator follows her own personal preference. She *says* she doesn't, but she does. It's stupid that I get worked up over this, but people with this degree of anonymous power trip syndrome make me grind my teeth. I can't discuss a valid part of the show in the show forums. Bad moderation.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 01:00 PM
QUOTE (Eris Rising+) So it's more a matter of degree of punishment, then? If I were trying to "think like a mod" and limit myself to what the current staff under the current rules and mindset might actually do... then yeah, I'd put it that way. But I really do want to emphasize that I totally disagree with the entire thing they've got going where their only mode of interacting with their users is to deal them out degrees of "punishment." I think that's pathetic. I do certainly agree that there are a lot worse things going on there that we could be complaining about. But that shouldn't stop us from complaining about this one
potmeetskettle
16th November 2006 - 01:24 PM
Apples and Oranges, Hootis.
dumont's post referred to rules for posting (in an existing thread) at TWoP. Truthfully, those are pretty easy for the reasons stated. What you're talking about, or so it appears, is starting a new thread to discuss a specific subject. In your case, "bunching" on TAR.
On the one hand, I agree with the uselessness of the search function in helping to determine if a thread exists mostly because of the idiotic, cutesy names. Heh. However, I think the search function does come in handy when you're talking about starting threads in the basement areas.
On the other hand, I can see why there's no need for a "bunching" thread. It would be a thread full of "bunching sucks", "yeah, bunching sucks", "nuh uh, bunching rulz". There's not a whole lot of sustainable conversation to be had on the subject that couldn't take place in either the individual team threads or the episode threads where the bunching occurs.
Allowing threads to be started for every brain fart a person has makes the forums unwieldy for the moderators. Believe me. I know. That's only one of many reasons the TSucks Jr. section of this site doesn't allow users to start threads. I don't want a 2-page thread that peters out talking about how much bunching sucks, only to have it get buried under 30 other new mini-threads about some other subject and a month from now a new person comes along and starts a thread about .. you guessed it .. bunching.
It's simply management of the site. Is it Miss Alli's call whether the thread is allowed or not? Absolutely. And, to be perfectly honest, that was one of Miss Alli's nicer responses.
L van Van
16th November 2006 - 01:25 PM
QUOTE (Hootis+Nov 16 2006, 04:55 PM) I can't discuss a valid part of the show in the show forums. You could find a different site at which to discuss it though. I mean, I think a lot of people (myself included) realize that the TWoP atmosphere is just not for them, because of the rules, or the moderation, or the sheer size of the forums. But I don't know how invested you are in posting there; you may have posters you like to talk to or maybe you've been there a long time (although I think you said you're fairly new, right?). I know TWoP is enormous, quite famous, and old in internet years, but it's definitely not the end-all be-all of television discussion.
Hootis
16th November 2006 - 01:43 PM
Well of course I could find another forum!
But this is TWoPsucks, not FindAnotherFourmsucks! And those TWoP bastards have to PAY, I tell you! PAY! AAAAA! AAAAAAAA!
But seriously, I could totally discuss Bunching (now with improved capital B!) changes and alternatives. People DO discuss it...in every other friggin' thread but a Bunching thread because
[GNASH]YOU CAN'T MAKE A BUNCHING THREAD.[/GNASH]
Bunching alternatives and such are why I went searching for a TAR forum to begin with. I wanted to discuss it.
My response re: TWoP FAQs above, was a generic response to the "common sense" theme. It ain't common if the Mods can ignore it at will.
Anyway, I'll stop ranting about it. I'll lurk here until I get banned from the TWoP boards, and then THE. BITCHING. WILL. BEGIN. IN. EARNEST!
L van Van
16th November 2006 - 01:54 PM
QUOTE (Hootis+Nov 16 2006, 05:43 PM) But this is TWoPsucks, not FindAnotherFourmsucks! Technically, it's Bitter But Brilliant. I was just trying to be helpful. I don't even know what "bunching" is! I guess I just don't see what the big deal is when TWoP hands out warnings or acts irrationally because that is what they do there! WITHOUT pity! But then again I never found TWoP to be a good fit personally. I'd rather take my business somewhere else.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 02:00 PM
Bunching: On The Amazing Race, contestants will often get to a roadblock or other challenge that requires them to wait for an extended period of time (even overnight), meaning that the other players will eventually catch up with them. It's considered controversial by some, and just part of the game by others.
