onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
please do a search next time 
*merging*
*merging*
-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film & Television forum feedback - ** PLEASE CONTRIBUTE **
- Thread starter onetwothreefour
- Start date
psychoblast
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2000
- Messages
- 3,693
I think there is a time when a new thread should be allowed on a movie, like here when the old thread has had no activity in 2 1/2 months. When you bump such an old thread, people who have already posted their 2 cents may just ignore the thread. Also, you totally lose the ability of putting, in the subject line, the fact that I was wanting to discuss it from the position of some one who really hated it. "Film: Dogville" does not convey the same thing, is less likely to draw in people about a negative discussion of the movie.
Most of these "film: whatever" titles get posts from people who liked the movie.
Anyway, this is a good example of over-moderating. It isn't like I started a new thread on Dogville when there was one in the last 10 days, or even int the last 2 months. Give me a break and yourself, too.
By your obsession with narrowing all discussions about a film to a single thread, you make it harder to have more specialized discussions on films. Is this forum really that busy that you want to deter discussion? Because you just did it. It is my perception this forum is one of the less utilized on Bluelight and is not in dire need of strict restrictions on posts.
Just my 2 cents as a former moderator and long-time poster. I guess I won't be visiting this forum much with such anal moderating. Thank you very much.
~psychoblast~
Most of these "film: whatever" titles get posts from people who liked the movie.
Anyway, this is a good example of over-moderating. It isn't like I started a new thread on Dogville when there was one in the last 10 days, or even int the last 2 months. Give me a break and yourself, too.
By your obsession with narrowing all discussions about a film to a single thread, you make it harder to have more specialized discussions on films. Is this forum really that busy that you want to deter discussion? Because you just did it. It is my perception this forum is one of the less utilized on Bluelight and is not in dire need of strict restrictions on posts.
Just my 2 cents as a former moderator and long-time poster. I guess I won't be visiting this forum much with such anal moderating. Thank you very much.
~psychoblast~
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2000
- Messages
- 9,523
^^^^^
I agree wholeheartedly.
In fact, I participate on a number of message boards where new threads are actually ENCOURAGED (and on one board where a new thread is REQUIRED) when either:
(a) the old thread is over a month old
OR
(b) the new thread seeks to initiate discussion of a new issue or sub-issue
Moderation for the sake of moderation is a moderately negative thing.
In.
My.
Opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly.
In fact, I participate on a number of message boards where new threads are actually ENCOURAGED (and on one board where a new thread is REQUIRED) when either:
(a) the old thread is over a month old
OR
(b) the new thread seeks to initiate discussion of a new issue or sub-issue
Moderation for the sake of moderation is a moderately negative thing.
In.
My.
Opinion.
randycaver
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 21,709
I highly doubt he was moderating for the sake of moderating. There are many times where not everybody in a thread particularly likes what is being discussed and still manages to convey his or her dislike for it. This thread is not heavily traveled to the point where it would warrant 2-3 separate threads for the same forum. This is hardly overmoderating. Often people think they shouldn't even have to search for a thread to see if it existed. I would think that as a former moderator, psychoblast, you would be able to understand the desire that current mods have that bluelighters use the search function in order to encourage others to do so.
Your opinion, in my HUMBLE opinion, does not warrant an entirely NEW thread.
I point you to the Harry Potter thread, where sounygourdna and I wholeheartedly disagreed - but yet, that did not warrant a new thread.
Your post, a simple one sentence post - should not, and would not warrant a new thread. Personally, I probably would have directed you to the current thread, and closed yours without merging it. However, recognizing your name, I thought it might warrant discussion. This original thread - was asking what others thought. Your post answered that question. I stand by onetwothreefour's decision.
btw, psychoblast, if you choose to leave the forum over what you perceive to be as overmoderating over one instance, that is your loss.
Also, if you think that every post entitled FILM: Whatever only gets posts from those who liked them - you obviously don't read them all.
Your opinion, in my HUMBLE opinion, does not warrant an entirely NEW thread.
I point you to the Harry Potter thread, where sounygourdna and I wholeheartedly disagreed - but yet, that did not warrant a new thread.
Your post, a simple one sentence post - should not, and would not warrant a new thread. Personally, I probably would have directed you to the current thread, and closed yours without merging it. However, recognizing your name, I thought it might warrant discussion. This original thread - was asking what others thought. Your post answered that question. I stand by onetwothreefour's decision.
btw, psychoblast, if you choose to leave the forum over what you perceive to be as overmoderating over one instance, that is your loss.
