Too many postings get deleted here

[Circunflejo]

if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that.

Yes, that was the main point of my reply to @swift who, once again, insinued that I didn't know the rules of WR. The point of the post that originated swift's reply (post number 96) was that the perspective of an user about the subject of this thread surely isn't the same if you deal with mods like the one quoted by @Nanon than if you have to deal with other sort of mods (see below).

If the inference of what you're saying is that all the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.

I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction. Definitely, I occasionally post on one in which most posts wouldn't be allowed at all in the forums in which I most frequently post. If a regular of that forum who never posted on the other forums had to open a thread for the first time in any of the other forums, surely s/he would be shocked when her/his opening post was deleted if s/he had made previously tons of identical posts in the other forum without any problem whatsoever and s/he may get the impression that too many posts get deleted on that other forum. On the other hand, someone used to tight moderation may find the other forum moderation too lax -even though the forum seems to work nicely with that lax moderation- and may get the impression that too few posts get deleted on that other forum. However, unlike you, I do think that the thigh versus harsh difference is made by the mods involved; not by the forums themselves. That becomes plainly evident when you find that sort of differences within the same forum (or so I think).

The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.

That's not my case. Only once I had a post deleted due to what a moderator considered a "bare" link. I complained saying that I had explained the content of the link (as the guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum say; see post 98) but the mod said that a literal quote was required even though neither the guidelines (see post 98) nor the rules (in this case, rule 3) say it. Of course, I had to deal with it. That's stuff that happens when being harsh and restrictive is the common rule but I can understand that not everybody is fine dealing with that sort of stuff.

 

[swift]

That's not my case.

I was using the generic you.

And it may be dangerous to over-generalize moderation actions based on a single instance. Nanon’s case might as well be a one-off, with the expectation that she will avoid posting bare links in the future.

 

[Peterdg]

I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction.

As far as I can see and as far as I know, you mostly post in the English-Spanish forum and in the Sólo español forum. If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.

 

[Circunflejo]

And it may be dangerous to over-generalize moderation actions based on a single instance.

I agree but, as far as I can see, nobody here made that.

If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.

Yes, lack of consistency among mods (and sometimes even within the same mod) results in some posts being luckier than others. And depending on the luck you get, you get an impression or a different one. I already said all that. I'll add that random rule application is even worse that harsh rule application because you never know what's going to happen and if you happen to be the exception (usually there isn't just a single exception), you'll wonder why the rest of the users don't get the same treatment and you'll wonder even more about it if you bother to report a "bare" link and no action is taken.

 

[DonnyB]

Yes, lack of consistency among mods (and sometimes even within the same mod) results in some posts being luckier than others. And depending on the luck you get, you get an impression or a different one. I already said all that. I'll add that random rule application is even worse that harsh rule application because you never know what's going to happen and if you happen to be the exception (usually there isn't just a single exception), you'll wonder why the rest of the users don't get the same treatment and you'll wonder even more about it if you bother to report a "bare" link and no action is taken.

I'm honestly not sure what the answer is to this, or whether there even is an answer to it. I can tell you how I approach the problem of posting bare links, but that's not going to be much help if the Spanish forum mods are doing it differently.

You've probably got two options, I think. You can either open a group conversation with those mods whose decisions are coming across as inconsistent and ask them politely, with examples, to just clarify for you what their policy is on this, or simply accept that in our imperfect world there are going to be things which aren't as you (or indeed, we) would like them to be.

 

[L'irlandais]

...I don't care about how they are implemented if through a Xenforo software improvement or through other means.

If one shows no empathy for WR’s predicament, then one shouldn’t expect much empathy either.
I have moderated on other forums, related to both my work and my leisure. I think the mods to a great job on WR.

 

[suzi br]

Wow.
What a lot of words.

But at the end of the day “so what?”

OK - I am editting this because I realise I contravened the rules with my own tone - and am probably in danger of getting my own post supporting the mode deleted by the mods from a post discussing deletions by the mod, so the ironies pile up!

I’ll admit, I have had posts deleted (in fact, most recently by Donny, who is labouring hard in this thread) where I have internally rolled my eyes and muttered an expletive or two to myself. But I don’t let it spoil my day, because: “so what?”

