Civility and the Pareto distribution

[marshwiggle]

I decided to start this based on the following:

Consider that there might be more "regulars", and more vibrant, engaging discussions, if people felt they could get a word in edgewise.

...And if every fourth thread weren't hijacked by the same handful of posters flogging their same few dead horses.  It's boorish and unconstructive to derail thread after unrelated thread to rehash the same tired arguments ad nauseam.  Most recently, the "what went wrong with academe and coronavirus" thread seems to have devolved into yet another pointless, off-topic "won't someone think of the adjuncts" vs. "beware the adjunct 'death march'" back-and-forth.  The "COVID and contingent faculty" thread has been overtaken by ad hominems about "failed academics", and so on...

"Civility" and "niceness" should not be invoked as cover to quash principled, honest disagreement.  And I love a well-placed zinger as much as the next guy.  But rudeness (which shows up in things like hijacking threads, calling people out as trolls too quickly or devaluing infrequent contributors, and being needlessly condescending or smarmy or cruelly snarky) does not make for a more vibrant forum.

I don't advocate heavy-handed moderation, and as a moderator on another forum, I appreciate the thankless work that goes into keeping the lights on.  That said, it would be nice if a few people would step back and quit running their mouths fingers every now and then  -- not because their ideas are odious or unworthy of consideration, but because their constant repetition and/or preening is tiresome.  But that might be too much to ask.  Since they occasionally have worthwhile things to say, I'm hesitant to ignore them altogether.  And of course, perhaps those tired arguments constitute the bulk of what remains here because so many other would-be participants have been turned off and left.

Online forums are well-known to follow a Pareto distribution; i.e. something like an 80-20 rule applies.
I looked at the stats for the fora as of today, and here are some of the intersting points:

• There are 1787 members.
• There are over 26000 posts.
• 1158 members have not made a single post.
• The top 2 members have made about 3900 posts, or about 15% of the total.
• The bottom 1680ish members have made about 15% of the total.
• The top 6 members have made about 6900 posts, or about 25% of the total.
• The bottom 1700ish members have made about 25% of the total.

This is a well-known phenomenon. I am interested in the idea of people feeling they "can't get a word in edgewise".
In a face-to-face conversation, that can happen because speakers do not pause to allow others to speak.
In a print publication, this can happen in something like a "letters" section because of limited page space so that not every  submission can be included.

But what does it mean in an online forum, where bits are unrestricted?

[namazu]

But what does [letting other people get a word in edgewise] mean in an online forum, where bits are unrestricted?

I am well aware that there are more and less active members; I used to be a very active member of the old CHE forum before taking a hiatus.

One can be an active contributor without projecting the attitude that one's contributions are more valuable than those of infrequent posters.

One can be an active contributor without indulging the urge to comment on everything, even areas where one has limited relevant experience.

One can be an active contributor without engaging in off-topic, sniping cross-talk, and without hijacking threads to rehash arguments from elsewhere.  (The proposed "don't bring your baggage from one thread to another" rule would seem to apply here, at least sometimes.)  Such cross-talk makes it visually difficult to find on-topic, relevant posts and to follow the meat of a discussion.  It's also bothersome to have to wade through yet another round of the same few people talking past each other about the same pet topics while impugning each other's motives, which rarely (in my opinion) advances a discussion.

To be clear, it's not that I think that active members should hold back when they have something relevant to contribute, nor that they should avoid topics about which they hold passionate opinions; I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else.  (Get a room!)

Bits may be unrestricted, but people's attention certainly is not.  I could certainly put the frequent offenders on "ignore", which would filter out their comments and leave the rest, but since they do also have worthwhile things to say, I am loath to do that.

[downer]

I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else.  (Get a room!)

The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.

They do have their own rooms. But they need to express themselves **everywhere**.

As you might expect, I'm not optimistic that there is any way to get them to STFU.

[marshwiggle]

I just wish they'd avoid overwhelming the forum with ad hominem squabbling, frequent accusations of bad faith, and diatribes about their pet topics when the thread is genuinely/primarily about something else.  (Get a room!)

The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.

They do have their own rooms. But they need to express themselves **everywhere**.

As you might expect, I'm not optimistic that there is any way to get them to STFU.

So should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.

[namazu]

downer, I agree with your assessment.

So should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.

The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves.  This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.

But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.

[dismalist]

downer, I agree with your assessment.

So should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.

The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves.  This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.

But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.

How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?

[namazu]

How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?

Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances.  It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.

[dismalist]

How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?

Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances.  It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.

Thank you. Ignore is under buddies, which is not intuitive!

I put in only one name, so far. :-)

[writingprof]

Sure, use the "ignore" feature. Just know that you're basically doing the same thing as my mother, who's been on a Fox News-only diet for about twenty years.

[dismalist]

Another candidate? :-) :-)

[ciao_yall]

How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?

Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances.  It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.

It works in the individual threads.

However, if you just click "see all new posts" it doesn't work. But I glance at the names at the top of the post and skip those I choose to ignore.

[mahagonny]

downer, I agree with your assessment.

So should there be a "poster rating" system here for relevance and insight? Then in principle one could choose to filter our people who are low in one or both.

The "ignore" feature approximates that already, with the added benefit that members can set the "Are this person's posts worth reading?" threshold for themselves.  This precludes the likely accusations of mob rule, unfair targeting for unpopular ideas, etc. that would arise if a system like you suggest were implemented.

But even the posters who frequently make the kinds of (off-topic, repetitive, and/or boorish) posts that irk me do offer interesting perspectives and valuable insights at times, so I am hesitant to ignore/filter them altogether.

Well, you chose to be educated.

[mahagonny]

The usual culprits are convinced that their pet topics are relevant to just about everything.

One person's pet topic can be the pet topic of others who don't like animals. Thus, the experience of one professional educator is not of general interest; this person is a 'warm body' a person with false consciousness, or some other defective sort.
And pet topics can be a community's stock-in-trade, for example bigotry, real or imagined.. No one person or group has a monopoly on pet topics. Some academics give you the impression they can't go to a baseball game without seeing flagrant racism.
A little perspective helps.

[dismalist]

How does an "ignore" feature work, and how can I activate it?

Instructions here: https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=28.msg5279#msg5279
I haven't used it myself, so I don't know exactly what gets blocked from view under what circumstances.  It should be reversible, though, so you can test it out.

The ignored user's posts are turned into "You are ignoring this user. Show me the post." Then, one can click "Show me the post" if one wishes to read something of the blockee's. Yes, this is reversible. And mind Ciao_yall's

However, if you just click "see all new posts" it doesn't work. But I glance at the names at the top of the post and skip those I choose to ignore.

[mahagonny]

Desirable pet cause: racism. There's good money being made publishing about it, teaching courses about it.

Dog doo pet cause: The plight of the 'part-time' college teacher. There's money in ignoring or maligning it and there's powerful people to be annoyed when you don't.