[enterprise]

Lately the GD boards have been filled with discussions that are way too old. Honestly I've seen discussions like 'remember the old days from runescape' at least 3 times. These discussions get boring after a while so we really should think up of something new.

[Arno]

Why should they? If anything, it reflects the general nostalgia and should tell Jagex a thing or two about how the community feels.

[bolshevik]

enterprise, on 16 February 2010 - 03:30 AM, said:

Lately the GD boards have been filled with discussions that are way too old. Honestly I've seen discussions like 'remember the old days from runescape' at least 3 times. These discussions get boring after a while so we really should think up of something new.

Then think of something new. Everything within the boards isn't solely up to the CLs and Leaders, the posters should take an active responsibility as well. If you want change to happen, make some of it; when people see it happening, they'll start doing the same, and it'll branch out from there.

[TRM]

I agree. A lot of the posts are remembering the pasts, or changing it.

[Avicenna]

King TRM, on 21 February 2010 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree. A lot of the posts are remembering the pasts, or changing it.

Well those are interesting topics to discuss, in my opinion. A lot of players enjoyed Runescape more in the past than they do now and it's fun to talk about the past and speculate what would be different if Jagex hadn't made some of the updates that they did. Of course, not to say that discussing the present and future isn't interesting; I'm just offering a reason for why a lot of posts seem to be about the past.

[Aflstar]

Avicenna, on 23 February 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

King TRM, on 21 February 2010 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree. A lot of the posts are remembering the pasts, or changing it.

Well those are interesting topics to discuss, in my opinion. A lot of players enjoyed Runescape more in the past than they do now and it's fun to talk about the past and speculate what would be different if Jagex hadn't made some of the updates that they did. Of course, not to say that discussing the present and future isn't interesting; I'm just offering a reason for why a lot of posts seem to be about the past.

Also, to be fair, there isin always a lot to talk about in GD anymore. Anything regarding new updates are usually spoken about in the Runescape News post, achievements have their own board now and Polls and Surveys take away a lot of the simple 'Which would you prefer' topics.

To create a meaningful topic in GD now, it almost relies on the past, the actions of players (good or bad) or the actions of Jagex.

[Locke]

What are your thoughts on moderators having to review topics before they can be seen by the public? It seems as though a dedicated team of moderators on this site could easily stop the large number of closed topics that take up much of the space on the front pages.

(Locke)

This post has been edited by Locke: 25 April 2010 - 10:55 AM

[Atarah]

Locke, on 25 April 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

What are your thoughts on moderators having to review topics before they can be seen by the public? It seems as though a dedicated team of moderators on this site could easily stop the large number of closed topics that take up much of the space on the front pages.

(Locke)

We would never bring in such a principle. For a number of reasons.

First, is timescale. Clearly, a discussion could be posted at any time of the day, in any timezone. To make a system like this effective, you would need round-the-clock ability to approve topics, so that they are made visible or deleted quickly and easily, so as not to cause confusion or deter people from posting discussions, knowing they'll have their answer as to whether its allowed or not in minutes, not hours.

That brings up the second issue, which is manpower. General Discussion is run by a limited number of CLs and leaders, totally at the very most 7-8. Most of us are either EST or GMT or somewhere inbetween. Therefore, even though we could cover 24 hour coverage - we couldn't create a definite number of moderation staff to review each topic and ensure its quality.

Furthermore, this would create the issue that is what and what does not constitute a worthwhile discussion. Each of us will have an opinion on what and is not a good discussion, or which discussions may or may not flourish. Such a system would push moderators to judge before the topic is made visible whether it is good enough or not - and no moderator on this forum is here to judge whether they think a topic is new, fresh and viable. If it is a discussion, the users will show us on many occasions whether or not the discussion is worthwhile. We can only judge this after a topic is posted, not before.

And thus, making them invisible first will not always mean we avoid a topic closure somewhere down the line.

Our current system is the most valid, viable and free system we can offer, we wouldn't want to restrict that freedom.

[Arno]

Added to what Atarah said, we can also just try a little harder to keep those locked topics off the main page of GD

[Nashy19]

A lot of people giving a opinions without any explanation, this makes the topics harder to discuss, ignoring them or using guesswork can make a thread go off track. For example, comments saying "I think lots of people would quit" without any reasoning, or people addressing problems without making it clear what the problem actually is. I think comments like these are as useless as just saying they love it or hate it.

