Red Diamond Threads
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
No, I don't. But it's been much worse on many another occasion. So maybe I'm inured to it a bit. So Mobby is being Mobby and I'm responding with snark. On the scale of such things, it wasn't a major occurrence.
Would I rather it never came to that? Probably. But given that I was essentially called a liar repeatedly, I'm not sure how else to respond. I have no idea what will or will not be addressed if I report posts.
I don't really know what you are trying to accomplish, or how you are trying to accomplish it. So I'm really kind of stuck in the middle and treading water when this comes up.
Well, you are not alone. We are all treading water a bit. See this comment I received via pm"
And yes we are trying to figure out and establish standards for both RD and those threads not designated RD. This type of thread is the most difficult and hence a great example of what we contend with in staff.
The admins have said no to such a change.
If a thread is not an RD thread, are you trying to bring it all to the RD standard? The OP started a thread on a political rant. Not a substantive subject. And then, as threads do, it drifted to related (and not so) territory.
What, really, do you want out of OT?
What, really, do you want out of OT?
We don't want utter drivel. That's the issue here. We can see how people want to be able to craft their own thread, favouring fun over SRSness, and so we haven't been forcing the RD designation. But does that mean we should let people post crap that pollutes the forum? One of the ideas behind the concept is that we don't want to see such a standard of discussion, so does the allowance given to the OP to shape their own discussion extend to allowing threads of piffle? A further issue is who has ownership of a topic. If a thread on a subject that has the potential for good discussion has descended to a standard that makes your eyes bleed, this inhibits that potential good discussion from taking place. Should an OP (or posters within a thread) be able to take the monopoly on a topic and misuse it?
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
I assume you're talking about controlling form and not content, yes? To pick an extreme example:
"There was no Holocaust, it's a hoax." is "OK."
but "It did happen you <insert several curse words>." is a serious infraction.
Assuming that's so:
Is asking posters to stop replying to a someone in a thread part of the mod toolbox?
I maintain that with some posters you can't have a discussion (as in a multi-part serial exchange) that's both civil and honest. And some people just about never get along, no matter what. The best option might be to ask - privately! - one or both posters in a problematical exchange to just let it go. Not as a disciplinary measure, just as a request.
I suspect most posters would be willing to be helpful. It's a Sisyphean task before them - they should take breaks.
Yes, and it applies to both staff and members. RD threads are one place where perhaps a line can be drawn. Once that is drawn, then what happens in the rest of the threads? Those lines are important too.
I do love that cartoon, BTW.
I know, hence the 'still'.
I am attracted to the idea of making it RD. I, personally, would be fine with the mods using their judgement to change a thread to RD in these cases where it is merited.
It feels like too many people are panicking about the idea of mods being able to change the RD status of a thread, without accepting that mods are intelligent enough to know where it should and shouldn't be done.
An obviously lighthearted topic would not be slapped on with RD. A serious topic discussed in a lighthearted manner wouldn't either. A serious topic where everyone's firing all their guns should be.
I've always felt that the OP ownership of a thread is a bit too highly rated around here. Usually it is merited when a poster has a question or wishes to raise an issue. But when the thread evolves to a full-blown discussion, it should be completely up in the air.
It just feels wrong and reeks a little of (local) elitism, which we know is very unpleasant. See this thread/post. Nothing against VRWC at all, it's just an example. But it feels like there's too much power and influence held by the OP in such a situation (not that the thread in question shouldn't have been locked).
IMO, anyone (meaning long-standing member of the community) saying "no, I think you should just lock it" should have had the same effect.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Well, it seems to me that our choice here is to have the discussion at the pub (gen OT) or at the college (RD threads).
Not sure why it has to be one or the other though. Both venues can have their merits.
Mise
isle of lucy
We've all been telling you why for 19 pages. Because somebody else, if they wanted one, could easily start a RD thread on the debt ceiling, without all the petty bickering. And, lacking a RD before the thread title, everyone who enters knows that the thread will likely involve petty bickering. Some people like the petty bickering -- why not let them bicker in that thread if they want to? Anyone who goes into that thread expecting serious discussion has only themselves to blame. They should start a RD thread on the topic if they want a serious discussion.You got your post here before I finished mine.
Mobboss's thread on the debt ceiling has generated staff talk. See my in thread comments here;
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10693949#post10693949
It is a good topic but with problems. Some mods want to just close it, others make it a RD. It certainly isn't a lighthearted fun thread. The original premise of making all discussion threads RD was built around the idea of controlling this type of thread.
What do you think?
1. Close it?
2. Ask Mobboss to change it to RD or close it?
3. Leave it but infract for bad behavior?
4. Do nothing, allow such threads as is in OT?
If you think #4 is the best choice, I want to why. Thanks.
BirdJag, if you or any other moderator wants a serious discussion on the debt ceiling without the partisan bickering, why don't you start a RD thread on it yourself?
Agreed 100%. I don't see why we can't have two different tones for the discussion - one serious and sober, the other partisan and heated. Sometimes I want the former, sometimes I want the latter. Why not let me decide which one I want, instead of forcing me into the former by RD'ing the thread?
