A Polite Request from the Management

[wserra]

It's good to see how so many new members have found Q to their liking. Truly. Getting the word out about scams is the vital first step - and sometimes the only step necessary - to shutting them down. That's what Q is about - shutting down scams. The UK posters have surely been doing their parts toward that end.

However, the volume of posts that we've seen here over the last few months works counter to that same end. A 2000-post thread is not much good to anyone visiting for the first time. No one is going to read it from scratch. The best that a new visitor will do is read the last couple of pages. Hell, the moderators have given up - except for Burnaby and Gregg, who are made of sterner stuff than the rest of us. All of your trenchant analysis will only be read by other trenchant analyzers. Those of you who want only the in-crowd to read your stuff should write for academia. That's not the point of the board.

A suggestion that may well be all that's needed: whenever you write a post, preview it before hitting "submit". If it contains neither (a) facts not previously discussed, nor (b) a view of already-discussed facts which was itself not previously discussed, then please consider not posting it. The ultimate example, not from anyone in particular:
--------------------------------------------------------

Third-level embedded quote

Second-level embedded quote

First-level embedded quote

Spot on!
-------------------------------------------------------
Such a post contributes to nothing other than the post count. Kinda like the old AOL "Me too!"

What happens if self-policing doesn't happen? No one gets banned or suspended. That's hard to achieve around here. No posts will be deleted or edited. We don't do that. But we will find a way to keep the board usable for people looking for information - something which, by the way, happens a lot.

I've made this post a Sticky (rather than an Announcement) so that people can comment on it. Feel free. However, if anyone quotes my entire post and adds "Spot on!", s/he's outta here.

[Syf]

I'm new to the group. There are a few threads I follow with interest, I spent a couple of weeks reading every post before i signed up. (I can't speak for everyone though), that being said I can see where you are coming from, especially on the massive threads.

[Bill Lumbergh]

It might also help if we could cut down on the inter-forum posts. For instance, I don't think we need a play-by-play of what's being said on GOODF. That forum is easy to find and their idiotic posts speak for themselves. Only the more pertinent posts from other fora should be copy-pasted here.

Just my $0.02.

[Dr. Caligari]

Back in the day, when I first started posting here, there was a policy to lock threads after 100 posts and force anyone interested in continuing the conversation to start a new thread. I don't know if that would work anymore, but perhaps there ought to be a limit on thread length-- something between 100 posts and 100 pages.

[longdog]

As I see it the more popular any forum becomes the longer the most popular threads inevitably become and there is precisely nothing you can do about that without changing the nature of the forum and driving people away.

Yes multi-thousand post threads aren't likely to be read from cover to cover by passing trade / new members and yes people post stuff that makes you think "Why did you bother?" but that's the internet for you. I'd rather read through 10% of pointless / irrelevant / drunken posts than be permanently wondering if my own words of wisdom passed a level of quality which is inevitably going to vary from poster to poster.

[slowsmile]

If people are going to post a link to a you-tube please can I ask that they they write a few lines to describe the content - similarly if the post a link to GOODF etc.

[webhick]

Some folks may not realize that they don't have to quote a post in it's entirety. You can quote just the bits you want to respond to. We often do that in other parts of the forum to respond statement by statement or tear apart some scammer's written communication.

I wrote up a tutorial on now to use BBCode and it effectively teaches you how to do that, which can be found here.

[Gregg]

I liked the 100 post guideline (we don't like the word rules, but that's another topic) but I didn't know until we quit using it that it was more of a board maintenance thing, apparently, the software got kind of kludgy with long topics back in the day, a problem since fixed.

[wserra]

I note that people are making an effort to avoid the long quotes. Thanks.

[wserra]

A couple of thoughts thanks to Arthur's excellent post regarding the Crawford timeline.

A concern we have about this forum: we'd like Q to be a repository for information on certain types of scams. It already is in the U.S. and Canada; it'd be great if we added the UK to that. But no one looking for basic information is going to plow through a 2000-post thread. One solution is to ask oneself whether the post one is about to submit adds anything new to the thread. Another approach is to have a limited number of threads whose purpose is to include only the important stuff, and to keep them that way - such as Arthur's timeline thread. Yet another approach is to have a separate forum limited to the basics of the various players. See the TP Status forum above.

Individual members can employ the first two; the third requires administration. But we're looking for ideas. Don't you all want your pearls of wisdom findable?

[Jeffrey]

Crawford case should slow down considerably after today, I think just the weekend activity was anomalous. Maybe a livethread should have been created to discuss the siege, then after the fact, copy the information nuggets to a condensed thread?

[wserra]

A reminder about trolls that I'm sure you all know: they only exist to draw a reaction out of normal people.