Also, if you think that every post entitled FILM: Whatever only gets posts from those who liked them - you obviously don't read them all.
psychoblast
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2000
- Messages
- 3,693
Randy:
My post was to start a discussion. If it didn't get a response (i.e., pro-dogville fans wanting to defend the pic or others agreeing that it sucked) then it would drop off the page and die like all lame threads do.
The issue should not be whether my first post would have generated sufficient discussion to warrant having opened the thread in the first place. Duh. Lots of people start threads that fail that test. It is the chance you take.
The issue is whether, if you want to discuss a film on here, you are REQUIRED by the moderators to search back OVER TWO MONTHS to bump a prior discussion thread on the movie. In MY very open-minded opinion, that just demands too much of posters.
Frankly, it is rather offensive and off-putting, too, to get the short-hand criticism of a mod like "use the search function" like I did something wrong in not bumping a discussion thread OVER TWO MONTHS OLD. I felt like that was the sort of response to give if I started a thread on a film when a thread was already open in the last 10 days or something. Again, the prior dogville thread was OVER TWO MONTHS OLD.
So, basically, it is like the mods on here are implicitly declaring their policy by this action that you can NEVER have multiple threads on the same film. Is that it? No matter how old the prior thread is, you have to bump and add to it rather than start a new thread? or is their some cut off? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? See how stupid this gets?
Besides, a thread title like I originally had ("Dogville = dog crap") is pointed enough to draw in debate from pro-Dogville people in a way that the title "Film: Dogville" is unlikely to do. So, again, the merger undermined and stunted the discussion that might have arisen from the thread I created.
Anyway, you mods should get together and consider how old a thread on a film must be to allow a new thread on the film. And, again, it is worth noting that this is not a particularly active forum in need if severe pruning and rigidly enforced liimits on new threads. I've posted on (and moderated) forums like that, so I should know.
It is kind of ironic to get such nazi-moderating techniques on a light-traffic, light-subject forum that actually is stricter than what you get on, say, the current events and politics forum.
But the bottom line is that I don't mind strictness when it serves a purpose. cost/benefit approach. In the present case, my ability to start a passionate debate on Dogville through use of a colorful (somewhat incendiary) thread title was destroyed and for what? So you don't have 2 dogville threads going within 3 months of each other? See, I just don't see what you are gaining by cutting me down like that, compared to undermining the whole point of my thread.
As you can see, without my thread title, no passionate discussion on here has started. Because no one sees that a new voice has come on here who hated this movie and would like to debate its flaws with those who loved it. That important fact was blotted out by the thread merger.
These are the sorts of things that moderators should consider when they do their job, not just "Oh, its about Dogville, so I'll merge it with any old Dogville thread I can find no matter how old or bland that prior thread was in comparison to this new thread."
We could test my theory. If we put back my original thread with the title "Dogville = Dog crap", we would then see if it DOES generate some serious debate by people that has not materialized in the present thread. If it does, then you would see that the over-moderating in the present case DID have a negative effect on encouraging debate and participation in this forum. If the thread is ignored and drops down off the page quickly, then I'd say, 'gee, you're right...I guess my thread did not provoke any new debate and may as well have been appended to the prior dogville thread."
~psychoblast~
My post was to start a discussion. If it didn't get a response (i.e., pro-dogville fans wanting to defend the pic or others agreeing that it sucked) then it would drop off the page and die like all lame threads do.
The issue should not be whether my first post would have generated sufficient discussion to warrant having opened the thread in the first place. Duh. Lots of people start threads that fail that test. It is the chance you take.
The issue is whether, if you want to discuss a film on here, you are REQUIRED by the moderators to search back OVER TWO MONTHS to bump a prior discussion thread on the movie. In MY very open-minded opinion, that just demands too much of posters.
Frankly, it is rather offensive and off-putting, too, to get the short-hand criticism of a mod like "use the search function" like I did something wrong in not bumping a discussion thread OVER TWO MONTHS OLD. I felt like that was the sort of response to give if I started a thread on a film when a thread was already open in the last 10 days or something. Again, the prior dogville thread was OVER TWO MONTHS OLD.
So, basically, it is like the mods on here are implicitly declaring their policy by this action that you can NEVER have multiple threads on the same film. Is that it? No matter how old the prior thread is, you have to bump and add to it rather than start a new thread? or is their some cut off? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? See how stupid this gets?
