Hi all!
For the first time since the board has formed, the moderators have had to issue a suspension for continued personal attacks.
I'm posting here in the interest of transparency, and am happy to answer questions via PM.
Alternately, if you'd like to use this post as a catalyst for discussing moderation policy on the board, we can do that. Every time we've brought up a more robust moderation policy, it's been shot down by vocal posters. I want to re-iterate that the moderation team (I'll go head and speak for the others here) would be more than happy to enforce a more robust policy surrounding constructive and productive interactions between members and tone of discussion, but won't do it without the support of the fora community, broadly speaking.
Thank you-- I think this was clearly the right decision. We can have free expression and still agree that vile personal attacks are not allowed.
Thanks for taking appropriate action. Personal attacks, even if not against them, drives people away from the marketplace of idea. We can do battle over the merits quizzes, elbow patches and political trustees without resorting to that sort of thing.
Thank you moderators for working through this difficult situation.
I'm sad that it happened, but relieved that perhaps we can begin to return to a community of healthy academic discourse. maybe some of the folks who have stayed away will return.
Actions have consequences.
Hopefully the offending party will take time to rehabilitate.
But if not, Im sure that there is a step past Suspension.
Thanks to the Mods for the work that you do.
I don't know what happened, but thanks for your hard work, mods.
I, for one, would not mind more moderation here. It's gotten to where I have to avoid half the threads because they're the same old arguments from the same people.
Recently I wanted to have a thoughtful discussion about a complex social issue. Instead of asking about it here, I asked on the off-topic subforum of a hobby message board I'm on. It's far more strictly moderated, so I knew I'd get better responses. Imagine contrasting how we construct gender identity with how we construct racial identity, discussed on a nail polish board. It wasn't exactly that, but that's close enough to illustrate the absurdity. I could have a thoughtful and informative discussion there but not here.
I thought the conversation on these boards today seemed much happier and healthier!
Thanks for all you do.
I'm sorry it came to this, but unaddressed《anomie 》has serious consequences for all...(Durkheim, I believe).
M.
Quote from: Liquidambar on April 26, 2022, 09:03:51 PM
I don't know what happened, but thanks for your hard work, mods.
I, for one, would not mind more moderation here. It's gotten to where I have to avoid half the threads because they're the same old arguments from the same people.
Recently I wanted to have a thoughtful discussion about a complex social issue. Instead of asking about it here, I asked on the off-topic subforum of a hobby message board I'm on. It's far more strictly moderated, so I knew I'd get better responses. Imagine contrasting how we construct gender identity with how we construct racial identity, discussed on a nail polish board. It wasn't exactly that, but that's close enough to illustrate the absurdity. I could have a thoughtful and informative discussion there but not here.
Honestly it was such a bizarre and creepy thing to write that I felt more...icky, than personally attacked, unless there was something else I missed. I went back to my normal policy of not clicking on that person's posts.
Whenever this question of moderation comes up, people bring up this fear that enhanced moderation is going to stifle discussion on here. Really, I think there have only been two people on here that have been problems. The one that brought up this discussion is more of a classic troll-to be fair he does seem to hold genuine views and occasionally wants to discuss something-but mostly is motivated by a desire to rile up people who don't agree with him-which often leads to racist comments at worst and pointless interjections at best.
The other example was someone who was more subtle, sometimes reasonable and well informed, but just couldn't seem to see the difference between disagreement and personal attack-a trait which seemed to lead to long term campaigns against various people they saw as evildoers.
The thing those people had in common is that they were fundamentally uninterested in actual discussion. The goal was to rile people up, or show your dominance over them, it wasn't to actually engage with what anyone was saying. When people are doing that, it inspires bad behavior in others-at least it does in me. If I think someone is deliberately misleading others about something I wrote, I'm inclined to call them a liar. If I think someone is saying something demonstrably stupid just to irritate people, I tend to say they wrote something dumb. There's no way to engage in a constructive argument when the other person is motivated by things that have nothing to do with that. Obviously, these kinds of responses aren't useful and its better to just disengage from these people, but that can be hard. It also isn't likely to encourage potential new posters to stick around if they don't know who they are supposed to ignore.
The point is, I think it would be easy enough to craft a code that isn't about trying to carefully regulate everything, but focuses on patterns of specific bad behavior in ways that would let us deal with problem posters before they escalate things.
These are tricky decisions. Thanks to the mods for this and their work.
I see two separate issues regarding the fora.
First, there has been some rudeness and personal attack. That's been relatively uncommon.
Second, there's the problem of discussions devolving into overfamiliar debate between the same posters again and again, making it tiresome to try to have a discussion. That's a frequent occurrence.
I support a heavier hand with moderation.
Quote from: downer on April 27, 2022, 04:49:53 AM
Second, there's the problem of discussions devolving into overfamiliar debate between the same posters again and again, making it tiresome to try to have a discussion. That's a frequent occurrence.
Yes that is very tedious, and certain users either start debate-bait threads or hijack every other thread to these rants. Part of the issue might be that we are a smaller crowd than on the old fora. Things move slowly so it's easier for one or two people to dominate.
I find these discussions difficult because I have no idea what people have in mind as to what should be moderated.
What I would find useful would be if people gave examples of posters they *frequently strongly disagree with but who have not crossed any line that they think should apply. It's really hard to tell whether people want to moderate behaviour or ideas. The first is reasonable; the second is not.
