Terms of Use

[boris010666]

Originally Posted by Dark Gemini

Brian, while I completely agree with the rules and applaud your advocacy of them, I have to know- what are flame wars?! Here in America, we would probably just chalk that up to a drunken redkneck barbeque.

Flamewars are pretty much what Teresa replied, "online arguments that get utterly out of hand, escalating into insults and sometimes worse."

Perhaps you've heard of "flame-baiting" as well? That's where people purposely try to start something by the things they post in hopes of getting an uproar. Its best just to ignore those people!

[Barclay63]

That's not nearly as shocking as referring to the guy as a "butt pole."

[TC4816]

Who can I ask about the probabilities (if any) of publishing two separate works (with minor adjustments) of the same story by the same author (me), but for two different age groups?

[Culhwch]

Try asking over at the Publishing boards.

[I, Brian]

Bumpity-bump!

[Boneman]

I do love a good bump...

One thing that occurs to me about the running of the chronicles is this: we all agreed that there should be decent 'usage' (for want of a better word) of the forums before a member could post a thread for critiquing. This was an admirable idea to stop every Johnny-come-lately just arriving here for a free critique and then b***ering off. And it has been applied assiduously by alert Moderators.

The thing is, that as far as I'm aware, these new members whose threads have been closed because they've asked for critique when they only had 1 or 2 postings have never returned. "Excellent!" one might say - it proves that's all they wanted and that's not the sort of person we need around here, and I'd wholeheartedly agree.

Or, because a 'decent' individual didn't read the guidleines, and posted in good faith, we've lost a member, who might have contributed for years to come. Having your thread closed and being told why is all very well, but it could be taken as a slap with a wet fish, if the poster was so inclined.

Unfortunately we'll never know which it is.

Is there no way to actually stop new threads from being posted in critiques until a magic number of postings have been made? I've noticed that moderators periodically close intro threads because someone is not who they say they are, or had previous convictions for fraud, or some such, and that person is barred. That is great, and it's good to see that 'quality control' exists.

So, when a person first registers, would it not be possible to send them the book of rules, rather than expecting them to find them for themselves? That way, people looking for free critiques with no intention of contributing will say "b***er that!" and disappear. And 'genuine' punters will say "Oh, that's good. I know what to do now."

Maybe new posters are over-sensitive to having the guidelines quoted after an event, but we have lost some people recently, who MAY have worked out well.


Any thoughts?

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Boneman

Is there no way to actually stop new threads from being posted in critiques until a magic number of postings have been made?

That is what is meant to happen. Unfortunately, the software-dooberry-stuff isn't doing it right. Actually, it isn't doing it at all... (Don't blame me, guv. I just work here.)

So, when a person first registers, would it not be possible to send them the book of rules, rather than expecting them to find them for themselves?

The very idea has already been mooted by your super-clever mods (ie not me) and is currently being considered, me old china. Everyone reads the terms and conditions before joining of course (ha ha) and whether any such additional intro letter will be read is another matter. We can but try.

Maybe new posters are over-sensitive to having the guidelines quoted after an event, but we have lost some people recently, who MAY have worked out well.

Actually, from looking at the figures, I don't know that it is true we have lost people recently. It's clear a number of early (ie under 10-post Critiques posters) never came back before the new guidelines came in. It may be that those whose threads have been locked since then are so humiliated they're not coming back, but it could be just as easily be that they were only here for the critique -- ie just like the other early posters who came, posted and disappeared.

The figures show a fall off in newbies putting work up for critique in the first place, perhaps. But that would indicate they have seen the guidelines and/or the other locked threads and decided not to bother. But these people would presumably also not bother if they were given the rules booklet -- so therefore would still be lost to us. And it does tend to suggest they aren't the contributing type anyway.

As you say, though, we'll never know. We shall just have to nurture our newbies when they do arrive.

[Teresa Edgerton]

What TJ said. Also, not everyone did disappear.

[Jane Holland]

I like the idea of being nurtured. Can I specify who I want to do it?

[The Procrastinator]

Jane, I recommend you go for TEIN (TheEndIsNigh). After you've been nurtured by him you will never need nurturing again.

Maybe it would be seen as less of a slap in the face with a wet fish if a newbie's offending thread is not actually locked, they are just pointed in the direction of the sticky on posting and told to "go ye and sin no more"? I don't know how the newbies themselves perceive it but seeing a locked thread appear does give a rather gaol-ish air to proceedings. Weeeell, not really gaol-ish, but a bit too "zero tolerance" maybe. Waffling as usual...

[Teresa Edgerton]

So then, after that, what do you suggest that we do with the thread? Leave it open for critiques? That'll learn them. The sort of person we are trying to discourage, the post-something-for-critique-get-what-I-want-and-disappear kind of new member, will get what they want and disappear the same as usual.

Or should we bin the thread and send a PM to the newcomer explaining why. Somehow, I don't think they would care for that.

[The Procrastinator]

Well I'm thinking along the lines of warn before lock I spose. Too much work? Fair enough. Just floating an idea...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Warn before lock? Do you mean put the warning in the thread and leave it open until they respond, and then lock it? This would mean that every time we do that, the thread would be open for yet another discussion about the rules -- which have already been discussed to death, pro and con, and we don't want to go into it again every single time a newcomer posts a thread for critique too early.

[The Procrastinator]

lol. I'm sensing resistance Captain. Yes, I mean put the warning in the thread, and leave it open. Worst case scenario you would get some idiot trying to argue - in which case post a link to the previous discussion thread on why the rule was instituted and lock the thread. The rules are clear and simple after all, and every forum has its rules.

But you may also get people who thoughtlessly hadn't read the rules going, oh, thanks for that, I was not aware, and doing the right thing. I was just thinking that the way it is, dialogue is immediately cut off, and agreeing with Boneman that this may freak out well-meaning but thoughtless or netiquette-L-plater types, or people who freak out easily. Like I said, its just an idea. Feel free to ignore it.

[Culhwch]

To me, this is a huge 'what if'. What if someone doesn't read the rules that are clearly marked at the very top of the page on which they are posting (that's strike one, and call me harsh if you like), or just plain disregards the rules if they have read them, then goes ahead and creates a new thread, has said thread closed politely with a clear explanation of why said thread was closed, and then, what? Gets affronted and leaves? Gets scared off and leaves? In the first instance, we're probably better rid of them. In the second, well, if they can't take a friendly pointer to the rules of the site they hope to use for assistance, how are they going to take unfavourable criticism? How are these delicate little flowers going to cope if their goal is to be published one day? Not well, methinks.

If a member wishes to open a dialogue about their thread being closed, there is ample opportunity - they can start a thread in Feedback for one, or indeed in Aspiring Writers or the Lounge or anywhere vaguely relevant (though this would likely be moved to Feedback) because, after all, we don't block them from doing so. They could also email one of the mods, or Brian directly - many of our email contacts are listed on the mod page.

I'd honestly be surprised if we lost a half dozen new members a year because of this. Even that number seems high to me. The rules are in place, agreed upon by the majority, and I think they are working well. We might review things again down the track, but at the moment I think we should take the approach of letting these rules sink in for a good period of time, and seeing if they are still the best option. After all, would you have questioned them if they had been in place for years before you first joined, rather than when you'd been here awhile?