AARoads Forum

Meta => Suggestions and Questions => Topic started by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 07:22:02 PM

Title: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 07:22:02 PM
Due to some recent events, we have added a couple of new rules to the list. These rules take effect immediately.

The first is pretty simple:
Quote
What's not allowed:

Posts that have no discernible meaning, only random text, or lack sufficient context to form the basis of or contribute to a discussion.

Basically, every post on the forum should present some sort of idea that either starts a meaningful conversation or forms a part of an on-going one. Nonsense, incoherent rambling, random non-sequiturs, just restating the post above yours in different words, and posts that don't give enough context for anyone to give a meaningful response all fall under this rule. These posts will be deleted (as they already are), and you'll probably receive a warning. Simple enough; 99% of you should have no problem here.

The other may require a little bit more explanation:
Quote
What's not allowed:

Excessive posting. Users posting messages at a high frequency (such as more than 8 posts in an hour or 32 posts over a 24-hour period) may be subject to a temporary cool-down ban if the moderation team judges that a user is making a high rate of low-quality posts.

Going along with the above, we want this forum to be a place for meaningful discussion. Writing a meaningful post is a process that takes a little bit of time and thoughtfulness behind it. Therefore, we are establishing a soft posting rate limit to encourage users to take their time creating interesting posts other users want to read, and to have a way to cut off users who are filling up threads with a high number of low-effort posts.

I want to emphasize here that this is a soft rate limit and the quoted numbers are merely the point at which one of us will check up on your recent post history. Any moderator action that happens then depends on the quality of the posts you made. If, for example, you're away from the forum for a while and then have a burst of activity while you're catching up, we're not going to do anything as long as all of the posts you make are positive contributions to the forum.

If you have any questions, this thread is open for discussion. Thanks for your participation in the forum, guys; I know it sucks having more rules to keep track of, but we want to keep this a place everyone enjoys coming to.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1 on July 30, 2021, 07:55:21 PM
Almost all of my posts are short, except when I begin a thread. Will this new rule affect me?

My other question is that is the "8 per hour, 32 per 24 hours" automated, meaning that it will automatically alert a moderator if someone passes it?
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 08:09:58 PM
My other question is that is the "8 per hour, 32 per 24 hours" automated, meaning that it will automatically alert a moderator if someone passes it?

Yeah, that bugs me too. It would not be uncommon for me to post more than eight replies in one sitting while reading the forum.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2021, 08:13:40 PM
oh
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2021, 08:44:28 PM
Almost all of my posts are short, except when I begin a thread. Will this new rule affect me?

Probably not. Short ≠ low effort, necessarily. A brief but meaningful contribution to a discussion is always welcome.

Here's an example of a post that could theoretically be sanctioned under the rules:
oh
Can't imagine why someone would bother posting something lame like that, but I dunno, it could happen.

My other question is that is the "8 per hour, 32 per 24 hours" automated, meaning that it will automatically alert a moderator if someone passes it?

No. We don't automate moderation at all, and probably never will. This ain't Menlo Park.

This will be implemented by someone noticing "hey, X is posting a lot lately", going to their post history, and manually looking over the posts. If they are good posts, then nothing happens. The numbers there are a rule of thumb for those who are unclear on the concept of "quality over quantity" and need a more concrete guideline to follow as to what that means.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 30, 2021, 09:01:27 PM
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2021, 09:10:23 PM
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.

Reread the above, that number was just a hypothetical example.  There isnít a black and white rule that objectively states a quantity alone would be a problem.  If the posts are quality in nature there wouldnít be an issue.  Seemed fairly straight forward the way I read things.   
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 30, 2021, 09:11:20 PM
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.

Reread the above, that number was just a hypothetical example.  There isnít a black and white rule that objectively states a quantity alone would be a problem.  If the posts are quality in nature there wouldnít be an issue.  Seemed fairly straight forward the way I read things.
I should be fine, although some of my posts are useless so I will try to cut those out.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 30, 2021, 09:15:32 PM
Thank you for implementing these new rules. I think we do need to hold posts to a higher quality and divert irrelevant discussion (or non-discussion) to another location.

Please do continue your policy of "no automated moderation" though. There are those days (or parts of a day) when my mind is racing along and I have lots of posts that I want to make that seem decent enough to me. I wouldn't want to be flagged and blocked from posting as a cooldown automatically.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2021, 01:27:33 AM
Thank you for implementing these new rules. I think we do need to hold posts to a higher quality and divert irrelevant discussion (or non-discussion) to another location.

Please do continue your policy of "no automated moderation" though. There are those days (or parts of a day) when my mind is racing along and I have lots of posts that I want to make that seem decent enough to me. I wouldn't want to be flagged and blocked from posting as a cooldown automatically.
Don't worry. We discussed the restrictions and we agree that this doesn't really change how we've been doing business, it's just a clearer explanation of why we make the decisions we do.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2021, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: Anybody
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.

Quote from: Anyone
I should be fine, although some of my posts are useless so I will try to cut those out.

I would think if you need to ask multiple questions regarding the posting guidelines and how you would be affected, maybe you're affected.

If you have to sit there and look at your stats to determine if you've posted 7 times in the past 56 minutes and are waiting 5 minutes to avoid getting the stink eye, maybe you should determine if any of those other 7 posts weren't really quality posts to begin with.  If they were, then you should have nothing to worry about by posting 8 times in 57 minutes.

I seriously doubt the admins are going to take a hard look at most people.  If you're having a good discussion, providing some great examples, you're fine.  If you're having one-line arguments with someone or posting rather pointless questions, give it some thought.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 31, 2021, 06:35:11 PM
Quote from: Anybody
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.

Quote from: Anyone
I should be fine, although some of my posts are useless so I will try to cut those out.

I would think if you need to ask multiple questions regarding the posting guidelines and how you would be affected, maybe you're affected.

If you have to sit there and look at your stats to determine if you've posted 7 times in the past 56 minutes and are waiting 5 minutes to avoid getting the stink eye, maybe you should determine if any of those other 7 posts weren't really quality posts to begin with.  If they were, then you should have nothing to worry about by posting 8 times in 57 minutes.

I seriously doubt the admins are going to take a hard look at most people.  If you're having a good discussion, providing some great examples, you're fine.  If you're having one-line arguments with someone or posting rather pointless questions, give it some thought.
Well the rules are not absolute, they seem like mostly guidelines to me.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2021, 06:37:29 PM
Quote from: Anybody
Would I be breaking the quantity rules? I have posted more than 32 posts in a day before. And I often wake up late so I do a catchup spurt at about 1 pm that is sometimes more than 8 posts but not usually.

Quote from: Anyone
I should be fine, although some of my posts are useless so I will try to cut those out.

I would think if you need to ask multiple questions regarding the posting guidelines and how you would be affected, maybe you're affected.

If you have to sit there and look at your stats to determine if you've posted 7 times in the past 56 minutes and are waiting 5 minutes to avoid getting the stink eye, maybe you should determine if any of those other 7 posts weren't really quality posts to begin with.  If they were, then you should have nothing to worry about by posting 8 times in 57 minutes.

I seriously doubt the admins are going to take a hard look at most people.  If you're having a good discussion, providing some great examples, you're fine.  If you're having one-line arguments with someone or posting rather pointless questions, give it some thought.
Well the rules are not absolute, they seem like mostly guidelines to me.

Iím pretty sure youíll be fine if you arenít playing peekaboo with gross Vegans.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2021, 07:53:33 PM
Well the rules are not absolute, they seem like mostly guidelines to me.

Yes, but if you find yourself consistently over them, or if you come close, you should perhaps make a willful effort to ration your posting. That is, think of it as a hard limit and consider "Do I really want to use one of my 32 posts today on this?"

Also, remember that just because you open and read a thread, you don't have to post in it. There are plenty of times a normal user will open a thread, read through it, and then return to the thread listing because they simply don't have anything to say that would be worth reading.

Social media sites want you to post/like/retweet as much as possible because they're all based around "engagement". If you react to things, the algorithm knows you care about them, which means it can feed you ads about them. We're not based around engagement, we're based around discussion. Sometimes the best way to contribute to a discussion is to just shut up.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2021, 08:23:20 PM
^^^^^

Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:17:22 PM
It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 31, 2021, 09:19:41 PM
Well the rules are not absolute, they seem like mostly guidelines to me.

Yes, but if you find yourself consistently over them, or if you come close, you should perhaps make a willful effort to ration your posting. That is, think of it as a hard limit and consider "Do I really want to use one of my 32 posts today on this?"

Also, remember that just because you open and read a thread, you don't have to post in it. There are plenty of times a normal user will open a thread, read through it, and then return to the thread listing because they simply don't have anything to say that would be worth reading.

Social media sites want you to post/like/retweet as much as possible because they're all based around "engagement". If you react to things, the algorithm knows you care about them, which means it can feed you ads about them. We're not based around engagement, we're based around discussion. Sometimes the best way to contribute to a discussion is to just shut up.
I don't come close to 32 posts anymore, mostly 15-25 posts per day for me.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: renegade on August 01, 2021, 01:06:05 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2021, 01:06:57 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: renegade on August 01, 2021, 01:14:26 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.
This is why new guidelines are needed.  It is not necessary for you to reply to this.  Like most of my posts, it was not necessarily directed at you.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 01, 2021, 01:26:15 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.

No, fuck that. If people have concerns that are making them feel uncomfortable here, we need to know about them so they can be addressed. Forcing people to paper a smiling happy face over their concerns for the sake of being positive doesn't work at a job where people get paid to show up; it sure as hell wouldn't work on a site that's free where people can leave at any time with no consequences if they're not feeling it.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2021, 02:40:10 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.
This is why new guidelines are needed.  It is not necessary for you to reply to this.  Like most of my posts, it was not necessarily directed at you.
I was being sarcastic there.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2021, 02:42:24 AM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.
This is why new guidelines are needed.  It is not necessary for you to reply to this.  Like most of my posts, it was not necessarily directed at you.
I was being sarcastic there.
That's two posts toward your limit. Were they necessary? (Again, we are not specifically counting posts per se, but we're aware of who posts high amounts of low quality.)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: TheGrassGuy on August 01, 2021, 09:58:17 AM
You can probably still make more than 8 posts if they're all good quality. ;-)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 01, 2021, 04:08:53 PM
There’s also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.

I have done this more than a few times, especially on the more hot-button threads. But sometimes I find myself just closing the tab because my post just seems bad or I don't feel like launching a tactical nuke of a post. If you aren't doing this every so often, and you're just posting every little thing that comes into your head, you're probably doing something wrong.

Also, remember that just because you open and read a thread, you don't have to post in it. There are plenty of times a normal user will open a thread, read through it, and then return to the thread listing because they simply don't have anything to say that would be worth reading.

Cases like this are where I wonder if it's worth bringing up the upvote discussion again. Upvotes are great for things you appreciate, laughed at, agree with, etc. but also don't have anything new to say about. Back in the day, I saw a lot of "+1" posts when nothing else could be said. I know stuff like that can divulge into a popularity contest of sorts, however they're just tools at the end of the day: tools that can be abused, or tools that can make the forum a more enjoyable place.

Usually the reason people turn upvotes into a popularity contest is because they're trying to accumulate a high upvote count across the forum. If you enable upvotes, just don't have a running tally for a user. That solves the problem for the most part.

I just thought it would be worth mentioning this again.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 04:11:19 PM
Thereís also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.
I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.
It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 :hmm:
We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.

No, fuck that. If people have concerns that are making them feel uncomfortable here, we need to know about them so they can be addressed. Forcing people to paper a smiling happy face over their concerns for the sake of being positive doesn't work at a job where people get paid to show up; it sure as hell wouldn't work on a site that's free where people can leave at any time with no consequences if they're not feeling it.

I'm more uncomfortable about the absence of posts here, not the presence of posts. Interpret that as you wish. ;-)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 02, 2021, 02:56:34 PM
To my eyes, this change is obviously a method by which to legitimize the moderation of shit-posting.

There have been several users lately who have spammed the forum with things like "and what's up with this?" or "could this have been a parclo?" or similar dross.  Then there are those of us (myself included) who occasionally like to channel our inner NE2 and post something like "wut" or "no".  Over the last few years, we forum members have seemed to grow more capable of self-moderating when the discussion starts to turn to politics or religion or whatever, more capable of just keeping our mouth shut to avoid a flame war and purple text.  But, when it comes to shit-posting, we either (a) are a user who doesn't even realize he's doing it or (b) can't control ourselves.  When it comes to up-votes and snarky one-word replies, no new content is generated but at least the damage is contained.  When it comes to posting a dozen dumb questions, though, everybody tastes the Spam.

While I support the moderation of things like excessive profanity, off-topic fighting, personal attacks, etcóthings that make the forum an unwelcoming placeóI do hesitate to support the moderation of content quality.  (Unlike HB, I see moderation of the forum w/r/t the former as being more akin to a store manager confronting rude customers, less like the government restricting citizen behavior.)  In general, the longer members hang out on the forum, the better their content gets.  But the problems I outlined above may not be self-correctable.

So where does this leave me?  In my opinion, this is an unfortunate but necessary turn of events.  I also trust that the moderators will not use a heavy hand, or else members who might be in jeopardy would already have been warned even without the new restrictions.

Edited to remove replies to deleted posts. -S.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: jakeroot on August 03, 2021, 05:49:43 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted despite not having anything to do with the surrounding conversation (my fault, I suppose), so I want to repeat it as it has been helpful for me.

When I'm writing a post on AARoads, I generally follow the guidance of each post being more like an email: not necessarily as formal as a written letter, but not casual like a text message. There is a middle ground that should try and be achieved. Too long and people skip past it; too short (like three to eight words) and it becomes increasingly difficult to add meaningful conversation to the thread. Too bizarre and unrelated and people start to question your mental stability, and may begin to ignore you altogether.

There is a reason that schools often put caps on writing assignments: it is easy enough to get your point across over dozens of paragraphs, but it's much harder when you're limited. No one wants to read an essay, but maybe extrapolate a bit more: if you pose a question, maybe explain why you're asking it; if you disagree or agree with another post, explain your reasoning for doing so. Just try and add something that not only can be replied to, but is something that someone wants to reply to.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 03, 2021, 06:03:56 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 03, 2021, 06:09:49 PM
I disagree with the decision to delete all of those posts. Sure there was some silliness, but there was also some insightful comments that got lost in the shuffle.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2021, 06:16:19 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But heís made substantial post contributions in the long ago pastÖ 
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 03, 2021, 06:16:51 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But heís made substantial post contributions in the long ago pastÖ
That has nothing to do about if the post should be deleted or not.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 06:26:06 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted despite not having anything to do with the surrounding conversation (my fault, I suppose)[...]

Whichever mod truncated the thread appears to have done so by picking a cutoff point and using the "split off this post and all posts after it" function rather than picking and choosing which posts to keep and which to remove.

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

The only reason I didn't delete that is because it's such a perfect example of what not to do that I could highlight it as an example of such. I suspect that NE2 intended it to be ironic humor.

For what it's worth, I've restored your post.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2021, 06:29:05 PM
My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But heís made substantial post contributions in the long ago pastÖ
That has nothing to do about if the post should be deleted or not.

I disagree.  Today had one of the first insightful and non-trollish posts Iíve seen NE2 do in a very long time.  It seems like all heís inclined to do nowadays is just try to derail threads that annoy him.  I get the guy in the past has been a prolific contributor of historic information (Iíve even benefitted) but how long does someone like that get a free pass if we are talking about ďmeaningfulĒ post content?

I donít know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something Iíve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasnít holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.  Considering this forum is how I met/connected with a lot of people in the road world I guess that Iím inclined to keep chugging along here for the foreseeable future.

Granted, it doesnít help my case that I have a dull job which affords me way too much time to linger on road groups and forums.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 06:41:31 PM
I donít know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something Iíve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasnít holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.

And this is exactly the sort of re-evaluation we're trying to avoid by creating these rules. We don't want to lose users because someone is puttering through the thread listing posting one-and-a-half-sentence ill-considered hot takes without any consideration of how that affects the forum environment for everyone else.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback. The sad thing is that highway history is mostly only interesting to someone who is a roadgeek and has an interest in that specific area, and I suspect most of the Oklahoma roadgeeks already know the stuff I'd be posting about.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2021, 06:55:35 PM
I donít know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something Iíve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasnít holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.

And this is exactly the sort of re-evaluation we're trying to avoid by creating these rules. We don't want to lose users because someone is puttering through the thread listing posting one-and-a-half-sentence ill-considered hot takes without any consideration of how that affects the forum environment for everyone else.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback. The sad thing is that highway history is mostly only interesting to someone who is a roadgeek and has an interest in that specific area, and I suspect most of the Oklahoma roadgeeks already know the stuff I'd be posting about.

Donít get me wrong, I do support measures such as the one taken in the topic of this thread.  For the posters who have been around the road hobby for a long time I think we have some investment/responsibility to demonstrate a good example for those who are new about quality content.  I make jokes often regarding popular road Facebook groups but they are just another example why ďmoreĒ isnít often ďbetter.Ē 

Pertaining to historic content that more or less was an example of stuff I get motivated for.  There used to be other way higher content posts for other things too like road report reports, weird signage finds and even fictional highways.  I get it a lot of people well established in the hobby have combed over most of the major items long ago.  But that doesnít mean there isnít something new to find or a new angle worth exploring from a fresh perspective. 

I mean hell, Iím taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  Thatís example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isnít even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 03, 2021, 07:02:56 PM
But heís made substantial post contributions in the long ago pastÖ 

And here I liked to think I had too...  :)

The only reason I didn't delete that is because it's such a perfect example of what not to do that I could highlight it as an example of such.

Oh, wow, I didn't expect that to be the answer!  That's awesome.

I suspect that NE2 intended it to be ironic humor.\

you think?

Whichever mod truncated the thread appears to have done so by picking a cutoff point and using the "split off this post and all posts after it" function rather than picking and choosing which posts to keep and which to remove.

For what it's worth, I've restored your post.

Oh, wow.  I didn't expect that either.  Thank you for doing that, sir.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback.

such as (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7720.msg2591216#msg2591216)  ;-)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2021, 07:10:24 PM
By some strange coincidence, I find myself watching Chernobyl.

Like I said before, this thread should be locked.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 03, 2021, 07:53:58 PM
By some strange coincidence, I find myself watching Chernobyl.

Like I said before, this thread should be locked.
Did that comment add anything to the discussion? I think not.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: csw on August 03, 2021, 08:05:20 PM
I think the mods should unlock a random thread each time someone requests a lock. I also think the mods should get around to creating that muffin baking board I suggested a while ago...
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: NE2 on August 03, 2021, 11:18:27 PM
I mean hell, Iím taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  Thatís example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isnít even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.
I started but got pissed off when I realized the first decade was missing for several L and M states.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2021, 12:31:23 AM
FYI, a ton of posts got deleted when they started attacking a specific user (or two). I reviewed all of them and every single one either attacked or quoted an attack.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: J N Winkler on August 04, 2021, 02:49:33 PM
I mean hell, Iím taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  Thatís example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isnít even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Mapmikey on August 04, 2021, 03:41:34 PM
I mean hell, Iím taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  Thatís example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isnít even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").

I didn't know people wanted to keep seeing relatively small but unknown discoveries.  For instance the other day I found a document that requested US 42 extend to Memphis in the 1930s.  No documentation with the outcome (or in this instance why it didn't happen, though US 79 uses a lot of what was proposed)

Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 04, 2021, 05:27:43 PM
FYI, a ton of posts got deleted when they started attacking a specific user (or two). I reviewed all of them and every single one either attacked or quoted an attack.

The proper response to this, which I cannot believe has to be explicitly pointed out, is not to resume attacking specific users. Next person who does that in this thread gets a 70-point warning.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 04, 2021, 05:28:55 PM
I started but got pissed off when I realized the first decade was missing for several L and M states.

I didn't know people wanted to keep seeing relatively small but unknown discoveries.  For instance the other day I found a document that requested US 42 extend to Memphis in the 1930s.  No documentation with the outcome (or in this instance why it didn't happen, though US 79 uses a lot of what was proposed)

That sort of "relatively small" discovery is exactly what was generating new interest a few months ago.  I say, keep 'em coming!
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: NE2 on August 04, 2021, 05:59:39 PM
Other_NY_1933_6_US and Other_NY_1934__: AASHO proposed extending US 4 to Niagara via Northville-Lake Pleasant-Rome-Fulton-Rochester. NY said hell no, there's no good route between Fort Ann and Northville, and Northville to Poland kind of sucks too. NY countered with a route only west of US 11 (via Oswego instead of Fulton), and AASHO concurred.
AASHO also proposed extending US 220 or 309 via Ithaca and Auburn to Oswego.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 04, 2021, 10:04:07 PM
I mean hell, Iím taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  Thatís example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isnít even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").

Yes, there has been a crap load of older media that has popped up alongside the AASHTO Database.  For me the California Highways & Public Works (I received a recent donation of almost every physical volume) has been what I've really been pouring into as of late as it has literally everything I need to finish seriously looking into at least 90% of older highway alignments in California.  That said, I posted some major stuff from the AASHTO on Gribblenation and it hardly registers any attention.  The one that really got me was the exchanges between the AASHO and the Division of Highways which made it clear that US 66 was signed to Santa Monica years before it was officially extended there.  I keep finding things are big like that but even a lot of the smaller items historically can be nonetheless interesting.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 11:51:28 PM
Seems like a ton of posts got deleted here, and weíre back a pageÖ

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 havenít logged on the forum since this thread was posted? Considering heís one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 04, 2021, 11:52:03 PM
Seems like a ton of posts got deleted hereÖ

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 havenít logged on the forum since this thread was posted. Considering heís one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.
He told me that he's quitting.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Rothman on August 05, 2021, 06:58:44 AM
Seems like a ton of posts got deleted hereÖ

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 havenít logged on the forum since this thread was posted. Considering heís one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.
He told me that he's quitting.
*places bet on the quitter quitting the quitting*
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: thspfc on August 05, 2021, 09:05:08 AM
When did the forum become some sort of commitment that you are obligated to use, and you choose to not log on for a while you have to officially announce that youíre leaving? I know not everyone sees it that way but goodness me
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2021, 09:17:07 AM
Thatís how the kids (adults too) roll these days on social media platforms. 

Seems like a ton of posts got deleted hereÖ

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 havenít logged on the forum since this thread was posted. Considering heís one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.
He told me that he's quitting.
*places bet on the quitter quitting the quitting*

Unclear if that he was referring the forum or Mary Hannah. 
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Rothman on August 05, 2021, 09:17:50 AM
When did the forum become some sort of commitment that you are obligated to use, and you choose to not log on for a while you have to officially announce that youíre leaving? I know not everyone sees it that way but goodness me
First day on the Internet?  Flouncing has been a proud tradition since ARPANET.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2021, 09:22:50 AM
When did the forum become some sort of commitment that you are obligated to use, and you choose to not log on for a while you have to officially announce that youíre leaving? I know not everyone sees it that way but goodness me

I believe there is actually a forum rule saying not to post something saying you're leaving.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2021, 09:28:47 AM
^ That is correct... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.msg2378187)

Quote from: From the Forum Guidelines
What's not allowed:
  • Opening a thread announcing that you're leaving. Sorry, but no one really cares.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: SkyPesos on August 05, 2021, 09:56:34 AM
I know a fairly well-known member wrote a long farewell post in their introduction thread about a month ago, though itís not the same thing I assume.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 10:08:03 AM
When did the forum become some sort of commitment that you are obligated to use, and you choose to not log on for a while you have to officially announce that youíre leaving? I know not everyone sees it that way but goodness me

I think there's a prohibition against announcing your departure from the forum. I never really understood that, because if someone quits, they aren't going to care if they break any rules or if said departure announcement gets deleted. But people develop relationships outside the forum and as much as they have tried to in the past, the mods can't regulate behavior elsewhere. (You may remember that they tried to ban me for a Facebook post.) So if bolts71 tells roadenthusiastmillennial he's leaving through other communications channels, and roadenthusiastmillennial posts that here, how is bolts71 to blame?

I know I have been told privately by one forum regular -- someone who has contributed to the base of roadgeek knowledge for years, maintained highway construction and history websites, participated in just about every forum that has ever existed (MTR, the Yahoo groups, various Facebook groups and pages) -- that he won't be back. He got tired of getting warnings, suspensions, having posts deleted, when those who posted opinions on certain projects that were in opposition to his opinion on the projects weren't dealt with similarly. He also thinks there were other factors that may have contributed to his treatment. He certainly didn't find this forum a welcoming place; he felt he was being pushed away because of his views on roads and other things.

And I'm curious as to how an attack on another participant is defined. Is it a specific criticism of them by name? Are there certain lines or phrases that cannot be used? Are we talking about general criticisms ("h belkins is an idiot") vs. specific criticisms ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke")? One of the posts that got deleted in this thread called me a libertarian. I didn't regard that as an attack. It was an incorrect assertion, but it wasn't an attack in my view.

Can we get around this by lampooning specific posts without mentioning who posted it? "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore" might be impermissible, but "the idea that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore is buffoonish" is OK?

These are the kinds of things one should reasonably expect to come up when open-ended guidelines such as "post quality" and "attacks" are implemented.

I know a fairly well-known member wrote a long farewell post in their introduction thread about a month ago, though itís not the same thing I assume.

Am I the only person who rarely reads those "new member" posts?
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2021, 10:11:26 AM
I know a fairly well-known member wrote a long farewell post in their introduction thread about a month ago, though itís not the same thing I assume.

Am I the only person who rarely reads those "new member" posts?

I almost never look at the "Welcome!" subforum; if I do, it's normally because a search led me there, although in the context of this thread I looked at tolbs17's introduction thread because I thought (incorrectly, it turned out) that he had posted something there about a prior sabbatical he may have taken.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 12:42:35 PM
I know a fairly well-known member wrote a long farewell post in their introduction thread about a month ago, though itís not the same thing I assume.

Am I the only person who rarely reads those "new member" posts?

I almost never look at the "Welcome!" subforum; if I do, it's normally because a search led me there, although in the context of this thread I looked at tolbs17's introduction thread because I thought (incorrectly, it turned out) that he had posted something there about a prior sabbatical he may have taken.

I'm curious as to who it was as well. And since the vast majority of posts on that board had the "new" tag beside the subject lines, I didn't take the time to read each one to see.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: jakeroot on August 05, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
I know a fairly well-known member wrote a long farewell post in their introduction thread about a month ago, though itís not the same thing I assume.

Am I the only person who rarely reads those "new member" posts?

I almost never look at the "Welcome!" subforum; if I do, it's normally because a search led me there, although in the context of this thread I looked at tolbs17's introduction thread because I thought (incorrectly, it turned out) that he had posted something there about a prior sabbatical he may have taken.

I'm curious as to who it was as well. And since the vast majority of posts on that board had the "new" tag beside the subject lines, I didn't take the time to read each one to see.

I believe it was webny99 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20216.msg2629312#msg2629312).
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 12:47:38 PM
I especially look if the member doesn't say in the topic where they're fromójust to see if it's anywhere near me or that I have history in.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 01:00:23 PM
I think there's a prohibition against announcing your departure from the forum. I never really understood that, because if someone quits, they aren't going to care if they break any rules or if said departure announcement gets deleted.

Alex created our rules list by importing it from another forum that he knew the admin of, and we've modified it from there. This is one of the rules that was on the original list. As far as I know, we've never actually enforced it per se, because as you mentioned, there's really not a lot that can be done other than locking or deleting the thread. But it's there to deter drama queen exits ("you wronged me, and the admins wronged me, and this forum sucks, so I'm leaving!").

But people develop relationships outside the forum and as much as they have tried to in the past, the mods can't regulate behavior elsewhere. (You may remember that they tried to ban me for a Facebook post.)

They didn't try to ban you for a Facebook post, they tried to ban you for advocating for actions to be taken by third parties against a member here which could have jeopardized the member's safety. The technicality that kept you from getting banned was that the place you chose to advocate for it was on Facebook.

I know I have been told privately by one forum regular -- someone who has contributed to the base of roadgeek knowledge for years, maintained highway construction and history websites, participated in just about every forum that has ever existed (MTR, the Yahoo groups, various Facebook groups and pages) -- that he won't be back. He got tired of getting warnings, suspensions, having posts deleted, when those who posted opinions on certain projects that were in opposition to his opinion on the projects weren't dealt with similarly. He also thinks there were other factors that may have contributed to his treatment. He certainly didn't find this forum a welcoming place; he felt he was being pushed away because of his views on roads and other things.

If it's the person I'm thinking of, probably for the bestówe were getting tired of issuing warnings and suspensions and deleting his posts. And posting opinions isn't what causes moderator action, it's the manner in which they're postedóif I post an opinion, someone else posts an opinion in opposition to my opinion, and then I post "You're wrong, fuckface, and also I bet you're a jaywalker" then yeah, I'm probably not going to be treated the same as the people in opposition to me. Furthermore, because we try to avoid publicly posting when individual users are specifically sanctioned to avoid undue public shaming, he has no idea what we did to the other users involved, other than the other users' say so, which they may not be truthful about.

On a personal (non-staff-decision-making) level, I found myself questioning the validity of said former user's contributions to the knowledge base due to some fantastically faulty reasoning in an off-topic thread, which was so severe that I couldn't help but take even his apparently informed takes on transportation issues with a grain of salt, since I knew he was apparently viewing the world through a warped lens. I didn't factor this into any moderation duties I performed with regards to this user, however (and another member of the mod staff was who originally brought him up as needing moderation enforcement).

And I'm curious as to how an attack on another participant is defined. Is it a specific criticism of them by name? Are there certain lines or phrases that cannot be used? Are we talking about general criticisms ("h belkins is an idiot") vs. specific criticisms ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke")? One of the posts that got deleted in this thread called me a libertarian. I didn't regard that as an attack. It was an incorrect assertion, but it wasn't an attack in my view.

Can we get around this by lampooning specific posts without mentioning who posted it? "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore" might be impermissible, but "the idea that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore is buffoonish" is OK?

This is incredibly simple. Presenting arguments against people's ideas is okay ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke, because..."). Calling someone names ("h belkins is an idiot", "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore") is not.

Calling an idea "buffoonish" is on thin ice because the person who posted that idea may take that as you calling them buffoonish. The better thing to do is to illustrate the facts of the matter in such a way that anyone reading your post would come to the conclusion themselves that the idea is buffoonish.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 01:10:19 PM
They didn't try to ban you for a Facebook post, they tried to ban you for advocating for actions to be taken by third parties against a member here which could have jeopardized the member's safety. The technicality that kept you from getting banned was that the place you chose to advocate for it was on Facebook.

That makes no sense to me.  You said it wasn't because of a Facebook post, and then right after that you said it was because of a Facebook post.

This is incredibly simple. Presenting arguments against people's ideas is okay ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke, because..."). Calling someone names ("h belkins is an idiot", "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore") is not.

And don't call anybody one of those building features that exist between stories.  That would be less cool than pooing.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: SectorZ on August 05, 2021, 01:13:03 PM
This is incredibly simple. Presenting arguments against people's ideas is okay ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke, because..."). Calling someone names ("h belkins is an idiot", "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore") is not.

I saw what you did there...
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1 on August 05, 2021, 01:16:19 PM
Most people who announce they're leaving don't actually leave.

Scott5114, calling H. B. Elkins "Belkins" while already knowing that's not his name is by itself an insult.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 01:17:14 PM
They didn't try to ban you for a Facebook post, they tried to ban you for advocating for actions to be taken by third parties against a member here which could have jeopardized the member's safety. The technicality that kept you from getting banned was that the place you chose to advocate for it was on Facebook.

That makes no sense to me.  You said it wasn't because of a Facebook post, and then right after that you said it was because of a Facebook post.

Him posting on Facebook wasn't the issue. He can post on Facebook all he likes. It was what he advocated for, against a member here, because of the member's actions here, that caused an issue.

This is incredibly simple. Presenting arguments against people's ideas is okay ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke, because..."). Calling someone names ("h belkins is an idiot", "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore") is not.

I saw what you did there...

Use the examples H.B. did in the post of his I was replying to?
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 01:42:14 PM
Him posting on Facebook wasn't the issue. He can post on Facebook all he likes. It was what he advocated for, against a member here, because of the member's actions here, that caused an issue.

Without the Facebook post, he would not have been in jeopardy of a ban on AARoads.  Therefore, it was because of a Facebook post that he was in jeopardy of a ban on AARoads.  I don't see any cracks in that logic.

h belkins

I saw what you did there...

/me a.k.a. Mr Phoger does too.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 01:50:35 PM
Him posting on Facebook wasn't the issue. He can post on Facebook all he likes. It was what he advocated for, against a member here, because of the member's actions here, that caused an issue.

Without the Facebook post, he would not have been in jeopardy of a ban on AARoads.  Therefore, it was because of a Facebook post that he was in jeopardy of a ban on AARoads.  I don't see any cracks in that logic.

It was because of the content of the post that he was in jeopardy of a ban, not because of its wrapper of being contained within a Facebook post. The Facebook post wrapper was why he was not banned.

h belkins

I saw what you did there...

/me a.k.a. Mr Phoger does too.

I did nothing.

And I'm curious as to how an attack on another participant is defined. [...] Are we talking about general criticisms ("h belkins is an idiot") vs. specific criticisms ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke")? [...] "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore" might be impermissible, but "the idea that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore is buffoonish" is OK?

This is incredibly simple. Presenting arguments against people's ideas is okay ("h belkins is wrong about the need for an interstate between Martinsville and Roanoke, because..."). Calling someone names ("h belkins is an idiot", "SmokeOnTheWater is a clown for suggesting that I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore") is not.

Y'all, I'm having to write my posts in an external editor because the post box isn't big enough to get all the quoting right.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2021, 01:54:48 PM
Most people who announce they're leaving don't actually leave.
.

Thatís just a cry for attention.  People do that in all facets of life to get attention when they feel they have been wrong or are unwanted.  Example; I dated a woman who for close to four years who would often resort to that tactic of ďannouncing she was leavingĒ for whatever reason when we had a disagreement.  There was a substantial difference from that tactic to when she actual pulled up stakes and left. 

If anything not saying anything and pulling up stakes is much more of an impactful statement.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 01:59:49 PM
It was because of the content of the post that he was in jeopardy of a ban, not because of its wrapper of being contained within a Facebook post.

Well yeah, of course.  Obviously AARoads members are allowed to post on Facebook.  But "the content of a Facebook post" is "a Facebook post".  Differentiating between the two requires a nit picker of unprecedented pedantry.

This statement is ridiculous:  You were almost banned because of what you posted on Facebook, but it wasn't because of your Facebook post that you were almost banned.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:00:49 PM

Most people who announce they're leaving don't actually leave.

Thatís just a cry for attention.  People do that in all facets of life to get attention when they feel they have been wrong or are unwanted.  Example; I dated a woman who for close to four years who would often resort to that tactic of ďannouncing she was leavingĒ for whatever reason when we had a disagreement.  There was a substantial difference from that tactic to when she actual pulled up stakes and left. 

If anything not saying anything and pulling up stakes is much more of an impactful statement.

My six-year-old likes to say "Fine!" before stomping off to his room when he doesn't get what he wants.  There's little difference.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 02:04:26 PM
nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

This line is damn near Shakespeare.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:11:58 PM

nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

This line is damn near Shakespeare.

When I typed it, I also fully expected you to wear it on your shirt as a badge.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 02:17:51 PM

nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

This line is damn near Shakespeare.

When I typed it, I also fully expected you to wear it on your shirt as a badge.

I am now. :sombrero:
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 02:19:25 PM
For the record, I was inquiring on Facebook about the identity of a poster who used a pseudonym here. I'm not sure how that would have endangered him. It's not like I was going to drive to Chicago and hunt him down. I don't believe in cancel culture so i wasn't going to try to rat him out to his employer for anything. I was curious as to his worldview, his influences, his motivation, what made him as hostile as he was. I'm aware of why certain known quantities (people whose identities I know) dislike me. This was just for my own knowledge.

And my haters obviously missed my posts from years earlier when I was trying to discern the identity of the person we later found out was known to MTR as "SPUI" (and is occasionally referred to by that name here).

So, in fact, there was an attempt to sanction me because of things I did away from this forum.

There are still a number of users here whose real identities I'd like to know. I'm curious about their backgrounds, how they've gleaned their knowledge, etc. -- not just ones who have been overly hostile. They present intriguing ideas, offer interesting and informed opinions, and it would be instructive to know who they are.

I know there are people here with whom I've interacted on Facebook and probably didn't know their user name here. Others, like someone who shares a name with a famous lead singer of a band whose guitarist recently died, was pretty easy to figure out.

I was long a fan of using actual identities instead of any made-up name that gives no clue to who a participant really is long before the sausage king came along.

Some of the identities here are well-established -- mine is a variation of my name and is the part in front of the @ in my email address, for example. Others used the names by which they were known on MTR but often with signatures that disclosed their name and other contact info.

Calling an idea "buffoonish" is on thin ice because the person who posted that idea may take that as you calling them buffoonish. The better thing to do is to illustrate the facts of the matter in such a way that anyone reading your post would come to the conclusion themselves that the idea is buffoonish.

One is not responsible for the inferences others make.


And don't call anybody one of those building features that exist between stories.  That would be less cool than pooing.

Ceilings? Floors? Joists? Beams? Wiring conduits? Help a non-architect out here.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1 on August 05, 2021, 02:21:10 PM
Ceilings? Floors? Joists? Beams? Wiring conduits? Help a non-architect out here.

The one that NE2 used post-wordfilter.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:26:53 PM
One is not responsible for the inferences others make.

To some degree, yes, one is responsible for that.  You should choose your words in such a way that the inferences people make are likely to be most accurateóunless ambiguity is actually your aim.  I mean, that's basically how language functions.


Ceilings? Floors? Joists? Beams? Wiring conduits? Help a non-architect out here.

The one that NE2 used post-wordfilter.

I only recently discovered that filter, so I'm assuming most people don't even know it exists.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 02:37:39 PM
One is not responsible for the inferences others make.

To some degree, yes, one is responsible for that.  You should choose your words in such a way that the inferences people make are likely to be most accurateóunless ambiguity is actually your aim.  I mean, that's basically how language functions.


Ceilings? Floors? Joists? Beams? Wiring conduits? Help a non-architect out here.

The one that NE2 used post-wordfilter.

I only recently discovered that filter, so I'm assuming most people don't even know it exists.

I certainly don't, and I don't know which word is filtered. I've tried to think of anything that is between stories in a building and am not having any luck coming up with anything that might be offensive.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:39:32 PM
The building feature is not an offensive term.  However, there is an offensive phrase on the forum that renders instead as the name of a building feature.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:42:51 PM
(Apparently, HB, you and I both should have already known about it.  We must have poor memories.)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21384.msg2269433#msg2269433
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2021, 02:44:21 PM
This is rare, but on this subject, I'm on Kphoger and HBelkins side.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Takumi on August 05, 2021, 02:45:19 PM
Quote
I was curious as to his worldview, his influences, his motivation, what made him as hostile as he was.
Heh, I remember who youíre talking about, and remember thinking he just started being hostile to you for no apparent reason. I remember once being very drunk and after reading yet another post where he attacked you, asking him ďwho the fuck are you?Ē I think he thought I was your hype man, which we both know is not the case.

(Obviously I didnít see the Facebook post in question, having long since dropped my account.)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Takumi on August 05, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
The building feature is not an offensive term.  However, there is an offensive phrase on the forum that renders instead as the name of a building feature.
I donít remember that either, but now I know why he stopped using it.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 02:49:31 PM
This is rare, but on this subject, I'm on Kphoger and HBelkins side.

I don't know that I'm actually on HB's side.  I'm not so sure I even care if people can be banned from AARoads because of what they post on other sites.  I was just wanting everyone to call a spade a spade.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2021, 02:52:33 PM
This is rare, but on this subject, I'm on Kphoger and HBelkins side.

I don't know that I'm actually on HB's side.  I'm not so sure I even care if people can be banned from AARoads because of what they post on other sites.  I was just wanting everyone to call a spade a spade.
Well you both seem to support not remove posts based on quality. I'm starting to agree more with Hbelkins on his moderation stance.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 02:53:15 PM
For the record, I was inquiring on Facebook about the identity of a poster who used a pseudonym here. I'm not sure how that would have endangered him. It's not like I was going to drive to Chicago and hunt him down. I don't believe in cancel culture so i wasn't going to try to rat him out to his employer for anything. I was curious as to his worldview, his influences, his motivation, what made him as hostile as he was. I'm aware of why certain known quantities (people whose identities I know) dislike me. This was just for my own knowledge.

I feel like I know you well enough to know that you would do none of these things, but the fact of the matter is that once that information is out there, it's out there for everyone, including the people who would do these sorts of things. Which is why we took it so seriously.

Also, there's plenty of cases where having this sort of information publicly known could be detrimental in ways that don't even occur to us. A few months ago I got a PM from a user who had something like three posts on the forum way back in the early 2010s. He was asking me to delete his thread from the Welcome forum, which contained his real name. I asked him why he thought it needed to be deleted, since nobody here knew who he was from his scant post history, the thread was so old, and it's not like anyone had called attention to it recently. Turns out he was applying for a job in a country whose professional culture viewed even participating on things like forums as unprofessional, which was something that I had certainly never heard of or even considered as a possibility. He was afraid that on the remote chance someone found his forum profile, it could tank his chances of getting the job. What else could I do but delete the thread for him?

In another case, someone here posted inquiring if any members were interested a specific hobby they were interested in. Trying to be helpful, I suggested the user contact a certain forum regular who I knew to be involved in that hobby. The regular saw my post and contacted me, very upset that I had publicly outed them as being interested in that hobby, since the hobby required the use of certain high-dollar equipment. Because their real name and location was public knowledge associated with that username, they were concerned that I had just made them the target of thieves that might try to find their home and steal their equipment. I had not even considered this as a possibility, so I apologized and amended my post.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2021, 03:02:53 PM
For the record, I was inquiring on Facebook about the identity of a poster who used a pseudonym here. I'm not sure how that would have endangered him. It's not like I was going to drive to Chicago and hunt him down. I don't believe in cancel culture so i wasn't going to try to rat him out to his employer for anything. I was curious as to his worldview, his influences, his motivation, what made him as hostile as he was. I'm aware of why certain known quantities (people whose identities I know) dislike me. This was just for my own knowledge.

I feel like I know you well enough to know that you would do none of these things, but the fact of the matter is that once that information is out there, it's out there for everyone, including the people who would do these sorts of things. Which is why we took it so seriously.

