• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 13th October 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Good Posting Practices

stu neville

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,719
This thread has been distilled down from a 20 page, 600 post epic which kicked off 15 years ago. In that time we've had a number of major software changes that have rendered a lot of posts redundant, plus about 12 pages of off-topic meandering.

What follows is all appropriate to the current iteration of the forum. I will be keeping it locked so it remains focused.

WhistlingJack said:
Hardly anyone has ever complained to the mag about the quoting of copyrighted material and of those who have, we've always complied with their requests to remove it.

So, personally, I'd say carry on (within reason, though: there's really no need to quote h-u-g-e articles when a précis will suffice), but if it's behind a paywall, then please leave it there.
Click to expand...
Further to this, and following a lively(ish) discussion elsewhere in this corner of the forum, I have investigated the copyright situation. It's not clear-cut (of course), but the general gist is that if certain publishers were so-minded they could probably rip us a new one, given the sheer amount of their material that's been lifted wholesale, albeit usually accredited. And, to be frank, we could potentially be left extremely vulnerable if they were to dig a bit - and as we're already in a parlous position to start with I really don't want to risk that.

That aside, there's also the aesthetic argument. It has been pointed out that a wall of text (in the, erm, Wall of Text thread) can be very off-putting - particularly when the entire thread consists of lengthy quoted articles, and most especially when there's little or no input, discussion or original comment from posters. To me, actual interest in a thread is best indicated by the quality of poster debate and interaction rather than hits (and the former is titularly what this place should be all about.)

I have decided that it's in no-one's interest to go back and start editing or deleting threads, so I am going to draw the line today. From now on, only quote entire articles if they fulfill one or more of the following criteria:

  • It is the opening post of a Fortean News Story thread

    The article cited is in serious risk of becoming unavailable (ie on a transitory site)

    The entire quote contains previously undisclosed information on an existing thread

    The entire quote is essential to properly advance an argument

If the quote doesn't fulfill any of the above, then just quote an abstract with the salient point, the link as it stands on that day, and a comment explaining why you have posted it. If necessary, we will edit down long quoted articles ourselves, but that will come with words of advice to the poster and repeated occurences may incur warnings, as will repeated posting of articles without comment, or single links.

I will post this as an announcement as well. Discussion of this matter can now continue on the previously mentioned Wall of Text thread.
 
Last edited:
We've had a few examples lately of really long thread titles--in one case one that was too long to fit and was cut off mid-word.

It would be good if we could keep them to a single line whenever possible.
 
Yithian said:
We've had a few examples lately of really long thread titles--in one case one that was too long to fit and was cut off mid-word.

It would be good if we could keep them to a single line whenever possible.
Click to expand...
..and explanatory is good, too. We had a spell of people posting threads called "Hey, look at this!" and "Do you think this is real?" and one in 2002 called "no".

Give us an idea what it's about, please.
 
May I please whinge about paragraphing again? No?
I will anyway.

Big blocks of text are tedious to read and so may be given up on. Older readers or ones with eye problems or dyslexia might give up on such posts, which is a shame if the content is good.

Short paragraphs of 2-3 sentences are a good way to present ideas and accounts of events that might be new to people. Replies are more likely to be read if they too are broken up into more easily-followed chunks.

Anyway, paragraphing gives a good impression. It looks rational and implies consideration for the reader rather a desire to push an idea at any cost.

Paragraph breaks don't interfere with the flow of the post. A reader coming to a new idea will appreciate the chance to stop and think for a moment without losing their place.

This is why paper texts are laid out in paragraphs: writers (and their editors) know people will give up on their work if it's too hard to read.

Of course, paragraphs in printed works can be longer than those in print because there is a different physical relationship between the eye and the page:

You might
- tilt the page nearer the light
- hold a place with a thumb while you pick up your coffee
- find the last bit you read by spotting the shape of the paragraph you were looking at
and so on.

Reading from a page is dynamic: it's not just about following text with your eyes, which is what we do when reading from a screen.

So... yeah. Paragraphs.
 
Fluttermoth said:
I do so agree!

In fact, I will confess here, that I have edited paragraph breaks into posts, on a forum which I help moderate. Clarity is important!
Click to expand...

I've done it in the past, but life is too short.

And then I wonder whether I ought to correct their spelling and punctuation.

And then I wonder whether I ought to sort out their phrasing.

And then I remember that I probably shouldn't re-write everybody's posts.
 
Fluttermoth said:
I do so agree!

In fact, I will confess here, that I have edited paragraph breaks into posts, on a forum which I help moderate. Clarity is important!
Click to expand...

