A note to the TexAgs community regarding posting and moderation

Yeah I figured out, eventually, that I can just type in 'twitter' and delete the x on links for now anyway, here.

Where do you guys fall on posters using ChatGPT to construct their posts in this forum?

My argument is if you can't formulate your own position on a given topic and communicate and defend it yourself, you really don't have a stance at all and probably shouldn't be arguing/posting on the topic in the first place. At that point, is it even your opinion? If we're going to go down that road message boards will quickly be obsolete.

I'll hang up and listen.

Anyone else on here having a challenge hitting the 'new post' number in gray or just 'last post' lately? I have to refresh each time I do to make it work. Happens on all 3 devices (phone/tablet/laptop), so I don't think it's a random software/popup blocker etc.

Been having the same issue on mobile and desktop with different browsers as well.

[If you have comments or questions on moderation, please reach out to Moderator at TexAgs -- Staff]

I know it still draws clicks and ad revenue, but I wish y'all would do something about the bots.

Can you please cross-post this to Religion & Philosophy? Because there's been a huge uptick in antisemitic comments there since October 7.

I appreciate the direction of putting more onus on quality of Thread OPs in order to facilitate good conversation and have this not be people's facebook wall.

Quote:

---

[OP, same advice for you as we gave another user already with this same video. This is also a PSA for all users. We don't want this forum to be another form of twitter or bulletin board thread starts. If you start a thread, post your content and post your own short summary and "take" as a way to frame the discussion for the thread. And when you start a thread, be committed to engaging in the discussion. THREAD STARTS have a different standard than a post in a thread. We also have different expectations for the OP of threads than a thread contributor. We would rather have a lower number of thread starts per day with higher quality engagement within the threads started. OP, please don't take this as us picking on you. This just happens to be the third thread started for this video and we are trying to make a larger point for all users on the forum. Thank you to all users for helping us maintain and even raise the level of discussion on this forum in 2024. -Staff]

---

Hey Staff, you all take a lot of abuse and frankly I agree with some of the reasoning behind some of it. But when you do good stuff you deserve appreciation when it's due. So, kudos on this one.

Now if you could add some AI that points out when the repeat offender trolls have fired up a new sock and autopermaban it, that would be greeeeeeeeeeeeat. :-)

Cheers and Happy New Year's!

I got hit with this one for starting a thread on the breaking news of Ray Epps receiving probation. Nobody is going to type out a long form post breaking down the actions of Epps on Jan. 5-6 or the history of his case because everybody on this board is already aware of those things, and if unaware, you're unlikely to improve the level of discussion on this board and more likely to derail the thread rehashing the background.

The most discussed threads on this board typically start with a post containing a snippet on breaking news, and they go from there.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

I got hit with this one for starting a thread on the breaking news of Ray Epps receiving probation. Nobody is going to type out a long form post breaking down the actions of Epps on Jan. 5-6 or the history of his case because everybody on this board is already aware of those things, and if unaware, you're unlikely to improve the level of discussion on this board and more likely to derail the thread rehashing the background.

The most discussed threads on this board typically start with a post containing a snippet on breaking news, and they go from there.

---

We are not asking for much. Nothing in our PSA asked for "long form" anything. We need OPs to start taking more ownership of starting the discussion with their own take on the subject. Yes, we hope this does cut down on the number of thread starts. This forum is not the X/Twitter repost platform. It's for discussions and if people are going to start thread discussions they need to post their own take and give some framework for discussion of the topic. There have been dozens of Ray Epp threads posted up. The point is, what do you think of the latest developments. If you care enough about the topic to be posted simply give your take on the latest news. It's not a high bar for a political discussion forum.

Good morning Brandon and mods,

Would you consider adding the praying hands emoji to our emoticon choices? The AggieHawg thread on f16 and the one on premium requesting prayers for the 4 yo boy that was just diagnosed with Leukemia come to mind as appropriate for it.

Just a minor suggestion.

Gig'em

Prog

How are threads involving race which get pretty spicy getting handled?

It looks like some posts get deleted but not until after people seem to imply that staff do not condone posts like that. Are bans or warnings getting handed out for those threads? what is the moderation staff's position on discussions like that?
in general, it seems like those discussions should be avoided, but given that post just get deleted, it's difficult to discern what the moderation teams position is on these.




Eta: to be clear, I'm not specifically asking for bans or warnings be given to anybody on either "side" of the discussion; I am mostly asking for staff's position on these because a bunch of posts getting deleted without staff messages or edits seems a bit unclear

Thank you!

Rdit because voice to text messed up on me.

Just curious- when did the rules change about "you have to provide commentary - you can't just post a tweet or a link"? So often I click on a thread that looks like it will be interesting but it gets locked real fast. Isn't the tweet or link enough to start a conversation? It's fine on the other boards. For example, someone just posted a tweet about the new swimming and diving hire and that spurred good discussion on Premium. Why can't that happen here?

I would email this question but my last few emails about moderation have been ignored. At least this way I have a good chance of you seeing my question even if I catch a ban for it.

