If the consensus is we need more Mods can I request a separate thread be made for that? That's something we can act on fairly quickly and I have thoughts.
The key to successful moderation is objectivity. You define rules, agree to them, and enforce them, while getting out of the way of reasoned conversation. A couple former mods here come to mind (no names, and none at all from the current roster) that just couldn’t stick the objectivity thing. It can be tough, honestly. I’ve modded much smaller communities and it can be as thankless as it is necessary.
If the consensus is we need more Mods can I request a separate thread be made for that? That's something we can act on fairly quickly and I have thoughts.
How many do we currently have (active)?
I think 6 or 7 at the moment. I don't think there is a way to specifically search for users with the mod attribute on our end.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Again: My issue is not with your made up example, it's that you keep invoking this particular strawman that has absolutely no value in this conversation.
And if the issue is that you think people shouldn't be able to criticize others' posts because you disagree with the criticism, that says more about you than any rule under discussion.
One thing I think is promising is that while there is definitely hostility between different camps and places we don't see eye to eye at all, everyone is at least working on finding a way for us all to keep the forums alive where we can all at least grudgingly tolerate each other and maybe find a way to make things better.
There is definitely value in the forums and I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Nobody is really arguing both groups should go our separate ways or that this is a hopeless endeavor. That should be heartening that even with some tension everyone is basically working towards the same goal.
The culture stuff isn't going to be fixed overnight, but for now if we can all work together as a team we might have a chance to figure it out or at least figure some of it out down the line.
One thing I think is promising is that while there is definitely hostility between different camps and places we don't see eye to eye at all, everyone is at least working on finding a way for us all to keep the forums alive where we can all at least grudgingly tolerate each other and maybe find a way to make things better.
There is definitely value in the forums and I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Nobody is really arguing both groups should go our separate ways or that this is a hopeless endeavor. That should be heartening that even with some tension everyone is basically working towards the same goal.
The culture stuff isn't going to be fixed overnight, but for now if we can all work together as a team we might have a chance to figure it out or at least figure some of it out down the line.
A lot of it feels very much like two family members sniping at each other during holiday dinner. You might not like each other, but you did both show up.
The key to successful moderation is objectivity. You define rules, agree to them, and enforce them, while getting out of the way of reasoned conversation. A couple former mods here come to mind (no names, and none at all from the current roster) that just couldn’t stick the objectivity thing. It can be tough, honestly. I’ve modded much smaller communities and it can be as thankless as it is necessary.
Objective moderation sucks. You have to be able to take action because the vibes are rotten, not constrain yourself to easily dodged rules.
One thing I think is promising is that while there is definitely hostility between different camps and places we don't see eye to eye at all, everyone is at least working on finding a way for us all to keep the forums alive where we can all at least grudgingly tolerate each other and maybe find a way to make things better.
There is definitely value in the forums and I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Nobody is really arguing both groups should go our separate ways or that this is a hopeless endeavor. That should be heartening that even with some tension everyone is basically working towards the same goal.
The culture stuff isn't going to be fixed overnight, but for now if we can all work together as a team we might have a chance to figure it out or at least figure some of it out down the line.
A lot of it feels very much like two family members sniping at each other during holiday dinner. You might not like each other, but you did both show up.
All in all outside of maybe a half dozen people on this forum, we do all want similar things, though we may not agree on exactly how to get there.
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
While the political disagreements are always there they only become heated every four years.
I think tighter moderation can help reign that in, but it would be less thread kicks and or thread kicks that only last a few hours or a day. There's only like five threads that cause most of the reports and even that could be tempered if there was a mod who was just in the thread telling people to chill as it was happening, I know that's not as easy of a request as it sounds, since people have lives and those threads can suck to read.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Romanian, people should absolutely be able to criticize other people's posts.
