Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 21, 2015 at 7:39 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm by Violet.)
30 days is a long time to wait, actually... 30 posts can take an awful long time for some people to make. I do not think that this is all that necessary: most of our 'members' will post fewer than 5 posts (most of those 0 or 1) and never come back.
Perhaps the rule would be more palatable and encourage more forum growth on but 10/10? Hell... if a person is still coming back here after a week: that's huge statistically. Member pages 56 to 94 have between 30 and 10 posts... and that's a lot of members who may have become more active participants had the 30/30 rule been not so difficult to reach... after all, everyone's got external content that they'd like to link, and plenty of people join the forum as a result of something external that got them interested in the subject, and when they get here might find that they can't share it for at least a month... which can potentially lose new members the excitement of whatever brought them here.
Hell, I'm plenty a fan of a 7-7 days-posts, possibly with an additional character-limit rule (700 perhaps? Might be too high, idk)... and I'm also plenty a fan of instead of having to accumulate 30 posts AND 30 days: having to accumulate only the post amount (an OR setup won't work because of people who can create the account and come back in x days for the spam). Spammers and shitters want in, and done, and to move on.
Asking every new member to have to put in 30 posts and 30 days of being here before linking anything that excites them can simply be a forum turnoff... it takes plenty of effort and patience, and this is the internet age.
For consideration,
-Violet 
Also... is there any real reason that a person can't make all of these posts in 1 day? I see no drawback, myself. 30 posts made in a day is a booster to forum activity (encourages growth). Still don't think 30 should be required, but hey: I don't make the rules. 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Posts: 12232
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 2:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 3:20 am by Napoléon.)
I don't really understand why people struggle to get this rule.
I may be biased, because I was in large part the guy who wrote it up, but it's basically "don't post links unless it's relevant to an ongoing discussion". It's really not hard. The reason for it perhaps being so wordy is that, it's just trying to describe the ideal. Out and out preventing everyone new from posting any links at all, really would be a bit too constricting, and not only that would probably double the amount of work we have to do. Not all links break 30/30, and I suspect a great many go under the radar because they're used as they're allowed to be. Within discussion.
Also, I don't buy at all the narrative Alice is describing:
Alice Wrote:Member pages 56 to 94 have between 30 and 10 posts... and that's a lot of members who may have become more active participants had the 30/30 rule been not so difficult to reach
The percentage of people in that bracket who left as a direct result of the 30/30 rule is impossible to determine. For starters, the 30/30 rule has only really been the way it has for the past year or so. Second, I still don't think 30 posts is all that much. If someone is going to leave over the fact they can't post a link about something they so desperately want to share with us, then frankly, what are they doing here in the first place? If they're that desperate, wait the 30 days. Get involved in some discussions. It's really not difficult. It's not even like people can't post a link. The 30/30 rule says it's not advised until you've reached 30/30 sure, but as long as it's posted with the intention of discussion, it's all good. So with all that in mind, the only people who would actually not be interested in posting on this forum, due to the 30/30 rules, are probably people who we would not give two shits about anyway, because they don't give enough of a shit to have a discussion with us, which is all the 30/30 rule is intended to promote.
(February 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I agree that the line as to what's acceptable is somewhat subjective, but I'll give you my perspective on it. Linking to an article without giving your own summary and argument for/against - OK. Linking to an article saying something along the lines of "Hey guys, what do you think of this?" - not OK. When the link/video is the bulk of the meaningful content, it's very clearly over the line.
Just to add to what CD is saying here, an OK post would be something like this:
Quote:Hey guys, I found this cool video about some blah blah blah (just imagine I'm saying something relevant)
Here it is:
He's basically talking about (insert whatever he's talking about).
I don't really agree with this guy because (insert reasoning here). What are your opinions?
A post that breaks 30/30 however would look more like this:
Quote:Hey guys check this out:
Like CD said, it's somewhat subjective, but for me, it's still pretty obvious what's okay and what's not. I think if anything is to be changed with the rule itself, it should perhaps be to simply encourage new users to explicitly ask for permission first if they're unsure about the rule.
But honestly, the 30/30 rule hasn't ever been a big issue anyway. I think it more just exists to promote the right kind of etiquette from new users.
Posts: 30597
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 3:21 am
(February 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Nope Wrote: I often wonder why the posters dont ask someonr else to post the link for them in a different post
I don't think this is something we'd really like to encourage. If it's relevant to an ongoing discussion, it's OK to post in the first place, and if it's not relevant to an ongoing discussion - well, personally I'm going to read that as attempting to skirt the rule, and I think I can speak for all of that staff when I say that sort of thing pisses us off.
