Tired of people not posting their random thoughts in the RTT? Tired of people posting stuff in the wrong place and then tell you "Well, this is the Random Board, so anything goes?"
Long time members know that's bullshit, but mainly because of lurking for a while and seeing what threads get permasaged.

The Newbs have a point. It's not very clear what's allowed in Random. I'm suggesting that details need to be added to the description on the top of the Random Board.

Something like "This is not a board where no rules apply. If there are topic that do not fit in the other boards, it goes here. Random thoughts and discussions with other Dollars go in the Random Thought Thread."

If anything, it's just so that we look less like dicks when we tell them, "hey this doesn't belong here" and when they ask, "well why not?", we don't just say "because the random board isn't truly random".
Ya know what I mean?

I disagree. "If something doesn't fit in the description of the other boards, it should go here," is very clear. The problem is that newbs don't read the description of the boards in the first place, not that they misinterpret it.

My suggestion would be to increase the size of the descriptions or change the color / font to something more noticeable. It's too easy to skip over it if you don't know it's there. Like, really easy. I didn't even notice they were there until someone mentioned it almost a year after I joined.

>>3 You really don't think that's vague? Even a little??

>>4 Same here. Making it larger would definitely help. Maybe also make it in bold.

>>5 Well, Random /is/ pretty vague. So long as it's not a completely bullshit thread or duplicate and doesn't clearly fit into another board, I don't recall any real fuss being kicked about threads in it. We've got a lot of weird shit in that board.

(Seriously, we have threads dedicated to boobs, fetishes, life stories, zodiac signs, urban legends, pointless questions, typing faces, pokemon fusions, pets, cat graphics, etc. Basically anything goes.)

>>7 WOAH. HOLD THE PHONE.

Is that where we post pics of our pets? FINALLY.

(Back on topic though, what you said about enlarging the description text, should that be emailed to Reltair or just....wait?)

>>8 Personally, I think one of us should admin a Google Doc and list all of the community approved suggestions in it as they come so we can stop having to email him so often about ideas. There's obviously a reason he's not implementing anything right now, and I don't think us sending more ideas is gonna help.

>>7 But, this isn't really true. Someone posts a thread with a picture on it and says something like, "This looks cool", it's permasaged. That thread would not fit the description of any other board, yet it wouldn't belong in Random for reasons a newbie could not possibly gather without having tried to post it. "a completely bullshit thread" is not listed anywhere in the FAQ, it's pretty subjective and a lot of people would post in a thread like that. I think Random should be literally no rules at all, except for the overlying rules of the site concerning gore, porn, etc. But, that kind of stuff really shouldn't get permasaged in Random, I don't think.

I like the Random board, but I don't see it as a 'truly' random board, as Mag mentioned. Most people don't use Test, but I think we should have a board that just never gets moderated at all unless a site rule gets broken, not an organization issue or "That thread is worthless", but a legitimate site rule.

>>10 Before you can decide, "Does this thread fit in Technology or Random?" you need to have an actual thread. Just because you can post it as a thread doesn't mean it is one, and this comes with basic internet knowledge. Those posts with a picture and "cool" underneath them are saged because they have no use on their own. There's nothing prompting other users to join in or do anything with it, which is the whole point of posting threads on most forums/boards/etc. Threads like these are also saged all over the boards, not just on Random, so it's not a matter of people thinking Random means anything goes.

I disagree with having a truly pointless board for "threads" of any kind. Imagine if the RTT was a board of its own with no restrictions... Get it? This is not the kind of site it would work on. It's too difficult to navigate through past threads for most threads to get more than a few posts at the speed we would undoubtedly fill it at. It would just waste space in the server even worse than Test has, in my opinion.

There are plenty of other websites for people to share their nonsense on as well as plenty of threads (and opportunities for threads) here to do so. There's a reason we started the LOL and Rage threads :| They let people post things that otherwise wouldn't have made a thread on its own. We've done our best to provide blanket threads for anything useless they could think to post; it's up to them to use the search function and find it.

>>11 so it's not solely* a matter of

(And I was referring to that specific type of thread there.)

I wish we could drill every aspect of internet etiquette and knowledge into people before they post, but we can't. At some point you just have to do with what you get.

>Threads like these are also saged all over the boards, not just on Random, so it's not a solely matter of people thinking Random means anything goes

This is exactly what it means. People that post stuff like that on the Random board do so because of the description: "If something doesn't fit in the description of the other boards, it should go here." There's nothing in the description that indicates any restrictions on anything that gets posted. On other boards, there's a good reason they get permasaged, but Random heavily implies anything goes.

