Forum rules discussion thread

[dvgrn]

How do we handle the proliferation of game forks?

Lots of different ways! Basically,

- we start locking game threads when people start getting way too enthusiastic about creating them -- especially when they're only superficially CA-related;
- we try very hard to avoid getting into escalatory situations where moderators are playing Whac-a-Mole, locking Sandbox threads as fast as they appear;
- we don't worry too much about an occasional game thread that people are having fun with and getting some CA-related experience along the way ... but
- when necessary, we remind people that endless game threads aren't really what the forums are supposed to be for.

[unname4798]

Can we have Anything Forum? I can't login to Anything Forums.

[hotdogPi]

What even is an Anything Forum?

[unname4798]

What even is an Anything Forum?

https://anyf.ca
[offtopic]CA? I think this anyf.ca is not related to Cellular Automata.[/offtopic]

[dvgrn]

Can we have Anything Forum? I can't login to Anything Forums.

No.

[CARuler]

How do we handle the proliferation of game forks?

by keeping them in the thread
edit:

Heh, we are in agreement again! In my response to Sokwe when this issue first came up, I wrote

The current form ... has the great virtue of simplicity. Every time I try to re-word it, I end up wandering off into discussions of special cases that get so long that I even bore myself -- and then the rewording doesn't look like an improvement over the original, so then I just give up on changing it.

i don't darn think that simplicity is a virtue. when you create a system designed to be fair to everyone simplicity doesn't matter. i think a list of the top three or five most common exceptions can be used

[confocaloid]

[...][...] when you create a system designed to be fair to everyone simplicity doesn't matter. [...][...]

That sounds like a description of a system that's "fair to everyone", but only because it would be painful for everyone and useless for everyone, due to obscurity and unnecessary complexity.

The forums exist so that people interested in a specific field (Life/CA) can discuss those topics. The topics are already complex in many interesting ways, and there are many different kinds of necessary complexity that cannot really be avoided or eliminated. Isn't this sufficient to avoid introducing additional unnecessary complexity on top of that?

[...]
Candidate shorter version:

"Multiple short messages on the same thread on the same day from the same person are not appropriate on the forums. Please don't post consecutive messages without a good reason. Good reasons may include, for example,
- a significant change of topic
- the thread having gone inactive for a week or more, so that an interesting update to a previous post would likely go unnoticed
- the previous post having reached post size or attachment limitations."

[...]

I think the first sentence in the proposed wording is problematic. It is problematic because it creates too many new questions, while attempting to provide a new answer to one old question.

• Are "multiple short messages on the same thread on the same day from different people" appropriate on the forums?
• Are "multiple short messages on the same thread, one message every day, all from the same person" appropriate on the forums?
• Are "multiple short messages on multiple different threads on the same day from the same person" appropriate on the forums?
• Are "multiple long messages on the same thread on the same day from the same person" appropriate on the forums?
• How about combinations of two or more of the above possibilities?
• Does that first sentence actually communicate something relevant at all? What would change if that sentence was simply omitted? Can it be omitted?
  >> "Please don't post consecutive messages without a good reason. [...]"

If the first sentence is omitted, then the sentence "Please don't post consecutive messages without a good reason." can be compared with the first sentence in the existing wording of the forum rule 3a ("Do not post multiple messages consecutively in the same topic.")

The existing wording looks clearer to me, since it clarifies "in the same topic".
To that one could add "without good reason" (similarly to how the forum rule 3b says "Do not post in topics that have been inactive for over a year without good reason.")

Another advantage of the existing wording, is that it actually tells what to do instead ("If your message is the most recent one in a topic, simply edit it if you have additional things to add.") while the proposed replacement doesn't suggest any good alternative.

Trying to explain it any further or to list specific possibilities for "good reasons" breaks the simplicity.

[Aleph]

However, what I'm trying to do is find a way to adjust rule 3a so that it's clearer than it is now. People keep reading it as if it is insisting that nobody should ever make two consecutive posts -- and yes, literally, that is what it currently says.

An extreme example: I once didn't want to release a "minor bugfix" for a JLS modification because I had already hit 3 files. While it was obvious that I would have had no choice, I figured that I would still technically be breaking rule 3a. I have also considered myself to be on extremely thin metaphorical ice; calcyman's rant in particular points out multiple-posting as an issue, and since I've been banned once, I do not expect any future warnings, and expect further bans to be much longer.

[dvgrn]

However, what I'm trying to do is find a way to adjust rule 3a so that it's clearer than it is now. People keep reading it as if it is insisting that nobody should ever make two consecutive posts -- and yes, literally, that is what it currently says.

An extreme example: I once didn't want to release a "minor bugfix" for a JLS modification because I had already hit 3 files. While it was obvious that I would have had no choice, I figured that I would still technically be breaking rule 3a.

