The Lowest Common Denominator Thread

[B_big dirigible]

Originally Posted by Rob_E
The first thing that I will do as new owner will be to empower the more active members here as moderators and super moderators.

A curious idea. Why would the "more active members" need empowerment? What was that intended to accomplish?

Not really relevant, in any case, as the correlation between activity and moderator or super moderator status (whatever that is) is currently not very strong, if it ever was.

 

[earllogjam]

I think that FF's suggestion is spot on as the same topics come up without fail month after month.

Another suggestion is to be able to choose the category of threads that appear on your Today's New Post List just so it is more manageable and tailored to one's interests here. I usually find threads and post through the "New" posts button just because it is easy. That is my main LSPG interface. I don't use the subscription feature.

I would screen the categories I rarely post to but often have many threads - New Member Intros, Adult Websites, Personal Ads, Web Cams, Help Desk, (if there was a category "Penis size does it matter?" I would be able to screen that).

A thread ignore button may be helpful too.

 

[basque9]

Are the dog days of summer here to stay at LPSG? A critical mass has disappeared it seems. Did popularity breed contempt?

Plus ca change, plus que c'est la meme chose!
The more things change, the more they remain the same!

 

[novice_btm]

Um, just so that we're all clear on this, because I'm not sure that it's ever been outlined, but are you trying to say you're not fond of the whole Moderator thing, Big Dirge?

How about a suggestion for improvement? What WOULD work for you? Your post might as well read, "61", at this point. You're too bright to be stuck on this one-note song, and you're too bright not to have some ideas, so CONTRIBUTE.

I thought that the whole idea of this thread was to discuss what's wrong with posting topics these days, and possibly even get into discussing what we can do to improve things.

 

[mindseye]

It's worth mentioning that when Rob_E made his introductory post as site owner on 1st December 2005, this was in fact one of his stated intentions:

In his first 18 months, he's accomplished three of those goals, by my count: improvement of the chat system from flash-based to java-based (and yes, it was rocky at first); better gallery integration: gallery thumbnails now appear in members' profiles, and a link to their galleries appears in each of their posts; and the ability to "rate" gallery pictures.

I do not expect that an LPSG-wiki will alleviate the problems that people have expressed in this thread. Insecure teenage boys desperate for attention and flattery will quickly dismiss a wiki with, "Yes, but am I big?" (Or "But are my little white bumps serious?")

A curious idea. Why would the "more active members" need empowerment? What was that intended to accomplish?

Not really relevant, in any case, as the correlation between activity and moderator or super moderator status (whatever that is) is currently not very strong, if it ever was.

I think it was quite strong at first: the earliest batch of people to whom he offered moderator positions included several of the most-active members at the time. There were at least two very prolific posters who chose not to accept these positions, skewing the correlation downwards somewhat; obviously, Rob can't be held responsible for those decisions. You ask what it was "intended to accomplish": if I had just acquired a forum whose culture I was unfamiliar with, I might well regard the prolific posters as those who had invested the most of themselves into the forum, and -- my lacking other grounds to evaluate them on -- would be a reasonable place to look for people who cared enough to handle a moderator position responsibly.

During the second round of nominations -- a year later, after Rob had grown more familiar with the LPSG culture -- we instead established a minimum volume of posts for consideration that was generously low, but did not consider sheer volume beyond that point (in fact, we chose one moderator with fewer than 100 posts). So, you're right that the correlation between posting volume and moderatorship is low now, but the criteria had changed since 2005. (You can see his announcement regarding the second round of nominations here.)

 

[Duality]

I posted here once or twice in 2001/2, though I can't remember exactly when or what my name was. In the summer of 2004, I was on here as 'InnocentBystander' a little, but again, I didn't post all that much, and most of what I did was bullshit. Finally, last summer/fall was the bulk of my presence here, as AboutAverage/Ummagumma. I know that's a lot of names, but I'm bad with remembering passwords :redface: (well... I got rid of AA cause I was sick of the bitching to be totally honest). Anyways, after a nasty stalker type situation, I took a 6 month break and came back a month or so ago (I didn't really plan on ever coming back but old habits...), and in my opinion, the tone of LPSG now is far better than it was last summer, or at any time in the past.

I'm not going to name names, but there's a few people (some of whom are now banned) that made this place feel like a minefield last year, and many of the new members that replaced them since (DJG, Arliss, musclebutt2, ironsoul, viking1, SpoiledPrincess, ManlyBanisters, ganja4me, no strings, burnside... just to name a few) have kept me much more entertained than many of the 'board veterans' ever have in the past. And remember how every thread used to devolve into the same exact 'fleshpile' every time? Yeah, I don't miss that at all.

Sure, there are some people that don't come around as often as they once did (or at all) that are missed... But that's just how life works, on the internet and in real life. All websites and forums grow by the day, but only if said sites appear to be worth joining. So if you ask me, the board veterans should take pride in the place they built and the people they've helped attract!

 

[D_alex8]

In his first 18 months, he's accomplished three of those goals, by my count: improvement of the chat system from flash-based to java-based (and yes, it was rocky at first); better gallery integration: gallery thumbnails now appear in members' profiles, and a link to their galleries appears in each of their posts; and the ability to "rate" gallery pictures.

I wasn't criticizing at all; I too was impressed at just how many of the points on the checklist could be crossed off. I merely posted it as a reminder that this is a plan that's been mentioned here on-and-off ever since Rob's acquisition of the site.

I do not expect that an LPSG-wiki will alleviate the problems that people have expressed in this thread. Insecure teenage boys desperate for attention and flattery will quickly dismiss a wiki with, "Yes, but am I big?" (Or "But are my little white bumps serious?")