(*For instance, there are lots of people that I've disagreed with; I have no idea whether any of my posts would have led to being removed under "stricter" moderation, and if so, on what grounds. Without any more concrete grasp of what is being advocated, I have no idea whether I'm in favour or not.)
I've had to "hide" a few posters (or whatever the term is). If it were an easier process, I might add a few more to the list. The hobby forum I visit have mods who hide posts for antagonist, dismissive, or other violation of terms. I don't know what the suspension or banning process is, but I've noticed some posts will get deleted. When that happens, the poster's name also gets removed from the post (so there's none of the drama of 'its that dude again').
It feels to me that, within the last 6 months or so, activity on The Fora Dot Org has slowed, and there are only a few threads I read anymore that don't devolve into sniping and trolling. FWIW, some of the academics I follow over on Twitter have said that they plan to head here once the Musk era truly begins on that platform.
Quote from: RatGuy on April 27, 2022, 06:04:31 AM
I've had to "hide" a few posters (or whatever the term is). If it were an easier process, I might add a few more to the list. The hobby forum I visit have mods who hide posts for antagonist, dismissive, or other violation of terms. I don't know what the suspension or banning process is, but I've noticed some posts will get deleted. When that happens, the poster's name also gets removed from the post (so there's none of the drama of 'its that dude again').
It feels to me that, within the last 6 months or so, activity on The Fora Dot Org has slowed, and there are only a few threads I read anymore that don't devolve into sniping and trolling. FWIW, some of the academics I follow over on Twitter have said that they plan to head here once the Musk era truly begins on that platform.
(Perhaps slightly off-topic, but related...)
If an open-source algorithm is used for moderation on Twitter (as Musk has suggested), where presumably community members can at least suggest tweaks, how is that a bad thing, since it in principle means anyone can see
exactly why a post or poster was censored?
But in some cases, I don't want to have the kinds of images or ideas left in my mind that some posters are capable of leaving.
It took me a bit to figure out the <snip> business, but I was very grateful, whatever it was, not to have to come across it, knowing what it was likely to have been like.
(As far as Musk and Twitter go, I'll be getting rid of my account there shortly. They might as well have sold it to Trump.)
M.
One possibility for an online community is for it to be completely "by invitation only". Even if people can sign up independently, they can be "voted off the island" by the community. That would require no specific moderation guidelines; anyone who lacks sufficient community support would simply be ejected. (All that would be needed would be a process to initiate someone's removal.) Any takers?
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 06:39:05 AM
One possibility for an online community is for it to be completely "by invitation only". Even if people can sign up independently, they can be "voted off the island" by the community. That would require no specific moderation guidelines; anyone who lacks sufficient community support would simply be ejected. (All that would be needed would be a process to initiate someone's removal.) Any takers?
That sounds like a nightmare for moderators to run. Are all votes equal? Would someone who joined 3 weeks ago have as much stake as someone who has been here for years?
Quote from: bacardiandlime on April 27, 2022, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 06:39:05 AM
One possibility for an online community is for it to be completely "by invitation only". Even if people can sign up independently, they can be "voted off the island" by the community. That would require no specific moderation guidelines; anyone who lacks sufficient community support would simply be ejected. (All that would be needed would be a process to initiate someone's removal.) Any takers?
That sounds like a nightmare for moderators to run. Are all votes equal? Would someone who joined 3 weeks ago have as much stake as someone who has been here for years?
You don't
need moderators; as long as your process for signing up eliminates bots, then every account is equivalent, and each account gets a single vote. Everything can be handled algorithmically with no human intervention.
(You could even make the process to
register require a vote of existing members before someone is let in. It would get cumbersome as the membership increases, but things like suggested usernames could prevent people being accepted if they appear to be a threat to the community.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 05:50:58 AM
I find these discussions difficult because I have no idea what people have in mind as to what should be moderated.
What I would find useful would be if people gave examples of posters they *frequently strongly disagree with but who have not crossed any line that they think should apply. It's really hard to tell whether people want to moderate behaviour or ideas. The first is reasonable; the second is not.
(*For instance, there are lots of people that I've disagreed with; I have no idea whether any of my posts would have led to being removed under "stricter" moderation, and if so, on what grounds. Without any more concrete grasp of what is being advocated, I have no idea whether I'm in favour or not.)
I often disagree with you, but I can't recall any times where you've crossed the kind of lines I think should apply. You don't make personal attacks, you engage in actual conversations and discussions and I've never gotten the sense that you are trying to provoke anyone. I sometimes am annoyed at things you write, but that's not something moderation should try to solve. I'm sure I'm irritating to some people too...
Quote from: Caracal on April 27, 2022, 04:49:50 AM
Honestly it was such a bizarre and creepy thing to write that I felt more...icky, than personally attacked, unless there was something else I missed. I went back to my normal policy of not clicking on that person's posts.
I actually think he was referring to a real piece of manufactured right-wing outrage (i.e. a real post somewhere in the right-wing intarwebz about a faked controversy; not surprisingly, however, it's not something I'm particularly interested in investigating more closely). The 'you' was, I suspect, more generally aimed at "libz" than you in particular. Even if that's so, however, it's a good illustration of public meaning outstripping intent, a phenomenon he was keen to deny.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 05:50:58 AM
I find these discussions difficult because I have no idea what people have in mind as to what should be moderated.
What I would find useful would be if people gave examples of posters they *frequently strongly disagree with but who have not crossed any line that they think should apply. It's really hard to tell whether people want to moderate behaviour or ideas. The first is reasonable; the second is not.
