Red Diamond Threads

[Maniacal]

Why can't we all just not get along?

Because we're all human, and no matter how much people try to enforce an idealistic and somewhat unrealistic standard it will not (and certainly has not) changed. Encouraging more serious discussion is all well and fine, but the expectations I've seen expressed by some staff are totally plausible, for Nebari or Vulcans.

I don't know how well this red diamond idea will work, might as well try it.

Good stuff from many of you. I will wade through it and try to get some responses up later today.

Please let's not make this thread some sort of moderator evaluation. issues with moderators should be addressed to the admins.

It would be nice if you could see all of a mod's mod actions. Like the same way as see posts by this user. As it is you usually only see a sample of what they do, and sometimes that is not... impressive.

 

[choxorn]

To be fair, it does oftentimes provide for much hilarity.

That is true. Some of his overzealous modding is overzealous to the point of being funny.

 

[BvBPL]

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.

I think there's space for non-serious discussions about serious topics. I don't like the idea that every thread about a serious topic need be serious itself. I also think there's space for non-serious posts to interact with serious ones in a manner that furthers discussions. There is a need to speak truth to power (or OPs) and humor can play a helpful role in this need.

I don't really like the idea at all. I, and everyone else, already has the power to ignore posters that are too frivolous, disruptive, or what-have-you. I don't need more.

 

[LucyDuke]

I think this has the potential to be a really good solution to the problem of OT moderating being simultaneously way too harsh and often too lenient. As it's proposed, though, it sounds an awful lot like a gimmick to sell moderation just getting even stricter.

If the new crackdown is not accompanied by relaxation of the recent standards of moderation in not-specially-indicated threads, it's not going to help anything.

When two threads, one RD and one not, are on the same topic, our general rule will be to lock the non RD one unless we feel that the topic is a poor one for a good discussion.

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 agree that this is a horrible plan. Especially the first quote. I suppose having two threads for all sorts of topics could be overkill, but hell it's not like we don't have that sometimes already. Forcing all threads on topic X into this new extra-moderated format just because some mod decided it was SRSBZNS is ridiculous.

Why not let the "market" decide? So what if there's a casual discussion about something that can be discussed seriously? If there's demand for serious discussion, a thread will be made and posted in. Thanks for giving us the venue. Now let us choose to use it.

 

[North King]

• Some of you are excellent at skating the very edges of what is trolling and what is not. Many times we have given you the benefit of the doubt. In the RD threads, we will go the other way and infract such borderline posting. Don’t ask for clear cut guidelines on this. There aren’t any. If you have a history of such posts and infractions, please don’t bring that style of posting into these threads.

I think you guys have lost sight of things here. Please, hear me out:

Reading intent is difficult even when you have the person in front of you and can see their body language and hear their tone. Given that, how on earth do you expect that you can determine a person's thought process (i.e. whether or not they are trolling) based off of lines of text in an internet forum?

See, I've been an actor long enough to know that the way you read something can completely skew your perception of it. And having read it that way, it's going to be extremely difficult to change your point of view even when it's been pointed out that it might have been read in a different way, and even when the writer protests over and over again that they didn't mean it in the way you construed. Say you're talking about relationship troubles -- the difference between "You need to get some balls!" and "You need to get some balls!" is literally impossible to communicate with text. And yet it's the difference between a barbed insult and good-humored encouragement!

You see, that is why you give people on an internet forum benefit of the doubt. You don't do it because you think "Well, as long as the board only has 2 of every 100 posts being trolls, we'll be okay, so we just need to clamp down on the blatant ones." You give them the benefit of the doubt because it's impossible to truly determine someone's intent. There have been times when I'm unsure of whether I'm being trolled on this board or not, and I ask the person in question, and they quite reasonably tell me what's what, and serious conversation continues. And we move on, and the thread continues, and everyone, more or less, is happy.

But this?

Suddenly you want to say that you people have been gifted (from who knows where) the ability to see these things exactly? And that you can determine if someone is a troll or not? That you can tell a borderline post is a troll instead of a serious comment? What if you're misreading their intent? What if you're just unaware of an alternate meaning of a word? What if you plain old don't like them and are more inclined to read malice into innocent words? You can't honestly tell me that you can really see where they come down, all the time.