Exactly! People are -- justifiably, based on a literal reading of the current rules -- worrying about stuff like this. It seems worth making some adjustments to improve on that.

The moderator team generally just doesn't pay any attention to multiple consecutive posts, per se. Rule 3a is used when it's needed, to slow down people who are posting way too many one-liners, but that's pretty much it. Unless people have been fairly recently warned about multi-posting too much, they can generally expect to get plenty of warnings before they could find themselves on any kind of uncomfortable "thin ice".

There's no way that anyone would ever get banned over anything like the example above -- a technical violation that doesn't in any way violate the intended purpose of rule 3a.

[confocaloid]

Multiple consecutive posts can be annoying. Especially when they are made quickly, or when they are short, or when they are apparently similar / on the same topic and could easily be merged into a single longer post. In many cases, editing the last post instead of multiposting leads to a forum post that is much easier to read, and hopefully to a discussion that is easier to follow/participate.

Necroposting also can be annoying, especially when there is no obvious reasonable reason to do it. If you are bumping an old thread about some CA, hopefully you have something to share, some reactions/patterns/objects that are on-topic and expected to be new and of interest to other people. Pointless bumps are annoying.

Probably all of this can be shortened into "... without a good reason". Do not post multiple consecutive messages in the same thread without a good reason. In most cases it is better to edit the most recent post. Do not "bump" old threads without a good reason. For example minor questions could be asked in a "basic questions" thread, or in "miscellaneous discussions", or in another recently-active "catch-all" thread.

[...] I have also considered myself to be on extremely thin metaphorical ice; [...]

I.m.o., it is somewhat strange to worry about "being on thin ice" due to double-posting, when one is repeatedly referring to some earlier discussion (which apparently happened years ago) as "rant". It seems like there are more significant things to worry about.

(F.w.i.w., I just looked at the post in question. It seems largely irrelevant to the current discussion. As far as I can tell, it was mostly about different issues, and multiposting/necroposting was mentioned more or less as something that was part of the situation at the time without being the main issues about the situation at the time.)

[b-engine]

If you're disallowed of posting in a thread that's inactive for more than one year, and almost no one would "revive" any threads that are inactive for two years, perhaps an automatic lock could been applied to threads that are inactive for three years?

[hotdogPi]

If you're disallowed of posting in a thread that's inactive for more than one year, and almost no one would "revive" any threads that are inactive for two years, perhaps an automatic lock could been applied to threads that are inactive for three years?

Disagree. Sometimes projects become dormant and someone then finds something new. For example, what if the next unsynthesizable still life reduction is in 2029, or someone finds a new tetrational diehard a few years after people stopped looking?

[b-engine]

Disagree. Sometimes projects become dormant and someone then finds something new. For example, what if the next unsynthesizable still life reduction is in 2029, or someone finds a new tetrational diehard a few years after people stopped looking?

Therefore could someone request unlocking a dormant locked thread when they found something new?
Newcomers won't bother doing that since they would never know about the old threads.

[confocaloid]

If you're disallowed of posting in a thread that's inactive for more than one year, and almost no one would "revive" any threads that are inactive for two years, perhaps an automatic lock could been applied to threads that are inactive for three years?

The forum rule 3b says: (emphasis mine)

Do not post in topics that have been inactive for over a year without good reason.

When you have something on-topic to post, posting in an existing thread is objectively better than creating a duplicate thread for the same topic.
Avoiding duplicate threads is a good reason to post in an existing thread.

When there is an existing forum thread dedicated to some specific topic,
and when the stuff deserves a new post at all and doesn't otherwise break forum rules,
and when the stuff would be ontopic in that existing thread,
it should be posted in the existing thread, even if the thread is long inactive.

[..] Therefore could someone request unlocking a dormant locked thread when they found something new? [...]

(1) Such "unlock requests" are unlikely to be implemented, due to reluctant moderation.
(2) In the event that such "unlock requests" happen to be implemented, they are likely to be closed without action in a significant number of cases.

[b-engine]

New sub-rule suggestion:

3e. Do not post minor modifications of pointless patterns.

(Note: very incomplete. I don't know if the phrasing could be better.)

This should be able to rule out all roleplay threads.

[confocaloid]

[...] This should be able to rule out all roleplay threads.

The existing forum rules 4 and 5b, when read and applied in a sane way, should be more than sufficient to rule out the possibility for (what could be described as) filling the forums with multiple minor modifications of nonnotable RLEs that are essentially hand-drawn arbitrary pictures and fail to be Life/CA patterns of interest to the community.

If the existing rules are interpreted and enforced reasonably, I think they are adequate / sufficient to prevent the forums from being overwhelmed by trivial or low-quality content.