Also there's a few conspiracy-like threads (not conspiracy theories by definition), they have lots of speculation but none of the good types of evidence. This results in what I see as "I hope not" and "what if" posts.

This post has been edited by Nashy19: 05 May 2010 - 01:51 PM

[Scott]

Nashy19, on 05 May 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

A lot of people giving a opinions without any explanation, this makes the topics harder to discuss, ignoring them or using guesswork can make a thread go off track. For example, comments saying "I think lots of people would quit" without any reasoning, or people addressing problems without making it clear what the problem actually is. I think comments like these are as useless as just saying they love it or hate it.

Also there's a few conspiracy-like threads (not conspiracy theories by definition but similar), they have lots of speculation but none of the good types of evidence. This results in what I see as "I hope not" and "what if" posts.

Certainly posts without any explanation generally do not add to the discussion, and if the posts are really baseless (e.g. simply "yes" or "no"), then mods usually will delete the post. Other than deleting posts, there's not much the staff can do about posts made without any explanation given, as that falls upon the posters themselves.

As for "conspiracy" or "what if" threads, these threads also tend to be locked unless they have a solid foundation for discussion. For example, a "What If Jagex Ended the Game?" thread would probably be locked, as that's not likely to happen soon, and most (if not all) of the posts would be nothing more than "I'd find something else to do," etc. If there's a "what if" topic with backing, though, usually the staff will see how it progresses before taking any sort of action. Oftentimes it's up to the posters to prove that a thread can be a good discussion, even if the first post doesn't seem like anything outstanding.

[Setanta]

Like Hedgehog said, we delete any posts which are truly non-constructive, such as "Yes, I like it". But there's no reason for us to start deleting posts that simply voice a persons opinion. What qualifies as reasoning is different for people, for you it may not make sense but for the person posting it they may have given a perfectly good reason.

We have to allow some discussion of future events. If we didn't we would be really limiting what can be posted. Alot of those threads actually generate very good discussion. Those which are too speculative are usually locked.

[Silvertaler]

This is about the rule that says we must write 5 sentences in the first post for it to be allowed in GD.

I'd like to suggest having a word limit instead. Sounds absurd having to write 5 constructive sentences for a topic to be considered good, since two even more constructive sentences may be richer than five less constructive ones. It all comes down to how much they express, not how many there are. A word limit, however, seems more reasonable as it gives more freedom to the organisation of your post while still forcing you to put effort into it.

This post has been edited by Silvertaler: 07 May 2010 - 08:27 AM

[bolshevik]

Well, if it came down to a word limit, it would ultimately make that into five sentences anyways. If you were to employ that rule, you would either have two incredibly run-on sentences, that could in turn be changed into five sentences; or you would simply follow the rule that is already in place, and have five sentences.

It's true that two sentences could be more than enough for a discussion, two strong ones could easily out-do five weak ones. Yet on the same hand, if you use five sentences, it leaves a bit more reading for the poster to do, and creates a bit more discussion as well. Word limit seems silly anyways, because it could be so minimal that it wouldn't create discussion at all, or a higher limit that would go along with the rule that is in place now anyways.

[Scott]

Silvertaler, on 07 May 2010 - 10:23 AM, said:

This is about the rule that says we must write 5 sentences in the first post for it to be allowed in GD.

I'd like to suggest having a word limit instead. Sounds absurd having to write 5 constructive sentences for a topic to be considered good, since two even more constructive sentences may be richer than five less constructive ones. It all comes down to how much they express, not how many there are. A word limit, however, seems more reasonable as it gives more freedom to the organisation of your post while still forcing you to put effort into it.

Trust me, I wholly understand that two well-written sentences may in fact be more stimulating than ten poorly-written ones. I can't give you a final word as I'm not staff, but generally the consensus regarding the five sentence rule has been that if you're not willing to write even five sentences, then you really don't care about creating a discussion. Five sentences is not difficult at all to reach, and having this rule makes it much easier to take care of the 99% of less than five sentence threads that are merely spam. For the 1% of the less than five sentence threads that are in fact good discussions, it's not very much to ask for the author to expand to five sentences. I understand where you're coming from, but the fact is that the vast majority of these threads are just spam.

