Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes

After product launches *do not lock* the product speculation threads. This allows speculation and rumors on a product to continue and reduces most noise from the post launch product architecture discussion thread. Launched products will always have rumors/speculation regarding features that need to be discussed long before there is an official announcement. (ie, DLSS 3, FSR 3)
 
pharma said:
After product launches *do not lock* the product speculation threads. This allows speculation and rumors on a product to continue and reduces most noise from the post launch product architecture discussion thread. Launched products will always have rumors/speculation regarding features that need to be discussed long before there is an official announcement. (ie, DLSS 3, FSR 3)
Click to expand...

If the speculation thread is for the architecture/family, it should be a fair while before it was locked anyway given the heavily staggered launches that are the norm now. On this topic there is always going to be some speculation about what product x's price, performance etc will mean for future product y's price, performance etc from the same architecture/family. I don't see this in itself as a problem but it will usually be coupled with comparisons to competitors parts which will of course usually lead to ulhealthy arguments.
 
Rys said:
On to the main topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Here are my suggestions.

Each thread in the Archeticture Products/Graphics Semiconductors/Rendering APIs sections should have a clear section for rules of what allowed and disallowed right there in the main post. The thread creator could carry the responsibility of flagging disallowed posts and reporting them, or quote these posts directly to cut the flow of the disallowed discussion short, a simple "This is an out of topic discussion, please take it elsewhere" message should suffice. This is a job for the mods of course, but with the few numbers on site, thread creators could carry on that job partially, till the situation is resolved.

Make a thread for every specific emerging argument, this makes it easier to track down discussions and follow them along. Dedicated threads for rumors/pre launch/post launch/reviews/performance comparisons ..etc should be the standard practice.

Extensive cross vendor comparisons could be contained in dedicated threads, with only passing mentions -necessary to the argument at hand- allowed in the other threads. Posts containing performance comparisons should be detailed and abstract as possible.

Any personal attacks or accusations of any kind should be prohibited at all costs.
 
Hi there!

I am pretty happy to see that @Rys and the moderation team have come up with a well thought out plan to try and solve the problem that led to the decision to close the A&P. I think the plan seems very reasonable in general, but I am sad to read that it was considered to close the whole place and also that this is one last try for A&P.

The search for new and capable moderators is a very welcome addition, which i greatly applaud!

I have been pretty quiet myself after the A&P section has been closed of, not sure whether or not I possibly might have been an inadvertent contributor to the noise. Be that throught my insignifant presence or through my posts. Neither seemed to be the case, which leaves me relieved.

While reading the 3.4 pages of this thread, there were serveral thoughts crossing my mind, some of which have been taken up in the discussion already, but I will add them here in no particular order with maybe a new twist for consideration (or dismissal).

  • Links to external sources: Please do not show their bait thumbnail, just display them as ordinary links. That probably will help limit the temptation to just throw down a link and leave. Youtube links should mandatorily be time-stamped to where the video does refer to the point you're trying to make.
  • Bans: For temporal bans I would just use personal discretion of the respective moderator, but full bans should be voted upon with a certain percentage of moderators taking part.
  • Rumor mill: Maybe it is worthwhile to move pre-release information, correct or false, to a dedicated subforum/board?
  • AI: Include a rule about AI generated posts/accounts. I would like to see this completely out of limits, because it could subvert any form of requirements for posting length etc. As of now, AI texts are pretty easily identifyable.
  • Major inflection points in rumor-threads: They could be referred to in the first post - if not by the thread creator, maybe then by a moderator edit.
  • Speculation Threads after launch: Most products do not launch out of thin air. And it's not like there are hundreds of new products each year. So maybe create appropriate post-launch threads immediately when applicable so people see and use them instead of continuing in speculation threads.

Regarding the continued financial burden: Keep on donating, guys. Consider it, if you have not already. And maybe put a *small* reminder to the paypal donation somewhere visible permanently? There seems to be enough space in the forums layout. Maybe just underneath the reply-box before the suggestion of similar threads.

Thanks for hearing me out and all the best in your efforts!
 
Way too many rules imo. As long as it's not very heated, let the members talk between them without the feeling of walking on eggshells, let the topics live even if it's OT from time to time.

