|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 13:02:07 GMT -5
It has been mentioned previously that there might be some benefit in adding a list of definitions and general criteria to the submissions page. The definitions of "fundie" and "darndest" were also included on the mainpage of the old site, but with the new site still in progress, this has not been added. The question has been raised as to whether there would even be a point to adding these items to the new site. Whether they are to be included or not this time around, I believe it would be beneficial if we could at least come to some sort of agreement on what these definitions should be and what other content-related standards should be in the minds of those who submit, those who PubAd, and those who comment when they so do. To that end, I would like to hold a discussion/debate in which we can hopefully come to a general consensus as to what is and is not "fundie", what is and is not "darndest", and what makes a good quote verses what qualities (or lack thereof) should be avoided. As agreements are made and examples to illustrate them are provided, I will update the first post to reflect and present whatever changes and/or approved illustrative contributions have been made. Note: this is not the thread to create the poe list. If there is not a thread for that purpose already, one will be made. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Definitions:Fundie:[/b] Someone who takes something to it's most extreme point, where it becomes illogical. Examples/Illustrations: a great deal of people cannot seem to distinguish between "fundie" and "religious", or even "spiritual". statements that are illogical, but basically benign, do not belong here. Simple statements of belief shouldn't be submitted "I believe in angels" = not fundie "Angels will come down on judgment day and kill the heathens, and I look forward to it" = fundie Darndest:Something that makes you scratch your head and wonder how humanity could be so stupid. Examples/Illustrations: Other Guidelines:- MULTI-QUOTES THAT NEITHER PROVIDE NECESSARY CONTEXT NOR PRESENT AN OBVIOUS AND FLUID DIALOG WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE KILLED ON SIGHT! (ruling by Distind)
- REPEATEDLY SUBMITTING A QUOTE THAT HAS FAILED WILL RESULT IN DELETION! REPEATED OFFENSES WILL RESULT IN CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SUBMITTER! (ruling by Distind)
- If the quote is tl;dr don't post it.
- If the quote is clearly out of place don't post it.
- Don't be an idiot.
- warning against editorializing
- no altering source names
- no altering fundie names
- don't make shit up
- check for poe
Examples/Illustrations: |
|
MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 11, 2009 13:49:18 GMT -5
Definitions
Fundie:
Someone who takes something to it's most extreme point, where it becomes illogical.
Darndest:
Something that makes you scratch your head and wonder how humanity could be so stupid.
Guidelines
If the quote is tl;dr don't post it.
If the quote is clearly out of place don't post it.
Don't be an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 13:54:10 GMT -5
You're trying to make things too foolproof. You can't. "Guidelines" = just another set of rules. Too many rules inhibit free debate and fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 14:11:14 GMT -5
I'm not trying to make it foolproof. I know better than to think that's even possible. I know that there are many people who will completely ignore this, even if it does get added to the site, and even among those who do read it there will exist those who decide they don't care and will submit their tripe anyway. There are, however, people out there who would not only look at it, but also take it to heart and would save people going through the PubAd a lot of headache (not to mention Distind and the mods) as well as hopefully increase the quality of what does end up on the mainpage.
"Free debate and fun" is one thing. Mindless asshattery is another, and that's the sort of thing I'd like to help steer us away from.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 14:16:59 GMT -5
Actually, mindless asshattery has been a part of this site since the beginning. It too, can be part of the fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 11, 2009 14:17:13 GMT -5
How would clarifying what's an acceptable submission inhibit debate? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is no more than telling people beforehand what will (should) be deleted in Public Admin.
Of course, making the system foolproof is impossible. The point is making sure people know and agree on what this site is supposed to be about.
By the way, guidelines should include a warning against editorializing.
ETA:Apparently I missed LadyRenae's post where she explains it better than I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 14:29:18 GMT -5
Current, I wouldn't say I explained it better than you did, just differently, and your post included bits that mine missed. I'd call it more complementary if anything.
Also, I'm going to update the first post to include what has been stated thus far, and I would like to add that specific wording is always up for debate, and I am not going to try to word anything myself unless asked (or unless I'm debating on altering a pre-existing wording with someone) as I would feel awkward about it due to the fact that I created the thread.