See? BBB is educational!
fernbeau
16th November 2006 - 03:45 PM
I like the rule about not being able to post as the show airs, but in practice what it amounts to is the same people in each forum keeping a running Word document, and then pasting it in the second the forum opens. It still amounts to the same thing, although it does allow you to automatically skip the first 5 pages of any given ep thread, especially for awards shows.
I'd love to see what would happen if all the episode threads were locked until 24 hrs. after the episode aired.
gilbertblythe
16th November 2006 - 04:47 PM
One of the things I do like about TWOP is that the forums are pretty well organized for that big of a site. I do like that they try to keep the amount of threads to a minimum. I like that the shows have individual episode threads, actor/character threads, and then a few others like Ratings, Media, Spoilers, etc.. For the most part every forum is set up the same way with the same type of threads. It's easier for me to find what I'm looking for this way. Judging by some of the unnecessary threads reported in Traffic Court, I think if people had free reign to start a new thread for whatever topic they wanted to discuss, I think it would turn into one giant mess.
I'm not saying the "bunching" topic is unnecessary considering I don't even watch the show, but I think it should be the decision of the mod whether or not the thread should stay open. At least you are allowed to talk about it in other threads. Although I would say the bigger threads are usually dominated by people that are more interested in having people read what they have to say rather than being interested in what others have to say. Which is why you get so many people saving their posts on Word just so they can have their post on the first page. Because obviously 1st page = special.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE (gilbertblythe+Nov 16 2006, 04:47 PM) One of the things I do like about TWOP is that the forums are pretty well organized for that big of a site. I do like that they try to keep the amount of threads to a minimum. I like that the shows have individual episode threads, actor/character threads, and then a few others like Ratings, Media, Spoilers, etc.. For the most part every forum is set up the same way with the same type of threads. It's easier for me to find what I'm looking for this way. Judging by some of the unnecessary threads reported in Traffic Court, I think if people had free reign to start a new thread for whatever topic they wanted to discuss, I think it would turn into one giant mess.
I'm not saying the "bunching" topic is unnecessary considering I don't even watch the show, but I think it should be the decision of the mod whether or not the thread should stay open. At least you are allowed to talk about it in other threads. Although I would say the bigger threads are usually dominated by people that are more interested in having people read what they have to say rather than being interested in what others have to say. Which is why you get so many people saving their posts on Word just so they can have their post on the first page. Because obviously 1st page = special. And West Coast = LOSER.
skittlebrau
16th November 2006 - 05:17 PM
| QUOTE | With the new board features, maybe they'll just timelock the broadcast thread for those shows so they don't open until the show has ended (or at least come close to ending).
<br>That doesn't stop people at all. They type out their thoughts as the show is on, and then they copy and paste. It's all so very aggrivating. I understand wanting to discuss various things you saw in the episode, but in a real life conversation you don't present a laundry list of your observations for 45 minutes and expect someone to listen to it all. Present a couple of observations. Let other people respond. Present some more. My gosh, like a discussion or some junk! But it seems to me the episode threads are like a race to see who can have the most witty observations first. It's boring and it clogs up the first 3-4 pages of an episode thread, in my opinion (and believe me I skim the fuck out of those posts.)
ETA: I somehow missed this last page of posts and you guys already said what I just said. I am stupid. Carry on.
max power
16th November 2006 - 05:24 PM
QUOTE (fernbeau+Nov 16 2006, 03:45 PM) I like the rule about not being able to post as the show airs, but in practice what it amounts to is the same people in each forum keeping a running Word document, and then pasting it in the second the forum opens. It still amounts to the same thing, although it does allow you to automatically skip the first 5 pages of any given ep thread, especially for awards shows.
I'd love to see what would happen if all the episode threads were locked until 24 hrs. after the episode aired. I saw jayseyfield blatantly violate this rule, but it was in a very fast moving thread on West Coast time, so it went unnoticed. Basically, if you don't draw attention to yourself and nobody reports you, you can pretty much get away with violating all of their major rules (15/15, don't post during the show, and boards on boards). While those who follow the rules, but disagree with Mean Girls or other ruling cliques get reported for minor things like a missing semicolon. Totally defeats the purpose of those rules.