Imo the problem is too much moderation, and it looks like it will be the same thing.
 
They’re primarily guidelines, and mostly common sense. At their core they’re almost identical to the last set, which were ignored by the worst contributors.

The problem definitely isn’t too much moderation. We wouldn’t be asking for more help on that front if that was the case.
 
The only one I don't like is long winded response to be preferred, in reality that stops being witty and if you multiply that with dry technical subject that's just too much. Especially with OCD prone people here long winded response is asking for trouble IMHO.
 
Rootax said:
Way too many rules imo. As long as it's not very heated, let the members talk between them without the feeling of walking on eggshells, let the topics live even if it's OT from time to time.

Imo the problem is too much moderation, and it looks like it will be the same thing.
Click to expand...
I think one of @Rys listed objectives is a more balanced moderation team which would go a long way towards resolving some of the issues you mentioned.
I'd rather not see a lot of OT continuance in threads since the end result is usually derailment of ongoing discussions.
 
Whatever unbiased mindset allows posts like "That gives you an idea of how obsessed these Nvidia guys here are with the company." to remain unquestioned by the moderation team.
Possibly a missed post by the moderation team but definitely does not move discussion forward in an Nvidia thread.
 
pharma said:
Whatever unbiased mindset allows posts like "That gives you an idea of how obsessed these Nvidia guys here are with the company." to remain unquestioned by the moderation team.
Possibly a missed post by the moderation team but definitely does not move discussion forward in an Nvidia thread.
Click to expand...
The kind that is sick of all the shilling. :yep2:
 
@BRiT has put forward the idea of completely split Architecture and Product sub forums, under the Graphics Forums section, to make it clearer what the purpose of each kind of thread is, and allow for more effective moderation in the case where we might want to have a full thread type ban on one or the other for someone, when we run into problems.

I like it in principle, but in the interest of getting going again let's see how we get on without it to start with, and then we can bring that idea into play if we think it'd help. If you have an opinion on whether or not it would, please let us know.
 
I think @BRiT has a great idea about split Architecture and Products sub forums. Easing moderation effectiveness through sub forum thread bans without completely disassociating violators from continuing related discussion in another IHV specific sub forum would definite benefit moderators and thread participants. Personally I think this is the way to go in order to reduce thread disruption coming from a few individuals.
 
Rys said:
They’re primarily guidelines, and mostly common sense. At their core they’re almost identical to the last set, which were ignored by the worst contributors.

The problem definitely isn’t too much moderation. We wouldn’t be asking for more help on that front if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, you need more because you ( I mean the team, it's not personnal) try to do too much on that front imo.

Shifty Geezer said:
Threads derailing into pages of platform-warring hissy-fits time and time again is a result of too much moderation???
Click to expand...
Yes some threads turn into X vs Y, but it's not uninteresting every time. It's needed, products don't exist in a vacuum. Now of course it shouldn't be just a fanboy fight, but in some cases, comparaisons help the topic.

On a larger scale, I know I'm not a big user so maybe I didn't realize how a mess the section was, but I enjoyed it, and from my pov, I was more "pissed" about the moderation coming in for all and nothing, and some users being pissed of by the slighlest OT and be ultra vocal about it, making it worse in some cases. It was more noise than the problem itself.

In any case, good luck to the team, the effort is appreciated (whatever I feel it's going in the right direction or not).
 
Here's the kind of thread list I'd like to see today in my idealised view of what A+P could be, with my notes about what I'd like to read in them. Note that it's not exhaustive by any means, it's just meant to be illustrative:

