In which we Discuss the Quality of OT

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Are you taking responsibility for "the declining quality of OT"?

Not intentionally, but my views, which sometimes haven't been mentioned in the thread and are completely irrelevent are often braught up for some reason. As soon as this happens the thread derails into a flamefest.

 

[Swedishguy]

Read some of the threads in this link, when get back to me.

 

[Merkinball]

The quality of OT has been declining steadily for awhile now. It has become almost impossible to have a debate without trolling, flaming, or insults. The maturity level has declined since 2006. It also doesn't help that some users seem to take pride in gang banging others. It has become more of a play house for a select group of users than a place for reasonable discussion. The large number of stupid threads (Who's The Sexiest Dicatator?) that has popped up in the last month or so hasn't helped.

I think most of it could be helped if the mods were more strict. Don't allow trolling/flaming/insults of any level and delete/close useless spam threads.

Yeah, I agree. When you add up all the trolling/flaming/insults/fake car crash/fake death/fake girlfriend threads. There really isn't a whole lot of quality is there?

 

[Ansar]

I think most of it could be helped if the mods were more strict. Don't allow trolling/flaming/insults of any level and delete/close useless spam threads.

Are you suggesting a forum with no fun?

 

[Mise]

Things were so much better when I was a lad...

I don't think there's anything wrong with OT. It's got some cool people.

 

[The Yankee]

A lot of the things people are complaining about with OT have been there for years, probably since the beginning. In fact, I once took the wayback machine and searched for some of the things in OT before I even found CFC...and it was a much spammier, less mature place in what snippets I've found (I mostly searched around September 2001 to see what was said in OT at the time).

So we have OT's unique character here and it is and remains a remarkable experience. As long as you and I keep that up. There is no point in complaining about the decline of OT without having a hand in it, since it is ours. The moderators have their job, which they've done quite well, especially given the size of OT. It is up to us to fill the rest of OT with the quality that you're all seeking.

 

[Plotinus]

The main reason I largely stopped posting in Off-Topic was simply the level of discussion. There were, and presumably still are, so many threads consisting mostly of people arguing about subjects about which they knew very little. It's never been particularly civil or enlightening. I don't agree with those who consider maturity to be an undesirable characteristic. It seemed to me that there were, and perhaps still are, many posters who (1) are very young (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), and (2) liked to adopt what they considered radical or "shocking" positions, without ever really thinking them through, like Rick from The Young Ones. And that gets boring very quickly. Plus I must say I didn't really warm to the overly American feel to the topics and the ways they were discussed, quite apart from the generally right-wing attitudes on display.

There were and are many exceptions to all of this, and I took part in some very brain-expanding discussions on various topics where I learned a lot, even where I didn't expect to. But I eventually decided that wading through the rest of it in search of those good elements was not a good use of my time, which is why I don't participate there any more unless someone shows me a link to a thread of particular interest. Also, I was alarmed at my rising post count, which I really don't like.

I have to say that other discussion boards I occasionally frequent seem to be far nastier than CFC OT, though, so perhaps this place is forum-lite, as it were. In which case, humanity's in a worse state than I'd ever have guessed otherwise.

 

[The Yankee]

There were, and presumably still are, so many threads consisting mostly of people arguing about subjects about which they knew very little.

OT wouldn't exist if people had to know what they were talking about in order to post.

Not that I'm very helpful towards increasing the conversational content of the place, unfortunately.

 

[mdwh]

I don't think the type of threads allowed is a problem. If you don't like it, don't read it. I've only encountered this as being a rare problem on forums if one type of thread gets spammed over and over again. In fact, this forum seems to have the most strictest mod action regarding locking threads that I've seen on any forum: Mod doesn't personally like the thread topic? Let's lock it! Disagree with the points being made? Let's lock it! A few posters causing trouble and we can't be bothered to deal with it? Let's lock it!

So I don't think being too lax in locking threads is the problem.

One problem is that not everyone agrees with what counts as a worthwhile topic - so you might rather not see those sorts of threads, but other people might. There are lots of threads I don't like, but I don't see those getting locked.

This is off-topic, after all, so why are some things off-topic? Perhaps there could be more sub-forums to that politics etc didn't get put alongside any random off-topic thread.

On top of that I think they should try to ban certain topics or close popular threads if someone (or certain posters) doesn't behave. So the people who were seriously debating the topic will be mad at the people responsable for the ban or the closure. Much more effective then warnings. It works on other fora.

No it isn't, and no it doesn't - that just makes me mad at the mods. And the troublesome people don't change their behavior, because they are not dealt with. Even if people are mad at them, why should they care?

I speak as someone who is a mod on another forum. We do our best to deal with individuals rather than just locking all the threads. If you do that, why bother having a forum? A forum you can't post to must be 100% flame free, so it must be good!

This is the same sort of logic teachers give in school when they keep the whole class behind, saying the other kids should have stopped them. Which is absurd, because they don't have any powers to deal with it, unlike the teachers.

Since regular posters are unable to have the powers to deal with troublesome posters, it is equally absurd to cause them to get mad at the troublemakers. If I see trouble stirring up again, what am I to do? I'm less likely to report it to a mod, if they just lock the thread again. Perhaps I'll tell him to STFU, but that'll just cause the flaming to get worse.

 

[Berrie]

@ ^

Maybe you don't like the method, that's fine. I can understand that.