I do have to ask, though, is it truly "made up" that we have seen threats made against others on this forum, in jest or otherwise? At least from the outside, I've seen multiple instances where someone has attempted to bully someone out of a thread or even forum, using tactics like passive-aggressive "subtweeting," name calling, cussing, mod reports, dogpiling, and the like. Heck, some of the attempts I've participated in and agree with.
Like.. are there people that you truly feel do not belong to this community as a whole, and you wish to see leave (either of their own volition or via mod decree)?
I'm trying hard not to make a strawman here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
+1
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Again: My issue is not with your made up example, it's that you keep invoking this particular strawman that has absolutely no value in this conversation.
And if the issue is that you think people shouldn't be able to criticize others' posts because you disagree with the criticism, that says more about you than any rule under discussion.
This is not a made up example. It may not be what you think of as a primary or widespread issue, but it is not fake.
I honestly don't care about the Glorious Edict in as much as I think personal attacks are rarely acceptable, but having the GE at least allows some kind of outlet.
If people have the stance that they should be allowed to call each other names and the GE is "holding them back" then I'm not sure I want to be in the same community as those folks.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
I've had several infractions over the years from basically losing my cool, having my emotional disregulation bullshit from my ADHD trigger, and me basically posting "fuck off" or "fuck you" to someone who is 100% being a dick, with whomever is goading me on getting by without nary and infraction.
The problem with the combination of "don't be a dick" and the glorious edict is one gets confused for the other. That being a dick isn't an objective thing. Telling someone who's being overly hostile or aggressive or condescending to fuck off isn't being a dick, it's having an emotional response.
I'm all for having lines, but I think maybe the lines should be redrawn, made clearer, reimagined to better suit managing to moderate this number of people. We need to find clearer and less subjective rules that accomplish what the old rules were aiming for, but for a group of 30-50 year olds instead of 12-30 year olds.
While the political disagreements are always there they only become heated every four years.
I think tighter moderation can help reign that in, but it would be less thread kicks and or thread kicks that only last a few hours or a day. There's only like five threads that cause most of the reports and even that could be tempered if there was a mod who was just in the thread telling people to chill as it was happening, I know that's not as easy of a request as it sounds, since people have lives and those threads can suck to read.
I was actually looking at the election thread in d&d and noticed it had like 6 people banned and it made me curious which thread had the most banned posters. Probably no way to actually find out without looking manually but i am very curious now.
One thing I think is promising is that while there is definitely hostility between different camps and places we don't see eye to eye at all, everyone is at least working on finding a way for us all to keep the forums alive where we can all at least grudgingly tolerate each other and maybe find a way to make things better.
There is definitely value in the forums and I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Nobody is really arguing both groups should go our separate ways or that this is a hopeless endeavor. That should be heartening that even with some tension everyone is basically working towards the same goal.
The culture stuff isn't going to be fixed overnight, but for now if we can all work together as a team we might have a chance to figure it out or at least figure some of it out down the line.
A lot of it feels very much like two family members sniping at each other during holiday dinner. You might not like each other, but you did both show up.
All in all outside of maybe a half dozen people on this forum, we do all want similar things, though we may not agree on exactly how to get there.
I know which is why it feels very silly to me sometimes.
Gamertag: KL Retribution
PSN:Furlion
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The edict is actively weaponised to provoke others by saying heinous shit with a veneer of civility. The aim is to manipulate others into breaking "The Edict" so that they get struck down.
Meanwhile the heinous speaker is allowed free reign as they did not break decorum.
Its a ridiculous, loony tunes, childs cartoon version of morality control reminiscent of the movie Demolition Man. "You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality standard."
I think the Glorious Edict is great. I know there are many harmfully restrictive Social Constructs in the real world but it's also true that fake politeness can go a long way towards real politeness and having certain standards, however arbitrary, of social decorum do a lot to calm the tone down. I don't think we should underestimate how much it can defuse unnecessary hostility to be forced to use a goofy insult instead of what you want to say.