I'm frequently at odds with dismalist; I don't think he's crossed a line. I've very vocally disagreed with ruralguy, bacardiandlime, secundum_artem, and even occasionally mamselle and Puget. I don't think any of them has ever even come close to the line. I can't remember much about writingprof's posts any more, save that I almost never agreed with him. But I don't think he skirted the line much, either. Polly, I think, tended to walk with her feet astride, rather than on, the line. And I think that
you have a penchant for sea lioning, but you mostly don't cross the line--certainly not in the same spectacular fashion, or as frequently, as the subject of the the post that started this thread. Does that help?
I don't think anyone who has more moderation in mind wants us to leap to bans. I think what we have in mind is more like a system in which we start with a verbal warning (e.g. a post to steer back to the topic at hand or to slow your roll in a thread veering too far off-topic and into heated waters) or perhaps locking a thread if circumstances seem to warrant it, followed by an official warning (a karma smack, if you will), with some number of karma smacks (say, three over a reasonable period of time) resulting in a temporary suspension. (That's taken from a defunct forum I used to frequent, by the way, not made up out of whole cloth. It was a
much larger community than this one, and worked well for the twenty years that the forum was around.) As for what would rise to the occasion: I think we can probably agree to a fairly minimal set of offences which would probably include personal attacks, slurs, and obvious threadjacking. Probably something about stirring the pot by starting endless new threads on the same topic, too.
FWIW, the reason I embroil
myself in most unpleasant discussions here is to publicly register dissent. It's been my experience that when everybody in an online community just ignores threads they find problematic or unpleasant, it gives the impression to newcomers that everybody there agrees with what's going on. And, in my experience, that's been bad for the health of online communities. Most people (understandably!) don't much care for an internet fistfight. Having grown up with them, I mostly don't mind, so I wade in--although I'll admit that my patience has worn thin in recent months. The key is to know when to let go, and I'll admit that I'm not great at that.
That strategy may, of course, be perceived as just as big a part of the problem. If that's so, then you're all welcome to PM me and let me know. If enough of you think so (say, more than just a couple people), then I'll be happy to try something else for a change.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 07:44:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 05:50:58 AM
I find these discussions difficult because I have no idea what people have in mind as to what should be moderated.
What I would find useful would be if people gave examples of posters they *frequently strongly disagree with but who have not crossed any line that they think should apply. It's really hard to tell whether people want to moderate behaviour or ideas. The first is reasonable; the second is not.
I'm frequently at odds with dismalist; I don't think he's crossed a line. I've very vocally disagreed with ruralguy, bacardiandlime, secundum_artem, and even occasionally mamselle and Puget. I don't think any of them has ever even come close to the line. I can't remember much about writingprof's posts any more, save that I almost never agreed with him. But I don't think he skirted the line much, either. Polly, I think, tended to walk with her feet astride, rather than on, the line. And I think that you have a penchant for sea lioning, but you mostly don't cross the line--certainly not in the same spectacular fashion, or as frequently, as the subject of the the post that started this thread. Does that help?
Actually, it does. Thanks. It's important to me that heated debate doesn't automatically become something to suppress.
Quote
I don't think anyone who has more moderation in mind wants us to leap to bans. I think what we have in mind is more like a system in which we start with a verbal warning (e.g. a post to steer back to the topic at hand or to slow your roll in a thread veering too far off-topic and into heated waters) or perhaps locking a thread if circumstances seem to warrant it, followed by an official warning (a karma smack, if you will), with some number of karma smacks (say, three over a reasonable period of time) resulting in a temporary suspension.
The off-topic issue is tricky. If a thread veers off into an argument between a few posters, other people probably lose interest and don't follow it. But at other times, "off-topic" may result in something that gets a lot of engagement from lots of people, even if it has little or no relation to the thread title. Should "moderation" in a case like that involve forking a new thread with a more appropriate title, or simply closing off the original?
Quote
(That's taken from a defunct forum I used to frequent, by the way, not made up out of whole cloth. It was a much larger community than this one, and worked well for the twenty years that the forum was around.) As for what would rise to the occasion: I think we can probably agree to a fairly minimal set of offences which would probably include personal attacks, slurs, and obvious threadjacking. Probably something about stirring the pot by starting endless new threads on the same topic, too.
I'm not sure about the "endless threads on the same topic" issue. Would moderation involve just eliminating them, or simply lumping them into a single thread, like "Colleges in Dire Financial Straits" which allows new instances of the same phenomenon to be discussed?
I appreciate reading everyone's thoughts here; I have noticed the slowdown on posting. I have been frustrated by how so many threads that begin with genuine questioning, requests for ideas and input, or just "here's a fun story" kinds of things have devolved into the same same two topics over and over and over again, and then folks migrate away from what could be a useful thread.
Even prior to the personal attacks the outright various -isms that were appearing more regularly were turning my stomach. I think most of us tried to ignore, or divert, but I agree that it has had the effect of chilling discourse, driving people away, and maybe even giving the appearance of tacit approval.
I think some more robust moderation that addresses that constant derailment, could be helpful. The RIP thread comes to mind - there was a brief kerfuffle about how to use that thread for remembrance and that commentary on the socio-political related to the deceased could and should be posted in a different thread. Totally reasonable and well-handled by the community and moderators and could be a model for threads that get derailed by conspiracy theories and such.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 07:44:42 AM
I actually think he was referring to a real piece of manufactured right-wing outrage (i.e. a real post somewhere in the right-wing intarwebz about a faked controversy; not surprisingly, however, it's not something I'm particularly interested in investigating more closely). The 'you' was, I suspect, more generally aimed at "libz" than you in particular. Even if that's so, however, it's a good illustration of public meaning outstripping intent, a phenomenon he was keen to deny.
