Self Moderation of the On-Topic Forum

From what I've seen with Fighteer, Maddy, and Bobby G, they're just as capable of being joe/jane forum-goer as anyone else. I'm sure other moderators, if carefully selected for the role, would adjust and do fine.

But then we get to FE's original post - OTC isn't a needed part of the wiki itself. Since it's a want more than a need, it can diapppear without loss of function to the wiki itself. We have media-threads and things like that for the running and maitaining of the wiki.

But this whole place is a message board to supplement the needs of the tropers to discuss things. OTC doesn't stand out as less useful than the rest in that sense.

Maybe we can trim down and restructure the list of forums, but the essential idea of having a place where people can actually pay attention to discussions is quite desired.

Don't misunderstand - I desire it too, and will be rather dismayed if OTC is axed. It's just not a need, per se.

Example: I need to eat. I want to eat meat. I desire to eat Filet Mignon.

So where are we going to post discussions? Yack Fest? That's a lounge more than a forum. Right now we have enough activity in each of the sections that division between lenient section and actual discussion is warranted.

Although my opinion is that there are more than enough sections and reorganizing clusters can help.

As a point of irony lets get back on topic of self policing :P. If and when the mods agree and give us more mods then we can all put our two cents in there.

Morven: Your point on certain inviduals rehashing the same arguments is vallid but they tend to do that in certain thread types. In other kinds of threads their views can vary widely.

Certain threads for example will inevitably attract certain posters with specific views who will in some way shape or form voice those views. We have the political threads which will always be hot button threads to begin with. Financially focused threads which can tie in to the politcial thread. Threads on Gender issues of any variety, threads on religion of any variety, and threads on general legal matters.

All these types of threads will predictably attract certain posters. You can almost gurantee who will show up in what thread by looking at the other similar threads and what sort of arguement they MIGHT make. Sometimes they do honestly surprise in that regard.

OTC if anything is very predictable in its' posters. Hence the stupid meme of I know who started this thread beofre I clicked it. Which needs to kindly please fall off of a very steep cliff onto jagged rocks.

So lets turn that predictability to our advantage. We know who is likely going to stir the pot the most with their views after a few short posts.

Sort of Ninjad.

edited 23rd Sep '11 7:22:55 PM by TuefelHundenIV

To view from a different angle, if that helps: this forum is part of TV Tropes. As such, it should be reasonable to expect the posters here to be familiar with the tropes of conversation and debate, and to subvert the ones that turn the tone nasty.

Huh. I didn't even notice there is a problem. Considering the nature and scope of the discussions here, there is one of the most civilized forum I have seen anywhere.

Nothing against Barkey but I would prefer any new mod not being from the Americas because of time zone reasons, as mentioned before rapid response to hollers is needed but since the mods are as human as the rest of us, someone whose timezone enables them to be awake while other mod sleeps would expand the mod coverage more than just adding another one to the existing work shift.

The way I see OTC is that it has some threads that have a specific topic; like a discussion about some news item; and others that are more wide like the military thread or the Arab spring. the second type of thread sometimes spawn the first type if the topic comes up in them and does so even if it is on topic because it might threaten to monopolize the thread and so is slip off to it's own.

Is minor topic drift allowed under the on-topic rules?

Thread Hop: why does FE and the other mods think there is a problem to be solved? In my experience, OTC is by far the best behaved forum on the internet. Even Eliezer Yudkowski once remarked on it. No forum, however well policed, self or otherwise, is ever going to be perfect. Falling for troll bait is like not eating candy, you promise not to do it, you mean not to do it, but in the moment....

Anyway, for my information, at what point did the number of derails and trolling become unacceptable?

De Marquis, this wasn't a good thread to Thread Hop on - the position has been clarified through the thread.

Exactly. I think it's great how it is, any more effort towards a "civilized" board will become very heavy handed.

@Jauce

It is civilized, but at the same time, because of the higher standards and how they're enforced and how people are not following it, there are problems relative to those standards.

What I'm interested in is why we have to have higher standards in the first place, people act like OTC is some sort of sinking ship, it's fine the way it is.

The candy metaphor works rather well. I make a conscious effort to stay on-topic but I will screw up and veer off-topic. everyone who's been here awhile will do it eventually. Normally all it takes is someone in the convo rerailing it to get back on track.

Just wanted to say, me too, very much so. I don't have the tools to control other posters in any meaningful way. Further posts about the unavailability of mods makes me think "increased reporting" isn't even necessarily a solution, which is something I mentioned in my first post. I honestly feel like the system isn't designed in such a way that I can make any impact on the quality of OTC beyond my own posts.