Posts: 4345
Threads: 43
Joined: February 21, 2012
Reputation:
64
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 10:38 am
I think think the rule is clear but the way I've seen it enforced recently is just about any link from a new member is removed regardless of if it's relevant to discussion. That's the problem people were having, not that it's unclear or wrong.
Posts: 2344
Threads: 79
Joined: November 18, 2014
Reputation:
42
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 11:11 am
(February 22, 2015 at 3:21 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (February 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Nope Wrote: I often wonder why the posters dont ask someonr else to post the link for them in a different post
I don't think this is something we'd really like to encourage. If it's relevant to an ongoing discussion, it's OK to post in the first place, and if it's not relevant to an ongoing discussion - well, personally I'm going to read that as attempting to skirt the rule, and I think I can speak for all of that staff when I say that sort of thing pisses us off.
That makes sense. I was thinking along the lines of a link to something pertinent to the discussion but I could see why that would be skirting the rule.
Your answer seems obvious to me now. I don't know why it didn't before I asked.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 11:35 am
I had originally read the rules as not initiating a thread with links, but joining a thread and posting a relevant link while participating in the discussion was OK. I saw it as a means to weed out 'hit and run' trolls. If it is completely relevant to the post, why not?
I say, "blah blah blah". You say, "Proof, source?". I say, "30 days from now".
Not conducive to an ongoing discussion. It can be difficult sometimes for a newbie to participate. I also understand the viewpoint of the moderators that have to weed through those links.
If there were a 'Dummy' user that the regulars could PM the link to the specific post, that would make it less cumbersome for the moderators to look for the 'bad' links as they would be in one spot.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 18504
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:11 pm
The OP brings some valid points and the staff here is always welcoming to suggestions. Looking at the Admin CP, I wonder if it is possible to tweak the system so that new members can be on a group called "Newbies" that is devoid of link habilities and such. I will have to go down the rabbit s hole yet again, but I can see how it would relieve the staff of the tedious business of manually remove links.
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:16 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 10:38 am)Nine Wrote: I think think the rule is clear but the way I've seen it enforced recently is just about any link from a new member is removed regardless of if it's relevant to discussion. That's the problem people were having, not that it's unclear or wrong.
I think this is the only issue I see as happening lately with regards to the rule.
I agree with Napo though. It's not a lot to ask to wait. It shows investment, and that's what we want here. Someone who's invested in the community enough to want to post regularly.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 4345
Threads: 43
Joined: February 21, 2012
Reputation:
64
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:33 pm by Nine.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:11 pm)LastPoet Wrote: The OP brings some valid points and the staff here is always welcoming to suggestions. Looking at the Admin CP, I wonder if it is possible to tweak the system so that new members can be on a group called "Newbies" that is devoid of link habilities and such. I will have to go down the rabbit s hole yet again, but I can see how it would relieve the staff of the tedious business of manually remove links.
I think not allowing people to post any links at all until the time limit up is a bad idea. Especially seems a lot of the more lighthearted threads involve a lot of images and youtube videos. Taking that away from people for the first 30 days is just going to put people off getting to know people here. Its not even how the rule is meant to be.
People should be able to use links, videos and images so long as its productive to the discussion and isn't advertising.
Honestly I think 30 days is overkill. A lot of the more active members that join have several hundred posts in their first month. I remember averaging something like 40 posts a day for the first few months I was here. A person who has posted 100-200 posts that are productive should surely be allowed to start using links. Making them wait until a month is past doesn't really help anyone.
(February 22, 2015 at 1:16 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I agree with Napo though. It's not a lot to ask to wait. It shows investment, and that's what we want here. Someone who's invested in the community enough to want to post regularly.
30 days seems excessive. I probably had 500+ posts in my first month. It would be nice to have a upper post count that exempts them from the rule. Perhaps a 'over 10 days and 200 posts' or something. I feel like somebody who has hit over 200 posts even if in only 10 days has a fairly good feel for whats acceptable.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:34 pm
It may be overkill but there is definitely a need for a rule to discourage people from posting just to draw traffic to their site with no intention to take part in the community. I'm content to leave it to the experts, the people who have taken on the annoyance of keeping the site viable, to decide what the rule should be. I just hope if this Emily really does want to take part in this community that she will get the opportunity. Again, I'm content to leave it to our experts to determine if that is the case.
|