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 05:27 PM
Well, the Mean Girls and other cliques are willing to report, while many posters aren't. So if they have any power, it's been freely given to them by those on the other side of the debate.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 05:40 PM
But again, I think you're settling for the best case scenario given the current dysfunctional TWOP mindset, when we could be talking about how they should be doing things. Mods need to have enough knowledge of the threads and the posters to be able to tell who's really contributing to the conversation and who's playing legalistic games with the rules.
skittlebrau
16th November 2006 - 05:41 PM
I have a hard time believing they don't know about Jayseyfield. That's like not knowing the "Who's On First?" routine.
max power
16th November 2006 - 06:01 PM
Are you saying the mods are all from bumfuck Columbus, Ohio? How do those red state morons function? I bet they are all homophobic Christians. [/sorkin] 
Eris Rising
16th November 2006 - 06:04 PM
QUOTE (Rex Dart+Nov 16 2006, 05:40 PM) But again, I think you're settling for the best case scenario given the current dysfunctional TWOP mindset, when we could be talking about how they should be doing things. Mods need to have enough knowledge of the threads and the posters to be able to tell who's really contributing to the conversation and who's playing legalistic games with the rules. In blatant cases, I agree with you. However, running a site the size of this one, or Snarkfest, or PMC is difficult. Running one the size of TWoP must be enormous. Therefore, they're not going to be able to go into every single thread and check everything out, and will rely on those who are willing to tattle. There's a thread on TWoP--I won't say which one--that actually has a couple of posters who break the caps and punctuation rule on a regular basis. However, nobody reports them, since no one on that thread cares about it when their other contributions to the discussion are taken into account. On the other hand, if someone came in trolling, you can be sure that they'd be reported immediately. We're self-policing to some degree.
Rex Dart
16th November 2006 - 06:31 PM
Yeah, I know that's the explanation, but to me, that's like throwing up your hands and saying "let's let things go to crap." Because you're just never gonna have a good board like that. If you don't give more rope to people who have a history of being genuine contributors to the board, then you're going to end up getting rid of your own best posters. And rewarding rules lawyering allows the people who can't stand to be involved in a give-and-take conversation (since those are the majority of people who lawyer) to knock off the posters who actually have a sense of perspective about the subject. The result of each is both a lower level of discussion, and a community with no "community" to it.
I admit that the solution is not obvious (appointing users as mods? asking existing mods to do more? all these ideas clearly have problems...), but not even addressing it is the worst solution.
Hootis
16th November 2006 - 07:51 PM
TWoP isn't the biggest forum I've ever seen, by a long way, gang.
Bad moderating is bad moderating. If you want people to talk on your forums, let them talk with few rules:
1) No flaming/trolling,
2) No spamming,
3) Stay on topic,
4) Use the Search before you post.
Obviously these are abbreviated, but these are the foundation.
The moderator should not be making all the topics. That's assinine. Having five active threads that are supposed to encompass ALL TOPICS OF INTEREST POSSIBLE is just plain foolish.
Furthermore, what about new posters? If you're going to actively discourage posting and promote favoritism (which TWOP does), it becomes a circle jerk, exclusionary.
Yes, it's their boards, it's their FAQ, they've been running it for 8012 years, they can do what they want, I know.
They could do much better.
puretrash
16th November 2006 - 08:19 PM
You know what I can't stand? I hate when someone edits their post to respond to what someone has posted below them, instead of just making a new post. I HATE IT. I think that's one of my biggest pet peeves. It makes the thread confusing, and disrupts the natural flow of converstation. With all the rules at TWoP, I'm surprised this is not a rule (atleast that I know of). Lord knows people do it all. the. time.
skittlebrau
16th November 2006 - 10:16 PM
Sorry. I do that a lot. Mainly because I hate seeing my name every other post for like, half a page.
puretrash
17th November 2006 - 06:56 AM
Yeah, but if someone reads your post, and they're doing "Mark as Read", when they come back to the thread, they don't see your response because you've put it in your original post. Maybe I'm the only one that is bothered by that, I dunno.
roseland
17th November 2006 - 06:59 AM
No, it bugs me, too and I've never understood why someone would do that until skittlebrau explained it. I guess I don't mind having my name on two posts on the same page. I mean, if I'm tempted to post more than twice on the same page, I usually just let it go because I figure someone else will eventually make my point. Because someone always does.
zan
17th November 2006 - 07:00 AM
| QUOTE | With all the rules at TWoP, I'm surprised this is not a rule (atleast that I know of). Lord knows people do it all. the. time.
<br>I believe the rule is exactly the opposite, in order to deter double posting.
roseland
17th November 2006 - 07:03 AM
The new software takes care of double posting. People have complained about this issue in the Forums Comments thread and Glark has said that, while it bugs him, too, he's not going to make it a rule because it seems like it'd be too hard for the moderators to police (I suppose if they use the Mark as Read, they wouldn't see the post and would have to rely on the FTC).