Well put.

I also think OTC isn't nearly what it used to be, for various reasons.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:18:49 PM by deathjavu

Would it be okay if I make a post that goes "hey, you're getting sidetracked, get back on topic" on any OTC thread?

OK, I just read all five pages, and I still don't know what the problem really is. Not saying we shouldn't have more mods, that sounds like a great idea, and I strongly support the two individuals proposed, but right now it seems like a great solution in search of a problem. So I ask again, when did the activity in OTC become unacceptable?

I'm actually getting confused about this too. However, I personally thought that there were way too many threads being closed in this section at certain points. Besides that, several times I've seen posts that I felt weren't helping the discussion.

I don't think there was a specific point at which it "became unacceptable", although I daresay the closing of IJBM did it no favours. I think there may have been a gradual decline, but there has always been considerable room for improvement.

That's not really an answer, there's always room for improvement. If there wasn't some sort of problem from the moderation's point of view, this wouldn't have been brought up at all.

I would assume the answer is 'I don't know'. Just gradually declining.

Ok enough with the barrage of vagueness.

I keep hearing it is deoclinging or it is not what used to be or this is a problem and you need to police yourselves. Yet no one has pointed out any single instances ie threads, thread content, or other items outside of the pity threads that are a serious issue. Someone somewhere give us a clear and detailed answer please. No more beating around the bushes.

I can't speak of a decline myself. I haven't really noticed such a thing. There may well be one and I'm just not picking it up. I can point out a few problems I tend to come across.

Threads that get locked are often locked because the thread got too heated or off track. This happens a lot with certain types of threads. Religion threads I notice it the most with because those are primarily the sorts of threads I participate in and read in the OTC.

Some general problems I run into...Generalizations. These are made a lot with religion threads. Especially negative ones. There are certain arguments that get brought up all the time even in threads that aren't supposed to be on that topic. The problem of evil and the rationality of religion are the two main offender topics in this regard. These discussions tend to circle around on themselves, get nasty, and then get locked either because they were nasty or because they were just hideously offtopic. Or both.

Some posters have single wonk issues and some are incredibly aggressive about things. Portions of the Friendship and Romance thread show that aggressiveness. Mod intervention was actually made because of it.

Again I mostly notice this in the religion threads because those are the threads I most often frequent here, but I think that people could do with toning themselves down. And not being quick to jump to assumptions out of over zealous (in my opinion) defensiveness. Also. Generalizations. It's not a good idea to say, perhaps, that "Christians believe x" or that "Such and such thing is opposed to rational thought".

So really the problems I have are with generalizations, over aggressiveness, over eagerness to debate (this has popped in some threads that were specifically said to not be debate threads. Like the old Soul thread we had here), and the tendency to jump to conclusions.

^As I understand it, we are not allowed to report people for having unpopular opinions, which covers all of those categories, except maybe the wonk issues, but then, I can think of at least two posters who have serious wonks and yet are still around.

I made this post in Wiki Talk, and feel it is relevant.

My apologies for being late to this party. If other points were already brought up, I apologize in advance.

Some thoughts.

1) It seems that on a heated debate, say, Abortion, or Christian judgmentalism, some strong words are thrown about. Not rude, not debasing, simply...strong words. Somebody gets upset and basically shouts "MOM! Timmy called my shirt ugly". And a Mod swoops in and locks the thread. And it seems there's no possible way to say "Whoa. Hang on. All that's not necessary."

I said it seems that way. I'm open to hearing other takes on this.

2) A popular tactic from some tropers on this site is to accuse someone of un-troper-like behavior as a means of winning arguments. For instance. "Why is it wrong to deny a man and man a right to marry based on the fact that that's not the traditional view of marriage. After all we don't change it for people who want to marry more than one person. - Oh! You're using a Straw Argument! Mods look! - Um??? Where? It's a valid point."

3) I've seen plenty of self-policing on threads. On the abortion thread, tropers who may have been two steps from choking each other would team up in a heartbeat to stop some thread hopping troll.

Also, I myself and several others are quick to speak up against somebody being prematurely bumped or banned.

How much more policing should we do? And how much more policing CAN we do when the Mods swoop in shut down threads in a blink?

Blixy Cat - Hell yes. That was relevant. And I agree with you on certain points. Of course I feel that there's an overabundance of Bothering by the Book on this site and in OTC in particular already.

edited 24th Sep '11 3:04:46 PM by TheStarshipMaxima