And the thing is, you're trying to implement this in serious threads. Why do you think threads are serious in the first place? Yes, about 10% of "serious threads" are ones that deal with philosophical debates where the most impassioned someone gets is gesticulating with the cane their university gifted them upon graduation.

But roughly 90% of "serious threads" are stuff about politics, religion, faith, science, nationalism, etc., etc. These are topics that people get fired up and passionate about. Passion, as I probably don't have to tell you, is something that is very frequently indistinguishable from rancor. Any poster should be able to wear their heart on their sleeves during a political debate. Because, heck, I think the "abortion is a matter of killing babies!" is a ludicrous line of reasoning, and I will explain exactly how. I'm not going to pull punches in a debate in which I think the opponent wants to take away women's rights in a sexist repression of half of society. Do you really think that a debate in which one side thinks the other is murderers and the other side thinks their opponents are sexists isn't going to have a lot of borderline posts? A lot of borderline posts that are basically the content of the thread?

And yes, you can clamp down on those. And you'll probably still have threads with content.

But guess what. They'll be bleached of real debate. It'll be palsied, an emaciated, etiolated pile of garbage that will not in any way resemble real world debates. Because political debate, at least in a forum full of the young and idealistic, is something which we care about, and not something in which we should have to reign in everything.

Now, I'm not calling for you to abandon standards. Obviously not! If someone were to literally say, "you're a murderer for supporting X", you should probably warn them. Or if someone posts something completely out of context, like, "Well you're fat and frankly ugly," then that obviously has no place in political debate. But posts which say stuff like, "you are ignorant of the issue," or, "you need to do more reading," or, "Argue my bloody point and stop dodging the issue," are all things which you should honestly expect in a political or economic debate.

And for some reason you're suggesting that ALL threads dealing with such issues should be moderated with an even heavier hand than the recently increasingly strict moderation that already permeates this forum.

Are you guys really that astonished that a lot of people think this is a horrible idea?

 

[Kozmos]

I think this has the potential to be a really good solution to the problem of OT moderating being simultaneously way too harsh and often too lenient.

When exactly moderation has been lenient? Pre-stolen camera and pants? Pre-relationship advice/Xannik threads? Pre-GDR? Pre-the occasional influx of mock-copycat threads that got stomped on in hours?

 

[LucyDuke]

Right now. Simultaneously too harsh and too lenient.

 

[Rashiminos]

I foresee burnout in the future of many....

The 'brighter' ones burnout quicker...


I'd have to echo Gogf's sentiment. It's safer to do that than type something more elaborate.

 

[sophie]

I think you guys have lost sight of things here. Please, hear me out:

Reading intent is difficult even when you have the person in front of you and can see their body language and hear their tone. Given that, how on earth do you expect that you can determine a person's thought process (i.e. whether or not they are trolling) based off of lines of text in an internet forum?

See, I've been an actor long enough to know that the way you read something can completely skew your perception of it. And having read it that way, it's going to be extremely difficult to change your point of view even when it's been pointed out that it might have been read in a different way, and even when the writer protests over and over again that they didn't mean it in the way you construed. Say you're talking about relationship troubles -- the difference between "You need to get some balls!" and "You need to get some balls!" is literally impossible to communicate with text. And yet it's the difference between a barbed insult and good-humored encouragement!

You see, that is why you give people on an internet forum benefit of the doubt. You don't do it because you think "Well, as long as the board only has 2 of every 100 posts being trolls, we'll be okay, so we just need to clamp down on the blatant ones." You give them the benefit of the doubt because it's impossible to truly determine someone's intent. There have been times when I'm unsure of whether I'm being trolled on this board or not, and I ask the person in question, and they quite reasonably tell me what's what, and serious conversation continues. And we move on, and the thread continues, and everyone, more or less, is happy.

But this?

Suddenly you want to say that you people have been gifted (from who knows where) the ability to see these things exactly? And that you can determine if someone is a troll or not? That you can tell a borderline post is a troll instead of a serious comment? What if you're misreading their intent? What if you're just unaware of an alternate meaning of a word? What if you plain old don't like them and are more inclined to read malice into innocent words? You can't honestly tell me that you can really see where they come down, all the time.

And the thing is, you're trying to implement this in serious threads. Why do you think threads are serious in the first place? Yes, about 10% of "serious threads" are ones that deal with philosophical debates where the most impassioned someone gets is gesticulating with the cane their university gifted them upon graduation.

