MAL Forums are too restrictive

Tyrel said:
What does having better/new servers and or enough forum moderators have to do with allowing simple listing threads?

Tyrel said:

http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1342143

j0x said:


i already replied on that, basically Luna is saying MAL wants more discussions, eventhough listing threads provide discussion too a lot of times especially when people starts criticizing each others list

its funny MAL is a listing site but its not allowing listing threads

Tyrel said:
Listing threads don't provide more discussion from what I've seen. I don't see how MAL being an anime site to keep track of your anime and manga has anything to do with simple listing threads.

Tyrel said:
Listing threads don't provide more discussion from what I've seen. I don't see how MAL being an anime site to keep track of your anime and manga has anything to do with simple listing threads.

Narmy said:
I don't even see how it saves the moderators work, because they have to waste their time determining which threads are "listing threads" and then lock/delete them, instead of focusing on legitimate rule infractions.

Narmy said:
They don't need another sub forum, they just need to get rid of that rule.

Rasco said:
If you can successfully get rid of the rule then go for it, but this seems unrealistic since they have a excellent compromise(as I have mentioned) If a thread is locked for "simple listing" then you can still repeal if you think otherwise. The explanation given is a good start to further understand the rule.

Narmy said:

There's nothing unrealistic about it, since pretty much every other forum on the internet is fine without such a rule.

Narmy said:
And I'm saying there is no reason to compromise, when the rule is pointless in the first place.

Tyrel said:
The amount of times I've seen a user call a rule pointless is unbelievable. Rules are there for a reason, and it has been said many times before in threads like these made. I'm not going to explain it again because this can be found out in the links I posted on the previous page. Of course, users will disagree and call it pointless anyway because everyone thinks differently.

Narmy said:

There's nothing unrealistic about it, since pretty much every other forum on the internet is fine without such a rule.

Tyrel said:
In general, Simple Listings do not provide discussion. There are some users who'll take time with their posts and then there're other users who will literally post one thing and peace out. The anime discussion board was made to discuss and talk about anime in general. I highly doubt it was made so that users could just walk in and post a one worded type response.

There's no fear of simple listing threads "dying" out. It's the fact of people actually taking time to discuss instead of just making it a spam thread with nothing going for it.

I think this post says it better than me.

jal90 said:

And in order to promote threads that can generate new and interesting discussion, you do so by banning threads that do not. This is not promotion, it's plain and simply exclusion. Which seems not to work well here because the level and amount of actual, thoughtful and continuous discussion through this subforum is equally low.

Still, discussion exists in MAL in spite of the amount of one-liners and lists, they are not exclusive elements. And it can float around any topic. This is what I don't understand and I'm repeating it again just in case. You are judging a whole thread based on the OP. The OP can set a question, but the community will be able to respond to it in different ways because in the end discussion stems from interaction throughout the thread and not as a premise or as something set in stone. Did anything change substantially when the moderation included "explain your choice" in the OP of the "Overrated/Underrated anime" thread at the time?

I don't want to sound like your typical complainer but this rule is indeed pointless. Of course rules are made for a reason indeed, but this reason brought by Luna_ in specific is not convincing. It's more of a groundless speculation to me. It is based on the arbitrary idea that this specific prohibition is going to make people debate more often, when listing and discussion have never been exclusive from the beginning, specifically due to the many different ways the userbase can respond to a thread. Debates and interaction through "simple listing" threads are a reality, they exist, they are kept by users when there is the mood for them. So this can hardly be pointed as the problem for lack of debate; people will discuss about anything they feel in the mood for.

Rasco said:
They are allowing listing-discussion, how can you not understand this?

Rasco said:
I won't discuss how they find a "simple listing thread" since we can recommend or say a shit load about it. But its quite clear that we can repeal if they lock a thread you believe was unjustly locked.

Rasco said:
And of course we want less rules JAL,

Rasco said:
and deem many rules pointless for the traffic that we could have had,

Rasco said:
and of course I want spam back because it also had some "discussion" and "debate" but will you also fight for this freedom?

Rasco said:
Since the spam board in my eyes was a shit load more active than the forum games and CD combined even now.

