Closed Topics

[monsoon]

The following topics will probably be closed without reason. It's best to avoid them.

• Topics that go "which place is best, better, superior, #1, etc"

• Topics based on a list from a magazine, i.e. 10 best places to live, fattest cities,.....

• Versus threads, Charlotte vs Nashville is an example

• Topics that begin as a list of populations without any wording on why the topic was started. For example posting an estimate list or link from the Census without any discussion about the list

• Topics started as link to a Newspaper article with no commentary

• Off topic discussions except in the UrbanPlanet CoffeeHouse and certain City CoffeeHouse subforums.

[Recchia]

Thank God. All those versus threads always get down to 'well my city is this blah blah...', and those unfounded population estimates threads are just annoying. Pretty good moderating on this site I'd say, it keeps most topics pretty academic and makes them a good source of information, unlike other sites where nonsense and endless dribble tend to smear facts. Now if we can only get "ghetto burbs" closed, such a stupid topic and pretty immature if you ask me. Threads like that seem to detract from UP's image as a worthy information source.

[lammius]

I agree, Recchia. The combination of the UP message boards and Planetizen is a wonderful source of information and insight for planning and design professionals and interested lay persons. For that reason I've stopped visiting some of the "other" sites altogether.

monsoon, now if you can only add "which city is the ____ of the south" series of threads to that list...

[dtown]

Now if we can only get "ghetto burbs" closed, such a stupid topic and pretty immature if you ask me.

it is closed. and yes it was kinda stupid.

[FromCityToRural]

A little strict, IMHO, but since this is a democracy...

[Jerseyman4]

Urbanplanet wouldnt be Urbanplanet if it was not for Metro and the Moderating staff, using up their own time, monitoring topics to ensure UP is a real legitimate website. Keep up the good work!

[ZachariahDaMan]

Why was the "Name your city and it's suburbs" thread closed?

[monsoon]

Why was the "Name your city and it's suburbs" thread closed?

It provided no basis for any relevant discussion. (since you are asking) However if anyone can give a good reason as to why we should have a topic that just lists localities around cities, I will consider re-opening it.

[nowensone]

monsoon, now if you can only add "which city is the ____ of the south" series of threads to that list...

Thank you. Or "____ the west", etc. etc.

[tamias6]

A forum I used to be on had what they called a "Thread Graveyard". Any thread that was closed was pulled from the main forums and tossed into the Thread Graveyard. I liked that feature becuase of the fact that stupid threads and threads that broke the forum rules that where closed didn't clutter up the main forum. I would like to see a "Thread Graveyard" added to UP.

[monsoon]

We don't really appreciate One-liner posts. Replies that are simply "That's great", "Good news", "I agree completely", or a single emoticon with no comments. They clutter up the forum and will most likely be deleted.

[convulso]

i thought this was an interesting thread:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35898

i did not feel that it smacked of boosterism - as we all know painfully well, people have an ability to steer almost any topic in that direction if so inclined.

i do note that this posting comprised merely a re-hashed list with no accompanying comments, so i know there was sound basis, rule-wise, to close the thread.

i understand the futility of threads that result in a stream of 'way to go (_____your fave place here_____)'-type responses, but sometimes an appropriate news article can inform people or engender a fruitful discussion without the need for a leading comment to direct or color any forthcoming discussion. i have no way of knowing whether this particular thread would have done that, but it seemed to have more substance than mere boosterism - especially since: a) the list was the result of a poll sponsored by a third party, and not merely an editorially subjective 'list from a magazine'; and b) the list included many other places outside the subforum's region and might have spurred some interesting talk about local and regional trends in industrial development.

i do think that this thread would have generated some discussion - i was about to hit 'reply' when i saw that it had been closed. my interest specifically was in how certain regions (the deep south, in this case) seem to be 'progressing' in terms of attracting specific types of heavy industry, such as automotive manufacturing plants and parts suppliers; yet these same regions may not be making similar inroads in other types of sought-after investment (say, tech R&D or finance). also, i thought it interesting that the general perception of a city's aggressiveness in courting such developments may not have a basis in hard facts, and, if so, that such perceptions take on a life of their own (why is that? is it ultimately a good thing that feeds the beast, or a bad house of cards scenario, etc?)

some media articles need very few words to explain their significance to a discussion board. i posted a couple of articles the other day with almost no qualifying explanation (this was before i had read the guidelines in this post, however.) upon reflection, i do feel that i (and others) often start these types of topic threads on the lazy assumption that only locals or people with prior interest and knowledge will read them; therefore we are not always as clear in our introductions to the topics as newcomers to our specific areas of interest might appreciate. for the sake of fair play, here's the link - please close it if it is out of line:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35609

i confess that i lack the sophistication of thought - in this arena, at any rate - that comes from having moderated for many months (or years) on a board like UP that deals with highly focused areas of interest. i suppose i'm just seeking some clarification on the philosophy behind some of these regulations. i really mean that; not trying to sound trite or falsely self-effacing. moderating these boards is a job that requires a measure of sensitvity that comes primarily with experience and an unfolding succesion of precedents in making judgment calls. lacking that, i can't follow the logic of how a post like the one made by HSVTiger could, in spirit, be transgressive (though i certainly see how it transgressed the 'letter' of the guidelines listed above).

would it be possible to perhaps either a) look at some of these types of posts on a case-by-case basis - or at least see what initial direction any follow-up discussion takes before deciding to close them; or b) just having a once-for-all sticky that tersely explains the logic behind some of the guidelines, so that anyone who violates them will have no excuses such as 'i meant it in this way, not that way,' etc? i think this would be especially helpful in the subforums, since not all of them share the same set of rules for posting.

either of those options above is labor-intensive for mods (especially the 'a' suggestion), so i totally understand why mods would oppose it. and on that note - true thanks for the tedious asspain that you mods repeatedly put yourselves through to keep this board running as faithfully to its mission as it does. i wouldn't keep coming back to UP if you guys weren't good at what you do, because it would have descended into junior high nyah-nyah hijinks a long time ago. years since its modest inception, and UP is still growing and extending its appeal to thoughtful people from all over - and that is pretty much 100 per cent a debt to the work of skilled moderators who keep this place stimulating and not sensational.

i hope this all came across as i intended - not a complaint, but a desire to understand the logic of the rules. if i understand that logic, i (for one) am far less likely to start a doomed topic or fuel a misguided discussion.

and if i didn't emphasize it enough - sincere thanks to the good mods at UP.

Edited February 28, 2007 by convulso

[Neo]

i thought this was an interesting thread:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35898

i did not feel that it smacked of boosterism - as we all know painfully well, people have an ability to steer almost any topic in that direction if so inclined.

i do note that this posting comprised merely a re-hashed list with no accompanying comments, so i know there was sound basis, rule-wise, to close the thread.

We did at one time allow for such threads, but later we had to add to the rulebook to disallow such lists. While that post does not show boosterism, it is subsequent posts that will. To prevent this from happening we simply do not allow it in the first place.

These "top" lists come out several times a year and they're all different. They prove nothing and show no or little information other than to give someone a chance to say "hey, we're #1" or "we're better than..." which in our experience happens in all of these threads. While it may have not been the intent of the original poster it is against our rules regardless and any threads like that will be closed.

[monsoon]

Indeed. On top of that the list was presented without any discussion from the originator. That alone was enough reason to close it as that is also against our rules. These rules are not absolute, and if some kind of thoughtful topic talking points were added, we might have left it open.