Dawes
Est. Contributor
- Messages
- 1,805
- Role
-
- Diaper Lover
Two situations:
One - A thread with ten different pages, wherein the posts gradually deteriorate from opinion, to disagreement, to argument, and then to downright insulting and flaming. Everybody's lost their direction; they're arguing for the sake of arguing, and they're not even doing that well enough. Feelings are getting hurt; people are being belittled.
Two - A thread with ten different pages, wherein the posts never really mean anything. They are a product of a rather "pointless" thread-beginning -- rhetoric, chuckle-worthy, humor that isn't quite on the level of being a game. The posts are rapid, equally mindless, but never degrade into insults, flame-wars, or arguments. There is simply no substance to the posts, except perhaps to those who take their few seconds to slap up a quick and hopefully humorous response.
Two threads. These are descriptions of several different threads I've seen lately, and the commonality is that both of these threads have seen eventual closure. In fact, I've seen that thread closure has become quite common lately. In many cases, the closure of a thread is extremely important, especially if it seems similar to my first description.
In a few situations, however, I've found that a thread -- similar to my second description -- gets closed as well. I sigh when I see this, and a little part of me wonder why. The posts within don't necessarily violate any of the defined rules of the board -- they are not disrespectful, are not full of fury, and are not even useless (because humor, even if some aren't amused, is still purpose). Yet, a closure still happens, and a thread is fossilized.
Why?
Perhaps I'm the only one who notices the trend, but I find lately that ADISC has been pumping a extreme amount of seriousness-gas into itself. Let me disclaim by saying that I'm not directly attempting to say, "zomg, ADISC IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WUZ WEN IT WAS ANOTHER NAME," because I'm still happy with the quality of this community.
I fear, however, that lately, it's striving for way too much quality. I see threads of back-and-forth banter being closed; I see people being reduced in their ability to express themselves, even if that form of expression is not directly constituent to logical responses or retorts. What I see is a censorship based off of what feels like the following:
1) A desire for the moderators to qualify what kind of threads belong even if they don't seem in direct violation of any rules;
2) A desire for moderators not to want to bumble through several pages of posts because they don't feel as though they have time;
3) A desire to illustrate a specific regiment of quality to the posts.
I emphasize "feel" because, not being a mod, I don't necessarily see all the decisions that are made in thread closures, but I have seen what appear to be fast, seemingly baseless decisions in doing so. I can only base my theories on conjecture, in that case.
What I fear, as a somewhat frequent contributor to the forum, is that this desire to constantly encourage quality may work unfavorably against the way the forum desires to operate. With a lack of threads that exists solely for humor, fun, or aimless horseplay, I fear that we come across as a community so serious, so intent on quality, that we don't know how to have a single lick of fun while doing it. That's not inviting to newcomers, I don't think -- in fact, it doesn't even seem like inviting to anyone who doesn't hold a teacup with their pinky-finger out. The recent updates of the rules, though I understand them, seem to reach just a little too far over the line of expression and begin delving into rules that bar members from expressing themselves.
A contributors, it's impossible for forum-members to be consistently 1) nice, 2) logical, or 3) purposeful. It is possible for them to always be respectful, but disagreements, differences in humor, and criticism are always going to be present and should, I imagine, always be invited. Otherwise, we lose a sense of community, individuality, and even cohesion.
In a nutshell: Is it me, or has it felt stifling and serious around here lately?
To strive for quality is one thing; to strive for quality and balance it out with constant seriousness seems counter-productive. I can think of some things that are very serious in life: heart attacks; plane-crashes; sucking, gaping wounds; gunshots to the stomach. None of those things are very good ... yet, there's been what feels like a censorship of non-combative threads and posts to keep things more serious. I see, likewise, members who strive on humor lashing back out with their own expressions. It doesn't make for a very good balance.
I post this in administrative stuff because, to me, it does seem like a fairly big issue on a level that could potentially limit the forum's function. Now I'm curious: Where does the line exist, between what's acceptable, and what's not? Is the line blurred only to me, or is it blurred to anyone else? It feels as though rule-definitions are, at times, being flexed beyond a level where contributors -- experienced and inexperienced, old or new -- are left to question whether or not they should even post.
