do you like the forum split?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The word ruthless is a little dramatic I think but I agree. Seriously doesn't have to be stuffy & silliness doesn't have to be stupid.

Given their description of the moderation practices to be expected in srs OT, yes, it is ruthless. Instant bans, long-term forum-specific bans, no warnings, no points leading up to bans. It's not constructive towards anything but quickly and effectively removing people who might cross the arbitrary boundaries once.

 

[Narz]

Oh I didn't read that, does sound ruthless actually & not very useful for stimulating intelligent discussions (as I find the people most willing to occasionally be silly are more interesting than those who want to be all super-serious all the time). Makes for better debates too when you can pause the back & forth to make a joke & acknowledge your own humanity & that of the person you're debating with.

 

[Mark1031]

Ever since becoming a mod in 2009, dealing with OT has done nothing but get harder and more time consuming. The site grew and the polarization that materialized in society and across the world took firmer shape in OT and even among the moderation staff. What was possible to accept as permissible in 2007 was not in 2010. While such an idea for splitting the forum is not original with me, Mathilda and i hatched a plot to do something similar a few years ago. It failed and eventually, showed up as the RD effort. My purpose then and now in supporting such efforts were two fold. First, to create a place where fun and banter were largely unrestricted and having fun took precedent over discussion content. And second, to fix the ongoing staff conflicts over what was acceptable to post. With such a forum split, moderating is simpler because each of the two forums has pretty clear guidelines for moderating and all the mods can agree on when to step in and when not to. This arrangement allows all the mods to be far more consistent and at the same time moderate less (which is one of my goals).

I don’t think that is exactly true. Let’s be real about this. The critical change was not the traffic, the polarization (Bush was the most polarizing figure there was from an international perspective-gone in 2008) or the posters or poster style. What changed is who were moderators and administrators and their singular opinion on how the site should be moderated. I suppose some members liked the stricter moderation but I’d be hard pressed to name one, some were neutral, and many chaffed under the restrictions.

People were not asking for a spam forum or a non-serious forum (both things were always allowed in OT to some extent- music, birthday, rants etc). They were asking for a forum in which they could converse in a normal manner for human beings-ie. serious mixed with joking, and pointed criticism. Essentially light trolling -JR style. That’s it and that’s the way it was in the old days and it produced this very vibrant and interesting forum. It was not overrun with spam for PC or flame wars. It was not a problem.

The condescending manner in which the new forum is presented and the removal of PC which many dislike is just an ill advised way to run things and irks people and some of the mods seem to be enjoying it. They essentially troll the whole community.

For people who claim to prefer serious fact based discussion they present very little of it regarding the changes. For example the removal of PC is for a perceived problem that has yet to materialize. Why not just allow it on a trial basis or present evidence on the level of spam infractions from the old OT relative to other areas to justify it. Go to FT and tell me what is the level of spam vs informative post? What is the level of srs discussion compared to the old OT? The data would not seem to support the reasoning for not allowing PC or calling it a forum for non-srs discussion. Is it beneath the people who actually make the decisions to discuss them with the community in a clear and reasonable and serious manner?

 

[flyingchicken]

I like it, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:
1.) Reinstate PC in Tavern
2.) Maintain the policy vision set out in Tavern
3.) Delete Debate
4.) Rename Tavern to Off-Topic

I might sound like a hypocrite here, having reported a terrible post from a terrible poster in the past, but that is a degree of evil I am willing to concede if it means people can talk to each other like normal human beings.

 

[Thlayli]

On behalf of OT-haters everywhere, I welcome this destruction of our hated enemy.

The only thing better would be the retrospective deletion of all OT postcount.

 

[warpus]

I've been busy

The split doesn't bother me. I just wish we had a subforum for American politics

 

[Takhisis]

So far I like the split per se, but there are a LOT of things about the way it was done that I dislike. I think the experiment should run for at least a month, and I think that moderators should be constantly tweaking it during that month, with regular, public reviews.

In no particular order (i.e. in the order they pop into my head):

1) The names are ********, pretentious, and completely nondescript. They don't give me any information about whether I'm in a serious forum or a frivolous forum. Just... Ugh...
2) There should be a warning on the OT-SR forum, at the top of each thread, to warn people that moderation will be harsher here
3) OT should have been left alone, not locked or archived. I cannot see any valid reason for locking it and moving threads one by one to a new forum, instead of just renaming OT to "OT-JR" and adding a new "OT-SR" forum, with the dozen or so "srsbzns" threads moved into there.
4) OT-JR should have post counts. I cannot see any valid reason for not having post counts on any part of the forum. Post count measures how many posts you have made, simple as that.
5) It should not have been done on April Fool's Day... My god, who's stupid idea was that?! You couldn't have waited until 2nd April to announce it?! What the hell were you thinking! More fool me for assuming a level of common sense that was clearly absent.