On another MB I have asked contributors to impose paragraphing on cut'n'paste posts (it's an OK practice there, sharing yarns) and it's done all the time now.
 
Please keep technical discussions off the discussion threads. If you think a thread is in the wrong place, a duplication of an existing topic, a violation of our guidelines or stupid, please post here, in WEBSITE ISSUES, not on the thread.

Also, if you want to request a merge, please don't post the comment on the discussion thread, post links to the two (or more) threads in the REORGANISATION thread.

I think we're pretty quick with these things, but when users go off on meta-discussions or post links that will likely become dead, it just means more cleaning up for us. If you 'tag' me in the REORGANISATION thread, it is very likely to be attended to within a few hours, often within a few minutes.

Thanks.
 
We haven't had to say this before, but we've had a number of new members this year who enjoy posting (multiple) lengthy YouTube videos. Aliens, conspiracy, religion and numerology are the most common subjects. Being able to embed video in posts is a great boon, but as this is a Discussion Forum any video really needs to supplementary to the text of your post; the point you are making should be pretty much established with the video in support, not vice-versa.

I have solicited views beyond my own here and the overwhelming consensus is that many such posts are little better than spam that breaks the flow of established discussion threads.

None of this applies to CHAT, of course.
 
It's not a rule or anything, but message board convention has long been to avoid making multiple consecutive postings on a single thread--or at least avoid doing it often.

If you want to respond to several different points from several posters in separate posts, the quote function allows you to do this in a single post. All it takes is a little formatting to insert your text beneath the quotation to which you are responding.

Similarly, if you have half a dozen pictures to post on the same thread, please group them together in a single post when possible--there's even a built-in gallery feature that will handle up to twenty images per post (I think it's 20).

You can also embed up to eight videos per post; we don't need eight consecutive posts.
 
Yithian said:
It's not a rule or anything, but message board convention has long been to avoid making multiple consecutive postings on a single thread--or at least avoid doing it often.

If you want to respond to several different points from several posters in separate posts, the quote function allows you to do this in a single post. All it takes is a little formatting to insert your text beneath the quotation to which you are responding.

Simarly, If you have half a dozen pictures to post on the same thread, please group them together in a single post when possible--there's even a built-in gallery feature that will handle up to twenty images per post (I think it's 20).

You can also embed up to eight videos per post; we don't need eight consecutive posts.
Click to expand...
Sorry to be thick but how do I multi quote when I'm posting a single reply please? .. I haven't sussed that one out yet ..
 
Lb8535 said:
Swifty, what is the difference between a flounce and a rage quit? or is the latter a US term?
Click to expand...

Flouncing is an overly dramatic fit of indignation intended to demonstrate superiority and, if at all possible, win sympathy/acknowledgment from your audience (and best of all pleas for you to stay). If it's dubbed flouncing by the audience, however, it has failed.

Rage is just flaming every ****** you hate on your way to the door.
 
Lb8535 said:
Swifty, what is the difference between a flounce and a rage quit? or is the latter a US term?
Click to expand...

I've never encountered 'rage quit' (aka 'rage-quit', 'ragequit') used in any context other than video / computer gaming, where it means getting angry and abandoning a game with physical violence (e.g., throwing or smashing a keyboard).

Conversely, I don't recall anything being called a 'flounce' that insinuated action exceeding making a scene, calling attention to oneself and one's departure, or making snarky departing remarks.
 
EnolaGaia said:
I've never encountered 'rage quit' (aka 'rage-quit', 'ragequit') used in any context other than video / computer gaming, where it means getting angry and abandoning a game with physical violence (e.g., throwing or smashing a keyboard).

Conversely, I don't recall anything being called a 'flounce' that insinuated action exceeding making a scene, calling attention to oneself and one's departure, or making snarky departing remarks.
Click to expand...


There have been rage quits (or so others called them) on several forums that I read, always caused by the moderator temporarily banning someone or closing down a thread. And these I promise you really are light-weight literary and musical forums.
 
That I'm aware of, no one here swears without "starring" it out, which I think is ****ing ridiculous.

Are we allowed to swear uncensored?
 
Ogdred_Weary said:
That I'm aware of, no one here swears without "starring" it out, which I think is ****ing ridiculous.

Are we allowed to swear uncensored?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that includes racial and sexual slurs--but there probably ought to be a good reason to post them.

In direct quotations of profanity it would be preferable to use the word or words in full, but there's no requirement either way.

My only request is that members try to curb the impulse in their thread titles. Many discover the board through search engines and we'd rather not their first impression of the board be a false one (despite what one member claimed a few weeks ago, we don't have all that much swearing here).
 
