It's hard to get a grip on all the arguments about the change, because they're strewn over many threads. But we're very keen on getting your feedback on this change, so we can look into any alterations we should make (though we're obviously going to leave enough time to see how this pans out before making any substantial changes). Though there might be certain issues on which staff would have reservations about significant change, consider for the sake of feedback that everything is on the table.

One of the main arguments I've seen so far is that it's annoying to have to flick between more than one forum; OT was something of a homepage for some, and now they have to decide between FC and FT.

Another is that it means there isn't much of a middle ground; however much we don't want FC to be associated just with RD-type discussions, that's what's going to happen. This could mean people don't feel up to putting in the effort with FC threads, or alternatively, that they don't want to have to deal with the crap in higher-traffic FT threads.

On the other hand, I gather a lot of people like the 'let the free market decide' approach of moderation, whereby you have a choice to posting in a forum subject to the previous rules, or in a forum with laxer standards. There are arguments against this too (like the fact that the moderation standard is decided by OPs, who make up a subset of posters, rather than being directly decided by participants), so if you don't like this approach, please let us know why.

On thing...
Don't mention PC in this thread (on pain of deletion/infraction). As far as I'm concerned, you're free to complain about it until you go hoarse, and you have other threads to do that in (one on that specific topic). But this thread is for feedback on other issues with the change; issues which your feedback is likely to actually have an impact on.

Thanks for your feedback. :)

Amputation and further division of the OT just stifles it IMO. Instead of further empowering the community, you're just dividing it. I'd rather it be one whole with a little bit of everything, rather than secluded forums with reduced traffic in each one, but with in depth look at each topic.

I'm with TK's reunification plan (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458153), as I think that would lead to the most success in the OT and the least amount of complaints about moderation style.

EDIT: I can expand on this later if you want, I'm posting this right before I go to bed, so it feels a tad half-hearted.

EDIT: I can expand on this later if you want, I'm posting this right before I go to bed, so it feels a tad half-hearted.

That would be good. :yup:

Forum Civilium is just going to be for red diamond threads. It's more visible to those who are unfamiliar to the concept of red diamond so there'll be more activity there than in all of the previous red diaond threads combined. But the cost of splitting everything across two forums does not seem worth it. TK's plan is a good one. It expands the use of red diamonds without splitting the OT.

I'm unsure about the difference between a Red Diamond thread and FC. I think there's a difference, but I'd be darned if I could tell what it is.

Also, I am opposed to consolidating Colosseum fora into OT.

It reminds me of the problems I had with Civ IV vs. Civ V, or Dragon Age:Origins vs. Dragon Age 2. Since this is a ultimately a gaming forum, those comparisons seem apt, I guess.

It's the whole "drastic change that wasn't really called for & no one asked for" that bothers me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, more or less. Were things broke? Not really. Could things have been tweaked? Sure. But not like this.

You fixed something that wasn't broke. And what's worse, the vast majority of the people affected by the change were not allowed to weigh in beforehand. You DA:2'd it, instead of Skyrim'ing it, I guess, IMO, if that makes sense.

And what's worse, the vast majority of the people affected by the change were not allowed to weigh in beforehand.

Site Feedback has a 14 page public thread about moderation and OT. Everyone could have weighed in. The planning office is a lot closer than Alpha Centauri.

My new ability to loosen up and go off topic in an off topic forum, for the sake of a few laughs, has come at the expense of other posters' dissent.

Please reunite OT and back of on moderation when it isn't asked for.

An idea ive been tossing around today is this:

Allow duplicate discussions. One can be lax, the other serious, but just one of each. Don't want jokes in your discussion of the European crisis? Make a thread called "Discussion Topic: The European Crisis" and throw a red diamond on. See potential for real digging in a thread on the effects and subtleties on Alaskan trout fishing? Start your own discussion. You could even make a sticky or announcement proclaiming that this is the new standard, so new members can be acquainted.

