What does "too user specific" mean?

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've seen it a few tiems (no specific posts -- don't want to break any rules)

I'm not sure what it means and I don't remember seeing it in the rules-- unelss I missed something?

thank you.

 

[azzaman333]

There is nothing in the rules regarding user specific posts, unless I missed it, so I have no idea why things are moderated for that reason.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Spam is not tolerated.
Spam is considered posting topics or messages on our forums that contain no point, relevance, or contain subject matter that doesn't directly allow other member participation. Topics directed to a particular user, posting several times consecutively as an appendage to ONE post...

Usually those types of threads, even when started with good intentions, generate some flaming/trolling.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Thank you. Although the thread I'm thinking of wasn't for a specific user, i see where it comes from.

 

[Mise]

I don't understand why we're not allowed threads that allow users to complement each other. The last time we had "those types of threads", it was started with good intentions, and had no trolling and flaming. It had FAR less nastiness than most threads on the forum; it was probably the "cleanest" thread I've ever seen in OT, especially given the number of participants and posts.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105502 <-- 10 pages and no moderator action at all. Even the mod who closed it called it a polite thread.

In fact, a lot of the reason we have nastiness in OT is exactly because threads like these aren't allowed. The sense of detachment engendered by most OT threads allows us to troll and flame without caring about the guy at the other end; by allowing threads that bring the community closer, we realise that there IS a guy at the other end, and are less inclined to troll or flame them as a result.

All arguments against allowing these threads were pretty much destroyed by the link above - no trolling, no flaming, greater sense of community and an important reminder that we're talking to actual people here.

Is there something the mods know that I don't?

 

[Turner]

I don't understand why we're not allowed threads that allow users to complement each other. The last time we had "those types of threads", it was started with good intentions, and had no trolling and flaming. It had FAR less nastiness than most threads on the forum; it was probably the "cleanest" thread I've ever seen in OT, especially given the number of participants and posts.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105502 <-- 10 pages and no moderator action at all. Even the mod who closed it called it a polite thread.

In fact, a lot of the reason we have nastiness in OT is exactly because threads like these aren't allowed. The sense of detachment engendered by most OT threads allows us to troll and flame without caring about the guy at the other end; by allowing threads that bring the community closer, we realise that there IS a guy at the other end, and are less inclined to troll or flame them as a result.

All arguments against allowing these threads were pretty much destroyed by the link above - no trolling, no flaming, greater sense of community and an important reminder that we're talking to actual people here.

Is there something the mods know that I don't?

Allow me to reiterate my esteemed colleague's post:

Spam is not tolerated.
Spam is considered posting topics or messages on our forums that contain no point, relevance, or contain subject matter that doesn't directly allow other member participation. Topics directed to a particular user, posting several times consecutively as an appendage to ONE post...

Usually those types of threads, even when started with good intentions, generate some flaming/trolling.

Is it really so hard to understand that posts directed at another user, whether good or bad, are not allowed? While you can go back four years to find a thread that didn't have any problems, that doesn't mean that every user-specific thread created isn't going to have any problems.

If you must give kudos to another user, use the PM function.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105502 <-- 10 pages and no moderator action at all. Even the mod who closed it called it a polite thread.

[...]

Is there something the mods know that I don't?

Certainly there are exceptions, hence the reason I used "usually" in my description. I think what made that thread effective was that fact that people had to give permission for others to talk about them. That seems to work well.

On the other hand, some of the recent threads that were closed weren't as "clean". Even in positive-only threads, it only takes one person who makes a negative or sarcastic positive comment to fuel the fire, so to speak. I think we can take a look at this policy, though...

 

[Mise]

Sorry in advance for mincing up your posts.

Allow me to reiterate my esteemed colleague's post:

Is it really so hard to understand that posts directed at another user, whether good or bad, are not allowed?

I understand perfectly that those threads are not allowed. I don't understand why they are not allowed. I think that's what I said

While you can go back four years to find a thread that didn't have any problems, that doesn't mean that every user-specific thread created isn't going to have any problems.

Certainly there are exceptions
<...>
On the other hand, some of the recent threads that were closed weren't as "clean".

In response to both, I can't think of any recent thread similar to Steph's. I don't understand why Steph's thread was closed, as it had gone for 10 pages with nothing bad said.

The only other vaguely similar one is the Alternative Member Photo thread (and the similar one for other members' significant other). Mods don't seem to mind that one.

I think what made that thread effective was that fact that people had to give permission for others to talk about them. That seems to work well.
<...>
Even in positive-only threads, it only takes one person who makes a negative or sarcastic positive comment to fuel the fire, so to speak. I think we can take a look at this policy, though...

It would be cool if the policy could be looked at

In addition to the permission thing, what made Steph's work well was that there was clear direction and instructions, which cut down on spam and sarcastic comments.

 

[Catharsis]

In response to both, I can't think of any recent thread similar to Steph's.

This thread was reasonably similar. It only went for 6 pages, but didn't get closed.

 

[Turner]

I understand perfectly that those threads are not allowed. I don't understand why they are not allowed. I think that's what I said

They're not allowed because Thunderfall has decreed that they're not allowed.

This is his house, we play by his rules.

 

[Fifty]

They're not allowed because Thunderfall has decreed that they're not allowed.

This is his house, we play by his rules.

Obviously, Mise knows that they are against the rules, and Mise knows that the rules of this site are determined by Thunderfall. What he is trying to do is suggest a rule change for Thunderfall's consideration (& the consideration of the mod team). Suggestions are part of this subforum. If everything Thunderfall decreed was not subject to suggestions, there would be no reason to allow suggestions in the first place.

