Foo - Foo Games

Do not let games get out of hand or in any way break the rules and please try not to do back to back to...back to back games. It is annoying and can get out of hand bumping other threads off the main pages. If we can tone this down to a reasonable level everyone can be happy.

Maelstrom
Admin

That sounds reasonable. Please understand that we can't control it if they are the top five threads and tend cluster around the top. As with the rest of life... the crap falls to the bottom.

No problem, and I do understand that. Interesting analogy though.

That sounds reasonable. Please understand that we can't control it if they are the top five threads and tend cluster around the top. As with the rest of life... the crap falls to the bottom.

Or at work, it rises to the top.

Since it was offered as a possibility, will the controversial threads be back?

Since it was offered as a possibility, will the controversial threads be back?

What threads are you guys talking about?

What threads are you guys talking about?

Long story...but welcome to bike forums

Long story...but welcome to bike forums

Thanks, seems like a lively bunch.

lol, a bunch of threads where deleted, like the "word association game" and the "this or that game" were deleted because there were too many of them

lol, a bunch of threads where deleted, like the "word association game" and the "this or that game" were deleted because there were too many of them

oh ok, thanks.

lol, a bunch of threads where deleted, like the "word association game" and the "this or that game" were deleted because there were too many of them

Foo-ey.

There were "too many" of them because maybe people enjoyed them.

I found a forum for you 'tards.
http://hell.oddwebsite.com/

Foo-ey.

There were "too many" of them because maybe people enjoyed them.

do i sense some hostility in your post? it seems as though this has upset a lot of people.

yeah... Maybe if they kept just those 4 or 5 threads and deleted new ones that come along...

I found a forum for you 'tards.
http://hell.oddwebsite.com/
And >here< (http://www.gearbits.com/archives/2005/01/no_sense_of_hum.html) is a linky for you Mr. FooHater. Now stay out of Foo if that's your attitude...WE DON'T WANT YOU!

Games... How great!

My REBirthday - March 28, 2006
A day 24 years in the making...


Way to go Mandy....(premature) Happy Re-birthday.

Since it was offered as a possibility, will the controversial threads be back?
And if so, when?

Damn it, I totally owned those game threads.

My "Something about the person below you..." was a hit with the kids.

Now what am I supposed to do? Post intelligent stuff about life and love and all that other crap?

Sux, don't it?

Sux, don't it?

I know, being an intellectual (SP?) is hard. :)

I know, being an intellectual (SP?) is hard. :)
and spelling it correctly is even more difficult :lol:

and spelling it correctly is even more difficult :lol:

Well, c'mon, it's 7:30 A.M.

I'm not even supposed to be at school yet, but my computer at home is defragging, so this is all I got.

I found a forum for you 'tards.
http://hell.oddwebsite.com/


Seeing how you just posted an article about a man cutting off his penis, I can't see where you are a lot different than the rest of us. ;)

Turds usually float on the top.

That sounds a lot like what we were doing already, except for the back-to-back stuff. I guess we'll take what we can get, tho. I have to wonder, however, wouldn't it be easier(especially in foo) to simply kill/edit threads or posts that violate the rules when a mod comes across them or member(s) PM a mod about unacceptable content? I can see that a 50 page thread would be a bear to moderate, but if there are no legitimate complaints about its content, why delete it? I would think that, if content truly offended members, PM's would be sent within moments of the content's being posted. I mean, it's just foo, right?




I found a forum for you 'tards.
http://hell.oddwebsite.com/
Too slow! BF is the slowest-loading forum I'm willing to put up with, man!;)

I really don't understand what is so difficult about not taking part in things in which one doesn't want to take part! Are there a lot of people out there who watch whatever comes on the television because, even though it upsets/offends them, they won't change the channel, for some weird, compulsive reason? I have no problem discerning from a thread's title whether I want to check it out or not. If I'm not interested, I don't open it! How hard is that?

...
I really don't understand what is so difficult about not taking part in things in which one doesn't want to take part! Are there a lot of people out there who watch whatever comes on the television because, even though it upsets/offends them, they won't change the channel, for some weird, compulsive reason? I have no problem discerning from a thread's title whether I want to check it out or not. If I'm not interested, I don't open it! How hard is that?

+1.

Don't get me wrong - I recognize, and appreciate that this is Joe's playground, and that he can make rules as he sees fit. I also recognize that moderators are by-and-large under-appreciated, that consistent interpretation and application of rules is not going to happen, and that there may be quite valid reasons for reigning in runaway threads that may not be obvious to the casual forum member. My concern is that this decision has the appearance of being an arbitrary and heavy-handed action being taken by a subset of the forum moderators. I will happily let this go if someone could properly explain why otherwise non-offensive threads are closed down. If it's because of one of the BF rules - kindly point out which one. If it's because phantomcow2 thinks these types of threads are "lame", "tiresome", "annoying" (or pick your own adjective), come out and say that it is a moderator's arbitrary decision.

I'm a reasonable person who makes an honest attempt to stick to the forum rules. I am struggling to understand why my perception diverges so substantially with phantomcow2's and KoffeeBrown's. I get the sense that several others are struggling to understand also, and a good explanation would be quite therapeutic.

