There have been a couple of long, rambling, and somewhat offensive threads recently. If threads like these are spam (which these were not) then Adam Bourne and I have the authority to move them to the spam forum. We are not authorized to moderate the fora. Gilby can do this at his discretion and in general he choses not to moderate which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
If you find a thread to be offensive, please report it through the channel Gilby has made available to you. If you respond to long, worthless posts or spam, it just brings them to the top and keeps them alive. Please allow garbage posts to die a quick death.
Thanks, Gilby for maintaining this site.
Thanks, participants, for making it so interesting and entertaining.
We’ve been provided with the power to remove spam threads from Rec.Sport.Unicycling. We have no control over any threads outside of this fora. And I quote Gilby;
"While you can do a lot as being moderator, this forum is intended to be a free speech area and is distributed to the mailing list and newsgroup where messages can’t be deleted. This pretty much means that the only responsibility is to remove the spam and not to delete or modify other posts (unless there is broken vB code in them or something). "
If you have a problem, please contact Gilby. Let’s try to keep the trash in the right containers.
I wondered what had been happening to my posts for the last 6 months… just 'bout the time I started writing in 'first person-intraspective, too. Hummm…
OK, Greg, I have a serious (as in not sarcastic) question along that line…
If the quite obviously gratuitously offensive threads in question were not spam, then what was it about the recent threads started by two established and known unicyclists on this forum (phil and bagpiperboy) that required them being sent to the spam bin?
I mean, they didn’t even offer us gazillions of dollars for helping them empty the treasury of Gondwanaland.
What’s the criteria for a declaration of spam, exactly?
Spam posts are those with unsolicited, non-unicycle related offers: your mortgage, enhancements, Viagra, funds transfers from refugee diplomats…this kind of stuff. Spam with bicycle offers are iffy to me so I let them stand. An example would be promotion of an Italian website featuring a road cyclist and some endorsed products. There is a cycling related story in it but the goal is to get you to buy products.
The post that you refer to, Rick, is one with which I am unfamiliar or do not remember. I don’t know what its content was nor why it was banished to the spam forum.
On a slightly different tack, a very wise, Bellevue based unicyclist has expressed in print his hesitation to respond to non-unicycling related threads in the rec.sport.unicycling forum (political discussions, computer related discussions, music, etc.) because they more appropriately belong in the just conversation forum. His philosophy is that with reduced participation they are more likely to die quickly. Due to the continuing increase in traffic I have tried to follow suit. This is a rather gray area in that personal interaction and jovial comaraderie are among the strong features of these fora.
Like the “Joe” thread that I’ve twice replied to. I thought about those issues (except for the traffic issue – my thinking is very forum-centric – ignore the thread if you don’t like it). My thinking was along the line that I didn’t put it here, but it’s here now. But I did have an uneasy feeling when I responded.
vBulletin can be configured so that users “Can move own threads to other forums”. Could this be a consideration? If someone points out to you that you put a thread in the wrong place, you can move it. Or, because it seems like a rare mishap, could we contact someone (read: bother someone) to move it? This is additional work and a waste of time for someone like Gilby, but it probably wouldn’t happen frequently.
And thanks for being one of the guardians of our fine fora.
Is it preferable to resurrect an old thread on similar subjects and add on to it, or to start a new thread?
I kinda like to add on so similar topics stay together. But I think others don’t like responses to old threads since some people don’t have the background stuff available to look at.
Is it preferable to resurrect an old thread on similar subjects and add on to it, or to start a new thread?
I kinda like to add on so similar topics stay together. But I think others don’t like responses to old threads since some people don’t have the background stuff available to look at.
That’s something I’ve thought about when posting on something that’s been talked about before.
I think I prefer to see a new thread as it cuts down on having threads that are several pages long.
If you’re thinking of adding to an old thread it’s just as easy to copy it’s address and paste it into a new one as a link, so people have the option of reading the old stuff.
That’s just my opinion and there may be equally good reasons to do the opposite.
I never had an answer to this, but after reading Dave’s post above, I think he has a great idea. Start a new thread and include a link to the original thread.
On the other hand, some threads are just meant to stay alive. Like the various “Gallery of…” threads in JC. And Raphael’s unicycling articles thread. So, to me, there is no clear cut answer.
Also, my memory is bad, so I often read through ten or more posts in a thread before that growing feeling of déjà vu becomes too powerful to ignore. Then I realize it’s not déjà vu – it’s an old thread that I’ve read a few months ago.
I like this site and rec-juggling the way they are. Most of the content is on topic and to the point; if I have to tolerate a bit of potty-language every once in a while, so be it. Please don’t get censor-crazy. I feel it would drive a lot of happy young foul mouthed unicyclists away. It usually seems a simple reminder that this is a family hour site keeps the cuss quota low.
This brings up a different question, on the same subject.
I’m all for opening older threads. But the hard part is digging through all the old messages to get to the new ones. What if they were listed in reverse order? Is that something we users have control of on our ends? I think it is, but am tossing it out to see what others think. Old threads would be a lot more readable if they showed newest messages first.
As for certain people who have made mega-long posts that maybe mentioned unicycles but did not necessarily belong here, if said person posts only this and never anything “useful,” I’m all in favor of blocking such persons or otherwise removing their threads.
It would be nice if it were possible to “cap” a thread. Such as, if the topic strays well away from unicycling and it needs to move to Just Conversation, it would be nice to end it with an announcement that the thread has been moved, with link, and somehow locks people (on the Web site at least) from adding to that thread. They can go to Just Conversation and continue on the moved thread, or start a new one on the original topic in rec.sport.unicycling.
