My News AH thread closure?

P_1

OK a few questions for the AH mods if I may be so bold

1 - How many reported posts did the thread in question generate?

2 - Was there any sentiment expressed by the users against said thread?

TouchingVirus

keith16 wrote: »

Well what's the problem with the thread then? Not to a lot of peoples taste I'll admit but no-one was forced to read it.

It deprives the forum of it's own threads, little things like the Safe thread might just be a one liner in a post on page 342, seen and talked about for 10 minutes and never seen again.

keith16 wrote: »

In any case, moderators volunteer for exactly that type of work, without them boards wouldn't work but no-one is under the impression that deleting / posts & monitoring isn't part of the role

Uh-huh, so they should tolerate whatever you throw at them then? I mean they volunteered for it right? Some sort of autonomous rules bots who couldn't possibly have an opinion about the greater good for the forum.

keith16 wrote: »

And what of the stats? 35 regular contributors is a decent number.

In AH? No, it's a terrible number. The safe thread had 530+ contributors in 6 days, in 3 months the news thread has 289.

The ratio of posters with >10 posts vs posters with 1-5 looks great, not chatty at all and looks like you're getting lots of people contributing. But then you take the top 35 people who have ~64% of the posts. Pretty soon, and remember the thread was there for 3 months which is surely an ample time to get a trend, it'll be the 35-40 making their way past 70% of the posts ..at what point do you realise it's just a thread for 35 people to have a chat?

keith16 wrote: »

Bottom line is the thread turned into something it shouldn't have but wasn't given a single infraction / warning. All of a sudden it will require baby-sitting? There is definitely a middle ground here.

Of course it will - what's the reason it was closed? Off topic posts, flirting etc. This stuff is in the AH charter. Everybody had their chance to make it something and blew it. What you want is a second chance - what'll make you think the outcome will be different this time? The only way it'll be different is if the thread is babysat ...

ashers222 wrote: »

As far as I can make out 35 unique users shared 800 odd or so posts he was referencing, which conveniently didn't take into account the remaining 300 or so posts attributed to random contributors.

Your OP in the thread asked the question "Does anyone else think we should have a 'My News' thread on AH?"
155 people seemed to think so.

Can you really count one-hit wonders as demand for a thread? I post on stuff in AH that happens to cross my eye, wouldn't dream about visiting the forum on here dedicated to whatever it is discussing (e.g. Politics). Doesn't mean there's a demand for it.

The 155 people had their chance to prevent the thread turning into the same faces, they didn't care that much. They're also not here in Feedback to call for it back either.

Two can play numbers games.

ashers222

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I don't know what you are getting at, cliques existed before facebook, they also existed before the internet. I think Facebook has made a certain type of post more acceptable on the web, 10 years ago I don't think "I got a new hoover today" type posts would have been the norm, now it is. That's my point. You don't seem interested in that, you failed to comment on my post so I'll let you and Zaph comment, you don't seem to want to comment on my points, so I'll leave you to your tete to tete with Zaph.

I honestly don't believe the thread was like that, if anything it was a parody of fb at least that's how I imagined it was intended. Yes there were times of sincerity too but they were met in good spirit, if that's what is being chastised here then that really is something of an issue.
It did go off topic toward the end but had a warning been issued it might have resolved it.

35 users, now wait a minute, lets be honest here and not drama llamas. 35 posters, about 10 regular posters. 10 posters doesn't suggest a high demand in AH given the stats on AH. Given the traffic on AH 10 posters for such a long running thread, is frankly, poor.

I'm open to the idea of the thread, usage stats aren't convincing me.

I'd like to see the stats for the thread, there may have been less regular users but that doesn't account for the other hundreds of unique posts.

Pighead

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I don't know what you are getting at, cliques existed before facebook, they also existed before the internet. I think Facebook has made a certain type of post more acceptable on the web, 10 years ago I don't think "I got a new hoover today" type posts would have been the norm, now it is. That's my point. You don't seem interested in that, you failed to comment on my post so I'll let you and Zaph comment, you don't seem to want to comment on my points, so I'll leave you to your tete to tete with Zaph.

My point is those'I got a new hoover today' threads always existed! They were just as prevalent ten years ago as they are now. That's the point.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=168
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1066348
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3199570
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53866461

Anyway some of those inane posts can illicit some great replies. The boring posters provide ammunition for the more imaginative poster and the thread can sometimes go to weird and wonderful places.