Thanks,

Z

+1.

Don't get me wrong - I recognize, and appreciate that this is Joe's playground, and that he can make rules as he sees fit. I also recognize that moderators are by-and-large under-appreciated, that consistent interpretation and application of rules is not going to happen, and that there may be quite valid reasons for reigning in runaway threads that may not be obvious to the casual forum member. My concern is that this decision has the appearance of being an arbitrary and heavy-handed action being taken by a subset of the forum moderators. I will happily let this go if someone could properly explain why otherwise non-offensive threads are closed down. If it's because of one of the BF rules - kindly point out which one. If it's because phantomcow2 thinks these types of threads are "lame", "tiresome", "annoying" (or pick your own adjective), come out and say that it is a moderator's arbitrary decision.

I'm a reasonable person who makes an honest attempt to stick to the forum rules. I am struggling to understand why my perception diverges so substantially with phantomcow2's and KoffeeBrown's. I get the sense that several others are struggling to understand also, and a good explanation would be quite therapeutic.

Thanks,

Z
I forgot to mention that bit, even though I was thinking it earlier. I totally respect Joe's authority, and that which he delegates to the mods. I love BF and think I'm a better person(and cyclist) for its existence. Much in keeping with the spirit of my earlier post, however, this is the internet and if BF(or any other site I frequent) becomes something I'd rather not participate in, I'll go elsewhere. I believe that's how it should work. If only I could always follow the same guideline in real life....;)

I do not know enough about computers so could someone answer this. If a thread, any thread, not just a game thread, gets very long will activity on that thread slow down the system? Or does the system just send us the one page of posts at a time? If the speed bothered my enough I would send in the advanced membership fee to help support the system. I check out any ad that is remotely interesting if only to increase the hit count which (I hope) increases BF's income.

Aah, man. I take off for the weekend and two of my favorite on-going threads are gone (Word Association and This or That Game)! Sorry, EJ123, it was fun while it lasted. I never thought I'd see this day :(

I do not know enough about computers so could someone answer this. If a thread, any thread, not just a game thread, gets very long will activity on that thread slow down the system? Or does the system just send us the one page of posts at a time? If the speed bothered my enough I would send in the advanced membership fee to help support the system. I check out any ad that is remotely interesting if only to increase the hit count which (I hope) increases BF's income.

Yes it will.

Reason is all forums may look simple, but in reality, it's all a giant database. This is why search has so many options. Usernames are a field in the DB, thread names are another, post titles are yet another, and again another for the actual content, etcetc.

Huge threads mean a larger DB, and the more reads it gets, the more stress the DB sees, especially on forums where people can change the amounts of posts they see per "page".

Add to that some DBs get unstable after reaching a certain size, and this campaign against silly foo games is probably a proactive way of avoiding any unecessary movement towards that magic number of doom.

Good DBs cost good money. I'm talking thousands.

Yes it will.

Reason is all forums may look simple, but in reality, it's all a giant database. This is why search has so many options. Usernames are a field in the DB, thread names are another, post titles are yet another, and again another for the actual content, etcetc.

Huge threads mean a larger DB, and the more reads it gets, the more stress the DB sees, especially on forums where people can change the amounts of posts they see per "page".

Add to that some DBs get unstable after reaching a certain size, and this campaign against silly foo games is probably a proactive way of avoiding any unecessary movement towards that magic number of doom.

Good DBs cost good money. I'm talking thousands.

Catatonic - thanks. You'd make a fine moderator. :)

If that's the case, why have we not:

a - had an official explanation of the problem.
b - had any discussion about a compromise. Some ideas:
- make foo unsearchable
- eat off all but the most recent nnn posts on game threads
- kill off large threads that drop to the 3rd page

I'm sure there are other ideas that people could come up with.

I'm waiting (half-patiently) for some official answer(s).

I'm waiting (half-patiently) for some official answer(s).

Same here.

I miss fo0 games.=(

Man, the mods are really comin' down hard on Foo! I just saw 2 threads get deleted in about 5 minutes.

That sounds a lot like what we were doing already, except for the back-to-back stuff. I guess we'll take what we can get, tho. I have to wonder, however, wouldn't it be easier(especially in foo) to simply kill/edit threads or posts that violate the rules when a mod comes across them or member(s) PM a mod about unacceptable content? I can see that a 50 page thread would be a bear to moderate, but if there are no legitimate complaints about its content, why delete it? I would think that, if content truly offended members, PM's would be sent within moments of the content's being posted. I mean, it's just foo, right?
Some people get offended by pointless threads. I could see some people complaining cuz a foo thread is pointless.



I have no problem discerning from a thread's title whether I want to check it out or not. If I'm not interested, I don't open it! How hard is that?
Very hard. We've all seen people complain in a thread about the subject of the thread. Why they clicked and read everything then posted, who knows. BTW, I agree w/ you. It's pretty easy to just ignore threads, but some people just want to be a squeaky wheel.