No-one got hurt* and ultimately I’m glad we have this fabulous resource with all its quirks and occasional inconsistencies. The mods work hard and keep the ship afloat so we can interact with a fascinating multitude of people from different backgrounds and experiences. The adverts are minimal and unobtrusive, WR basically a VERY GOOD THING. That bigger picture is more important than my tender spots.

So, if occasionally, a moderator is a annoying me for one reason or another my personal response is to take a few days off. Simple as that. I remove myself from the source of my irritation.

The mods aren’t robots or algorithms, they can be tired or irritated or at the edge of their patience sometimes which can lead to inconsistency, but “so what?” I don’t know what’s made one of them seem more “trigger-happy” or inconsistent than usual. It’s a strange view of the world to expect perfection in any sphere of it, especially one that’s essentially fuelled by goodwill, I certainly don't expect it in here.

* hurt: More on “hurt”: It seems that one or two of the contributors to this thread have low pain thresholds. Obviously their giving a few minutes of time to an issue signifies a great lot to them. It's hard for me to share that sentiment about theirs, or any individual's post, tbh.

Of course, this sarcastic and caustic edge of mine (since editted slighty to keep within the rules!) is the biggest reason why I am NOT moderator material. Trying to engage politely about such, ultimatrly, trivial matters would never get from me the patient understanding and tolerance that the mods engaging in this thread have shown.

The idea that if you get one response deleted you should then remove all your others really made me LOL. Really? Well to be honest, so what if you did? None of us make any contributions that are so unique, in my many years of being in here, when I take a break and come back there are NEVER any questions that have been left with no answers awaiting some precious gem from me.

In English Only I know there are at least twenty other contributors who could give “my” answer to any question I answer. We’re worker ants with a great range of skills but it’s very, very rare that I have something to say that a colleague couldn’t equally say. Ultimately this thing is much bigger than any of us.

If you really don’t like it, LEAVE. And the rest if us will go “so what”? You are in control of your own responses. It’s a philosophical thing. You cannot control everything and everyone else. You can only control your own response. Your choice. Really.

 

[swift]

Great points, @suzi br! This whole discussion has been unproductive because no one has provided evidence to support the claim that “too many posts get deleted”. And all the digressions seem to be a mechanism to complain about something that is bothering one or two individuals without explaining clearly what is going on. There have been lots of allusions to things that may or may not have happened to those individuals—anytime they’re asked for examples, they say “well, it’s not really my case”, and then go on to make another point about yet another topic that could be discussed with the moderators if only they followed the guidance provided by the rules and the Mod FAQ—.

Donny provides clear answers to the original claim that too many posts are deleted. I’ll quote a couple excerpts with straightforward information:

I can really only re-iterate what I said at the beginning of the thread, which was that we don't (contrary to what some members seem to think) enjoy deleting posts, nor do we trawl through all the threads looking to see what we can delete next.

We're more than willing to respond to reasonable requests for explanations of individual deletion decisions, but neither I nor any of the other mods can do that in a public forum.

The bottom line, basically, is that our forums are not chat boards and the person who asked the question is entitled to expect courteous, helpful and relevant answers to it.

There is an option, obviously, to simply leave the post 'as is'. In cases where a post represents a minor digression which is unlikely to lead to anything which will sidetrack the thread and wreck it, it will often be left untouched. We do also have an option to simply edit a post to remove potentially destructive off-topic content while leaving the bulk of the post intact, or alternatively, if that would prove awkward to do, contacting the OP as you suggest and asking them to do it. The difficulties there are that the OP only has 24 hours in which they're able to edit a post themselves, and in the meantime the discussion may well have moved on. There's normally no objection to a member replacing a deleted off-topic post with one where the content is relevant.

If after reading this and the moderators FAQ you still don’t know how to proceed, you may want to ask yourself if you’re as smart as you think.

 

[Nanon]

Oh, my God! I didn't plan to create a storm in a teapot!
Parenthesis: sometimes you (generic you, says my politically correct superego, aka my PCS) get scolded by other forer@s - I am not talking about mods here - for not capitalising god. Or God.

