Devolution of SFA

So let's review what the description of SFA is: Intelligent discussions. Share your thoughts on a range of contentious issues, debating your views intelligently with other members.

There are also stickies that make their points very clear about the rules such as http://www.sythe.org/something-all/...tion-read-before-posting-avoid-forum-ban.html

I make this thread for two reasons:
1. To make it aware that forum bans and the rules are NOT being enforced in the SFA when they should be
2. To leave negative feedback toward whoever is in charge of regulating SFA hoping that it changes something


For #1:
Sythe made it very clear that

However it is not being monitored closely whatsoever and the same people have been shitposting over and over again despite being warned, infracted, and having their posts being removed/reported. What is the criteria for a forumban? If you're going to make a sticky about how strict a forum is going to be, stick to your word.


For #2:
There is absolutely no excuse to allow these people to keep creating 1 sentence responses in SFA. As a sectional moderator it is your responsibility to keep an eye on the section you were assigned, and not to only respond when you receive an email of a reported post.

Here are the 12 most recent threads, and 10 of the last posts in each of these threads dating back to a post made 10 days ago very clearly are shitposts.


What is the point of SFA if it has devolved into a half GD half SFA with some threads even being 4/5th GD and 1/5th SFA. The intellectual discussions, I applaud and there are some people that do very well in keeping SFA alive with their intelligent remarks. But the fact that so many are not, and NOTHING is being done about it is really disappointed.

I don't think it's too much to ask from now on for assigned mods to simply do a quick sweep of the last pages of the most recent threads, delete shitposts, reprimand shitposters, and ban them from the forum if they continue.


TL;DR Get your shit together SFA mods.

 

I don't think banning people in a section that's already lacking activity is a positive thing.

 

If it isn't spam, just let it be. I'm tired of how politically correct this place already is.

 

That's the original intent. People shouldn't be spamming it in the first place. And I don't think there's a massive lack of activity such as other forums, and even if there were, that doesn't warrant the shitposting.

That's the whole point of SFA... You're advocating for exactly what the General Discussion section is for, not spam but regular discussion. It's meant to be intellectual and well thought out.

 

I have personally seen mods with perms in the SFA view this thread and nothing has been done about the spam there. If that says anything about the competence and devotion the staff has to the community it isn't very good. I wish I could go through reporting every spam post but due to the 1 minute restriction it would take me hours to simply report the most recent spam posts on the last page or two of the most recent threads there.

 

i agree that it's gone downhill for the reasons you've mentioned. if it's any solace, several of those posts have garnered their posters warnings/infractions. i'll keep an eye out and try to keep it cleaner

however, it's worth mentioning that this is partly in the hands of the community as well. posts like this

are pretty bad, but they're on topic and, though brief, probably shouldn't be deleted even though they're not broadly contributing to the discussion as much as others' posts. i think a lot of this is people trying to farm post count, but looking at a lot of users' pcs in that forum, i'm not sure this is the case. now that more staff members are emerging from the depths of inactivity, hopefully this will improve.

 

I would love to agree with the latter part of being brief but contributing, but that's not the point of SFA.

Spam as per Rich:
-Only properly thought out, rational arguments are allowed in this forum
We don't care if you LIKE Bush or THINK Global warming is man made.
For example, in the thread "Is God real?"; "I think God is real" would be unacceptable whereas "I think God is not real because X research suggests Y therefore Z" would be acceptable.

The exact post you quoted IS spam because it doesn't matter what he THINKS or was taught. That's his own emotional opinion due to his upbringing. So I guess you sort of continue to prove my point in that mods have been very lax as to what is considered spam, when they shouldn't be. If we wanted something to contribute to basic discussion there should be a forum for that... oh wait, general discussion exists. SFA exists for intellectual discussion. Nothing about that post was intellectual. I'm not singling you out or attempting to be mean, it's nothing personal.

 

I stopped posting the SFA because it got retarded.

 

Which is a shame. I did the same exact thing. It sucks trying to post a very well reasoned, thought out argument or response with research, only to have someone respond to with a one liner that lacks basic grammar and then your post gets lost in a sea of shitposts.

 

Normally this is pretty much true but I think SFA is the one place that the posting guidelines should be less lenient. I mean, there's a sticky. Come on. It doesn't take long to look around the forum and see the general quality of content leaves room for improvement.

 

This. It is supposed to be General Discussion with well-reasoned posts, but right now it's a shitshow.

 

I will take a look at this personally if nothing has improved in a few days, hamouze or anyone else feel free to message me

 

I was just about to fix this:/
I'd just been given SFA perms in addition, and was moving it back to the old and pepper standard. We just need an intelligent dedicated moderator.

 

Nice to know you were looking out for the site.

R.I.P

 

Being as I was an active participant in that forum, I can tell you that the strict rules are never enforced on replies, but instead on original posts by the thread creator.

A similar conversation was held here.

All this does is stunt activity from an already deserted forum. If the posts are not spam, let it stay. A lot of topics are revitalized because the same people (to my knowledge) that you want to stop posting in the forum, are posting in it.

 

Well then it really comes down to this in my eyes:

Do we want a high-quality/low-activity forum or vice versa?

 

You hold a standard that isn't practical, as do many others when it comes to SFA.



There are many thread topics in SFA that call for your opinion, like this one.

Opinion = Subjective / Like/Think = Subjective

What does that tell us? That all replies should be objective? I don't know, you tell me.

Every reply would have to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence. Go to the thread I linked and tell me how many replies fit the bill.

Should everyone who hasn't provided evidence be banned from the forum?

I'll wait.

 

Speaking of impractical standards... This really says it all. I think you're being too literal, you don't have to be completely objective and cite sources every time you make a damn post. It does, however, mean you shouldn't make a sentence-long post with your opinion without thoroughly explaining it. See what I mean?

 

The point is that the strict rules are too straightforward and cannot be realistically followed verbatim.

Let's say the topic is "Is God real?"

And I say:

"I don't think God is real because good people die and that compromises the doctrine."

Is this one liner considered spam?

 

I don't think the rules are realistically meant to be followed verbatim. Moreso meant to take the concept and apply it where need be.

I wouldn't consider your message spam because:

1. You stated your viewpoint.
2. You explained the thought that lead to this viewpoint.
3. Your statement can be argued against.

But that's just me. I'm not interpreting the sectional rules verbatim, so my actions may be different than others. This leads me to agree with you that, for the sake of those who do follow rules to the T, the sticky could stand some updating and/or editing.