As far as SE and D&D go, I am an D&D user, not because I have any problem with SE "culture" (I don't know anything about it!) but because I would rather catch up on a few well-considered, on-topic posts in a thread I'm following than have to read through pages of stream-of-consciousness. I only just started dipping into chat and while I do enjoy it, I had to train myself to just pick up from the last page instead of trying to catch up. It's a different style of conversation. I don't know if that means its worth keeping SE and D&D separate or not. I just feel like right now D&D threads move at a good pace, with a good amount of thoughtfulness and staying on topic while not being overly strict about it. If that stayed the same after a merge, that'd be fine.
Unfortunately when I do see SE folks posting in these "crossover" threads, I get the impression that they would consider me a bad person for what I said above about the Glorious Edict. So while I don't want to offer an opinion on the "culture" stuff without having an understanding of SE culture, I would want to make sure that if there really is a big userbase of people who hate the idea of decorum, that they have their own space and we have ours.
So I see the arguments for merging and for keeping things as they are, I guess.
As someone from the South
Oh no.
No no no; it never has. No. Absolutely not.
It’s pretty much a tool for stifling any kind of social dissent by the dominant social group, because they set the standards for what is the “polite behavior”
This is an almost inescapable facet of human behavior in societies with fundamental power differentials and social hierarchies, whether those hierarchies are formalized or not.
Romanian, people should absolutely be able to criticize other people's posts.
I do have to ask, though, is it truly "made up" that we have seen threats made against others on this forum, in jest or otherwise? At least from the outside, I've seen multiple instances where someone has attempted to bully someone out of a thread or even forum, using tactics like passive-aggressive "subtweeting," name calling, cussing, mod reports, dogpiling, and the like. Heck, some of the attempts I've participated in and agree with.
Like.. are there people that you truly feel do not belong to this community as a whole, and you wish to see leave (either of their own volition or via mod decree)?
I'm trying hard not to make a strawman here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
I'm really not interested in litigating hypothetical behavior I have no knowledge of, and if you want to post specific examples I'm happy to avow or disavow them on a case by case basis, rather than engage in a rhetorical argument that has absolutely no bearing on the post from Jeffe I was criticizing.
Which, for the record, I would hope we would also agree someone making up a completely bad faith strawman in a malicious attempt to misrepresent people they disagree with is manipulative and generally ill-advised. Which is what Jeffe just did, to give a specific example.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Again: My issue is not with your made up example, it's that you keep invoking this particular strawman that has absolutely no value in this conversation.
And if the issue is that you think people shouldn't be able to criticize others' posts because you disagree with the criticism, that says more about you than any rule under discussion.
This is not a made up example. It may not be what you think of as a primary or widespread issue, but it is not fake.
I honestly don't care about the Glorious Edict in as much as I think personal attacks are rarely acceptable, but having the GE at least allows some kind of outlet.
If people have the stance that they should be allowed to call each other names and the GE is "holding them back" then I'm not sure I want to be in the same community as those folks.
There’s also a difference in criticizing a post and saying someone is personally a racist/fascist/authoritarian/etc. for a mild difference of opinion.
Romanian, people should absolutely be able to criticize other people's posts.
I do have to ask, though, is it truly "made up" that we have seen threats made against others on this forum, in jest or otherwise? At least from the outside, I've seen multiple instances where someone has attempted to bully someone out of a thread or even forum, using tactics like passive-aggressive "subtweeting," name calling, cussing, mod reports, dogpiling, and the like. Heck, some of the attempts I've participated in and agree with.
Like.. are there people that you truly feel do not belong to this community as a whole, and you wish to see leave (either of their own volition or via mod decree)?
I'm trying hard not to make a strawman here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Folks will claim they are not a thing because you're just repugnant or "agrees don't mean agreement".
But that's just fucking stupid, I'm sorry.
I've seen them, they absolutely happen.
