Fora Rules

[Caracal]

Is it worth rethinking some of the discussion on this? Most of the discussion here is perfectly civil, but some users rather consistently violate these rules, or go right up to the line and stick a foot over. I understand why the preference of the moderators has been to take a light hand, but that only really works if there's a commitment to the spirit of the rules. I'm not convinced the block function is really effective. I find it pretty hard to not click and see what someone has said in response to a post of mine, even if I've blocked them.

Now that we've had some time to see where some of the flashpoints are, I do think it's worth reassessing a little. The tools at our disposal (e.g. locking threads, deleting/changing posts) are a little clunky and heavy-handed, but I do think it may be worthwhile to wade in more often with a public verbal warning. I did this recently, and I'm pleased with the result. (N=1 and all that, of course.)

I think that's reasonable. I don't think heavy handed moderation would be good, even if it was feasible. But, I think there would be less need for that if we could commit to a series of basic ground rules. For example: No name calling and no general claims about the character, motives or knowledge of other members

[marshwiggle]

Is it worth rethinking some of the discussion on this? Most of the discussion here is perfectly civil, but some users rather consistently violate these rules, or go right up to the line and stick a foot over. I understand why the preference of the moderators has been to take a light hand, but that only really works if there's a commitment to the spirit of the rules. I'm not convinced the block function is really effective. I find it pretty hard to not click and see what someone has said in response to a post of mine, even if I've blocked them.

Now that we've had some time to see where some of the flashpoints are, I do think it's worth reassessing a little. The tools at our disposal (e.g. locking threads, deleting/changing posts) are a little clunky and heavy-handed, but I do think it may be worthwhile to wade in more often with a public verbal warning. I did this recently, and I'm pleased with the result. (N=1 and all that, of course.)

I think that's reasonable. I don't think heavy handed moderation would be good, even if it was feasible. But, I think there would be less need for that if we could commit to a series of basic ground rules. For example: No name calling and no general claims about the character, motives or knowledge of other members

I'm not sure how effective those would be, especially in the absence of concrete examples. Am I alone in thinking that? (For instance, what counts as "name-calling" when everyone is using a pseudonym to begin with?)

[eigen]

So I'm of mixed feeling when it seems like the vast majority of friction points here surround less than 5 users.

To me, that's the point where the ignore/block feature becomes useful, rather than designing rules based around a small subset of the user base. I understand it can be hard to not see what someone else wrote, but... to me that's a personal decision, not something for moderator intervention. We have stepped in several times when name-calling or other lines get crossed.

One thing that is exceptionally helpful is if people report things: we get *very* few reports, and I honestly don't catch everything as it happens.

I would like to see a much stronger commitment, generally, to people not bringing baggage into threads. We do know each other, but people do evolve: treating each discussion as new, even if it causes us to re-tread ground that may have already been discussed is, imo, a good practice.

[mamselle]

I wonder if the old term "flame wars" could be invoked...

It seems as if that's at issue...long, multi-quoted rants at each other by the same few, which often either derail a thread or lose its focus and render it less useful to those who come here for information.

Newer folk don't need to see us airing the same dirty undies every day, and they'll just be confused by it.

I have an "internal ignore" function where I mostly just open a thread to get it off my queue and don't read it if it's one of my ignorees.

But that means there are a few threads that I just don't get to read anymore because the tangled nonsense defies being able to follow the conceptual basis of the thread overall.

Seeing that as a newbie, I'd have run screaming away. (And have, when visiting other forums, as I occasionally do).

M.

[Caracal]

Is it worth rethinking some of the discussion on this? Most of the discussion here is perfectly civil, but some users rather consistently violate these rules, or go right up to the line and stick a foot over. I understand why the preference of the moderators has been to take a light hand, but that only really works if there's a commitment to the spirit of the rules. I'm not convinced the block function is really effective. I find it pretty hard to not click and see what someone has said in response to a post of mine, even if I've blocked them.

Now that we've had some time to see where some of the flashpoints are, I do think it's worth reassessing a little. The tools at our disposal (e.g. locking threads, deleting/changing posts) are a little clunky and heavy-handed, but I do think it may be worthwhile to wade in more often with a public verbal warning. I did this recently, and I'm pleased with the result. (N=1 and all that, of course.)

I think that's reasonable. I don't think heavy handed moderation would be good, even if it was feasible. But, I think there would be less need for that if we could commit to a series of basic ground rules. For example: No name calling and no general claims about the character, motives or knowledge of other members

I'm not sure how effective those would be, especially in the absence of concrete examples. Am I alone in thinking that? (For instance, what counts as "name-calling" when everyone is using a pseudonym to begin with?)

I mean, I could certainly give some examples of language that serves only to offend and provoke used on here,  but I don't really think this is the spot for it...

[Caracal]

So I'm of mixed feeling when it seems like the vast majority of friction points here surround less than 5 users.

To me, that's the point where the ignore/block feature becomes useful, rather than designing rules based around a small subset of the user base. I understand it can be hard to not see what someone else wrote, but... to me that's a personal decision, not something for moderator intervention. We have stepped in several times when name-calling or other lines get crossed.

One thing that is exceptionally helpful is if people report things: we get *very* few reports, and I honestly don't catch everything as it happens.

I guess this is where I think a clearer code of conduct might be helpful. Obviously, some things and some language are clearly out of bounds, but it can be a little hard to know if its appropriate to bring in moderators when I see something that is more in the category of abusive or insulting.