Yeah I think the "you" was actually because he was criticizing my use of pronouns. But, like you say, it really doesn't matter at some point.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 07:44:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 05:50:58 AM
I find these discussions difficult because I have no idea what people have in mind as to what should be moderated.
What I would find useful would be if people gave examples of posters they *frequently strongly disagree with but who have not crossed any line that they think should apply. It's really hard to tell whether people want to moderate behaviour or ideas. The first is reasonable; the second is not.
I'm frequently at odds with dismalist; I don't think he's crossed a line. I've very vocally disagreed with ruralguy, bacardiandlime, secundum_artem, and even occasionally mamselle and Puget. I don't think any of them has ever even come close to the line. I can't remember much about writingprof's posts any more, save that I almost never agreed with him. But I don't think he skirted the line much, either. Polly, I think, tended to walk with her feet astride, rather than on, the line. And I think that you have a penchant for sea lioning, but you mostly don't cross the line--certainly not in the same spectacular fashion, or as frequently, as the subject of the the post that started this thread. Does that help?
Actually, it does. Thanks. It's important to me that heated debate doesn't automatically become something to suppress.
Quote
I don't think anyone who has more moderation in mind wants us to leap to bans. I think what we have in mind is more like a system in which we start with a verbal warning (e.g. a post to steer back to the topic at hand or to slow your roll in a thread veering too far off-topic and into heated waters) or perhaps locking a thread if circumstances seem to warrant it, followed by an official warning (a karma smack, if you will), with some number of karma smacks (say, three over a reasonable period of time) resulting in a temporary suspension.
The off-topic issue is tricky. If a thread veers off into an argument between a few posters, other people probably lose interest and don't follow it. But at other times, "off-topic" may result in something that gets a lot of engagement from lots of people, even if it has little or no relation to the thread title. Should "moderation" in a case like that involve forking a new thread with a more appropriate title, or simply closing off the original?
Quote
(That's taken from a defunct forum I used to frequent, by the way, not made up out of whole cloth. It was a much larger community than this one, and worked well for the twenty years that the forum was around.) As for what would rise to the occasion: I think we can probably agree to a fairly minimal set of offences which would probably include personal attacks, slurs, and obvious threadjacking. Probably something about stirring the pot by starting endless new threads on the same topic, too.
I'm not sure about the "endless threads on the same topic" issue. Would moderation involve just eliminating them, or simply lumping them into a single thread, like "Colleges in Dire Financial Straits" which allows new instances of the same phenomenon to be discussed?
Likewise, although I think we disagree on just about everything politically, I've found you to generally be reasonably civil here, and you contribute to discussions of academic topics and not just a few hobby horses. That's the sort of discourse we want IMO.
I think "Start a new thread rather than take a thread wildly off topic" and "Use an existing thread rather than start a new thread on substantially the same topic" are completely reasonable rules that aren't just aimed at line-crossing but just generally improve the usability and searchability of the fora. Reasonable posters will respond to a simple reminder to do so, unreasonable ones can be warned if they persist.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 07:44:42 AM
Polly, I think, tended to walk with her feet astride, rather than on, the line. And I think that you have a penchant for sea lioning, but you mostly don't cross the line--certainly not in the same spectacular fashion, or as frequently, as the subject of the the post that started this thread. Does that help?
I don't think anyone who has more moderation in mind wants us to leap to bans. I think what we have in mind is more like a system in which we start with a verbal warning (e.g. a post to steer back to the topic at hand or to slow your roll in a thread veering too far off-topic and into heated waters) or perhaps locking a thread if circumstances seem to warrant it, followed by an official warning (a karma smack, if you will), with some number of karma smacks (say, three over a reasonable period of time) resulting in a temporary suspension. (That's taken from a defunct forum I used to frequent, by the way, not made up out of whole cloth. It was a much larger community than this one, and worked well for the twenty years that the forum was around.) As for what would rise to the occasion: I think we can probably agree to a fairly minimal set of offences which would probably include personal attacks, slurs, and obvious threadjacking. Probably something about stirring the pot by starting endless new threads on the same topic, too.
I think it would be important to have a mechanism where patterns of behavior could be considered, not just individual posts. A single post that steps over or skirts the line can often just be dealt with by the people involved. I've apologized to people for things I wrote when it was pointed out to me that it was unkind or unpleasant. However, if someone is constantly tiptoeing up to the line or standing astride it, at some point that suggests they are operating in bad faith.
Here's a simple suggestion:
Make the "no double posting" a rule, rather than a guideline. Advantages:
- If no-one responds to a post, the thread is effectively dead.
- If non-one responds to a poster on any thread, the poster is essentially *silenced.
- It could be done algorithmically, and is completely content-neutral, so there's not any specific ideas, viewpoints, etc. that are suppressed.
(*Note that the poster effectively gets literally "the last word" on a topic, but it only matters if someone is willing to respond, so even that poster's views aren't censored.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 08:03:25 AM
The off-topic issue is tricky. If a thread veers off into an argument between a few posters, other people probably lose interest and don't follow it. But at other times, "off-topic" may result in something that gets a lot of engagement from lots of people, even if it has little or no relation to the thread title. Should "moderation" in a case like that involve forking a new thread with a more appropriate title, or simply closing off the original?