The "I wish they'd all die" happens in all but words sometimes. Sometimes it even makes it into words. Unfortunately I don't catalog someone's entire shitty post history to bring up when convenient for these things so I don't have a ready example ready to go for this discussion.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
Again: My issue is not with your made up example, it's that you keep invoking this particular strawman that has absolutely no value in this conversation.
And if the issue is that you think people shouldn't be able to criticize others' posts because you disagree with the criticism, that says more about you than any rule under discussion.
This is not a made up example.
It absolutely is, unless you can point to a specific post where someone issued a death threat and wasn't infracted or banned for it.
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I know the technical and financial issues are important, but figuring out what the new forums will be and who will be modding and in charge is just as important if not more so. If the new forums aren't an attractive place for people to go the other stuff doesn't matter.
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
It will never get addressed if you put it off.
"We can't or shouldn't have this discussion" from a mod means it'll never happen and we might as well just throw in the towel at that point.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I think that is all valid pushback against the glorious edict. Like, in theory there should be moderation for trolling, or baiting others, or engaging in disengenous discussion. All these other rules around "Don't be a dick." But those all require interpretation and context and a whole lot of other factors. I remember in the past when a mod would warn someone, then a later mod would kick it up to a full infraction or thread kick upon further review. The "glorious edict," by contrast, is a very simple, very strict line that can be easily evoked and doesn't require interpretation. So it gets instant reactions, compared to the heavier lift of moderation.
We all know (or should know) that reporting a post generates a thread in the mod forum. It's a combination of alerting the mods to an issue, and further to create a space to discuss the report and the context around it. It's one of the biggest calls for transparency, because those discussions happen in secret and are then applied. This, in theory, should have "management" presenting a unified front to the laypeople, but that can be used as cover for shitty behavior if trust and respect is lost.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be subforum-specific mods, because the rules would be enforced equally across the forum. But the very nature of discussions are different between the various spaces, and a universal rule set needs to be as minimal as possible to accommodate the discourse variances. The "glorious edict" is part of that bare-bones skeleton the forum has in place.. so it gets invoked easily. And perhaps that is wrong.
Like, I'd vote for more "mushy" language like "respect your fellow posters - if your actions come across as disrespectful to each other and the community as a whole, then you will be infracted." Yes, that leaves a ton of room for personal interpretation, and can be weaponized. But weaponizing the reporting functions and moderation is just another form of disrespecting the community, so ideally that would be stamped out.
... It is becoming more and more obvious as I type out my thoughts that I live in an ideal utopia that will not survive contact with the real world.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
This opinion is noted, but at the same time, with a vastly reduced timeline, we may not have a choice. What I can say is that I'm all for having this conversation, either now or after the new forums have been established, as it should definitely happen. But at the moment, we may, simply out of practical necessity, have to port over what we can when we can as quickly as possible. If we have to do that without making changes, then I will pledge that, at least for myself personally, that we don't give into inertia and just let things continue the way that they have, and that we should have a community-wide discussion of what we want the forums to be in the new place.
We don't have a choice with regard to this exodus. Sometimes all you can do is pack up and move over without getting all the things that you want right away. It is good that this conversation is happening, but I just want to be realistic about this process. I will say that without the specter of the larger PA organization over us, I feel more empowered with regard to changing things. There's a lot of cultural and institutional inertia that is wrapped up in the whole history of these forums.
The key to successful moderation is objectivity. You define rules, agree to them, and enforce them, while getting out of the way of reasoned conversation. A couple former mods here come to mind (no names, and none at all from the current roster) that just couldn’t stick the objectivity thing. It can be tough, honestly. I’ve modded much smaller communities and it can be as thankless as it is necessary.
Objective moderation sucks. You have to be able to take action because the vibes are rotten, not constrain yourself to easily dodged rules.