Nvidia GeForce RTX 40-series review roundup - all 40-series products, OP with big list of products + reviews updated as they're launched
Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 gaming performance analysis - deeper look at a single product's game perf
Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 resource occupancy analysis - even deeper look at perf scaling on a gigantic monolithic design
Nvidia AD102 chip specs - detailed specs of a released ASIC including insight into all the possible, likely and eventual configurations, etc
AMD Radeon RX 7600 product specs - detailed specs for a product, including AIB variants, power, clocks, thermals, etc
AMD RDNA2 to RDNA3 family performance scaling analysis - a deep dive into perf scaling across two microarchitectures and their product families
Intel DG2-512 microarchitectural performance analysis - a deep dive into how a particular GPU seems to work at a general level, and speculation as to why
Testing pixel export rates on 2023 high-end GPUs - a deep dive into a particular uarch+product specific detail using directed tests (maybe the forum could write them...)
Shader instruction throughput test design for variable SIMD width GPUs - how to design and implement a really good set of directed tests for a particular implementation detail in modern GPUs
GPU physical and product design of the future (2023 Edition) - date-specific thread on how GPU ASIC and product design might change in the future, given foundry process changes, economics, power and thermal expectations, etc
Nvidia Ampere Next microarchitecture speculation - new uarch speculation thread
Nvidia Ampere Next possible variants - speculation on possible and probable ASICs, product configs, etc
Nvidia Ampere Next rumour mill - a more Wild West rumour mill thread, but using the new guidelines so it's not complete horseshit

So pretty in-depth wherever possible, very focused on GPUs and GPU products, hopefully well split out and segmented, much less focus on surface level analysis, still allows for rumour discussion, no graphics techniques or API discussion, no crypto, etc.

As for a date for reopening, I was hoping to do that today if I had the time, but there's some discussion I'd like to have with the current and new mods first to coordinate which I haven't been able to have yet.

Let's go for next weekend instead, assuming the mods can all talk together first.
 
Rootax said:
Way too many rules imo. As long as it's not very heated, let the members talk between them without the feeling of walking on eggshells, let the topics live even if it's OT from time to time.

Imo the problem is too much moderation, and it looks like it will be the same thing.
Click to expand...

The relative lack of moderation and more importantly posting rules and rules enforcement is one of the reasons the board has devolved from a mostly technical forum with many professionals in the business posting here to now being mostly non-technical consumers posting here.

Basically, they've been driven away or at best forced to just lurk by the noise and actual or perceived harassment from those that don't have much knowledge.

It's one thing for someone without much technical knowledge to ask about something and learn. It's another when you have certain users that would consistently question, challenge and be passive aggressive towards those that are in the industry (whether it be hardware design or software development) despite numerous clarifications and attempts to educate them by those with more knowledge in the relevant industries.

The proposed rules are there to attempt to encourage at least a minimum level of civil discourse that might lead to an environment where actual hardware designers and software developers would once again feel safe posting here.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Rys said:
So pretty in-depth wherever possible, very focused on GPUs and GPU products, hopefully well split out and segmented, much less focus on surface level analysis, still allows for rumour discussion, no graphics techniques or API discussion, no crypto, etc.
Click to expand...

What does in-depth hardware discussion look like without mention of the software the hardware is meant to accelerate? Does it mean super low level stuff like transistor, alu, cache design? Once you get into the higher level functional blocks the software and apis become more relevant.

There isn’t enough activity on the forum to support lots of highly focused threads. It will just result in a few threads with lots of posts and lots of dead threads with < 10 posts same as today.

I would slightly tweak the topics to be broad but mutually exclusive within the following categories.

(1) Architecture Discussion - one thread per uarch. Heavily moderated. This can include rumors as long as they contribute to some actual technical analysis. E.g. if someone wants to comment on the uarch implications of a leaked code snippet. Posts must be technical. Discussion of different approaches taken by the various IHVs to solve a particular problem is allowed. Discussion of implications of uarch decisions allowed especially those supported by IHV documentation - e.g. resolution scaling of infinity cache. No personal attacks. No unsubstantiated FUD based on self professed insider info.

(2) Product Reviews and Performance - one thread per SKU. Price, availability, sales etc for a given SKU allowed within each thread. No personal attacks. Product comparisons to competing SKUs from different IHVs are allowed with supporting evidence.

(3) Rumor Mill - one thread per architecture family to host all the usual high level noise. No IHV comparisons, FUD or personal attacks. Allowed to repost and discuss random internet rumors as long as it follows those rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Architecture and Products - Subforum Guidelines
Replies
0
Views
2K
Rys
Rys
Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
13K
homerdog
homerdog
Shifty Geezer
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
159 160 161
Replies
3K
Views
286K
snc
snc
D
  • Locked
Request reopening a thread
Replies
2
Views
1K
BRiT
BRiT
Shifty Geezer
Proposed structure change to Console forum
Replies
11
Views
1K
Malo
Malo
Back
Top