CS posts full of OP ew suck.

[blas87]

IIRC, some of the attempts at one-upping Vinegar Boy have remained up as well, in all its glory (I can only think of one from a few years back, as it's been a while at least as far as I can tell we've had a story-teller).

[ParkingWitch]

And I'm remember one member that has been driven to pretty much reader only status because of all the "helpful" advise and "maybe you don't belong in customer service" comments.

Yes there very much is a need for the FTSTS rule.

[Ree]

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say we're doing it right when you have repeatedly told us how we are doing it wrong.

Both are possible, actually. If you make a decision and enforce a rule for the benefit of a certain fraction of members - as well as for the purpose of the site as a venting vehicle for people working in the service industry - then you are doing something right for this fraction of members. If said fraction is the majority, and if said purpose is the one Raps, as the owner, wants for his site, then it's obviously the right decision.

That doesn't mean, of course, that this decision is without any drawbacks, nor that there couldn't be a better way of achieving this goal. Examining that, trying to maybe find such a better way, is my intention when debating this topic.

My point was that HYHYBT replied to my post where I said we must be doing something right by commenting, "And nobody here has said otherwise, " yet he has numerous posts in this thread, and in others on fratching where CS policy is discussed, telling us just how wrongly we have been doing things.

I saw that as a contradiction.

I have no problem with a discussion of CS policies as a way of getting feedback and hopefully finding constructive ways of dealing with issues, but, again, nothing constructive has come of the discussion.

It is still a case of those who think FTSTS was a downhill slope to ruining CS and want us to remove the restrictions, claiming that everyone will be much happier with more freedoms, versus those who think FTSTS has been a positive change for CS, and who claim that removal of FTSTS will mean they will not be back to CS.

(Of course, not everyone who claims they will leave CS actually do, I know.)

[Rapscallion]

Because, seriously, just keeping a rein on things under the system you propose is a full time job, and there's no pay for doing it, and most people won't thank you for it, either, though you will get all sorts of "love" notes in your inbox...

^-.-^

All too true, though technically speaking I even pay for the 'privelege'

As for the concept of closing or just trimming threads etc, it's already been covered and is often a judgement call, but also there's the issue that quite a few people don't read all the way to the end before responding. They won't see mod notes about not going down certain routes until they've hit 'submit'.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

if they truly wanted me (though i doubt they would, as i've pretty much completely fallen out of touch with what's happening at cs since i left, and i was never a heavy poster there to begin with), i would consider it.

That's worrying. I'd really consider checking your computer for open proxies in that case as your IP address has been active and posting on CS for some time.

Anyone got suggestions for Linguist for cleaning malware from computers?

If you want, we could ban the CS account that's using your IP address as from what you say they're potentially a security risk.

Rapscallion

[linguist]

That's worrying. I'd really consider checking your computer for open proxies in that case as your IP address has been active and posting on CS for some time.

Anyone got suggestions for Linguist for cleaning malware from computers?

If you want, we could ban the CS account that's using your IP address as from what you say they're potentially a security risk.

Rapscallion

if you're referring to the tacohuman account, yes that's me. but to quote myself from my first post in this thread:

it used to be one of my favorite sites, a daily (or several times daily) visit, but now i visit on average maybe once a month.

i've posted 7 times in the last six months, an average of about once per month (though yes, i do know that several of the posts were spaced more closely together), and almost always in off topic, the one subforum i still feel reasonably comfortable posting in. that's hardly what i'd call active. and if you look at my posting history before that you'll see a number of several-month-long breaks wherein i'd become fed up and left, only to come back later. as i said upthread, i loved cs, and kept hoping to come back to find it more like the cs i initially came to love. i still (maybe vainly, who knows) hold out that hope.

all that said, if any account other than tacohuman is using my ip address, by all means please ban them; those aren't me.

[NateSean]

IIRC, some of the attempts at one-upping Vinegar Boy have remained up as well, in all its glory (I can only think of one from a few years back, as it's been a while at least as far as I can tell we've had a story-teller).

Only because I don't want to weigh on on the last three pages of this thread as I think everything that's been said has been (If that makes any sense) there's been a trend that's somewhat similar to the Vinegar Boy pandemic, although maybe not as irritating to some.

There's a well known forum poster on CS whom everyone loves to read. And every often I'll see a post where someone out right announces that they are trying to post in his style.

Now, it's not his fault of course. He's just like the rest of us, posting about his work week and venting his frustrations. I think the fact that he's entertaining while he does it is a byproduct of his personality as opposed to any real intent although he has openly considered cashing in on it a few times. (His last attempt proved disastrous, but I hope he hasn't entirely killed it as a possibility because there's always room for potential)

My point is why do so many people think that emulating his posting style is important? To me the only important thing is that I understand what's going on. Plenty of people post in a way that makes me laugh without actively trying to do so, and it only makes me wonder at the validity of your story if you're intent going in is to get me to bust a gut.