There are probably more things that I will think about later.

I love you Mise.

I'm going to adopt the controversial and extreme position of giving it a try, reserving judgement and seeing how I like it after a few weeks . Obviously I will have to endure great pain in the coming weeks as I face this trial .

Counter revolutionist!!

Reactionaries! To the guillotine with them!

Yeah, Lucy, I think we should've left the original OT and renamed it as one of the new OT and then made a 2nd OT.

Unfortunately, my time/availability is a bit spotty and limited atm, so I was more on the periphery of the change.

Pity.

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.

Some aspects of the implementation still have me thinking it might all be a joke :/

For me as well.

No, the current moderation is a joke.

I like it, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions:
1.) Reinstate PC in Tavern
2.) Maintain the policy vision set out in Tavern
3.) Delete Debate
4.) Rename Tavern to Off-Topic

I might sound like a hypocrite here, having reported a terrible post from a terrible poster in the past, but that is a degree of evil I am willing to concede if it means people can talk to each other like normal human beings.

I'd change point 4.) to 'merge Tavern with Off-Topic'.

On behalf of OT-haters everywhere, I welcome this destruction of our hated enemy.

The only thing better would be the retrospective deletion of all OT postcount.

Come our great day, we have something special planned for you.

 

[jtb1127]

The arbitrary boundaries between what is serious and constructive and what is not has always put be in opposition to red-diamond threads. Now I'm in opposition to this.

 

[innonimatu]

Given their description of the moderation practices to be expected in srs OT, yes, it is ruthless. Instant bans, long-term forum-specific bans, no warnings, no points leading up to bans. It's not constructive towards anything but quickly and effectively removing people who might cross the arbitrary boundaries once.

And I agree with this. The moderation on the old OT was tight enough as it was. A new forum with looser moderation? Good idea. Ruthless moderation for the rest of OT? That'll kill discussion if it gets applied, because you'll end up expelling every view but the "center" from there. Nothing left to discuss, why would people post just to say, basically, that they all agree?

 

[Dachs]

That'll kill discussion if it gets applied, because you'll end up expelling every view but the "center" from there. Nothing left to discuss, why would people post just to say, basically, that they all agree?

Nah. What it'll do is it'll kill discussion because people who hold horribly objectionable opinions that troll normal people by their mere existence will be even more explicitly protected because they're not, technically, trolling. So we get more of the same, which will drive away sensible posters and turn this place into a wasteland.

Well, into more of a wasteland.

 

[Kyriakos]

I guess some people have identified with the attacker for long enough, and now fail to see they have become one, or use convoluted reasoning to convince themselves they are something strikingly different.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Waited with my opinion for a few days. Don't like the split.

What's cracking me up is how everyone howls for change. Then a change is made (responding to criticism and trying to build a solution that addresses the criticism) and they just howl more.

Ok, this is the second time I'm reading this from a mod. Now, I love you all to bits, but please. I know you guys have more class than this.

Instead of going: oh you guys are unsatisfyable (good call by the way your honour, most of us are human beings which have such a tremendous reputation of being easily pleased) please do consider how mindbogglingly poorly the split was handled. As far as I know, no warning it was going to happen (if I missed it and there was one my criticism changes to the find-ability of that warning) and it was done on the 1st of April for Zeus' sake. Which one of you geniuses' dogs cooked that one up? A little introspection on that whopper would be appreciated.

Going by the reasoning, any change is good change. If we complain about people spamming threads, close the threads. A change is made to address the problem, so it's a good change. Now please stop complaining.

I don't know what criticism this is supposed to address, but it sure as heck isn't my main criticism that the forum is becoming more and more fragmented with little niches all over the Colosseum. I want my threads sitting pretty and waiting for me in one easily accessible place. (The only time I voiced that criticism prior to the split was one of them anonymous surveys).

I short, I don't know what the ef you guys are banging on about with your new found victim-routine, but it doesn't suit you guys. It clashes with your shoes.

 

[Camikaze]

Speaking for myself, I get the complaints about how some things have been perceived as being presented or discussed dismissively. I'm sorry if it's come off that way. We don't intend to give that impression, but perhaps frequent interaction/argument on contentious issues can lead us to be a bit abrupt.