Back to topic: OK, mea culpa, I will write 100 times "Thou shalt not post bare links, et nemo censetur ignorare legem" . Now, seriously, who reads all general forum rules plus the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?
And, yes, the FR-EN mods are nice but the French are not renowned for being particularly nice (warning: generalisation, says my PCS).

Neither being nor having been a mod, I can only answer from an outsider's point of view, but I don't have the feeling of mods having KPI's (key performance indicators, the stuff you use in a job appraisal) or earning awards for killing posts and threads. And yes, I did have deleted posts. Mostly for answering a deleted question or digression, as far as I remember. Fine by me. Housekeeping is necessary (warning: don't try being a mod's pet, says my PCS ).

 

[swift]

Now, seriously, who reads all general forum rules plus the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?

Possibly not a whole lot of people. But you can be sure that if you break the rules or need to avoid a specific behavior, the mods will let you know exactly what set or rules you’re breaking or tampering with, pointing you to the forum-specific guidelines where applicable.

 

[Circunflejo]

You can either open a group conversation with those mods whose decisions are coming across as inconsistent and ask them politely, with examples, to just clarify for you what their policy is on this

Being there, done that. Among the minority of mods that actually bothers to comment and provide feedback explaining why things are as they are, the bottom line was that they have too much work so some posts are overlooked (even when reported). There hasn't been any change in the mods staff of those forums so I guess the problem remains. However, I didn't make the remark to look for a solution or explanation about that question but to point out that although I don't think that too many posts get deleted here, I can understand that someone may think so. You don't get the same picture if you post 4 posts with bare links and all of them are deleted that if you post 4 posts with bare links and none of them are deleted; just to quote an example.

If one shows no empathy for WR’s predicament, then one shouldn’t expect much empathy either.

Sorry, I don't get how your reply relates with my post.

I have moderated on other forums, related to both my work and my leisure. I think the mods to a great job on WR.

It's, for sure, better moderated than most forums but there's room for improvement if there was willingness for it.

Trying to engage politely with grown adults whining like toddlers about such trivial matters would never get from me the patient understanding and tolerance that the mods engaging in this thread have shown.

The key here is the perspective of the user. What could be a trivial matter for you, it could be something relevant for another user. For example, continuing with the example of the bare links, you could think that getting a bare link posted by you deleted is a trivial matter while other user might see on it, for example, unfairness due to diseaquility on treatment bearing in mind that other bare links posted by other users don't get deleted. In my opinion, both points of view have a point and therefore deserve respect. Sympathizing (more) with one of them doesn't mean that you have to disregard the other one.

The idea that if you get one response deleted you should then remove all your others really made me LOL.

That was said so early on the thread that I had to look for it. It seems that that user got banned so I don't think you'll get an answer from him.

But at the end of the day “so what?”

I understand your point but if we fully applied it, this forum wouldn't exist because most of the comments and suggestions made here are pretty trivial so at the end of the day "so what".

And all the digressions seem to be a mechanism to complain about something that is bothering one or two individuals without explaining clearly what is going on.

Not the ones that I've made. I made them in order to try to show that even though I don't think that too many posts get deleted here, I can understand that some users may think so. It's all a matter of perspective and that means that you have to forget about your own perspective and try to put yourself on the shoes of the guy/gal that's complaining.

who reads all general forum rules plus the individual set of rules of a given forum each time before posting?

I did it when I joined and I do it from time to time (as they don't change daily) now as well as I do it each time I see a bunch of posts at odds with one them (just in case they had been changed). That's why I'm well aware of when a post is rightly moderated, overmoderated or undermoderated. And that why soon after I joined the forum I made the staff realize that the guidelines of the forums in which I posted the most were at odds with the rules of WR and they fixed it. The later wouldn't have happened I had had a "so what" approach but it's true that there wouldn't have been a relevant difference in the daily working of the forum. So, once again, personal perspective is the key.

 

[User With No Name]

Okay, at the risk of getting myself into even more trouble, since people are complaining that nobody is providing specific examples, I will give you a trivial one, that just happened to me. A discussion was going on about how to translate something, and aside from the original topic, the original poster asked about how to spell a particular word. (I'm pretty sure the word had come up in the discussion of the translation, but I can't confirm that, because the post was removed. At any rate, that's what I assumed at the time.)