When someone suggests a rule be changed, they are not claiming that the rule maker does not determine the rules, they are just asking the rule maker to reconsider the rules. I don't see why this is so hard to understand???

 

[Turner]

The point being, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

 

[Fifty]

The point being, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

So we're not supposed to suggest rule changes in the suggestions forum?

Why not? Why isn't addressing the issue through his mods, and in his site feedback forum, a good option?

We all know that TF doesn't pay much attention to OT issues, since his focus is understandably on the civ sections of the site. What is so bad about bringing up the issue here? Its not as if anyone is being rude about it. Mise and others are merely suggesting that the rule might be counter-productive at worst, pointless at best. This seems like a perfectly good venue to discuss that.

 

[azzaman333]

Usually those types of threads, even when started with good intentions, generate some flaming/trolling.

Not as much as your average politics thread. So why the double standard?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think we can take a look at this policy, though...

Thank you, Ginger Ale. It's good to see somebody who is flexible enough to convey suggestions to the other Staff and Admin.

I understand perfectly that those threads are not allowed. I don't understand why they are not allowed. I think that's what I said

Emphasis mine, on why. It's a fair question, and deserves more of an answer than "Because Thunderfall said so."

Obviously, Mise knows that they are against the rules, and Mise knows that the rules of this site are determined by Thunderfall. What he is trying to do is suggest a rule change for Thunderfall's consideration (& the consideration of the mod team). Suggestions are part of this subforum. If everything Thunderfall decreed was not subject to suggestions, there would be no reason to allow suggestions in the first place.

When someone suggests a rule be changed, they are not claiming that the rule maker does not determine the rules, they are just asking the rule maker to reconsider the rules. I don't see why this is so hard to understand???

All of this is entirely reasonable and well-put. Nobody is calling Thunderfall out or being derogatory toward him. We are simply asking reasonable questions and explaining why we think the rules should be relaxed.

The point being, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

So we're not supposed to suggest rule changes in the suggestions forum?

Why not? Why isn't addressing the issue through his mods, and in his site feedback forum, a good option?

We all know that TF doesn't pay much attention to OT issues, since his focus is understandably on the civ sections of the site. What is so bad about bringing up the issue here? Its not as if anyone is being rude about it. Mise and others are merely suggesting that the rule might be counter-productive at worst, pointless at best. This seems like a perfectly good venue to discuss that.

What else do you suggest, Turner? Are you saying that instead of people making suggestions in the suggestions forum, we should all simply PM or email Thunderfall personally? I'm sure he would just LOVE that...

Not as much as your average politics thread. So why the double standard?

Indeed. And since birthday threads are allowed, why not other nice threads? It's a wonderful "pick-me-up" to come here and discover that somebody has said something nice or complimentary, in public (it's nice in private, too, but extra-special when it's done publicly).

There have been times when I've wished I could publicly praise somebody for something they've said or done... but can't, as there is nowhere I'm allowed to do this.

Please note -- nobody is saying they want negative personal threads. There is enough personally-directed negativity here and there in other threads.

But why can't we be nice to each other, if we want?

At least for a trial period, say, until New Year's? If it works, great. I predict OT would become a calmer place and easier to mod. If it doesn't work... it was a learning experience.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

As someone who's received some kind words, both publicly and via PM, and had things said to try and put me down probably as much as anybody else, I think it would not hurt to have a little bit more positive vibes going on 'round here.

 

[IglooDame]

The "why" for that particular rule (in my experience) is that it is almost inevitable that someone will chime in with a backhanded compliment ("you're the least ____ [moronic/close-minded/etc etc] ____ [conservative/liberal/American/European/etc etc] that I've met") or a compliment directed at one person that is clearly intended (or at any rate easily misinterpreted) to be insulting to someone else ("it's good to chat with you, unlike the other [conservative/liberal/American/European/etc etc] people here").

The other "why" - for another flavor of thread - is the "look at me" threads that I think are considerably less popular around here, or at any rate more frequently have people willing to troll them enough to force mods to close them anyway.

And perhaps "opt-in" in a thread like the first sort might work. I do think that if someone does/says something praiseworthy and you think it worthy of public note, you can just pat them on the back in passing in the thread where it came up in the first place, hopefully without spamming/threadjacking it.

 

[WerBackIII]

Well what about Perfy's little troll bites that just don't harm anyone? Or Birdjaguar's poems that sometimes are directly user-specific? Should we ban them?

Personally, opening a thread that discusses a member is bad IMO, but opening a thread, like, "I need help because of smthng." isn't bad, again IMO.

However, for third time IMO, Turner is right. This is Thunderfall's house, we play by his rules.

 

[downtown]

I don't understand why we're not allowed threads that allow users to complement each other. The last time we had "those types of threads", it was started with good intentions, and had no trolling and flaming. It had FAR less nastiness than most threads on the forum; it was probably the "cleanest" thread I've ever seen in OT, especially given the number of participants and posts.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105502 <-- 10 pages and no moderator action at all. Even the mod who closed it called it a polite thread.

In fact, a lot of the reason we have nastiness in OT is exactly because threads like these aren't allowed. The sense of detachment engendered by most OT threads allows us to troll and flame without caring about the guy at the other end; by allowing threads that bring the community closer, we realise that there IS a guy at the other end, and are less inclined to troll or flame them as a result.

All arguments against allowing these threads were pretty much destroyed by the link above - no trolling, no flaming, greater sense of community and an important reminder that we're talking to actual people here.

Is there something the mods know that I don't?

For what its worth, I completely agree. I think these ought to be allowed...but thats just my 2 cents.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To be clear, are we discussing threads in which various posters are recognized, or threads in which one in particular is?