But roughly 90% of "serious threads" are stuff about politics, religion, faith, science, nationalism, etc., etc. These are topics that people get fired up and passionate about. Passion, as I probably don't have to tell you, is something that is very frequently indistinguishable from rancor. Any poster should be able to wear their heart on their sleeves during a political debate. Because, heck, I think the "abortion is a matter of killing babies!" is a ludicrous line of reasoning, and I will explain exactly how. I'm not going to pull punches in a debate in which I think the opponent wants to take away women's rights in a sexist repression of half of society. Do you really think that a debate in which one side thinks the other is murderers and the other side thinks their opponents are sexists isn't going to have a lot of borderline posts? A lot of borderline posts that are basically the content of the thread?

And yes, you can clamp down on those. And you'll probably still have threads with content.

But guess what. They'll be bleached of real debate. It'll be palsied, an emaciated, etiolated pile of garbage that will not in any way resemble real world debates. Because political debate, at least in a forum full of the young and idealistic, is something which we care about, and not something in which we should have to reign in everything.

Now, I'm not calling for you to abandon standards. Obviously not! If someone were to literally say, "you're a murderer for supporting X", you should probably warn them. Or if someone posts something completely out of context, like, "Well you're fat and frankly ugly," then that obviously has no place in political debate. But posts which say stuff like, "you are ignorant of the issue," or, "you need to do more reading," or, "Argue my bloody point and stop dodging the issue," are all things which you should honestly expect in a political or economic debate.

And for some reason you're suggesting that ALL threads dealing with such issues should be moderated with an even heavier hand than the recently increasingly strict moderation that already permeates this forum.

Are you guys really that astonished that a lot of people think this is a horrible idea?

A thousand times qft! This is the point I, and I think many others have been trying to make.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

[snip]

A truly famous post.The part about how sanitizing threads about passionate topics will destroy everything rings especially true.

 

[JollyRoger]

Plenty of infractable content here:

The Debate on the Constitution: Part One: September 1787 to February 1788

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification

DEBATES IN THE PRESS AND IN PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE (September 17, 1787-January 12, 1788)
•Benjamin Franklin's Speech at the Conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787 "I Agree to This Constitution, with All Its Faults"
•"Z" Replies to Franklin's Speech, December 6, 1787 "No Wonder He Shed a Tear"
•Alexander Hamilton's Conjectures About the New Constitution, September 1787
•"A Revolution Effected by Good Sense and Deliberation," September 24, 1787
•David Redick to William Irvine, September 24, 1787 "The Loss of American Liberty"
•Strictures on the Proposed Constitution, September 26, 1787
•"An American Citizen" [Tench Coxe] I, September 26, 1787 The English and American Constitutions Contrasted
•"An American Citizen" [Tench Coxe] II, September 28, 1787 Senators and Nobles
•"An American Citizen" [Tench Coxe] III, September 29, 1787 An Uncorrupted House
•"Cato" I, September 27, 1787 Deliberate with Coolness, Analyze with Criticism, Reflect with Candor
•Reply to "Cato" I: "Cjsar" I, October 1, 1787 On the Language of Distrust
•Rebuttal to "Cjsar" I: "Cato" II, October 11, 1787 On the Right of Free Deliberation
•James Madison to George Washington, September 30, 1787 Congress Forwards the Constitution to the States
•Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, October 1, 1787 On the Deviousness of Congress's Action, and the Need for Amendments
•Rev. James Madison to James Madison, c. October 1, 1787 For an Experimental Period and an Absolute Separation of Powers
•"Southwark," October 3, 1787 Antifederalists—Tories Reborn
•"Centinel" [Samuel Bryan] I, October 5, 1787 "A Most Daring Attempt to Establish a Despotic Aristocracy"
•James Wilson's Speech at a Public Meeting, October 6, 1787 "Every Thing Which Is Not Given, Is Reserved"◦Reply to Wilson's Speech: "A Democratic Federalist," October 17, 1787 What Shelter from Arbitrary Power?
◦Reply to Wilson's Speech: "Centinel" [Samuel Bryan] II, October 24, 1787 To Avoid the Usual Fate of Nations
◦Reply to Wilson's Speech: "Cincinnatus" [Arthur Lee] I, November 1, 1787 To Defeat a Monstrous Aristocracy
◦Reply to Wilson's Speech: "An Officer of the Late Continental Army" [William Findley?], November 6, 1787 "A Set of Aspiring Despots, Who Make Us Slaves"
◦Rebuttal to "An Officer of the Late Continental Army": "Plain Truth," November 10, 1787 "I Have Answered All the Objections"
◦Reply to Wilson's Speech: "Cincinnatus" [Arthur Lee] V, November 29, 1787 "O Sense Where Is Your Guard! Shame Where Is Your Blush!"

