Rule Change Vote/Request - 20 Thumbnails per post.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kanzen

I vote for the image minimum being 550 images. Any posts that does not contain that many will be deleted on the spot and the user banned.

Says the guy that hasn't approved a gallery picture since 2006.

The only thing I'd like to point out is that if you consider the votes cast by the people that mod the pic forums, the votes tend toward the low numbers. BWT being the exception, but non-nude also gets a lot less posts.

A change to the rules affect the mods that gotta go thru it every day a lot more than the occasional offending poster.

I'm not really sure I understand the need to muddy the waters.

FWIW

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

The only thing I'd like to point out is that if you consider the votes cast by the people that mod the pic forums, the votes tend toward the low numbers. BWT being the exception, but non-nude also gets a lot less posts.

A change to the rules affect the mods that gotta go thru it every day a lot more than the occasional offending poster.

I'm not really sure I understand the need to muddy the waters.

FWIW

I Concur.

My take is that is should be based on the forum, raising it to 50 in the high volume forums would suck to mod. But the in the other forums it could be ok. Just leave it and enforce what we have is my opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHASE

My take is that is should be based on the forum, raising it to 50 in the high volume forums would suck to mod. But the in the other forums it could be ok. Just leave it and enforce what we have is my opinion.

That is a no-go. We are not creating different rule sets for the sub-forums.
That's why we went to the standardized rules originally, because each mod made up the rules for their own forum and no one knew shit about what was and wasn't allowed to be posted, or moderated, in what forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

The only thing I'd like to point out is that if you consider the votes cast by the people that mod the pic forums, the votes tend toward the low numbers. BWT being the exception, but non-nude also gets a lot less posts.

A change to the rules affect the mods that gotta go thru it every day a lot more than the occasional offending poster.

I'm not really sure I understand the need to muddy the waters.

FWIW

Thanks, I know what everyone does here.

My question, to you and to Punnani, is what specifically about the second proposal is problematic?

You you won't have to edit any posts with a lot of thumbnails in them, because you can just delete them if there is a problem pic in the post. If it has fewer than 20 thumbnails everything stays the same. And since post-editing isn't going to be an issue, I'm not sure what the difference between looking at 20 pictures in one post or 40 pictures spread over two posts is.

This doesn't add any work for anyone, and accomplishes the goal of raising the limit to something more in line with computer bandwidth and hardware realities of 2012 rather than 2004.

So, other than generic, non-specific complaints about "muddying the waters" what are the actual issues you have with the proposal?

Ok, Here is my concern. I think that deleting the whole post of 50 thumbs if there is 2 or more "Rule Breaking Pictures" will piss off our already dwindling members.

If it stays at 20 - 25 and remove the pictures giving a reason why they have been removed. I generally don't delete the excess above 20 thumbs per post, I move them to a new post and explain my reasons why.

When I first started modding NPB i would be looking at 10 - 14 pages above the police line per day....this has dropped to 1 -2 pages.

My fear is the regular members who create threads will be really pissed off if their pictures are deleted.

Or, perhaps that decline in participation is due to us running the forum like its 2005?

Also, it's a little odd to me that your original complaint was that it would be too much work to go through 50 thumbs if you had to edit a post, and now you're saying that you don't have nearly as much work to do now as you did when you started.


Either way, I don't think asking members to follow the rules is going to piss too many off. Thousands of babe comments are deleted every week because they're against the rules, yet people continue to post them regularly.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Or, perhaps that decline in participation is due to us running the forum like its 2005?

Or, any number of things, that aren't quite about how many thumbnails we allow, really.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Or, perhaps that decline in participation is due to us running the forum like its 2005?

Also, it's a little odd to me that your original complaint was that it would be too much work to go through 50 thumbs if you had to edit a post, and now you're saying that you don't have nearly as much work to do now as you did when you started.


Either way, I don't think asking members to follow the rules is going to piss too many off. Thousands of babe comments are deleted every week because they're against the rules, yet people continue to post them regularly.

What's the point in me expressing my views when the rule change is going to happen whether I like it or not ?

<------ Taking no further part in this matter. JFDI

Oh, I wasn't aware the rule change was going to happen. I kind of thought that's why this thread existed.