My new ability to loosen up and go off topic in an off topic forum, for the sake of a few laughs, has come at the expense of other posters' dissent.

Just to clarify this point; are you saying that you oppose the changes because they are unpopular (and so could lead to people leaving)? If it were a popular change, what aspects of it would you like or dislike?

Just to clarify this point; are you saying that you oppose the changes because they are unpopular (and so could lead to people leaving)? If it were a popular change, what aspects of it would you like or dislike?

As a member, I am tied to the mood of my fellow forum goers. Some good posters are dissatisfied enough to leave, and that does affect me.

Actual structural opinions have been edited in.

I like it giving people a clear place to go for what, but dislike its implementation. I also like that off-topic can live up to its name, and that the mods do see we want a place for les than serious discussion.

It's the whole "drastic change that wasn't really called for & no one asked for" that bothers me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, more or less. Were things broke? Not really. Could things have been tweaked? Sure. But not like this.

You fixed something that wasn't broke.

It was broke. Maybe I am just getting old, but CFC OT was primarily a debating forum once. Then the number of BS threads (and posters less inclined to properly talk about things) began to grow and they ended up flooding the forum.

It was about time to separate seeds from chaff, if you ask me.

It's wrong, unnecessary, confusing and everything should go back to what it was.

Seriously, what is with people changing website layouts when they work well the way they were? Suddenly everybody goes Youtube or Facebook on pretty much everything and it MUST stop because almost NOBODY likes it.

Stop being mainstream for the sake of it.

EDIT: Apparently a third of the OT users approve of the split.

It's wrong, unnecessary, confusing and everything should go back to what it was.

Seriously, what is with people changing website layouts when they work well the way they were? Suddenly everybody goes Youtube or Facebook on pretty much everything and it MUST stop because almost NOBODY likes it.

Stop being mainstream for the sake of it.

EDIT: Apparently a third of the OT users approve of the split.

Clearly the poster above you has a problem with the way things were. Why continue to marginalized him, when a solution for all can be found?

Taberna is close to what OT was before the change towards SRSBSN moderating.

Already posted this before, just posting it again for this thread's sake:

I actually have no problem with this decision. I think making the two separate subforums was a good idea. The things I don't like are the

a.) decision to release it on April 1
b.) the condescending, rude, even dickish way in which many of the moderators are handling the whole thing. Come on, guys, you know this forum is full of change-averse posters who will be confused and angry about the whole thing, the least you could do is not be such asshats about it. This to me is the worst part of this whole ordeal. You all should be ashamed to call yourselves moderators.
c.) The lack of PC for OT-JR.

a) will be fixed with time. b) and c) can be very easily remedied; do that and I couldn't be happier.

The problem is posters who make bad posts.

I don't see any reason to make new rules to try to fix these posters (which doesn't work), or to make rules to justify eventually banning these posters (which takes too long, and results in posters who make good posts also getting banned). Just ban the posters who make bad posts without an intermediate steps.

I've held back and just lurked for a few days. My somewhat scattered thoughts...

1. I'm not immediately opposed to the change. OT:SRS will get less traffic overall, but I don't think that's necessarily undesirable or even unexpected.

2. The xkcd forums have a similar split (General vs Serious Business) and SB, as a rule, gets less traffic, features longer posts, and has more extended discussion. Threads can stay on the front page for weeks.

3. I'm known, I think, as a fairly content-heavy posters around here. I like to throw around graphs and statistics; OT:SRS should be "just right" for my posting style. Yet I predict that I'll spend the vast majority of my time in OT:lite. I'll peek into the other forum to comment on relevant economic/political/statistical topics (daily charts and graphs, the oil thread, etc) but can't see myself idling there. I can see myself idling in OT:lite.

4. OT:SRS will become a niche forum, just like History, A&E, Comp Talk, and the rest. Whether it withers and dies depends largely on whether enough long-established posters take sufficient interest in keeping it alive.