I think it could go either way, depending on what's actually going on. If it's a substantive second discussion that has its own merits, then forking seems like the thing to do. Closing a thread seems like the sort of thing that might be necessary when things are spiralling out of control., or possibly when there's no longer any substantive discussion going on, just a back-and-forth between a couple posters over a clear red herring.
Quote
I'm not sure about the "endless threads on the same topic" issue. Would moderation involve just eliminating them, or simply lumping them into a single thread, like "Colleges in Dire Financial Straits" which allows new instances of the same phenomenon to be discussed?
Lumping or closing both seem like fine responses to me. I don't have robust intuitions about when to prefer one over the other, however.
All the discussion seems pretty reasonable. There are three posters on my ignore list whose overall tone and attitude I find somewhat poopy--the person suspended wasn't one of them, but I can see how they went too far. It's challenging to maintain a robust forum; trial, error, further trial, and occasional annoyance seems to go with the territory.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 07:44:42 AM
I don't think anyone who has more moderation in mind wants us to leap to bans. I think what we have in mind is more like a system in which we start with a verbal warning (e.g. a post to steer back to the topic at hand or to slow your roll in a thread veering too far off-topic and into heated waters) or perhaps locking a thread if circumstances seem to warrant it, followed by an official warning (a karma smack, if you will), with some number of karma smacks (say, three over a reasonable period of time) resulting in a temporary suspension. (That's taken from a defunct forum I used to frequent, by the way, not made up out of whole cloth. It was a much larger community than this one, and worked well for the twenty years that the forum was around.) As for what would rise to the occasion: I think we can probably agree to a fairly minimal set of offences which would probably include personal attacks, slurs, and obvious threadjacking. Probably something about stirring the pot by starting endless new threads on the same topic, too.
Yes, please.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 27, 2022, 09:19:45 AM
I think it could go either way, depending on what's actually going on. If it's a substantive second discussion that has its own merits, then forking seems like the thing to do. Closing a thread seems like the sort of thing that might be necessary when things are spiralling out of control., or possibly when there's no longer any substantive discussion going on, just a back-and-forth between a couple posters over a clear red herring.
Yes, please.
Quote from: Puget on April 27, 2022, 08:26:45 AM
I think "Start a new thread rather than take a thread wildly off topic" and "Use an existing thread rather than start a new thread on substantially the same topic" are completely reasonable rules that aren't just aimed at line-crossing but just generally improve the usability and searchability of the fora. Reasonable posters will respond to a simple reminder to do so, unreasonable ones can be warned if they persist.
Yes, please.
No to "no double posting" as a general rule. Double-posting is not always bad, and such a rule would make it harder to enforce the "use an existing thread rather than start a new thread" rule, and it would probably also have collateral damage for relatively uncontroversial threads like "Look! A bird!"
Quote from: namazu on April 27, 2022, 09:52:02 AM
No to "no double posting" as a general rule. Double-posting is not always bad, and such a rule would make it harder to enforce the "use an existing thread rather than start a new thread" rule, and it would probably also have collateral damage for relatively uncontroversial threads like "Look! A bird!"
The thing to keep in mind is that
one single rule by itself would allow the community to self-moderate with
no intervention by administrators. For the non-controversial threads, anyone simply
*acknowledging another person's post would allow the original poster to continue. That seems like a pretty easy way to deal with the restriction.
(* Just like many posts now that quote and then simply add "+1".)
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: namazu on April 27, 2022, 09:52:02 AM
No to "no double posting" as a general rule. Double-posting is not always bad, and such a rule would make it harder to enforce the "use an existing thread rather than start a new thread" rule, and it would probably also have collateral damage for relatively uncontroversial threads like "Look! A bird!"
The thing to keep in mind is that one single rule by itself would allow the community to self-moderate with no intervention by administrators. For the non-controversial threads, anyone simply *acknowledging another person's post would allow the original poster to continue. That seems like a pretty easy way to deal with the restriction.
(* Just like many posts now that quote and then simply add "+1".)
This still doesn't seem like a good way to do it.
I don't think double posting is a good filter, because usually
someone else will engage, if only to call them out on bad behavior. DNFTT doesn't seem enforceable -- as others have noted on this thread, people find it hard to avoid engaging, and it isn't always good practice to not respond to a post you strongly disagree with, since others are reading (including potentially new members who don't know the context/history).
Double posting is also sometimes used to bump a thread that has gone dormant but can be usefully resurrected, including when the OP was the last to post and comes back later with an update on how things turned out (e.g., "I got the job, thanks everyone" type posts)-- we wouldn't want to ban those.
I don't think the goal here should be to come up with a way to fully automate this-- we will need some human mods involved. As long as the rules are fairly limited, simple and unambiguous I wouldn't anticipate too many problems with this.
I'd like to add another voice to complement the hard work of the moderators. I suppose whether or not we have more strict moderation depends on what new rules will be added. I think stronger enforcement against personal attacks would be perfectly fine, but I'm not so sure about the rule against double-posting. What if one forgets something they meant to add, for example.
(And related to the off-topic reference to Twitter, I too am thinking of leaving there. I haven't been active for years anyway.)
Quote from: dr_evil on April 27, 2022, 02:03:07 PM
I'd like to add another voice to complement the hard work of the moderators. I suppose whether or not we have more strict moderation depends on what new rules will be added. I think stronger enforcement against personal attacks would be perfectly fine, but I'm not so sure about the rule against double-posting. What if one forgets something they meant to add, for example.
+1 to the bolded.
Double-posting would and should be legit in threads such as the NYT Spelling Bee, Look a bird, and RIP.