All this talk merely reinforces the idea that this is just a not-so-clever rouse to slap us with harsher moderation and bigger infractions.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
As far as I'm concerned this should settle the matter. The thread starter should have the last word on this, and I don't get the impression MobBoss wants to RD his thread. End of discussion.Well, it seems to me that our choice here is to have the discussion at the pub (gen OT) or at the college (RD threads).
Not sure why it has to be one or the other though. Both venues can have their merits.
To quote what was posted eight years ago:
The point about OP ownership of a topic is an interesting one. Is it too highly prized, as Defiant says, or should it be the be-all and end-all, as others suggest? To quote the OP here:
Also worth remembering is that an OP does not own a thread. This has been the standard for as long as I've been here at least. The past few weeks is the first time that OPs have actually had some substantial say in the moderation of their thread (exceptions granted), by being able to select their preferred standard (RD or non-RD). At the moment we're quite happy to accommodate that (we've changed the RD designation on (AFAIK) one thread so far). A month the OP had no such power, now they do. What we're discussing is how far this new power should go. I would find it odd to view the slight reining in of a newly given power as a great injustice.
Of course, that's obviously not a hard and fast rule, as lightness is allowed (and I assume this has been reinforced over the last couple of weeks) and has been allowed (over the eight years since that standard was posted). The question is how drunk and disorderly the patrons have to be before we call for a taxi.
The point about OP ownership of a topic is an interesting one. Is it too highly prized, as Defiant says, or should it be the be-all and end-all, as others suggest? To quote the OP here:
I assume those suggesting that we feel free to start RD discussions on topics with existing non-RD threads wouldn't be too happy if those other threads were closed? We don't want two threads on a sinlge topic, so the issue we're working through is whether or not we let behaviour which we don't really want to see prevent actual discussion from taking place, or whether we attempt to accommodate the OP by allowing their thread to stay open with moderation that allows for that discussion to take place.
Also worth remembering is that an OP does not own a thread. This has been the standard for as long as I've been here at least. The past few weeks is the first time that OPs have actually had some substantial say in the moderation of their thread (exceptions granted), by being able to select their preferred standard (RD or non-RD). At the moment we're quite happy to accommodate that (we've changed the RD designation on (AFAIK) one thread so far). A month the OP had no such power, now they do. What we're discussing is how far this new power should go. I would find it odd to view the slight reining in of a newly given power as a great injustice.
And again, this is an idea that is completely incorrect. I would've hoped a viewing of the RD threads over the last couple of weeks would've confirmed this. It that was our goal, it would've been much easier to come up with new standards for moderation without public announcement, explanation or consultation.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I seem to remember mods enforcing rules set by the OP for years. "Please don't discuss X", someone discusses X, mod action. Has happened before.
The OP does not own the thread, but I feel she/he has certain privileges. No one is suggesting the OP is free to do anything. The question here is, does the OP have a strong say in the matter whether his thread gets hit with the RD? Maybe not the final say since reasonable standards have to apply, but within the framework of rules, the most important one. In the case above, MobBoss seems to state he doesn't mind pub-like banter going on in his thread. Are you going to force the guys at the bar to stop drinking, sober up and pay attention? Good luck with that
I do have to agree that the way the RD has been handled so far is satisfactory. Are you sure you're not looking for threads to RD just to see whether it'll work? Why try to fix what isn't broke?
The OP does not own the thread, but I feel she/he has certain privileges. No one is suggesting the OP is free to do anything. The question here is, does the OP have a strong say in the matter whether his thread gets hit with the RD? Maybe not the final say since reasonable standards have to apply, but within the framework of rules, the most important one. In the case above, MobBoss seems to state he doesn't mind pub-like banter going on in his thread. Are you going to force the guys at the bar to stop drinking, sober up and pay attention? Good luck with that
I do have to agree that the way the RD has been handled so far is satisfactory. Are you sure you're not looking for threads to RD just to see whether it'll work? Why try to fix what isn't broke?
Mise
isle of lucy
There's no need for you to assume anything: we've been saying exactly how unhappy we would be if the non-RD thread were closed for 19 pages now. Read the thread please.
Why not? Why not have one thread in which there is heavy-handed moderation and more serious discussion, and another thread in which there is lighter moderation and looser discussion? That would hardly be the end of the world; in fact, it would be the best of both worlds.
And yet, that is exactly what would happen in practice if MobBoss's thread were forced to be RD'd.
Let me put it this way. If you force MobBoss's thread to be RD, there would be far harsher moderation and far bigger infractions. Now, your stated goal is to have more "serious discussions". Well, if you want more serious discussions, why not create another thread on the debt ceiling, but with an RD on it? If people want to have serious discussions on the debt ceiling, with the harsher moderation that goes along with it, they can use the RD thread instead of MobBoss's thread. That achieves your stated goal of "more serious discussion" without forcing far harsher moderation and far bigger infractions on MobBoss's thread.
In otherwords, you can either (A) allow RD and non-RD threads on the same topic, or (B) force all serious topics to be RD.