Well, we'll see.

Like:
a) the possibility of extended discussion on OT:SRS
b) less silly overmoderation of topics on OT:lite

Dislike
c) OT:SRS withering and dying, and with it established "content-heavy" posters leaving.

And honesty, we had (a) before.

I predict that I will, on net, post less often under the new regime than I did under the old one.

--


OT was something of a homepage for some, and now they have to decide between FC and FT.
Heck, OT was my homepage (along with google reader). CFC is my "home forum" on the internets, it's where I have the most well-developed and long-standing online persona and I've made valuable contacts here. I virtually always have an OT tab up whenever I'm on the internet.


--

Did we decide if this was a joke or not? I was away most of the 1st.

If it is, well, well played sirs, but I think its time to end the joke. If it isn't...while I respect what you all are trying to do, in typical OT mod fashion, you've ended up making things worse. This creates a logistical mess, when far less heavy handed tricks would have worked.

I'll prob bail for good if this continues.
In particular, if downtown's out, after the exodus of so many good posters, I'll probably end up bailing too, eventually. That's just peer effects: if we lose too many good posters, there's no reason for me to hang around. There's always IRC.

The split can work but if it results in another exodus, the costs will seriously outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, the mods can't go back now without losing face. :(

Site Feedback has a 14 page public thread about moderation and OT. Everyone could have weighed in. The planning office is a lot closer than Alpha Centauri.
The problem is, a lot of people are too lazy (or insecure -- I've been there. :blush: ) to venture beyond their forum or subforum of choice, and thus most will have never seen that thread.

Perhaps one could post a very public or forum-wide (or at least, Colosseum-wide) link to it, giving everyone a chance to weigh in? :)

My biggest gripe with the change is the removal of...

On thing...
Don't mention PC in this thread (on pain of deletion/infraction). As far as I'm concerned, you're free to complain about it until you go hoarse, and you have other threads to do that in (one on that specific topic). But this thread is for feedback on other issues with the change; issues which your feedback is likely to actually have an impact on.



Well, apart from that, I mostly like the split. Especially the relaxation of the moderation on the harmless fun style posts.

I like it, but others apparently don't. It is fun to watch people get all angry over this though.

Kagamin~

I am basically indifferent except in that if others bail, it'll affect the quality of life in this place.

Also there are 9001 discussion threads on this across a half-dozen forums and I have no idea which one I'm supposed to be commenting in. :(

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here. Seems like a serious topic to me. Same goes for the Islam and Women one.

And why is the Off Topic still there?

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here. Seems like a serious topic to me. Same goes for the Islam and Women one.

And why is the Off Topic still there?
These things, taken together, are strong indicators that this is not a permanent change.

Alternatively, they could just be indicative that the moderator hive mind is a) incompetent at deciding what is serious business and what isn't, which is something that is well established anyway and b) holding back on 'full' implementation of these changes until later. Neither one of these explanations is particularly compelling.

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here. Seems like a serious topic to me. Same goes for the Islam and Women one.

It would be if there actually be women participating.

Happy with the new name. :goodjob:

It was broke. Maybe I am just getting old, but CFC OT was primarily a debating forum once. Then the number of BS threads (and posters less inclined to properly talk about things) began to grow and they ended up flooding the forum.

It was about time to separate seeds from chaff, if you ask me.

I look at it from the other way, but come to the same conclusion. There was a time when OT was more accommodating of whimsy, non-serious threads, the occasional personal thread, and so on. The more serious nature of New OT (and this is due as much to the super-political focus of the posters as the moderation) put me off posting there - I don't want to see the serious threads, and I don't want the possibility of being kvetched at by the OP for not being serious enough in his thread.

I quite like the chaff and don't want to bother with the seeds. The split is a good thing.

I don't like the changes much but the thought of leaving the forum over something so trivial hadn't crossed my mind.