K-9 wrote: »

35 users, now wait a minute, lets be honest here and not drama llamas. 35 posters, about 10 regular posters. 10 posters doesn't suggest a high demand in AH given the stats on AH. Given the traffic on AH 10 posters for such a long running thread, is frankly, poor.

I'm open to the idea of the thread, usage stats aren't convincing me.

Not sure what the 35 number is all about? Had a quick look there and there were over 70 posters with six or more posts. Sounds like a popular thread to Pighead.

ashers222

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Can you really count one-hit wonders as demand for a thread? I post on stuff in AH that happens to cross my eye, wouldn't dream about visiting the forum on here dedicated to whatever it is discussing (e.g. Politics). Doesn't mean there's a demand for it.

The 155 people had their chance to prevent the thread turning into the same faces, they didn't care that much. They're also not here in Feedback to call for it back either.

Two can play numbers games.

I don't understand what you're getting at, you can apply the same formula to other AH threads which are deemed perfectly acceptable. It was a popular thread in it's own right. Many other threads there have their own unique user base, just because I don't use them doesn't mean they should be closed.

Squeaky the Squirrel

ashers222 wrote: »

I'd like to see the stats for the thread, there may have been less regular users but that doesn't account for the other hundreds of unique posts.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2056834341

K-9

ashers222 wrote: »

There are so many other long term running threads in AH that turn into chat. (or more deliberately, argument) The unpopular opinions thread consists of several pages of discussion and deliberation between posters defending their unpopular opinions. How is it that if a thread which stays on topic and doesn't generate negativity can be closed? Because it's too close to facebook style narrative? It gives the impression that it is as how Zaph has stated, that unless a thread is generating argument or debate it does not fall within the remit of boards directive.

The facebook thread is a good example. It doesn't turn into chat from what I've seen, maybe debate on the post, but not chat. The depression thread is a bit different, if people can't see why, well I'm not going to spend time convincing them why it is different.

Where To wrote:

I'm not objecting to the closing of the thread, I could see the writing was on the wall long before it was closed, it was good while it lasted, reopening it would merely be a pyrrhic victory.

However, I am objecting to the patronising and contemptible tones in some of the replies in this thread, and pointing out that the very same 'degeneration' of the boards that we are being accused of is being carried out elsewhere on the site by our accusers.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I know you started the thread, it's your baby as such, but your post still doesn't address the questions I asked. You are making this way too personal and it isn't advancing your argument at all, (btw you do have a point). An AH mod or any mod is perfectly entitled to post in off topic chat threads on other boards, and still mod AH chatty threads.

Indeed, far from undesirable, it shows an independence and objectivity which are required qualities in a mod. I'd be far more worried if a mod kept a thread open because of posting elsewhere on the site. So, far from the negative you are trying to paint, your point is very positive.

P_1

Right so I see a few people liked it and a lot of people simply weren't bothered about it, not too sure how many complained about it though.

Most of the people who weren't bothered about it could have simply ignored it while the people who enjoyed it participated in it.

What is the harm in that?

K-9

Pighead wrote: »

My point is those'I got a new hoover today' threads always existed! They were just as prevalent ten years ago as they are now. That's the point.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=168

Thread was closed, lived a short life, I hope the cat didn't.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1066348
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3199570
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53866461

Another one was locked.

Not sure what the 35 number is all about? Had a quick look there and there were over 70 posters with six or more posts. Sounds like a popular thread to Pighead.

Yeah, but even posters supporting leaving it open knew it was cliquey and flirty, so naturally we'd loads of posters with more than 6 posts, otherwise, we wouldn't be here, talking about how it got cliquey and flirty.

MadYaker

P_1 wrote: »

OK a few questions for the AH mods if I may be so bold

1 - How many reported posts did the thread in question generate?

2 - Was there any sentiment expressed by the users against said thread?

I think one thing a lot of people here are missing is that the mods don't moderate with the best interest of the users at heart, they moderate with the best interests of boards.ie at heart.

TouchingVirus

ashers222 wrote: »

I don't understand what you're getting at, you can apply the same formula to other AH threads which are deemed perfectly acceptable. It was a popular thread in it's own right. Many other threads there have their own unique user base, just because I don't use them doesn't mean they should be closed.

