Devolution of SFA

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.

"Strict" implies it should be followed verbatim. If it was lenient, it wouldn't be called "strict rules".

 

[Free Hat]

"Strict" implies it should be followed verbatim. If it was lenient, it wouldn't be called "strict rules".

I'm not calling for leniency.

This is what I mean though, when I said the sticky could definitely use some editing. Right now two intelligent people are interpreting the same ruleset differently. This causes problems before a real problem can even prevent itself.

 

I'm not calling for leniency.

This is what I mean though, when I said the sticky could definitely use some editing. Right now two intelligent people are interpreting the same ruleset differently. This causes problems before a real problem can even prevent itself.

Been there, tried that.

What I learned? It's Richard's play pen or something and the sticky is...

You can try to contact him, but your rate of success will be incredibly low. I've tried contacting him for various issues that benefit the site and got no response in the end.

http://www.sythe.org/suggestions/1827484-new-sub-section-sfa.html

 

[SuF]

Richard should have listened when I asked to moderate it.

 

[Hamouze]

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.

I volunteer as tribute.

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.

That's just simply not true, there's nothing else to say. Replies have always been sophisticated and well thought out, it has never been 1 line shitposting when the forum was more active. The OP would always be long and intelligent, yes, but replies would also be as intellectually stimulating. And you can't "enforce" rules if no one is reporting them. That was the point of my thread, mods don't care anymore and are only responding to reports instead of actually watching over a section. That needs to change.

I'm sorry, the whole "killing and already dead forum" is just a stupid argument. You don't ruin a forum because it is dying, you don't completely abandon the standards that were set because it's dying, you shut it down or change the rules. I'm not going to watch the SFA turn to shit and let it happen just because "Oh well spam activity is better than no activity". I also personally believe that your statement is inherently flawed since SFA is not "dead" per se. It's just at a point where activity has slowed down, but there are some weeks where I see some really really impressive topics and arguments that last for a while. It's just a matter of who's online and when. But if we encourage and allow spammers rather than condemning them, you might as well absorb the SFA threads into GD and take it down all together.

In response to your whole 1 liner argument, not all 1 liners are shitposts, but most shitposts are 1 liners. You can create a very well written short response that follows all guidelines and even make your opponent in an argument shut up in a few words, but "I think that money can buy happiness because I would be happy with a big house and expensive cars" is not what should be in the forum.

 

[Superfluous]

jwing if you're a little bit more content with the section in the last week or so. a handful of mods have tried to be more diligent in removing spam posts and keeping things on track; if you want attention more directed somewhere just say so - thanks!

 

[CompileTime]

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

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

Well, maybe the forum has died out because of such posts? As Hamouze and Emporer said, perhaps low quality posts discourage those who spend the time to out write well thought posts. Also, personally, I do not think a forum should be kept alive by spam or irrelevant low quality posts. Allowing that, IMO, defeats the purpose of that forum.

 

[Hamouze]

jwing if you're a little bit more content with the section in the last week or so. a handful of mods have tried to be more diligent in removing spam posts and keeping things on track; if you want attention more directed somewhere just say so - thanks!

Much better and I appreciate the support. Now all we need is some new logical threads to get the activity running again