Besides, a thread title like I originally had ("Dogville = dog crap") is pointed enough to draw in debate from pro-Dogville people in a way that the title "Film: Dogville" is unlikely to do. So, again, the merger undermined and stunted the discussion that might have arisen from the thread I created.
Anyway, you mods should get together and consider how old a thread on a film must be to allow a new thread on the film. And, again, it is worth noting that this is not a particularly active forum in need if severe pruning and rigidly enforced liimits on new threads. I've posted on (and moderated) forums like that, so I should know.
It is kind of ironic to get such nazi-moderating techniques on a light-traffic, light-subject forum that actually is stricter than what you get on, say, the current events and politics forum.
But the bottom line is that I don't mind strictness when it serves a purpose. cost/benefit approach. In the present case, my ability to start a passionate debate on Dogville through use of a colorful (somewhat incendiary) thread title was destroyed and for what? So you don't have 2 dogville threads going within 3 months of each other? See, I just don't see what you are gaining by cutting me down like that, compared to undermining the whole point of my thread.
As you can see, without my thread title, no passionate discussion on here has started. Because no one sees that a new voice has come on here who hated this movie and would like to debate its flaws with those who loved it. That important fact was blotted out by the thread merger.
These are the sorts of things that moderators should consider when they do their job, not just "Oh, its about Dogville, so I'll merge it with any old Dogville thread I can find no matter how old or bland that prior thread was in comparison to this new thread."
We could test my theory. If we put back my original thread with the title "Dogville = Dog crap", we would then see if it DOES generate some serious debate by people that has not materialized in the present thread. If it does, then you would see that the over-moderating in the present case DID have a negative effect on encouraging debate and participation in this forum. If the thread is ignored and drops down off the page quickly, then I'd say, 'gee, you're right...I guess my thread did not provoke any new debate and may as well have been appended to the prior dogville thread."
~psychoblast~
randycaver
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 21,709
I think that your accusations of nazi moderating are completely uncalled for.
You're upset b/c you didn't get your way once, thus we are nazi mods?
if you think it is asking too much of users to use the search function - that is just plain ridiculous. I like a well organized forum, and if that's a problem for you.. how bizarre! Plenty of other posters have no problem searching for a movie and adding their opinions to that thread, no matter how old.
You're upset b/c you didn't get your way once, thus we are nazi mods?
if you think it is asking too much of users to use the search function - that is just plain ridiculous. I like a well organized forum, and if that's a problem for you.. how bizarre! Plenty of other posters have no problem searching for a movie and adding their opinions to that thread, no matter how old.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 66,865
Film & Television forum feedback
hi
please use this thread as a place to discuss aspects of the f&t forum which don't fit within the subject matter of the forum: moderation; forum focus; etc.
i've kicked started this with some comments by psychoblast and lovelife which were pruned to WoB but the moderators feel deserve to be aired here.
alasdair
hi
please use this thread as a place to discuss aspects of the f&t forum which don't fit within the subject matter of the forum: moderation; forum focus; etc.
i've kicked started this with some comments by psychoblast and lovelife which were pruned to WoB but the moderators feel deserve to be aired here.
alasdair
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2000
- Messages
- 9,523
Props on opening this up for discussion, alasdairm.
I have already given my thoughts on the "new thread" issue above.
I have already given my thoughts on the "new thread" issue above.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 66,865
hello
i wanted to respond to some of the comments left in this thread (which was moved to WoB but the moderators felt would benefit from a home here. we've discussed this as a team but these comments are my own:
i don't believe it demands too much of posters at all. the search function defaults to 'any date' for the search period so you can search the entire history of the forum using the search feature's default setting.
if you are talking to the effort required to scan pages of thread subjects manually the i agree there's an increased burden the further back you go. the solution is easy. there's a search feature. use it.
to put this in perspective, i've moderated F&T for the bulk of my time as a bluelighter and this is the first and only time this has been raised as an issue.
no. that's not it. while the most convenient unit of discussion for a movie in this forum is a thread, there have been cases in the past and there will be in the future where the discussion is from such a different perspective or at such a tangent that two threads make more sense.
the answer is that's there's no specific limit. we ask all bluelighters to remember to do a search before posting.
i fail to see how one action = nazi-moderating. we've all spent a lot of time introducing new features here and moderating reasonably subtly to create a forum in which the signal to noise ratio speaks for itself. we're not perfect but i think we all do a pretty good job and that accusation is just plain silly.
