Let's stay on topic...

[oso97]

Originally Posted by akaiyuki

I agree with Allen Evans that "some of the threads that have started out very interesting have quickly degenerated to "water cooler" topics". Sometimes it's not spammers purposely trying to hijack the thread, but it's us frequent f.netters who unintentionally degraded the thread to visitors by making fun of other f.netters with our inside jokes. And when these inside jokes goes on for a page or two, it makes the topic really boring to follow for others.

My only thought on this would be, "and this is a problem because?" Not to be flippant, but, I really don't see this as an issue and I'm truely at a loss why any supposedly intelligent, rational adult would, so I'd appreciate any clarity anyone could toss on to the fence.

Although, given that we live in a society where people prefer to try to ban a book from libraries instead of excersing their constiutionally gauranteed right to NOT READ IT, why am I surprised that some people can't seem to find the scroll button and by-pass that which does not interest them?

[gladius]

The thread started by Gav and Craig made me curious. So after a week of work related matters I had some free time and decided to check few facts about the 18 people participating in this discussion (until about 5 pm on Friday).

The software does not allow to present the results in a very effective way, so I'll summarize the salient points

1. Total posts

The winner is Inquartata with 15,838 posts since becoming a member on 7/12/2001 or an average of 8.56 posts a day.

2. Number of posts per day

The winner here is Fencergirl with 10.81 posts/day since becoming a member on 4/27/2005 (total posts 5,019)

3. Number of posts in 24 hours period from 12 noon on Thursday to 12 noon on Friday (today)

The winner here is KD5MDK with 34 posts in this 24 hours period (his personal stats are 4,403 posts since becoming a member 2/15/2005, or 8.22 posts per day).

It is clear that the success of any forum depends on the participants (number) and their contributions, but there is, I believe an issue of quantity v/s quality and one ought to ask when diligence becomes obsession or an obsessive compulsive disorder.

While I subscribe to the notion that everyone ought to be free to write what he wants and as often as he wants, I also agree that the moderators have a duty and a responsibility to moderate and restrain behavior which sane minds could consider extreme. Anyone disagreeing with them can start up another "cousin" of Fencing.net and good luck to them.

I always wonder what pushes someone to post continuously over a 24 hours period about any possible topic for 30+ times? and then start the next 24 hours cycle with another 13 posts in 6 hours? As a user of the forum I just skip over this logorrhea, but it is more than reasonable that our moderators issue an invitation to moderation, or, as Inquartata would prefer in the Latin way, sit modus in rebus.

Get a life!

[Peach]

Pot, may I introduce Kettle.

[Poulet]

There's a flaw in the whole "Whoa, why are you complaining? Just don't read what you don't like to see!" idea. How are you supposed to know something's off-topic without reading it?

...if the solution is to use the ignore feature, then how about "Just ignore people who consistently post material you don't like to read"? If not, then the suggestion to just "not read" what you don't want to see in a thread is idiotic.

[smurfette]

Originally Posted by gladius

it is more than reasonable that our moderators issue an invitation to moderation

Is this what is being encouraged? If so, great. In some ways, I guess I was interpreting this whole thread as an aim to discourage posts that don't echo a thread perfectly, and that are not composed in a particular way -- and on the flipside, perhaps alo as an encouragement to over-posters to continue continuously overposting.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by gladius

While I subscribe to the notion that everyone ought to be free to write what he wants and as often as he wants,

Statements like this almost always carry an unspoken "but not really" at the end of them. They are tossed in merely to deflect criticism for what follows.

If you really believed it, you would have stopped there.

I also agree that the moderators have a duty and a responsibility to moderate and restrain behavior which sane minds could consider extreme.

And it didn't take long for the ad hominems to emerge, did it?

Let me guess: You are your own exemplar of "sanity", right?

Anyone disagreeing with them can start up another "cousin" of Fencing.net and good luck to them.

Yes. And black people who don't like the racism in America can "go back to Africa", hmm?

