PDA

View Full Version : Needless interruption of threads



BrooklynRider
July 5th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Is it really necessary to have Moderator thread posts like this:


To Nordikon:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please indicate (by post#) which posts should be moved to the One Madison Park thread.



http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=174420&postcount=157

It is addressed to a single person, has nothing to do with the topic, and it could have been accomplished with a PM.

I struggle to understand this new in-your-face style of moderation. This post becomes completely irreleveant if posts are moved. Why move threads and change the conversation? If it is suggested that the Moderator post is to be deleted after the response, then why take this approach? In the past, moderators would simply insert a hotlink and state: One Madison should be discussed [here].

I just want to know if my expectation is unreasonable. Is my view outlandish and illogical??

Ninjahedge
July 5th, 2007, 02:17 PM
I think, at the very least, that certain posts should be left on the thread they came from BUT, they can be if they fall into a rather softly outlined area.

If a bunch of people are talking about the WTC memorial, for instance, and someone posts and asks/gives their opinion on the whole jobsite, followed by reactions to their comments on the new tower designs, the reactions should just be clipped OR reminded to stay on topic and left at that.

BUT, if people start talking about several things that are related and some people have expressed their desire for a completely seperate thread, those posts should be COPIED over to another thread, and a small reminder about staying OT be placed on teh original thread (as well as a link to teh new one).

I think deleting the threads does interrupt the flow and make it hard to pick up on the chain of thought. If it is as simple as allowing that thought to go further in another thread, that is fine, but deletion seems to be a bit too abrupt.


My 2Ę

Fabrizio
July 5th, 2007, 05:57 PM
BrooklynRider: "I just want to know if my expectation is unreasonable. Is my view outlandish and illogical??"

No. The way you would like to see things is elegant, it expresses running the forum in an involved and artful way. Conversation is an art. Directing a conversation is too.

"Please indicate (by post#) which posts should be moved to the One Madison Park thread." ...is activities-director-on-a-cruise-ship-from-hell style.

BrooklynRider
July 5th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I stand corrected on addressing the post only to Nordikon. Although he did the redirect to One Madison Park, I should have asked everyone on the thread about which posts to move, and I have since corrected the title to:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif To all posters on this thread:

Hi Rap-

I appreciate the considerations you are taking. I do understand the need in Real Estate for better defintion. I do suggest that you, Edward and your moderator colleagues discuss the impact of retroactively moving posts as was done. You are working hard, but it seems that, if moderation was veiwed as a forward moving process, there might actually be less work to do (to the same ends.)

Anyway, thanks.

BrooklynRider
July 5th, 2007, 10:12 PM
I try to do the very minimum of moving of posts in the middle of a discussion. (By definition, moving posts has to be "retroactive".

Just to clarify, it is one thing to read a thread, spot an immediate mispost or off topic tangent and bring it to a halt. Personally, I support that when it is done diplomatically. By retroactive, I mean combing through posts that have since been bypassed, especially when a thread has corrected itself back to topic.

Retroactive is in terms of running back into the thread after the posts have been bypassed by subsequent posteers or have become built into the discourse.

Ninjahedge
July 5th, 2007, 10:59 PM
IOW, don't fix what has already been fixed (or is heading that way) ;)

Woman!! You are trying too hard and stepping on some sensitive toes!!!!

Most of us know you mean no harm, and you really do not have to admit to any wrongdoing, but just acknowledge what people are saying, even if you do not do it publicly, and realize that we are all trying to be a part of an INTERACTIVE community, not a one way beaurocracy.

SO just try to leave tangents lie if they have been there for a while, and focus on the here and now.

(A good example would be my long dead posts that you edited and renamed... If noone was responding, why did they need to be moderated?)

Let sleeping dogs lie, and let dead ones, well, lie too! ;)

ablarc
July 6th, 2007, 07:03 AM
I'm going to start a topic on the moderator's forum about defining a policy for dead threads. ("Should they 'lie', get deleted, or be revived?")
Heavens to Betsy, don't delete them !!! Some threads revive after years of hibernation. Deletion is death (very wrong).

Ain't broke, don't fix.




Rap, I think you still don't get it: this forum positively thrives on benign neglect.

Now stop scaring us with even the hint that our old, snoring threads could be euthanized in their sleep. That prospect could cause some of us to take our posts and go play elsewhere.

In general: MUCH LESS ACTIVITY, please.

stache
July 6th, 2007, 07:26 AM
My own personal feeling is, I'm wondering why the new thread "One Madison Sq." wasn't immediately merged with the original thread about this bldg. Now we have two threads going on about the same bldg.