•"An Old Whig" [George Bryan et al.] I, October 12, 1787 No Amendments Will Ever Be Made Without Violent Convulsion or Civil War
•"Marcus," October 15, 1787 Interests and the Constitution
•"A Citizen of America" [Noah Webster], October 17, 1787 An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution
•"Brutus" I, October 18, 1787 "If You Adopt It ... Posterity Will Execrate Your Memory" ◦The Weaknesses of Brutus Exposed: "A Citizen of Philadelphia" [Pelatiah Webster], November 8, 1787 "Congress Can Never Get More Power Than the People Will Give"

•A Political Dialogue, October 24, 1787 "There Is Some Trick In It"
•James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 The Constitution Explained and Justified, with an "Immoderate Digression" on a Defeated Proposal ◦Thomas Jefferson Replies to Madison, December 20, 1787 "The Will of the Majority Should Always Prevail"

•"Cato" III, October 25, 1787 The Dangers to Liberty and Happiness
•"Publius," The Federalist I [Alexander Hamilton], October 27, 1787 "Vigour of Government Is Essential to the Security of Liberty"
•"John Humble," October 29, 1787 "To Lick the Feet of Our Well Born Masters"
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] I, November 2, 1787 "We Must Think, We Must Reason, For Ourselves"
•Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts General Court, November 3, 1787 "The Greatest Men May Err" ◦Reply to Elbridge Gerry: "A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] IV, November 26, 1787 "To Alarm the Fears of the People"
◦A Further Reply to Elbridge Gerry: "A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] V, December 3, 1787 "To Combat Phantoms"

•Letters from the "Federal Farmer" to "The Republican," November 8, 1787 "Examine Coolly Every Article, Clause, and Word" ◦Refutation of the "Federal Farmer": Timothy Pickering to Charles Tillinghast, December 24, 1787 "The Best Constitution We ... Have Any Right To Expect"

•George Washington to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1787 "Is It Best for the States to Unite, or Not to Unite?"
•Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787 "The Tree of Liberty Must Be Refreshed from Time to Time with the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants"
•"Publius," The Federalist VI [Alexander Hamilton], November 14, 1787 "Men Are Ambitious, Vindictive and Rapacious"
•"Brutus" III, November 15, 1787 "Representation Is Merely NominalA Mere Burlesque"
•Resolution of the Inhabitants of Pittsburgh, November 17, 1787 Nothing Better Could Be Expected
•"Philanthrop" to the Public, November 19, 1787 "Real True Self Interest Considered on a Large Extensive Scale, Is Public Good"
•"A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] III, November 19, 1787 "Power When Necessary for Our Good Is as Much to Be Desired as the Food We Eat"
•"Publius," The Federalist VIII [Alexander Hamilton], November 20, 1787 Militarism, the Inevitable Result of Disunion
•"Publius," The Federalist IX [Alexander Hamilton], November 21, 1787 A Confederate Republic: The Internal Advantages of a Republican with the External Force of a Monarchical Government
•George Mason, "Objections to the Constitution," circulated early October 1787, published in full November 22, 1787 America Under the Constitution: "A Monarchy, or a Corrupt Oppressive Aristocracy" ◦A "Prolix" Comment on Mason's "Objections": James Madison to George Washington, October 18, 1787
◦Reply to Mason's "Objections": "Civis Rusticus," January 30, 1788 Not to Condemn, But to Correct
◦Answers to Mason's "Objections": "Marcus" [James Iredell] IV, February 20March 19, 1788 "A System of Government Which I Am Convinced Can Stand the Nicest Examination"

◦I, February 20, 1788
◦II, February 27, 1788
◦III, March 5, 1788
◦IV, March 12, 1788
◦V, March 19, 1788

