Red Diamond Threads

[Grisu]

I feel with the red diamond I'm more inhibited and less likely to post ANYTHING on OT, diamond or otherwise, for fear of 'getting it wrong'. It's a label I dislike having, it's too regulated and OT, as I said before, should be relaxed.

I'm all for a relaxed OT, and believe it or not. RD is an attempt to make OT more relaxed again. One of the main issues being adressed with it is what Lucy explained somewhere earlier as modding that's too lax and too strict at the same time. I don't understand how you could fear of 'getting it wrong' in threads that are cleary not labeled as RD. If anything those will be moderated less than before the RD-era

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Supposing mods haven't got the time or will to compose proper quality posts, they can still help steer discussion without petty vandalism (edit: or "elitism"). Participate in the discussion, even if it's just mildly prodding questions. Ask for clarification and expansion of good ideas. Engage the best posting. Carrot. Call out crap posts conversationally - without necessarily wearing the mod hat and without needing to debate infraction - so the rest of us (that aren't allowed to do it bluntly) can see it disarmed and move on. Point out the quicksand before anyone falls in. This could work exceptionally well in the RD zone, where mods are already expected to be more active.

Yes, this will be good.

I fully support arbitrary bans. It's too easy to game the infraction system. It's no secret that some of these fence-dancers are #fiftychat regulars. Too many times to count, I've seen posters behave just as long as it takes for their points to expire. "I want to troll [poster] but I have to wait until tomorrow afternoon when I'll be back down to 4 points." You can get away with damn near anything if you pace yourself. The system is probably an improvement in dealing with the vast majority of posters, but it's completely broken by some of the problem posters - the ones that most need to be restrained.

Who says arbitrary bans are gone?

I've pretty much written into the mod manual that mods can still do manual bans if they feel it's needed, and that the infraction system is only a guide and our record system, not a meter-to-ban. That they haven't used it all that often is probably a good sign of self-restraint.

And yes, the problem posters will be dealt with separately (I think I've mentioned this a few times already).

 

[Mise]

Add ons and hacks were a major reason for the technical collapses at Apolyton, and for the schism that created We Play Civ site. Locutus and Solver left and started the new site with a clea slate because they were sick of the technical instability at Apolyton, and because of insufficient hope it could be salvaged. Although, as it turned out, Apolyton was able to start over with cleaner software and even covert much of their old data base to where it could at least be accessed with it.

LOADS of forums work just fine with addons, and haven't caused any problems at all. I'm going on other forums and I'm using addons on there without a problem. Then I come here and see you claim that addons will bring about the apocalypse and cause CFC to turn into We Play Civ. It's just not a credible claim, when there are literally hundreds of vBulletin forums working just fine with various addons.

This all sounds like mediating discussions rather than moderating them.

What is a "good quality post"?

"Mediating" discussions will (hopefully) reduce the need to moderate those discussions as frequently and as harshly by steering the discussion in a better direction.

I think good posters should be guiding discussion in the right direction. I often post "can we please ignore <this post> because it's not worth discussing things with him", but sadly I am not the most diplomatic person in the world and this tends to come across as overly insulting and I get infracted or warned for it. Moderators are by and large much more patient and polite than me; I'm sure they can rephrase the above into something more palatable. Better still would be for moderators to actively support good posts, and say, "this is a good post; it would be interesting to hear well thought out responses to this" or something.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For the record, I appreciate this kind of feedback.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10676023&postcount=292

Is this going to be standard behaviour from mods in RD, or is this just because RD is a new thing? I'd like it to be standard that a mod steers discussion away from the more troublesome lines of discussion without going for his/her mod-stick right of the bat

 

[Plotinus]

This "no vBulletin addons" thing is just a crutch... LOADS of websites have addons and it's not a problem. They say we can't have them because when they upgrade it's a pain, but how often does the forum software get upgraded? Like once a year or something?

I'd be happy to help out with the upgrades, and I'm sure there are plenty of techy users who would be more than willing to help, too.

And all this "TF wants it this way", "TF doesn't let us do that" is an equally annoying crutch. When was the last time TF even logged on?! If you went to him and said, "it would really help the moderators and users out if we could install this addon", I can't imagine him saying no.