Many threads seem to have clear “ends” to them, and it would be nice if they could be removed to clear some of the clutter. Things such as a person asking a question, getting a concise answer, and then saying thanks. That thread is basically over. If the answer is not something new, maybe that thread doesn’t need to be saved.
As in: Quite a lot of extra work for dubious benefit.
Just because a question is “old” for you or I doesn’t mean it’s an old question for somebody else.
It’s obvious from past threads and posts that not everyone is able, willing, or inclined to searching the archives for past threads on the questions they may have.
Those of us with sufficient memory can always point out links for answers to “old” questions… but sometimes, the old wise ones aren’t here.
I used to get the forum to send posts to me as e-mail. I quickly learned that that was a bad idea. One weekend away = 150 odd e-mails in my inbox.
Now I visit the forum and pick and choose which threads to read. This means I can avoid the offensive or pointless ones if I wish.
One of the options is to go straight to the most recent post (comes up as most recent PAGE of posts) which helps me to avoid rereading all the old stuff.
I don’t know how other people read the forum.
But back to the original point of THIS thread: we’re mainly grownups, and can cope with a bit of offensive language. I could win a swearing competition with a nun who’d trapped her thumb in the wine cellar door and thought no one was listening.
However, there’s a time and a place, and we shouldn’t encourage sad or weird people who think it’s funny to post rambling nonsense with gratuitous sexual references. So I think it’s a bad idea to respond - even if the response is to complain about their rambling offensive post.
We shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously, but we SHOULD value this forum as a pleasant and friendly place to swap ideas and stories. In my limited experience of such fora, this one is exceptional. Let’s keep it that way.
These two threads were not sent to the spam bin, they were put there to begin with; as posts don’t last very long in the spam bin it is quite useful for things only needed on a temporary basis.
My thread was just because I was testing referrer logging on my website, which needed a link from another site; the easiest way to do that was a post on here. I only needed it to make sure it worked; after that it is of no use to me or anyone else, so can be happily deleted when the bin contents get culled.
(This is assuming that I’m correct in thinking that posts there will eventually be deleted and no longer take up space, of course…)
johnfoss wrote:
> Carol McLean wrote:
>> *Is it preferable to resurrect an old thread on similar subjects and
>> add on to it, or to start a new thread? *
> This brings up a different question, on the same subject.
>
> I’m all for opening older threads. But the hard part is digging
> through all the old messages to get to the new ones. What if they
> were listed in reverse order? Is that something we users have control
> of on our ends? I think it is, but am tossing it out to see what
> others think. Old threads would be a lot more readable if they showed
> newest messages first.
You could read rsu with a Usenet newsreader instead of the new-fangled
wicked whippersnapper waif forum thingy.
>
> As for certain people who have made mega-long posts that maybe
> mentioned unicycles but did not necessarily belong here, if said
> person posts only this and never anything “useful,” I’m all in favor
> of blocking such persons or otherwise removing their threads.
Easy to killfile with newsreaders too.
>
> It would be nice if it were possible to “cap” a thread. Such as, if
> the topic strays well away from unicycling and it needs to move to
> Just Conversation, it would be nice to end it with an announcement
> that the thread has been moved, with link, and somehow locks people
> (on the Web site at least) from adding to that thread. They can go to
> Just Conversation and continue on the moved thread, or start a new
> one on the original topic in rec.sport.unicycling.
>
> Many threads seem to have clear “ends” to them, and it would be nice
> if they could be removed to clear some of the clutter. Things such as
> a person asking a question, getting a concise answer, and then saying
> thanks. That thread is basically over. If the answer is not something
> new, maybe that thread doesn’t need to be saved.
>
> Just some thoughts.
–
Everybody has a plan until I hit him.
–Mike Tyson
Mikefule wrote:
> I used to get the forum to send posts to me as e-mail. I quickly
> learned that that was a bad idea. One weekend away = 150 odd e-mails
> in my inbox.
>
> Now I visit the forum and pick and choose which threads to read. This
> means I can avoid the offensive or pointless ones if I wish.
>
> One of the options is to go straight to the most recent post (comes up
> as most recent PAGE of posts) which helps me to avoid rereading all
> the old stuff.
>
> I don’t know how other people read the forum.
>
> But back to the original point of THIS thread: we’re mainly grownups,
> and can cope with a bit of offensive language. I could win a swearing
> competition with a nun who’d trapped her thumb in the wine cellar door
> and thought no one was listening.
I’m better at threats, though I know a guy… an ex-Marine who cut off his
own hand accidentally when a chainsaw kicked back on him.
> However, there’s a time and a place, and we shouldn’t encourage sad or
> weird people who think it’s funny to post rambling nonsense with
> gratuitous sexual references. So I think it’s a bad idea to respond
> - even if the response is to complain about their rambling offensive
> post.
Just another killfiled… person.
>
> We shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously, but we SHOULD value this
> forum as a pleasant and friendly place to swap ideas and stories. In
> my limited experience of such fora, this one is exceptional. Let’s
> keep it that way.
I’d say it’s on your shoulders, Mike; post entertaining Coker stories
regularly or we’re doomed.
–
Everybody has a plan until I hit him.
–Mike Tyson
>There have been a couple of long, rambling, and somewhat offensive
>threads recently.
I have set up my news reader to save all posts in a database. I use
this for my own reference and save it for another statistics exercise
after the end of the year.
I delete non-genuine posts by hand. That includes posts that are
obviously spam, and in my view it includes also the long posts that
harper refers to. So sometimes I make different decisions than the
forum moderators. Sure enough, I keep all the ‘genuine’ responses to
deleted posts; on Usenet these stay in rsu (if they started there)
even while on unicyclist.com the threads may have been moved to the
spam forum.
Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
The international telephone dialing code for Antarctica is 672.