The point is it was popular with a subset, and I mean a very small subset of AHers. So you have a My News thread, where people will post up some chat and sneaky flirting (they've been doing it for years, Pighead is right) and then Joe Bloggs comes in, sees the last 4 or 5 pages and realises this seems to be a private party in the middle of AH. You may claim it doesn't happen but it does. It happens with me in Motors, it happens in The Lock Inn, and it probably happens in pretty much every other forum there's a chat thread in with a decent amount of potential posters (100+).

There are many threads in AH with only a few contributors, they're some of the best threads. The number of contributors to a thread in general shouldn't be used as a measure of popularity or whether it gets locked but these other threads have topics. The My News thread doesn't, it's a post what you want or make shít up Carte Blanche.

The thread wasn't locked because it was popular or unpopular, it was locked because it become an off-topic thread circling the drainhole of cliquedom.

TouchingVirus

P_1 wrote: »

OK a few questions for the AH mods if I may be so bold

1 - How many reported posts did the thread in question generate?

2 - Was there any sentiment expressed by the users against said thread?

I've a question for you (and others)

Why is it so important to prove some sort of rule break occurred?

Generating warnings/infractions/reported posts is not and never has been the only reason for thread lockage on any forum. Threads get locked in AH frequently because they just don't fit what the mods are trying to cultivate in the forum.

ashers222

TouchingVirus wrote: »

The point is it was popular with a subset, and I mean a very small subset of AHers. So you have a My News thread, where people will post up some chat and sneaky flirting (they've been doing it for years, Pighead is right) and then Joe Bloggs comes in, sees the last 4 or 5 pages and realises this seems to be a private party in the middle of AH. You may claim it doesn't happen but it does. It happens with me in Motors, it happens in The Lock Inn, and it probably happens in pretty much every other forum there's a chat thread in with a decent amount of potential posters (100+).

There are many threads in AH with only a few contributors, they're some of the best threads. The number of contributors to a thread in general shouldn't be used as a measure of popularity or whether it gets locked but these other threads have topics. The My News thread doesn't, it's a post what you want or make shít up Carte Blanche.

The thread wasn't locked because it was popular or unpopular, it was locked because it become an off-topic thread circling the drainhole of cliquedom.

No no, I don't claim it doesn't happen. tbh I'm not really interested in hearing about whats filling someone jocks and what they want to do with it on a regular basis, but they were not the majority and could have been dealt with independently. The thread itself ultimately was more than those few users. (I agree with where to, the thread was his baby and I'm happy to leave it sleep, I'm just as concerned with how it was responded to by the administration.)

P_1

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I've a question for you (and others)

Why is it so important to prove some sort of rule break occurred?

Generating warnings/infractions/reported posts is not and never has been the only reason for thread lockage on any forum. Threads get locked in AH frequently because they just don't fit what the mods are trying to cultivate in the forum.

Well I'm of the opinion that boards gets its popularity from the bottom up (from the users) not from the top down (from the owners/admins/mods).

The mods aren't there to cultivate anything, its the users who do that.

My question is whether or not there was any opposition from the bottom (usually expressed via reported posts and negative feedback) to this thread. As an outsider looking in it doesn't seem apparent to me that there was any opposition to this thread from the bottom.

ashers222

P_1 wrote: »

Well I'm of the opinion that boards gets its popularity from the bottom up (from the users) not from the top down (from the owners/admins/mods).

The mods aren't there to cultivate anything, its the users who do that.

My question is whether or not there was any opposition from the bottom (usually expressed via reported posts and negative feedback) to this thread. As an outsider looking in it doesn't seem apparent to me that there was any opposition to this thread from the bottom.

No, there wasn't. It has been stated already that it was purely a mod decision.

P_1

MadYaker wrote: »

I think one thing a lot of people here are missing is that the mods don't moderate with the best interest of the users at heart, they moderate with the best interests of boards.ie at heart.

But the best interests of boards.ie are intrinsically related to the best interests of the users.

Without the users there would be no boards.ie

ashers222

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I've a question for you (and others)

Why is it so important to prove some sort of rule break occurred?

Generating warnings/infractions/reported posts is not and never has been the only reason for thread lockage on any forum. Threads get locked in AH frequently because they just don't fit what the mods are trying to cultivate in the forum.

As long as we know that's the reason all is well in the world.