I answered, saying that it was an AmE/BrE difference.

My answer, and the question, were deleted, and I received a little note saying please not to break forum rule 2.

Now, the post probably didn't take me 30 seconds to write, and I'm sure that 95% of the English speakers on this site could have answered the question just as well as I could. So I have no emotional investment in the post whatsoever. And I certainly don't feel that its deletion somehow harmed me or anyone else. And I do realize that technically, the moderator was correct.

Still, I persist in thinking that this level of nitpicking and overzealous enforcement of rules is harmful to this site and the community.

 

[Peterdg]

Still, I persist in thinking that this level of nitpicking and overzealous enforcement of rules is harmful to this site and the community.

On the contrary, I would say.

If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the description: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?

I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries. So, someone who is using the dictionary to search for a specific term, does not need any side conversation that is irrelevant to the word/expression he/she is looking for and that is exactly the reason why these side conversations are deleted from threads/posts.

Furthermore, these additional topics will never be found with a dictionary search as the forum threads are linked to dictionary entries by the thread title and since it is a side conversation, it will not appear in the thread title, so basically it is a useless waste of space and a loss of time for users who are consulting the dictionary.

 

[S.V.]

Only have a vague sense of this thread, but even on Xenforo, just as you hide links from public users(1), you could hide off-topic chat.

I don't mind my posts being deleted. I think it's often I answer to new users, because they don't know the rules, and I don't want them to leave forever. But I understand moderators have to delete & ask for a sentence.

 

[Sowka]

On the contrary, I would say.

If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the decription: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?

I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries. So, someone who is using the dictionary to search for a specific term, does not need any side conversation that is irrelevant to the word/expression he/she is looking for and that is exactly the reason why these side conversations are deleted from threads/posts.

Furthermore, these additional topics will never be found with a dictionary search as the forum threads are linked to dictionary antries by the thread title and since it is a side conversation, it will not appear in the thread title, so basically it is a useless waste of space and a loss of time for users who are consulting the dictionary.

This is exactly my reasoning when I delete this kind of off-topic contribution.

@User With No Name If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation. It's the same effort, with much less friction and frustration.

 

[swift]

you could hide off-topic chat.

Or you could abide by the rules and refrain from making off-topic comments. Easy and no moderator action needed. You seem to be suggesting that off-topic rambling be preserved at all costs for internal use. That’s not how these forums work. What’s the point of having rules against off-topic comments if you get away with them through an “off-topic” code?

Though it’s a bit sad knowing the new user I answered to might not come back.

Well, that happens all the time and it’s not a big deal. There are 735,143 registered members as of right now. 8,308 users online right this minute, out of which only 120 are members.

 

[S.V.]

Yes, I am suggesting people will do social things. And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.

I don't like sounding too direct. But I'm not feeling too well, sorry. Otherwise I would read the thread, as well.

 

[L'irlandais]

Yes, I am suggesting people will do social things. And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.

I dont like sounding too direct. But I'm not feeling too well, sorry. Otherwise I would read the thread, as well.

No one is stopping you from sending a private message to the new member. Just try to understand that off topic chatter is white noise on a forum that supposts dictionaries.

 

[swift]

And the reason you say it cannot be done is not real.

I’m not going to ask you to elaborate on that because it’s really pointless. You need you look at the bigger picture:

I think you are forgetting the objectives of this forum: it is an addition to the WRF dictionaries

 

[S.V.]

On the contrary, the bigger picture would be fomenting a vibrant community. A human dictionary is more valuable than the definition at the top of any search engine.

 

[Sowka]

On the contrary, the bigger picture would be fomenting a vibrant community. A human dictionary is more valuable than the definition at the top of any search engine.

As a dictionary user, I disagree. It's a nuisance having to wade through threads that are largely off-topic when you are searching for something particular.

That precisely is why I joined WordReference (and not another forum where there are large amounts of chat) as a user more than eleven years ago.

 

[S.V.]