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 27, 2022, 02:32:15 PM
Double-posting would and should be legit in threads such as the NYT Spelling Bee, Look a bird, and RIP.
Question for those in the know:
Are the questionable posts restricted to certain threads and/or topics, and if so, is there an *objective way to identify threads prone to them? (For instance, does a high
rate of activity for a thread suggest it's in danger of getting inflammatory? Or does it start to happen typically after the thread reaches a certain length, etc.?)
(FWIW As I've discussed in other threads, I like to use things like checklists for grading because I like to minimize the effects of
my own subjectivity. I like auto-graded quizzes for the same reason.)
This is a very small forum with unusually intelligent, articulate, informed and considerate commentary, even when things get snarky or heated. Truly offensive posts are fairly rare. And while I don't know any of you (at least I don't think I do), I feel like I know most of you and I enjoy and respect all of you----even those I frequently disagree with. The current level of moderation is appropriate and very appreciated. The mods are greatly appreciated.
I fear that the poster in question has some devolving mental health issues and I truly hope hu gets some help.
Thanks to the mods for all their work.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 27, 2022, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 27, 2022, 02:32:15 PM
Double-posting would and should be legit in threads such as the NYT Spelling Bee, Look a bird, and RIP.
Question for those in the know:
Are the questionable posts restricted to certain threads and/or topics, and if so, is there an *objective way to identify threads prone to them? (For instance, does a high rate of activity for a thread suggest it's in danger of getting inflammatory? Or does it start to happen typically after the thread reaches a certain length, etc.?)
(FWIW As I've discussed in other threads, I like to use things like checklists for grading because I like to minimize the effects of my own subjectivity. I like auto-graded quizzes for the same reason.)
I don't think so-- the longest and most active threads tend to be things like games and the monthly research threads where people post daily goals and progress.
I'm all for objectivity too when it can reasonably go achieved, but I don't think there is a way to automate this-- it has to be done by looking the actual content and the pattern of behavior across posts. Just like using a grading rubric does not, alas, spare us from having to actually read and grade the papers.
Now there's an idea....place the rubric gently on the paper and let the comments osmose through....
Sorry...I got lost in the wonder of it all...
Yes. I think the more inflammatory threads have tended to focus around current political issues for which there are indeed very nuanced ideas, differences, and proffered solutions (like this one...we're already at, what, 4 pages now?) and if those can stay sane and considerate, they provide some very interesting cross-currents for reading and thinking about.
Too much so. I have work to do!!!!!!
More later--M.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 27, 2022, 04:10:32 PM
This is a very small forum with unusually intelligent, articulate, informed and considerate commentary, even when things get snarky or heated. Truly offensive posts are fairly rare. And while I don't know any of you (at least I don't think I do), I feel like I know most of you and I enjoy and respect all of you----even those I frequently disagree with. The current level of moderation is appropriate and very appreciated. The mods are greatly appreciated.
I fear that the poster in question has some devolving mental health issues and I truly hope hu gets some help.
Thanks to the mods for all their work.
^^^ What
Wahoo said.
This is not about a troll. This is about a member of our community who is probably really struggling. This person has alluded to mental health issues in the past.
I generally ignore that poster and while I appreciate that the conversation seems to have taken a much healthier turn overall since they are not posting, I still am worried.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 27, 2022, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 27, 2022, 04:10:32 PM
This is a very small forum with unusually intelligent, articulate, informed and considerate commentary, even when things get snarky or heated. Truly offensive posts are fairly rare. And while I don't know any of you (at least I don't think I do), I feel like I know most of you and I enjoy and respect all of you----even those I frequently disagree with. The current level of moderation is appropriate and very appreciated. The mods are greatly appreciated.
I fear that the poster in question has some devolving mental health issues and I truly hope hu gets some help.
Thanks to the mods for all their work.
^^^ What Wahoo said.
This is not about a troll. This is about a member of our community who is probably really struggling. This person has alluded to mental health issues in the past.
I generally ignore that poster and while I appreciate that the conversation seems to have taken a much healthier turn overall since they are not posting, I still am worried.
I hope not. At the moment a lot of what is basically mainstream political discourse is pretty unbalanced. If you hang around in certain corners of the Internet some crazy things can start seeming normal. Sometimes, the rest of life does bleed over onto here. Looking back at my silly fights with Poly, a lot of that was happening during the worst parts of the pandemic and I was feeling pretty stressed and someone saying mean things to me on a forum felt like a mortal threat.
Quote from: Caracal on April 28, 2022, 05:17:37 AM
I hope not. At the moment a lot of what is basically mainstream political discourse is pretty unbalanced.
In what way?
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Yes, for the most part there were some threads that were kind of designed to be a churn of frustration. But I can recall (would need to look up) at least a couple of threads - there was one on student mental health and another on late work policies where the pet conspiracy theories popped up. That is the kind of thing I think could be addressed. Maybe even with a gentle community standard - this thread is about student mental health. Please post this topic in the thread you already started for that. And then the post can be moderated.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 27, 2022, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 27, 2022, 04:10:32 PM
This is a very small forum with unusually intelligent, articulate, informed and considerate commentary, even when things get snarky or heated. Truly offensive posts are fairly rare. And while I don't know any of you (at least I don't think I do), I feel like I know most of you and I enjoy and respect all of you----even those I frequently disagree with. The current level of moderation is appropriate and very appreciated. The mods are greatly appreciated.
I fear that the poster in question has some devolving mental health issues and I truly hope hu gets some help.
