Red Diamond Threads

[Takhisis]

OK, the message you've just given out is that A&E is not a serious forum.
Given that A&E is in reality a sort of OT subforum, I'd say this is silly.

Can I haz spamfest then?

 

[Moss]

OK, the message you've just given out is that A&E is not a serious forum.
Given that A&E is in reality a sort of OT subforum, I'd say this is silly.

Can I haz spamfest then?

I have done no such thing. Is Civ V GD not a serious forum? Of course it is. We aren't doing this there either, or in World History, etc. We are simply limiting RD threads to the OT forum. If it works here, we may try it elsewhere. But as it has not been announced in any other forum nor has it even been discussed with other forum moderators in regards to implementing this in other forums, it's only an OT thing at the moment. It's not a slight at other forums, it's just how we decided to try it out. Remember, it's an experiment, and experiments tend to work better with specific forums and frameworks in mind.

Moderator Action: Since my non-mod-action warning in the last post didn't work. Please get back on topic now, if you'd like to make a thread about whether or not RD's should be implemented elsewhere, please do so, but for now, this isn't the thread to discuss A&E or other forums.

 

[GenMarshall]

Personally, I'd rather see RD threads not spread to other forums.

 

[Azash]

Can I start an old style OT discussion thread that does not have all these new restrictions?
For now you can. Soon though we will require that all “serious” discussion threads (determined by the mods) fall under the Red Diamond moniker and those who start a political discussion or economics discussion etc without it, will find that the thread is closed or we have added the designation and moderated it to the higher standards. We do not know how long that transition will take.

I've heard the opinion before that the forum is about the mods/admins and the users have to deal with it, but all the other issues aside, I am worried about creeping RD standards. It should definitely be opt-in for the OP of a thread. If mods decide to RD a thread the OP doesn't wish to have subjected to restrictions, it really does send out the message that users no longer have control of their own contribution to the forum.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

If it's creeping I would really miss the threads with all the puns. Because if there's too many puns and not enough discussion it would be closed quickly.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

OK, the message you've just given out is that A&E is not a serious forum.
Given that A&E is in reality a sort of OT subforum, I'd say this is silly.

Can I haz spamfest then?

A/E is not an OT subforum, regardless of what you may think. It's a separate subforum like WH or CompTalk, and certainly sees more traffic than either.

It has its own moderators (mainly Atticus) and the standards and expectations will be set by him (well eventually, after more seasoning ).

I have done no such thing. Is Civ V GD not a serious forum? Of course it is. We aren't doing this there either, or in World History, etc. We are simply limiting RD threads to the OT forum. If it works here, we may try it elsewhere. But as it has not been announced in any other forum nor has it even been discussed with other forum moderators in regards to implementing this in other forums, it's only an OT thing at the moment. It's not a slight at other forums, it's just how we decided to try it out. Remember, it's an experiment, and experiments tend to work better with specific forums and frameworks in mind.

Indeed. RD is an OT thingie only; because OT is such a jumble of threads of different dispositions.

The standards and expectations for the other subforums will be set by the resident moderator(s).

And yes, pls stop threadjacking this discussion with talk of it being used elsewhere because it isn't. As Moss has indicated.

 

[choxorn]

Personally, I'd rather see RD threads not spread to other forums.

There's a couple where it would make sense, but there aren't many threads outside of a few select subforums that are SRZBZNS enough for an RD thread. About the only one that immediately comes to mind aside from other Colosseum subforums is Site Feedback, and that wouldn't be necessary, seeing as every thread there is SRZBZNS.

 

[Leoreth]

Considering some of the posts on the last pages, I think that "serious" was a poor choice as a qualifier for RD target threads. It somehow implies "strict" and "not enjoyable".

And from what I've understood so far, the RD is more about making a distinction between debates and more open discussion in general.

 

[GenMarshall]

Considering some of the posts on the last pages, I think that "serious" was a poor choice as a qualifier for RD target threads. It somehow implies "strict" and "not enjoyable".

I have to say, that is the general impression that I've gotten in regards to RD threads. As well as a more harsher and more draconian moderation atmosphere.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Considering some of the posts on the last pages, I think that "serious" was a poor choice as a qualifier for RD target threads. It somehow implies "strict" and "not enjoyable".

And from what I've understood so far, the RD is more about making a distinction between debates and more open discussion in general.

Yes. RD is a way of distinguishing particular threads where the moderating will be more attentive. At the same time we want to allow the non RD threads to have less than the current moderating standards so that they can be more fun and free flowing, but still without the nasty stuff.

The use word "serious" has been part of the staff discussions for almost a year with us ending up of the opinion that is the best of mostly not good choices. At the last minute I changed many instances of it to RD because it carried less baggage.

 

[useless]

I'm going to be honest here, whilst I find this a puzzling turn of events, at least the mods are doing -Something-. I might not like this, but they're doing something, and at the very least they are -listening-.

 

[IglooDame]

For what little it's worth, some distilled short-form thoughts:

- The admins and mods are interested in continuing to advance OT. That's a good thing. (BirdJag, despite all the storm and fury in various responses, we really do appreciate your efforts.)

- It's a sound idea. I'm willing to wait and see how this pans out before passing judgement, though I do question how likely this is to be widely adopted by members. The RD is a valuable tool to have in the toolbox (and I appreciate having the option if need be), but if it doesn't get widely used, it doesn't help address the issues it's intended to.

- As long as RD is opt-in, I don't see all the fuss about mods cracking down on fun discussion and snuffing out our passion and all that. Maybe I'm high, but doesn't it seem like clearly labeling some threads with "SRS BIZ RITE HEAR" might help the mods relax a bit on the more casual threads?

- I appreciate the approach here - the willingness to experiment, try something new, and especially the mods' attention to member feedback.

- Some others have raised the point that this does little to address other problems (such as uninformed post content from members that spam their opinions in every other discussion thread), and I agree with those concerns, but I don't think this is an attempt at a panacea. Other measures can be taken to address those issues; this is one measure to address a different problem.

As usual SuperJay has beat me to posting my own thoughts. (Dude, seriously, get out of my brain while you still can.)

I took a long vacation from OT primarily because of frustration with a few posters that tiptoe(d) the line between trolling and not-trolling. I came back just as the general moderation level in OT got deliberately stricter, and whether those posters are gone, backing off while they re-calibrate, or whatever, I have to say that it has been refreshing not seeing the systemic trolling that I found so irritating. But, I've also had to recalibrate my own posting standards, too, and so far at least three or four posts I would have made would have been infractionable by the new much-tighter 'address the post and not the poster' OT-wide standards.

I only note the above to somewhat circuitously come around to my point of +1'ing the objections to moderators imposing Red Diamonds on serious-ish threads, and +1'ing the thought that I don't think it has been clearly stated (enough) that with RD tighter-moderation standards available for serious-thread starters that the rest of OT will go back to pre-2011 standards of thread moderation or perhaps even a little less strict than that. And in general, I think this would be a really positive and helpful development, so to BirdJaguar for coming up with it and pushing it through to testing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is an exchange from a RD thread. It was reported and no direct response has been made that I am aware of. I believe that the bolded part is the "problem".

It is illustrative of why OT can be so difficult to moderate.

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument?
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz?
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post?
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection?

What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?

And cutting off people's incomes will hurt even more. You shouldn't even be talking about the budget until the economy improves. But since you are, you should choose the options that are the least harmful.

Ah, so your're of the belief that the Government has grown so much as an employer under Obama that it cant be cut back due to the unemployment that will result?

Which affects more people: a federal gas tax or a slight reduction of government services?

I think without question the gas tax would have far, far, FAR more reaching effects, since the scope of it affects every living american and the products they depend upon.

How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report?