•"Cato" V, November 22, 1787 Can an American Be a Tyrant? On the Great Powers of the Presidency, the Vagueness of the Constitution, and the Dangers of Congress
•"Publius," The Federalist X [James Madison], November 22, 1787 "To Break and Control the Violence of Faction"
•"A Countryman" [Roger Sherman?] II, November 22, 1787 On the Interests of Rulers and Ruled
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] II, November 23, 1787 "Cato's" Folly: "A President Possessing the Powers of a Monarch"
•Louis Guillaume Otto to Comte de Montmorin, November 26, 1787 There Is No Way to Go Back
•"Brutus" IV, November 29, 1787 Fair Representation Is the Great Desideratum in Politics
•"Publius," The Federalist XIV [James Madison], November 30, 1787 "A Revolution Which Has No Parallel in the Annals of Human Society"
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] III, November 30, 1787 On Representation and the Modern State
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] III, November 30, 1787 On the Present Prosperity: Recommit the Constitution
•Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee, December 3, 1787 The Sovereignty and Diversity of the States Will Be Lost
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] IV, December 4, 1787 The Despotism and Misery of a Uniform National State
•"Publius," The Federalist XVI [Alexander Hamilton], December 4, 1787 Civil War and the Death of the Union
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] IV, December 5 & 6, 1787 On the Errors of "Cato" and of Celebrated Writers
•Richard Henry Lee to Governor Edmund Randolph, December 6, 1787 Must We Kill Ourselves For Fear of Dying?
•John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 6, 1787 The Dangers of the One and of the Few
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] V, December 11, 1787 On the "Derangement" of the Federal Courts
•George Lee Turberville to James Madison, December 11, 1787 Some Puzzling Questions
•"Publius," The Federalist XXI [Alexander Hamilton], December 12, 1787 The Extent and Malignity of the Present Disease
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] V, December 12, 1787 On Montesquieu, a System Monger Without Philosophic Precision, and More on the Errors of "Cato"
•"Philadelphiensis" [Benjamin Workman] IV, December 12, 1787 "This Monster, This Colossus of Despotism"
•"Brutus" V, December 13, 1787 On the "Necessary and Proper" and the "General Welfare" Clauses, and on Congress's Power to Tax: the States Will Be Destroyed
•"Publius," The Federalist XXII [Alexander Hamilton], December 14, 1787 Further Defects in the Present System
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] VI, December 14, 1787 The Power to Incorporate, and the Regulation of Commerce
•Lawrence Taliaferro to James Madison, December 16, 1787 "The Federal Sistum Is Rufly Handeld"
•"A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] VII, December 17, 1787 "No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required"
•Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, December 18, 1787 ◦Reply to the Pennsylvania Minority: "America" [Noah Webster], December 31, 1787
◦A Cumberland County Mutual Improvement Society Addresses the Pennsylvania Minority, January 2, 1788 "Support the Drooping Cause of Liberty" and Annihilate "the Proposed Aristocratic Delusion"
◦Reply to the Pennsylvania Minority: "A Citizen of Philadelphia" [Pelatiah Webster], January 23, 1788 "Their Folly and Wickedness in Opposing the New Government"

•"Publius," The Federalist XXIII [Alexander Hamilton], December 18, 1787 On Military Power: Ends and Means
•"Publius," The Federalist XXIV [Alexander Hamilton], December 19, 1787 The Danger of a Standing Army: "An Intention to Mislead the People"
•"Philadelphiensis" [Benjamin Workman] V, December 19, 1787 "Diabolical Plots and Secret Machinations ...to Destroy Your Liberties"
•Joseph Barrell to Nathaniel Barrell, December 20, 1787 "A Constitution ... Dictated by Heaven Itself"
•Ezra Stiles: Pluses and Minuses of the Constitution, December 24, 1787
•"Publius," The Federalist XXVII [Alexander Hamilton], December 25, 1787 On the Acceptance of Federal Authority
•Governor Edmund Randolph's Reasons for Not Signing the Constitution, December 27, 1787 "I Will, as an Individual Citizen, Accept the Constitution"
•George Washington to Charles Carter, December 27, 1787 The Constitution or Anarchy: The Need to Ratify
•"Brutus" VI, December 27, 1787 The Dangers of Unlimited Taxation: "Give! Give!"
•"Publius," The Federalist XXX [Alexander Hamilton], December 28, 1787 "An Unrestrained Power of Taxation"? On the Necessity and Uses of Federal Revenue
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] IX, December 28, 1787 On the Virtues of "Pure Blood" and Limited Federal Power
•Luther Martin, "The Genuine Information" I, II, VIII, IX, XII, December 28, 1787-February 8, 1788 Resisting the Federalists' "Violent Struggle ... to Obtain All Power and Dominion" ◦I, December 28, 1787
◦II, January 1, 1788
◦VIII, January 22, 1788
◦IX, January 29, 1788
◦XII, February 8, 1788