I like the change. I can easily find serious threads that I want to read, like Winner's space thread, in the serious area. Though I may not ever post there. And in the non-serious area I can read, and occassionally post, random nonsense.

I'm cool with it now and kind of like how I can choose from a range of serious threads all bundled together should I be in the mood for serious stuff . As far as some of the other concerns , post count is a non issue for me , likewise the forum names . But PLEASE mods , can you put a link at the top between the 2 forums instead of having to go via colosseum to switch between them .

Ultimately , there are no structural changes to the forums that can put a dent in the pleasure I derive from reading the contributions of all you guys and gals.

I like the change, think it makes a lot of sense, and would like to see it given a fair chance.

Thing is, though, I very much doubt it's going to get that chance. Too many prominent posters here have become hypersensitive to offence cause by mods, and seem determined to oppose any change unless the mods offer it on bended knee. It may be that TK's solution is the only one that stands a chance, simply because it comes from a non-mod, and thus can be viewed as a victory by those who are determined to give the mods a bloody nose.

But PLEASE mods , can you put a link at the top between the 2 forums instead of having to go via colosseum to switch between them .

Now that's a good idea :goodjob:

I posted some stuff in the other thread, but the main points have already been either addressed or deemed "out of scope" for this thread.

On the whole, I like the split, and I think it's a good thing. I hope people vote with their feet within OT, rather than vote with their feet by leaving OT.

And FYI, I'm still going to call this place OT :p

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here. Seems like a serious topic to me. Same goes for the Islam and Women one.
I pointed this out right from the start. Apparently as soon as a thread reaches a certain length, it's automatically regarded as spammy. It wouldn't even be too bad if this fact wouldn't set a precedent for people starting more threads with similarly serious content in The Tavern, which will leave the Debate Forum for philosophical discussions and other academia at best.

I've held back and just lurked for a few days. My somewhat scattered thoughts...

1. I'm not immediately opposed to the change. OT:SRS will get less traffic overall, but I don't think that's necessarily undesirable or even unexpected.

2. The xkcd forums have a similar split (General vs Serious Business) and SB, as a rule, gets less traffic, features longer posts, and has more extended discussion. Threads can stay on the front page for weeks.

3. I'm known, I think, as a fairly content-heavy posters around here. I like to throw around graphs and statistics; OT:SRS should be "just right" for my posting style. Yet I predict that I'll spend the vast majority of my time in OT:lite. I'll peek into the other forum to comment on relevant economic/political/statistical topics (daily charts and graphs, the oil thread, etc) but can't see myself idling there. I can see myself idling in OT:lite.

4. OT:SRS will become a niche forum, just like History, A&E, Comp Talk, and the rest. Whether it withers and dies depends largely on whether enough long-established posters take sufficient interest in keeping it alive.

Well, we'll see.

Like:
a) the possibility of extended discussion on OT:SRS
b) less silly overmoderation of topics on OT:lite

Dislike
c) OT:SRS withering and dying, and with it established "content-heavy" posters leaving.

And honesty, we had (a) before.

I predict that I will, on net, post less often under the new regime than I did under the old one.

--



Heck, OT was my homepage (along with google reader). CFC is my "home forum" on the internets, it's where I have the most well-developed and long-standing online persona and I've made valuable contacts here. I virtually always have an OT tab up whenever I'm on the internet.


--


In particular, if downtown's out, after the exodus of so many good posters, I'll probably end up bailing too, eventually. That's just peer effects: if we lose too many good posters, there's no reason for me to hang around. There's always IRC.

The split can work but if it results in another exodus, the costs will seriously outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, the mods can't go back now without losing face. :(


This is good. I also am here primarily for the people. If the people I like are leaving, then there's little to nothing keeping me here.