Rex Dart
17th November 2006 - 07:04 AM
QUOTE (skittlebrau+Nov 17 2006, 01:16 AM) Sorry. I do that a lot. Mainly because I hate seeing my name every other post for like, half a page. I do it too, usually for the same reason; I don't want to run up my post count or monopolize the conversation. There can be other reasons as well. Sometimes I just don't think the point deserves its own post. Or, since an add-on post like that is less likely to be responded to, sometimes I do it when I'm making a point that, for various reasons, I'm indifferent as to whether anyone responds, or would prefer that no one would. It does take a second for the reader to realize what's going on, but, hey, it takes me a second to figure out what the hell is going on in half of the nutjob posts there. I also love books with annotations! ETA: QUOTE (puretrash+) I guess my main complaint is that it's likely the poster you are responding to will not see your response. <b>PURETRASH IS A BIG STUPIDHEAD!!!! Really sorry. You did have to figure it was coming though, right? But that's no excuse...
puretrash
17th November 2006 - 07:08 AM
| QUOTE | QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | With all the rules at TWoP, I'm surprised this is not a rule (atleast that I know of). Lord knows people do it all. the. time.
<br>
I believe the rule is exactly the opposite, in order to deter double posting.
I'm not referring to double posting. I'm referring to people editing their original post to respond to something posted after them. For instance, it would be like if I responded to your post by editing my post above, instead of making a new one like I am now. How would you ever know what my response was unless I made a new post?
Rex Dart, I can usually figure out what's going on if I'm reading the thread for the first time, and there all these ETAs. I guess my main complaint is that it's likely the poster you are responding to will not see your response.
zan
17th November 2006 - 07:52 AM
| QUOTE | I'm not referring to double posting. I'm referring to people editing their original post to respond to something posted after them. For instance, it would be like if I responded to your post by editing my post above, instead of making a new one like I am now. How would you ever know what my response was unless I made a new post?
<br>No, I understood that. I had forgotten about the changes in the software, but many moons ago, the rule was to edit one's post rather than post a new one, in responding to something.
BeatrixK
17th November 2006 - 08:52 AM
QUOTE (puretrash+Nov 16 2006, 10:19 PM) You know what I can't stand? I hate when someone edits their post to respond to what someone has posted below them, instead of just making a new post. I HATE IT. I think that's one of my biggest pet peeves. It makes the thread confusing, and disrupts the natural flow of converstation. With all the rules at TWoP, I'm surprised this is not a rule (atleast that I know of). Lord knows people do it all. the. time. Ah, but in the TWoP selective modification world, if you do respond to a post responding to your post within some voo-doo-magic-super-secret-ninja-time formula that they use, you can get chastised and told 'Please don't add a new post shortly after your post. Edit your original post, etc." I've seen that warning several times posted throughout different threads, and I guess it comes perilously close to conversation/chatting within the thread. As to my banning. I would have easily realized what I had done re: posting before episode ended, and heeded a warning, whether in-thread or email, sent as a 'reminder' of the FAQ. But, I was not given such a luxury. I found out when I logged on the next morning, saw a 40% bar next to my name, and my post attempt was met with 'You have been restricted from using this feature.' So I clicked on the bar, and it said SARS had restricted me. I emailed her, and got no response. I actually had to email another poster to find out what the heck had happened. For whatever reason, I incurred the wrath of SARS. But, as far a breaking the rule goes, when I logged onto the board in question, there were already some posts on there, and I was not 'syncronizing my clock' with the TWOP clock, so, while there was a 5 minute or so difference, I did 'technically' break the rule. I get that I broke their rules. But, given previous posters before me in the thread, (two of whom continued to post after I had been restricted from doing so) the abrupt nature of the restriction, I found it to be just another example of the 'selective TWoP morality' that grows in proportion to thier site.
EssPee
17th November 2006 - 08:57 AM
Hootis, there's already a TAR thread for "Suggestions and Changes for Future TAR" -- weirdly, it's in the Amazing Whimsy section, but it's there. That's one place you might talk about bunching if you have alternatives to suggest. Or you might look at starting a thread that addresses the same subject, but more broadly. Call it "Tactics and Strategy" or somesuch if you want to talk about how teams deal with bunching or other, um, roadblocks over the course of the race. I think PMK is right that an entire thread devoted to "bunching" would be too narrow and would probably peter out quickly.
Joe Don Faker
17th November 2006 - 09:32 AM
Sidenote: Don't do a Google image search for "bunching."
Eris Rising
17th November 2006 - 09:33 AM
Don't try your reverse psychology on me, JDF.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. dizayn.de © 2003 - 2009 - "lo-fi" for InvisionPower Board v1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|