Yes, I understand, Sowka. But we are social animals, and a modern website can do both at the same time. That was all I came to mention.

As with other things in life, instead of going against biology, you work with it in mind.

 

[elroy]

a modern website can do both at the same time.

Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.

 

[S.V.]

Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.

Yes, what we want and what is are often different things. I believe Solo Español could be a vibrant forum. But in the end, attachment to permanence becomes suffering. We have to move on.

 

[swift]

Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.

Some people have started their own forums, looking for that kind of social message board experience. They have invited members of the WRF community to join their brand new websites where they can finally be themselves and share their thoughts without all the moderation they disagree with. And they have ended up creating a private chatroom with very low engagement and virtually 0% growth. The funny thing is they always copy and paste the WRF rules about chatting and staying on-topic almost verbatim.

 

[Rocko!]

just as you hide links from public users(1), you could hide off-topic chat.

That's a wonderful idea, and maybe it could be added to these hidden posts: "this off-topic post will be deleted in 1 day", and to invite someone to be a moderator in charge of these "1 day posts", in order to delete all of them. I know some users that are eager-eager-eager to be a mod .
Or the forum could remain as it is at the moment and take as normal that people say "too many postings get deleted" or "few postings get deleted".

 

[swift]

Some forum members seem to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with. Experience has shown that they never outsmart the mods.

 

[Circunflejo]

If you look up a word in an established (paper) dictionary, let's say "red", and you see the description: "primary color", would you expect to see a note in the entry of "red" that says that "color" is spelled differently in BrE?

It would be indeed a nice addition. In fact, in Spanish, the dictionary of the RAE (the regulatory body of the Spanish language in coordination with the counterpart academies in the other Spanish speaking countries) quotes different spellings (without quoting geographic areas) on some entries on its online dictionary (not sure about the last paper edition but this is an online forum so it shouldn't matter). For example, if you look for enseguida, you'll se a note saying that it's also spelled en seguida: enseguida | Diccionario de la lengua española

If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation.

No one is stopping you from sending a private message to the new member.

I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.

You seem to be suggesting that off-topic rambling be preserved at all costs for internal use. That’s not how these forums work.

I guess that he knows that's not how the forums work but this is the comments and suggestions forum so I guess he can make a suggestion, can't he? We could discuss whether making it as a reply on this thread is the way to go or if a new thread should have been opened but if suggestions can't be made on the comments and suggestions forum, it's about time to close the comments and suggestions forum.

Maybe it can, but it doesn’t want to.

A website by itself doesn't want anything. It's the owner of the website who wants things to be one way or another. No idea of what he (the owner of this site) would think about @S.V.'s suggestion.

Some forum members seem to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with. Experience has shown that they never outsmart the mods.

The last statement is at odds with this previous post by @Peterdg (by the way you agreed with Peterdg's post):

As far as I can see and as far as I know, you mostly post in the English-Spanish forum and in the Sólo español forum. If you are referring to these forums where posts with bare links are deleted, then you must be referring to an exception. There are plenty of recent posts with "bare links", mostly referring to a paragraph of the NGLE or the DPD.

 

[swift]

I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.

That is a nice feature of these forums. People are free to decide whether they want to receive PMs or not, and if you(*) realize someone you are trying to contact has turned off that feature, then let them be and move on.

A website by itself doesn't want anything.

Synecdoche - Wikipedia

The last statement is at odds with this previous post by @Peterdg (by the way you agreed with Peterdg's post)

It is not.

Overall, your last post is so absurd it really makes me wonder whether you are trying to help. This is the Comments & Suggestions forum, all right. The whole point of a forum is to discuss and provide arguments. Disagreement does not mean silencing or asking people to refrain from speaking up their mind. The amount of logical fallacies you are able to produce is amazing.

---

(*) Generic you = anyone.

 

[Circunflejo]

It is not.

Do you mean that the users that made all those posts with bare links that weren't deleted didn't outsmart the mods? Well, I don't see it that way. On the other hand, if you mean that those users didn't intend

to derive satisfaction from pushing the boundaries and putting the moderators to the test to see how lenient they are and how much they can get away with

you might have a point.