Catatonic - thanks. You'd make a fine moderator. :)

If that's the case, why have we not:

a - had an official explanation of the problem.
b - had any discussion about a compromise. Some ideas:
- make foo unsearchable
- eat off all but the most recent nnn posts on game threads
- kill off large threads that drop to the 3rd page

I'm sure there are other ideas that people could come up with.

I'm waiting (half-patiently) for some official answer(s).

We _have_ had SEVERAL discussions about this- this thread is just the latest. Please refer back to: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=182147 and start at about thread 120.

What people really want is to debate with circular logic. We've explained. We've broken down. We've used paraphrasing. There's very little that hasn't been explained, yet here we are, 200 posts later and someone is still asking our position. I think it's clear.

Again, when we figure out what we're going to do, we'll get the Foo thing figured out. If you want an idea of what that is, it will probably involve inactivating the post count for Foo or something along those lines. As far as what, we can't tell you- it's Joe's forum, so it's his final word. Until he weighs in, no one can tell you anything more.

Again, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time- have patience.

Thanks,

Koffee

[...] Again, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time- have patience.

Thanks,

Koffee
There is no patience in Fooville, mighty Koffee has struck out!

:mad:
:)
:D

Do not let games get out of hand or in any way break the rules and please try not to do back to back to...back to back games. It is annoying and can get out of hand bumping other threads off the main pages. If we can tone this down to a reasonable level everyone can be happy.

Maelstrom
Admin


We _have_ had SEVERAL discussions about this- this thread is just the latest. Please refer back to: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=182147 and start at about thread 120.

What people really want is to debate with circular logic. We've explained. We've broken down. We've used paraphrasing. There's very little that hasn't been explained, yet here we are, 200 posts later and someone is still asking our position. I think it's clear.

Again, when we figure out what we're going to do, we'll get the Foo thing figured out. If you want an idea of what that is, it will probably involve inactivating the post count for Foo or something along those lines. As far as what, we can't tell you- it's Joe's forum, so it's his final word. Until he weighs in, no one can tell you anything more.

Again, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time- have patience.

Thanks,

Koffee

Such fine bureacracy. I thought this was settled.

Call me when y'all figure it out. Not holding my breath.

Catatonic - thanks. You'd make a fine moderator. :)

If that's the case, why have we not:

a - had an official explanation of the problem.
b - had any discussion about a compromise. Some ideas:
- make foo unsearchable
- eat off all but the most recent nnn posts on game threads
- kill off large threads that drop to the 3rd page

I'm sure there are other ideas that people could come up with.

I'm waiting (half-patiently) for some official answer(s).

Some forums delete posts immediately after they pass off the first page, please dont let that happen:(

There is one thing left to figure out, we are working out whether we want to count posts in foo. Past that, foo games will continue.

How's this for some constructive ideas.

1. Don't count posts in foo toward post count. We've showed in the poll that most people don't care.

2. Create a Foo subforum (not a lounge subforum, but one in foo like the TDF subforum in road cycling) for "games". If somebody post a "game" type thread in foo, mod can move it.

3. If large response threads slow things down....they aren't important info. Why not prune first X000 posts in it?

I know you are working on it...but there is no reason you shouldn't want to solicit suggestions from members.

There is one thing left to figure out, we are working out whether we want to count posts in foo.

That shouldn't take very long to figure out. What are the reasons for needing post counts in Foo?

That shouldn't take very long to figure out. What are the reasons for needing post counts in Foo?

or for that matter, why do we need post counts in general?

and where did my previous post go?

What post I don't see anything in trash that you posted.

This is so totally lame. I was also away for the weekend and apparently missed all the brouhaha. I have two simple questions:

1. Was the Word Association Thread breaking any forum rules or guidelines?

2. Who cares about 'post counts'?

This is so totally lame. I was also away for the weekend and apparently missed all the brouhaha. I have two simple questions:

1. Was the Word Association Thread breaking any forum rules or guidelines?

2. Who cares about 'post counts'?

It is quite evident that you were away. Be patient

ok heres the thing..only 34 of my posts were in the game threads, but 95 % of all the others were real contributing posts that took place in the foo

you can't take post count out of the foo....it would then show me as having about 100 posts total. I wouldnt be able to tell how many posts i have at all. I dont see how taking post count out of the foo is even and issue anyway, this whole thing was about game threads, the rest off foo has nothing to do with this.

could you make it an individual option to have post count if you do decied to trash it? , becaues everybody else can say whatever they want but it matters to me and i want to see what my count is foo or not.

Yeah, and I made a lot of "real contributing posts" to the Word Association Thread too! :p I don't want to lose all those well-planned and thought-out posts!

Be patient
Yeah, yeah....we keep hearing "be patient". What bothers me is that no mods are asking members what their opinions are. I mean....wouldn't it make sense to query the members to get their opinions? I have no problem with mods having ultimate say so in the end...that is what their task is, to "moderate".

But any leader who has even the most meanial leadership skills knows that you should see what people want before making decisions regarding their welfare. It would be like congress making stuff up without having a "representation" of the people/states (aka House of Representatives).

Is this forum for mods or for members?