Perhaps you should consider adding a "spam" forum for all the pointless garbage people seem to love to post. Also, make it so that posts do not add to your post count when you post something in there.

Just a suggestion!

Or we could just ban all the people... Nobody would miss them. Its obvious that all of them are new members.

I'm relatively new (I registered 08-03-02), but I hope you don't include me in your list of people that make senseless posts and should thus be banned.

Unless it is too taxing on server resources, I think it is more reasonable to solve the problem this way.

If it is indeed too taxing, perhaps you should add an automatic purge (vBulletin has this feature, I believe) to the forum; that is, have all posts in the "Spam" forum deleted after, say, two weeks.

I just suggest that we make sciforums a controled community. Sorta like live journal.

Well I think the super moderators are doing a relatively good job now, aren't they? Banning people unless they exhibit trollish behavior is unnecessary, my opinion is that things are fine the way they are.

Yep.

I’d hate for SciForums to become a closed board.

Everyone deserves a chance to be heard. The problem is that many of our younger members lack the life-experience or education to readily participate in many of the discussions on SciForums - this is no fault of their own. However, the ability to ask questions about the world around you is a gift that humans receive at a very young age - it should continue here. Most of the "senior" members here are quite willing to explain a principle or give their opinion to a rational question.

The problem, as I see it, is that many new members have no desire to learn, and are turning SciForums into another teen chat room. Pointless posts and ridiculous threads are becoming the norm. I have noticed that several "old-timers" have almost stopped posting altogether. It would be an immeasurable loss if these members left for more suitable surroundings. Can there be any argument that their continued participation is certainly more valuable to us than that of a member who posts a "pissing" thread.

I am close to being fed up, myself. It is only by the most dogged determination that I continue to try and stimulate discussions, as they seldom go more than a few posts before breaking down into conspiracy theories, irrelevant bickering or toilet humor. That said, I believe that members who find it impossible to contribute anything other than inane or cryptic jabber should be removed. Otherwise, this board will never retain Porfiry's original vision.

Cull the herd.

Someone - Zion, I think - recently posted a thread asking for tutorials on various subjects. This is a great idea, a way to move sciforums away from discussion of cup sizes and toward more educational matter. Of course that's not what everyone wants, and I know I would not read every educational thread, but in general I think I would enjoy it. And I'm sure even the younger users would find some such material interesting. On the other hand, I also enjoy talking crap now and then. And on yet another hand... It's Porfiry's website, his decision on whether the site remains as it is or goes in whatever direction.

Well I think the super moderators are doing a relatively good job now, aren't they? Banning people unless they exhibit trollish behavior is unnecessary, my opinion is that things are fine the way they are.


Ditto.



The problem, as I see it, is that many new members have no desire to learn, and are turning SciForums into another teen chat room. Pointless posts and ridiculous threads are becoming the norm. I have noticed that several "old-timers" have almost stopped posting altogether. It would be an immeasurable loss if these members left for more suitable surroundings. Can there be any argument that their continued participation is certainly more valuable to us than that of a member who posts a "pissing" thread.

Uh, what are they supposed to be learning? I thought the primary reason for people coming to boards like this was communication and self expression. Also keep in mind that this isnt 1996. Every nutjob, one noter, control freak, conspiracy theorist and psycho has a cd with a thousand free hours of aoHELL on it :) If you start trying to control content and form of expression (except within broad guidlines, threats, commercialism etc.) you will necessarily lose something meaningful. Human communication is messy, inaccurate and not at all an exact science, but unexpected gems of meaning arise from this chaos that excessive strictures might prohibit.


I am close to being fed up, myself. It is only by the most dogged determination that I continue to try and stimulate discussions, as they seldom go more than a few posts before breaking down into conspiracy theories, irrelevant bickering or toilet humor. That said, I believe that members who find it impossible to contribute anything other than inane or cryptic jabber should be removed. Otherwise, this board will never retain Porfiry's original vision.


Dude, lose the martyr complex. It makes you look absurd. Just because you dont approve of the way people are communicating doesnt mean that its wrong or unsucessful in conveying meaning or ideas. Ive particpated in alot of threads that contained irrelavent information, just discard it and go on. Ive also seen posters promulgating ideas that others ridiculed, that later in the light of new information turned out to be true.

Ive participated in a few forums and continue to post on a couple, this one among them (to the chagrin of the few and the enlightenment of the many :) ) and it seems to me that theres nothing wrong here. This discussion itself is a symptom of health.
If you start trying to exert unwarranted or unneeded control, at least these two things will happen; Youll lose posters. Youll lose diversity of expression and after that even more posters.
You need shit to raise beuatiful roses :)

Im sorry to have to agree with Goofy. Sciforums is turning into another teen chat. New members like lordjin make that possible.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=12774

Im sorry to have to agree with Goofy. Sciforums is turning into another teen chat. New members like lordjin make that possible.

Seems to me that wet1 response to that thread was reasonable and that they took his suggestion. Whats the problem?
And the forum is titled free thoughts :)

Im sure you can come up with endless examples to prove your point, and Im sure that everyone one here has at one time or another posted something that didnt represent their best thinking :) But the signal/noise ratio here seems pretty high.
As I said before Ive participated in a few forums over the years, Ive seen witchhunts start from discussions like this one and if that happens everybody gets burned.
Have some tolerance.

I did not mean to insult lordjin. But lets start pointing fingers now. Witch hunts are always fun. NOT! I think that this is more about the forums that seem to be attracting the wrong people and what to do with them.

I think that this is more about the forums that seem to be attracting the wrong people and what to do with them.

Ok. If you really think that something has to be done to cut down the noise heres my suggestion.
After registration a waiting period of a few days before the new user is allowed to post. That would allow those who are just looking for a place to spew to get bored enough to find somewhere else to do it in the intrerim. I would recommend 7 days, most places thats the waiting period for a handgun purchase :)

The problem, as I see it, is that many new members have no desire to learn, and are turning SciForums into another teen chat room.

"No desire to learn"

Our most astute colleague has hammered the proverbial nail on the head. Too many times, baits have been launched from our cast of characters in which solutions have been provided only to be ignored so that the member in question continue baiting in order to generate the negative attention initially sought.

In other words, learning, to them, is a distraction from the pursuit of social acceptance.

"Younger sciforumers have no desire to learn."

A solid thesis. Now what?

I would suggest a tutorial, maybe sent via email once the person joins, explaining the basics of what we the members and what porfiry wants and what we don't want. I.e, toilet humor, jokes, etc etc whenever the post is serious and not in free thoughts. We want intelligence, non-viciousness, and a will to learn (and not be stubborn, I guess). I don't believe I speak for all of you so please chime in.....

Maybe the first step is naming off members that we have problems with, that there are problems with.

I won't start, unless I'm given the go ahead. I'm sure there are those of us that don't want such a thing to happen, for all I know it may be unnecessary. But we need to confront these people that are putting sciforums into a lull, one of a few that I've been through, mind you. We'll work this out, don't worry about it. We just have to find a solution before it's too late.

The first post I made was strictly for clearing something up that I had bouncing in my head....Will Humans Evolve Further? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9821) And I am a teenager. I reall don't appreciate when someone says that this is turning into a "teen chat" when only one or two teenagers actually do it. Pumpkinsaren'torange isn't a teenager yet she is a part of most of the threads closed.

How can a place called SciForums attract people who want to chat about things such as having sex? Unless you bored out of your mind and have are prejudice towards intellectuals...you wouldn't come here for the purpose of disrupting this board. The "change" happens while they are members....
One thing contributing to the our little problem are the smilies. They express too much emotion and they make an immature poster want to connect with people....but we can't live without those yellow guys :)

Well, the teen chat really puts things into perspective, doesn't it? Have you ever been to the teen rooms on msn? I don't want sciforums turning into that, and some of the threads are very similar.

Prejudice especially against age is a chief problem among one member in particular that I can think of. I'm fifteen. GB is thirteen. Grazzhoppa is somewhere around the teens. Counsler is as well. So is Thor. There's a ton of teens here, and until now I think a great deal of us have done a good job keeping things sane, intelligent, and non-teenish.

But, the prejudice ensues....

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
I reall don't appreciate when someone says that this is turning into a "teen chat" when only one or two teenagers actually do it.No need to be offended. As Pollux indicated, it's the chat room atmosphere. People with immature mentalities engaging in pointless chatter. Fine for places that cater to it, annoying here. If you're not part of the problem, you're not part of the problem.

Peace.

Age is not necessarily an indicator of intellectual immaturity. There are members in many age ranges who post questionable material and some who are very young who post superb insights. I suggest we forget the age distinction as an issue here.

With Free Thoughts there are two primary desires –

1. The exchange of trivia; sometimes silly, sometimes amusing, but usually of a short chatty style.

2. Serious or semi-serious discussions about issues that do not fit well in other designated forums.

When the two categories are mixed we see irritations from both groups of posters.

I recommend that Free Thoughts is split exactly along these lines –

Free Thoughts – Trivia.
A forum for idle thoughts, triva, and introductions.

Free Thoughts – Discussions.
A forum for discussions and a place to meet others at a more intellectual level.

Both need to be moderated. The primary rule for trivia is to avoid offensive material. The primary rule for Discussions is to avoid trivia.

Comments?

Cris

Not to shabby an idea, Cris.

I have also noticed that a common theme is one concerned with relationship issues. Perhaps a forum that gives focus to those issues would also be of benefit and where those posting in such a forum feel safer from potential ridicule on sensitive issues.

I don’t want to see a sex forum, but a forum that does allow members to discuss such issues in a responsible manner and where perhaps some of the older members can provide advice from their experience, could be a healthy and worthwhile addition to sciforums.

A moderator needs to ensure proper content and conduct.

So in addition to the Free Thoughts split how about –

Personal Relationships.
A mature forum to discuss relationships, to request advice, or to give advice.

That's the smartest thing anyone has said to solve this situation, Cris. Although I would want an general Advice forum rather than Relationship....but then again, wouldn't an Advice forum attract more immature people? This is a community that doesn't want those kinds of people. I did a simple search on Communism and that's how I found this wonderful place. If someone does a simple seach on "love advice" they could end up here...which is not a bad thing but if they believe something and are irrational about it, they can clutter this site with garbage posts pretty fast...or if they are bored they might want to start controversy just for the hell of it.

If I post something in Free Thoughts I don't expect it to be taken as a serious topic...the number of sarcastic remarks or intentional non-helpful information is much greater in serious posts that are in Free Thoughts than any other forum.

The following statements are agreed to by Sciforums' members upon registration of a user ID:Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please press the Agree button at the end of the page.

Although the administrators and moderators of sciforums.com will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of sciforums.com or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of sciforums.com have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. Your membership at sciforums.com may be revoked without prior warning for any reason.• Sciforums' current TOA

Even I generally skip through EULA's and TOA's to click the "accept" button. As such, I try not to be too surprised when what I've accepted bites me in the ass.

(Note on Edit: Does anyone ever read the intermediate screens when posting? There is a phrase in there that says, "Unless the moderators choose to review the topic", or some such. One of the reasons I've never asked to moderate a forum around here is that I would spend my time constructing "Moderated Discussions", and inherently closing certain avenues of discussion. While practicality tells me this is a good idea, it does conflict with my principles.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I read the rules before I agree to anything, unless its to long. And I try to abid by the rules to, sometimes I slip up every now and then but who doesnt? But the people who do it constantly are the ones who are trouble. You guys just need more moderators.

I was just trying to be sympathetic; many people don't read such things. I generally read TOA's, but I generally skip EULA's and just punch the "accept" button.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I would disagree on any splitting of Free Thoughts. That's what the forum is there for. To be free, I guess, as long as you aren't a dumbass. Be funny, be intelligent, post things that don't belong elswhere. Making it more complicated might turn off future greats.

An advice forum might make the problem more widespread, even if it were "intelligent." That's more like appeasing those that caused this whole thing (a party of which I was once a part of) rather than putting down the problem at its source. Look, this thing will go away, we just have to be strict-er, or as strict as we are now. We don't need to change anything, because this has all worked really well for us so far. And it will continue to work well, because it is an excellent format used in forums all over the world.

'Free' does not equate to irresponsible!

Ignoring the TOA's is irresponsible!

What more need be said?

Take care :cool:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

I agree. That's why moderators should do their jobs and MODERATE, we don't need to cleave one of the best reasons to be a member of this site, do we?

Moderating is exactly what has started all the rukus and I knew it would when it was started. That will neither deflect me from doing so nor will it in the future.

I think the actions have been more than fair and every poster who has wanted to say something about it has certainly had their chance. It would have been far easier to just tell everyone to live with it and shut up.

The action was necessary to bring order back to a forum that had gotten way out of hand.

Several points have been brung up or that I wish to make.



Age is not the determining factor as many grow at different rates. You have those young members who are every bit as lucid and as articulate as older members.

Experience, based on life events usually give the more older members a broader base to draw from. Hence younger members are at a disavantage in this feild, though no fault of their own. It makes the point no less valid.

Some of our members of less maturity are responcible for the mess that Free Thoughts had degenerated to. (Notice that the word maturity was used in place of age.)

TOA's serve a purpose. They are the rules to live by within this place. While no one wants to see every breath they take and every thought they have examined to see if it fits within the criteria, enforcement of such rules to some extent are a must for community health.

The name of this site is sciforums, not chat forums. Even Free Thoughts, where threads that have no proper place within the more regimented forums, requires some thought on the part of the poster. The closed threads with in Free Thoughts and in some of the other forums have had to rely on the reader to put some intelligence into the thread to even have something to discuss. Others were way out of bounds.

I do not propose to put more work on Porfiry. It is his decision as to how he wants his site to look and appear. Some, I am sure by now, notice that he spends a lot of time here checking the contents of his site. That eats a lot of his free time that would be required to make any changes. I am also sure that Porfiry has a "real life" that uses a portion of his time. I do not think we should be asking him to extend the amount of his time into this area unless that is what he truely wishes.

Moderating is often a thankless job. I am neither complaining nor am I bitching about it, merely making a statement as I do this by choice. For those of you that are unhappy with the condition of the site, step up to the plate. Be responcible and accountable both to yourself and to others that this be a better site. No one will be the worse for those willing to serve and that will fit the critera.

Help support sciforums. Everyone likes the site and most come here often. It is truely a community. Do your part. It is not a lot to ask. For the price of one movie, one video game, or even a rental movie you can do your part.