Yithian said:
Yes, and that includes racial and sexual slurs--but there probably ought to be a good reason to post them.

In direct quotations of profanity it would be preferable to use the word or words in full, but there's no requirement either way.

My only request is that members try to curb the impulse in their thread titles. Many discover the board through search engines and we'd rather not their first impression of the board be a false one (despite what one member claimed a few weeks ago, we don't have all that much swearing here).
Click to expand...

So, sorry, just to double check. We can swear uncensored? It's not something I'm desperate to do, it's just I've never noticed it here. If I used racial slurs it would be in quotation of someone else using them and they would be in quote marks. I completely agree on not swearing in thread titles.
 
INT21 said:
...Yes, and that includes racial and sexual slurs--but there probably ought to be a good reason to post them....

And the reason would be ?
Click to expand...

It's completely context dependent, so this will not be an exhaustive list, but some examples that come to mind are:

1) A legal case that hinged on the precise words spoken by offender/victim.

2) Describing racial/sexual insults that were used against you personally.

3) As part of a discussion of the subject of profanity itself (see posts made above--although this isn't really the best place for it).

4) On a thread concerning Coprolalia.

5) Quoting lyrics, literature and poetry. They Fuck You Up, Your Mum And Dad (in a current thread title)

6) Making a serious point graphically. Woman is the nigger of the world.

Moving back to swearing on the board in general:

To be clear, if a member just comes out with a gout of expletives halfway through a calm discussion on a non-Chat thread, a moderator will likely take action, and if they insult other members using swear words, they will certainly be warned. In the non-virtual world, however, there are places that one is entitled to swear with impunity if one wishes (one's home, a pub--a 'locker room' for Americans). Once again, there is no compunction on anybody to swear if they don't wish to, but I see the CHAT section as one of those places.

Personally, and I've posted this before, I have grown irritated by discussions that I (non-rhetorically) cannot follow because I am not sure who is using the slur 'nigger' and who is saying the euphemism 'the n-word'. Similarly, social media now has a host of these euphemisms that I and many others cannot even identify. We all know 'the n-word', 'the c-word' and 'the f-word' (although this one tripped me up at first), but how about 'the k-word', 'the b-word' 'the t-word' and 'the y-word'?

This is no way to run a language, let alone a message-board. I'm afraid that for all my personal admiration for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I see no place on this board for U.S. political puritanism (which is fast outgrowing the U.S.).

Forteans should speak their minds.

Perhaps Stu and EnolaGaia feel differently, but in my view enforced politeness is not politeness, it's a speech code. Tone and manners are context-dependent and socially enforced. Adult posters here have a responsibility to read the tone of the discussion to which they plan to contribute and write appropriately. Failure to do so will in the first place make you look stupid, and in the second cause you to receive a warning--not for swearing per se, but for spoiling a reasonable discussion.

We treat you like adults here, not school kids.

I'm afraid I don't recall the specifics of your 'homo-descriptive'.
 
Yithian said:
It's completely context dependent, so this will not be an exhaustive list, but some examples that come to mind are:

1) A legal case that hinged on the precise words spoken by offender/victim.
2) Describing racial/sexual insults that were used against you personally.
3) As part of a discussion of subject of profanity itself (see posts made above--although this isn't really the best place for it).
4) On a thread concerning Coprolalia.
5) Quoting lyrics, literature and poetry. They Fuck You Up, Your Mum And Dad (in a current thread title)
6) Making a serious point graphically. Woman is the nigger of the world.
Click to expand...

I generally agree ...

A blanket prohibition on uttering 'bad words' is as ultimately counterproductive to mitigating the underlying problem(s) they represent as deliberately ignoring symptoms in the course of dealing with an illness.

You can't state a general position - much less express a specific opinion - on acceptability of certain words without drawing attention to them, and you can't highlight them as slurs without citing them.

Beyond that, and as Yith's list of examples illustrates, there are situations or contexts where a meaning, impact, or ramification can't be reasonably expressed without mentioning a 'bad word'.

I also agree with Yith that context is everything in evaluating whether an instance of swearing is an actionable offense. Invoking 'bad words' to make a point or as a colorful stylistic gloss doesn't bother me. If you express such slurs in apparently serious reference to an individual or group, I'll be on you like ugly on an ape.
 
I think Yith and EnolaGaia have it covered, pretty much. We've never needed to ban profanity because the membership does by and large regulate itself in that respect. You'll see it here and there, but as Yith said it's entirely context-driven. If any one does go properly OTT we act, and obviously always do so if it's lurched into an ad hominem attack. Flaming and trolling will remain prohibited.

It's not difficult.
 
