Remove General Discussion Rule #4 & #5

[tMoon]

#4 ''Which do you prefer'' threads which doesn't require a reason. These threads constitute spamming, and will therefore be infracted & locked accordingly. A less broad example would be 'do you prefer coffee or tea?'.

#5 Do not post threads about 'your new bong' or masturbation. These belong in the Spam Forum.

The General Discussion sub-forum was recently "cleaned up" and threads pertaining to "what do you prefer" were locked (as per the rules state). Basically, my thoughts are the same as Roary:

Shit threads beats no threads

I do not see the harm in "what do you prefer" threads and it is plenty possible discussion can happen on said threads. If this isn't an option, edit the rule so it states the said threads are allowed, if it's "which do you prefer and why." Said stipulation will allow for "better" general discussion threads.


As for #5, I just don't see the point of it. If a thread is blatantly a spam thread, move it to the spam forum, the rule just iterates the already known rule of no spamming.

 

[Exonance]

I completely agree, I believe these belong in general discussion as they are not spam and a large population of people like to talk about what both rules state.

 

[SoSoX]

Would suggest this post be merged onto the general discussion clean-up feedback thread, seemingly as it is an on going topic.

I believe people are just going to lose interest incredibly fast in (wanting to post a thread in) general discussion. As far as anyone was concerned before this, the general discussion sub-heading does state "anything that doesn't fit anywhere else". Therefore it would be incredibly stupid to assume that those threads belong in SF, because they will simply be trolled. If the staff deem it to belong to SF, just move it there, rather then making it look like Gen Discuss is a war-zone of closed threads.

If the people on the forums deem the topic good enough to want to discuss about it, then why is discussions being denied?

This whole idea of post-count relating to trustworthy-ness, (the argument that scammers go to general discussion to up their post counts) is rather beyond me, who actually bases trust on post counts? Please somebody explain it to me, I'm clearly too new to understand the ideology.

 

[nodnarbusn]

I think these which do you prefer threads are cancer personally. PC farms.

>wut serial is u guyz favorite
>I'm kookoo 4 coco puffs lolz
>oh cool, I like coco puffs too!! ;)

^That shit right there is what we would be allowing should we open the gates. Its whatever though, if its going to get even worse I'll just hide it like I do all the other sub forums.

I feel your proposal will encourage shit posting from new members and discourage existing members from posting due to the fact its all recurring content.

 

I think these which do you prefer threads are cancer personally. PC farms.

>wut serial is u guyz favorite
>I'm kookoo 4 coco puffs lolz
>oh cool, I like coco puffs too!! ;)

^That shit right there is what we would be allowing should we open the gates. Its whatever though, if its going to get even worse I'll just hide it like I do all the other sub forums.

I feel your proposal will encourage shit posting from new members and discourage existing members from posting due to the fact its all recurring content.

You're putting general discussion on a pedestal higher than it's expected result.

The forum description: Discuss anything that doesn't fit elsewhere

It's not SFA, and should not be treated as such. "Shit posting" is applicable to any forum.

Saying that it will discourage old members from posting is baseless speculation. The threads that were closed are the most active threads in the forum, with that attributing participation from old and new members. Take out those threads and what are you left with? Current events and personal support content yet to be moved.

This community is gradually becoming unappealing.

"Hey, I don't like that thread, instead of not replying, I'm going to stop all threads of similar genre from being welcomed."

What is the end goal here? To turn general discussion into a desolate wasteland? I was always under the impression that post count is not a trait of trustworthiness, so why does it seem like that's the base of your argument?

 

Would be fine with this support

 

[nodnarbusn]

You're putting general discussion on a pedestal higher than it's expected result.

The forum description: Discuss anything that doesn't fit elsewhere

It's not SFA, and should not be treated as such. "Shit posting" is applicable to any forum.

Saying that it will discourage old members from posting is baseless speculation. The threads that were closed are the most active threads in the forum, with that attributing participation from old and new members. Take out those threads and what are you left with? Current events and personal support content yet to be moved.

This community is gradually becoming unappealing.

"Hey, I don't like that thread, instead of not replying, I'm going to stop all threads of similar genre from being welcomed."

What is the end goal here? To turn general discussion into a desolate wasteland? I was always under the impression that post count is not a trait of trustworthiness, so why does it seem like that's the base of your argument?

Did you even read OP? Literally none of the shit you said is pertinent to it. He is talking about eliminating the rule altogether opening it up to what's ur fav pizza talk.

If you disagree with my post thats fine, but a single opinion affecting your views on the "community" is melodramatic to say the least. I want to add that those threads that were closed were ALL closed based on a long standing rule that predates you and myself, I just asked that the rule be enforced.

 

Did you even read OP? Literally none of the shit you said is pertinent to it. He is talking about eliminating the rule altogether opening it up to what's ur fav pizza talk.

If you disagree with my post thats fine, but a single opinion affecting your views on the "community" is melodramatic to say the least. I want to add that those threads that were closed were ALL closed based on a long standing rule that predates you and myself, I just asked that the rule be enforced.

#4 ''Which do you prefer'' threads which doesn't require a reason.

Explain to me what this means.

The rule itself is a paradox.

If I ask you what is your favorite meal to eat, would you tell me there is no reasoning behind asking such thing?

The same thing applies when asking between two specific things.

How do you enforce something that is ambiguous as this?

I agree that the rule should be removed, and my contempt for the rule suddenly being enforced after years of neglect derives from the illogical reasoning behind it.

 

[video]

This current rule change is really a trial. There were complaints about a lack of quality in SFA/general discussion and a rule change and greater enforcement in SFA led to an increase in quality. General discussion had tons of threads/posts that were in violation of the section's own rules and as a matter of personal opinion, I don't think people posting "Subway" to a thread about favorite restaurants is a discussion.

Obviously if people are unhappy about the change we'll switch it back, I thought it was worth at least trying to see if the section could see a similar increase in quality that SFA saw. If we are reverting to old rules and removing the rule about preference threads, I'd like to see a rule implemented saying that all posts in preference threads must contain a reason so ppl would have to at least say "I like subway for their mediocre sandwiches full of lettuce"

 

[nodnarbusn]

Obviously if people are unhappy about the change we'll switch it back, I thought it was worth at least trying to see if the section could see a similar increase in quality that SFA saw. If we are reverting to old rules and removing the rule about preference threads, I'd like to see a rule implemented saying that all posts in preference threads must contain a reason so ppl would have to at least say "I like subway for their mediocre sandwiches full of lettuce"

Maybe a more strict character count for the forum? I can understand the need for 5chars in the market for "bump." But aside from there, SF and sandbox where is a 5 character response even acceptable??

Regardless a general discussion renaissance was all I'm pushing for, SFA has significantly improved since you guys (especially superflucious) took a special interest in it. I'm not attempting to push for general discussion to be more like the SFA or anything but I'd love to find a middle ground between the extremes of SFA and SF.

 

[rebirth2316]

You guys are so anal...

Just let it be, it's not the SFA or Personal Support section.

I write detailed arguments and support for things that really would matter/make a difference in this forum.

Not trying to be negative but even focusing on such mediocre "problems" is a waste of time.

 

[Dave]

Gonna remove it, let people talk about whatever they want, stronger discussion should be in SFA