PDA

View Full Version : Rule 13 revision discussion



WaxRubiks
2011-Apr-11, 11:06 AM
This is a discussion of the change to Rule 13 described here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/114510-Revisions-to-Rule-13?p=1875801#post1875801) - ToSeek



You may have only one thread active at a time in ATM. If you ask to have a thread closed before the 30 days limit so that you may open a new thread, the old thread will not be reopened later.
That seems a bit heavy handed.

A couple of years ago I had several threads open at the same time, and this is because I had a few different ideas.

Doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with having a few ideas around the same time, and one idea might tigger/lead to another idea anyway, so why should someone have to wait until one is closed down, or have one closed down prematurely, in order to post another thread?

If this rule is to stop someone posting the same ATM as multiple threads, then the rule should specify that, and allow any number of other threads as long as they present different(enough) ideas.

Strange
2011-Apr-11, 11:54 AM
As some ATM proponents have complained they couldn't keep up with the barrage of questions, it seems entirely reasonable to "assist" them in this way. What is the harm in presenting your multiple ideas sequentially; less stressful for everyone. And if one idea leads to another, this will encourage them to develop that idea a bit before starting another thread without being prepared.

I assume this has been done to stop someone abusing the system by starting one thread, maybe posting one or two responses, and then starting another and another and another and ... which is just spamming/trolling as far as I can see. Especially if they are not actually interested in debating their idea.

WaxRubiks
2011-Apr-11, 12:00 PM
well, surely that sort of spamming should be targeted by the rules, rather than making sweeping rules that affect everyone else?


And wouldn't putting ideas about different things in the same thread be confusing?


If someone is having a hard time keeping up, then they could ask for some of the threads to be closed, if they wanted.


In the past I've stared an ATM thread and only got a few responses; in these cases, why should that thread be closed prematurely, in order to start another ATM thread....closing it would prevent people responding to it, if they had something to ask.

WaxRubiks
2011-Apr-11, 12:26 PM
yeah, thinking about it, the rule about only one ATM thread could be used to spam....I mean an ATM spammer could start an ATM thread, and then ask for it to be closed, and then start another ATM thread, and then ask for that to be closed...etc....this would prevent people responding to these threads....

Moose
2011-Apr-11, 12:53 PM
yeah, thinking about it, the rule about only one ATM thread could be used to spam....I mean an ATM spammer could start an ATM thread, and then ask for it to be closed, and then start another ATM thread, and then ask for that to be closed...etc....this would prevent people responding to these threads....

Only if the mod team suddenly became replaced by scripts, and simple ones at that. Such a ploy wouldn't be much more subtle than a wrecking crew. The moment it's clear that someone's pulling a bad-faith stunt like that, we have the option to simply close all threads, hide all-but-one (or all) of them if we care that much, and invoke "one kick". Or refuse to close it. Or add infraction points (under the promotion rule) until such a person goes away.

Remember, we will enforce the spirit of the rule over the letter when it is appropriate to do so.

slang
2011-Apr-11, 12:56 PM
I think we need to think less about what could be the effect of this change, but what specific current situation it needs to fix. The simple fact is that it is very rare for an ATM proponent to have more than one active, well-working thread. It's rare enough to have even one of those. :) On the other hand it seems to become more common for ATM proponents to just fire away with new threads, regardless of the status of their previous thread(s).

Besides, knowing how the mod team works here, if there is a specific actual need to have two threads open at once, (and the mod team agrees on that need!), it wouldn't surprise me if the the rule were waived in the interest of having a useful discussion.

Garrison
2011-Apr-11, 02:32 PM
I think we need to think less about what could be the effect of this change, but what specific current situation it needs to fix. The simple fact is that it is very rare for an ATM proponent to have more than one active, well-working thread. It's rare enough to have even one of those. :) On the other hand it seems to become more common for ATM proponents to just fire away with new threads, regardless of the status of their previous thread(s).


And in at least one case ignoring outstanding questions in one thread while preparing practically essay length posts to create new threads with.

John Mendenhall
2011-Apr-12, 01:49 AM
A much needed rule, considering some recent incidents.

WaxRubiks
2011-Apr-12, 03:45 AM
Remember, we will enforce the spirit of the rule over the letter when it is appropriate to do so.


So it would be ok to post multiple threads if they genuinely were about different ideas?

Maybe having to ask a mod first?

pzkpfw
2011-Apr-12, 04:52 AM
As with all mod-discretion things: "it'll depend".

The rule adjustment comes about because it's far far more common for a troublesome ATM poster to create multiple troublesome ATM threads, than it is for a non-troublesome ATM poster to create multiple non-troublesome ATM threads.

If a poster wants an exception, they'd better be sure both they and their threads are in the "non troublesome" category.

Moose
2011-Apr-12, 05:43 AM
So it would be ok to post multiple threads if they genuinely were about different ideas?

Different ideas, and can adequately demonstrate that you are able to devote the effort required to defend both. Ultimately, it's to your own benefit to defend one at a time. Remember, you'll only get one shot at presenting your idea.


Maybe having to ask a mod first?

When in doubt...

WaxRubiks
2011-Apr-12, 05:58 AM
Different ideas, and can adequately demonstrate that you are able to devote the effort required to defend both. Ultimately, it's to your own benefit to defend one at a time. Remember, you'll only get one shot at presenting your idea.


Like I said, I have posted ATM threads that got very little response, one even only got one reply....so would that be self evident that one would have the time to defend both(all)?
The older thread might suddenly get lots or replies, so things could change.

What I want to know is, could I(or anyone) just post another(or more) ATM threads if it was self evident that they met the criteria, and post any justifications or explanations in the OP of the new threads?

Anyway it seems to me if mods are going to respond in accordance to the spirit of the rules, you don't really need to have a rule about only posting one thread at a time, just have a rule about not spamming, or not hiding behind having to defend too many threads.

PetersCreek
2011-Apr-12, 07:55 AM
...
What I want to know is, could I(or anyone) just post another(or more) ATM threads if it was self evident that they met the criteria, and post any justifications or explanations in the OP of the new threads?

No, it would not be advisable to violate a rule simply because you think your circumstances don't fit the reasoning behind the rule. Posts along the line of "I realize this probably violates the rules but I have a really good reason..." rarely fare well in moderation. If you have an ATM thread underway that presents no undue demands on your ability to answer questions and you wish to start a new, concurrent thread, check in with the mod team first.

moonfunk
2011-May-02, 02:04 AM
"Timely Manner" should apply not only to the individual who initiates the forum but also to ALL individuals who partake in a forum. Both sides of the debate should be subjected to the same interpretation of the rule.

I couldnt help but notice how this rule changed after I cited it in defense and was "Banned".

Van Rijn
2011-May-02, 02:25 AM
What are you referring to? Your first post was on April 18. This discussion of the rule revision started before that, and Jim posted the rule change on April 10.

moonfunk
2011-May-02, 03:01 AM
Excellent point...nevermind, everyone back to what they were doing.

cran
2012-Aug-01, 11:12 AM
I'd be surprised if an ATM idea sparked from an existing ATM discussion, or from a non-ATM discussion or article elsewhere, would not require at least 30 days of research and self-testing of the idea if is intended to be presented and accepted seriously.

An "Oh, hey, what if ..." moment would, if posted, likely fall into the speculative discussion trap.

R.A.F.
2012-Aug-01, 02:36 PM
Thread necromancy alert...14 months...


Read the whole thing before realizing it...

John Mendenhall
2012-Aug-01, 03:26 PM
Thread necromancy alert...14 months...


Read the whole thing before realizing it...

Right. Allowing multiple ATM threads allows ATM abuse. Dead thread.

WaxRubiks
2012-Aug-01, 04:04 PM
yea because the only reason someone would want to post more than one ATM thread would be to push their theory and abuse the ethos of the ATM section, and the rules must be engineered around that type of person.

slang
2012-Aug-01, 05:42 PM
yea because the only reason someone would want to post more than one ATM thread would be to push their theory and abuse the ethos of the ATM section, and the rules must be engineered around that type of person.

Just the most common reason. Rules can be bent. Ask a mod if for some reason you need to have two active threads. Hey, I said that before! Hey, you asked about multiple threads before!

cran
2012-Aug-01, 09:47 PM
Thread necromancy alert...14 months...


Read the whole thing before realizing it...
My fault; that's what I get for coming back from the (darn near) dead myself,
and not checking the post date on the unread (bold) post index.

R.A.F.
2012-Aug-01, 10:05 PM
My fault.

It's just as much my fault for not noticing the date.

slang
2012-Aug-01, 10:42 PM
My fault; that's what I get for coming back from the (darn near) dead myself,

Welcome back anyway, glad to see you among the living. :-)

cran
2012-Aug-02, 12:29 PM
Thank you, slang


... and noted the variation of the d word - will keep that in mind