OT Reorganization - Vote now.

Should this proposal be implemented?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 62.2%
  • No

    Votes: 21 23.3%
  • Don't know / don't care

    Votes: 13 14.4%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .

ori

Repair Guy
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
16,561
Location
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
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.


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.
 
I wish you had separated the "don't know/don't care" into two categories. Some people may be genuinely undecided, but that doesn't mean they don't care.
 
Consider it 'yes', 'no', and 'everyone else'. Not knowing and not caring are different, but as useful to us as each other.
 
It seems to me, many in favor of the merge have not done much on their own to make the Chamber work. Some of them have not even bothered to start a thread in the Chamber. I voted no.
 
@Camikaze: So in other words, it doesn't matter to you if some people really are unsure, even though this is an issue they care about. "This matters to me, but I'm conflicted about it" = "Meh. Who cares?"?

Thanks so much. :huh: That tells me you're not really interested in the undecided opinion if you can't be bothered to separate it out from the people who genuinely don't give a damn one way or the other.
 
@Camikaze: So in other words, it doesn't matter to you if some people really are unsure, even though this is an issue they care about. "This matters to me, but I'm conflicted about it" = "Meh. Who cares?"?

Thanks so much. :huh: That tells me you're not really interested in the undecided opinion if you can't be bothered to separate it out from the people who genuinely don't give a damn one way or the other.

We're interested in hearing many opinions, but the poll is primarily about yes v no.
 
Then why even bother with more than 2 categories?
 
Well, they, uh, in that case, could just not vote at all...
 
Even Elections Canada understands the difference between people who don't bother to show up at the polls (for whatever reason) and people who show up at the polling station and then formally decline their ballot - which is understood to mean "none of the above, and I cared enough about this to come here and tell you so."

In my case, I realize the answer is going to be that OT will either be merged or it won't. I'm still uncertain as to what effect this could have later on the other Colosseum subforums. Are they more likely to be left as they are presently if OT is merged, or if OT is left alone - that's what I need to be sure about before casting a vote on this. So it's really not fair to say, "Just don't vote" when not voting could be misinterpreted as apathy, when it's anything but that.
 
Frankly the reply to that is: nobody knows. Discussion on the fate of the other subforums will occur, but will not start in earnest after we have settled on OT. Making this a Collosseum reorganization discussion would mostly delay any reorganization for close to forever, I expect.
 
The same reasons that caused the split will remain. Add to these the fact that red diamond threads will get fewer posts and fall fast to page two and I...just don't get why anyone likes this idea. You want your thread to drop like a rock? Add a red diamond. It is a really bad idea. Nevertheless it has the votes. :dunno: ...so it must be good. ;)

I once heard in political commentary in the US regarding the balanced budget amendment that it was "A bad idea whose time has come." So much for balancing the budget, and look at the US now. :D Here we have another bad idea, and its time has obviously come. I say, if it is the will of the people to hang themselves lets get the rope and be done with it.
 
No.
For the 8th time.

No on Chamber elimination. No on RD.

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.
a) You tried the RD thing and it didn't work.
Why do you suppose it will work now? What do you want to do differently this time?

b) The Chamber largely failed because frankly you guys did a bad job at moderating it at the time.

A short history of the early day Chamber:
People showed up.
People debated.
Trolls trolled.
You failed to infract the trolls and if anything managed to infract people who fought back. Kinda like the cops who arrest the losers in a barfight.
People left.​

2. Have mods who are involved and responsive and generally even-handed.
See above.
What do you intend to do this time, that you didn't do the first two or three months RD were around in the old OT?
What do you intend to do this time, that you didn't do the first two or three months the Chamber existed?

The same reasons that caused the split will remain. Add to these the fact that red diamond threads will get fewer posts and fall fast to page two and I...just don't get why anyone likes this idea. You want your thread to drop like a rock? Add a red diamond. It is a really bad idea. Nevertheless it has the votes. :dunno: ...so it must be good. ;)
People are probably voting for Chamber elimination not for RD.
 
Not sure if i will vote, given that:

1) I am of the view that re-uniting OT as long as that just means OT=Chamber+Tavern will not serve much purpose + make new problems appear or old ones resurface.

2) RD status, as others here already argued, will probably end up making it very difficult for virtually all RD threads to stay on the first page for long. Some feel that posting on a thread in page 2 or below is a bit like bumping and can be counterintuitive anyway.

3) The Chamber obviously has little traffic, but other subforums which have been there for years (eg Science forum) have almost as much that the Chamber got in a year. If you plan to unite something, it seems more sense would exist in incorporating some other subforums into either a united OT or its current dichotomy.
 
In a word, yes.

In five words, yes yes yes yes yes.
 
You've got a "yes" from me.

Reunite the OT!
 
So we get all the problems of the pre-Split OT again? :rolleyes:

The best solution would be to give people an incentive to post in the Chamber. Virtually every single other forums I've seen limited the discussion of controversial topics like politics and religion into their own Chamber-equivalents, and they've been thriving. Why not do that for CFC? And I think we should also follow some of Kyriakos's suggestion and move other forums such as Science and Technology into the Chamber, as well.
 
The best solution would be to give people an incentive to post in the Chamber.

A solution presumes a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. Okay, the Chamber doesn't get a lot of traffic. Why is this a problem?

If people wanted the increased moderation of the Chamber then they would post there. In that sense, voting with feet has already occurred and found the Chamber wanting.
 
A solution presumes a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. Okay, the Chamber doesn't get a lot of traffic. Why is this a problem?

If people wanted the increased moderation of the Chamber then they would post there. In that sense, voting with feet has already occurred and found the Chamber wanting.

I also think the chamber does not have a "problem". Although virtually all my threads are in the Tavern, the Chamber has grown into a sort of more 'philosophy-oriented' debate sort of subforum, which is fine by me anyway. If it continues to exist i will continue posting there, if not then i will make similar threads without RD (which i still am unsure about working in principle, given in the past it did not work at all afaik).

Basically i am fine with any change/no change, although i would ideally like to post art threads in any of the current two OT subforums :)
 
Top Bottom