What are your guys' feelings, members and mods alike?
One - A thread with ten different pages, wherein the posts gradually deteriorate from opinion, to disagreement, to argument, and then to downright insulting and flaming. Everybody's lost their direction; they're arguing for the sake of arguing, and they're not even doing that well enough. Feelings are getting hurt; people are being belittled.
Two - A thread with ten different pages, wherein the posts never really mean anything. They are a product of a rather "pointless" thread-beginning -- rhetoric, chuckle-worthy, humor that isn't quite on the level of being a game. The posts are rapid, equally mindless, but never degrade into insults, flame-wars, or arguments. There is simply no substance to the posts, except perhaps to those who take their few seconds to slap up a quick and hopefully humorous response.
Two threads. These are descriptions of several different threads I've seen lately, and the commonality is that both of these threads have seen eventual closure. In fact, I've seen that thread closure has become quite common lately. In many cases, the closure of a thread is extremely important, especially if it seems similar to my first description.
In a few situations, however, I've found that a thread -- similar to my second description -- gets closed as well. I sigh when I see this, and a little part of me wonder why. The posts within don't necessarily violate any of the defined rules of the board -- they are not disrespectful, are not full of fury, and are not even useless (because humor, even if some aren't amused, is still purpose). Yet, a closure still happens, and a thread is fossilized.
Why?
Perhaps I'm the only one who notices the trend, but I find lately that ADISC has been pumping a extreme amount of seriousness-gas into itself. Let me disclaim by saying that I'm not directly attempting to say, "zomg, ADISC IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WUZ WEN IT WAS ANOTHER NAME," because I'm still happy with the quality of this community.
I fear, however, that lately, it's striving for way too much quality. I see threads of back-and-forth banter being closed; I see people being reduced in their ability to express themselves, even if that form of expression is not directly constituent to logical responses or retorts. What I see is a censorship based off of what feels like the following:
1) A desire for the moderators to qualify what kind of threads belong even if they don't seem in direct violation of any rules;
2) A desire for moderators not to want to bumble through several pages of posts because they don't feel as though they have time;
3) A desire to illustrate a specific regiment of quality to the posts.
I emphasize "feel" because, not being a mod, I don't necessarily see all the decisions that are made in thread closures, but I have seen what appear to be fast, seemingly baseless decisions in doing so. I can only base my theories on conjecture, in that case.
What I fear, as a somewhat frequent contributor to the forum, is that this desire to constantly encourage quality may work unfavorably against the way the forum desires to operate. With a lack of threads that exists solely for humor, fun, or aimless horseplay, I fear that we come across as a community so serious, so intent on quality, that we don't know how to have a single lick of fun while doing it. That's not inviting to newcomers, I don't think -- in fact, it doesn't even seem like inviting to anyone who doesn't hold a teacup with their pinky-finger out. The recent updates of the rules, though I understand them, seem to reach just a little too far over the line of expression and begin delving into rules that bar members from expressing themselves.
A contributors, it's impossible for forum-members to be consistently 1) nice, 2) logical, or 3) purposeful. It is possible for them to always be respectful, but disagreements, differences in humor, and criticism are always going to be present and should, I imagine, always be invited. Otherwise, we lose a sense of community, individuality, and even cohesion.
In a nutshell: Is it me, or has it felt stifling and serious around here lately?
To strive for quality is one thing; to strive for quality and balance it out with constant seriousness seems counter-productive. I can think of some things that are very serious in life: heart attacks; plane-crashes; sucking, gaping wounds; gunshots to the stomach. None of those things are very good ... yet, there's been what feels like a censorship of non-combative threads and posts to keep things more serious. I see, likewise, members who strive on humor lashing back out with their own expressions. It doesn't make for a very good balance.
I post this in administrative stuff because, to me, it does seem like a fairly big issue on a level that could potentially limit the forum's function. Now I'm curious: Where does the line exist, between what's acceptable, and what's not? Is the line blurred only to me, or is it blurred to anyone else? It feels as though rule-definitions are, at times, being flexed beyond a level where contributors -- experienced and inexperienced, old or new -- are left to question whether or not they should even post.
What are your guys' feelings, members and mods alike?