As explained just a few posts above your post. This changed because the Politics board started to become the "forwarding" dump station of Twitter/X posts. The forum is not designed for that. We don't want 100 new thread starts a day that are simply forwards of something that a user found interesting on X. If an OP is going to start a new thread, they need to frame the discussion with their own take on the subject they want to talk about. If they don't want to take the time to do that, they should simply find a thread that is already talking about that subject to post their X post or wait until someone starts a thread and takes the time to frame the discussion.

To be clear, starting the discussion does not mean anything more than one or two sentences that gives your take on the topic and provides readers a focal point to discuss surrounding the subject you are starting.

Need clarification as to why all of the A&M/ Title IX issue threads keep disappearing.

[We have no issue with the subject being discussed. For some reason the users wanting to start the threads seem to have trouble sharing their own feelings about the subject and/or not including moderation commentary in their posts. -Staff]

I asked a question yesterday but it was deleted. I'm not arguing against anything, I'm asking if you think it's possible for a thread title to accomplish what this new policy is?

If there's no way you believe it can, that's fine it's your forum but it would be nice to know where the line is.

I know I've trolled and gone over the top with some threads but some legitimate things (or things that seem to meet this new standard) get deleted as well. Again, not arguing.

[Thread titles are thread titles. Some commentary in an OP post is needed to frame the discussion. Again, it does not need to be much, but it needs to be more than a thread title. -Staff]

Bump. Brandon, any update on this? Doesn't seem to have gotten any better.

[You can email us at moderator@texags.com and explain what you mean and we can have a back and forth on your issues. -Staff]

Are OPs required to be "factual"?

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Are OPs required to be "factual"?

---

NM

To be honest, I don't understand the new rule, or why it was implemented.

If someone posts factual info without comment, whether a twitter link, news story, whatever...it still spurs discussion. Often times, it's something I haven't seen yet.

For example, on the board currently there is a locked thread. It was a twitter link that was posted, which Staff eventually locked because the OP didn't post their own commentary (they posted the link only). But within the 25 minutes it was active, there were 20 replies. The title described the content in the OP. People knew what they were clicking on.

Is that not good for the board? New content and new discussion?

Maybe a tweak to the rule, that you can post a link only, as long as the title accurately describes the content?

Not arguing...just don't understand the need for the new rule.

We will certainly consider tweaking it a little bit, but we are unsure how much more we can explain on the "why" behind this, beyond the three posts we made explaining it all up above your post here. We would point you to those posts to read through and if you have any more questions you can email us.

Thanks and Gig 'Em!

I read those, and apologize if I am missing something.

Im still not sure why the necessity for the OP to frame the discussion, or what problem it fixes. Sometimes the post is just interesting info that pertains to the board...and the discussion goes from there.

Again, not trying to argue. Just trying to understand a bit more...because I like/enjoy the amount of info that gets posted to this forum.

Appreciate you reading and considering tweaking. Either way...carry on, and I'll stay in my lane

It is a common practice of scammers to set up accounts on various sites and then post links, often with no other comment, to their scam sites.

It would be good if the posting software would not allow such posts to be posted and would probably save the moderators the time to deal with those scammers.

It would probably help, if it should become a problem, to automagically reject any posts containing a link of any kind if the poster has not posted at least ten or twenty posts without any links.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Are OPs required to be "factual"?

---

Bumping this question for staff/mods. Seems straightforward enough for an answer when you have a moment.


[Our email is moderator@texags.com. Sending an email is the method to use for asking us to review a thread. -Staff]

Howdy, Staff. I have a suggestion - You know how Brandon's posts show up highlighted in green? Is there a way to make a user's posts highlighted in some color when they view their own posts? The barrage of posts and threads that happen here and on the football board would be much easier to keep track of if we could see where our own posts are at a quick glance.

I was on one board a few years ago that something really useful. When you wanted to click on a thread, one of the options was to take you to the post that had been the last post on the thread the previous time you read it. It was nice being able to continue without having to search for where you left off at before.

eric76 said:

---

I was on one board a few years ago that something really useful. When you wanted to click on a thread, one of the options was to take you to the post that had been the last post on the thread the previous time you read it. It was nice being able to continue without having to search for where you left off at before.

---

You can do that here

chap said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I was on one board a few years ago that something really useful. When you wanted to click on a thread, one of the options was to take you to the post that had been the last post on the thread the previous time you read it. It was nice being able to continue without having to search for where you left off at before.

---

You can do that here

---

But you have to buy a star. I pay for the watchlist (which includes that functionality) and the extra emojis.

Tailgate88 said:

---

chap said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I was on one board a few years ago that something really useful. When you wanted to click on a thread, one of the options was to take you to the post that had been the last post on the thread the previous time you read it. It was nice being able to continue without having to search for where you left off at before.

---

You can do that here

---

But you have to buy a star. I pay for the watchlist (which includes that functionality) and the extra emojis.

---

Ah. I didn't realize that only came with a star.