# Thread Limits. Explain please.



## Arshes Nei (Feb 5, 2007)

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=6081&pid=107976#pid107976

Now I have no issues if you're going to close the thread on the basis of it being a controversial topic. However, tell me when is 7 pages not acceptable when you have the Cuddles and Word Association Thread going much longer.

Please admins chose your words wisely. This is causing inconsistency.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Feb 5, 2007)

Yeah, I'm confused about that too. 

Also, why do long threads eat up resources? I'm not a tech-head, but can't you just jump to the page you want without much more resource eating than a regular one page thread?

I feel like a little kid asking, but I don't know so I might as well.


----------



## wut (Feb 5, 2007)

If resources are the actual issue then "spam" threads (word association, cuddles, etc.) which are more suited to IRC should be deleted and banned from being posted.


----------



## Xax (Feb 5, 2007)

Yeah, you could just throw me in with a "word" there, as I've already PM'ed blueroo regarding that.

*[EDIT]:* contents of pm are as follows



			
				xax said:
			
		

> Title: Requesting reopening of the 'evolution or creation' thread
> Simply because, um, we weren't done talking about it, and in fact my latest post was going to be quite on topic. In regards to your post in the thread, "Thread closed! This topic has exceeded both the thread size limit and the reasonable discussion threshold." I should point out that firstly, there are several other threads much, much longer-- the 'word association' one comes to mind, as do many others. Secondly, the thread had, in fact, remained fairly on-topic the whole length through with a suprising lack of hard flaming.
> 
> As such, I'm asking you to unlock the thread so we can continue our debate.


----------



## Alchera (Feb 5, 2007)

Apparently, Admins are unable to tell what sarcasm is anymore. That's what my "bickering brats" comment was. Oh well.


----------



## Circlepaw (Feb 5, 2007)

A bit of a hypothesis behind thread sizes:

There's not enough love (cuddling) or mindless 'debate' (word association) going on in the threads. Therefore, when a heated discussion on an intellectual level occurs, it strains the database:

It has to pull out paragraphs of replies which can be kilobytes, instead of <=255 bytes of response. Further, the page loads are probably not cached and gzipped, making the cost to processor time a bit more expensive.

Thus, logical topics that stay on-course must be stopped to save the forums.




(for those who missed it, intended sarcasm is implied to the above.)



What bothers me is that threads can reach 400+ pages on my settings (which actually show more posts per page, with no avatars, and no signatures), and not be locked despite their obvious pointlessness and the general consensus that this material is fit for IRC or an instant messenger...
and yet a topic that was only FIVE pages long on my current settings is already locked and bound for the gas chamber.


----------



## Vgm22 (Feb 5, 2007)

Well the cuddles thread is offically dead. We were told to stop posting in it and all the people who were including me have stopped posting in it. I'm just waiting for it to be deleted as it is taking up a lot of space and slowing down the forum.


----------



## lolcox (Feb 5, 2007)

Vgm22 said:
			
		

> Well the cuddles thread is offically dead. We were told to stop posting in it and all the people who were including me have stopped posting in it. I'm just waiting for it to be deleted as it is taking up a lot of space and slowing down the forum.



I think you very well may have missed the circled point:
Why suddenly start enforcing a thread limit, and only do it at a half-cocked angle? The word association thread is still going, has not been dissuaded from continuing, and almost exclusively consists of one word replies that attempt to chain things together in a haphazard manner.
However, the thread in question here was an actual debate that remained fairly on topic (I'd know, I didn't say a thing in the thread, haha), and wasn't even 1/20th the length of the Word Association thread when it met its demise.

This is what we are seeking clarification on in this thread. Please don't hijack it. Thank you.


----------



## Vgm22 (Feb 5, 2007)

lolcox said:
			
		

> Vgm22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not hijacking this thread. I'm just trying to understand why they don't just delete and stop threads like the ones in question. Plus for a suggestion, putting caps on threads so they don't go over a certain page amount, so they don't slow down the forum and/or the server.


----------



## DarkMeW (Feb 5, 2007)

Apparently this is the reason they don't want to make any clear guide lines on posting. They can do what ever they want and never support it with any thing considered reason. Everything is left up to the whims of the admins.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 5, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Apparently this is the reason they don't want to make any clear guide lines on posting. They can do what ever they want and never support it with any thing considered reason. Everything is left up to the whims of the admins.



Winrar!!!

Though in fairness, some admins are more consistent than others.


----------



## DarkMeW (Feb 5, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Winrar!!!



Winrar ? I'm totally missing the meaning of that. 



> Though in fairness, some admins are more consistent than others.



How do you know? Since there is nothing written then those admins could just be thinking there's a completely different policy. 

 lol. I really do find this whole thing incredibly funny.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 5, 2007)

Winrar is some sarcastic internet lingo. "Winner".

I'm saying that after observing many many administrative decisions here at FA, some of the admins are more consistent than others. Many things, though, not just this particular issue, seem to be "at their whims".


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 5, 2007)

I like how the thread was closed with an attitude that the discussion has been solved once and for all.  Thanks, Furaffinity Forums, you've managed to put an end to a 150 year old debate!