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2007, 07:43 AM
this forum positively thrives on benign neglect.I do walk through with a feather duster from time to time.

ablarc
July 6th, 2007, 07:57 AM
You are putting words in my mouth.
Well, "dead threads" are words you put in your own mouth.

The only dead threads are the ones that are deleted. Threads that haven't been deleted are hibernating; they can wake up after two or more years.


I never said I was going to delete dead threads.
Your very use of the term is scary and presumptive. Please: "hibernating threads." :) Only God or a prophet can tell which ones will revive.


I said: The fate of the dead threads doesn't get decided by me; it gets decided in the moderator's forum, and ultimately, by Edward.
Why bother to even bring it up? He's a big boy, and if he feels the need he can express it.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2007, 09:47 AM
BR and Ninja- You're repeating yourself. You're using different wording and a different example, but it's still repeating.

Then get the message rap.

DON'T DELETE THE POSTS.

If you want to make another thread, go on ahead, just leave the parent thread alone.


I got it the first time around -- that was a week ago. I responded by deciding to do minimal moderation in the Thematic and Community Center sections. But I'm continuing to do strict moderating in Real Estate. (Now I'm repeating myself.)

Thing is when you respond with posts like this:

I stand corrected on addressing the post only to Nordikon. Although he did the redirect to One Madison Park, I should have asked everyone on the thread about which posts to move, and I have since corrected the title to:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif To all posters on this thread:

It looks like you are simply ignoring what we are saying.



The only new thing you've brought up this time around is this site's policy on dead threads:


I'm going to start a topic on the moderator's forum about defining a policy for dead threads. ("Should they 'lie', get deleted, or be revived?")

NO!

STOP IT NOW!!!

ENOUGH!!!!!

Leave thnigs the way they were! Woman, read the other threads here! Was anyone saying that they did not LIKE the way things were or were they asking for help in keeping things the way they were?

There are more than a few of us that would like to just keep things on an even keel and NOT HAVE TO WRITE EXHAUSTIVE EXACTING RULES FOR EVERY LITTLE THING!!!!

Now please do not read this as if I am spouting and fuming at you. I am not. I am just frustrated that you keep reading what I am saying, but missing the meaning behind it.

All most of us are asking is that things just stay the way they were.

"If somethin' ain't broke, don't fix it."


(Edit: Heh, I did not realize Abl said the same thing... ;) )

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2007, 09:51 AM
Ninjahedge, calm down.

BrooklynRider
July 6th, 2007, 10:15 AM
BR and Ninja- You're repeating yourself. You're using different wording and a different example, but it's still repeating.

I got it the first time around -- that was a week ago. I responded by deciding to do minimal moderation in the Thematic and Community Center sections. But I'm continuing to do strict moderating in Real Estate. (Now I'm repeating myself.)

I think I've been very diplomatic and I find your responses are increasingly combative and dictatorial.

The style of moderating you employ has lost all courtesy. Now, I will be blunt:

Your moderating, from my perspective, seems to be predicated on an obvious desire to implement a vision entirely your own. I feel your dire desire to become a moderator is steeped in a narcisstic need for attention, thus your public excoriations of users, your utter defensiveness against behign suggestions, your dminishing ability to work diplomatically with users, and your perception that you are empowered to approach the core community of this forum in a manner you would define as "strict."

The fact is the forum members who have complained and POLITELY suggested that you honor and emulate the BEHAVIOR of other moderators are, each and everyone, the most active members here. Current and frequent posts keep this forum relevant. The members who have complained or suggested alternatives account for a very large percentage of the overall posting activity at this site.

Don't assume that people reading your posts are ignorant to the rules of this forum or subordinate to you. This place functions well because we honor the rules and self-police. We recognize Edward as the supreme being here, but a moderator that is not a colleagial is a cancer in a community that thrives on discourse and its own self-awareness of what we collectively want this forum to be. This place evolved into what is has become, because the forum members embraced a common vision and universal courtesy. Threads tend to self-correct here without anyone applying heavy-handed, conspicous moderation.

You are a moderator NOT an editor. If it hasn't become clear to you at this point, many long-time forum members perceive you as antagonistic and with complete disregard for precedent. They, unlike you, are diplomatic and private message conversations abound here as WE COMMUNICATE about your complete tunnelvision and rather creepy need to behave like a renegade policeman - at the expense of the forum.

You are going to deal with us (the forum community) strictly? Honestly, who the hell do you think you are? What goddamned throne are you sitting on? Moderators here have always been well-respected, even in the midst of terse debate. My reaction is now at a level a sheer incredulity over how truly disconnected you have become from the membership. Kind of like having our own local George W. Bush.

