Policy on Placeholder Threads

[Oglemi*]

I don't like them. IMO Placeholder threads serve no purpose, other than to say "Ha this is mine, I beat y'all to it, now I'm going to let this sit here for about a month to be a constant reminder to me to work on it but I probably won't." Having both a reservation thread and placeholder threads is really really redundant.

IMO, threads should only be made when they are ready for QC and they should be a full skeleton. If you post a thread before that it should just get deleted because they clutter the forums and only allow people to pc++ by letting them post possible "ideas" for sets instead of actually critiquing the sets that are there.

I realize cosmicexplorer and Alaka are neck-deep in Placeholder threads already in VGC 2012, but if we could keep them out of the other sub-forums that'd be fantastic.

What do the other moderators think?

[barry4ever]

Originally Posted by Fat Oglemi

I don't like them. IMO Placeholder threads serve no purpose, other than to say "Ha this is mine, I beat y'all to it, now I'm going to let this sit here for about a month to be a constant reminder to me to work on it but I probably won't." Having both a reservation thread and placeholder threads is really really redundant.

IMO, threads should only be made when they are ready for QC and they should be a full skeleton. If you post a thread before that it should just get deleted because they clutter the forums and only allow people to pc++ by letting them post possible "ideas" for sets instead of actually critiquing the sets that are there.

I realize cosmicexplorer and Alaka are neck-deep in Placeholder threads already in VGC 2012, but if we could keep them out of the other sub-forums that'd be fantastic.

What do the other moderators think?

I am not a C&C moderator so my opinion might not be relevant or needed, so feel free to delete my post or disregard it if it is out of place.

I dont agree with Oglemi that placeholder posts are really quite (not fully) useless. Admittedly, they just clutter up the forum and have no real purpose. I looked at the VGC sub forums and the enitre last page consists entirely of placeholder threads which have been posted a month earlier but have still gotten only like one set up or such. But I digress since the relevant forum moderators would be better placed to comment. Also I would like to state that they are not fully useless since they make managing the reservation thread easier since it is quite easy to post a reservation with a link to a placeholder. Otherwise people would have to post in the reservation thread first, get the skeleton ready and then post the link to the thread.

I would suggest that placeholder threads which have remained in that state for a long time (2 weeks, ? I dunno) be deleted rather than the entire concept be banned, since they are actually useful.

[macle]

i've never had a problem with them in lc or articles.

[Oglemi*]

It's not a "problem" per se, but getting rid of placeholders cleans up the sub-forums and encourages whoever posts the thread to have something substantial, instead of the "i'm going to leave this sit and work on it later" mentality which we have enough of already when we go from QC to GP.

[zdrup15]

I'm not a moderator but I can give the writer point of view.

When I was starting, I used to post a placeholder thread saying which sets I was considering and asking for the feedback. And the latter is the most important reason: having placeholders means people will give their feedback! While I was playtesting the sets I thought were good, I often checked the thread and I have to say I got great opinions and a few made it into the analysis as new sets.

Of course if the threads are inactive, then move them to L&O. But that's not a problem of placeholders, it's a problem of every stage in C&C.

[Oglemi*]

Originally Posted by Fat zdrup15

When I was starting, I used to post a placeholder thread saying which sets I was considering and asking for the feedback. And the latter is the most important reason: having placeholders means people will give their feedback!

This is what I don't get. How can anybody give you feedback when all your thread consists of is the word "placeholder"

If it wasn't clear, that's what I'm trying to get rid of. I'll post the convo between me and Human had in VM too cuz I think it's relevant:

Originally Posted by Fat Human

I saw your post about placeholder threads. Right now I have two made for the VGC 2012 analysis and know that I will probably end up writing some of the better quality VGC 2012 analyses if I am given the time, mostly because I have a lot of experience with the pokemon I am writing analyses for, but if you are trying to get it so people do not start of with simple Placeholder threads I think it may end up being a problem because people will just start to throw out as much low quality material as a skeleton just to make sure they have a thread up and no one else will take away their reservation. I have some ideas for the pokemon I reserved but if rushed for a skeleton and getting it ready for QC then a lot of the ideas and explanations will definitely just be the bare minimum compared to when allowed to put more effort.

Originally Posted by Fat Oglemi

"just to make sure they have a thread up and no one else will take away their reservation."

This is what the reservation thread is for. Your reservations shouldn't be taken away for at least one-two months depending on the forum, which should give you enough time to write out a good skeleton to have critiqued for QC

Basically I'm trying to get rid of the threads that simply say "placeholder" in the OP and nothing else.

As long as you have a list of "possible sets" and have kinda fleshed out Overview, OO, and Checks and Counters, that's all I'm looking for. You don't necessarily HAVE to be ready for QC, but you should have something that gives QC a way to give input into your thread.

[zdrup15]

Originally Posted by Fat Oglemi

This is what I don't get. How can anybody give you feedback when all your thread consists of is the word "placeholder"

If it wasn't clear, that's what I'm trying to get rid of. I'll post the convo between me and Human had in VM too cuz I think it's relevant:

You didn't read my post...

My threads didn't have only the word "placeholder". They had the sets I planned on including and I wanted feedback about those sets and others someone could have used with success....

[Oglemi*]

^That's fine and what I'm looking for

Originally Posted by Fat Oglemi

As long as you have a list of "possible sets" and have kinda fleshed out Overview, OO, and Checks and Counters, that's all I'm looking for. You don't necessarily HAVE to be ready for QC, but you should have something that gives QC a way to give input into your thread.

I'm trying to get rid of the threads that simply say "placeholder"

[zdrup15]

Originally Posted by Fat Oglemi

^That's fine and what I'm looking for



I'm trying to get rid of the threads that simply say "placeholder"

I still think those threads aren't a problem if they're the beginning of an analysis aka if they don't stick around for long without edits. Just remove any of those threads being there for a week; they probably won't result in anything. The active ones are ok imo.

[Banedon]

Personally, I'm for placeholders of this type but against placeholders that just say "placeholder".

I think a detailed placeholder, like the one I created for Gardevoir, helps a lot with forming a good analysis. There I for example kept a list of all the moves that make Gardevoir unique, and listed down sets that (theoretically) have potential. If someone else were using Gardevoir too, he'd have a natural place to post his results as well, especially if he used one of the sets I theorycrafted.

A placeholder that just says "placeholder" though is still useful to some extent, but personally I would want to see a lot more effort on the OP's part before participating. One-liners may be quick to read, but they don't generate discussion.