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here.
Thread title and thread starter. A more SRS Martin thread can be started in the Gated Community if somneone has the initiative.
It wouldn't even be too bad if this fact wouldn't set a precedent for people starting more threads with similarly serious content in The Tavern,
Serious content threads are allowed in the Tavern. Under current moderation standards, it is the only way you are going to get certain posters to contribute to such topics.

So I've had a little time to think it over...

I don't think that a split, necessarily, is a bad idea. It might end up working, although I'm not sure what was wrong with teh RD of threads...I think that will end up showing the true demand for those kinds of SRSBIZ sorts of threads. Even if I have something that I'd like to discuss at a higher level, I'll prob post it the downtown (or tavern, or whatever) OT...just because more people will read it. The main benefit of OT, in my eyes, is the activity level.

I think the communication from staff was really poor. Picking 4/1 as a roll out date was dumb, and yeah, some mods have been a little douchy about the whole thing. I get that you guys are tired of the constant bellyaching. I would be too honestly...some people take this stuff waaaay too seriously...but that doesn't mean this couldn't have been done better.

Removing PC from "The Tavern" seemed to also be a dumb move, without any real benefit, but it apparently did make a lot of people mad.

At the end of the day, it's going to be a learning process to figure out where everything goes. I think people will vote with their feet, like they did for A&E, which is why several posters try to sneak more A&E type threads into OT...because they want people to read them, and most folks dont go there. Same with Science.

I rarely go to this place outside of work, and the reason I do is because of high volume posting....I can make a post, leave for 30 min, make some phone calls, and then come back when work is slow again to see an actual discussion. If traffic slows, then the place loses some allure.

I would like to see the merging of the other coliseum forums into the two OTs. More views means more discussion, which keeps this place interesting. I like the volume of OT because when I have nothing to do at work, or in bored in class I can pop on here and find new additions to the discussions.

I also support the adding if a link to the top of the OTs that directs you to the other.

But PLEASE mods , can you put a link at the top between the 2 forums instead of having to go via colosseum to switch between them .

You're just not browsing efficiently.

Efficient way of browsing is to bookmark the main forum page, then open every subforum you want in a new tab.

Then go through each subforum tab, and open every page of every thread you want to read in a new tab.

You're just not browsing efficiently.

Efficient way of browsing is to bookmark the main forum page, then open every subforum you want in a new tab.

Then go through each subforum tab, and open every page of every thread you want to read in a new tab.

this is what I do when I have a computer, but most of my browsing in cfc is through a phone, and its browser only has 6 tabs, and they are a pain to use.

I don't get why the thread on Trayvon Martin stays here. Seems like a serious topic to me. Same goes for the Islam and Women one.

And why is the Off Topic still there?

Who says you can't discuss a serious topic here? The topic itself may be serious, but you can't control who post in it or the type of post they make. The AGW thread is a very serious topic but you just know a lot of ditto heads are going to post in there to put in their various denials of reality.

I'll take it but the biggest problem is how ham handed and dense the mods seem to complaints. That is why complaints continue not that everyone is just whiney (although that may also be true). So a major complaint has been over modding of discussion style. The solution-create a stricter modding designation-RD. The first question everyone asks is will this lead to lighter modding of other threads? Answer-well not explicitly discussed but sure probably. Result no, same over modding of other threads. So the response to the complaint of overmodding is to create a category for even stricter level of modding. It’s mind boggling and you wonder why people complain? You could have solved the problem with RD and an FT level for the rest of OT as suggested now and back then in Birds 20 page long thread on the topic.
The new solution-split. Fine I’ll take it but in the process you denigrate the new forum-not for srs discussion- no PC? Really, I see plenty srs discussion and no increase in spam over OT. The majority essentially consider it the new OT but the mods seem to consider it some ghetto for the childish and un-srs. It is bound to reduce traffic and confuse new posters but whatever people will eventually figure it out.

The problem is posters who make bad posts.

I don't see any reason to make new rules to try to fix these posters (which doesn't work), or to make rules to justify eventually banning these posters (which takes too long, and results in posters who make good posts also getting banned). Just ban the posters who make bad posts without an intermediate steps.