(A) generates more serious discussion, but does not result in far harsher moderation and far bigger infractions
(B) generates more serious discussion, but results in far harsher moderation and far bigger infractions
Why would you pick option (B) over option (A)? There is no good reason to: they both achieve your stated goal of generating more serious discussion, but (A) does so with far less harsh moderation and far smaller infractions. Unless you want far harsher moderation and far bigger infractions; in that case, picking option (B) makes perfect sense.
@Ziggy- Yeah, those are the exceptions that are granted. Within reason, to a limited extent. That impacts on a few details of the moderation, but not the overall style. Requesting that something specific not be discussed just means that that one thing will be moderated in addition to everything else being moderated as per normal. Choosing between RD and non-RD means choosing the overall style, not just details. Markedly different styles.
And we're not suggesting here (not to unequivocally rule it out, because staff hasn't actually made any clearcut decision yet) that the OP lose control of the original designation. It's a matter of how far we let that go before changing it. We're not suggesting it be done pre-emptively, but asking what thoughts on the RD being applied after chance has been given for the thread to play out are. No-one really seemed to mind when we applied the RD to this thread, and IMO it made the thread better. It's that type of thing we're talking about.
@Ziggy's edit- we're looking at the RD concept as it pertains to the types of threads we're talking about here largely to see if it will work, yes, but only in the context of it 'working' being defined by fixing what we see to be 'problems'. We're trying to stop the bar brawls, not the casual drinking. Some people like a good fight, but not when the bouncers come in to break it up.
And we're not suggesting here (not to unequivocally rule it out, because staff hasn't actually made any clearcut decision yet) that the OP lose control of the original designation. It's a matter of how far we let that go before changing it. We're not suggesting it be done pre-emptively, but asking what thoughts on the RD being applied after chance has been given for the thread to play out are. No-one really seemed to mind when we applied the RD to this thread, and IMO it made the thread better. It's that type of thing we're talking about.
@Ziggy's edit- we're looking at the RD concept as it pertains to the types of threads we're talking about here largely to see if it will work, yes, but only in the context of it 'working' being defined by fixing what we see to be 'problems'. We're trying to stop the bar brawls, not the casual drinking. Some people like a good fight, but not when the bouncers come in to break it up.
YES YES YES. OMG this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Bickering does not get old fast to everyone some fined it interesting and amusing, why those who donnt are so freaking concerned with it is beyond me. The level of conversational control envisioned here is truly stunning. I must leave this site now as my head will explode if read more of this. Get a life guys. Bye.
Mise
isle of lucy
I have different tastes to Mark1031; I find the bickering boring. But that's why I didn't read MobBoss's thread. It's very easy to not read a thread. And that's the appropriate course of action when there is an alternative thread in which I can discuss, if I so choose, the debt ceiling in a less bickering manner. Here's why:
Before RD threads, merely ignoring the thread was not an option. If I wanted to discuss the debt ceiling, I was forced to discuss it in the bickery thread. I couldn't start a new, non-bickery thread on it, because it would be closed as a duplicate. And even if it wasn't, there was still a good chance that bickering would resurface in my new thread. In this old scheme, I was forced to either endure pages and pages of bickering, which I did not want to read, on the off-chance that Integral or Cutlass or JH or one of the many European econ-focused posters would post a serious, hard-nosed economics post about the debt ceiling. That was unsatisfactory to me; my choice was to suffer through bickering or not discuss it at all.
But now, I have the option of starting an RD thread on the same subject. In this thread, there would be no bickering, because the moderators wouldn't allow it. That's great for me, and for people who want to post hard-nosed econ stuff, without wading through pages of bickering. And it doesn't diminish Mark1031's, JollyRoger's, Cutlass's or MobBoss's enjoyment of the forums either. That, to me, seems like the best of both worlds. It's just disappointing and frustrating that moderators don't seem to grasp this simple concept of having two threads for the same subject, with different moderation standards in each.
I'm just waiting for someone to tell me that the forum software can't handle the increased server load of having a second topic on the same subject
Before RD threads, merely ignoring the thread was not an option. If I wanted to discuss the debt ceiling, I was forced to discuss it in the bickery thread. I couldn't start a new, non-bickery thread on it, because it would be closed as a duplicate. And even if it wasn't, there was still a good chance that bickering would resurface in my new thread. In this old scheme, I was forced to either endure pages and pages of bickering, which I did not want to read, on the off-chance that Integral or Cutlass or JH or one of the many European econ-focused posters would post a serious, hard-nosed economics post about the debt ceiling. That was unsatisfactory to me; my choice was to suffer through bickering or not discuss it at all.
But now, I have the option of starting an RD thread on the same subject. In this thread, there would be no bickering, because the moderators wouldn't allow it. That's great for me, and for people who want to post hard-nosed econ stuff, without wading through pages of bickering. And it doesn't diminish Mark1031's, JollyRoger's, Cutlass's or MobBoss's enjoyment of the forums either. That, to me, seems like the best of both worlds. It's just disappointing and frustrating that moderators don't seem to grasp this simple concept of having two threads for the same subject, with different moderation standards in each.
I'm just waiting for someone to tell me that the forum software can't handle the increased server load of having a second topic on the same subject