Well then, I'm glad you've changed your objection from "the mods have an irrational prejudice against trying out a 'like' button" to "the mods have an irrational prejudice about using add-ons". It is at least a more accurate objection insofar as it's the add-ons that we don't want to use, rather than the "like" button itself.

However, it is the fact that Thunderfall doesn't want us to use it. I have no more say in that than you do. In fact that gives me an idea: why don't you try PMing Thunderfall and asking him about using the add-on in question? Say I suggested that you do so. Copy me in. If he says yes, we'll do it.

 

[Mark1031]

You and others (see especially post 95 by mark1031) raise the very interesting question of whether OT members in general really want more than just entertainment in their OT threads. If that is true (no need for serious discussions in OT at all) then the whole nature of OT and its moderation get called into question. that is a discussion worth starting in OT. make it a RD test thread?

Obviously people come for different reasons and the goal should be to accommodate the enjoyment of everyone, but you miss the point if you think seriousness and entertainment/trolling are mutually exclusive. As Jolly has pointed out the founding fathers of the US were well known trolls. They were also well known enlightenment thinkers.

Let me be clear as to my view. I have no problem with red diamond as long as they are exclusively thread starter based and not mod assigned. The reason the “serious” people are so strongly opposed to a split off of OT is they know it would die. I assume everyone realizes that and so you must ask yourself if that is the case is there really so much demand for such threads? No one is worried that the regular OT would die if you split off a serious component.

Nevertheless, the red diamond could be great if it led to loose modding of the rest of OT and the resistance is from concern that it will not lead to that but instead become the new standard. So really I’d be curious to know if new modding standards have been issued for the rest of OT. This is part of the selling point of red diamond but I have not seen any sign of this as threads are still being closed for no apparent reason that I can see (ie things like discussion going no where or OP not sufficiently serious or someone complained about something). Again there are a group of us that find this extremely annoying control. We would like to debate like many of the great thinkers and debaters in history (OK we’ll give up the obscenity, direct threat of violence, and reference to the oppositions sexual proclivities and genealogy) but we’d at least like to keep some of the sarcasm and not be told like children that the discussion is not sufficiently meritorious for the hallowed halls of the civfanatics OT site.

If this occurs for those who would like to have "fun" then I think red diamonds are a great success if not then no. BTW I have never in 10 yrs needed to “report” a post and the idea of a "mature" debater seeking outside intervention because someone responded to his argument with a trollish slippery slope overstatement of his last point is, how should I put it—immature. Perhaps mods thinking that all reports are a “problem” to be dealt with is one of the problems.

 

[Camikaze]

Is this going to be standard behaviour from mods in RD, or is this just because RD is a new thing? I'd like it to be standard that a mod steers discussion away from the more troublesome lines of discussion without going for his/her mod-stick right of the bat

The idea is for much more of that, yes. We don't want to have to babysit each thread, though, because it's quite time consuming. The idea is to have more of that type of warning; dealing with problems before they arise, and consequently not having to dish out points, because it doesn't get to the stage where anyone's actually done anything all that bad. But if people are causing persistent problems, or if we're having to warn them about the troublesome lines of discussion they're bringing into every thread, then we're going to reach for the cards. At the moment, because there's not all that many RD threads, and because the idea hasn't been around long enough to really identify and warn about repeated patterns of behaviour, there are barely any infractions, but as people become familiar with the concept, the number of infractions will most likely rise, and we will have more an expectation that people will steer away from troublesome lines of discussion without needing a mod to tell them to do so in every thread.

This is how it is designed to mean both heavier and lighter moderation at the same time. We are going to perhaps have a more active presence in the thread, and be more proactive in steering discussions (or putting a halt to troublesome lines of discussion before they spiral out of control). This is the heavier aspect. But that will mean that 'softer' methods are used. More text warnings, less infractions. That is the lighter aspect.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't understand how you could fear of 'getting it wrong' in threads that are cleary not labeled as RD.

There are some situations where a warning/infraction comes right out from left field and not expecting it. Someone earlier stated that the infractions don't work because some can skirt and game the system. I would add in that it also cause a bit of an inconvenience of receiving them akin to getting a parking or a speeding ticket and would cause the reciver of the card to be embittered with the mod who passed the card to the poster.