I also just read the FAQ again and it mentions nothing about the basic requirements for a thread. Needing some kind of discussion value makes sense, but that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere on the site. It's also pretty subjective, since they obviously think that topic is important enough to post about in the first place. How would they know Random has implicit rules regarding the type of content you can make a thread about? Yes, you can lurk, but actually if you lurked hard enough you'd find shit like this:
http://dollars-bbs.org/random/res/1322663333.html
http://dollars-bbs.org/random/res/1328413305.html
http://dollars-bbs.org/random/res/1331563069.html
http://dollars-bbs.org/random/res/1298997849.html
http://dollars-bbs.org/random/res/1338313269.html

Which, by all accounts, is quite random, but most if not all of those would get permasaged if someone made them now. They are not now, they remain on the board and they really don't represent current rules. Even if these aren't the best examples, there are many, many more in the archives I am sure you have seen.

>>13 No, Random doesn't have "implicit rules regarding the type of content" they can make a thread about. It's just the same general rules that apply to every board on the site and just about every active forum in creation. If you make a thread in Art with just one drawing and "cool" written, it would get saged when a mod saw it. Sure, it fits into art, but it's not a proper post that anyone can work with.

If you honestly think we need to explain in the FAQ the basic concept of a thread, then add that to it.

"Which, by all accounts, is quite random, but most if not all of those would get permasaged if someone made them now."

1) Arch's wouldn't be saged. There's a point to the thread that encourages more than a few posts of participation without duplication. I might recommend we do a fuzzy math thread in general instead, but it wouldn't be a big deal.

2&3) Would only be saged because it'd be a duplicate of the con thread in Countries.

4&5) Would have been saged then and now.

But most importantly, remember that the mods are only human and miss(ed) a lot of threads throughout the site as they slip into the archives even nowadays. Just because it's around in the archives doesn't mean it's supposed to be there. All you're doing is proving just how fast threads sink and how easily they're missed, pushing my reasoning for why a free-for-all board wouldn't work.

In case anyone is misunderstanding, though, I do believe there is a problem with Random despite disagreeing with Mag about the solution and Inu's semantics.

I suggested we change the name of the board a long time ago (not sure if it ever made it to a thread), which would still be my suggestion now. The RTT is at the top of the board every day. If they can't understand its use by seeing it, they're not going to understand its use just because it was mentioned in the description. They won't stop posting random thoughts as threads just because it was linked.

So yeah. I think the best solution would be to rename the board altogether and to make its purpose as clear as possible. A quick explanation of what a thread is by the Create New Thread box should be added with the other suggestion about warning users to look for duplicates.

suggestion* (not semantics, derp)

>>14 That's not supposed to prove how the Random board is supposed to work, but people lurking will find that and many of those threads do not represent the board very well if we're going by today's standards. It's supposed to prove the board has threads that need removing to clean it up for newcomers to see how it's supposed to be. "Just because it's around in the archives doesn't mean it's supposed to be there" doesn't work for newcomers. How are they supposed to know that?

>It's just the same general rules that apply to every board on the site

But, haven't we established long ago most newcomers here have never even used a BBS before? This makes problems very unique from "just about every active forum in creation". That coupled with the age range, as well. We can't just assume they know all these concepts. It's just not reasonable anymore. Unfortunately, many of them do not read the FAQ, and many of them post without reading anything at all, but the people shit-posting in Random have clearly gone through some kind of effort to do something right. Adding it to the FAQ would be good, but not a solution.

I really like the idea about the button, because reading the FAQ is admittedly a little much just to find specific information like that. If we had a pop-up briefly explaining what a thread was, I think it would go a long way. Also, I agree that the descriptions need enlarging. Perhaps flashing different colors of the rainbow while parading across the screen? Also, I think it would be beneficial to have a board description, FAQ-type thread on all the boards, for those more implicit board-specific rules.

What about Misc for the new name?

>>16 Also, I was pretty rattled when you said semantics to be honest. Good thing it was a mistake....right?

>>17 Misc was my original suggestion as well, but I've grown to feel it has some of the same connotations as Random in a bad way.

I just thought of a really good word for it a few minutes ago. I can't remember it tho ;_; I think it was something akin to Unsorted?? damnit.

Maybe not flashing and parading lol. What if when you scroll down, it follows you as a bar at the top of the page? Maybe with a colored border? It shouldn't be too hard to make.

We could also add other things to the bar, like a help button that sends you to the rules for that board :v

Deleted >>19 'cuz I'm in no state to be having a semi-serious discussion right now lol

Well, shit...

You guys just had at it, didn't you? Now I have to read all of this 'n catch up.

Let's rename random to Nonspecific? That way it holds a bit more of a serious tone than a term like random does.

I finally remember it now. I was thinking of Unspecified. Not as good as I remember it.

I'm voting for Unsorted still.

Nonspecific sounds gross and would be the longest head board title :o

>>sounds gross

lol

Rename it miscellaneous!