Rasco said:
My case in point is your overreaching when you state list rule guidelines are being pointless when its there to help promote discussion not get rid of it(though they should really link the thread that provides further explanation.)

jal90 said:
Are they? Most of the time when a thread gets locked, it is under the criterion stated by the OP. There have been discussions in threads that ended up locked.

jal90 said:
I'm not talking about unjustly or justly locked. I'm talking here about there being a counterproductive and not well-justified rule.

jal90 said:
NO. Nice strawman by the way. I actually want more active moderators to enforce rules in a more effective, and arguably less arbitrary, way. MAL is too big and I feel that some of these rules are brought under the premise of making things simpler to track, while we keep an absurdly low amount of moderation compared to the huge and diversified userbase this site has.

jal90 said:
Forget the part about user interaction and exchange of opinions/thoughts on stuff, which is way more relevant, eh. Traffic is a consequence. And it is something positive for a website as long as it can deal with it.

jal90 said:
I don't give a fuck if MAL wants to be tightly directed, if this happens be it for some actual consistent reasons, not for speculations that have no grounds other than the arbitrary belief that one-liners and debates can't coexist in a forum or within a thread.

jal90 said:
So for you "what is your favorite villain" can be compared with "rate the above member's avatar"? A thread that asks for personal opinion and commentary is the same as a thread that plain simply asks for massive participation? I fail to see how listing threads are spam or games. And apparently the staff members do so because they don't move these kinds of threads to Forum Games anymore.

jal90 said:
That's what Luna_ said. Is it working, though? That's the point of debate I'm trying to open here. Because to me this isn't the case. Locking listing threads isn't doing anything to promote discussion, as seen by the current state of the subforum. So maybe the focus should lie elsewhere. Maybe it should be changed to track posts instead of entire threads, for instance.

Rasco said:
Yes they are, your main problem seems to be with the moderation of how the rule is being used, not the rule itself.

Rasco said:
the compromise has already been set, you seem to not like to compromise or show contempt to the order in which they try to create order.

Rasco said:
Again Your focusing on the Moderation not the rule.

Rasco said:
LOL how inconsistent can you get? First you want traffic and interaction etc, but now you seem to not KNOW what the fuck you want.

Rasco said:
That's not the argument, the argument is to lock simple listing threads, if it does have discussion then it can be repealed to keep open, again Your focusing on moderation not the rule that is well compromised.

Rasco said:
They both can become a discussion but one is promoting a game not discussion which is allowed.. What your point?

Rasco said:
Well Moderation isn't what i'm talking about, I"m talking about the rule.

SO FAR

Rasco said:
- You don't understand That list-discussion is allowed

Rasco said:
- You seem to not know what you want, interaction, listing, or discussion.

Rasco said:
- It seems your undermining the compromise for the rule and focusing on MODS instead of Guidelines.

Rasco said:
- Your missing the point of repealing

Rasco said:
- Listing can promote discussion, but not ALWAYS so a comprise has been made

jal90 said:
Oh, is that so? Then maybe let's rewrite the rule to make it clear and inequivocal. Maybe then we'll be able to grasp it's actual beneficial effect as a rule, because right now it's anything but clear.

jal90 said:

Actually, both. I don't like the compromise, as an idea, and I don't find its execution effective, according to the supposed benefits it brings, at least.

jal90 said:
Moderation that is allowed by the rule, and a rule that is limited by lack of resources in moderation. Then again, that's an answer to your quote. I didn't say anything about wanting less rules (and therefore a more lax control system), but about changing one because I disagree with its reasoning and results. Don't put it out of context, please.

jal90 said:
I literally can't think of a single instance of listing thread, simple or complex, that doesn't have a room open for discussion as long as people read each other's choices and are able to confront them.

jal90 said:

Not that one, actually. I thought you were comparing spam threads with listing threads, which doesn't hold much substance as a comparison imo, since the dynamics of both are very clearly different: spam threads encourage users to write as many posts as possible, while listing threads encourage users to make one post at a time to state an opinion or a favorite.

jal90 said:


Well, and SO FAR the rule hasn't shown its promised and supposed benefits. I can choose to give it the benefit of doubt or not. Right?

jal90 said:

That doesn't change, though, the fact that I don't understand the limits because they look arbitrary to me. Since "simple listing" can turn into "list-discussion" at any time with the right mindset or the right amount of users, it seems unnecessary to draw this line.

jal90 said:
Actually, I want all of them because all of them are beneficial and none of them is exclusive. It's like, we don't have discussion if we don't have interaction, and listing allows for a mean of easy and fast interaction. Me saying that I want more discussion has nothing to do with being against listing, casual chat or other means of user talk.

jal90 said:

And it seems you are undermining the supposed role of rules in standarizing criteria. But anyway, are you telling me to rely on a rule under the assumption that, if applied well, it would work better at its purpose than it does? I can assume that, but that is not going to make it work now...

jal90 said:

Actually I'm missing your point at all here. What are you implying? When did I talk about repealing?

jal90 said:
Yes, and I have issues with both the result of this compromise (the actual discussion that it can enforce, that is, how does locking/banning/avoiding listing threads promote discussion in other areas?) and the compromise itself (the focus on discussion as the only valid mean of user interaction). Which are both different points, one focused on the method of the rule, and the other on its background, that is, the supposed conflict it stems from. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about both at the same time, blame my poor structuration of ideas for that.