I was just responding to your concerns, pointing out that we delete different kinds of peoples posts all the time and they don't make a big deal of it. You don't moderate comments, so maybe you weren't aware of that fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangs

Or, any number of things, that aren't quite about how many thumbnails we allow, really.

Well, yeah, which is why I said, "Run like it's 2005" instead of "because we don't allow enough thumbnails"

For instance, I would rank "posts randomly disappearing" as pretty high up on the "why is this site a place I wouldn't want to go" list, but there are a bunch of others, including layout issues, gigantor amounts of pornography on the front page, etc. But a lot of those aren't things that can be addressed by the moderator crew, and instead require administrator fixes.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

You don't moderate comments, so maybe you weren't aware of that fact.

Sorry, "I Don't moderate comments" ? of course I moderate comments if I feel they require moderating. What do you mean by that statement ?

I know I don't moderate any forum that this rule change would effect, but I have to say...I don't really get the big deal.

- If moderating the posts isn't going to change, other than deleting ones that have bad links, and we're simply upping our policies to meet todays internet standards, then I don't really get why its a problem.

- I think we as moderators have forgotten our roles sometimes. Our primary role is to enforce the rules, not fix other peoples mistakes. Shouldn't we be putting the onus on the posters to make sure their posts both comply with the rules AND don't contain any errors? This is why it's absolutely crucial to inform members when they do something wrong. Yes...we might have some pissed off people initially, but it will pass.

I mean you're not a comment moderator in the picture galleries. Like for the babe comments and movie comments and all that stuff.

Quote:

Originally posted by Punnani

...

Sorry, "I Don't moderate comments" ? of course I moderate comments if I feel they require moderating. What do you mean by that statement ?

No you don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledesh

...

No you don't.

Ok, I don't.

Bangs, I think punnani is thinking of comments within the forum, as compared to talking about the babe archive comments.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Thanks, I know what everyone does here.

My question, to you and to Punnani, is what specifically about the second proposal is problematic?

You you won't have to edit any posts with a lot of thumbnails in them, because you can just delete them if there is a problem pic in the post. If it has fewer than 20 thumbnails everything stays the same. And since post-editing isn't going to be an issue, I'm not sure what the difference between looking at 20 pictures in one post or 40 pictures spread over two posts is.

This doesn't add any work for anyone, and accomplishes the goal of raising the limit to something more in line with computer bandwidth and hardware realities of 2012 rather than 2004.

So, other than generic, non-specific complaints about "muddying the waters" what are the actual issues you have with the proposal?

Ok, first I'll refer back to post #12.

Aside from that, Punnani's reply pretty much summed up my opinion, both on the effects of the rule change, and the uselessness of arguing about it.

I only have one person that's violated the rules in my forum in any major way, and that's you, and changing the rules to suit the needs desires of one person just doesn't make sense to me.

I said the compromise worked for me. But I'd still like to see it stay as is. What's the biggy? Just that I voiced an opinion that doesn't agree with yours?

The FB forum is pretty much running like a well oiled machine. The regulars know that I will delete, and that I do indeed look at every post. The occassional noob violation isn't a big deal. I kindly fix them, inform them, and make sure they know I won't fix them again. I've addressed violating threads with you in the past and got your "I'm not gonna make a new post for 3 thumbs..." response, and I let it go. I wanted to delete your craziness when I came across it because, to be very honest, it comes across as just one of two possibilities:
1: You're either testing the resolve of the mod
2: You think you're above the rules.

But, out of respect for your position here, I fished up the chain of command for an opinion.

So, here we are...

Doest as thou pleases BossDross.

I'm sticking with my original vote, no more than 25.

Quote:

Originally posted by DEMO

I'm sticking with my original vote, no more than 25.

agreed

There is a few people stuck in the Internet dark ages around here.

I can't see how it is a problem to mod 40/50 pics in one post or 20 pics in three posts. At the end of the day its the same amount of pics just over a smaller number of posts. The argument over speed of loading should be defunct these days, there aren't many (if any) left using dial up connections in the world.

It looks really wanky when we post " you can't have 25 -30 thumbs in a post " just because that is some ancient rule we have.

I really have to agree with EL in that this site needs to be taken out of the 2005 and taken into the now.