[Rapscallion]

If it's the person I'm thinking of, then quite frankly it's a very readable and accessible style. It's fine being funny, but if you can't be understood then you may as well not try.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

They won't see mod notes about not going down certain routes until they've hit 'submit'.

And, sometimes, the mod note goes up while you're in the middle of writing your post, which is a bit harder to catch than just reading to the end of the thread, but both should be regular habits of posters who wish to stay in good standing.

If it's the person I'm thinking of, then quite frankly it's a very readable and accessible style.

This is what I've always thought, myself. Never quite understood why people feel the need to announce it, though.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

And, sometimes, the mod note goes up while you're in the middle of writing your post, which is a bit harder to catch than just reading to the end of the thread, but both should be regular habits of posters who wish to stay in good standing.

True, but in cases where we wonder if someone's taking the piss the time stamp helps.

Rapscallion

[the_std]

Augh, I just read another post which makes me want to smack the OP. This poster has a terrible habit of embellishment and using inflammatory language that I hiiiiighly doubt was actually used in real life, but I feel no motivation to bring out any FTSTS behavior... It's just a good chance for me to put them on my ignore list. Which is an option open to everyone on CS.

[HYHYBT]

First, I apologize for the length of this. I can't see a clear way of saying everything, including putting in the quotes necessary for context, in a short post. Well, I'll find out if Fratching! has a character limit, at least

Are you kidding me?
You've been ranting since the thread started about the changes at CS and how they have a negative impact on the place.
How on earth is that in any way saying that we are doing it right?

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say we're doing it right when you have repeatedly told us how we are doing it wrong.

First, I have not been "ranting." (For that matter, you'll notice I didn't bring the topic up.)

Second, I originally only responded to say that the rule change was, despite all claims to the contrary, a choice. I even specified that I didn't want to go into, in this thread, whether I thought it was a right choice or not, but you wouldn't have that.

Third, a question: how is it contradictory to agree that you're doing something right (or even getting it mostly right) while also holding the opinion that, in this one area, a different course would have been better? Does logic require that either everything management has done is absolutely optimal in every way, or else the opposite? If not, why is my position contradictory?

It is still a case of those who think FTSTS was a downhill slope to ruining CS and want us to remove the restrictions

A step in the wrong direction is not the same thing as "ruining CS." Again, of course you're doing "something right." Quite a lot... but this is about the other part.

You've had that question answered numerous times, but you just don't want to accept the answer.

Not quite. You've given the rationale behind the rule before, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've claimed it was a "sudden trend." I find that hard to believe, but if it's really so (rather than a confirmation bias of a sort, or their rising in proportion with the number of members or threads) then that makes a difference.

You question why it suddenly changed when it was never like that before.
Obviously, the site came under new ownership.
I suspect that's what you're getting at with all the prodding and picking.

You suspect wrongly. I doubt you'll believe that, just as I doubt you believe my opposition to the rule has nothing to do with my once having broken it beyond that being what called my attention to its existence (either you or someone else implied as much earlier in the thread), but it's true nonetheless. I believe it simply wrong to set a rule that amounts to disallowing even questioning, much less disagreement, no matter how politely done.

Whether you feel it is or not, the owner and mods feel it is, and that should be enough.

"Enough" for what, exactly? Enough to try to abide by the rule, yes. But to agree with it? Hardly.

Again, I did not bring this up, and would not have. Not again. But if someone else does, I see little reason to stay silent.

But pretty much what linguist said: the threads just aren't as interesting when even mildly dissenting views, or even questions about relevant points that may have been left out inadvertently (like why a not-at-all-obviously sucky customer was indeed an SC), lead to removed posts and locked threads. And the higher the volume of threads, the more true that becomes.

I acted sucky, you acted sucky back.

Then don't act sucky in the first place.

And I would like to see proof of where a page was instantly shut down, just for no reason. They have their reasons and rules and what's not allowed to be posted or linked.

As you almost certainly know, it can be difficult to tell which are which when you so often remove the offending posts that get threads that actually do go bad shut down. (That's another sore point. There's no GOOD reason for keeping it secret why a thread, or a banned member for that matter, is removed. Plenty of excuses, but no good reason.)

Of course, as mentioned, when the closing message flat-out SAYS it's because of where things *might* go, it's pretty clear.

I first joined in 2005, under Mr Slugger's ownership. Not that I think that he did a bad job, but CS was a much different place. Although, by the time I'd joined and established myself there, Raps had soon taken new ownership and not long after that, Fratch was also here.