I'm not too sure about the April 1st complaint though. Perhaps it's that you felt like the butt of the joke? I don't know. But from the perspective that it's meant to be a positive change, announcing it on April 1st (which, BTW, served as a very useful deadline, without which, for better or worse, staff discussions can become pretty interminable) doesn't strike me as bad timing. Our intention was certainly not to piss people off with the change date, but to provide some entertainment value (to the extent that April Fools day things are entertaining). Guilty as charged if you think this is far too serious a change for us to be trying to inject some levity into, but I can't say I really agree on that point (and so don't really understand it).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The date did not cause me to be pissed off, nor did it make me feel the butt of a joke. But I did log in on April the 1st. Saw what happened. Looked around and logged out thinking it'd be gone in a couple of days. It created predictable confusion.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

I just don't see why it was timed to coincide with April fools if it wasn't meant to be taken as a joke. To me that's like organising a trip to the pub and then complaining the crowd is rowdy because you scheduled the trip for new years eve; I mean what did you expect?

 

[LucyDuke]

I also endorsed the roll-out on April 1st. Honestly, I thought it would be funny as a reverse not-prank mind blowing prank that would make future pranks that much better as you will forever not know if we are serious or not. Haha. Apparently it did not go over well with some of you, and I am sorry about that, but ultimately, this is a website we visit to procrastinate/hang out with internet friends/rant/waste time on, so in the big picture, hopefully that does not get in the way of what we are trying to ultimately accomplish, which is make this little not-so-important slice of our lives a better place for everyone.

I thank you for acknowledging this.

The idea is to shift OT into a new direction. Yes, a split one, but new directions none the less. By closing the old forum we're trying to move away from what OT was from the moderator's viewpoint - a place that was a chore to moderate and often brought a lot of mod burnout. We realize there are a lot of valid discussion worthy threads still in OT, which is why we're asking that you report the posts and we'll gladly move them to the FC or FT (and I do agree, those are horrible names) where the discussion can continue. But just splitting a new subforum off to try and shove some of the OT stuff would not really be a new paradigm, it's simply another poorly executed attempt to relive some moderator headaches and ultimately would have zero net change.

We really want to change OT for the better. We want to foster serious discussions in an environment where trolling, flaming and spam are not prevalent. So we figured maybe if we gave a lighter-moderated forum where spam was tolerated, it would relieve the pressure and not have so much spam in the serious discussion part of the forum. We also figured since we were tolerating spam more, we could give an environment where some trolling and flaming was allowed, but not so it was detrimental to the discussion. We figured we could set up a forum where such things were tolerated more than they previously were. So, close the old OT, bring the discussions over that people really wanted to continue, and move into new directions.

We also looked at the infraction system. Not closely, but decided that we could try something different. I personally don't think the infraction system works well in the OT environment. We decided that the best options were to delete outright or ban outright, not play a system where trolling and flaming was tolerated and even condoned with a slap-on-the-wrist system. Does that mean that infractions are going away? Not right now, we'll see how the new system goes, and tweak from there.

So consider the FC the 'Red Diamond' forum, where serious discussion is encouraged. Yes, it will be slow. Yes, it won't see much traffic. But the discussions in there will evolve into a lesser moderated area as people realize that limited trolling and flaming is tolerated and spam can be largely be ignored. And those that do cross a line either have the posts deleted or are simply removed from the forums for a period of time.

I understand the reason for closing new discussions in #18, starting fresh. What I don't understand is the need to lock 58,482 threads. Bumping old threads is totally legitimate and having to bug a mod to move one then wait for one to show up and do it is making us jump through an unnecessary hoop. From this side, it feels like having to ask permission, and for no good reason. We shouldn't be treated like children.

Instead, you can set permissions in #18 such that posters can post in old threads, but not start new ones. Whenever a thread is bumped, move it to a live forum. It's super easy to see that a thread has been bumped, any mod can move it when he sees it, and we don't have to wait to post our posts. You could even change the forum description to mention to noobs that new posts in that forum will be moved.

Changing the infraction system is a good thing; I am enthusiastic on it.

Ever since becoming a mod in 2009, dealing with OT has done nothing but get harder and more time consuming. The site grew and the polarization that materialized in society and across the world took firmer shape in OT and even among the moderation staff. What was possible to accept as permissible in 2007 was not in 2010. While such an idea for splitting the forum is not original with me, Mathilda and i hatched a plot to do something similar a few years ago. It failed and eventually, showed up as the RD effort. My purpose then and now in supporting such efforts were two fold. First, to create a place where fun and banter were largely unrestricted and having fun took precedent over discussion content. And second, to fix the ongoing staff conflicts over what was acceptable to post. With such a forum split, moderating is simpler because each of the two forums has pretty clear guidelines for moderating and all the mods can agree on when to step in and when not to. This arrangement allows all the mods to be far more consistent and at the same time moderate less (which is one of my goals).

