Off Topic reorganization - Call for Comments

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you looked at online posters, it wasn't uncommon to see only your name when you visited the Chamber. I think the merge will expose the more "serious" discussions to those who'd now not see them because they hardly visit the Chamber, causing more diverse opinions and maybe more traction in those kind of threads.

Merge seems like the move to make. Well played to the mods for recognizing and acting on the signs you pointed out.

 

[timtofly]

That could also be said about any other topic, currently split off.

 

[choxorn]

I approve this idea.

 

[_random_]

I full-heartedly support this proposal.

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

I think the likelihood and speed of moderation drift is higher with a unified forum than with two separate forums where one is specifically designated for lower modertion.

Also, I still haven't seen an explanation of why a RD thread starter can corner a topic while a default thread starter cannot.

 

[Kennigit]

isn't this what we had before with the original implementation of red diamond?

I approve of the merge.

 

[Arakhor]

isn't this what we had before with the original implementation of red diamond?

That's what I was thinking. What will happen to A&E, WH and S&T?

 

[Camikaze]

isn't this what we had before with the original implementation of red diamond?

No, because that was more like what the Chamber is now (except with more people, so a better atmosphere). Tavern standards weren't in place for anything then, but they're the default under the proposal. Though I dunno, maybe the differences aren't nearly as pronounced for those not dealing with the rules on a daily basis?

 

[choxorn]

That's what I was thinking. What will happen to A&E, WH and S&T?

They said that's a seperate issue.

 

[JollyRoger]

isn't this what we had before with the original implementation of red diamond?

I approve of the merge.

Tavern level moderation was what we had circa 2005. After that, moderation drift kicked in, reaching its peak in severity just before the Red Diamond was implemented.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

Camikaze, please answer my question.

Also, please note the bolded text above. I have to wonder why trolling or a personal attack is defined as such in one thread but not in another, if it's the same behavior.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think the likelihood and speed of moderation drift is higher with a unified forum than with two separate forums where one is specifically designated for lower moderation.

Also, I still haven't seen an explanation of why a RD thread starter can corner a topic while a default thread starter cannot.

They won't be able to. As we begin this trial, and I see it as that, any topic could have both an RD version and a "Tavern" version. We figure that members will vote with their posts. Any RD version though should have a decent OP that is sufficient to start a discussion. What we don't want to see is one posters starting one of each kind of thread on the same topic. We hope you will choose the version you want and let someone else start the other if they want.

Will RD moderation spill over into "Tavern" threads? We hope not. That is one of our challenges. You can tell us if you see it happening.

 

[JollyRoger]

What I meant was that it appeared the rule is that someone can open an RD thread where there is already a default thread on a given topic, but someone can't open a default thread on a topic if someone has RDed them to the punch.

 

[Kyriakos]

You could also merge A&E to the united OT, and have hyperRD status for hippocentric threads or other ones potentially attracting spam, so as to protect them (or alternatively agree with their posters on moving those threads to some other subforum)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You could also merge A&E to the united OT, and have hyperRD status for hippocentric threads or other ones potentially attracting spam, so as to protect them (or alternatively agree with their posters on moving those threads to some other subforum)

You could stop fussing about A&E until it becomes the focus of what they're asking us about at the moment.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think i will keep on doing what i like, thanks

 

[shadowplay]

I support this. Just as long as we're allowed to have non-jerkish fun in the non-RD threads, I'm all in favour.

 

[illram]

The rule re: RD/non RD threads and timing was discussed alot in Staff. The primary reason for disallowing posting non-RD threads would be to discourage people taking a discussion from RD to non-RD in order to more freely troll users in the RD thread. For example: someone can start an RD thread on why they love ice cream, and someone else can also start a non RD thread on why they love ice cream after that, so long as it is not started with the intention of just having more leeway to be trollish to someone or their point of view in the RD thread. But can we have an RD thread on a Presidential Debate plus a non-RD thread, regardless of who posts first? Yes. Although there is already a rule against referencing someone in a thread in which they are not participating, we felt this additional clarification was necessary.

We also want to avoid having someone post an RD & non-RD thread as a matter of course. Pick one please. If there is one up already, maybe try to participate in it. This is a try-out period to see if this works and a whole bunch of dual track threads is going to become unwieldy for posters and for mods.

 

[JollyRoger]

I couldn't imagine starting a thread to troll an RD thread-starter, but I could see starting one to be free of the higher moderation standard and any restrictions placed by the RD thread starter. I could also see myself starting an RD thread (say on a Supreme Cout decision) where I wouldn't mind a default thread being made by someone else.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Don't really mind the RD+nonRD co-existence, i also note that you propose it only in some cases as those you briefly gave examples of.
That said, i heavily doubt it will work as planned. It is more likely to present the RD status as more moribund, if nothing else.

I am pretty sure i won't be using RD anyway, no point if it is on the united OT given that i don't think it will be enough to preserve a supposed different tone and will only be acting as an argument for more mod action in the RD threads.

Another idea:

Regarding a united OT, in some other forums of similar size to CFC (as in TWC), they have two sections in the same subforum, although the top section is visible only through its latest post, while it becomes fully visible if one clicks on its category. Not sure if the code used in CFC makes this easy, but it would be a bit like the Other Games over-forum, with the categories on top, only the OT will have only one category on top (the RD threads one) and the rest will be visible as the Other Games one is below its seperate parts.