INT21 said:
... Why is anyone allowed to post as a guest ?
Isn't the ability to post what differentiates between member and guest ?
Click to expand...

Currently - and for an indeterminate time past (perhaps since the very beginning) ...

Guests are not allowed to post threads or posts - full stop.

There are two ways I've seen in which there are posts or even threads whose sources are annotated as 'Guest':

(1) The rarely used route of an unregistered guest contacting the staff and being allowed (under moderator / admin control) to submit a post. In effect this represents an unregistered outsider being permitted to hand over a post that accretes to the forum through the staff. Such posts are typically flagged (to us staffers) as 'moderated'. I've run across a couple of ancient examples of such moderated posts, but I don't know that this procedure has been used anytime lately.

There was a post-migration incident in which someone approached us to post a message, but we agreed to stay out of it and advised the contact to register and post the message himself.

(2) If a user account goes MIA (e.g., lost to the bit bucket during a forum migration) the forum software automatically labels the orphaned / damaged account with the default name 'Anonymous' and a default user title of 'Guest'. There are many examples of this default renaming strewn throughout the forums. There is no single 'Anonymous' - it's really just a placeholder or catch-all default label for any of the multiple users whose account records have disappeared, become corrupted, or been lost over the years.

This default renaming does not apply to accounts that are merged (e.g., merging a user's pre-migration account with a new one he / she has presumptively started at the new site). Account mergers re-allocate all postings to the username under which the accounts are merged.
 
INT21 said:
So when a half dozen posters are 'Anonymous, Guest' there is no way knowing if a series of posts in a thread is by the same person or not ? Except, of course, by the style and context.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I can assure you it's only a minority of cases in which the anonymized / merged user's identity can be reasonably ascertained. Determining 'this Anonymous' is different from 'that Anonymous' is most often a futile exercise.


INT21 said:
Would it be worthy of consideration that such posters be required to finish their post as 'previously AKA (the old name).
Click to expand...

No. Such posters are long gone (or at least their accounts are disabled / locked). They can't be asked to access, much less extend or annotate, their posts.


INT21 said:
It would only require a quick copy/past to add it to each post.
Click to expand...

True, but ... As mentioned above, the vast majority of Anonymous-labeled users are 'past tense' (gone; MIA). This means such notation would be left to the staff. As the staff member arguably most active in salvaging / repairing old threads, I can assure you it would be too little too late and a huge waste of time.

The only reasonable solution would be to enforce "one account per member", and that's what we're trying to do in this new incarnation of the forums. We now screen new registrants for evidence of commonality with extant members, and we (pointedly) offer to merge old and new accounts whenever a new member turns out to be an old member reborn.

Because IP logs and other member data have been purged for accounts thrown into 'Anonymous' status, we don't really have a reliable way to associate such accounts with current ones.

Above and beyond this last point, it's clear to me a certain proportion of past member account data failed to be carried over during one or more of the prior forum rebuilds / migrations.
 
For the love of God, if you have any of the following issues:
  • A technical problem with how the board is performing or being unable to post what you want.
  • A request for a merge, a split, a new thread or you are searching for a suitable thread.
  • A disagreement with some administrative or disciplinary judgment.
  • A complaint about the content posted by other members.
Please let's address it by PM or choose one of the many threads in WEBSITE ISSUES.

Doing otherwise is just making an awful mess of discussion threads, which dissuades participation.

this-isnt-nam-there-are-rules.jpg
 
The same story was posted by four members on three threads this morning.

Choose the most distinctive key word in the story--one that is more uncommon but cannot be sensibly omitted (place names are good) and search before posting, please.
 
If you happen to come across any old threads that have been locked ('Not Open For Further Replies'), please post links to them here.

There aren't all that many really, but now we (the board) are our own dog, so to speak, we're able to call the shots and may be able to re-open them.
 
Over the last year or so (but especially of late) there have been a lot of links to mainstream news sites that don't lead directly to the target article.

Most of the offending links are links to a Google search result that auto-loads the desired page in a Google frame.

These aren't good as a) The links are very long and unsightly and b) some browsers do not auto-load them.

We'd be very grateul if you could strip the preliminary Google prefix and copy only the part that points to the page itself.
 
Members are going to have to decide very soon whether they would prefer to have either a board where they may adorn any thread with snippy one-liners about social justice warriors, feminists, transexuals, vegans, climate activists and (even) bloody cyclists or a board with a larger and more varied membership and an active staff to support it.

We see what you don't. Trust us when we say that the former is seriously jeopardising the latter.

If you feel that this might be aimed at you, then it probably is. Think before you post.

Those who fail to do so can just jog on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top