indeed. you shoudl also know that starting a complaint thread in the forum is not the correct way to address a complaint...
it's just as likely that the thread title had nothing to do with it and your post simply failed to spark the debate you expected. that happens too.
i agree. if you or anybody would like to show a pattern of moderation for the sake of it, i'm all ears. i just don't think one incident means all of a sudden we don't know what we're doing.
thanks, indeed, for the comments. they are always very welcome.
alasdair
i wanted to respond to some of the comments left in this thread (which was moved to WoB but the moderators felt would benefit from a home here. we've discussed this as a team but these comments are my own:
Originally posted by psychoblast
The issue is whether, if you want to discuss a film on here, you are REQUIRED by the moderators to search back OVER TWO MONTHS to bump a prior discussion thread on the movie. In MY very open-minded opinion, that just demands too much of posters.
The issue is whether, if you want to discuss a film on here, you are REQUIRED by the moderators to search back OVER TWO MONTHS to bump a prior discussion thread on the movie. In MY very open-minded opinion, that just demands too much of posters.
i don't believe it demands too much of posters at all. the search function defaults to 'any date' for the search period so you can search the entire history of the forum using the search feature's default setting.
if you are talking to the effort required to scan pages of thread subjects manually the i agree there's an increased burden the further back you go. the solution is easy. there's a search feature. use it.
to put this in perspective, i've moderated F&T for the bulk of my time as a bluelighter and this is the first and only time this has been raised as an issue.
Originally posted by psychoblast
So, basically, it is like the mods on here are implicitly declaring their policy by this action that you can NEVER have multiple threads on the same film. Is that it?
So, basically, it is like the mods on here are implicitly declaring their policy by this action that you can NEVER have multiple threads on the same film. Is that it?
no. that's not it. while the most convenient unit of discussion for a movie in this forum is a thread, there have been cases in the past and there will be in the future where the discussion is from such a different perspective or at such a tangent that two threads make more sense.
Originally posted by psychoblast
Anyway, you mods should get together and consider how old a thread on a film must be to allow a new thread on the film.
Anyway, you mods should get together and consider how old a thread on a film must be to allow a new thread on the film.
the answer is that's there's no specific limit. we ask all bluelighters to remember to do a search before posting.
Originally posted by psychoblast
It is kind of ironic to get such nazi-moderating...
It is kind of ironic to get such nazi-moderating...
i fail to see how one action = nazi-moderating. we've all spent a lot of time introducing new features here and moderating reasonably subtly to create a forum in which the signal to noise ratio speaks for itself. we're not perfect but i think we all do a pretty good job and that accusation is just plain silly.
Originally posted by psychoblast
I've posted on (and moderated) forums like that, so I should know.
I've posted on (and moderated) forums like that, so I should know.
indeed. you shoudl also know that starting a complaint thread in the forum is not the correct way to address a complaint...
Originally posted by psychoblast
As you can see, without my thread title, no passionate discussion on here has started.
As you can see, without my thread title, no passionate discussion on here has started.
it's just as likely that the thread title had nothing to do with it and your post simply failed to spark the debate you expected. that happens too.
Originally posted by L O V E L I F E
Moderation for the sake of moderation is a moderately negative thing.
Moderation for the sake of moderation is a moderately negative thing.
i agree. if you or anybody would like to show a pattern of moderation for the sake of it, i'm all ears. i just don't think one incident means all of a sudden we don't know what we're doing.
thanks, indeed, for the comments. they are always very welcome.
alasdair
randycaver
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 21,709
i think the mods are fabulous
Lingo
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2000
- Messages
- 2,686
Perhaps I can shed some light on the whole "one topic, one thread" issue since I was the mod who set that policy. When I added it to the guidelines I did it because of the half dozen threads all saying the same things about the same movies... that and because of Catch-22's mega movie review threads. Mostly because of catch-22's mega review threads.
My goal was not to stifle thoughtful discussions, but to organize them a little better. It's not a whole lot of fun to scroll through pages and pages of wordy reviews of dozens of different movies and the random replies.
I also got tired of seeing threads like "Anyone see the new LoTR trailer!?" when simply going two or three pages into the forum would have revealed a plethora of the exact same topics and the discussions that had already taken place.
On the same token, there was a lengthy discussion on Magnolia. During the course of the thread the conversation split into other Paul Thomas Anderson films, so I started a brand new thread and moved all the non Magnolia related discussions to it.
Since I set that guideline, however, it HAS been taken a little too far. I agree that this forum fell victim to a great deal of over-modding. Alisdair's zero-tolerance state of mind is better suited to Social or Midwest Events or one of those other high-traffic, low-thought forums. Don't even get me started on Randycavers worthless contributions to this forum (when she DID contribute, it was mostly flames and arguments).
The bottom line: This isn't a forum that requires a great deal of control. The people who typicaly post here aren't stupid. The "signal to noise ratio" was never a problem. Sure, there may be some double-posts or redundant threads, and you are justified to close them and direct the person to the existing discussion, but for crying out loud... chill out a little.
Adios,
Steve
My goal was not to stifle thoughtful discussions, but to organize them a little better. It's not a whole lot of fun to scroll through pages and pages of wordy reviews of dozens of different movies and the random replies.
I also got tired of seeing threads like "Anyone see the new LoTR trailer!?" when simply going two or three pages into the forum would have revealed a plethora of the exact same topics and the discussions that had already taken place.
On the same token, there was a lengthy discussion on Magnolia. During the course of the thread the conversation split into other Paul Thomas Anderson films, so I started a brand new thread and moved all the non Magnolia related discussions to it.
Since I set that guideline, however, it HAS been taken a little too far. I agree that this forum fell victim to a great deal of over-modding. Alisdair's zero-tolerance state of mind is better suited to Social or Midwest Events or one of those other high-traffic, low-thought forums. Don't even get me started on Randycavers worthless contributions to this forum (when she DID contribute, it was mostly flames and arguments).
The bottom line: This isn't a forum that requires a great deal of control. The people who typicaly post here aren't stupid. The "signal to noise ratio" was never a problem. Sure, there may be some double-posts or redundant threads, and you are justified to close them and direct the person to the existing discussion, but for crying out loud... chill out a little.
Adios,
Steve
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 66,865
Originally posted by Lingo
Alisdair's zero-tolerance state of mind...
Alisdair's zero-tolerance state of mind...
there is no zero-tolerance policy at play here. my reply earlier in this thread makes that pretty clear.
Originally posted by Lingo
Don't even get me started on Randycavers worthless contributions to this forum (when she DID contribute, it was mostly flames and arguments).
Don't even get me started on Randycavers worthless contributions to this forum (when she DID contribute, it was mostly flames and arguments).
it's pretty clear to any reasonable observer that rc made a positive contribution in this forum. i'm not suggesting it's the case here but i fear many people allow their personal opinion of rc to cloud their ability to see her contribution in different forums on merit.
thanks for your comments.
alasdair
silvia saint
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,869
hey guys
i think the polls taken for rating films should all have a 5 star rating to choose from instead of 4.
thanks
ss
i think the polls taken for rating films should all have a 5 star rating to choose from instead of 4.
thanks
ss
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 66,865
hi
we discussed the granularity of the rating system (...up to 10 stars) before doing it and came to the conclusion that 4 gave an acceptable balance of ease of use (for the mods) and a distinct enough rating for the movie. it's meant to be used as a rough guide and, at this stage, it's unlikely to change.
thanks for the comments.
alasdair
we discussed the granularity of the rating system (...up to 10 stars) before doing it and came to the conclusion that 4 gave an acceptable balance of ease of use (for the mods) and a distinct enough rating for the movie. it's meant to be used as a rough guide and, at this stage, it's unlikely to change.
thanks for the comments.
alasdair
randycaver
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 21,709
Lingo said:
I suggest you take your own advice - for crying out loud... chill out a little.
I'd also like to suggest that you put your money where your mouth is and quote where I'm argumentative and flaming. I know you just cant stand me - the feeling is mutual - but for you to invent my behavior in this forum is just absurd. You don't even particpate in this forum but once in a blue moon -so I think you're being unnecessarily abrasive.
I contributed plenty during the time that I was a moderator in this forum so I challenge you to come up with several threads that show that I am in fact, flaming and argumentative - two words I think describe you MORE than adequately.
- edit - on second thought - scratch that request. I don't feel that it's needed to give your silly accusations merit. I know they're false, and so do many others.
Btw, how nice it is of you to "set a standard" that you now think shouldn't be upheld. Just because you were, and still are - a movie snob doesn't mean others want to follow your lead.