Members who have been on CS many years longer than I can probably attest that it could get downright dirty sometimes.

Only occasionally. Not *nearly* as much as you'd think from reading this thread. I first found the site in the summer of 1998 (judging by which computer I was using at the time, as I replaced that one that October.) I'm glad the site exists; I'm glad Rapscallion bought it, etc. (Even those who hate the current site, and I'm definitely not one, must at least admit he's far better at keeping it from vanishing entirely once or twice a year and having to be restarted from scratch. From 1998 to 2006, there were approximately ten separate incarnations of the CS message board. 2006-present, there has been *one.*)

Easier to clean up a mess if you catch the plate before it falls to the floor.

Easier still to snatch plates out of people's hands before they have a chance to drop them… but that makes it no less annoying to those who had been holding them.

And, for the record, I just spent the better part of 30 minutes cleaning up such a thread as I described above.

Part of that is because you insist on such a thorough "cleaning up," removing everything that you'd rather never have been said rather than just locking the thing. The decision that all wayward threads must be handled in such a time-consuming manner then becomes the cause of the decision to lock anything that even looks like it might ever become uncivil. An alternate solution, then, would be to handle genuinely bad threads in a different manner. Y'all chose to go a different direction.

As Peppergirl has re-iterated, I'm more than happy to listen to suggestions on how to get around the need for the FTSTS rule.

… except such suggestions, at least in my experience, are dismissed out-of-hand by imagining that a list of rules could ever be so exhaustive that nobody would ever complain when one of their posts draws moderator attention. Probably half the list (near all of it, if my memory is anywhere close to accurate, but it's not worth going through point by point to check) could be eliminated without genuine loss by requiring that people be reasonably polite and leaving it at that. That would leave room for things like "maybe it would work better if…" and "I don't quite understand what's wrong with…" and so forth without allowing things that reasonable people would be offended by. (Yes, that means that some people will take UNreasonable offense. That should be their problem, not everybody else's.)

It would also have the advantage of having a set of rules that's of a reasonable length, so as not to glaze people's eyes over if they try to read the whole thing in one sitting.

It could be a lot worse. Another board I otherwise love has a rule that you don't express dislike of the rules (not worded quite that way) except to moderators and staff, and only by PM. Which of course gives the impression to anyone who doesn't like one that everybody else thinks it's perfectly fine and reasonable, and also prevents the sort of discussion that could lead to an improved version that would achieve the same goals in a better way.

Hmmm, okay - and where do we recruit the manpower to allow this to happen? Modding is voluntary, remember?

All those thousands of members, and there's a shortage of volunteers? If the problem is that there just aren't enough moderators to handle things case by case, then have you even *asked* more people to take on the extra work?

It's a genuine question, by the way. For all I know, maybe you have, and there just wasn't anybody available. But I strongly suspect that wasn't the case.

(since we won't 'prove' what we say by showing you some of the stuff)

Of course you could. Again, you (the site, not necessarily you personally) make a choice and then present it as if it were beyond your control.

though - are you suggesting that we leave the offending posts up, names and all? Wouldn't that, in essence, be contradictory to what we tell people NOT to do?

Yes and no, in that order.

If a person who has never disobeyed the rules suddenly breaks one, should we leave his or her post out there as an example of what NOT to do?

Yes, at least in most cases. With the thread locked and an explanation as to why, it would be precisely the opposite of counterproductive. And, again, it would mean those who read the thread will understand how it went wrong. That's a positive good even when it only means understanding, let alone when it lets someone know what not to do in the future.

The rules are made by the owner and his panel of Mods. It is THEIR interpetation of those rules that is the overriding factor.

Exactly who and where has anyone claimed that the owner and mods are NOT the ones who set the rules?

No, generally, you see threads go on for pages, then someone says something that doesn't ping your radar, then a dozen posts were deleted for devolving into sniping but you never saw that because the mods yanked them before you had the chance to read then, you just see a "closed for being too contentious an issue" note.

Which is why you shouldn't make a general habit of removing those posts. Just lock the thread and leave them up so people can see what happened. Would you really not find it at least frustrating to see a conversation you were interested in either just vanish or be locked without being able to see what happened to it? Even if you wouldn't, is it so unreasonable that others would?

They won't see mod notes about not going down certain routes until they've hit 'submit'.

All the more reason to make actual "mod notes" (as opposed to regular posts that happen to be made by a moderator) stand out in some way rather than blending into the conversation

And, sometimes, the mod note goes up while you're in the middle of writing your post, which is a bit harder to catch than just reading to the end of the thread, but both should be regular habits of posters who wish to stay in good standing.

