Red Diamond Threads

[MobBoss]

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.

But here you are arguing semantics and style, not necessarily intent. Not everyone writes the same way. And it still offers clarification by the original poster. For example, I was taught that anything ending in a ? was indeed a question.

Are not people permitted to interpret how they read anothers point? At least without being intentionally misleading or trollish?

Btw, BJ left this out, but Rumi did ask Hafiz in a later post that if his interpretation were incorrect, could Hafiz please clarify what he meant. Does this make a difference in how you would view the exchange? The context offered here is rather limited and certainly went further, before and after, than just that exchange that BJ pasted.

 

[Mark1031]

Is Rumi presenting a strawman argument? YES
Is he misunderstanding Hafiz? NO
Is he making a logical extension of Hafiz's post? YES
Is Hafiz being oversensitive in his objection? YES

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

How would you want/expect mods to respond to such a report? Tell the reporter to stop bothering the mods with nonsense.

See easy but I have a very different view of this site as I told BirdJag:

Mature people can have serious discussions by simply ignoring those that do not contribute. I have had many such discussions and have never needed to report a post in 10 yrs. The site would be fine IMO if one modded the occasional late night drunk, spambot and serious flame war. The problem with 14 mods and a charge to control tone is the impossibility of consistency in such a subjective endeavor.

I find it much more annoying to be reading through a thread with Jolly’s witty trolling sarcasm, which is often making quite legitimate points, only to find it closed because “the discussion is going nowhere”. The locking of threads should be used only in the most limited of circumstances. What difference does it make whether the discussion is “going somewhere”? Why is that important for the enjoyment of people at a gaming off topic site? If people complain about such threads why not have them simply ignore them or have a marker for fun threads- in which the discussion will involve sarcasm and strawmen. I want to read a thread about the US budget deficit where Jolly Rodger and MobBoss troll each other in clever ways. Why is it so important that this be stopped? I have no problem with the idea of red diamond, it is the overmodding of the rest of the stie that is a problem.

 

[LucyDuke]

Of course we can discuss how we've interpreted posts. It doesn't look like this, though.

Here the question introduced a new topic and ascribed a particular belief about that newly-introduced topic to someone other than the poster himself. That is, Hafiz said nothing about government growth. What he said is as applicable to a tiny government work force as a large one, as applicable to a stable government work force as a growing one. Rumi introduced Obama expanded the government and put it in Hafiz's mouth. It's not really relevant to fixing the now-budget, though, and is prone to drag the thread into a political blame-game, which the OP specifically excluded.

I think it's pretty obviously a misrepresentation of, not a confusion about, what Hafiz was saying.

Hafiz answered correctly later in the thread though. "Nothing I said can in any way be construed to mean that." Rumi's question was disarmed. A less focused poster than Hafiz may have been tricked into trying to argue against the strawman.


Yes, the thread is about balancing the budget. Gas taxes and job cuts are elements of balancing the budget.

I want to read a thread about the US budget deficit where Jolly Rodger and MobBoss troll each other in clever ways.

Me too. Most posters aren't clever enough to do that, though.

 

[Mise]

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?

It depends on whether Rumi has a habit of presenting strawman arguments and deliberately twisting other people's posts.

Similarly, it depends on whether Hafiz has a habit of being oversensitive.

Should it be infracted? That's up to you to decide -- your answer will shape RD threads in the future. Personally, I'd hope it wasn't infracted. IMO, and without knowing the full context, Rumi is showing intransigence in the bolded part and ignorance in the rest of the post; those things shouldn't be infracted. But if you want RD to be without intransigence and ignorance then you should infract them.

It's entirely up to you. How you guys moderate RD will shape how RD is used by us, so figure out what you want from RD and that'll tell you what you should infract.

 

[Quintillus]

Without reading 13 pages, I thought I'd say that I think Abaddon has a good point in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=430231

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.

You have got to be kidding me!?

Any thread that is political or economical will be deemed as requiring your new uber moderation?!

I applaud the idea of creating threads that will be moderated more harshly, for those that wish to have such a discussion, but please don't ban the type of discussion we now have!

Why can the two not exist in tandem? If you wish the thread to be viewed seriously and moderated as such.. use the diamond. If not, don't use it, and the thread can be used as normal.

You are making a BIG change to the way OT will be moderated for just a handful of loud voices. Content people don't make any noise.. and how many are there of those?



------------

TL: DR Don't FORCE this on us, let those who want to have serious threads, start the serious threads.



(I also found it odd there was no discussion thread for this thing in SF to begin with!)

It seems perfectly reasonable that both lighthearted and serious discussions on certain topics could be desirable.

