I've been just watching from the sidelines on this one, but the rule is seriously that we have to check if any threads we created are on the first page before starting a new thread? Is there an accepted number of "old" threads on the first page that would prevent the OP from starting a new thread?

I would think this would have been a much bigger issue in the Other forum if it has been enforced before, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Generally 4 or 5 threads created by the same person is the limit we have set. It can vary a bit due to forum activity, and when it occasionally occurs we tend to let it pass as no big deal. When the same person who has specifically had the rule pointed out to them gets back into that pattern, it becomes time to remind them of it.

As I said earlier, the poster doesn't have much control over old threads that have been bumped up due to discussion by other people, but they do have the ability to let them drop off the front page of that forum before they create new ones.

Most people don't seem to have a problem noticing their own threads on the front page of a forum and their recognition of a limit on creating new ones under those circumstances appears to have been easy to follow.

We really don't want to say that one person's threads are more important than other peoples' and inconsistencies in applying the rules often leads to confusion so we try to be as consistent as possible.

Fair enough I guess, I can't say I've heard that before. I don't start that many threads so it's not that big a deal for me, but I guess I will watch that before I do start one.

As far as I know it is enforced in the Other forum, and actually came as a direct result of activity in the Other forum IIRC. Now whether whether that activity should have been written off as "posting games" (which is in the written rules) could have been one approach but it was instead decided to limit people to 4 threads on the main page no matter how they got there (created or bumped). The reason an arbitrary number was chosen, instead of taking the "worth" of the thread into consideration, is because frankly it's easier. It takes the burden off the mods/admins from having to decide which threads are of value and which aren't, and frankly this job has enough judgment calls w/o adding another one.

Now maybe this doesn't carry well over to the all the other forums. After all it is much easier to spam the Other forum w/ junk/joke threads than the other forums. However I have to say I also agree w/ a previous poster in this thread in that the posts in the main forum (whether by the OP of this thread or not) that consist of just the name of a DVD and a release date (w/ maybe a link to a store or press release) aren't really of much interest to me. There is already a "release date" sticky that serves this purpose.

So you want the "release date sticky" to serve as the post for discussion of ALL upcoming releases?

That's the way that comes off to me...and surely you can imagine the clutter and confusion that would result from that.

I think the idea would be that if someone actually wants to discuss the release they could start the thread containing that discussion.

Quite frankly, the question was directed at nemein.

And besides...that's exactly what happens now anyway.

I think it should be the main one instead of having a thread for each release (and I know there actually isn't one for each and every release ). Frankly if all the OP of a thread has to offer is a release date and a link to some other site w/ the info/sales page that isn't doing anything for me. Put it in the release date thread and drive on. Then if someone comes up w/ an interesting point/trivia/comment about the release they can start a thread. As it is the OP of this thread just seems to like to fill the main forum w/ release date threads and offering little in the way of substance. That's the way I see it, I'm sure other people disagree and think he's providing a valuable service.


No what we have now is one poster "spamming" (for lack of a better term) the main forum w/ threads that he frequently doesn't even seem to go back and repost anything in. On a couple of occasions as well it looks like he's started these threads about DVDs for which there already is a thread. Nothing against dx23, I'm sure the threads he participates in he provides some good insight/comments (and I don't recall of hand any RTP about any of his posts). However we already have a location for new release info so if there's nothing beyond that, and he doesn't follow up in the discussion he started, what's the point of starting the thread

Even if I don't post i follow it to see what other members think about the topic. For example, I post the Criterion Newsletter to give the news about the future releases, but also to see who can anwser the wacky animal trivia and also to see if other members know about some of the obscure films that the company is releasing.

I understand that if I have no information to add or any question that hasn't been anwsered in the thread, then it would be stupid to come back to the thread and post anything in it. Still, that doesn't mean that I don't continously go back and read what other members have posted.

Even though I'm not a big fan of polls, why don't we do one and see what everyone thinks about this topic? We can resolve this dispute by the process of voting.

This forum isn't run by popular vote. It's nice when feedback from members is taken into account when making decisions and rules but this forum and community has been pretty successfully by relying on the direction of those in charge.

The last thing I want to see is some corporation come in and start meddling in the way the forum is run. There are times where I've disagreed with some of the editorial decisions (I'm specifically thinking of some of the proliferation of adult content into the general site) but even then I wouldn't have wanted IB stepping in if they had owned DVDTalk at the time. You open up the door for that and you lose the direction and management that has made this site great.

The "complete abuse of power" part seems just a tad over the top. Clearly the subject came up in the past and was discussed by mods and admins and the 4-5 thread limit was decided upon. X is merely enforcing it.

I think it's good to get things off your chest here. The feedback forum is a place to share ideas and try to make this a better place for everyone. I think in this case the OP has raised a point about multiple threads, a reasoning was given by management as to why we don't allow too many threads started by one poster and the OP and others don't like that reason. We don't have a program that counts how many threads have been started by one person and automatically close x number of threads. It's a judgement call. Alternatives have also been offered that allow the OP's information to be circulated as well, but again some people don't like the alternative. We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I do think that "calling out" mods and admins and making threats to go to IB is probably one of the least likely ways to get what you want accomplished here though. It's not a democracy, but we really do listen to posters' suggestions and consider them. We don't simply dismiss them.

1. These are the rules. If you didn't know it before, you know it now. I don't necessarily agree with the rule, but I understand the need for the rule.

2. Don't take it personally when you get an e-mail from a moderator regarding a rule. Most of the time, it's simply a reminder of the rules and nothing more. Just acknowledge that you understand the rules and move on.

3. The moderators read the Feedback Forum. We may not read every post in every thread, but we go through most of the threads. And we appreciate all the feedback and definitely put some weight in what the members have to say.

namja
Moderator, DVD Talk Forums

No, I'm not taking anything back.

I was pretty shocked by the "bitching" comment, however. It was just some fun in the user name thread, but when I actually did send you a PM about actually getting a name change; I was very unimpressed with your attitude towards me.

I applaud you for upholding the rules (for the most part), but your attitude needs to change when addressing members. The reason I sent you the PM is because I thought you were one of the best mods on DVD Talk, but I was very disappointed by the response I got.

"I'm sorry nateman, but the rules are the rules. Hope you stay with us! Your friend X."

That would've been a more friendly response, and I would've left it at that.

I have no hard feelings (I don't stay angry at people long) against you X, but I'd like a little common decency.

Honestly, I agree that the rule is there for a reason, but in my opinion this is where the judgment call part of this situation missed the boat. The release list thread stickied doesn't get that many views, and it seems obvious that individual threads have been a good way to kick off the discussion about that particular release, and catch the attention of forum goers. Maybe i'm in the minority in this, but i rarely ever pay attention to who actually started the thread.

This seems like the type of rule, like I mentioned before, that should be enforced for obvious spamming and useless threads. Not for ones that are a positive for the DVD forum.

^

I don't think I've ever really viewed the release list thread. However, I have viewed pretty much every single individual release thread. I like the conversation they bring about. Having all of that cluttered into one big thread would just create a disaster. It would make conversation that much more difficult.

I said that earlier....I don't pay any attention to who begins what threads. As long as the thread is informative, it doesn't matter who started it. This is a rule that makes sense when applied to useless threads but when a thread is sparking conversation, it makes no sense.

This has got to be one of the silliest debates I've seen on here. We should set up a surrogate posting mailing list, so that the next time that dx23 has created too many new topics, he can let us know, and we can post the next topic for him.