 

[JollyRoger]

Rumi's sentence is harmless if he can accept a reasonable response to the bold. My reponse to that sentence would be different in a Red Diamond thread than in a non-Red Diamond thread (and I would expect that my non-Red Diamond response to be infractable in a Red Diamond thread, but not infractable in a non-Red Diamond thread).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Here is an exchange from a RD thread. It was reported and no direct response has been made that I am aware of. I believe that the bolded part is the "problem".

It is illustrative of why OT can be so difficult to moderate.

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument?
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz?
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post?
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection?

What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?


How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report?

Without context, I can't comment. Link, please?

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm not so sure about the assumption that Obama deserves credit for the current level of government employment. It doesn't follow at all from the first post.

Doesn't the report specify the problem? I try to explain what's wrong if it isn't glaringly obvious when I report a post.

 

[MobBoss]

Here is an exchange from a RD thread. It was reported and no direct response has been made that I am aware of. I believe that the bolded part is the "problem".

It is illustrative of why OT can be so difficult to moderate.

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument?
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz?
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post?
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection?

What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?


How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report?

If the question is someones interpretation of anothers post, but leaves it open to clarification via putting it in a question format, then what's the problem? If offers the original poster the ability to further clarify the comment, and even confirm or deny how accurately it was interpreted by the respondent. Not sure why that would even be considered a problem simply for how it was parsed.

However, the bolded response should be a somewhat logical response to the comment it was responding to, in that it was alleged that cutting government services is going to cost people their income's. Its plain to see this was interpreted as people losing their federal jobs, which would indeed occur on some scale if government programs are cut back. Why would such a response seem to be misinterpretive of the former point?

And since the thread in question was in regards to a balanced budget, why wouldnt the fuel tax issue would have been relevant to the topic at hand....or even further how much federal employment has grown under the current administration?

 

[Mathilda]

Here is an exchange from a RD thread. It was reported and no direct response has been made that I am aware of. I believe that the bolded part is the "problem".

It is illustrative of why OT can be so difficult to moderate.

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument?
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz?
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post?
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection?

What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?


How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report?

Ooh, can I play?

It really depends on how strict you want to go with these RD threads.
If you want to strict, Rumi could be asked to phrase better in the future.
The way this post has been phrased, feels like words are being put into Hafiz's mouth.
"Ah, so your're of the belief ..." is a mildly trollish way of phrasing, as it will most likely lead to "no, that's not what I was saying", without further explanation. It doesn't promote discussion.

Strawman, logical extension, misunderstanding... I don't know.
In any case it could have been phrased in a more respective tone.

Again.. not what was said but how it was said.


My call would be: perhaps a warning in an RD thread with a green / blue mod text in post explaining the direction of moderation in RD threads and the post is problematic, non-RD - no moderator action necessary.
I wouldn't give points for it, it's far too borderline.

"What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?"
- too lazy to go for the thread and you didn't provide a link

 

[metatron]

Here is an exchange from a RD thread. It was reported and no direct response has been made that I am aware of. I believe that the bolded part is the "problem".

It is illustrative of why OT can be so difficult to moderate.

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument?
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz?
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post?
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection?

What about the gas tax/budget cut issue, is that a reasonable addition to the thread?


How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report?

Rumi's argument is demonstrably false, since its main purpose is implying that the Obama administration has increased the number of government employees faster than a) the general population grew b) other administrations have increased it in the past.
Both is unture. On the contrary.

None the less the post is not infractable in an RD thread, but should be addressed with some evidence by its opponents.
Which i just did...

It's not really a strawman, since it's a question. Hafiz can answer it and bystanders can consider it a silly question if they choose so.

 

[Mathilda]

And since the thread in question was in regards to the budget, and how to balance it, of course the fuel tax issue would have been relevant to the topic at hand.

Because it's not a question.
It's a statement with the question mark stuck to the end of it.
"Are you saying..." would be a question.
"Do you think..." would be a question.
"Ah, so you think..." in not a question.