Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes

[nutball]

One suggestion as a total outsider - you (mods / admins) should be able to see the ignore lists of the general membership. A simple database query might highlight which members are the persistent entropy generators.

If I was a mean person I'd suggest a Top 10 table visible to everyone. But I'm not, so I won't. Maybe if some people knew they were being widely ignored they'd change, or leave. Or maybe I'm just naive.

 

[swaaye]

I want to be the most ignored user.

Well, anyway, I am looking forward to the return of that section. I'm an concerned some of the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork again though.

 

[eastmen]

How about "reply bans" between some users? Basically we don't allow some users to interact because it never goes well? Put a wall up between them so they can't descend into old behaviours? As a mod, I say to the two or more participants, " you are no longer allowed to talk with this person (for x amount of days/years)" and a reply results in correction. This would help motivate those who struggle with the self control to agree to disagree.

There is an ignore feature. I have about 6 people on it

 

[trinibwoy]

Right now I don’t think it shows who is thread banned to non mods, but that could maybe be changed for transparency. I’ll look into it.

This is a fantastic idea. More transparency the better IMO.

 

[DegustatoR]

No link-only posts with no summary and following commentary, especially single links to "leaker" accounts on Twitter.

I feel like this isn't a good idea.
The forum s/w pulls eombed data from the link which you've posted so that's more or less a summary done automatically for you.
And people don't have the time to rephrase whatever is said in that link when they are posting it (I know I don't) or have any opinion on the information in that link worth sharing.
If you want to limit "rumors" posting in general then maybe limiting them to just some threads would be a better option?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is an ignore feature. I have about 6 people on it

Currently we invite people to use it but some don't. Potentially could we force people onto ignore lists? But you also can need to see their posts to see the discussion sometimes. Having them readable but unreplyable would not only keep noise down but maybe also train people in tolerance, learning to read things they want to respond to but don't respond to. That's the ultimate step towards board-wide self-moderation we're really after.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Having mods force people onto ignore lists is too draconian and has less transparency. It's not about training when you are talking about middle aged adults.
I think the more salient approach is just thread ban "both" perpetrators for the required time on an increasing scale for subsequent disruptions.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

If you want to limit "rumors" posting in general then maybe limiting them to just some threads would be a better option?

Agreed. There are some threads that have continual circular posts and link to a multitude of rumors.

Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard for $69 Billion, NICE! Possibly Completes 2022-07 to 2023-06

Think this deserves a new thread. https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2022/01/18/welcoming-activision-blizzard-to-microsoft-gaming/ This is insaaane. Antitrust is a big question. Guessing maybe MS is going to pretend to be the good guy and promise to maintain multiplatform support for Activision...

forum.beyond3d.com

 

[Rys]

I feel like this isn't a good idea.
The forum s/w pulls eombed data from the link which you've posted so that's more or less a summary done automatically for you.
And people don't have the time to rephrase whatever is said in that link when they are posting it (I know I don't) or have any opinion on the information in that link worth sharing.
If you want to limit "rumors" posting in general then maybe limiting them to just some threads would be a better option?

Unfortunately, the auto embedding isn’t automatic depending on user browser configuration. I personally don’t see Twitter links show up as rendered embedded tweets, and I don't have a Twitter acount, so following them is a particularly crap experience, but maybe (probably) I’m in the minority and shouldn't legislate based on my own preferneces.

The intent of that guideline is to try and reduce the number threads peppered with a particular kind of low-quality unverified "information" that's usually presented in definitive terms as if it's fact, by "leakers". I use that term incredibly loosely, since usually they're just completely making it up.

That's what we could do with less of, since low-quality information tends to drive low-quality discussion. Instead, if the (ideally good!) rumours are summarised and then critically analysed, to help feed the discussion, I think many threads would be better off and end up discussing something of substance. That was the driving intent of that part of the guidelines anyway.

I don't think just allowing a particular class of thread to just be brimmed with shit broadly unchecked, be that tweets or links to rumour sites or low-quality posts about those things, helps with the goal of improving signal:noise.

 

[BRiT]

Unfortunately, the auto embedding isn’t automatic depending on user browser configuration. I personally don’t see Twitter links show up as rendered embedded tweets, and I don't have a Twitter acount, so following them is a particularly crap experience, but maybe (probably) I’m in the minority and shouldn't legislate based on my own preferneces.

There are times where even if you have an account on the service and a permissive client, the embedding doesn't work. It's especially likely when a service got rid of 75% of their workforce. It's why I've gotten in the habit of at least quoting the text portions of what was said in the external content service.

Not to mention the times when the external content is removed entirely, which leaves a hole in the discussion as it's simply gone.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Also it's just a bit rude. You have time to post up someone else's content without contributing even a, "Hey, look what someone said about xxxxx!", then mebbe you shouldn't post anything at all?

 

[LordEC911]

First of all, thanks for the write-up and time everyone has put into this situation and this forum.

Couple of questions about the OP-

The "disallowed thread topic" is to stop people from creating a specific thread to discuss those things, correct?
It is still OK to discuss how potential business decisions based on "performance/sales" may have influenced a specific architecture/product (or the other way around) say in the "RDNA3 Speculation" thread or the "RDNA3 Product" thread?

Also, I see the phrase "high-level" a few times in the OP.
While I like to think I have a decent grasp on most things GPU related, there is a lot of very in-depth technical posts made here that I might struggle to follow along and there is no way I'm able to match that knowledge.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "high-level" posts depends on your POV and knowledge base, doesn't it?
This guideline is more about not being a pest and creating circular/repetitive discussions, correct?

 

[digitalwanderer]

This guideline is more about not being a pest and creating circular/repetitive discussions, correct?

I'm with you on the tech aspects and high level stuff, but I think you summed it all up best with your last sentence. If we all do that I think everything will work out and we'll make the mods jobs a lot easier.

No one minds explaining things if you ask nicely, I have to do it all the time. One of the best parts of this forum is how willing people are to share their knowledge and how surprisingly good at explaining it they are.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "high-level" posts depends on your POV and knowledge base, doesn't it?
This guideline is more about not being a pest and creating circular/repetitive discussions, correct?

As Digi says, we don't mind those of weaker undertanding getting involved, so long as they know when to stop. It requires one to be honest about one's insight and step back when you know you've nothing to contribute. Sometimes some posters push their misconceptions hard and that generates personal push-backs.

 

[Henry swagger]

Lets get back to talking about hardware.. and stop the fanboys from derailing threads

 

[Rys]

First of all, thanks for the write-up and time everyone has put into this situation and this forum.

Couple of questions about the OP-

The "disallowed thread topic" is to stop people from creating a specific thread to discuss those things, correct?
It is still OK to discuss how potential business decisions based on "performance/sales" may have influenced a specific architecture/product (or the other way around) say in the "RDNA3 Speculation" thread or the "RDNA3 Product" thread?

Also, I see the phrase "high-level" a few times in the OP.
While I like to think I have a decent grasp on most things GPU related, there is a lot of very in-depth technical posts made here that I might struggle to follow along and there is no way I'm able to match that knowledge.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "high-level" posts depends on your POV and knowledge base, doesn't it?
This guideline is more about not being a pest and creating circular/repetitive discussions, correct?

It's fine to discuss business decisions that (might) have impact on architecture- and chip-level decisions in pre-release or post-release threads, but there has to be a clear link made that bridges the gap.

When I say high-level, I'm just thinking about the posts that truly don't add anything. Anyone with any level of understanding or experience is very welcome to post in any thread. Diving in and asking questions and getting answers that help educate themselves and anyone else at the same level following along is pure gold, but there's got to be that curiosity.

So yep, it's definitely just another way of asking that posts keep the discussion moving forwards in some way, rather than just sending it round the loop for another go.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I fail to see why anyone would want to just link something without at least commenting on why they linked it and why it's relevant rather than leaving it completely up to the reader to attempt to ascertain why it was posted.

Without input from the poster, it's easy for mis-interpretations of the poster's intent and thread derailments to then ensue.

At that point it becomes hard to determine whether everything going south is the fault of the person posting a link without comment or someone replying to it that might have misinterpreted why it was posted and why it was relevant.

