The proposal to enforce AC posting for logged in members only on the main page was promulgated to all staff and members of the board 7 days ago. Thank you to all those who contributed to the earlier discussions and clearly expressed their own views, suggestions and potential enhancements. All are being studied for implementation, if feasible, when staffing and resources permit.
There has been unanimous agreement from all responses received in favour of the proposed restriction. However, it was also apparent that there was a wish that this will be only until other alternative methods of restricting spamming, abuse and other disruptions to discussions can be identified and implemented. This is unlikely to be achievable in the short to medium term; other sites are struggling unsuccessfully with the same problem. The long-term aim remains to include AC posting in all discussions if at all possible
Therefore, beginning immediately, all AC posting on the main site will be limited to registered members who have logged in to their account. We regret that this leaves a number of AC community members unable to contribute as they once did, but anonymity remains a personal choice.
This will not affect discussions in journals which will have no limits and will be open to all.
If there is a demand for it, I will look at alternative methods of publishing a small number of stories each day into a journal.
On a more positive note, there is evidence that because of the recent restrictions on AC posting a significant number of existing accounts have returned and are commenting in the discussions. The quality of discussions (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio) is significantly better than it was several weeks ago. Although we have lost overall numbers of comments, the value of many of those lost comments appears to have been quite low. There has also been a noticeable improvement in moderations being awarded with more positive moderations being given when compared to negative ones. It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusions from other site statistics.
But there's a difference between quality disagreement and time-wasting shit posts.
Agreed. The latter may be funny (large grin).
I'd say the funny ones aren't time-wasters!
Be them as they may, it still shit-posting.Because shit-posting involves a shift of perspective, most of the time divergent to the topic being discussed in a focused, "quality disagreement" way.The "funny" arises when the shift is unexpected (and the consequences aren't repugnant)
Oh certainly. But I'm retroactively revising the interpretation of my original comment to mean I object specifically to shit-posts that are time-wasting, rather than using "time-wasting" to describe all shit-posts. ;-)
Ah, shifting goal posts, such a relaxing and enjoyable pastime when exercised within the context of the flexible-like-shit English language (grin)
Because shit-posting involves a shift of perspective
Now say that twenty times as fast as you can, preferably after a few beers.