Pighead

This whole usage stats nonsense is a bit of a joke as well. Are the mods saying that if Pighead starts a thread on cotton underpants tomorrow and that thread gets 700 replies but with only ten or eleven posters then it will be deemed lockable?

Why? What if Pighead and the ten or eleven contributors are enjoying talking about underpants? What if there's some really good cotton underpants related talk going on inside the thread?

Do we automatically get called a cotton underpants clique when in reality all we are doing is discussing the merits of cotton underpants on a discussion board? Surely the best thing to do is to leave us alone and enjoy our underpants talking together?

Is there a set number that mods use when deciding when a thread has entered the realm of cliquedom?

Where To

K-9 wrote: »

I know you started the thread, it's your baby as such, but your post still doesn't address the questions I asked. You are making this way too personal and it isn't advancing your argument at all, (btw you do have a point). An AH mod or any mod is perfectly entitled to post in off topic chat threads on other boards, and still mod AH chatty threads.

Indeed, far from undesirable, it shows an independence and objectivity which are required qualities in a mod. I'd be far more worried if a mod kept a thread open because of posting elsewhere on the site. So, far from the negative you are trying to paint, your point is very positive.

I know what you're saying K-9, but I don't really agree with you. I know moderating is a demanding voluntary thankless task, and I wouldn't do it myself in a million years, and you guys do a great job, but as a moderator, do you not feel there are certain standards that should be upheld? I don't expect people to be robots, just maybe to have a bit of restraint.

For example, I like a drink, and I like my job, but the two don't exist together, that is a complete no-no, and that's the way it has to be. I know a moderator is only a moderator in their own forum, and just a regular poster in another, but a moderator posting in any forum is perceived by a regular user in the same way that as I would be perceived by a regular customer if I was legless down the local pub.

My first day in my first job, I was told, 'never ask anyone to do anything that you wouldn't be prepared to do yourself'. That's good advice.

Anyhow, it's starting to look like I have a vendetta or an agenda or something here, which I don't, so I'll have to bow out.

TouchingVirus

P_1 wrote: »

The mods aren't there to cultivate anything, its the users who do that.

Mods are people who care about the forum, the community of users (as a whole) who post in it, the overarching topic of the forum (if there is one). They aren't just machines

Recently there was grassroots level stuff here in Feedback when the AH mods asked for feedback on why more women don't use After Hours. A lot of them were just plain uncomfortable in some of the sleaziness, anti-women views, sexism etc being espoused by the AH community.

The feedback was taken on board, rule changes/enforcement were improved and AH is, in a number of my friends' opinions, a much nicer place to be if you're a woman these days because of that. There wasn't a colossal shift in the hive mind of AH, it was down to the mods to force it on them and the collective masses (mostly) took their medicine. The same happened a few years ago when AH was a war zone - the mods spearheaded the turnaround with a no-nonsense attitude; that one came from the top I believe (Admins/HQ).

Mods are there for more than just infractions and warnings.

K-9

Where To wrote: »

I know what you're saying K-9, but I don't really agree with you. I know moderating is a demanding voluntary thankless task, and I wouldn't do it myself in a million years, and you guys do a great job, but as a moderator, do you not feel there are certain standards that should be upheld? I don't expect people to be robots, just maybe to have a bit of restraint.

For example, I like a drink, and I like my job, but the two don't exist together, that is a complete no-no, and that's the way it has to be. I know a moderator is only a moderator in their own forum, and just a regular poster in another, but a moderator posting in any forum is perceived by a regular user in the same way that as I would be perceived by a regular customer if I was legless down the local pub.

My first day in my first job, I was told, 'never ask anyone to do anything that you wouldn't be prepared to do yourself'. That's good advice.

Anyhow, it's starting to look like I have a vendetta or an agenda or something here, which I don't, so I'll have to bow out.

I post differently on soccer as I would AH or politics, as long as I don't trespass the rules of Soccer, I don't see why I should be held to a higher standard there just because I mod AH and politics.

The site has so many topics, is so wide ranging, I think you are asking an impossible task. If we do go overboard it wont be long pointed out.

TouchingVirus

Pighead wrote: »

This whole usage stats nonsense is a bit of a joke as well. Are the mods saying that if Pighead starts a thread on cotton underpants tomorrow and that thread gets 700 replies but with only ten or eleven posters then it will be deemed lockable?

Why? What if Pighead and the ten or eleven contributors are enjoying talking about underpants? What if there's some really good cotton underpants related talk going on inside the thread?

Do we automatically get called a cotton underpants clique when in reality all we are doing is discussing the merits of cotton underpants on a discussion board? Surely the best thing to do is to leave us alone and enjoy our underpants talking together?

Is there a set number that mods use when deciding when a thread has entered the realm of cliquedom?

You're missing the point Pighead. After Hours is the catch-all forum on Boards, the one that appears on Latest Posts more often than any other, the one with the highest footfall.

A thread starts in there where people post their news. It's not a real topic of conversation like your cotton underpants thread (where somebody can go off topic about the benefits of nylon stockings) instead it's more of a free-for-all. It invites chat and discussion of many individual pieces of news about many individual topics. I post about my dog, you post about your crap day at work. Other people come in, throwing up their news. The thread is a cluster of mini-conversations, none of them under any one umbrella, like your cotton underpants thread.

To get in on the conversation you're pretty much forced to read stuff you have no interest in. The conversations are the same people (or small subset of people) most of the time. Your news item you might be hoping for a reaction for gets skipped over, the others are busy having their chat. It happens a few times but nothing. So you don't bother posting again in it, as far as you're concerned that place is only a clique thread now. AH loses out on your contributions.

If My News existed and you found cotton underpants delightful and put it in there. Your audience is limited - people don't want to read a thread that's 600 pages long, where do they start? It gets thanked twice, responded to four times and then that's it. AH has been deprived of the best damn thread on cotton underpants in the history of the internet.

The thread's too big for the newbies, too intimidating. Those who take the time to read it realise it's the same 40 people and don't bother jumping in. They probably won't post their news in their own thread either and let it slide. The off-topic posts in the off-topic thread and the flirting will cause headaches for the mods and possible DRPs. If I don't want anything to do with your underpants thread then I can skip over it handy enough if it were a separate thread. I could do the same with the My News thread too but there might be stuff I'd like to have a discussion about in there, I won't know until I look and then I'm having a conversation in a thread of 30 conversations, moving at blistering pace.

After Hours as a forum is losing out in all situations here.

ashers222

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You're missing the point Pighead. After Hours is the catch-all forum on Boards, the one that appears on Latest Posts more often than any other, the one with the highest footfall.

A thread starts in there where people post their news. It's not a real topic of conversation like your cotton underpants thread (where somebody can go off topic about the benefits of nylon stockings) instead it's more of a free-for-all. It invites chat and discussion of many individual pieces of news about many individual topics. I post about my dog, you post about your crap day at work. Other people come in, throwing up their news. The thread is a cluster of mini-conversations, none of them under any one umbrella, like your cotton underpants thread.

To get in on the conversation you're pretty much forced to read stuff you have no interest in. The conversations are the same people (or small subset of people) most of the time. Your news item you might be hoping for a reaction for gets skipped over, the others are busy having their chat. It happens a few times but nothing. So you don't bother posting again in it, as far as you're concerned that place is only a clique thread now. AH loses out on your contributions.

If My News existed and you found cotton underpants delightful and put it in there. Your audience is limited - people don't want to read a thread that's 600 pages long, where do they start? It gets thanked twice, responded to four times and then that's it. AH has been deprived of the best damn thread on cotton underpants in the history of the internet.

The thread's too big for the newbies, too intimidating. Those who take the time to read it realise it's the same 40 people and don't bother jumping in. They probably won't post their news in their own thread either and let it slide. The off-topic posts in the off-topic thread and the flirting will cause headaches for the mods and possible DRPs. If I don't want anything to do with your underpants thread then I can skip over it handy enough if it were a separate thread. I could do the same with the My News thread too but there might be stuff I'd like to have a discussion about in there, I won't know until I look and then I'm having a conversation in a thread of 30 conversations, moving at blistering pace.

After Hours as a forum is losing out in all situations here.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not

TouchingVirus

ashers222 wrote: »

Can't tell if you're trolling or not

I didn't stay awake until 1:40am just to troll Feedback. Mega-threads with no fixed topic all work the same, there are many of them on Boards, almost all of which detract from their parent forum in my opinion. They all end up the same way

Gummy Panda

TouchingVirus wrote: »

The same happened a few years ago when AH was a war zone - the mods spearheaded the turnaround with a no-nonsense attitude; that one came from the top I believe (Admins/HQ).