Regards,
SB

 

[DegustatoR]

At that point it becomes hard to determine whether everything going south is the fault of the person posting a link without comment or someone replying to it that might have misinterpreted why it was posted and why it was relevant.

Really? When someone is replying to a link post with nonsense or a personal attack is a moment where it's hard to determine if it's the OP or that post is to blame?

I personally don’t see Twitter links show up as rendered embedded tweets, and I don't have a Twitter acount, so following them is a particularly crap experience, but maybe (probably) I’m in the minority and shouldn't legislate based on my own preferneces.

Then it may be better to just make a rule prohibiting posting twitter embeds without any summary - or a screenshot of a tweet instead or in addition to embed?

The intent of that guideline is to try and reduce the number threads peppered with a particular kind of low-quality unverified "information" that's usually presented in definitive terms as if it's fact, by "leakers". I use that term incredibly loosely, since usually they're just completely making it up.

Well how would a requirement to rephrase the same information under the link help with that? It just seems that maybe a more direct rule forbidding posting unverified / uncorroborated rumors would be a better option here than to just attack the "link posts" in general? Then again I think that rumor mill in itself can be interesting to follow and just forbidding it on the forum seems a bit excessive.

I don't think just allowing a particular class of thread to just be brimmed with shit broadly unchecked, be that tweets or links to rumour sites or low-quality posts about those things, helps with the goal of improving signal:noise.

It does if you contain that to a number of threads where it's permittied to post and discuss this type of info while it's forbidden in the rest of the threads.

Anyway I feel that this isn't a good option since it will be either hard to enforce properly or lead to people not posting info which is in fact relevant and interesting - which is what makes the forum interesting all in all.

 

[Rys]

Then it may be better to just make a rule prohibiting posting twitter embeds without any summary - or a screenshot of a tweet instead or in addition to embed?

Screenshots are good because they get a snapshot of it at the time it was posted. I wonder if there's a way for the forum software to help with that, I'll look into it.

Well how would a requirement to rephrase the same information under the link help with that? It just seems that maybe a more direct rule forbidding posting unverified / uncorroborated rumors would be a better option here than to just attack the "link posts" in general? Then again I think that rumor mill in itself can be interesting to follow and just forbidding it on the forum seems a bit excessive.

The act of having to bring your take on why you find it interesting will help I think, because it'll maybe stop the low-effort linking of everything that ever gets said about a product or architecture on the Internet. I know the rumour mill is fun, so maybe we have threads just to collect that kind of stuff, to keep it a bit separate and allow people to filter it out more easily if it's not what they're interested in. I'll have a think about that.

It does if you contain that to a number of threads where it's permittied to post and discuss this type of info while it's forbidden in the rest of the threads.

Anyway I feel that this isn't a good option since it will be either hard to enforce properly or lead to people not posting info which is in fact relevant and interesting - which is what makes the forum interesting all in all.

I'm warming to that idea, if the threads are separate as mentioned above.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The act of having to bring your take on why you find it interesting will help I think, because it'll maybe stop the low-effort linking of everything that ever gets said about a product or architecture on the Internet.

This. There's Reddit for that, or Twitter. People here aren't following these things for a reason - if they wanted to be involved in the rumouring, they'd be following on the fast-paced social media.

And the bit I hate most about the rumour-mill posting is it devolves into Reality TV discussion the people tweeting, what their reputation is. It ends up all about personalities, "this person has a good rep and so I take their word as Gospel; the one you linked has a lousy rep and I'll keep dumping on them every time they appear and on you for listening to them." I think it ties in to such basic human behaviours as to be akin to religious alignment and generates similar noisy conflict as a result.

If there's to be a thread on rumours, it ought to just be a dump/noticeboard IMO. No discussion, no analysis, no investigation into whether a source is trustworthy or not. And/or a thread that focuses on keeping track of sources and identifying those who are trustworthy and whitelisting them for inclusion in other discussions.

B3D doesn't have to be all things to all people. It should specialise to be the best at what it does. Following the rumour-mill doesn't strike me as a necessary feature - it only has value if it leads to meaningful discussion. #people can combine B3D with other social groups and internet activities to get more then B3D is offering itself.