•"The New Roof" [Francis Hopkinson], December 29, 1787 Skilful Architects and Intriguing Old Women
•"Giles Hickory" [Noah Webster] I, December 1787 On the Absurdity of a Bill of Rights
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] X, January 1, 1788 A Summary View: "This System Ought to Be Rejected"
•"Publius," The Federalist XXXII-XXXIII [Alexander Hamilton], January 2, 1788 On Repugnancy, Concurrence, and Reciprocal Forbearance
•"Centinel" [Samuel Bryan] VIII, January 2, 1788 "The Rapacious Hand of Power"
•"Brutus" VII, January 3, 1788 "Unlimitted Authority in Matters of Revenue"?
•"Publius," The Federalist XXXIV [Alexander Hamilton], January 4, 1788 State vs. National Revenues: "Calculate ... on Permanent Causes of Expence"
•Samuel Osgood to Samuel Adams, January 5, 1788 "An Inexhaustable Fountain of Corruption"
•"The Republican" to the People, January 7, 1788 "The Principal Circumstances Which Render Liberty Secure"
•Resolutions of the Tradesmen of the Town of Boston, January 8, 1788 To Promote Trade, Industry, and Morality
•"Publius," The Federalist XXXVI [Alexander Hamilton], January 8, 1788 The Representation of Interests and Federal Taxation
•Thomas B. Wait to George Thatcher, January 8, 1788 "Darkness, Duplicity, and Studied Ambiguity"
•"Brutus" VIII, January 10, 1788 On the Calamity of a National Debt That Cannot Be Repaid, and on Standing Armies
•"Mark Antony," January 10, 1788 Slavery "Ought To Be Regreted ... But It Is Evidently Beyond Our Controul": A Defense of the Three-Fifths Clause
•James Madison to Governor Edmund Randolph, January 10, 1788 The Dangers of a Second Convention
•Samuel Holden Parsons to William Cushing, January 11, 1788 "Our Security Must Rest in Our Frequently Recurring Back to the People"
•"Publius," The Federalist XXXVII [James Madison], January 11, 1788 "An Abstract View of the Subject"
•"Agrippa" [James Winthrop] XII, January 11, 15, 18, 1788 "Cherish the Old Confederation Like the Apple of Our Eye"
•"Publius," The Federalist XXXVIII [James Madison], January 12, 1788 A Bedlam of Criticism and a Counsel of Perfection
•"Americanus" [John Stevens, Jr.] VI, January 12, 1788 "An Iron Handed Despotism"?

http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=32&section=toc

 

[Communisto]

I agree with NK. Excellent post, it almost precisely conveys the feelings that I've had about the Community lately.

 

[Mark1031]

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.

It is clear to me that the goal of the people who are in charge of this site and people like me have diverged. Have any of the current Admins ever once made a post that is humorous or even worse - a light hearted jab. The idea that you will control the style of the posts to drive the herd into more appropriate discussion sounds like a lot of fun. I forget, are we here for fun or to move forward the cumulative wisdom of mankind. As I pointed out there is now an army of mods that sometimes surpasses the number of actual members logged in-absurd.

This isn't a serious debating forum. It's a gaming fansite. If there's serious discussion where reasoned arguments are put into the crucible of intelligent debate and well-informed constructive criticism, great. But it's not the purpose of the site. So on this site, causing people to "cry a little bit" is not a price we're prepared to pay in order to avoid "kids prattling on".

Do the mods/admins even know what they want? There seems to be a major concern with protecting the sensibilities of the younger crowd. Do any of you know/remember how 14 yr old males behave to each other, what a PG-13 movie contains, what is available on the internet to 14 yr olds? I agree that you certainly need moderation or people would be screaming obscenities at each other and sites like that are worthless but biting sarcasm, and humorous jabs are both a time honored art and part of normal conversation and life, especially for 14 yr olds.