To a great extent, sadly, I'd agree with this too - I could readily envisage a scenario akin to that with the TOS; they're there for all to read, but those who really ought to read them never will, and will go on posting after their own merry fashion, without a regard for their use of txtspk or their failure to respect others' boundaries of comfort, etc.

Most post-literate members would likely simply ignore a FAQ outright, and carry on regardless, just as you suggest. Of course, the optimist in me would still like to hope that a FAQ would serve some purpose, at least in allaying the appearance of a few of the repetitive posts by providing answers for some n00bs who would read them, or in providing a useful resource for responding to questions more comprehensively.

 

[fortiesfun]

Excellent suggestion. Mind if I bring it to Rob's attention?

It's worth mentioning that when Rob_E made his introductory post as site owner on 1st December 2005, this was in fact one of his stated intentions.

I do not expect that an LPSG-wiki will alleviate the problems that people have expressed in this thread. Insecure teenage boys desperate for attention and flattery will quickly dismiss a wiki with, "Yes, but am I big?" (Or "But are my little white bumps serious?")

I merely posted it as a reminder that this is a plan that's been mentioned here on-and-off ever since Rob's acquisition of the site. Of course, the optimist in me would still like to hope that a FAQ would serve some purpose, at least in allaying the appearance of a few of the repetitive posts by providing answers for some n00bs who would read them, or in providing a useful resource for responding to questions more comprehensively.

Ah, the endless embarrassment of finding that something I thought was my good idea was proposed long before I got here, and has been thoroughly discussed without my input... *sighs*

Nonetheless, I am glad to see there is some support for the idea of creating a wiki area. Of course it will not stop the "Am I Big?" Threads.

(Couldn't we just create an "Am I Big?" area, btw, for each new poster to attach a photo and get a response, usually - "It is impossible to tell in extreme close up, since there is nothing to compare you to, but probably not.")

That is not really the problem, however. I assert again that "too little substance" is not really caused by there being too many lightweight threads, but by there being too few heavyweight ones. And I think the latter problem is, at least in part, created because when you do the hard lifting of creating a thread with real substance only to have it sink into oblivion in a couple of days, it is disheartening. There ought to be a way, and I think that way is wiki, to make the good stuff stick around long enough for it to be worth the effort to create it. If the idiots don't automatically consult it, we can't be surprised, but if we are not in the habit of automatically directing them to it, then we have only ourselves to blame.

Of course, most of the folks who are writing in this thread have done real heavy lifting at some point. Perhaps as a quick step toward the better each of us could bump one worthwhile thread from the past that we remember as being particularly interesting. Or better yet, and perhaps I'll take some action on this, we could create ONE thread just to reference LPSG classics that deserve another look...

 

[mindseye]

(Couldn't we just create an "Am I Big?" area, btw, for each new poster to attach a photo and get a response, usually - "It is impossible to tell in extreme close up, since there is nothing to compare you to, but probably not.")

I've thought about an AI program that would lurk as a "bot" on here, attempt to recognize such threads, and post reassuring answers like "YOUR PENIS IS POSITIVELY GARGANTUAN. ALL OTHERS PALE IN COMPARISON." or "WHY, IT'S MAMMOTH. DOES IT HAVE ITS OWN ZIP CODE?" I think our own Eliza could provide hours of amusement.

 

[50%more]

I am still here.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Um, just so that we're all clear on this, because I'm not sure that it's ever been outlined, but are you trying to say you're not fond of the whole Moderator thing, Big Dirge?

How about a suggestion for improvement? What WOULD work for you? Your post might as well read, "61", at this point. You're too bright to be stuck on this one-note song, and you're too bright not to have some ideas, so CONTRIBUTE.

Over the past few weeks I've pointed out some bloody obvious problems with the local moderation effort, and also tossed out some equally obvious solutions. But clearly nobody's much interested, and if I repeat them all I'll only be accused of monomania. Anybody who is interested in board improvement knows perfectly well what the problems are without my explication.

I thought that the whole idea of this thread was to discuss what's wrong with posting topics these days, and possibly even get into discussing what we can do to improve things.

I don't think topics are obviously worse than they've been in the past. In fact the usual thread hijackers have been relatively quiet of late.

 

[snoozan]

I'm voting for arliss for today's Lowest Common Denominator Award.

 

[mindseye]

Any reason you decided to drag that drama over here?

 

[snoozan]

Any reason you decided to drag that drama over here?

I thought of this myself when I was posting that zinger, mindseye, and you may well be right.

Then again, this thread is the more appropriate thread to discuss today's drama with arliss than the very much needed and appreciated thread that fortiesfun started on revisiting old threads. "Over here" where we're discussing the whys of the overall board content going down seems to be the place to talk about how one person can both damage the community with deceitfulness and by chasing around someone from thread to thread turning it into an all out bitchfight.

"That drama" is a big part of why I get very exasperated here. The sad part is, some days it's an improvement over the other currently active threads. I find myself being drawn to the drama a lot, but I know it'd be more rewarding to set my brain to posting on a more worthwhile thread. Lately, I haven't seen so much of that.

Part of it, too, is that there needs to be a critical mass of posters willing to participate in such threads. A lot of times moderators can help guide a community in a good direction by investing themselves into more quality threads. There are a few moderators whose voices I think are very missed on the boards.

 

[arliss]

I'm voting for arliss for today's Lowest Common Denominator Award.

much appreciated ....thanks..i will hang it on my mantle

 

[Matthew]

Embody the change you want to see.

If you don't find the topics you want to talk about, start them.*







* - unless you already start topics all the time. :wink: