Off Topic reorganization - Call for Comments

[ori]

To Our OT regulars,

The Chamber Tavern split, which we made in 2012, has been controversial ever since it happened. It was part of our recent OT survey and has been discussed frequently both in the public forums and in staff. One of our goals is to improve the experience for all of our members and the split was an effort to do just that. Many of you have told us that it has not done so. For more than a year you all have been voting with your posts and the Chamber is not the popular place we thought it would be a year ago. Whether it's the lighter moderation, the speed of thread creation and movement, the frivolous topics or members photos, it is quite obvious that the Tavern is the forum where the majority of you spend your time.

Given that, the staff would propose a change and recombine the Chamber and Tavern into a single Off Topic forum. Unlike the previous OT, we would keep the the lighter moderation of the Tavern as the standard for moderating. But to accommodate those who do want tougher standards for their discussions, we will encourage the use of the Red Diamond (RD) as an indicator that the thread starter would like a more restrictive and tougher moderation standard (a la the Chamber). Having two different moderating standards within the same forum will be challenging for both moderators and members. The staff is willing to take on that challenge if you all are also. RD threads can and should be used to facilitate discussion within a more controlled environment and as such lend themselves especially for more serious topics. Generally though all topics may be suitable for RD threads so long as the thread starter puts some effort into the opening post to start real discussion of the topic at hand.

Because RD threads are designed as a way for thread starters to ask for a more moderated allow for more controlled discussion it is generally fine to start such a thread even if another Non-RD thread already exists - the reverse is not generally true.


Our objectives:

1. Have a vibrant, inclusive forum where serious or fun discussions are welcome, and threads move along at a healthy pace.
2. Have mods who are involved and responsive and generally even-handed.
3. Maintain a fun but respectful (and PG-13) atmosphere.

So, tell us what you think. Ask your questions. Tell us where we will have problems. Thanks very much.

 

[azzaman333]

As long as Tavern level moderation remains, I couldn't care less about the supposed srsbizniz stuff.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because RD threads are designed as a way for thread starters to ask for a more moderated allow for more controlled discussion it is generally fine to start such a thread even if another Non-RD thread already exists - the reverse is not generally true.

This paragraph is confusing.

Let's say that two people want to create threads about ice cream cones. Poster A decides this is Fun Stuff and chooses not to use the RD. Poster B, however, decides that ice cream cones are Really Serious Things and insists on using the RD.

If Poster A's thread comes first, Poster B is allowed to make a RD thread, but if Poster B's thread comes first, Poster A is out of luck?

 

[Kyriakos]

I have to suppose that this is mostly a mod issue, ie the mods themselves don't feel like moderating in two supposedly different ways (afaik it's been months since the chamber had any sort of different moderation anyway). I can accept the mod issue of this kind (it is a bit of an overkill to have to moderate in clearly different ways, which did not work either) but the decision still is not a good one in my view. I am of the view that the notion of RD threads will die pretty soon as well.

However, given that my own ot threads are at least 95% tavern-posted threads, i do not mind much.

 

[bugwar]

I like the way things are now.

It works.

 

[Cutlass]

I haven't been participating in the discussions much recently. But I have been following. As I see it the opposing sides more or less break down like this:

For separate forums: It separates out a place where only the people really interested become involved, and most of the nonsense is elsewhere.

Against separate forums: It reduces participation and topics get fewer reads and replies by fewer people, making them less interesting to most people, people tend to stop looking at the smaller separate subforums.

Given this understanding of the subject, I have to come down on the side of latter point. .Shane.'s original point for separate forums was not for different levels of moderation, but rather to simply exclude people who refused to behave from one of them. But what we get instead is that with smaller forums, and less participation, is that we simply get fewer people participating.

Now I have a lot of forum experience. I moderate on a forum that, in it's prime, had as much traffic and posts as CFC did in it's prime. I've also been a participant in many small forums. And you know what?

Small forums die.

A person leaves here and there, fewer new people show up and take their place, and traffic withers away. That's true in A&E, S&T, and IaLS. It's just the nature of the system.

 

[CavLancer]

I like it as is, but I'm not going to get in a twist if its changed.

Just an idea, some people really like post counts. If you double the points for a serious post in the Chamber...? Might put some folks in there.

Alternately serious threads which are located in the Tavern could be moved to the Chamber, of course that's a lot of work and would be a tough sell.

If there were trolls here I would much prefer the Chamber, and if the Tavern were to be let go I'd spend a lot more time there. As long as the moderation efforts remain active I'm okay with one forum because trolls and spammers don't bother. :b: That I can see anyway, I'm sure in reality its a constant effort.

 

[Joecoolyo]

To Our OT regulars,

The Chamber Tavern split, which we made in 2012, has been controversial ever since it happened. It was part of our recent OT survey and has been discussed frequently both in the public forums and in staff. One of our goals is to improve the experience for all of our members and the split was an effort to do just that. Many of you have told us that it has not done so. For more than a year you all have been voting with your posts and the Chamber is not the popular place we thought it would be a year ago. Whether it's the lighter moderation, the speed of thread creation and movement, the frivolous topics or members photos, it is quite obvious that the Tavern is the forum where the majority of you spend your time.