 

[Cutlass]

Rumi is using a strawman.
He is not misunderstanding Hafiz, he is deliberately putting words in the other's mouth for the purpose of derailing the argument and pissing the other guy off.
Rumi's post is an attempt to distract from Hafiz, not to answer it.
Is Hafiz oversensative?

...

Currently many OT discussions are marred by trolling, both subtle and blatant; personal attacks; tiresome bickering that never gets anywhere; non responsiveness to questions asked; unsupported claims; and argument styles that are little more than “I’m right and you are wrong!”

Goal #1: Better discussions
By having a very clear identifier for the discussion threads, both moderators and posters will know what is expected of them. For posters: contribute civilly to the discussion without trolling, flaming, personal attacks and junk posts that don’t add to the conversation. Higher quality posts will be expected. For moderators it will mean that in these threads they will be vigilant for any posting that disrupts the civility of the discussion. They will deal harshly with the offenders.
...

The Red Diamond (RD) Expectations

• The “Red Diamond” label can be selected by the person that opens the thread; an OT mod can reverse that designation if they feel it is inappropriate for the topic. Likewise, an OT mod can apply the designation if they feel it is more appropriate for the topic.
• The Opening Post must be sufficient to stimulate discussion and must contain content written by the thread starter that explains the content and what is to be discussed. The word “Discuss” alone is insufficient.
• All posts must contribute to or extend the discussion through good content or cogent questions. For those prone to a humorous one liner, you better be prepared to follow them with good content that begins on the next line.
• Civility will rule and no personal attacks allowed. It will be your responsibility to find the right words to get your point across in a civil and kind manner. If you cannot do so, don’t say it.
• 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.

For some of you this kind of posting may be difficult and will call for a radical change in style. The penalties for failure will be severe, so please make the effort or don’t post. Mods will have tools to let you know you’ve posted poorly:

Not according to this thread's OP.

If the purpose of this Red Diamond concept is to put an end to bad posting, then the moderators have failed.

 

[classical_hero]

Moderator Action: These all appear to be spam bumps, if we're using a Red Diamond on the thread. FYI.

Takhisis, Yared, and Classical_Hero all appear to have discussion that they want to contribute, but that they did not (in fact) contribute, but just hinted.

I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that whenever you are in a RD thread that you have to say a lot of words for it to be considered a discussion? If that is the case I don;t see why saying a few words is a wrong thing to do. You can say a lot in a few word or you can be saying nothing with lots of words. I would have though that saying something constructive, even if it is only a few words is part of the discussion.

 

[azzaman333]

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 it's an isolated incident, let it slide. Maybe a warning of some sort. Repeated posts of that nature likely indicates a deliberate attempt by Rumi to win the argument by pissing off his opponent rather than countering his points, at which point it should be infracted.

 

[MobBoss]

Hafiz answered correctly later in the thread though. "Nothing I said can in any way be construed to mean that." Rumi's question was disarmed. A less focused poster than Hafiz may have been tricked into trying to argue against the strawman.

Since you know the context, if you know Hafiz did clarify the comment to that degree, was anything more said about it after that clarification?

No?

That being the case, I fail to see why such questions, and replies, are considered 'bad' for OT. Its part of how human communication works (at least in its written form).

Me too. Most posters aren't clever enough to do that, though.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I find it much more annoying to be reading through a thread with Jolly’s witty trolling sarcasm, which is often making quite legitimate points, only to find it closed because “the discussion is going nowhere”. The locking of threads should be used only in the most limited of circumstances. What difference does it make whether the discussion is “going somewhere”? Why is that important for the enjoyment of people at a gaming off topic site? If people complain about such threads why not have them simply ignore them or have a marker for fun threads- in which the discussion will involve sarcasm and strawmen. I want to read a thread about the US budget deficit where Jolly Rodger and MobBoss troll each other in clever ways. Why is it so important that this be stopped? I have no problem with the idea of red diamond, it is the overmodding of the rest of the stie that is a problem.

This raises a very interesting idea. Instead of just closing a "useless" thread that's going nowhere, why not flag it with some sort of marker, rather like the opposite of the Red Diamonds. Maybe a sinking ship with its rudder up in the air. Unless there's a serious reason to close it (like a flame war or spamming of inappropriate material), I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to stay open. Sometimes discussions wander to and from the topic, and just because it's "not performing as expected" doesn't mean it should be discontinued. We aren't manufacturing cars here, keeping that thread open causes zero harm and costs nothing. I understand that the moderators don't want to have to continue reading threads that aren't "worth their time," so with these shipwreck threads, why not simply leave it to float adrift, and only bother entering them if someone reports a post there?

This may actually improve the quality of the Red Diamond, and even other non-flagged yet serious threads (and make ya'lls jobs in those areas easier). Provide a lower drain for water to run to, and the rest of things stay dryer.

 

[Mathilda]

But here you are arguing semantics and style, not necessarily intent. Not everyone writes the same way. And it still offers clarification by the original poster. For example, I was taught that anything ending in a ? was indeed a question.

Intent?
Moderators can start moderating intent when they become mind readers. Until then they have to stick with the words written.

Are not people permitted to interpret how they read anothers point? At least without being intentionally misleading or trollish?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Btw, BJ left this out, but Rumi did ask Hafiz in a later post that if his interpretation were incorrect, could Hafiz please clarify what he meant. Does this make a difference in how you would view the exchange? The context offered here is rather limited and certainly went further, before and after, than just that exchange that BJ pasted.

To me it would.

 

[JollyRoger]

A few points:

First, if the post being discussed is an example of where the borderline is in RD, then this is why it should be opt-in. I would be willing to post in a RD thread, but my posting style would be very different and if every thread where I now typically have an interest is perhaps going to be RD'd, then why even post here? The borderline seems very far away from my typical posting style, which while admittedly infractable here and there and not RD acceptable, isn't something that should be relegated to "What's your favorite soda" threads.

Second, is the RD substitute for and ? It appears it is being used in this very RD thread in an unnecessary way. I would certainly read an unnecesary smilie as somewhat trollish by RD standards when you have the entire English language to maturely make your point. I'm not meaning to call those posters out, but merely trying to get some clarification. Anytime I see , I just look at it as a "bless your heart" way of throwing out a or or other more trollish smilie equivalent. Obviously, and will not generally not fly in a RD thread (except in this post ), but I'm asking for some clarification of whether a dialed back smilie will fly when not putting a smilie there at all should suffice. If you need a smilie to soften your written post, perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote. Er,

Third, am I to assume that posts made in a thread before it gets RD'd will be moderated under a non-RD standard? Or will we have to become mind readers that should have known (in some cases) that a thread was going to RD'd and thus should having been posting at the higher standard to begin with?

 

[MobBoss]

To me it would.

Can you please explain further how it would matter to you in that context? Thanks!

Intent?
Moderators can start moderating intent when they become mind readers. Until then they have to stick with the words written.

I agree but it seems to me that one has to perform a bit of mind reading to answer the questions BJ is asking. Would you recommend that perceived strawmen or other noted logical fallacies become infractible in RD threads?

@Jolly. If RD threads are the 'so serious' threads then why not just disable all smileys in them?

 

[Defiant47]

The problem with OT isn't insufficient moderation. The problem is with the more intelligent trolls out there who can troll in such a manner that a moderator isn't capable of clamping down on them.

Some people enjoy a reasonable debate and exchange of quality ideas between intelligent people. Others just like trolling the general populace (usually on one side of the fence), inflaming them, and watching their emotions run amok. Bonus points if the person trolled gets an infraction. I can understand the sensation... I used to love it when I was a small child. But it can also occur in more mature people when they are on the losing side. A clean successful troll can feel like quite a sense of victory.

The issue is that these mature people can also be quite intelligent. So they know how to troll while not being infractable. And they also know how to troll to get perfectly on the other side's nerves. The reason it becomes a problem is that not everyone is necessarily great at controlling their own emotions. And those who are can see how the discussion has degraded, while the others just end up falling into the trap.

So how do you moderate this?

• Is the person using a strawman getting ahead of themselves? Are they accurately getting to the other person's eventual conclusion? Or are they just trolling the other by using a manner of hyperbole to make it seem like the other person is clearly wrong?
• Is the person using a non-sequitur raising a valid point relevant to the discussion? Does it provide unique insight even if seemingly unrelated? Or is it just a troll way of derailing the other person's argument with (what they know is) an unrelated point?
• Is the person failing to grasp logical reasoning? Or are they just trolling by using poor logic to twist the other person's argument against him or her, making it seem the other person is actually wrong?

Spam, flaming, curses, and so on, are easy to moderate. These kinds of situations are not. I daresay they are impossible to moderate. Yet this is what constitutes a great part of the problems with OT.

How are moderators supposed to deal with these issues? Infract the posters that seem intelligent, and are obviously trolling when they use poor logic or raise unrelated and/or misleading points in order to seem like the other side is wrong? Then you're asking the moderators to read intelligence and intent, and the inconsistency in moderation will get very high.

***

(Some) Posters wanted a more serious OT subforum in hopes that it would bring about harsher moderation that would eliminate trollish debate behaviour. But the worst trollish debate behaviour comes from those who are capable of doing it in such a way that it can't be clamped down. And there's nothing moderators can do about that.

The problem persist even through this Red Diamond initiative... except it doubles the satisfaction for the trolls for every successful infraction their victim receives (since Red Diamond threads are double the infraction points), and makes the game easier for them.

Personally, I like the RD idea, and want more of it. I enjoy the idea of stricter moderation. But I fear that too many people will end up falling into troll traps still, and the trolls will continue to troll on. Most importantly, the main reasons (from posters and the community) that led to this initiative will not be satisfied.

Childish behaviour isn't limited to just children.

 

[MobBoss]

How do you determine all that without being a mind reader?

 

[Perfection]

How do you determine all that without being a mind reader?

Take a stab at it and if you're wrong, oh well!

 

[Earthling]

Second, is the RD substitute for and ? It appears it is being used in this very RD thread in an unnecessary way. I would certainly read an unnecesary smilie as somewhat trollish by RD standards when you have the entire English language to maturely make your point. I'm not meaning to call those posters out, but merely trying to get some clarification. Anytime I see , I just look at it as a "bless your heart" way of throwing out a or or other more trollish smilie equivalent. Obviously, and will not generally not fly in a RD thread (except in this post ), but I'm asking for some clarification of whether a dialed back smilie will fly when not putting a smilie there at all should suffice. If you need a smilie to soften your written post, perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote. Er,

This is an excellent post. I'd be all for effectively banning smilies entirely in RD threads.

I've never been happy that posters are allowed to use smilies as an excuse to troll anyway but definitely RD threads are worth holding to a decent standard. Just don't allow it, even if it continues in regular OT as in the countless times where certain people say something like "This is a really stupid idea :smilieheremeansIwon'tgetinfracted." That should just be straight cut out in RD threads.

 

[Defiant47]

How do you determine all that without being a mind reader?

Exactly. The moderators wouldn't be able to determine this every time - hence the inconsistent moderation if it were ever enacted, which is why it never will.

If you're asking how I can determine that actually happens, I just assess the intellectual capacity of the poster based on their past posting experience. When this poster raises points that are clearly wrong, or uses logic that is clearly wrong, then it becomes obvious that they just want to troll - especially when it brings about knocking down the other person's argument.

Hypothetically, if a 10-post-count poster comes in saying (with poor spelling) "but the GOP has had the most men found cheating on their wives" as a way to discredit a conservative economic policy, despite the fact that it's completely unrelated, then most likely this poster is actually that unintelligent. However, if a poster that has demonstrated a capacity for rational and intelligent thought through their posting history brings up the same point, then they are obviously trolling in order to get a reaction from the conservatives on the board. They have just seemingly knocked down the conservatives' argument with a completely unrelated and irrelevant note.

 

[MobBoss]

Exactly. The moderators wouldn't be able to determine this every time - hence the inconsistent moderation if it were ever enacted, which is why it never will.

If you're asking how I can determine that actually happens, I just assess the intellectual capacity of the poster based on their past posting experience. When this poster raises points that are clearly wrong, or uses logic that is clearly wrong, then it becomes obvious that they just want to troll - especially when it brings about knocking down the other person's argument.

Now wait a second. If mods cant do it consistently, how can you determine it to be so obvious? Thats confusing. And btw, I didnt ask you how you could determine it at all, that's you offering that up. I will agree with your earlier comment its not obvious for anyone to ascertain since no one can actually read minds.

I would think the wise thing to do is if it cant be done consistently, or in the doing it takes up unreasonable amounts of man-hours to sift, then why not just keep moderation to the low hanging fruit and infract flamers/trolls and those unable to keep their composure if an argument gets heated? Moderation is a volunteer job, and largely thankless, wouldnt it be easier on them to deal with the obvious problems as opposed to having to argue ad nauseum if a particular post may or may not have crossed the line if only a single nuanced word had been slightly altered or parsed differently? Especially given the vagaries of the written english language the world over. I mean, in my own humble opinion, i'd be satisfied if we could get rid of those that simply cant seem to cease calling others names because their involvement in a particular argument has made them lose sphincter control.

Btw, not everyones 'logic' is necessarily the same on any particular issue. It not being the same doesnt equate with it being 'wrong'. What's logical to one, might not be logical to another.

 

[Defiant47]

Now wait a second. If mods cant do it consistently, how can you determine it to be so obvious? Thats confusing. And btw, I didnt ask you how you could determine it at all, that's you offering that up.

Btw, not everyones 'logic' is necessarily the same on any particular issue. It not being the same doesnt equate with it being 'wrong'. What's logical to one, might not be logical to another.

I didn't say I can determine it all the time, but I can determine that it does happen at least.

Your question could have been interpreted in two ways. I offered answer to both.

No, not everyone's opinion is necessarily the same on any particular issue. Logic should remain a constant. Strawmen, non-sequiturs, hyperbole, ad-hominems, etc, are wrong regardless. And intelligent people can usually recognize that (especially if they've had exposure to these flaws in logic).