{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/22/2012 11:40:59 PM
43
discussion value!
Threads have to have discussion value, or else they're spam, right?
But what is discussion value? If a thread is asking you which video game females you have a crush on, is that really promoting discussion - or at least, the kind of discussion you want to promote? It's not like moderators don't make the distinction elsewhere - after all, they ban people for trying to discuss politics or religion on the mains. So why not ban discussions about what your favourite colour is, or your favourite type of pizza topping? Are those really discussions worth having? Aren't they really just spam?
Basically, where do you think the line should be drawn? If an AMA doesn't promote discussion, can you really say a "how old are you?" thread does? And if a thread about accents does promote discussion, can you really say threads that ask other binary questions don't?
[Edited on 12.22.2012 7:22 PM PST by Old Papa Rich]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] True Underdog [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Lord Revan x The man is Gandalf and wise beyond his years. [/quote] [i][b]Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn[/b][/i] That's [b]really[/b] wise.[/quote]:-/
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jaythenerdkid If a thread is asking you which video game females you have a crush on, [/quote] my waifu Personally, i think threads should only be made if they are assured over 30 posts, because then they have some sort of discussion. Or people are just calling the OP or someone else a tool which is just as fun.
-
Whenever the topic of discussion value comes up, all I can think of is "chickpeas - neither chicks, nor peas. Discuss." And more OT...I dont think 'discussion value' has to be so overt in a thread. Discussion is such a serious sounding concept. This site has always had more of a [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kibitz]kibitzing[/url] feel than one of discussion, though discussion happens from time to time. Like this thread. Edit: the first definition of kivvitz (if you dont know the word). The second meaning is rare anyway - though unwanted advice is something that occasionally happens here. [Edited on 12.22.2012 9:06 PM PST]
-
An AMA thread promotes discussion between two people - The OP and the reader. There isn't any promotion of discussion between readers, thus making it a stale OP centric thread. A thread asking how old you are doesn't promote any sort of discussion, either. Edit- I should read the entire thread before replying. Out BR'd by revan. -blam!-. [Edited on 12.22.2012 8:09 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Lord Revan x The man is Gandalf and wise beyond his years. [/quote] [i][b]Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn[/b][/i] That's [b]really[/b] wise.
-
Discussion value stems from the ability of a topic, singular in nature, to spur conversation between users on said topic. If a thread doesn't develop conversation between all users on a topic, where users can actively engage one another and converse, it doesn't have discussion value. Therefore, an AMA thread for example, doesn't promote discussion between all users in the thread as it instead promotes discussion between a question poser and the original poster (something more suitable for private messages or instead hold an AMA in groups). Moreover, it is inherently topic-less, relying on future users to give it a grounded topic. Obviously, these are just my opinions on the matter. And, I find that OPR is right. The man is Gandalf and wise beyond his years. Threads without established topics for discussion tread into grey areas and ultimately tend to devolve into conflicts, harassment disputes, and general ugliness. [Edited on 12.22.2012 7:59 PM PST]
-
How else will we know what video game character they have a crush on?
-
There is a bit of a gray area with discussion value, and as far as I know the ninjas are being very lax about it in this time of darkness.
-
Well Rich just gave you a bit more insight. Now that you have stated you wished for discussion value to be more concretely defined, I'm going to take a gamble in explaining why you won't ever get that more "concrete" answer... As I mentioned in my previous post, people's perceptions on what sort of discussions hold value, all differ across the board. No guideline will ever be laid out, because then it prevents moderators from using any form of discretion. No one can speak for everyone in saying "This is what discussion value will be", so you will never get that one solidified explanation, and for good reason. If you're worried about someone getting in trouble for breaking a rule because they're new, or uncertain, it's always okay to ask a moderator or memeber if the thread in question has been done before and or is tolerated. If a new member posts without clarifying, almost all moderators exercise reasonable judgement and merely lock the thread, without punishing the member. At which time, the member will see for future reference, what not to post. [Edited on 12.22.2012 7:44 PM PST]
-
Its because of the title that the person has gives that person more freedom.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Old Papa Rich Discussion value is utterly subjective. Moderators here are encouraged to use their judgement. To me, using discussion value to lock a thread says "this thread makes me uneasy. I don't trust where it is going. It's in some gray area and I'm cutting it off."[/quote]I understand this, because I've used it as a criterion when moderating in private groups in the past. If I can see the thread's heading in a direction that will end in carpet bans and hurt members, I might lock it anyway. (Of course, I am a terrible moderator and sometimes leave such threads open for my entertainment, which I guess ninjas can't or at least shouldn't do. :P) [Edited on 12.22.2012 7:38 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Helveck I'm reading a lot of conflicting opinions here. OP (and others), I have to ask... What is it you're trying to accomplish by presenting the idea that there are many subjective definitions of "discussion value" based on many differentiating perceptions? It's almost a question that doesn't need to be asked, because anyone with common sense would realize that ones idea of discussion value ultimately lies in their perception and what they desire to discuss. Looking for a consensus may seems reasonable if you wish, but also somewhat irrelevant considering people will participate and discuss what they went, and when they want. If it breaks the rules, then it breaks the rules. Also, why the hell did you put a bunch of tilde characters in your thread title? Completely unnecessary, no? [/quote]Well, I think it'd probably be beneficial to users if "discussion value" were more concretely defined in relation to the rules so that people don't inadvertently break the rules, or complain when they think other people have broken the rules when they actually ~~~haven't~~~.