A good reason to check above your new posts and edit accordingly, true.

True, but in cases where we wonder if someone's taking the piss the time stamp helps.

It can help… but unless you're referring to some internal time stamp that shows when someone opened the page, rather than just seeing how close their post's stamp is to that of the one before it, it's an unreliable method. Someone might *have* left literally to take a piss (or something a bit more time-consuming), or they might be multitasking, or they might, as I do, prefer going down the topic list opening anything interesting in its own tab, then closing them one by one as they read them. Which, again, is all the more reason to check above your own new posts to see if you need to edit your own, but it's still annoying if you forget to have people think you a liar.


Again, I *like* CS, even if I don't often spend time in there anymore. Indeed, the main reason I don't is that I tend to fall in, so to speak, and try to read everything; I once lost most of a vacation that way. If I didn't like it, and very much, I wouldn't care how it was run, or even whether it was still around or not. But naturally the nature of a thread like this means discussing the negatives.

[Peppergirl]

Augh, I just read another post which makes me want to smack the OP. This poster has a terrible habit of embellishment and using inflammatory language that I hiiiiighly doubt was actually used in real life, but I feel no motivation to bring out any FTSTS behavior... It's just a good chance for me to put them on my ignore list. Which is an option open to everyone on CS.

Um yeah.. I think we might know who you mean.

[Ree]

i've posted 7 times in the last six months, an average of about once per month (though yes, i do know that several of the posts were spaced more closely together), and almost always in off topic, the one subforum i still feel reasonably comfortable posting in. that's hardly what i'd call active. and if you look at my posting history before that you'll see a number of several-month-long breaks wherein i'd become fed up and left, only to come back later.

Ah, but you said "i've pretty much completely fallen out of touch with what's happening at cs since i left" which, to me, would imply that you do not visit nor post, be it occasionally or sporadically, regardless of what your posting history has been.
"Since I left" to me, would mean just that. You left.
You didn't.

If, as you state, you have always posted sporadically, then FTSTS is really only a small part of why you slowed down at CS.

those stats are a snapshot of the moment they were retrieved, and don't really tell us anything. to get an accurate picture, you'd need to look at the number of active posters pre-rule change, and the number post-rule change, then take into account any adjustment necessary for new members. you'd also have to give your reading an appropriate timeframe to account for those who may have taken extended absences and then come back to the new rules, and to allow for time for the dissatisfaction of those who would eventually leave to reach critical mass.

I was slightly bored, so I thought I would put together a few stats on your posting history from when you joined until now, just to see how FTSTS impacted in the way you claim.

July - Dec 2006 - 46 posts; 28 in Off Topic; 5 in General Work; 4 in Sucky Customers; 2 in Bragging Base; 2 in Sightings; 5 in Check It Out

Jan 2007 - Dec 2007 64 posts; 32 in Off Topic; 7 in General Work; 2 in Sucky Customers; 1 in Bragging Base; 4 in Sightings; 1 in Morons in Management; 1 in View From the Backroom; 1 in Praising Customers and Colleagues; 7 in Check it Out; 3 in Forum Games; 1 in Jokes; 1 in Tech; 1 in PFB; 1 in Art; 1 in Literary

FTSTS was implemented Sept, 2008 so I have broken it down:

Jan 2008 - Sept 2008 45 posts; 34 in Off Topic; 2 in Sucky Customers; 2 in Morons in Management; 1 in Sightings; 1 in PFB; 3 in Check it Out; 2 in Games

Sept 2008 - Dec 2008 11 posts; 8 in Off Topic; 2 in Check it Out

Jan 2009- Dec 2009 40 posts 32 in Off Topic; 1 in Morons in Management; 2 in Sightings; 4 in Check it Out; 1 in Brain Burps

Jan 2010 - Dec 2010 33 posts 22 in Off Topic; 3 in Check it Out; 8 in Life Advice

Jan 2011 - Dec 2011 35 posts 21 in Off Topic; 2 in Sucky Customers; 8 in Check it Out; 1 in Games; 3 in Life Advice

Jan 2012 - Feb 2012 2 posts; 1 in Off Topic; 1 in Sickbay

So, yeah, your posting slowed a little, but you have never been an overly active poster, based on the stats. I will take your word for it that FTSTS impacted your feeling of freedom to post at CS, but from what I see in the stats, it's not a huge impact.

You claim that FTSTS has meant you contain your posting to OT, because that's the only forum where you feel comfortable, but the stats show, even prior to FTSTS, OT was where a large percentage of your posts were made anyway.

Again, you know best how the change in rules made you feel, and I don't discount that, but the stats do show a slightly different picture than has been painted.