[Silvertaler]

bolshevik, on 07 May 2010 - 03:43 PM, said:

Well, if it came down to a word limit, it would ultimately make that into five sentences anyways. If you were to employ that rule, you would either have two incredibly run-on sentences, that could in turn be changed into five sentences; or you would simply follow the rule that is already in place, and have five sentences.

It's true that two sentences could be more than enough for a discussion, two strong ones could easily out-do five weak ones. Yet on the same hand, if you use five sentences, it leaves a bit more reading for the poster to do, and creates a bit more discussion as well. Word limit seems silly anyways, because it could be so minimal that it wouldn't create discussion at all, or a higher limit that would go along with the rule that is in place now anyways.

See what can bug me is this.

You write your post. It's four sentences long, it's well constructed, but it gets closed because it doesn't have five sentences.

Now, you take the exact same post, tweat one of the sentences a little bit so you can replace a coma by a period, and you end up with five sentences. The thread is now accepted. What was the difference? None. That's why I think a word limit makes more sence, you get just as much content with more freedom.

Word count minimal? I don't see how a 100 word limit, for example, is minimal at all. You can very well write an interesting topic with 100-200 words.

This post has been edited by Silvertaler: 07 May 2010 - 11:08 AM

[Setanta]

Quote

See what can bug me is this.

You write your post. It's four sentences long, it's well constructed, but it gets closed because it doesn't have five sentences.

Now, you take the exact same post, tweat one of the sentences a little bit so you can replace a coma by a period, and you end up with five sentences. The thread is now accepted. What was the difference? None. That's why I think a word limit makes more sence, you get just as much content with more freedom.

Word count minimal? I don't see how a 100 word limit, for example, is minimal at all. You can very well write an interesting topic with 100-200 words.

If a discussion is constructive enough you should be able to extend it from four sentences to five with ease. If you can't or aren't willing to then it shouldn't stay open, simple as that. If a minimum word limit was to introduced it would equate to roughly 5 sentences. So it would be the same case, if the topic can't make it to the minimum then it isn't constructive enough and if the person isn't willing to put enough effort into it to make it fit the limit it also shouldn't.

[Silvertaler]

Setanta, on 07 May 2010 - 06:48 PM, said:

So it would be the same case

So why do you assume there's a difference, and lock in one case but not in the other?

Also you're not adressing the fact it gives more freedom.

See it's not that it affects me anyway, I easily write over 5 sentences when I start a topic, it just doesn't make sense to me.

This post has been edited by Silvertaler: 07 May 2010 - 12:01 PM

[Setanta]

Silvertaler, on 07 May 2010 - 06:57 PM, said:

Setanta, on 07 May 2010 - 06:48 PM, said:

So it would be the same case

So why do you assume there's a difference, and lock in one case but not in the other?

Also you're not adressing the fact it gives more freedom.

See it's not that it affects me anyway, I easily write over 5 sentences when I start a topic, it just doesn't make sense to me.

While there may not be much of a clear difference the line has to be drawn somewhere. Be it, 4, 5 or 6 sentences, there has to be a set minimum, a set standard. Otherwise things become unclear and eventually chaotic. I believe it is a pretty lenient minimum anyway. Any discussion that can't come out with 5 sentences shouldn't be there and anybody who isn't willing to follow such a minimum obviously doesn't care very much about the topic. Also, the more there is to work with in the OP, the better the discussion that follows.

[bolshevik]

Silvertaler, on 07 May 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:

Word count minimal? I don't see how a 100 word limit, for example, is minimal at all. You can very well write an interesting topic with 100-200 words.

I'm pretty sure if you make a topic with at least 100 words, that it would be over five sentences, so I really don't see the validity of your point. The bare minimum of five sentences isn't all that hard to be accomplished, and it's a lot more lenient than that of the past, leaving for a bit more creativity to be thrown into a topic. If you wanted a word limit to be thrown into place, it would be that much more difficult for topics to be left open because it would actually force the OP to put a lot more information and questions into a topic; i'm not saying that it would be a bad thing, but I believe that the limit in place now, is the best and probably won't change.