1. [...]
2. [...]
3. [...]
4. This is an academic forum, not a chat or microblogging platform. Please spend some time doing some research to familiarize yourself with what is and isn't already known about the Game of Life before posting your discoveries. Some places where you can look up what is known about Life include:
   [...][...]
5. If you decide to share your discovery with the forums, please do not post an image of the pattern. Instead, post the RLE code of the pattern within "pattern" tags. The easiest way to obtain the RLE code of a pattern is to select the pattern in Golly and then copy it to your clipboard.
   1. [...]
   2. Readers of your post should have a rough idea of what to expect when they open your RLE in LifeViewer or copy it into another program. [...] Descriptions also make it much easier to find patterns by searching the forums.

[CARuler]

New sub-rule suggestion:

3e. Do not post minor modifications of pointless patterns.

(Note: very incomplete. I don't know if the phrasing could be better.)

This should be able to rule out all roleplay threads.

why? why make this? why destroy people's source of happiness?

[b-engine]

why? why make this? why destroy people's source of happiness?

There are much more sources of happiness here that doesn't strain the resources of the forums. Simply modifying pointless patterns and making lores is not a source of happiness. Modifying rulestrings could give you more interesting things than modifying patterns.
But I don't know if roleplays that modify rulestrings rather than just pointless patterns are totally possible.

EDIT:

…

The existing forum rules 4 and 5b, when read and applied in a sane way, should be more than sufficient to rule out the possibility for (what could be described as) filling the forums with multiple minor modifications of nonnotable RLEs that are essentially hand-drawn arbitrary pictures and fail to be Life/CA patterns of interest to the community.

If the existing rules are interpreted and enforced reasonably, I think they are adequate / sufficient to prevent the forums from being overwhelmed by trivial or low-quality content.

…

I think the reason that roleplays exist at all is because of people not completely understanding rule 4 and 5b. Clarifications could be made to further exclude things that apparently don't violate those rules but actually does.

[confocaloid]

If you see "modifying rulestrings" and "modifying patterns" as two comparable activities, ...
... with both of them involving making lots of minor modifications to something nonnotable to obtain something else nonnotable and posting everything you find without thinking twice whether it could be of interest to the community, ...
... and if you still believe that one of those activities somehow doesn't break the forum rules 4, 5b even though the other one does, ...

it seems to me that you're also missing the point of forum rules 4 and/or 5b.

[...] Modifying rulestrings could give you more interesting things than modifying patterns. [...]
[...] I think the reason that roleplays exist at all is because of people not completely understanding rule 4 and 5b. Clarifications could be made to further exclude things that apparently don't violate those rules but actually does.

It is totally possible to spam the forums with nonnotable rulestrings without contributing any new Life/CA-related understanding or Life/CA-related knowledge. The change from "modifying patterns" to "modifying rulestrings" is a very minor tweak in this context, and that minor tweak fails to make the difference between following the rules and breaking the rules.

[b-engine]

…
Modifying rulestrings could give you more interesting things than modifying patterns.

Rulestrings cannot contain lores - in fact they don't tell much about anything until you import it into a dedicated simulation software and run soups in it. People put big pointless patterns in roleplays because they could attach lores to them and "manipulate objects". You can't do this with rulestrings themselves.
Find an interesting rule, modify its rulestring - even just adding a transition, could (although not necessarily) result in more interesting patterns - might or might not causing existing patterns to fail. You couldn't do this with patterns themselves.

But I don't know if roleplays that modify rulestrings [ and have soups attached ] rather than just pointless patterns are totally possible.

[confocaloid]

[...] People put big pointless patterns in roleplays because they could attach lores to them and "manipulate objects". You can't do this with rulestrings themselves. [...]

People already did exactly that, in a few different ways (which I will not name, to reduce the risk of accidentally encouraging more of the same kind of nonsense).

But I don't know if roleplays that modify rulestrings [ and have soups attached ] rather than just pointless patterns are totally possible.

As a rule of thumb, soups shouldn't be posted at all.

If you think your soup is an exception, you should have a clear explanation of why. Explain why this particular soup deserves to be posted.

[...] Find an interesting rule, modify its rulestring - even just adding a transition, could (although not necessarily) result in more interesting patterns - might or might not causing existing patterns to fail. You couldn't do this with patterns themselves. [...]

Not counting issues that come from nonsensical local jargon / from people misusing or rejecting relevant Life/CA-related terminology, and people confusing "common" with "correct, clear, intuitively understandable" (those issues were mentioned several times elsewhere),

• if you found something interesting in OCA, then it belongs to the MDiOCA thread at least.
• if you found something that's unlikely to be of interest to the community, there are already RLE copy/paste thread, as well as the option of simply not posting trivial modifications of known/nonnotable stuff.

[...] you can make a cool oscillator [...]

