About Forum Rules...

[ainwood]

I think it's hurting the activity in OT. I don't have anything concrete, but right now there's only 6 pages of OT threads, and it's been slowly dropping for a while. I suspect it is related to the harsher interpretation of a spam thread, or that it is at least a significant part of it.

We are much, much more relaxed on spam threads than we used to be! They used to be closed pre-emptively, and things like 'random rants' weren't allowed.

And there are still 1085 pages (and counting) of threads in OT. What do you mean by '6 pages'?

 

[Moss]

The default settings (I assume it's the default) only show topics from the last two weeks. So there are only 6 pages of OT threads in the last two weeks. That must be what he means. Change the settings to "the beginning" and you'll see all of the threads.

The ability to do that is on the top left of the main OT page (left of the active users currently viewing the forum).

 

[azzaman333]

We are much, much more relaxed on spam threads than we used to be! They used to be closed pre-emptively, and things like 'random rants' weren't allowed.

But, my experience says the definition of a spam thread has changed, so while you don't pre-emptively shut them down, you do kill them by forcing longer responses than are necessary. For example, if I post a one line answer in a thread, I'm happy to elaborate if someone asks in the context of the thread, but if no one is interested in why I think a certain thing about a topic, the elaboration is pointless.

And there are still 1085 pages (and counting) of threads in OT. What do you mean by '6 pages'?

The setting which hides threads that haven't been posted in for more than a fortnight. There's barely a page of threads that have new posts each day.

 

[Plotinus]

"Barely a page" of new posts to wade through every day? That sounds like plenty to me!

 

[Sharwood]

"Barely a page" of new posts to wade through every day? That sounds like plenty to me!

I remember there being upwards of 20 over a fortnight at one point. It certainly does seem to be slacking off lately.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, it does, but I had put that down to it being exam time in a lot of countries and a lack of any really big stories the last few weeks. Oh, and I've slowed down on my posting. I think civV may be announced in June, if it is there'll be a big increase in activities. We need more posters, basically.

 

[J-man]

I think civV may be announced in June, if it is there'll be a big increase in activities.

Why do you think it will be announced in June?

 

[RedRalph]

Why do you think it will be announced in June?

I could be reading way too much into it, but in a thread here, thuderfall made what I interpreted as a hint that it will be. the timing is right, its been 4 years since the last one, colonization has probably sold most of its initial run, it just seems to make sense to me.

TF makes two posts here that I thought might be aluding to it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=320026

E3 is next month (6/2 - 6/4)... perhaps we will hear something from Firaxis at that time, whether it's Civ5 or Civ MMORPG.

Well, Sid has said a few times that a Civ MMORPG is an interesting idea.

But Firaxis could be working on multiple projects simultaneously. They do have a lot more developers these days.

Civ5 is inevitable since Civ4 has been selling well, even 3.5 years after its release, it's still getting listed in top 15 selling games of the month from time to time.

 

[choxorn]

"Barely a page" of new posts to wade through every day? That sounds like plenty to me!

It does, but most of the time there's 2 or three pages of new posts in OT, at least.

 

[Thunderfall]

I could be reading way too much into it, but in a thread here, thuderfall made what I interpreted as a hint that it will be. the timing is right, its been 4 years since the last one, colonization has probably sold most of its initial run, it just seems to make sense to me.

TF makes two posts here that I thought might be aluding to it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=320026

hehe... I was just guessing. I don't know any more about it than you guys.

 

[Padma]

While it may seem that we Staff members may be in a position to make "better educated" guesses than other posters, the fact is that we really only have the same sources of information that you do. On the rare occasions that one or more of us may have "insider information", it is almost invariably under a non-disclosure agreement, so we couldn't tell you, anyway.

 

[RedRalph]

Fair enough lads, thanks for clarifying. nonetheless, fingers crossed

 

[ainwood]

But, my experience says the definition of a spam thread has changed, so while you don't pre-emptively shut them down, you do kill them by forcing longer responses than are necessary. For example, if I post a one line answer in a thread, I'm happy to elaborate if someone asks in the context of the thread, but if no one is interested in why I think a certain thing about a topic, the elaboration is pointless.

If no-one is interested in your opinion, it stands to reason that they're not interested in the opinion of anyone in the thread. If they're not interested in the opinion of anyone, then why even have the thread?

Consider two examples:
Have you ever been mischeivious?
Imperial star destroyer vs battlestar

In the first thread, which are the more enlightening responses? The ones where people actually explain the mischievous things they have done, or the people who just give some form of a 'yes / no' answer?

In the second, there is a number of complete spam responses, but there are also a number of people that have taken the time to post some really throughful and detailed responses.

We're not trying to kill threads, we're just trying to make threads more interesting. Its basically the same argument on trying to communicate with teenagers. Ask open questions, not closed ones, or you don't get a particularly enlightening conversation out of it.

You know:
How was school today?
Fine.
What did you do?
Nothing.
Well, you can't have done nothing. Did you have any tests?
No.
What did you do at lunchtime?
Nothing.

I see this as being similar to:
Forum thread: Which is better: Cat or a dog?
response 1: I like dogs!
response 2: Dogs rule!
response 3: lol cat!
response 4: Cat!
response 5: I prefer bugs.

Forum threads should be the equivalent of open questions, and this can be achieved by asking people to justify their responses.

 

[Cutlass]

"Barely a page" of new posts to wade through every day? That sounds like plenty to me!

Be glad you didn't have the mod job I used to have.

 

[azzaman333]

"Barely a page" of new posts to wade through every day? That sounds like plenty to me!

After cutting through the threads that don't interest me, that equates to roughly 5 new threads worth looking at a day. Most of which don't end up developing into any fruitful discussion.

If no-one is interested in your opinion, it stands to reason that they're not interested in the opinion of anyone in the thread. If they're not interested in the opinion of anyone, then why even have the thread?

Consider two examples:
Have you ever been mischeivious?
Imperial star destroyer vs battlestar

In the first thread, which are the more enlightening responses? The ones where people actually explain the mischievous things they have done, or the people who just give some form of a 'yes / no' answer?

In the second, there is a number of complete spam responses, but there are also a number of people that have taken the time to post some really throughful and detailed responses.

We're not trying to kill threads, we're just trying to make threads more interesting. Its basically the same argument on trying to communicate with teenagers. Ask open questions, not closed ones, or you don't get a particularly enlightening conversation out of it.

You know:
How was school today?
Fine.
What did you do?
Nothing.
Well, you can't have done nothing. Did you have any tests?
No.
What did you do at lunchtime?
Nothing.

I see this as being similar to:
Forum thread: Which is better: Cat or a dog?
response 1: I like dogs!
response 2: Dogs rule!
response 3: lol cat!
response 4: Cat!
response 5: I prefer bugs.

Forum threads should be the equivalent of open questions, and this can be achieved by asking people to justify their responses.

Getting people to justify their responses should be done through the wording of the OP of a thread, not through moderator actions.

 

[ainwood]

After cutting through the threads that don't interest me, that equates to roughly 5 new threads worth looking at a day. Most of which don't end up developing into any fruitful discussion.

And why don't they end up in fruitful discussion?

Getting people to justify their responses should be done through the wording of the OP of a thread, not through moderator actions.

I agree, and this is my point. We used to just close threads where the OP hadn't requested that people justify their responses, now we're trialling leaving them open with a request to justify responses.

 

[Agent327]

After cutting through the threads that don't interest me, that equates to roughly 5 new threads worth looking at a day.

IMO plenty of "I couldn't care less" threads appear on a daily basis (most of which could simply be posted on Turner's News Of The Weird...) There's more to life than CFC.

 

[Flying Pig]

I get a bit depressed by the amount of yankee news. We need a news forum.

 

[LucyDuke]

I get a bit depressed by the amount of yankee news. We need a news forum.

OT isn't enough? If there were a subforum for news, 'merica would probably dominate that too. It's just that there are more of us here and we're louder than Euroland.

(Send moar BBC. )

 

[Agent327]

I don't think news gets published on CFC. (Some news doesn't seem to get published on news sites even.)