CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Enough with the fails

Enough with the fails

Started by Taylor Gonzalez79 · · 👁 4 views · 15 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Taylor Gonzalez79blueridge32wiredfalcon2Morgan Martinez5dustypuma5Brandon Castillo4Nicholas KingChristian Taylor3Jeffrey Taylor49rapidstag2restlesssurfer97William Gomez5
Taylor Gonzalez79 Taylor Gonzalez79 Active MemberOP
78 messages
joined May 2008
#1 ·
Get rid of this useless rule about needing 10,000 posts in constructive threads. It’s honestly achieved absolutely nothing—all it does is kill the flow of actual discussions... We should be focusing our energy on rooting out the spam instead of putting handcuffs on people who actually want to write meaningful content.
blueridge32 blueridge32 Active Member
100 messages
joined Dec 2009
#2 ·
Just calling out Taylor Gonzalez79. This rule is honestly a joke
wiredfalcon2 wiredfalcon2 Regular
491 messages
joined Mar 2005
#3 ·
Basic moderator stuff like scrubbing spam is what actually tanks the forum🤣
Morgan Martinez5 Morgan Martinez5 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2008
#4 ·
spam ☕
Taylor Gonzalez79 Taylor Gonzalez79 Active MemberOP
78 messages
joined May 2008
#5 ·
wiredfalcon2 said:failing to take basic moderator actions—like actually scrubbing the spam—is what causes forums to tank🤣

Does every single subforum really need its own little chat thread? I mean, what’s even the point of having an Offtopic section or a General Hangout if we're just duplicating everything everywhere?

And honestly, if spam on all the other threads was being dealt with consistently according to the rules, the sheer volume of junk would drop significantly...
dustypuma5 dustypuma5 Active Member
111 messages
joined Apr 2013
#6 ·
wiredfalcon2 said:missing basic mod stuff like deleting spam causes the whole forum to crash🤣

Maybe. But from what I know, there isn't enough load there to actually crash a server. Deleting rows in a database is basically the same thing as a user posting or deleting a thread.

Like, I know the mods think they're so important that the servers go down just because they're making their big decisions, et cetera, but technically the script for posting and moderating is about the same load. It all happens in like a split second...
Brandon Castillo4 Brandon Castillo4 Regular
277 messages
joined Nov 2003
#7 ·
Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with the mods. It’s just a rule about locking threads once they hit the 10k post mark.
Nicholas King Nicholas King Regular
716 messages
joined Jan 2023
#8 ·
Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Absolutely nothing has been achieved here—all they're doing is ruining the discussions.

How exactly does one "ruin a discussion" by locking a thread after 10,000 posts and just starting a new one with a link back to the old one? 😕

Unless, of course, they aren't just locking the previous thread but actually deleting it entirely—which would be just plain stupid.

I have asked a million times already why we can't just move the archives to a separate, completely locked sub-forum—but, I suppose asking is probably like barking at the moon (and I have a sneaking suspicion the reasons are just some penny-pinching 😁 logic).
Christian Taylor3 Christian Taylor3 Active Member
213 messages
joined Jul 2010
#9 ·
Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Can we please just scrap this useless ten-thousand-post rule for constructive threads? Honestly, it’s achieved absolutely nothing besides just killing any decent discussion before it even gets started. We really need to start focusing on actually weeding out the spam instead of just putting a chokehold on legitimate discussion.

All the big forums around the world are moving in this direction. I guess there’s a reason for it, if you think about it.
Jeffrey Taylor49 Jeffrey Taylor49 Member
21 messages
joined Oct 2006
#10 ·
Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Plus, if people actually got punished for spamming other threads like the rules say, the volume would drop big time.

True, Taylor Gonzalez79, but if we went by that, everyone in the soccer sub would be banned every three days.😁
Taylor Gonzalez79 Taylor Gonzalez79 Active MemberOP
78 messages
joined May 2008
#11 ·
Nicholas King said:How exactly does "killing a discussion" happen by locking a thread after 10,000 posts and just starting a new one with a link to the old one? 😕

Unless they aren't just locking the previous thread but actually deleting it—which would be completely idiotic.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked why we don't just move the archive to a separate, totally locked sub-forum—but honestly, I feel like I might as well be howling at the moon here... and I have a sneaking suspicion the reasons are just being cheap and penny-pinching 😁.

It gets ruined because on a site like ESPN, you might have a seasonal Premier League thread where everything stays themed together. Maybe you're expecting an answer from someone, but you won't get it because the conversation is buried in some ancient thread. Or maybe you need to reference a post from the start of the season, but you can't even quote it. If you haven't dealt with threads like that, then I guess I shouldn't expect you to get it.

Christian Taylor3 said:Every major forum in the world does this. There's probably a reason for it.

They once ran an experiment with monkeys. There were five of them in a cage, all connected to an electric circuit. Every time one of them reached for a banana, the whole group got a shock. Over time, they swapped out the monkeys, and every time a new one arrived, the existing ones would automatically stop him from getting near the banana. Eventually, they ended up with five completely different monkeys who weren't even connected to the electricity, yet they still wouldn't touch the banana. The point: Don't be a monkey.
Taylor Gonzalez79 Taylor Gonzalez79 Active MemberOP
78 messages
joined May 2008
#12 ·
Jeffrey Taylor49 said:I mean, Taylor Gonzalez79, if we went by that logic, everyone in my soccer circles would be getting banned every three days... 😁

So, et cetera, where else are you going to find such massive savings on forum bandwidth? 😁
rapidstag2 rapidstag2 Regular
278 messages
joined Jan 2017
#13 ·
I find myself in complete agreement with Taylor Gonzalez79.

When it comes to soccer, we are likely looking at just a handful of actually constructive threads exceeding 10,000 posts, and frankly, they ought to be permitted to remain. One can only hope the forum possesses the structural integrity to withstand such a load.

As for this incessant nitpicking, it is nothing more than utter nonsense and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
restlesssurfer97 restlesssurfer97 Veteran
1.2K messages
joined May 2004
#14 ·
Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Honestly, you guys really need to scrap that useless rule about needing ten thousand posts in constructive threads before you can actually participate properly. It’s honestly accomplishing absolutely nothing except just killing the vibe and completely wrecking any decent discussions we try to have going. Look, we really need to get serious about actually weeding out the spam instead of just putting a chokehold on everyone who's trying to have a normal conversation, because honestly, if we keep cracking down on legitimate posts while the bots and the junk accounts run wild, we’re never going to fix the vibe here.

🙂
restlesssurfer97 restlesssurfer97 Veteran
1.2K messages
joined May 2004
#15 ·
Look, we aren't going to be sitting around waiting forever ☕
William Gomez5 William Gomez5 Active Member
233 messages
joined May 2018
#16 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:Look, we aren't exactly sitting here waiting for the kettle to boil. ☕

image

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads