OT Split - One Year On

[Tarquelne]

Adroit.

Nice example of a strawman to frame what I was thinking so you could attack it, even though you knew it was wrong.

I had intended for my previous post to be the final one. But my goodness!

It can't be that you explained yourself poorly, or that I did, or one of us failed a reading comprehension check: you go right to intentional strawman. I don't even see a strawman at all: If you meant something significantly different, I *still* don't see it. ("Clouded by perspective" might be pertinent. But I don't know if it's offered to clarify previous statements, or if it's backpedaling, or what. )

And note, please, that what I was responding to was three of my words followed by question marks, a claim of fact, and a supporting example that - IMO - could hardly be more dubious.

If you don't supply much argument for you claims don't be surprised if someone else takes a stab at it. Or if they get it wrong. You should thank them for their grand-motherly kindness and take the opportunity to correct any misapprehensions. That, rather than pull the trigger on intentional strawman.

But that's just my perspective as someone who doesn't like being called dishonest.


I guess you gave a self-fulfilling prophecy on OT never being nice. And... (yes, this *is* rubbing it in)... And right after those high-minded posts where you write of troll bait. For me it'd be hard top the quoted statement above.

This one is really and truly it: Take as given a sarcastic denial of any further accusations or claims you might make about my position.

 

[Neomega]

I had intended for my previous post to be the final one. But my goodness!

It can't be that you explained yourself poorly, or that I did, or one of us failed a reading comprehension check: you go right to intentional strawman. I don't even see a strawman at all: If you meant something significantly different, I *still* don't see it. ("Clouded by perspective" might be pertinent. But I don't know if it's offered to clarify previous statements, or if it's backpedaling, or what. )

And note, please, that what I was responding to was three of my words followed by question marks, a claim of fact, and a supporting example that - IMO - could hardly be more dubious.

If you don't supply much argument for you claims don't be surprised if someone else takes a stab at it. Or if they get it wrong. You should thank them for their grand-motherly kindness and take the opportunity to correct any misapprehensions. That, rather than pull the trigger on intentional strawman.

But that's just my perspective as someone who doesn't like being called dishonest.


I guess you gave a self-fulfilling prophecy on OT never being nice. And... (yes, this *is* rubbing it in)... And right after those high-minded posts where you write of troll bait. For me it'd be hard top the quoted statement above.

This one is really and truly it: Take as given a sarcastic denial of any further accusations or claims you might make about my position.

Ok, I'm confused, are we still tongue in cheek, or are you taking me seriously now?



"Adroit" could have been sarcastic, but seeing how I loathe sarcasm, and only use it on people who are completely pointless to argue with....

 

[Akka]

I would love to see a chamber where only facts are to be discussed, and any types of insults, or characterizations are strictly prohibited. That would mean trolls would have to say "you state that X is bad...." instead of "you whine that X is bad, but..." Any type of infantilism, guilt by association or other personal slights would get a warning. Even indirect ones. Saying any opinion was stupid, misguided, etc would just plain be forbidden. Same with patronizing tones; "I am disappointed you came to that conclusion" and "do you actually believe" and "surely you can't think that" and "Have you ever considered"

Seems more a forum tailored around the ability to support any absurd and ridiculous claim rather than engaging in interesting debate, simply disguised under the veener of posing as maturity.

On the contrary, I find that what's most unsuitable to a constructive discussion is not the form, but the bad faith - being unsincere, purposedly missing the point, claiming absurdities as being logical, etc.
The "best" trolls are the ones able to destroy/disrupt a discussion without ever resorting to insults/namecalling/whatever is forbidden with the rules. Making enforcement draconian wouldn't change them at all, as they are already gaming the rules, not breaking them.

 

[RobAnybody]

Anyways, I got curious about the 'reported' thing just in general and actually found this in site feedback.

The problem with almost all of those stats are that they are on gross basis. Meaning they use absolute numbers, like "1,000 reports" last year vs. "800 reports" this year. That's not a good measurement.

They need to take into account the actual traffic during the time periods. They should be on a "net basis", meaning "as a percentage of traffic". Now, I don't have the net numbers, obviously, but the fact is... traffic is WAY down in Offtopic.

CivV Gen + Strategy currently, as I write this, has 105+55 viewing, so 160 viewing. CivIV Gen + Strategy has 57+54 = 111. CivOffTopic, Chamber + Tavern has 14+56 = 70.

A year ago, & like I said, I don't have the actual numbers, but I remember the proportions, it was definitely CivOffTopic > Civ IV > Civ V. Now, it's Civ V > Civ IV > CivOffTopic.

So you can't really compare them in absolute numbers. If [Reports from OffTopic] is now half what it was from a year ago, you need to know if [Views OffTopic a year ago] is also half [Views OffTopic Now]. Or better yet, if [Posts OffTopic a year ago] is also half [Posts OffTopic Now].

You're point might be correct, but we can't actually know based on these stats. The traffic for OffTopic has crashed in the last year, so it's not really surprising that the # of Reports from OffTopic has also crashed.

I'm just saying, the numbers in that report are kinda useless, because most of them are in absolute numbers. The percentage charts are somewhat useful, but, well, for example, if OffTopic traffic dropped by 80%, & reports from OffTopic also dropped 80%, well, then, they more or less stayed the same. Every single line that says "last year X was Y,000, but this year X is Z,000" is not a useful statistic.

 

[Silurian]

I asked the mods in one of the threads after the split how the traffic had changed.
They said they did not know and had no way of finding out.

 

[Goodfella]

I asked the mods in one of the threads after the split how the traffic had changed.
They said they did not know and had no way of finding out.

I think people who are admins have that info but they don't want to share it with us.

 

[illram]

People like arguing with the low hanging fruit around here. A stupid post will get a dozen more responses than it needs (i.e., zero) and since the Tavern is now intentionally governed by looser standards, there is a lot more low hanging fruit.

The goal was you get what you put in with less mods playing the role of schoolmarm. If posters aren't in the Chamber it's because they don't want to be discussing things in that environment. They want the low hanging fruit discussion. That's their choice, and that's the idea.

 

[MobBoss]

People like arguing with the low hanging fruit around here. A stupid post will get a dozen more responses than it needs (i.e., zero) and since the Tavern is now intentionally governed by looser standards, there is a lot more low hanging fruit.

The goal was you get what you put in with less mods playing the role of schoolmarm. If posters aren't in the Chamber it's because they don't want to be discussing things in that environment. They want the low hanging fruit discussion. That's their choice, and that's the idea.

The mob wants bread and the circus!

 

[Dachs]

People like arguing with the low hanging fruit around here. A stupid post will get a dozen more responses than it needs (i.e., zero) and since the Tavern is now intentionally governed by looser standards, there is a lot more low hanging fruit.

I completely agree and I think it's incredibly annoying.

 

[Leoreth]

I agree and feel guilty at the same time.

 

[Ironsided]

I completely agree and I think it's incredibly annoying.

So you are annoyed at yourself? Well, that's kind of understandable actually. I am too sometimes, at myself and at you and others.

I really like the second part of Illrams post though:

The goal was you get what you put in with less mods playing the role of schoolmarm. If posters aren't in the Chamber it's because they don't want to be discussing things in that environment. They want the low hanging fruit discussion. That's their choice, and that's the idea.

Freedom of choice.

 

[Tarquelne]

The goal was you get what you put in with less mods playing the role of schoolmarm. If posters aren't in the Chamber it's because they don't want to be discussing things in that environment. They want the low hanging fruit discussion.

Maybe I should look at the Chamber again. Last time I checked - it's been awhile - it was just about as full of rotten fruit as the Tavern but, IMO, the "tighter moderation" only made the stuff even more irritating to ignore, let alone respond to.*

*As with a camel in a hot fudge sundae: It's not supposed to be there at all, plus it bites, spits, and is smelly. (True story!)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People like arguing with the low hanging fruit around here. A stupid post will get a dozen more responses than it needs (i.e., zero) and since the Tavern is now intentionally governed by looser standards, there is a lot more low hanging fruit.

Not sure if people like arguing with low hanging fruit or rather that people are quicker to see the faults in them which generates the volume. You come here to debate looking for things to debate and there are few incentives more seductive than an argument which is obviously wrong but is still vigorously defended. You talk about it as if it's a choice or preference while it's inherent in the mechanisms of a debate.

The goal was you get what you put in with less mods playing the role of schoolmarm. If posters aren't in the Chamber it's because they don't want to be discussing things in that environment. They want the low hanging fruit discussion. That's their choice, and that's the idea.

Falsch. Each their own motivation of course but as I said before, it's not a matter of choice or want. It's being set on discussion when logging in and only finding low hanging fruit because that is the type that generates the most volume. It requires little thought and can be mass-produced and cookiecuttered. Swamping posts that required effort and provided well-thought-out arguments. How much effort do you think I am willing to make on some excellent point I just came up with which requires explaining my train of thought only to find out while I was working out this post the thread got to the next page, now we're talking about libertarianism again in a thread that was initially about the mating habits of the East-African silver-beaked duck? Or how about finding your post smack dab in the middle of: "Stop discussing me!", "No you are discussion me, stop discussing me!", etc ad infribulum.

You have a point that the Chamber is a less inviting atmosphere and I have difficulty placing my finger on the exact reason, but slow traffic might be a biggy. When you see the list of people reading that part of the forum often hover around 3 to 4, while the Tavern sports 20+, you are automatically drawn towards the Tavern. Discussion also needs flow and rhythm I feel. And having responses come in 2 days later doesn't keep the flow going.

What I liked about Off Topic was the mixed breed of threads which all influenced each other. The serious debates kept the light-hearted fluff out of the gutter, the light-hearted fluff reminded the serious debates they were just debates and no matter how interesting it's importance shouldn't be stuck up it's own arse.

So yeah, sure everyone is responsible for their own actions. Sure we can all decide to behave in a more level headed way whenever 'those posts' rear their ugly head. But you have to remember it only takes one response to keep a crap-fest going. You're expecting a homogeneous reaction from a diverse crowd. You will not get it.

Although I can fully understand the idea of a split forum, I am not in favour of it. I was never in favour of niching out areas of Off-Topic discussions either. I want my science threads in Off-Topic. I want my Entertainment threads in Off-Topic. And that's not a situation without flaws either of course. I realise the amounts of threads generated will make it easier for even fairly lively discussions to drop of the first page.

I'm just saying the picture you painted of why the Tavern is in such a sorry state lacks a couple of factors and angles. And while the members have a great deal of responsibility in it, you cannot expect this forum to self-govern.

Ok, now I said self-govern so Ghostwriter will talk for a while to explain: yes we can.

 

[Ironsided]

The problem here is that everyone think they are so special and talented. It's probably called the Tavern for a reason. Have a beer, release your balls and touch down for a while.

 

[Silurian]

Up to the beginning of 2010 the Tavern was the discussion area for the future Civ 5.

OT was just OT until 1st April 2012.

 

[metatron]

tl;dr version:

As i said when the change was implemented:
The split was fundamentally a good idea. The mods just decided (yes they did just that for all i know) to horribly bungle the implementation in like seven different ways.

Anywho: I am guessing that the main issue of debate in this thread is whether the Chamber is a valid forum and should continue to exist.
I feel that it is and it should and i love it.
I am not much of threadstarter (zero and counting), but if i ever start a thread it will definitly be in the Chamber.

Both users and mods could be more appreciative of the forum anyway. If you want to have a certain level of debate or - as a mod - you feel a thread could only work with a certain level of debate, start it in/move it to the Chamber.

If the way a thread develops in the Tavern is "beneath" you, you don't get to complain. That was - in my view - the point of the split. And it's still valid.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You don't tell me I don't get to complain!

It's all I have left

 

[Birdjaguar]

After a year we know more about the success (or not) of the split.

I think that merging forums is a potential solution, but I am at a loss to figure out how to effectively moderate a single place that wants both serious discussion and fun. I am open to suggestions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't moderate serious discussion or fun.

Moderate the kind of conversation stoppers I have been throwing out there since a week or so on a regular basis to see what the reaction is like. Moderate the kind of behaviour that impedes discussion. Moderate the kind of behaviour that is demeaning.

And do not expect consensus. Just as irrelevant as my complaining has been over the last couple of weeks, so is anyone's. Don't make your aim consensus. Make you aim the exact things you mention and then decide what's detrimental to those aims. Then you moderate that kind of behaviour.

 

[Joecoolyo]

After a year we know more about the success (or not) of the split.

I think that merging forums is a potential solution, but I am at a loss to figure out how to effectively moderate a single place that wants both serious discussion and fun. I am open to suggestions.

Just do what you did before the split, red diamond threads. OP's who designated their threads as Red Diamond get a tad bit more moderation. All other threads will be treated lightly, even if serious discussion occurs.