Overall, your last post is so absurd it really makes me wonder whether you are trying to help.

It's not absurd at all (or so I think) but I think it's pretty obvious that you are struggling to identify the helping aim behind my posts. It also happened to me with some of your posts on this thread. For example, I too wondered whether by replying in the comments and suggestions forum that's not how these forums works (post 116 of this thread), you were really trying to help. Stuff that (sometimes) happens when different users have different points of view about a subject and those different points of view have little in common.

 

[swift]

Dude, try harder. Your reasoning is flawed and you’re not proving anything.

 

[L'irlandais]

I would kindly remind both of you that some users have a settings' configuration that doesn't allow to send them PMs.

Why on earth might that be?

 

[Sowka]

Why on earth might that be?

It is a possible setting, and everbody is free to choose the setting they feel comfortable with. Someone might find private conversations unnecessary, others might fear that they may get spam messages... Ultimately, it's a personal choice that we should respect.

In this case, however, my suggestion

If you want to help someone with a question that is off-topic in a thread, you may send them a Conversation.

would not be applicable, and we all would have to live with that. Because we all want to adhere to forum rule 2.

 

[Circunflejo]

Dude, try harder. Your reasoning is flawed and you’re not proving anything.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[merquiades]

Perhaps in the future there could be a function, say right-clicking on someone's name in a given thread with a small window opening up to write a private message, so a certain forero/a could be contacted immediately for comments not dealing with the topic of the thread. It would be easy and maybe deter people from starting unrelated side discussions. This could be used for providing an extra translation, correcting spelling, giving any other type of comment, feedback or social interaction you so want that would otherwise break the rules if you wrote it in the open thread. Maybe it might even be possible to right-click on several people and have a multi person chat, all private and behind closed doors/ never being published nor deleted. That could bring sheer joy for the foreros/as wanting a vibrant social forum but would preserve the true threads from side chats so tomorrow's people can read them and get precise answers.
Again if someone has his/her private messages turned off for whatever reason, that's just too bad. You'll know he doesn't want this extra social help/aspect/interaction.
I don't know what functions can and will be possible as I am far from the geek type of person.

 

[swift]

I think that functionality is already available, Merq. You just need to click on/hover over the user’s name and a smaller contact card will appear, which will let you start a convo with them. Moreover, you will know immediately if that person has turned off conversations because the private message button will not appear among the regular options (follow, ignore, start conversation).

 

[merquiades]

I think that functionality is already available, Merq. You just need to click on/hover over the user’s name and a smaller contact card will appear, which will let you start a convo with them. Moreover, you will know immediately if that person has turned off conversations because the private message button will not appear among the regular options (follow, ignore, start conversation).

Yes, indeed. I had never tried to hover over someone's name before. So I guess there really is no reason anymore for side chat.

 

[elroy]

I don't think the problem is an unavailability of alternatives. The problem is that it's often very, very hard to resist wandering off-topic. It's human nature: as participants in the conversation, we have a tendency to, well, treat it like a real conversation and go with the flow, tangents and all. Speaking for myself, even as a moderator and one of the most veteran members of this forum (I joined two weeks after the forums opened!), I still sometimes have to consciously stop myself from posting an off-topic comment.

 

[Circunflejo]

The problem is that it's often very, very hard to resist wandering off-topic. It's human nature

I don't think it's so hard to resist it but if to wander off-topic is human nature, the forum would be against human nature... and I think we'll agree that's not the best presentation letter for the forum.

 

[swift]

156 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes, 30 seconds, 140 posts, and countless different topics later, there is still 0 evidence to support the claim that ‘too many posts get deleted here’. But, more importantly, we have focused on the moderators’ actions, while, if proven to be true, the fact that ‘too many posts get deleted here’ could also say something about the foreros’ behavior.

 

[Peterdg]

but if to wander off-topic is human nature, the forum would be against human nature... and I think we'll agree that's not the best presentation letter for the forum.

Driving too fast is human nature (apparently especially, but not exclusively, true for younger male civilians with too much tostesteron flowing through their bodies) and yet, it is forbidden and it has consequences.

So, what kind of argument is that? Is speed limitation not "the best presentation" for the the world we live in?

