So does that means that RD is the place to cross the line? You only get your posts vandalized by mod warnings rather than actually receiving points?
Red Diamond Threads
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Moderator warnings are provided free of points for more minor issues. Issues that may not lead to infraction, but are just more friendly reminders. You're likely to be infracted heavier if you do something that is unacceptable regardless of the RD designation (like outright flaming someone). In non-RD threads, those friendly reminders on issues more to do with the quality of discussion are not going to be present. This means that any action that is taken is more likely to be for things that aren't acceptable regardless of the lack of RD designation (like outright flaming), which is more likely to involve infractions.
That is nice in theory, but when the reality is that lighting a match is being treated as outright flaming on a forum-wide basis, then it is difficult to take in good faith any claims of relaxed moderating standards in non-RD threads.
Mise
isle of lucy
There seem to be more infractions than ever in non-RD threads. I'm not complaining, just commenting.
Some statistics. In OT in the last week, there have been 27 infractions and 12 official warnings issued. In the corresponding period last month, there were 35 infractions and 16 official warnings. So the combined number of warnings+infractions is down almost 25% on last month.
Now, the idea in terms of laxer moderation at the beginning of the RD concept was to be able to cut down on it in lite threads (remembering there were going to be no non-RD threads on serious topics). In the last week in such threads, one warning has been issued. For the corresponding period a month ago, there were three infractions and five warnings. So firstly, we didn't go all that hard on them in the first place, in terms of the percentage of infractions they took up, but even that has been cut back so as that in the past week, one card has been issued, and it was a warning for trolling.
In RD threads themselves, in the last week there have been seven infractions and one official warning issued, with most warnings being unofficial and posted in thread rather than given a yellow card.
Then there's that other category we've been talking about. Not lite, but not RD. The serious non-RD threads. For the corresponding period last month, there were 32 infractions and 11 warnings issued. This week there have been 20 infractions and 10 warnings issued. So there's a marked reduction there as well. Now, to be fair, it's not like we've completely stepped out of those threads. But I think we made it clear that that wasn't going to be the case. The discussion of late has been about our approach to these threads, and it's not solidified yet. The lighter moderation promised was originally in regards to the 'lite' threads, because we weren't planning on having serious non-RD threads. But given that change, we've gone lighter on them as well. The difference in infractions confirms what the attitude taken to such threads has been (and you can argue until you're blue in the face if you like, but it really is true; we have been taking much less of a strict view on posts in these threads). More leeway has been allowed. But that's obviously not going to mean that no action is taken. Not our fault if people continue to break the rules.
Now, the idea in terms of laxer moderation at the beginning of the RD concept was to be able to cut down on it in lite threads (remembering there were going to be no non-RD threads on serious topics). In the last week in such threads, one warning has been issued. For the corresponding period a month ago, there were three infractions and five warnings. So firstly, we didn't go all that hard on them in the first place, in terms of the percentage of infractions they took up, but even that has been cut back so as that in the past week, one card has been issued, and it was a warning for trolling.
In RD threads themselves, in the last week there have been seven infractions and one official warning issued, with most warnings being unofficial and posted in thread rather than given a yellow card.
Then there's that other category we've been talking about. Not lite, but not RD. The serious non-RD threads. For the corresponding period last month, there were 32 infractions and 11 warnings issued. This week there have been 20 infractions and 10 warnings issued. So there's a marked reduction there as well. Now, to be fair, it's not like we've completely stepped out of those threads. But I think we made it clear that that wasn't going to be the case. The discussion of late has been about our approach to these threads, and it's not solidified yet. The lighter moderation promised was originally in regards to the 'lite' threads, because we weren't planning on having serious non-RD threads. But given that change, we've gone lighter on them as well. The difference in infractions confirms what the attitude taken to such threads has been (and you can argue until you're blue in the face if you like, but it really is true; we have been taking much less of a strict view on posts in these threads). More leeway has been allowed. But that's obviously not going to mean that no action is taken. Not our fault if people continue to break the rules.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Ok, here is a good example of the problem here I think. This thread in particular: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=432358
Now, I had a few choice comments to make in this thread, and had actually posted them, but requested they be deleted after I saw Cami's notice about this being an actual RD thread (post #38).
However, I really see a problem here. I mean there has been no cessation of the 'pithy one liners' in this particular thread even after a mods reminder of how RD threads are supposed to be addressed (in post #60).
Now I absolutely know RD threads are supposed to carry double fines and risk of instant-ban for short periods and thats precisely why I edited my comments and asked for the post to be deleted once I saw it was an RD thread. But apparently some others have either not noticed any of Cami's comments and warnings, or have chosen to ignore them anyway since the topic itself is rife to be addressed by those same 'pithy one liners'.
To me this is a 'cause for a couple of concerns. The first being consistency in how RD threads are addressed and moderated even among RD threads themselves. This thread seems to indicate that not even all RD threads are going to be moderated to the same standard (just my perception and others may not agree), and in fact more than a few non-RD threads are of much higher quality post-wise than this particular thread. This then creates an over-lapping of RD and non-RD threads which pretty much defeats the purpose of the entire concept.
Of addtional concern is making an non-RD thread an RD thread in mid-stream via an mod reminder but not being able to add the red diamond graphic to the thead. How is someone that just enters the conversation pages past the notice supposed to know it was changed (or supposed to be) an RD thread? Not everyone is in the habit of completely reading pages and pages of previous posts, so how are they supposed to know?
Now, I had a few choice comments to make in this thread, and had actually posted them, but requested they be deleted after I saw Cami's notice about this being an actual RD thread (post #38).
However, I really see a problem here. I mean there has been no cessation of the 'pithy one liners' in this particular thread even after a mods reminder of how RD threads are supposed to be addressed (in post #60).
Now I absolutely know RD threads are supposed to carry double fines and risk of instant-ban for short periods and thats precisely why I edited my comments and asked for the post to be deleted once I saw it was an RD thread. But apparently some others have either not noticed any of Cami's comments and warnings, or have chosen to ignore them anyway since the topic itself is rife to be addressed by those same 'pithy one liners'.
To me this is a 'cause for a couple of concerns. The first being consistency in how RD threads are addressed and moderated even among RD threads themselves. This thread seems to indicate that not even all RD threads are going to be moderated to the same standard (just my perception and others may not agree), and in fact more than a few non-RD threads are of much higher quality post-wise than this particular thread. This then creates an over-lapping of RD and non-RD threads which pretty much defeats the purpose of the entire concept.
Of addtional concern is making an non-RD thread an RD thread in mid-stream via an mod reminder but not being able to add the red diamond graphic to the thead. How is someone that just enters the conversation pages past the notice supposed to know it was changed (or supposed to be) an RD thread? Not everyone is in the habit of completely reading pages and pages of previous posts, so how are they supposed to know?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Perhaps RD with poll should be required to include "RD" in the title.
sophie
Break My Heart
Well Mobby, the OP doesn't really help things to start with. I'm of the opinion that the thread shouldn't even be RD.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I agree. However, there has also been some discussion here about turning non-RD threads into RD status in order to 'clean them up'. I think my post highlights some of the issues surrounding that idea and are ecapsulated in the thread I used as an example.
Mise
isle of lucy
This wouldn't be a problem if the RD designation was purely to indicate that the thread would attract harsher moderation and bigger infractions, rather than as an indicator of a "serious thread". It is indeed hard to take that thread seriously and give lengthy, serious responses due to (a) the subject matter and (b) the poor quality of the OP. On the other hand, if the OP and its respondees want harsher moderation and bigger infractions, then that's a good place to post, irrespective of whether their posts are serious and not merely pithy one-liners.
In otherwords, this is only a problem because:
1) the mods want RD to indicate "serious discussion"
2) in order to force us to take things seriously, they intend to infract pithy one-liners
3) they aren't actually infracting pithy one-liners
Of course, this is all assuming that MobBoss's identification of "pithy one-liners" is, in fact, correct. But that just speaks to the difficulty in trying to moderate content: one man's idea of "serious discussion" is different to another's. Perhaps Cami believes that there has been no infractable posts after post 60, and that MobBoss's assessment of the situation is wrong.
But again, all of those problems disappear if you stop trying to prescribe posting styles, and just infract as before, but more tightly on the borderline trolling and flaming that tends to plague those threads. There hasn't really been much borderline stuff in that thread (a handful of posts excepted), so from my point of view it's actually going okay...
tl;dr - Mods should stop trying to force their view of what "serious discussion" entails onto us and our threads, and just infract the borderline stuff that the OP has identified.
In otherwords, this is only a problem because:
1) the mods want RD to indicate "serious discussion"
2) in order to force us to take things seriously, they intend to infract pithy one-liners
3) they aren't actually infracting pithy one-liners
Of course, this is all assuming that MobBoss's identification of "pithy one-liners" is, in fact, correct. But that just speaks to the difficulty in trying to moderate content: one man's idea of "serious discussion" is different to another's. Perhaps Cami believes that there has been no infractable posts after post 60, and that MobBoss's assessment of the situation is wrong.
But again, all of those problems disappear if you stop trying to prescribe posting styles, and just infract as before, but more tightly on the borderline trolling and flaming that tends to plague those threads. There hasn't really been much borderline stuff in that thread (a handful of posts excepted), so from my point of view it's actually going okay...
tl;dr - Mods should stop trying to force their view of what "serious discussion" entails onto us and our threads, and just infract the borderline stuff that the OP has identified.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Well, when other posters have been told that 1 sentence replies dont have enough viable/meaninful 'content' for discussion in an RD thread, then how is one supposed to define 'pithy one-liners'? 
Mise
isle of lucy
Oh, I agree that, as it stands, the mods should be infracting the one liners or deleting them. If the thread dies as a result, it's because the thread wasn't fit for "serious discussion" in the first place.
I'm just arguing that the whole "serious discussion" label just isn't going to work at all. It should be solely about moderation standards, not about forcing "serious discussion" in threads that are clearly inappropriate to have serious discussion in.
I'm just arguing that the whole "serious discussion" label just isn't going to work at all. It should be solely about moderation standards, not about forcing "serious discussion" in threads that are clearly inappropriate to have serious discussion in.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Not sure whether we should be judging posts on their length rather than their content, civility or intent. If I want someone to elaborate, I shouldn't have to make a story out of it, but a civil "Could you elaborate please" would do fine.
(Don't get me wrong, I see what both of you mean)
(Don't get me wrong, I see what both of you mean)
I think we are just going to have to trust the moderators here. The Red Diamond concept and other measures being taken are designed to get OT to a certain place and I am here to be a part of the change they want. We should put much thought into our posts and fully explain everything. We should be careful about quoting other posters and if we dare address a post, we should be very careful not to address a poster. It is even better not to address a post just so that it does not get construed as addressing the poster. Certainly, you should not attempt to impeach the credibility of a poster, even with their own words. We should assume that a poster's credibility will speak for itself and that having the ability to test credibility is just not a proper tool for debate, even in a non-RD thread. We should treat each post as if it is in a RD thread and be very careful. Better yet, you may want to run a post past a mod via PM (or maybe all the mods) and not post until you get a thumbs up from each of them. We cannot have OT descend into something that might offend the delicate sensibilities of the delicately sensible. If you do not have anything nice to post, you should not post at all. If there is a post you want to counter, you should wait at least 24 hours and make sure there are plenty of posts that have been made since then in the thread. Then you should make a post that makes your points but not in a way that would clue in anyone that you are addressing the post you disagreed with. That kind of posting just leads to strife and probably kills a few butterflies along the way. If you disagree with what someone posts, you should consider that they are right and you are wrong and once you realize the error of your ways, you should post a post that agrees with that post, but in a way that does not indicate that you were ever in disagreement with it. You should be very careful that your sincerely serious posts cannot be construed as some sort of sarcastic underhandedness. If you have a history of posting sarcasm, you should accept your fate that your history is your future and you should report all your posts to the mods with a recommendation of how many points they should give. You should probably accept at least a three day ban for every post that you make. That will slow down the debate enough so that things do not get overheated. If you have a history of disagreement, you should be careful in "what's your favorite cola" threads and the like. If you have posted in disagreement with another poster before and you see that they like pepsi, it could be considered as trolling if you select coke or as biting sarcasm if you select pepsi. It is best not to even open the thread so as to not alert a poster that is paying attention to what you are viewing that you may be considering either disagreeing with them or sarcastically agreeing with them. If a thread has a Red Diamond on it, you should concede that the opening post likely adequately covers the subject and any post whatsoever would be a rude attack on the opening post. There are so many ways to screw up a post, that posting should not even be attempted in a Red Diamond thread. If you are thinking about starting a Red Diamond thread, you should reconsider, because someone may disagree with your opening post and you put them in the uncomfortable position of either having to risk responding or letting something stay posted on the internet without opposition. You should probably browse the forum in invisible mode. If someone sees that you are on the forum, they may fear your disagreement with them and feel trolled by your mere presense. We have only 14 moderators here, so we should try to keep the number of active posters during any 24 hour period under 14 so that things can stay properly monitored. Just remember, we are trying to build a community here that is what we want. Downtown started a thread on the subject and it is frankly disappointing that the things leading that poll are actually things we do not want. Anyone who voted improperly in that thread should at least receive a warning and be told what they want so they are clear not to make the same mistake in the future. I probably should not have called out Downtwn there for staring that thread. It can either be construed as criticsm of Downtown or of promoting elitism. For that I apologize and if a mod wants to delete his name from this post, no hard feelings from me. To stop before I ramble on too much, just be careful out there on what you post - remember, if you don't post anything, it is more likely than not to improve the forum over what would have resulted if you did post something.
_random_
Jewel Runner
tl;dr
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Did you just dictate that to your secretary?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Loved it 
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Loved it
I saw the wall of text and assumed it'd be sarcastic. Which is the only reason I read it.
(I'd just add that if you *are* forced to address a personal quality in some less-than-positive manner, that you address the personal qualities of an entire class of people rather than just one, specific poster. The former generally isn't infracted, the latter is. Gross stereotyping is your friend.)
I've actually been pleased with the RD stuff so far. Overall. I'm hoping it'll settle out to RD threads just being monitored more closely and more strictly.
I think we need to add these to the RD guidelines.
Moderator Action: The OP may not change the status of their thread from RD to non Rd or vice versa. You can choose the original status, but must seek moderator approval to change the designation once the thread has opened..
For now, we're allowing an RD thread and a non-RD thread to coexist on the same topic. However, you can only personally start one of these. You cannot open both the RD and non-RD threads on a topic. You can post in a competing thread, but not start both.
Moderator Action: The OP may not change the status of their thread from RD to non Rd or vice versa. You can choose the original status, but must seek moderator approval to change the designation once the thread has opened..
For now, we're allowing an RD thread and a non-RD thread to coexist on the same topic. However, you can only personally start one of these. You cannot open both the RD and non-RD threads on a topic. You can post in a competing thread, but not start both.