Thanks to the mods for all their work.
^^^ What Wahoo said.
This is not about a troll. This is about a member of our community who is probably really struggling. This person has alluded to mental health issues in the past.
I generally ignore that poster and while I appreciate that the conversation seems to have taken a much healthier turn overall since they are not posting, I still am worried.
Y'all are way too kind.
Patience, empathy, and compassion are where we should always err as a community, but too much of it can embolden those that have no patience, empathy, and compassion themselves.
I just returned after an extended break. I left for reasons I think some would hope moderation would help, but really, I just couldn't handle another attempt at actual conversation being derailed by our colleagues who need to weigh in on every situation at every type of institution with affected authority despite significantly limited actual experience. Those posters are unlikely to be moderated, but those posters are the ones who end up sending people off with lousy information or advice and they starkly limit actual conversation and overwhelm the people who are positioned to speak to the questions people raise. I don't know how you moderate that.
Prolonged personal attacks? Yes. Moderate. But community-killing behavior is more pernicious than that.
Quote from: glowdart on April 29, 2022, 08:33:44 AM
I just returned after an extended break. I left for reasons I think some would hope moderation would help, but really, I just couldn't handle another attempt at actual conversation being derailed by our colleagues who need to weigh in on every situation at every type of institution with affected authority despite significantly limited actual experience. Those posters are unlikely to be moderated, but those posters are the ones who end up sending people off with lousy information or advice and they starkly limit actual conversation and overwhelm the people who are positioned to speak to the questions people raise. I don't know how you moderate that.
Prolonged personal attacks? Yes. Moderate. But community-killing behavior is more pernicious than that.
The "ignore" function helps a lot with that.
Quote from: downer on April 29, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
Quote from: glowdart on April 29, 2022, 08:33:44 AM
I just returned after an extended break. I left for reasons I think some would hope moderation would help, but really, I just couldn't handle another attempt at actual conversation being derailed by our colleagues who need to weigh in on every situation at every type of institution with affected authority despite significantly limited actual experience. Those posters are unlikely to be moderated, but those posters are the ones who end up sending people off with lousy information or advice and they starkly limit actual conversation and overwhelm the people who are positioned to speak to the questions people raise. I don't know how you moderate that.
Prolonged personal attacks? Yes. Moderate. But community-killing behavior is more pernicious than that.
The "ignore" function helps a lot with that.
Yes! I was just exploring how to do that (while catching up on years old conversations that still are annoying) and then realized the worst offenders in my memory seem to have moved on.
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
Wow, you're gone from here on vacation for a week, and look what happens!
Based on who is not taking part in this discussion, I'm pretty sure I know who must have gotten suspended. Like Wahoo above, I've been suspecting worsening mental health issues for some time now.
Quote from: apl68 on May 02, 2022, 08:57:33 AM
Wow, you're gone from here on vacation for a week, and look what happens!
Based on who is not taking part in this discussion, I'm pretty sure I know who must have gotten suspended. Like Wahoo above, I've been suspecting worsening mental health issues for some time now.
Check the Membership List. A certain name is no longer there.
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
Nebo, I also think that's a funny story. While they had no choice except to shoot the alligator (they learn to associate humans with food when they're fed by humans, which makes them very much more than normally dangerous) I do think they should have charged with golfer with illegally feeding wildlife!
I just wanted to +1 the note on appreciation for eigen and the other mods, and the work they do. I admit, the member in question is one reason why I have been here somewhat less often (though I tend to lurk anyway). I appreciate this being handled with grace and compassion. Thanks, y'all.
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on May 02, 2022, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
Nebo, I also think that's a funny story. While they had no choice except to shoot the alligator (they learn to associate humans with food when they're fed by humans, which makes them very much more than normally dangerous) I do think they should have charged with golfer with illegally feeding wildlife!
That is hilarious!!!
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
The common opinion is that most censoring and suspensions are due to AI bots and not actual people but the social media companies are not being too transparent on this issue. "My school will slaughter the top ranked team next weekend" is something that can trigger action by HAL 9000.
Quote from: Anselm on May 03, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
The common opinion is that most censoring and suspensions are due to AI bots and not actual people but the social media companies are not being too transparent on this issue. "My school will slaughter the top ranked team next weekend" is something that can trigger action by HAL 9000.
I wonder how many of those suspended were bots to start with?
Quote from: Anselm on May 03, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
The common opinion is that most censoring and suspensions are due to AI bots and not actual people but the social media companies are not being too transparent on this issue. "My school will slaughter the top ranked team next weekend" is something that can trigger action by HAL 9000.
This is what puzzles me about peoples' concern with Elon's takeover of Twitter. He has talked about having open-source AIs for moderation, so that the process would be completely transparent. Yet people seem to
want the subjectivity of humans, and apparently with
no clear rules about
when a human acts instead of a bot, and what rules are applied in
either case. Where does that blind faith come from?
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 03, 2022, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: Anselm on May 03, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on April 30, 2022, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 28, 2022, 08:29:34 AM
I served a 24 hour sentence in Facebook jail and came out as a better and reformed man.
Got ya beat: I've been there twice. Both times were for "advocating violence". The first time related to the demise of Putin. The second was pretty funny. A golfer had gone head to head with an alligator over possession of a golf ball, and lost his arm (and the ball). The alligator was shot. I suggested it should have been the instigator of the conflict, which was NOT the alligator. Slam the bars on FB!!!!
I am not reformed, just more subtle.