 

[Circunflejo]

156 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes, 30 seconds, 140 posts, and countless different topics later, there is still 0 evidence to support the claim that ‘too many posts get deleted here’.

Two comments:

1. Nobody asked for it (for evidence) till post 94 even though 3 mods had already answered on this thread and you yourself had made 9 posts without requesting it. By the way, post 94 was made more than 5 months later than the original post when the original poster and most of the users that agreed with his point of view seemed to have left the thread (some of them maybe even the forum).
2. It's evident that the users that claimed that too many posts get deleted here perceived it to be a reality/evidence. Perception of reality is as relevant as reality itself so we shouldn't overlook it.

But, more importantly, we have focused on the moderators’ actions, while, if proven to be true, the fact that ‘too many posts get deleted here’ could also say something about the foreros’ behavior.

You are free to talk about the foreros' behavior whenever you want (or so I think).

Driving too fast is human nature (apparently especially, but not exclusively, true for younger male civilians with too much tostesteron flowing through their bodies) and yet, it is forbidden and it has consequences.

It's debatable whether driving too fast is human nature as well as it's debatable whether wandering off-topic is human nature but to compare the consequencies that may have wandering off-topic in a forum with the consequences that may have driving too fast is... well, I think it's better if I don't qualify it.

 

[L'irlandais]

It was quickly made evident (#5) that the OP was talking about off topic posts. Since it is clear in the rules that these are not allowed, there is no discussion. Either he sends a pm to the members he wishes to chat with, or ceates a new discussion thread to discuss whatever topic he wishes. In answer to #139 - neither option is very difficult to do. I suspect that those who strongly object to having the very occasional post deleted, try running an online forum for a while. Why would anyone ask a software house for expensive code changes to accommodate those who choose not to obey the forum rules, as they currently stand?

That the OP reverted to his native language (#12) getting his point across may hint at the underlying difficulty. Also citing banned members (#52) in one’s defence is probably not very convincing.

 

[machadinho]

How about this: instead of deleting them, moderators could simply fold off-topic messages and parallel conversations out of view? Any user who wished to read them anyway would then just click on an "expand" button or something to bring them back temporarily into view.

 

[DonnyB]

How about this: instead of deleting them, moderators could simply fold off-topic messages and parallel conversations out of view? Any user who wished to read them anyway would then just click on an "expand" button or something to bring them back temporarilty into view.

Thank you for the suggestion.

We can already do that up to a point in that we can split a thread and give a substantial off-topic digression a new thread of its own. However, to have 'concealed' off-topic posts in the way you're suggesting would entail adding the capability for us to do it to the forum software - and given that its purpose would be to enable members to specifically break Rule 2 ( One topic per thread / No chatting ) I can't somehow envisage Mike [the Administrator] regarding that as a productive use of his time.

 

[machadinho]

Thanks for having replied, Donny. Deleting posts for being off topic and summarily closing threads for being chatty hurt our feelings. The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.

 

[Sowka]

Thanks for having replied, Donny. Deleting posts for being off topic and summarily closing threads for being chatty hurt our feelings. The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.

Only if the feature is equipped with an automatic chat detector that can autonomously hide the chatty posts.

The absence of rule 2 would increase the number of chat posts, of course, and thus increase the workload of the mods. Honestly, I also have... a balcony to take care of, books to read, dishes to do, ...

 

[machadinho]

I see. Well, maybe we could allow senior members to do (and to undo) post hidings by other senior members, though not by moderators. In this way the burden would be on the shoulders of a larger community.

 

[Sowka]

I see. Well, maybe we could allow senior members to do (and to undo) post hidings by other senior members, though not by moderators. In this way the burden would be on the shoulders of a larger community.

I can assure you: This would increase the number of complaints to moderators / the administrator because many people would feel that their posts were unchatty enough not to be hidden.

So, if "Senior Members" could hide "Senior Members'" chatty posts, why not take the easy path and simply use conversations for our chats?

(BTW, I've done that several times -- and found several friends that way with whom I share a whole lot of thoughts )

 

[machadinho]

why not take the easy path and simply use conversations for our chats?

Because conversations are private?