To reiterate my objection to the "we might find something cool" sentiment, this misses the problem with these "game" threads.

In case someone actually finds something cool (a noteworthy reaction, a pattern, a set of reactions leading to some speed-specific or period-specific technology, ...), that "something cool" would deserve something more than "just post it in a random Sandbox thread where it will be forgotten forever".

For example, someone else already posted here two corderoids. The problem isn't with the "degree of coolness" of those corderoids. The problem is that they are misplaced here. Those two corderoids likely belong to the MDiOCA thread instead.

"Restricted rulegolfing" where steps must satisfy constraints is artificial; there is no good reason to prefer a particular CA type or space at the expense of other interesting CA types or spaces containing Conway's Life.
On the other hand, unrestricted rulegolfing, with people tweaking something posted by other people (and sharing whatever noteworthy they manage to discover/assemble), is part of what the MDiOCA thread is for.

Creating more and more duplicate "low-effort game" threads does not solve any problems, and creates new problems. It is a bad idea to do anything that would encourage further mindless chatting going against forum rules.

we might find something cool

In which case, that would likely belong to MDiOCA instead: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1971

[WhiteHawk]

Do I need to add another adjustment to rule 1a, like a sentence at the end? Like this, except somehow shorter?

"If you think you have a good reason for double-posting, you're probably fine -- go ahead and post -- no need to mention that you're double posting, that's just irrelevant noise -- people with good reasons are not the intended audience of Rule 1a."

Perhaps some specific timeframe acknowledgements would help people know when doubleposting is acceptable and not annoying (Some suggestions below)

• immediately for any significant change of topic (besides sandbox) - e.g. you posted about certain c/2 technology in Spaceship Discussion Thread, but then another search program you're running finds the first 3c/8 orthogonal in life.
• at least 1 week for continuation of previous topic OR more than 12 non-superficial/non-cosmetic edits to previous post (besides sandbox) - You posted 3 SKOP reductions in life to the SKOP 106 thread, but found a 4th a week later.
• three months for a sandbox thread (most topic there are fairly superficial anyway and numerous double posts could be problematic)

[dvgrn]

Perhaps some specific timeframe acknowledgements would help people know when doubleposting is acceptable and not annoying...

Yeah, I tried to think of something that I could add, that wouldn't balloon Rule 1a even further into long-winded incomprehensibility.

I kind of think that "a short time" might be as specific as we want to be. Mentioning any definite length of time like "a week" or 'three months" just creates more exceptions where it would be perfectly reasonable to double-post after all, except that the rule says you can't ... which then just leads to more people apologizing for double-posting.

My goal here is to stop having to read the part of people's posts where they apologize for double-posting and then go ahead and do it anyway (because it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do).

People are going to double-post sometimes. I'd like it if people could become confident enough to know that they totally don't need to mention the fact that they're double-posting, let alone apologize for it. And then we'll continue to politely point to Rule 1a whenever someone starts trying to use forum threads as if they're chat rooms.

[CARuler]

Don't be afraid to change a rule just because it makes it longer or more complex. You need to make it more complex to be specific. Besides I like complexity. Also, maybe shorten the 1 week wait to 1 or 2 days. A week is a little long

[dvgrn]

Don't be afraid to change a rule just because it makes it longer or more complex. You need to make it more complex to be specific. Besides I like complexity. Also, maybe shorten the 1 week wait to 1 or 2 days. A week is a little long

The thing is, I simply don't believe that there's any set of specific rules that can be stated for when it's appropriate to double-post. Any such set of rules will have exceptions. And every contributor to the forums will want to draw the lines in slightly different places (assuming that they think it's worthwhile to try to draw those lines at all). It seems like a great way to end up with endless arguments about something that ultimately doesn't really matter in the first place.

Trying to micro-manage double-posting at that level -- and being absolutely certain in advance that I would fail anyway -- well, it just plain isn't something I'm interested in doing.

WhiteHawk's suggestions for specific dividing lines, for example, were a fine effort ... but I actually only agree with the first one (the one that doesn't mention a specific time frame). I personally think that a week isn't necessarily long enough, 12 changes might be too many or too few depending on how long the post has gotten, and three months for a Sandbox thread is probably too long.

But, again, I don't believe that it's worth the effort to try to get everyone in the community to agree on any specific time-period guidelines. That seems like it's clearly a lost cause -- and we've gotten along fine so far without that level of specificity.

I'd suggest that we all continue to use the current rule as a guideline, and go ahead and double-post without worrying or apologizing about it, whenever we think we have a good reason. In the extremely rare cases where everyone including moderators starts telling somebody to stop double-posting, then that hypothetical person can adjust their posting behavior a little bit, again without anyone having to spend any time finding the exact dividing line between "good" and "bad" double-posts.