Given that, the staff would propose a change and recombine the Chamber and Tavern into a single Off Topic forum. Unlike the previous OT, we would keep the the lighter moderation of the Tavern as the standard for moderating. But to accommodate those who do want tougher standards for their discussions, we will encourage the use of the Red Diamond (RD) as an indicator that the thread starter would like a more restrictive and tougher moderation standard (a la the Chamber). Having two different moderating standards within the same forum will be challenging for both moderators and members. The staff is willing to take on that challenge if you all are also. RD threads can and should be used to facilitate discussion within a more controlled environment and as such lend themselves especially for more serious topics. Generally though all topics may be suitable for RD threads so long as the thread starter puts some effort into the opening post to start real discussion of the topic at hand.

Because RD threads are designed as a way for thread starters to ask for a more moderated allow for more controlled discussion it is generally fine to start such a thread even if another Non-RD thread already exists - the reverse is not generally true.


Our objectives:

1. Have a vibrant, inclusive forum where serious or fun discussions are welcome, and threads move along at a healthy pace.
2. Have mods who are involved and responsive and generally even-handed.
3. Maintain a fun but respectful (and PG-13) atmosphere.

So, tell us what you think. Ask your questions. Tell us where we will have problems. Thanks very much.

I am completely in favor of this proposal, and have been since the split. Keeps the community in one place, while allowing for higher moderation should posters want it.

If you plan on doing this, count my vote as "good to go".

 

[Mise]

Sounds great to me.

 

[Borachio]

Our objectives:

1. Have a vibrant, inclusive forum where serious or fun discussions are welcome, and threads move along at a healthy pace.
2. Have mods who are involved and responsive and generally even-handed.
3. Maintain a fun but respectful (and PG-13) atmosphere.

Yes. Anything that might achieve these objectives is good, imo.

But, like Mrs D'Ur, I am confused why a serious-thread can have the same subject after a fun-thread has already begun. But not vice versa.

 

[Camikaze]

It's not accurate to refer to the two types of threads as 'serious' threads and 'fun' threads, because that's not the intention. The difference would be in moderating standards, with RD threads having more stringent moderation, like the old OT and the regular Chamber, and non-RD threads having looser moderation. So although it's true that the heavier moderation is more appropriate for contentious or more serious topics, it will be entirely possible to have an RD 'what is your favourite ice-cream' thread. This is a slight change, because in the past there has been this notion that RD threads are reserved strictly for heavy discussion, but the difference we'd be aiming for in a re-merged OT would be one of moderating standards.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I like the merger idea.

I hope a merger turns things around, things have been slowly withering and dying across all of the Non-Civ subforums.

 

[sophie]

I would like to think that my positions, both on this issue and on the issue of merging WH/A&E/S&T are very clear to the mods at this point.

(That's a "yes, do it, damnit")

 

[Synobun]

Merge, please. There is not really enough activity to warrant a separation.

 

[Camikaze]

Just to be clear, this proposal only has a tangential relationship to the possible merging of other Colosseum subforums. So for example, if you think that merging the Tavern and Chamber would make it impossible to merge A&E as well, and you think that merging A&E should be a priority, then you might not like this proposal. Or conversely, if you think that a merged OT would be a better place for a merged A&E, then you might like the proposal. Perhaps as a better and potentially more realistic example, if you think that WH should be merged, then you might want to consider the prospects of that happening if the Chamber is merged with the Tavern.

But the proposal itself makes no comment on the future of A&E (or the other subforums).

 

[timtofly]

The main reason for seperate forums is what? That those topics can be located easier or moded easier? Would the principle not apply across the board?

 

[JollyRoger]

I am against this as I do not trust that current Tavern-level moderation will stay the default in a merged OT.

Nevertheless, in a merged forum, this concerns me:

Because RD threads are designed as a way for thread starters to ask for a more moderated allow for more controlled discussion it is generally fine to start such a thread even if another Non-RD thread already exists - the reverse is not generally true.

Why the double standard?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So this is basically "The Tavern, but with Red Diamond threads." Sounds fine to me, so long as the present level of non-RD threads remains the same. If this is a re-equalization of forum standards, then I don't support the merger.

 

[Camikaze]

Whether the forum standards are re-equalised is more a less a matter for the free market. If OPs use RDs frequently, then we'll moderate to that standard. But given the default is non-RD, it would certainly seem likely that those threads and the accompanying moderating standard would remain the same.

Personally I'd probably prefer a few more RD discussions, remembering that the use of RDs under this proposal is slightly different to how RDs have been thought of in the past. Theoretically speaking, there are currently three standards; the Tavern standard, the default Chamber standard, and the RD standard, which is supposedly even higher than default Chamber. Default Chamber is roughly what OT was before the split. We are seeking to retain the default Tavern and default Chamber standards, essentially, eliminating that higher RD standard that is currently not all that popular. So the RD will designate a thread as subject to what is now the default Chamber standard. The RD standard has often been promoted as being about 'serious' topics and highfalutin debate, but the default Chamber standard is much more about moderating standards, and that's what we're going for here. Intervention for more derailments, trolling and personal attacks.

This is a little confusing, because it's both using RDs in a new context, and in a new manner.

I don't entirely understand JR's comment that he doesn't trust that the Tavern standard will remain default, because it is RD threads that will need to be designated as such. Without the deliberate use of that icon, it'll be the Tavern standard. How we moderate that standard is just as likely to alter now as it is with a merged forum.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Without the deliberate use of that icon, it'll be the Tavern standard.

Thank you for stating this explicitly.

How will this be moving forward? Plebiscite? Will a countdown to merging be announced, or will we log in one morning and find things amiss?