The common opinion is that most censoring and suspensions are due to AI bots and not actual people but the social media companies are not being too transparent on this issue. "My school will slaughter the top ranked team next weekend" is something that can trigger action by HAL 9000.
This is what puzzles me about peoples' concern with Elon's takeover of Twitter. He has talked about having open-source AIs for moderation, so that the process would be completely transparent. Yet people seem to want the subjectivity of humans, and apparently with no clear rules about when a human acts instead of a bot, and what rules are applied in either case. Where does that blind faith come from?
Look, social media companies are profit maximizers, just like all other firms.
1) I can't imagine Musk is a $44 billion charity, giving away that much money so that his opinions about speech enforced. He must believe he could "make more money" by changing the company filters. He could be wrong, of course.
2) As such, profit maximizing social media platforms will use filters to make
their customers happy. Looks to me like sufficiently many, perhaps most, people
like information bubbles. This point is likely the explanation for all kinds 'a people getting upset about Twitter changing hands.
Notabene: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a subscriber to Twitter. [Nor will I ever be.] :-)
On the issue of the fora, a mod issue I'd like is limiting people's sigs to one line. When they're more than that they really take up a lot of screen real estate, especially when reading on a phone. (It's ridiculous that someone's one-line post ends up being half a page due to long sigs)
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2022, 05:08:41 AM
On the issue of the fora, a mod issue I'd like is limiting people's sigs to one line. When they're more than that they really take up a lot of screen real estate, especially when reading on a phone. (It's ridiculous that someone's one-line post ends up being half a page due to long sigs)
By that same token, should posts be removed that consist of a quotation and then just "+1" or something of that nature? Those take up even more screen real estate while providing no insight.
There is a "don't show signatures" option in the Account settings.
If we were to ban posts that don't provide insight, well, that would be quite a project.
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2022, 05:47:11 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2022, 05:08:41 AM
On the issue of the fora, a mod issue I'd like is limiting people's sigs to one line. When they're more than that they really take up a lot of screen real estate, especially when reading on a phone. (It's ridiculous that someone's one-line post ends up being half a page due to long sigs)
By that same token, should posts be removed that consist of a quotation and then just "+1" or something of that nature? Those take up even more screen real estate while providing no insight.
I support this argument: and I recall advocating for it on the old fora, where people had the habit of just posting "bookmarking", which drove me up the freaking wall.
But those were functional posts, since they were/are the only way to get the thread to show up on ones "unread" thread on opening.
For example, if I wanted to follow a thread but couldn't post to it right then, and I didn't bookmark it, it would get lost in the matrix of threads and boards, and I am still sometimes unclear on how certain threads are opened on the boards they end up on, so it's not fully transparent and I may not figure out where it went 3 hours later.
The +1 is in lieu of a "like" button system, which this software doesn't provide.
I don't see how letting people briefly register agreement with a position (I usually use a carat, ^, rather than a quote, unless I'm also going to comment on it) takes up much space.
I do however, wonder why whole long articles have to be strung along, one after another (especially when no-one else comments--it becomes a personal bulletin board, which just seems boring), but when I inquired, it was rebuffed, so, fine.
Since I have not yet seen a thread like that that was interesting enough to read through, I just skip them, anyway.
M.
I'm sure this is well known, but in case it isn't: There is a notify button in the thread view that will allow you to get email notifications when there are new posts to a given thread. This may or may not address the various reasons that folks have for bookmarking or similar. I use it when I don't want to post a reply right at the moment or to keep track of an exciting thread that I have no interest in being a part of. Of course, if no one ever replies again, you'd be out of luck with that approach and back to having to try to find the thread if you did wish to reply. At least this isn't Facebook and people posting "following dots" when turning on notifications is a clear option.
I appreciate the work of the moderators and was wondering what suspension means. It sounds temporary. Is there a particular time period for each "first offense" with automatic reinstatement? It was mentioned that the suspended member no longer appears in the membership list (is this because of the suspension? suspension doesn't rescind membership like a ban might?), but on the member's profile page they still appear to be active. So does suspension mostly mean not being able to post? I hope not to get suspended myself so am curious about more detail (if it can be shared). I didn't see the info earlier in the thread but apologize if I missed it.
Quote from: ab_grp on May 05, 2022, 01:05:21 PM
I'm sure this is well known, but in case it isn't: There is a notify button in the thread view that will allow you to get email notifications when there are new posts to a given thread.
Yes, this existed on the old fora too. I still don't understand why people wouldn't use it.
First I've ever heard of it.
Not sure I want an additional email everytime someone posts to a thread, though...that would really blow up the email box!
M.
So it was a three month suspension. Began in late April, went through May, June, July, and August. Yup. just three months.
Ended yesterday. Somebody can't count.
He's baaaack
Welcome back.
Well, at least you went to the trouble to type it. Thanks.
I wonder if the fora traffic has increased in the interim as some expected.
Doubt it.
So, how are you doing, Mahag?
I wish I could find a minor tranquilizer that doesn't give me the runs and disinhibition.
I have difficulty adjusting to the new era. On the one hand, one hates to feel afraid of being cancelled for expressing themselves. OTOH, expressing oneself can be quite overrated. Doing it just to show that you can doesn't seem purposeful enough.
I certainly don't want to be a white man. Everything's our fault.
Well everyone has shit that they go through. I remember when Wahoo lost his sister to and unfortunate early demise. I'm sorry.
Thanks for the empathy.
I hope things work out for you.
I sincerely hope you can find some meds that you can tolerate and work well for you. Negotiating all that (from experience) can be exhausting.