Its really a shame as I have not found another site with quite the eclectic mix of individuals and sufficient critical mass to keep going. Oh well it is sort of like CivV at some point good things just go bad.

BTW I am a 51yr old Science Professor, not a class of individual known for overly raucous humor or lack of seriousness. God only knows what the target audience is for the site envisioned.

 

[Tee Kay]

Now, I'm not calling for you to abandon standards. Obviously not! If someone were to literally say, "you're a murderer for supporting X", you should probably warn them. Or if someone posts something completely out of context, like, "Well you're fat and frankly ugly," then that obviously has no place in political debate. But posts which say stuff like, "you are ignorant of the issue," or, "you need to do more reading," or, "Argue my bloody point and stop dodging the issue," are all things which you should honestly expect in a political or economic debate.

I am in support of this.

 

[Mise]

There is a hilarious irony in trying to protect 14 year olds from immature posts.

What I find most interesting is how there are so many different criticisms of this idea. At the root of them all, though, is a common sense that the moderators are being too involved in things that we don't want them to be involved in. All the previous big ruckuses have come when moderators have attempted to stifle our ability to post: most recently to post serial threads, and now to post serious threads. Meanwhile, the users have been asking for the ability to make our own minds up about how good a thread is, via the 5-star rating system, and also how good a post is, via "Like" or "Thank" buttons. The moderators need to realise that they can't be prescriptive about threads and posts. Every time they've tried to be prescriptive, it has failed; they need to learn from that and work with us instead of against us.

 

[LucyDuke]

Every time they've tried to be prescriptive, it has failed; they need to learn from that and work with us instead of against us.

I do think the RD effort is a good faith attempt to do that. Whether it'll work or not, we'll see, but they're offering us the option of requesting extra stringency. I know I plan to take them up on it. It may be worthwhile.

As I posted above, though, it needs to be an option. Forcing the RDing of every thread on whatever topics they deem worthy is not coöperative, it's just yet more unappreciated overmoderation.


Does anyone actually have a problem with this RD thing as an option? Not whether you'll make use of it, whether you're personally interested in such threads, whether you think it'll work out at all - if threads only get the designation by the OP, is that really objectionable?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, BirdJaguar, since in our private discussion you implied this move would resolve the issue we talked about I'd like to ask a question.

If someone makes a Strawman argument or one of those lovely "So you are saying ..." posts, I can report that post in a diamond thread? Or does this mean I have to suck it up and not be able to tell the poster who posted such rubbish exactly what I think of that rubbish?

Because the kind of post I am thinking about clearly meets this criterium: "For moderators it will mean that in these threads they will be vigilant for any posting that disrupts the civility of the discussion."

 

[Mise]

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were clear that this is only about moderation standards and not about "serious discussion". Because (a) nothing about this idea seems to encourage serious discussion, (b) nothing about this does anything to address the main obstacles to serious discussion, and (c) there's nothing wrong with frivolity or passion in serious discussion. Drop the pretense that this is about discussing "serious" things in a "serious" manner; it's not, and we need to be clear about that. It's about more stringent moderation standards in certain threads. And that absolutely needs to be opt-in.

 

[LucyDuke]

If it's implemented the right way, it could facilitate SRSBZNS by cutting back distractions and idiot dogpiles. Not SRS topics, which frankly wouldn't be anything innovative, but SRS threads. I'm trying to leave the benefit of the doubt until we know whether it's implemented the right way, proving (b) pessimism... or not.

I agree with (c). Can we get a working definition of this "serious thread" boogey?

 

[Mise]

The thing is, it can be used to facilitate SRSBZNS by cutting back distractions and idiot dogpiles. It can also be used to turn a contentious, passionate topic into a sober, impassionate topic. It can also be used to ward off potential trolls from certain topics (e.g. topics about ghosts or veganism or living on an eco-farm, etc), by threatening them with harsh mod actions.

In otherwords, RD has the potential to be used in many different ways, to many different ends. Mods should be indifferent to why we're using the RD icon; they should just enforce the rules more stringently in those topics, and let us decide what the purpose of using the RD icon should be. Dropping the goal of "serious discussion" and being absolutely clear that this is only about tighter moderation will allow us to decide whether RD'ing our threads will be good or bad for our thread.

"Would my thread benefit from tighter moderation?" If the answer is Yes, put an RD icon on it. That's how we should be using it.