The RD threads just reads to me "construction zone, fines are doubled". I'm sure people would eather try to walk on egg shells as to not attract the attention of the mods or would outright avoid any RD threads as possible.

 

[SuperJay]

BTW I have never in 10 yrs needed to &#8220;report&#8221; a post and the idea of a "mature" debater seeking outside intervention because someone responded to his argument with a trollish slippery slope overstatement of his last point is, how should I put it&#8212;immature. Perhaps mods thinking that all reports are a &#8220;problem&#8221; to be dealt with is one of the problems.

I'm a pretty frequent reporter of asinine, immature posts. I'm told it helps the mods so I do report problem posts when I see them, but rarely posts from someone I'm interacting with. However, with the recent emphasis on "address the post not the poster," unfortunately that's become somewhat necessary. We just cannot respond to those trollish slippery slope overstatements without getting infracted, so you can either do nothing and let that kind of crap continue to wreck discussion, or you can report it and hope something gets done to address it. We're not allowed to address it ourselves.

Believe me, I'd love to be allowed to fight my own battles here, but that's not permitted. I can understand why, it probably saves the mods a lot of unnecessary headaches - but I think the zeal with which the mods are currently enforcing this rule is getting pretty excessive.

 

[Boundless]

Believe me, I'd love to be allowed to fight my own battles here, but that's not permitted. I can understand why, it probably saves the mods a lot of unnecessary headaches - but I think the zeal with which the mods are currently enforcing this rule is getting pretty excessive.

Mmmm I agree.

 

[choxorn]

Believe me, I'd love to be allowed to fight my own battles here, but that's not permitted. I can understand why, it probably saves the mods a lot of unnecessary headaches - but I think the zeal with which the mods are currently enforcing this rule is getting pretty excessive.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think it should be considered trolling to point out trolling in others, or some other things like bad arguments filled with fallacies, statements that look hypocritical, and things that generally just wreck the discussion. In some cases, doing that is even a perfectly valid response in an argument.

 

[GenMarshall]

But I think the zeal with which the mods are currently enforcing this rule is getting pretty excessive.

I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I would also bring up how they also appear distant by eather not responding to PMs (even if it's just to try to have an infraction reversed) and/or just lurking in the shaddows and not engaging with the posters without their mod hats on (I do give credit to some like V and Fred). I'm sure the issue of distant mods were already raised earlier.

 

[LucyDuke]

Who says arbitrary bans are gone?

I've pretty much written into the mod manual that mods can still do manual bans if they feel it's needed, and that the infraction system is only a guide and our record system, not a meter-to-ban. That they haven't used it all that often is probably a good sign of self-restraint.

Well, you don't use them enough.

Believe me, I'd love to be allowed to fight my own battles here, but that's not permitted. I can understand why, it probably saves the mods a lot of unnecessary headaches - but I think the zeal with which the mods are currently enforcing this rule is getting pretty excessive.

/me joins the chorus

On the other hand, I can think of a few of my recent posts, with slightly-less-polite "that didn't answer my question" or "I didn't say anything like that", which I think were much more effective than going to the mods, considering that the offending posts weren't exactly rule-breaking. The crackdown on addressing the post is absurd.

 

[SuperJay]

On the other hand, I can think of a few of my recent posts, with slightly-less-polite "that didn't answer my question" or "I didn't say anything like that", which I think were much more effective than going to the mods, considering that the offending posts weren't exactly rule-breaking. The crackdown on addressing the post is absurd.

Agreed completely. I know the newer mods are likely still getting used to wielding their powers, but there's only so far you can go in moderating someone's tone and choice of words. Same with thread content; IMO moderators shouldn't be policing the thread subjects to ensure that they're 'interesting enough.' If they don't violate the rules, leave well enough alone.

(BTW, I think this correlates to some of the confusion over being told that mods want "a more relaxed OT" and that RD is part of that endeavor - hearing that while simultaneously seeing threads closed and word choices infracted is a bit contradictory.)

Speaking of which, I probably sound completely contradictory here given my comments in the other conversations we've all had about these issues. Because my last two posts may seem critical of moderation, I want to underscore that I really appreciate that you guys are developing ideas to address these issues and are actively engaging with us and listening to feedback. That's very appreciated.