IAs a user of the forum I just skip over this logorrhea, but it is more than reasonable that our moderators issue an invitation to moderation, or, as Inquartata would prefer in the Latin way, sit modus in rebus.

Why?

Get a life!

Translation: "Get a life as I define it, one that meets my preferences and expectations."

Sorry, but you don't get to tell others what "a life" is or is not.

Or in Latin, De gustibus non disputandam est.

[Poulet]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes. And black people who don't like the racism in America can "go back to Africa", hmm?

For all your pointing out the presence of logical fallacies in others' arguments, you sure seem susceptible to making them yourself. Nice straw person.

[jBirch]

To yank the discussion a bit more on topic here (as the winds of thread drift are agathering)...There seem (to me) to be two seperate sets of standards.

In the main forum (y'know, the one about fencing), the quality vs quantity settings (as Gladius puts it) are set higher to quality then to quantity. Junk comments and junk threads are likely to get removed. One of the reasons for this is that people in the fencing community tend to use these forums as informational and training supplements. When coach isn't around, ask the F.NET crew, so the logic goes. Junk comments in here just get in the way of that process. This is good.

In the sub-forae, the quality setting is much lower so those with an urge to discuss things of little relevence (with the sole exception of "How to get a girl") and/or trade witicisms, have a place to go. Game threads, politics and other innanities encourage new posters to participate without burdening them with the credentialed posts in the main section. This too is good.

I'm not only Ok with this, but I support it and even am proud to be a member of a community with this kind of standard. I've advocated a couple of times for an even more intensely moderated section of the site, where coaches and officials can answer questions and discuss without the noise of silly commentary. To that end, I think the recent posting of the official guidelines are a good thing.

What issue is there with deleting superfluous content from the main area and relegating it to the Water Cooler et al? The only ammendment I'd like to make is to move the various "USFC Administratae" to its own section too.

James.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by gladius

The winner here is Fencergirl with 10.81 posts/day since becoming a member on 4/27/2005 (total posts 5,019)

LOL... m'dear... I can do over 11 posts an hour in the Water Cooler if I get into something silly with someone.... I find it rather amusing anyone would bother with calculating this out... you really did have time on your hands to take so much interest in my (and others) posting habits.

This is got me thinking about some of the other water cooler folks.... I wonder where Go?, ZZ, JoH, IHMPH... what they average .... bah... too lazy.

[Amadeus]

holy ****, people. removing off topic threads and posts isnt censorship, and its not excessive, its good moderating.

while inside jokes and extended banter is fun, it belongs in the water cooler. that's why we have that forum.

honestly, i dont know of any other forum whose moderators think that threaddrift and off topic discussion are acceptable when the title of the forum is this specific.

[akaiyuki]

Originally Posted by oso97

My only thought on this would be, "and this is a problem because?" Not to be flippant, but, I really don't see this as an issue and I'm truely at a loss why any supposedly intelligent, rational adult would, so I'd appreciate any clarity anyone could toss on to the fence.

My point was just that excessive inside jokes, off topic discussions does not belong in the regular fencing discussion forum - they go in water cooler. We can't please everyone, but we can try pleasing the majority. There are usually more than 5x more guests on the forum than members. Most people who read the fencing discussion forum are not frequent posters. What's going to happen if most of the threads drift way off topic, or turns into conversation between a few f.netters?

That said, I really love f.net's water cooler...

[Go? Fencing?]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

LOL... m'dear... I can do over 11 posts an hour in the Water Cooler if I get into something silly with someone.... I find it rather amusing anyone would bother with calculating this out... you really did have time on your hands to take so much interest in my (and others) posting habits.

This is got me thinking about some of the other water cooler folks.... I wonder where Go?, ZZ, JoH, IHMPH... what they average .... bah... too lazy.