EDIT: Update completed.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 16:18:13 GMT -5
How would clarifying what's an acceptable submission inhibit debate? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is no more than telling people beforehand what will (should) be deleted in Public Admin. Of course, making the system foolproof is impossible. The point is making sure people know and agree on what this site is supposed to be about. By the way, guidelines should include a warning against editorializing. ETA:Apparently I missed LadyRenae's post where she explains it better than I did. The "editorializing" gets an automatic delete from me, as does misspelling the link and so on. Unless, of course, the quote is just too good to pass up. That's common sense and been beaten to death. We need to use caution when we start "codifying" everything. The site is intended to be fun, and I just want to keep it fun, that's all. I have never done well with "authority". |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 11, 2009 16:21:47 GMT -5
The poll is incredibly confusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 17:28:36 GMT -5
DefinitionsFundie: Someone who takes something to it's most extreme point, where it becomes illogical. Darndest: Something that makes you scratch your head and wonder how humanity could be so stupid. GuidelinesIf the quote is tl;dr don't post it. If the quote is clearly out of place don't post it. Don't be an idiot. QFT! |
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 11, 2009 20:33:40 GMT -5
The "editorializing" gets an automatic delete from me, as does misspelling the link and so on. Unless, of course, the quote is just too good to pass up. That's common sense and been beaten to death. We need to use caution when we start "codifying" everything. The site is intended to be fun, and I just want to keep it fun, that's all. I have never done well with "authority". Yes, the site is intended to be fun, we are in full agreement there. The whole point of the guidelines is telling people "if you do this your quote won't get through". Ideally, they would be more of a warning than rules, really, since the quotes that go against them shouldn't go through anyway. IMO, stopping the crap before it gets here would make the experience more fun, since the really good quotes are not diluted amongst the bad ones. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 20:39:26 GMT -5
The "editorializing" gets an automatic delete from me, as does misspelling the link and so on. Unless, of course, the quote is just too good to pass up. That's common sense and been beaten to death. We need to use caution when we start "codifying" everything. The site is intended to be fun, and I just want to keep it fun, that's all. I have never done well with "authority". Yes, the site is intended to be fun, we are in full agreement there. The whole point of the guidelines is telling people "if you do this your quote won't get through". Ideally, they would be more of a warning than rules, really, since the quotes that go against them shouldn't go through anyway. IMO, stopping the crap before it gets here would make the experience more fun, since the really good quotes are not diluted amongst the bad ones. I'm not really such an asshole, I just get worried that we will lose sight of why we're here and where we came from, that's all. It is important not to lose sight of that. It isn't supposed to be all that serious. |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Mar 11, 2009 21:22:47 GMT -5
I'm not really such an asshole, I just get worried that we will lose sight of why we're here and where we came from, that's all. It is important not to lose sight of that. It isn't supposed to be all that serious. Honestly, that's why a lot of this is going up in the first place. Look at the archives. Go back before public admin, I couldn't stop laughing reading that stuff, it was funny or so frustrating I couldn't help but laugh at my own irritation. Then with an unrestrained public approval system which could be used by anyone to approve thier own quotes with minimal effort came into play. I'd like to get the main page back to where it's worth reading again, rather than a pile of the same old crap over again. That was what always made it for me, that they could find new and inventive ways to be fucked in the head, screwed by their own beliefs or even just ignorant and/or bigoted. I was thinking we lost a lot of that by having simple declarations of faith and the same type of crap cluttering the main page up. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 22:41:36 GMT -5
I agree and concur, Distind. I guess I'm one of the "slippery slope" guys. I was a bit perturbed by the what to do with Skyfire thread, and then I saw all this "rules" stuff filling up the forums and I was concerned, that's all. Anyway, as long as we retain some level of anarchy and mayhem, I'm happy. Shit, we tolerated a holocaust denier, a crazy assed fundy preacher, a WWF xian retard with a persecution complex and Skyfire. I love that shit, really. Go back and read the "kirk" thread from the old site. That shit is hilarious, side splitting pee your pants funny. I would hate to lose that sort of anarchy.