 

[Tarquelne]

Believe me, I'd love to be allowed to fight my own battles here, but that's not permitted.

I have a suggestion: Fight - but in a moderate way - other people's battles.

Too often threads are more like a series of unconnected duels than group discussions. Which is not necessarily bad... but I beleive (based on some observation) that if posters ban together, re-enforcing each other's posts, they can be far more persuasive and provide both a psychological defense and offense against trolls.

This goes against the natural urge of only responding to things that make one furious.... But I'm convinced it's useful.

Defense: It's obvious that you're not the only sane person in the room. The urge to reply in an indiscriminate - or maybe just repetitious - manner should be largely defused.

Offense: It's harder to believe the troll is effective - it's not just the target denying it, it's several people. Harder to believe both for the target, for lurkers, and for the troll.

Is is definitely just psychological, but people are social animals. A strong argument should be able to stand on it's own, which is why I think reasonably confident/mature people generally don't bother "supporting" each other. But a strong argument often isn't enough: A group will generally be much more persuasive and/or supportive than a lone individual.

Hopefully with some group action a discussion can be "fixed" so it doesn't come to the point where a poster feels faced with either "fighting" in a manner the mods may not approve, or just reporting.

And for "troll" we can substitute "unpersuasive poster." Or "confused poster." It can be feedback to help people post better, not just encourage trolls to post less.

And this should decrease the mod's work, too.
Unless the trolls ban together, or "good" posters become vigilantes. I've only see each once, and it was at the same time, and then the forum blew up. ... But I think both unlikely here. (Too big.)


And I have one more just *super* suggestion:

I feel with the red diamond I'm more inhibited and less likely to post ANYTHING on OT, diamond or otherwise, for fear of 'getting it wrong'.

I fully support arbitrary bans.

I'm all for a relaxed OT, and believe it or not. RD is an attempt to make OT more relaxed again.

An obvious sythesis is available: Have the mods put arbitrary bans on posters at random. It often won't matter what you say, so people can stop being concerned about it and just relax when they post. A ban might come, it might not, there's nothing you can do!

"Red Diamond: How I learned to stop worrying and love the ban."

 

[Dachs]

Offense: It's harder to believe the troll is effective - it's not just the target denying it, it's several people. Harder to believe both for the target, for lurkers, and for the troll.

The point of trolling is to evoke a(n emotional) response. Getting a response from a bunch of different people is a more successful troll than is getting a response from one or two of them. This wouldn't result in "peer pressure makes trolls feel bad about themselves and potentially stop trolling", it would probably result in "successful troll is successful".

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd rather not see arbitrary bans being passed around in increased frequency.

 

[Tarquelne]

The point of trolling is to evoke a(n emotional) response. Getting a response from a bunch of different people is a more successful troll than is getting a response from one or two of them.

What I was trying to get at is that multiple people would be more likely to be "cool" about it and *not* have an emotional response. Basically a few people chime in early, before somebody gets really emotionally invested in the argument or even flies off the handle.

I'm thinking 4 or 5 responses would be plenty.

This wouldn't result in "peer pressure makes trolls feel bad about themselves and potentially stop trolling", it would probably result in "successful troll is successful".

Sure. But I suspect most trolls are the kind who really want to see people over-react. Or just seem trollish but really believe what they're saying. Unless they're sociopaths they'll be vulnerable to group-pressure.

And, long term, I still think the group-thing could very well lead to an improved lack-of-response to the other kind of troll. (Just wants replies.) If "everybody" is comfortably sure the poster is just a troll I doubt they'll feel the need to reply. So a troll would get a bunch of replies for awhile - though they should be within a pretty limited time-window - and then they'd drop off pretty sharply. And more and more often the response should just be someone noting the guy's a troll and warning people away.

 

[Dachs]

What I was trying to get at is that multiple people would be more likely to be "cool" about it and *not* have an emotional response. Basically a few people chime in early, before somebody gets really emotionally invested in the argument or even flies off the handle.

I'm thinking 4 or 5 responses would be plenty.

Sure. But I suspect most trolls are the kind who really want to see people over-react. Or just seem trollish but really believe what they're saying. Unless they're sociopaths they'll be vulnerable to group-pressure.