Maybe you just like seeing your name all over the place and you are in a race to pump up your post numbers. Some have that need for validation.

Your "moderator" status is a nice shield to hide behind and it makes others reluctant to post criticisms publicly. You have mine.

I fully expect that you will now parse my statement and further exasperate the situation. However, it would further exemplify the point I am making.

Good luck.

stache
July 6th, 2007, 10:43 AM
Rapunzel has been here less than a year and campaigned HEAVILY to be a moderator. Micromanaging this forum is not a good idea.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Ninjahedge, calm down.


Sad thing is, this is calm!!! ;)

jersey_guy
July 6th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Any "dead" thread comes back alive every time derek or somebody else walks by with a camera. Don't delete anything!

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2007, 02:13 PM
There is no reason to delete any thread.

When we merge two threads, the one that is merged (and deleted) is typically a few posts in length and was opened in error.

Long threads are difficult to merge into another thread without disrupting the flow. One is CLOSED with a link directing discussion to the other thread. That way, the information is archived and accessible.

Inactive threads should be left alone, or at most, closed.

A PM to a moderator can get a closed thread reopened.

clubBR
July 6th, 2007, 06:25 PM
I think Rapunzel is doing an awesome job. She's weeding out all those unnecessary threads and posts. Some people who post here ask stupid questions that can be answered through a simple google search. I think we needed some fresh blood and Rapunzel is just that.

YOU GUYS SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF GRANDPA'S!!! lol

Fabrizio
July 6th, 2007, 06:43 PM
LOOKS LIKE WE'LL BE ATTRACTING A WHOLE NEW FUN CROWD!!

---

meanwhile, out on the high seas....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP0wV7IvSiI

lofter1
July 6th, 2007, 07:50 PM
But who ^^^ will survive this one???

And what about Carol Lynley?

Back in my younger days, while traipsing about the tropics, I ran across the lovely Miss Lynley and her on-again / off-again beau David Frost while they were guesting it up at the hillside villa of Liz & Dick. That was back in the day when folks knew how to mix a cocktail. And how to drink a few.

The Mexican coast (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/night_of_the_iguana/) was great back then ... wilder, and not just a slew of condos lined up along the beach. Carol seemed to like it, too.

Haven't seen her in years ...

Fabrizio
July 6th, 2007, 08:06 PM
http://home.earthlink.net/~nuttbait/carol_lynley.htm

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/4726/Events/4726/CarolLynle_Grani_8583173_400.jpg.html?path=pgaller y&path_key=Lynley,%20Carol

Merry
July 6th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Some people who post here ask stupid questions that can be answered through a simple google search.

Acquiring good internet etiquette sometimes requires a bit of guidance. IMO, calling peopleís questions stupid and, by extension, their behaviour inappropriate isn't nice. We are all different. People who post with a hidden agenda usually get found out pretty fast and are dealt with accordingly. I have found some of the responses to question-related posts/threads (from both moderators and members) nothing short of abrupt and rude, and certainly not helpful or, indeed, friendly. A real turn-off.

I think that the most important consideration where moderation is concerned (apart from the obvious) is the usefulness of the search function. Consistency is required and perhaps defining some simple guidelines for members on how to name thread titles -- only in the City Guide and Skyscrapers and Architecture forums -- may be useful and could possibly help avoid moderator intervention. The broad scope of some of the forums in these categories is open to interpretation but at least with useful thread titles, topics could generally be found easily even if they're not strictly in the "correct" forum. Obviously, not all members would follow guidelines, but the core members will (and do). I donít think that older threads should be touched. Donít rewrite (or erase) history.

I think that needlessly (or, really, at all) interfering with the flow of a thread is exactly the same as interrupting someone when theyíre talking: ITíS VERY RUDE.

Quite often, itís not whatís being done but how itís done. Apart from being very heavy-handed, petty and largely unnecessary, it seems to me that one ingredient is seriously lacking in Rapunzelís current style of in-your-face moderation, even where it may be needed: RESPECT.

ablarc
July 7th, 2007, 09:43 AM
I don't know how this rumor got started, but it is false.

I made many, many suggestions in Forum Issues, but I did it to be helpful, and that was all. Some of you will get to know me, and when you do, you'll believe that I had no ulterior motives.

Being offered a moderatorship was a big surprise. I had no idea it was coming. One day I offered to be a night moderator only, for the purposes of deleting the increasing influx of spam -- before I knew it, I was offered a full moderatorship.

I plan to stay for the long haul and keep on working with everyone to get better and better at moderating. I receive so many private thank yous that I know I'm heading in the right direction and will make it.:)
Have you considered going emeritus (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11746&highlight=emeritus)?