But does it work? hell, yes. Have you ever followed one of those team-building events for managers where they test team-spirit by using existing knowledge on group psychology.
I can assure you, you would be surprised of the power of group dynamics. One person (even the one in charge) is mad at you: you shrug it off. The whole group is mad at you: you feel small.

And my feelings about OT resemble those of Plotinus. With the difference I never really started to post much in OT. Not worth my time.

 

[mdwh]

The difference there is that they (a) know each other, and (b) because they are working together in a team, they can significantly influence each other.

Here, any trolls don't care about random other people on the Internet, and I as a user have no way to control their behaviour. Are the mods going to give regular users that power?

(I'm not sure that such team-management-courses really work in any meaningful sense, anyway. Plus people have to go on them as part of their job - on a forum, people just get annoyed and leave.)

 

[ainwood]

In fact, this forum seems to have the most strictest mod action regarding locking threads that I've seen on any forum: Mod doesn't personally like the thread topic? Let's lock it! Disagree with the points being made? Let's lock it! A few posters causing trouble and we can't be bothered to deal with it? Let's lock it!

Your assertions are largely incorrect. I have never locked a thread because I have disagreed with any points being made. I have never locked a thread because I personally don't like the topic. People who moderate in that manner should not be moderators.

However, I have locked threads because I can't be bothered dealing with them, but most often this is when the thread is entirely derailed, and is infrequent. If I can resurrect it (and, importantly, I have time), then I clean them up.

I have also locked topics that I feel are outwith the forum rules, or will degenerate into flaming & trolling or spam.

 

[Ansar]

Maybe not you ainwood, but there have been cases.

(Note: I did not mention any mods specifically).

 

[ainwood]

Maybe not you ainwood, but there have been cases.

(Note: I did not mention any mods specifically).

He appears to be arguing that this is almost forum policy.

 

[Berrie]

The difference there is that they (a) know each other, and (b) because they are working together in a team, they can significantly influence each other.

Here, any trolls don't care about random other people on the Internet, and I as a user have no way to control their behaviour. Are the mods going to give regular users that power?

(I'm not sure that such team-management-courses really work in any meaningful sense, anyway. Plus people have to go on them as part of their job - on a forum, people just get annoyed and leave.)

You're missing the point.

1) I was trying to say that you underestimate the power of group dynamics.

2) It isn't about random other people on the internet. The forum is often referred to as a community because it is in some way. Certainly in OT people care about (some) other people and what they think. Heck, OT looks sometimes like a popularity contest.

3) I never said to give powers to users. They already have a certain power as a group: social pressure.

 

[mdwh]

Your assertions are largely incorrect. I have never locked a thread because I have disagreed with any points being made. I have never locked a thread because I personally don't like the topic. People who moderate in that manner should not be moderators.

Fair enough, it's not every mod who does this. But:

However, I have locked threads because I can't be bothered dealing with them, but most often this is when the thread is entirely derailed, and is infrequent. If I can resurrect it (and, importantly, I have time), then I clean them up.

I have also locked topics that I feel are outwith the forum rules, or will degenerate into flaming & trolling or spam.

Fair enough if the thread itself is outside of forum rules, but sometimes people are having legitimite discussion whilst a couple of posters have derailed the thread, and I'm not sure about locking things because it might degenerate into something. As I say, I mod on a forum, and I do would never lock a thread because "I can't be bothered dealing with with them".

I guess there's no point discussing hypothetical cases though, because understandably mods will get defensive - if I see a situation in future, I'll post it on this thread

 

[mdwh]

You're missing the point.

1) I was trying to say that you underestimate the power of group dynamics.

2) It isn't about random other people on the internet. The forum is often referred to as a community because it is in some way. Certainly in OT people care about (some) other people and what they think. Heck, OT looks sometimes like a popularity contest.

3) I never said to give powers to users. They already have a certain power as a group: social pressure.

Random or not - there is no way that I can influence trolls in the same way I could in a real life management training course that's done as part of a job.

If mods aren't able to do the job, then how on earth can regular users?

 

[mdwh]

And bingo - it's not long at all until an example comes along (see the age/sex thread):

I even tried to intervene to politely request we avoid immature comments (se page 4). But then by the time I come back - before I can intervene, it's been locked without even any indication of what was wrong with it.

So can it be explained how users wanting to discuss can avoid this happening, since threads are simply closed without bothering to deal with the troublemakers? Because the immature "let's punish everyone like this was back in school" can't work without us being able to.

Can at least mods give a warning that a thread will be closed, so people don't waste their time?

(Also what is the policy on creating threads to continue valid topics in a mature way?)

The topic of this thread is the Quality of OT - and the thing is, if topics are closed everytime this happens, then that itself means the quality itself is reduced further, just as much, if not more so, than the comments themselves (at least you can stop reading a thread you don't like - you can't continue a locked thread). Plus, whoever said anything disallowed in that thread won't know about it, and everyone will just think "It was closed because of what other people said", so we end up both with the immature comments, and with any legitimate discussion being locked because of it.

Any suggestions on how we can improve this situation?

 

[azzaman333]

Bringing out the banstick on those that derail the thread could be a start.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Idea: Maybe we could give some kind of a "Quality Member" badge to people who... well, are quality members in CFC. They could be given some privileges, such as a larger PM box or something, and also a cool badge under the user name like moderators have. I don't think that it would cause a big change in the quality of OT, but in long term it could raise it slightly, as new members could be encouraged to post with quality.

My 0.037592385 cents.