Arthur's timeline was not up for a couple of hours before it drew a troll from pigpot along the tired lines that banks don't really loan anything. Someone reported it - thank you - I saw it, and was moving it to pig's pot when I also saw that two people had responded within minutes. I moved the responses too.

People - nothing makes trolls go away as fast as ignoring them. Report it, a mod moves it, nobody reads it: troll Kryptonite. Matter of fact, I'm moving pigpot's thread here, so Arthur can access it. It's off-topic anywhere anyway.

[wserra]

Maybe a livethread should have been created to discuss the siege, then after the fact, copy the information nuggets to a condensed thread?

ArthurWankspittle is the brand-new mod for the UK groups. Talk to him.

Mwahahahaha.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Thanks guys. I think. I feel slightly like the character in the old Woody Allen sketch: Here's your cup of hemlock. Don't leave it too long or it all sinks to the bottom and tastes bitter.

[JamesVincent]

I got a question, for probably Web since she takes care of the site and it's been way too long since I dealt with the back room stuff of a forum.

Is it possible to tie a temp ban or moderated status to an event? What I was thinking was that if say poster "xyz" posts a bunch of crap, and it is some really bad crap, could we tie getting reported to a 24 hour ban or moderation until an admin talks to the person. Like if you get 10 reports within 24 hours you get auto 24 hour banned or whatever and an admin or mod has to unlock you and have a talk with you over your posts. might be able to cut out some of the continual over posting of junk.

Just an idea to help.

[YiamCross]

A couple of thoughts thanks to Arthur's excellent post regarding the Crawford timeline.

A concern we have about this forum: we'd like Q to be a repository for information on certain types of scams. It already is in the U.S. and Canada; it'd be great if we added the UK to that. But no one looking for basic information is going to plow through a 2000-post thread. One solution is to ask oneself whether the post one is about to submit adds anything new to the thread. Another approach is to have a limited number of threads whose purpose is to include only the important stuff, and to keep them that way - such as Arthur's timeline thread. Yet another approach is to have a separate forum limited to the basics of the various players. See the TP Status forum above.

Individual members can employ the first two; the third requires administration. But we're looking for ideas. Don't you all want your pearls of wisdom findable?

I kind of though that most scams were obvious to those of average intelligence and we were here to poke fun at those too stupid to see the obvious.

Sad fact of interweb life is that if nothing happens for days and weeks then everyone goes elsewhere. Post and spread the joy.

Anyone with more than a modicum of intelligenceand the slightest hint of gumption will be happy to while away an hour or two processing our wit and wisdom.

Anyone who wants to see my pearls has only to ask.

[webhick]

I got a question, for probably Web since she takes care of the site and it's been way too long since I dealt with the back room stuff of a forum.

Is it possible to tie a temp ban or moderated status to an event? What I was thinking was that if say poster "xyz" posts a bunch of crap, and it is some really bad crap, could we tie getting reported to a 24 hour ban or moderation until an admin talks to the person. Like if you get 10 reports within 24 hours you get auto 24 hour banned or whatever and an admin or mod has to unlock you and have a talk with you over your posts. might be able to cut out some of the continual over posting of junk.

Just an idea to help.

That would effectively allow any idiot the power to temporarily ban someone, and effectively open the entire system up to abuse. We've already had a troll who went through and reported every post he deemed off-topic in "his" thread. He would have effectively banned nearly every poster to that thread, including moderators and one admin. Not me though, I'm invincible to all but Demo and Jay.

We eventually removed his ability to report posts, which removed his ability to legitimately report something...which thankfully was a non-issue. Unfortunately with trolls, they often inspire such ire that a regular poster will cross the line and none of the other regulars report it because they're just as frustrated with the troll.

Additionally, we encourage users to report posts which they suspect have a rule violation - even if it's not clear. The selling point is that as long as you do it in good faith, there really aren't consequences for reporting something that turns out isn't a violation.

[webhick]

I remember back when the Ed Brown standoff was happening, the threads were as much commentary as news. It was pretty hot and heavy back then, but the volume is nowhere near the level of the Crawford thread. That being said, we have a lot more users posting to the Crawford thread than the old Brown threads. I've been looking at the email addresses of the new users and we have a lot of new UK friends coming on board.

In high activity subjects, it might be worth shutting down an old thread once a major development happens and start up a new thread with the new development in the title. For instance, the discovery would be the first thread, then once the arrest happens you shut down the discovery thread and fire up an arrest thread. Once the trial starts, shut down the arrest and fire up a trial thread. Then onto sentencing, then appeals, etc. Once the subject's ass is rotting in prison activity would likely die down.

It would serve as a kind of table of contents for new users so they can pick up at whichever development makes sense for them.

[rogfulton]

It would serve as a kind of table of contents for new users so they can pick up at whichever development makes sense for them.

Makes a great deal of sense to me.

[grixit]

Great idea!

How is Jay feeling about his little project going Lucy on him?