And, long term, I still think the group-thing could very well lead to an improved lack-of-response to the other kind of troll. (Just wants replies.) If "everybody" is comfortably sure the poster is just a troll I doubt they'll feel the need to reply. So a troll would get a bunch of replies for awhile - though they should be within a pretty limited time-window - and then they'd drop off pretty sharply. And more and more often the response should just be someone noting the guy's a troll and warning people away.

These suggestions would be much better if they actually matched up with how members of CFCOT deal with trolls, but they don't. Known trolls aren't ignored by the hive mind, they're repeatedly dogpiled by a bunch of different people, some of whom react emotionally and some of whom do not. The trolls continue to troll despite this pressure - sometimes indirect and sometimes quite blatant and open. Maybe this means they are sociopaths, maybe it means they aren't. I don't really care. But the fact of the matter is that certain people are recognized as trolls by a substantial number of people - this information coming from off-site because nobody specific can actually be referred to as a troll here, of course¹ - and yet those very same people end up as perfect trollbait and respond, like lemmings, to those very same trolls. And in some cases this has gone on for more than a year with no real change in anybody's reaction to any of it. I, for one, have given up and just respond to things I think are interesting and which fall under my bailiwick as a poster regardless of whether they're trolls or not, partially to educate anybody who cares (and a few people apparently do) and partially for gaining postcount.

¹ = Not that I think being permitted to call somebody a troll in a thread will actually be a meaningful change. Any decent troll would just try to fog the issue by claiming that he's not a troll, just a person who's making a normal argument, and drag out the argument as to whether he's a troll just like he drags out every other argument until nobody cares anymore. It'd just be another name to call people, and I think mods are quite sensible in prohibiting it. Besides, the mods already know who the actual trolls are and ignore them or coddle them. They don't need to be told.

 

[Tarquelne]

Known trolls aren't ignored by the hive mind, they're repeatedly dogpiled by a bunch of different people, some of whom react emotionally and some of whom do not.

I believe I know what you're talking about And it's too disorganized, emotional, and over all directed *against* the troll rather than in support of the troll's target(s) to constitute what I'm proposing.

I can think of a couple of posts today that'd fit with what I'm talking about... but always one-offs part of a larger dogpile.

and yet those very same people end up as perfect trollbait and respond, like lemmings, to those very same trolls.

Underlying why support is just as important - if not more so - than engaging the troll.

I should have been more specific about what I mean by "support". It is definitely not a message addressed to the troll. (Confused poster, belligerent poster, whatever) but one directed toward a troll's target. (Person responding to the confused poster, belligerent poster, whatever.) And the support doesn't even need to be public. A PM with "Don't worry about it. You're right, the guy is just a troll." would suffice.

The more err... "judgmental" a comment the more likely it should be private rather than public. But ideally, in my scheme, you'd have a small group of posters opine in various ways that there's no need to engage further with the troll. (Ex: "I think you're right about X but you can't convince Bill Huggins. Just move on.")


That's the "defense". The "Offensive" difference between what I'm talking about and the usual dogpile is that I suggest people point out when a troll (confused... etc.) has misunderstood, ignored, distorted, whatever, another person's posts a LOT more often. And build off each other's posts more often.

Basically, rather than half a dozen people separately fencing with a troll make it half a dozen people collectively engaging, then dismissing, a troll. Don't just keep feeding the troll: Hold up the stuff it's spit out and shove it back down it's throat.


All this, btw, is not something I suggest the mods try to impose from the top down, or do themselves. I think the "common" posters should have each other's back more often. Not all going after the same trolls but amplifying worthwhile posts, and being more willing to acknowledge ones we agree with *in place of* going after ones we don't like.

So rather than the troll getting a bunch of people arguing with him he gets one... and a bunch of people telling *that guy* he's right. Some trolls might be quite happy with that. I hesitate to make a claim about troll psychology, but I think such trolls to be rare. (And if all we're dealing with is a poster whose problem does not involve the intent to sabotage the forum it's a lot easier to deal with.)

EDIT: I think this would work, I think we should try it, and it seemed to more or less work elsewhere, but I don't mean to present this as anything other than a (relatively) casual suggestion. I've tried to explain why I don't think Dach's counter arguments are compelling, for example, but they may be 100% correct for all I know.