It's not math, my dear, it's listed in the profile:
G?F?: Total Posts: 8,920 (16.36 posts per day)
Zz: Total Posts: 8,813 (5.96 posts per day)
Jack: Total Posts: 3,921 (12.73 posts per day)
IHMP: Total Posts: 831 (12.37 posts per day)


A little more on topic, I have always been satisfied with the level of moderation on this forum. I ignore Mr. Epee, so I can't really comment on his personal issue, but as to "if you don't like reading it, don't read it", I will say that the tone of most posts is consistent throughout the post, so after being displeased with the beginning of a post, I often do scroll by it. Maybe I do miss something worthwhile on occaision, but if it's really so important, it will likely be commented on or quoted by another poster, at which time I will read it.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by akaiyuki

There are usually more than 5x more guests on the forum than members.

I hesitate to stray off topic but this is not exactly true. As many know the majority of "guests" is the Yahoo Slurp Spider indexing. At most there are as many real guests as memebers.

[zéphirin]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

LOL... m'dear... I can do over 11 posts an hour in the Water Cooler if I get into something silly with someone.... I find it rather amusing anyone would bother with calculating this out... you really did have time on your hands to take so much interest in my (and others) posting habits.

I guess gladius could calculate this out because he does not do 11 posts an hour in the WC... It's called management of resources.

In any case you can access the data just by checking the personal profile so you can easily and quickly satisfy your curiosity... without taking too much time from your posting frenzy.

modus in rebus never hurt anyone...

[sabreur]

Let's see--among my favorite posters are: Gladius, who brings a real level of expertise and intelligence to many of the technical discussions--along with the perspectives of his master... Quart, when he's not being totally obtuse... Peach, Fencergrl, Mr. E (when he's not being a jerk), EDEW, ZZ, KD--most of the established posters in fact....

I think post counts are irrelevant, because a lot of people (myself included) post more often to the water cooler than to the main discussion area--primarily because the level of discourse in the main discussion area is for the most part appalling. The current thread of sabre ROW is an example--I simply can't bear to read threads like this any more, much less post in them.

The noise level isn't for the most part from the established posters (minus the adolescents, whom I ignore for the most part any way). It is from people who appear, post some random, uninformed and often intentionally abrasive crap (read "trolling"), and disappear in a few days. Every once in a while, you get someone who shows up and starts badly, but sticks around and becomes an interesting contributor.

I've said before that I would like to see a "techniques and tactics" section, which would focus on important fencing issues--I'm not going to go count active threads in the fencing discussion area again, but it annoys me how few actually have to do with FENCING, as opposed to running your club, or fixing your hair, or the latest FIE stupidity or USFA politics, or web problems, or whatever. I still would like to see such a section--and I would support it being moderated quite rigorously, with a strong set of FAQs on issues like basic ROW and technique, so the discussion could focus on somewhat higher-level issues. And I'd also like to see it be a place where Bill Oliver or George K. or any number of other knowledgeable people could post without worrying about some numbnuts without a clue taking them to task about the current ways that directors direct and rules are interpreted....

My $.02.

MR

[downunder]

seconded sabreurs views on the current sabre ROW thread. Sometimes the refereeing threads are like bashing ones head against a brick wall.

I wouldn't mind seeing the end of the "poll flawed" thing too. Its annoyed me from the start and surely it has run its course?

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by zéphirin

I guess gladius could calculate this out because he does not do 11 posts an hour in the WC... It's called management of resources.

You use f-net your way.... and I use it in a way that pleases me. Which is pretty much the point you missed in my point to gladius.

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by Peach

Pot, may I introduce Kettle.

I had always thought it was the "coal" that called the kettle black. I was raised in Ohio by parents from Chicago. The band Alkaline Trio, also from Chicago, uses it the way I do. Ohio's alot like Pennsylvania from what I've seen, though. Let's discuss!

[carlos]

Regarding the comments about frequent posters: I seldom post in f.net, but I read it often and find valuable information and entertaining discussion.

Does this make me a lurker?

Craig and Gav: I rarely post; does this mean my few contributions are not wanted?