Also, there's plenty of cases where having this sort of information publicly known could be detrimental in ways that don't even occur to us. A few months ago I got a PM from a user who had something like three posts on the forum way back in the early 2010s. He was asking me to delete his thread from the Welcome forum, which contained his real name. I asked him why he thought it needed to be deleted, since nobody here knew who he was from his scant post history, the thread was so old, and it's not like anyone had called attention to it recently. Turns out he was applying for a job in a country whose professional culture viewed even participating on things like forums as unprofessional, which was something that I had certainly never heard of or even considered as a possibility. He was afraid that on the remote chance someone found his forum profile, it could tank his chances of getting the job. What else could I do but delete the thread for him?

In another case, someone here posted inquiring if any members were interested a specific hobby they were interested in. Trying to be helpful, I suggested the user contact a certain forum regular who I knew to be involved in that hobby. The regular saw my post and contacted me, very upset that I had publicly outed them as being interested in that hobby, since the hobby required the use of certain high-dollar equipment. Because their real name and location was public knowledge associated with that username, they were concerned that I had just made them the target of thieves that might try to find their home and steal their equipment. I had not even considered this as a possibility, so I apologized and amended my post.
Lol what country was it? That's bizarre.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: NE2 on August 05, 2021, 03:04:07 PM
Others, like someone who shares a name with a famous lead singer of a band whose guitarist recently died, was pretty easy to figure out.
I don't see any user named Jon Anderson...
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 03:11:16 PM
Lol what country was it? That's bizarre.

I'm not going to give the exact name of the country out of respect for the user's wishes (and don't start guessing countries because I'm not going to confirm if you get it right), but it's on a continent that as far as I know we don't have any active users from (and don't start guessing continents because I'm not going to confirm if you get it right).
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: thspfc on August 05, 2021, 03:21:37 PM
Lol what country was it? That's bizarre.

I'm not going to give the exact name of the country out of respect for the user's wishes (and don't start guessing countries because I'm not going to confirm if you get it right), but it's on a continent that as far as I know we don't have any active users from (and don't start guessing continents because I'm not going to confirm if you get it right).
Iím guessing India.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on August 05, 2021, 04:31:50 PM
Others, like someone who shares a name with a famous lead singer of a band whose guitarist recently died, was pretty easy to figure out.
I don't see any user named Jon Anderson...

I'm confused, as both Steve Howe and Trevor Rabin are still alive, and Peter Banks died almost 10 years ago now.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: NE2 on August 05, 2021, 04:37:54 PM
Others, like someone who shares a name with a famous lead singer of a band whose guitarist recently died, was pretty easy to figure out.
I don't see any user named Jon Anderson...

I'm confused, as both Steve Howe and Trevor Rabin are still alive, and Peter Banks died almost 10 years ago now.

Chris Squire was a guitarist, just not lead guitarist. Nothing fishy here.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
(Apparently, HB, you and I both should have already known about it.  We must have poor memories.)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21384.msg2269433#msg2269433

Well, I don't remember the word or phrase that got switched to that, but I also regard that term as more of a landing between levels, such as a terrace or a wide spot in a staircase.in

Addendum: I have basically only heard the term "mezzanine" in references to levels at sports stadiums, synonymous with "concourse."
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2021, 08:51:34 PM
(Apparently, HB, you and I both should have already known about it.  We must have poor memories.)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21384.msg2269433#msg2269433

Well, I don't remember the word or phrase that got switched to that, but I also regard that term as more of a landing between levels, such as a terrace or a wide spot in a staircase.in

Addendum: I have basically only heard the term "mezzanine" in references to levels at sports stadiums, synonymous with "concourse."

The word was "assclown," if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1 on August 05, 2021, 08:52:43 PM
(Apparently, HB, you and I both should have already known about it.  We must have poor memories.)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21384.msg2269433#msg2269433

Well, I don't remember the word or phrase that got switched to that, but I also regard that term as more of a landing between levels, such as a terrace or a wide spot in a staircase.in

Addendum: I have basically only heard the term "mezzanine" in references to levels at sports stadiums, synonymous with "concourse."

The word was "assclown," if I recall correctly.

It was actually a two-word phrase.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2021, 08:55:53 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that the mods haven't locked this thread yet.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2021, 08:57:15 PM
(Apparently, HB, you and I both should have already known about it.  We must have poor memories.)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21384.msg2269433#msg2269433

Well, I don't remember the word or phrase that got switched to that, but I also regard that term as more of a landing between levels, such as a terrace or a wide spot in a staircase.in

Addendum: I have basically only heard the term "mezzanine" in references to levels at sports stadiums, synonymous with "concourse."

The word was "assclown," if I recall correctly.

It was actually a two-word phrase.

Youíre right. I forgot that he preceded the word I used with "racist." Easy enough to find such posts if you search the forum for posts containing "racist" on which he is the author.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 09:02:16 PM
Youíre right. I forgot that he preceded the word I used with "racist." Easy enough to find such posts if you search the forum for posts containing "racist" on which he is the author.

The way I found out (again) was by searching for that very two-word phrase.

A bunch of results popped up, yet mysteriously none of the posts actually contained the phrase.   :hmmm:

And, actually, the plural (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14718.msg2041908#msg2041908) somehow slipped through the filter.  (Interestingly and perhaps ironically, |NE2|'s spelling error in that same post ended up referencing a historical figure who was actually and veritably racist.)
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1 on August 05, 2021, 09:03:58 PM
(Interestingly and perhaps ironically, |NE2|'s spelling error in that same post ended up referencing a historical figure who was actually and veritably racist.)

I'm seeing as entirely intentional. He's making fun of a spelling error made earlier in the same thread by someone else.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: kphoger on August 05, 2021, 09:07:52 PM
I'm seeing as entirely intentional. He's making fun of a spelling error made earlier in the same thread by someone else.

Ah.  I suspected that, but I only searched a couple of posts down for the context.  Not finding it there, I assumed it was an actual spelling error.

In that case, yes, I agree it must have been intentional.
Title: Re: New post quality restrictions
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2021, 09:42:04 PM
You can set the forum not to censor words, BTW. Go into your profile and click on "Look and layout." Check the box to leave words uncensored and then make sure to click the button at the bottom of the page.

The downside is that some of the dumber spellings certain forum users persist in using, notably "should of" when they mean "shouldíve" or "should have," that would otherwise be corrected by the software, will show up in illiterate-speak.