-
Discussion value is utterly subjective. Moderators here are encouraged to use their judgement. To me, using discussion value to lock a thread says "this thread makes me uneasy. I don't trust where it is going. It's in some gray area and I'm cutting it off." [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Todge16801 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Helveck Also, why the hell did you put a bunch of tilde characters in your thread title? Completely unnecessary, no? [/quote]Tweeting about it certainly is. [/quote]There. We can drop it. [Edited on 12.22.2012 7:29 PM PST]
-
If you can talk about it, and discuss it with others, does it have value.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Helveck Also, why the hell did you put a bunch of tilde characters in your thread title? Completely unnecessary, no? [/quote]Tweeting about it certainly is.
-
I'm reading a lot of conflicting opinions here. OP (and others), I have to ask... What is it you're trying to accomplish by presenting the idea that there are many subjective definitions of "discussion value" based on many differentiating perceptions? It's almost a question that doesn't need to be asked, because anyone with common sense would realize that ones idea of discussion value ultimately lies in their perception and what they desire to discuss. Looking for a consensus may seems reasonable if you wish, but also somewhat irrelevant considering people will participate and discuss what they went, and when they want. If it breaks the rules, then it breaks the rules. Also, why the hell did you put a bunch of tilde characters in your thread title? Completely unnecessary, no? [Edited on 12.22.2012 6:54 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Bungie Sam Discussion: talk about something with another. Talk: express information, feelings or ideas. Express: convey in words. Conclusively; provided a user posts, in words, some form of information to another user, then there is discussion value.[/quote]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jaythenerdkid [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 Your entire post is a straw-man argument; those kinds of threads DO get locked.[/quote]Not always, not by everyone. Consistency is hard when three different rule enforcers will enforce the rules in three different ways. It's nobody's fault - that's the price you pay when you leave the enforcement of any law up to human judgement. The alternative - automating all rule enforcement - is obviously not the answer.[/quote]If what you're looking for is constant and consistent objectivity in the moderation of these forums, you're going to be looking for the rest of your natural life and maybe a bit into your supernatural one. My point was, and is, that the types of threads you were giving as examples of 'outrages' of sorts in that they weren't being locked, yet should be locked, and thus were creating an inconsistent precedent for forumgoers is an inaccurate interpretation of the actual situation, in my opinion, as the threads you discussed I have seen getting locked. The assumption that, because some of them don't get locked that that means anything less than a mod just didn't see or didn't care about them, is just ignorant. The holder of that opinion? Probably not. The assumption itself however? Most definitely.
-
Discussion: talk about something with another. Talk: express information, feelings or ideas. Express: convey in words. Conclusively; provided a user posts, in words, some form of information to another user, then there is discussion value.
-
If you disagree with your thread being locked you can always talk to the mod about it. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Harlow Nah, they're locked here too if you're the wrong person. All comes back to this: [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Harlow What qualifies as discussion value to moderators on this site depends on who you are and the reactions people have to you. Always has.[/quote][/quote] There's a cream for that.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 Your entire post is a straw-man argument; those kinds of threads DO get locked.[/quote]Not always, not by everyone. Consistency is hard when three different rule enforcers will enforce the rules in three different ways. It's nobody's fault - that's the price you pay when you leave the enforcement of any law up to human judgement. The alternative - automating all rule enforcement - is obviously not the answer.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jaythenerdkid Are you serious right now? People aren't going to rip each other apart over a color or pizza.[/quote]My point is that empty discussions seem to me to be just as detrimental to a forum's quality as overly heated ones.[/quote] So your worried about the floods image being damaged by color/silly/offtopic threads? Rofl waffles! (And yes I'm assuming your talking about the flood)
-
One word replies, or even answers of limited discussion aren't really that damaging to the community, especially in the flood, where small talk is part of flood culture. Larger, more in depth threads tend to be for here and the universe forum. Much like what Verachi said, discussion value is when you can make a coherent reply without it being spam. Also, the "whatever I say it is" response would probably work the best, from the view of the moderator. In regards to the female gamer discussion, sure, that promotes discussion I suppose. The reason a thread like that would be allowed would be due to the fact it isn't against the rules, unless it was deemed spam for whatever reason, such as thread derailment and/or flaming. Discussion is, more or less, whatever the repliers of a thread make of it, and it the moderators in question view it as appropriate, etc.
-
Your entire post is a straw-man argument; those kinds of threads DO get locked.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jaythenerdkid - after all, they ban people for trying to discuss politics or religion on the mains. So why not ban discussions about what your favourite colour is, or your favourite type of pizza topping? [/quote] Are you serious right now? People aren't going to rip each other apart over a color or pizza.[/quote]My point is that empty discussions seem to me to be just as detrimental to a forum's quality as overly heated ones.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Make117 Maybe AMA threads should be posted here then? We have those community joe interviews here too, they aren't interesting at all, but apparently there's nothing wrong with them.[/quote] Nah, they're locked here too if you're the wrong person. All comes back to this: [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Harlow What qualifies as discussion value to moderators on this site depends on who you are and the reactions people have to you. Always has.[/quote]