I just don't want to see us get all hung up on rules and guidelines and all the shit that goes with that, that's all. It's all supposed to be FUN, right? I just want us to keep it that way, that's all.
I will say though, that I also agree that the level of batshit crazy stuff is diminishing. Maybe we're winning?
Edit:
Back in the olden days, Yahweh used to approve/deny the quotes herself, then allowed the mods to do it, then threw it open to one and all. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 11, 2009 23:37:30 GMT -5
The poll is incredibly confusing. Yeah, I apologize for that... I made a little option at the bottom that's basically the vote to complain about the poll, and it's why I enabled two votes instead of just one, so you could select both your actual choice and the "CONFUSING POLL!!! AAA!" option if you so chose. The "editorializing" gets an automatic delete from me, as does misspelling the link and so on. Unless, of course, the quote is just too good to pass up. That's common sense and been beaten to death. It might be common sense to you and many of the people on the forums, but there are those to whom it is NOT common sense, and these people won't go into anaphylactic shock if we give them a gentle reminder that such things are not considered appropriate. Also, now that we have the ability to alter quotes in the PubAd, auto delete is not necessary. Simply judge the quote as you would without the offending editorializing (or abstain if it's really an issue for you), and notify a mod. You might catch one in the IRC, but if that isn't possible you can use the thread created for the purpose of reporting such things. Hopefully, we can get to it in time. If we don't, we don't. Sometimes good quotes get lost. It happens. We need to use caution when we start "codifying" everything. The site is intended to be fun, and I just want to keep it fun, that's all. Just because we're making clearer guidelines doesn't mean we're subtracting fun. In fact, we will be increasing it, because people will better enjoy visiting the site and reading the quotes due to there being a higher quality of quote available for the majority populace to read. I fail to see how this could possibly be a bad thing. In fact, people were complaining about the poor quality of available quotes before the site move due to the overabundance of the very things these guidelines will try to steer people away from. As far as "not forgetting where we came from", that's the whole reason I started this. I became part of the forums in order to restore the mainpage. This has been my goal as a member of FSTDT from day one, and it is not something I will easily abandon, because I have worked hard on it, and I have invested a significant amount of my time and energy into it, and I am not about to let that go to waste by walking out on it mid-stride. Basically like Distind said, only different and more personal. ^-^ I have never done well with "authority". I actually understand this a lot, and I promise you I am not the enemy here. I will listen to what you have to say, actually listen, and take it into account when I make my decisions. I welcome criticism, suggestions, anything constructive you can give me, and I am not going to ignore you simply because you say something I don't agree with. I also will not bow to the masses simply because they are the masses, which is the direction the mainpage had been festering in for a while before I came along, and even after the move it is threatening to do so again. I understand the value of anarchy, but this has not been anarchy. It has been ideological trolling, which will not be tolerated. This is where authority figures come in handy, and that is the main role I intend to play. I mod to the detriment of the trolls and the benefit of the community, not the other way around. If you see me doing otherwise, I encourage you to call me out. You will be heard. Sorry if I rambled a bit... this post has been in progress for hours, and I got called away to help a friend in the middle of it... but hopefully I got my message across. EDIT: The only thing this will affect is the mainpage. It will NOT affect the forums except to slightly alter who is more likely to come to the forums because the quality of quotes, which is what draws people to the forums (I think) will be different. We are not even putting together anything new. What we're doing is collecting in one place things that the members already had in mind but never wrote down. We are writing it down, not to make new rules, but to present the guidelines that already exist in our minds to the general public of submissions and mainpage visitors. Nothing new is being created here, except for the actual list of known poes, but that's just a convenience. Additionally, we have found that "happy medium", we're just fine-tuning it. The way the admin currently works is that a select few people hand-approved by Distind are allowed to go through PubAd approving and disapproving quotes. By hand-selecting a balanced group of non-mods (and a few mods) from the forums to do this, we are essentially finding that rich equilibrium between micro-management and chaos. It needs some tweaking, yes, but we've only just begun. Give us time. |
|
