General comment: the idea isn't to stifle discussion. That is obviously one of the things we will be actively and consciously looking out for in these threads. We wouldn't be doing this unless we thought it was going to improve the forums, and stifling discussion would not lend itself to that practice. Of course you can disagree on whether or not this will work; and that's what the trial period and feedback is for. But please keep in mind that it is not some sort of nefarious plot to get rid of all things fun and enjoyable. In fact, it's the opposite. It's a plot to get rid of frustration and antipathy, coming in the light of months and months or complaint and feedback from OT regulars.
Ultimately, the problem is that you want (a) better, more serious discussion, but (b) intend to enforce it by focussing solely on trolling/flaming/one-liners/etc. Better discussion isn't just about civility -- it's also about the content of the posts. If your content stinks, your post sucks, and degrades the quality of the entire thread. The enforcement simply doesn't align correctly with the goal.
This might improve the forums anyway, but I don't believe you've got the principle right.
We can't moderate what a moderator or member may find to be a ridiculous opinion. But we can identify styles that have a tendency to degrade discussions and provoke negative reactions. We want to encourage people to move away from those styles. One of the biggest complaints with moderation seems to be that the focus is on punishing those that snap back at ridiculousness. And those that do so will still be punished.
However, we are attempting to remove a large part of the provocation that causes people to snap back. People can civilly disagree all the time, and this is much more likely to occur when posting styles are not troublesome. If someone is posting something non-contributive, or simply posting, "No, you're wrong", that isn't either making a contribution to the thread, or being conducive to civil responses. The main style that is being targeted; 'non-contributive posts', is heavily linked with content, in that if your post does not provide any, it falls into that category. The community has been telling us fairly clearly the endpoint they are looking for, and this, whilst not necessarily being a silver bullet, hopefully provides the means to get to that end.
You are asking the posters to go through more work - checking the status of a thread to know if a heightened posting standard applies - I don't see the problem with the mods taking on the same status check. Also, a poster can decide to opt of reading or participating in a thread based on Red Diamind status - those with delicate sensibilities can choose to stick to Red Diamind and those with need to stay awake can stick to non-Red Diamond.
I will even go so far an suggest one of the icons be used to designate the opposite of Red Diamond - a discussion thread where you enter at your own risk - where moderation is very light.
We want to maintain a standard for the forum, and for the duration of the 90 day trial, we are attempting this standard. We already regulated a standard in threads as they were, and this is a clarification of that standard, such that we can target those posts that are troublesome and are non-contributive and are not conducive to civil and productive discussion. The idea is to move all threads on what can be termed 'serious'* topics to this standard, not to allow for an opt-out for those who would like to make poor quality and non-contributive posts. That this standard does not preclude good quality posting and contributive posts means that there should be no need for those who are here for discussion, those that are here to contribute, those that are here to engage civilly, to continue to participate and
enjoy participating in OT. We frankly don't want the drivel some threads have tended to descend into, so the idea is to move away from the standard that allows it.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of posts in existent threads are still going to be perfectly fine under the new system. We're just looking to get rid of non-contributive posts, utter drivel and tiresome bickering, in line with the wishes the community has expressed.
*As has been said, this does not mean dull or not fun. It simply is a word we are using to refer to that group of threads that are designed to discuss some relatively serious issues, whether it be in current affairs, religion, etc. This doesn't include threads like "Daily Mail: Striking Teachers kill 13 year old girl"; that thread was perfectly acceptable as a lighter thread. "Burglar Stabbed To Death: Is This Self-Defence?" is an example of a thread that would fit into this category.
One further thing; in order for this trial to succeed, it's imperative that people trying to work with it. It's obviously not going to work if people actively attempt to ruin it, so attempts to give it a go are greatly appreciated.