Lol war zone. I don't remember that. I do remember a few regular users leaving due to heavy handiness and a mod making a thread turning on the other mods.

keith16

TouchingVirus wrote: »

It deprives the forum of it's own threads, little things like the Safe thread might just be a one liner in a post on page 342, seen and talked about for 10 minutes and never seen again.



Uh-huh, so they should tolerate whatever you throw at them then? I mean they volunteered for it right? Some sort of autonomous rules bots who couldn't possibly have an opinion about the greater good for the forum.



In AH? No, it's a terrible number. The safe thread had 530+ contributors in 6 days, in 3 months the news thread has 289.

The ratio of posters with >10 posts vs posters with 1-5 looks great, not chatty at all and looks like you're getting lots of people contributing. But then you take the top 35 people who have ~64% of the posts. Pretty soon, and remember the thread was there for 3 months which is surely an ample time to get a trend, it'll be the 35-40 making their way past 70% of the posts ..at what point do you realise it's just a thread for 35 people to have a chat?

Your points are contradictory here...on the one hand you are saying that the thread only attracted a very small number of users, but yet you seem to think that these users would otherwise be starting threads about broken hoovers if it weren't for the My News thread.

on the one hand, My News is full of inane chat, and in the same breath, this chat is deemed potentially threadworthy and otherwise deprive AH? So which is it? Does My News deprive AH of great content, or ruin it with shitty content?

Also, regarding the mods, please don't put words in my mouth. I said that handing out infractions / warnings / deleting posts was PART of their role. Actually, to expand on that, that is their main role. To moderate the forums. And that part of the role is exclusive to moderators.

However, growing and cultivating a forum is not a role exclusively for mods. All users contribute to this aspect.

Furthermore, to suggest the thread should go from zero moderation to complete baby-sitting is disingenuous. There is a balance to be struck and on the MyNews thread both the mods and posters were guilty of not finding this balance and now we are deprived of one of the better threads in AH because of it.

dr.bollocko

keith16 wrote: »

now we are deprived of one of the better threads in AH because of it.

That's a matter entirely of opinion.

I subbed to it. I read through it. It was not "better". It was just a conversation between a few posters about essentially nothing. That doesn't grow the forum. It may grow an online camaraderie between a small number of people loyally subbed to the thread but it does not help, improve or grow after hours.

From your POV it might be a better thread.

From my POV it's a chat thread of the type we don't want in after hours.

Why should AH include a chat thread enjoyed by a small minority of its posters which would be a detriment the forum and can be accommodated in social groups and PMs? How is that going to improve or grow After hours?

ibarelycare

This is just another decision to add to the long list that's really ruining my enjoyment of boards.

I've touched on this recently in AH but I don't understand why the moderation on boards has to be so intrusive and overpowering. Why can't threads/forums evolve organically instead of having to be so controlled?

It's been repeatedly said that this decision was "for the good of the forum"...well I think that's complete BS. Surely the forum is for the USERS first and foremost. If this thread was a popular thread enjoyed by a large number of users, then it IS good for the forum. It may not be great for the mods because they'll have to moderate it more closely, but if that's an issue then take on more moderators.

So what if OT threads have "never been allowed in AH"...things change. There is a demand for this thread, so why can't the AH mods be flexible? The mods should be more open-minded to change and what the users of the forum want.

I've absolutely zero doubt that this thread will be closed soon by an admin, saying that the decision of the moderators is final. It's very rare that an admin or a moderator does anything wrong on this site after all :rolleyes:

keith16

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Why should AH include a chat thread enjoyed by a small minority of its posters which would be a detriment the forum and can be accommodated in social groups and PMs?

Fair enough, but why then was it left running for so long?

It became chat but I believe the spirit in which it was intended was not chat and was actually quiet a funny topic.

keith16

ibarelycare wrote: »

I've absolutely zero doubt that this thread will be closed soon by an admin, saying that the decision of the moderators is final. It's very rare that an admin or a moderator does anything wrong on this site after all :rolleyes:

Except for the "I found a safe thread" where the OP was openly antagonising the mods / admins and found to have found dupe / sock-puppet accounts - why was that thread re-opened given such fundamental violations of the terms?