Translation: Ban people who disagree with me.

That is not a good way to deal with problematic posters.

Translation: Ban people who disagree with me.
There are good posters that disagree with me, they just are laboring under the disadvantage of being wrong and this negatively impacts the crispness of their posts.

4. OT:SRS will become a niche forum, just like History, A&E, Comp Talk, and the rest. Whether it withers and dies depends largely on whether enough long-established posters take sufficient interest in keeping it alive.

Good post.

I think that if S/T and A/E were moved into SRSBZNS then it would be cleaner.

And why is the Off Topic still there?

They'd have a genuine riot on their hands if they erased it.

They need to unlock posting in existing #18 threads and move anything that gets bumped.

Good post.

I think that if S/T and A/E were moved into SRSBZNS then it would be cleaner.
The downside is that that will bring "TP" back into OT, when there already is an unwritten ban on "TP", if A/E was merged back in with SRSBZNS, which would make it no longer SRSBZNS.

Although I do like merging S/T with SRSBZNS. :)

Assuming SRSBZNS = Civillium/The Debating Chamber

EDIT: "TP" should be kept out of The Tavern too, btw.

A merge of one of the other subforums would really just apply to the threads moved. It's not like you couldn't have a sci/tech or whatever thread in either OT:SRSBZNS or OT:SPAM.

A merge of one of the other subforums would really just apply to the threads moved. It's not like you couldn't have a sci/tech or whatever thread in either OT:SRSBZNS or OT:SPAM.

This is the real problem as there's no ban on Pettyness in NOT which means the good thread will get spammed with them. I actually have no problem with Petty in SRSBZNS as I never go there anyway.

PE, I think you'd see a return of TP rule if its removal was abused. Just speculating. Don't take that as an official comment. :)

I think that if S/T and A/E were moved into SRSBZNS then it would be cleaner.

1. This.
You should do that soon. Preferably you should have done that with the change. There is so much overlap between these forums that usually results in those topics not being started in the first place.
For example: I would love to debate the cultural and political significance of books and movies. The usual way for this to go down so far was: Thread gets startet in OT, lively debate, thread gets moved to AE, thread dies.
This will only get worse with more forums around.

2. Just merge the old OT with the tavern and re-open all those 58k threads.

3. On PC. If you really care all that much about pc-motivated spam, just disable PC for the entire colloseum. I'd defend that. But the way you wanted to go was no good for a variety of reasons. Glad you stepped away from that.

4. Just outsource the naming of the forums. :mischief: :)

As i said, i see a lot of positive aspects in having this two-forum-solution. If you actually do (1) and (2) that would by in my view superior to what TK proposed (simply due to the slower pace of many RD threads).
But if you don't do (1) and (2) i doubt the "civil debate" forum will be a success.

Good post.

I think that if S/T and A/E were moved into SRSBZNS then it would be cleaner.

A/E isn't that SRSBZNS.

"Humor and Jokes", "A&E" and "Other Civ-related sites" should be left separate while everything else moves into one single off-topic. My reasoning is that subjects in all of these forums overlap in numerous places, especially in the off-topic where people will start threads entirely about history and then say "no one cares about the World History section so it would be better to post it here". That statement is entirely true as well. The overlap simply adds confusion when all these things should be in one package. Splitting the OT into two has only made this problem worse. Now, civil debate is occurring in the "Tavern" while light-hearted debate takes place in the "Debating Chamber". I really don't notice a substantial difference in the type of debate that takes place in each forum. It's merely confusing and I have to flip a coin to decide where I'm going to start my thread.

A/E isn't that SRSBZNS.

In my view SRSBZNS isn't all that SRSBZNS. It's merely supposed to be rational and threads are supposed to stay actually on topic a bit more.
Maybe my percetion is wrong, though. :)

*shrug*