Everyone likes to complain about change that they did not participate in, and it is easy to find details you don't like: bad date; poor implementation, bad names, two new forums and a closed old forum, sassy mods, etc. etc. But I think you are missing the point. This is the path to consistent and readily anticipated moderation standards, which has been a major complaint for a long time. In addition you now have a place with very loose limits so that fun can lead the way. This is real change.

Is it fixed in place? Not at all. I expect that Science and Tech will soon be folded into the OT discussion forum expanding its draw. I would expect that over the next 90 days or so we will all find out if it was successful and if needed, make changes.

I think it has been a glorious success already. The FT threads are a joy to read and to contribute to. B1tch and moan all you like, but while you do so, please don't forget to enjoy the new found freedom to have some fun too.

Pretty clear guidelines - can you tell us what those guidelines are? Maybe some concrete examples? The only thing you've told us is that OT:SPAM will be moderated loosely and OT:SRS will be moderated strictly. It's not right for us to have to trip over the lines to figure out where they are.

And stop trivializing the complaints. Anybody that stuck out the age of the red text smackdown obviously gives a damn about this community. You could've discussed this with us. Instead you try to pass it off as a prank then the next day our bookmarks go to a graveyard and half the mods are being dicks, saying things that we would've been infracted for a week ago. I love the idea of mods with attitude. But you started playing before you bothered telling us we could play too. It didn't come across as sassy, it came across as condescending and rude. Take us seriously. We give a damn.

That's been made clear? I don't think it has.

I think they realize they've jerked us around enough already.

The condescending manner in which the new forum is presented and the removal of PC which many dislike is just an ill advised way to run things and irks people and some of the mods seem to be enjoying it. They essentially troll the whole community.

Yeah, I don't much care about the postcount, but it's showing the worst example of "because we said so" mod borging I have seen in all of my time here.

Speaking for myself, I get the complaints about how some things have been perceived as being presented or discussed dismissively. I'm sorry if it's come off that way. We don't intend to give that impression, but perhaps frequent interaction/argument on contentious issues can lead us to be a bit abrupt.

I'm not too sure about the April 1st complaint though. Perhaps it's that you felt like the butt of the joke? I don't know. But from the perspective that it's meant to be a positive change, announcing it on April 1st (which, BTW, served as a very useful deadline, without which, for better or worse, staff discussions can become pretty interminable) doesn't strike me as bad timing. Our intention was certainly not to piss people off with the change date, but to provide some entertainment value (to the extent that April Fools day things are entertaining). Guilty as charged if you think this is far too serious a change for us to be trying to inject some levity into, but I can't say I really agree on that point (and so don't really understand it).

Mise nailed it as usual.

The problem with the date was that it meant that some people (i.e. me) didn't take it seriously. Then, when it became clear that it was serious, it felt like you had snuck it in by the back door. If you look at the announcement thread that Ori made, there was practically no real discussion of it. That's why there's so much more complaining now, after the split.

It's a pretty major change that you know will ruffle feathers; it deserves to be treated more seriously.

I realize I'm repeating some stuff that's already been said. It's important to note the overlapping complaints.




And yeah, I think I like the forum split, but I'll reserve judgment until we see where it goes. Hopefully not to a mountain of H&J spam and a red card shooting range.

 

[JollyRoger]

I like the split, though not being able to Red Diamond a thread in the high traffic forum seems a bit of a restriction.

 

[Mark1031]

I like the split, though not being able to Red Diamond a thread in the high traffic forum seems a bit of a restriction.

You're just trying to backdoor the more reasonable solution of one OT with FT modding and RD for old modding standards. You're so subversive.

 

[JollyRoger]

By putting my Red Diamond thread in the non-postcount forum, it reduces the risk of spam.

 

[.Shane.]

Instead of going: oh you guys are unsatisfyable (good call by the way your honour, most of us are human beings which have such a tremendous reputation of being easily pleased) please do consider how mindbogglingly poorly the split was handled. As far as I know, no warning it was going to happen (if I missed it and there was one my criticism changes to the find-ability of that warning) and it was done on the 1st of April for Zeus' sake. Which one of you geniuses' dogs cooked that one up? A little introspection on that whopper would be appreciated.

Fair enough and I think some of the other comments regarding this make a lot of sense.

TBH, it all came together rather quickly (in stark contrast to how it seems we typically do things), so the Apr 1 roll out probably was not the best.

So, just for myself, I apologize for that. But, it was well intended.

Que sera.