----------



## Visimar (Feb 5, 2007)

No kidding. I have my posts per page view thing set to the maximum, and I've seen topics with more pages than the linked topic (Here it says 3 for that one)...yet THEY don't get locked.

Or maybe they did, and I haven't bothered checking them since I last peeked in. ._.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

I like how there is no response from the admins, I asked about the PG 13 guideline too. Oh well. I guess they have a lot of rugs to sweep stuff under.


----------



## kitetsu (Feb 6, 2007)

Maybe they're all in baghdad.


----------



## Sylvine (Feb 6, 2007)

Maybe. 

Maybe they need some evidence that this is not a matter that only a few posters find strange, unclear, or even offensive. Keeping that in mind, I'd like to sign my name under that question. Why, exactly, was the thread closed _right after the discussion actually returned to a moderate pace and tone of voice_? I admit there was a bit of snapping before, mostly due to certain posters not answering to the counterpoints made by other posters. But that was left back some days ago. So... what is the reasoning in this? 

~Sylvine


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

kitetsu said:
			
		

> Maybe they're all in baghdad.



XD "There are no US Soldiers in IRAQ!!!" *as US tanks roll by*


----------



## lolcox (Feb 6, 2007)

I must've failed math.

I always thought that "7 < 250" was a true statement.
Curse you, Mr. Smith, you taught a poor feller wrong!

---

Actually, what's appalling is how far this topic has gone, and there isn't a sign of administrative commentary within the thread.
It almost makes me want to report myself for thread hijacking or ganging up on stupid people, just to get an admin to look at the thread and contribute a (hopefully well) thought out answer.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

lolcox said:
			
		

> Actually, what's appalling is how far this topic has gone, and there isn't a sign of administrative commentary within the thread.
> It almost makes me want to report myself for thread hijacking or ganging up on stupid people, just to get an admin to look at the thread and contribute a (hopefully well) thought out answer.



If you do that, bump that PG13 topic too, because I'm really irritated that was ignored and never clarified either.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Feb 6, 2007)

Can someone please answer this?


----------



## Vgm22 (Feb 6, 2007)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> Can someone please answer this?



The only way the adimins are going to even look at this thread is if we start going for each other throats, but then this thread will get locked down. Plus the admins will use the excuse that they are extremely busy and that'll be there excuse.


----------



## blueroo (Feb 6, 2007)

Admins will be replying to this thread. We're still trying to deal with the aftermath of the DDoS. Keep your panties on.


----------



## yak (Feb 6, 2007)

Vgm22 said:
			
		

> The only way the adimins are going to even look at this thread is if we start going for each other throats, but then this thread will get locked down. Plus the admins will use the excuse that they are extremely busy and that'll be there excuse.


Was this remark really necessary?
In all honesty i have to say that in case of above mentioned "throat-ripping" threads some of us have to literally sacrifice ourr sleep/job/plans in order to deal with them. And tell you what, moderating these forums isn't really a rewarding job.
And what's wrong with being busy? We have lives and RL jobs, some have families.. There are times when things go relatively smooth, but there are also times when things go to the hell in a hand basket.

Anyway, we're discussing this and other topics behind the scenes, sorry for the delay with the response.


----------



## Vgm22 (Feb 6, 2007)

See see what I mean. You answer to me and that's all we on this thread. ^^ We all are really glad that your busy keeping FA the best damned place for us furries on the web. I'm sorry about what I said, but at least it got your attention. That's all we ever want.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 6, 2007)

I think it was probably right to lock that particular thread. Based on a PM I got, the thread would have turned very nasty and agressive indeed.

However, I reckon the locking words could have been better chosen.


----------



## DarkMeW (Feb 6, 2007)

*To all the Moderators and Admins*

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here but I've stated on several occasions, you need a clear written out policy, BEFORE you can enforce it or bring it up for discussion. The time that it would have taken to write out and post guide lines and posting rules for each forum, then lock it at the top of each forum category (or even link to forum posting guide lines) is infinitesimal to the time you have and will spend arguing the issue with everyone. 

You can create a discussion thread on possible changes in the suggestion box and leave a link to it in the guide lines. It would save so much time a drama.


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 16, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> Admins will be replying to this thread. We're still trying to deal with the aftermath of the DDoS. Keep your panties on.



Don't know about the others, but I'm still waiting. 
Kind of a principle thing. 

~Sylv


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 16, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> *To all the Moderators and Admins*



This is something that many people have said for a long time. They just updated the ToS and Submission Agreement. More revamped public policies may also be on the way, but that sort of thing isn't something to rush out. As was said at the start of this thread, they have to choose their words carefully. Even if an action they want to do is thoroughly justified, if they present their reasons or motivations poorly, there will be backlash and criticism and other such fun little headaches to deal with.

The waiting is sometimes annoying, but I'd rather see a well-thought out Admin answer than a quick one that gets needlessly twisted against them and turned into a whole new piece of drama.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 16, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> blueroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Submission deletion systems will be back online in a few days" *stated sometime in December* :lol:


----------