With objectivity, I’m talking about mods not playing favorites or unevenly handing out infractions, etc. Obviously repeat offenders will be on thinner ice and all that. I’m talking about mods saying well, I don’t agree with this person’s view on [x], so I’m going to be quicker with the infraction out of spite.
Edit: I realize ‘neutral’ moderation might go down a little better if my point seems fuzzy
Vitari on
Switch: SW-1909-0466-9585
+3
surfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
The edict is actively weaponised to provoke others by saying heinous shit with a veneer of civility. The aim is to manipulate others into breaking "The Edict" so that they get struck down.
Meanwhile the heinous speaker is allowed free reign as they did not break decorum.
Its a ridiculous, loony tunes, childs cartoon version of morality control reminiscent of the movie Demolition Man. "You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality standard."
This does not feel true to my little slice of lived experiences
I would assume people (who haven't been banned/kicked for being trolls or whatever) are just saying shit because they are the main character and want to say shit, not because some other person is also a main character that they are trying to bait into something
But then I'm also frequently dumbfounded by the tightness with which people grip grievances, so what do I know
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
I've had several infractions over the years from basically losing my cool, having my emotional disregulation bullshit from my ADHD trigger, and me basically posting "fuck off" or "fuck you" to someone who is 100% being a dick, with whomever is goading me on getting by without nary and infraction.
The problem with the combination of "don't be a dick" and the glorious edict is one gets confused for the other. That being a dick isn't an objective thing. Telling someone who's being overly hostile or aggressive or condescending to fuck off isn't being a dick, it's having an emotional response.
I'm all for having lines, but I think maybe the lines should be redrawn, made clearer, reimagined to better suit managing to moderate this number of people. We need to find clearer and less subjective rules that accomplish what the old rules were aiming for, but for a group of 30-50 year olds instead of 12-30 year olds.
Absolutely agree. Whether this is something we figure out immediately or hash out once we get our new home situated, we need to revisit the rules and figure out what they should be, how they're enforced, and what the jurisdictions are. And everyone has to more or less agree on those parameters. (I mean, there will always be some people who think the rules are an abomination, because there are literally thousands of us, but I think we can get to a broad consensus.)
If there's a global set of rules, or rules that vary based on subforum, I don't think that's so important as general buy-in. If there are two subforums and everyone in each subforum thinks the rules in the other subforum are dumb rules for dummies, I think that's workable as long as they all agree that they need to follow the rules in the other person's house if they go to visit.
I also recognize that there are a contingent of people who don't want to feel constrained to one subforum, and so want their preferred ruleset to apply in both places. I get that, but I also feel it might be unreasonable given how much distance there is between what the median D&Der and median SEer want from their respective environs.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I was actually pushing for us to start to solve our problems now, or at least lay some heavy ground work, rather than pushing to put it off indefinitely. If we move to the new forum with some more healthier experiences dealing with each other under our belts, that upcoming transition to the new structure will be a lot smoother
At the same time we have a more immediate problem that needs solving and I don't want to risk subforum structure conversations impacting that
It's also pretty easy to forget in the sudden urgent timeline of the forums going away, but we also have for the first time a chance to move forward with the seemingly intractable issues between the different subforum cliques.
Geebs let things coast on inertia for a long time and it took a while for things to really get bad. We had the whole kerfuffle happen this past spring, but other than getting a couple new mods none of the structural issues got addressed because without an admin we were basically in a limbo state. With Geebs and PA out of the picture now for sure we as a community and the mod staff / whatever organizational structure we setup we finally have the ability to directly tackle these issues and figure out what needs to be done to turn down the resentment.
Or maybe the resentment can't be turned down and we just all have to find a way to grudgingly co-exist. At least hands are no longer tied and we finally have the freedom to work towards finding solutions to our cultural issues now.
I want to get rid of it. It was good for a bunchy of edgy teens and twenty year olds, but we're adults now.
I'd like to keep the spirit if not the actual rule. Sometimes an asshole needs to be called an asshole, but generally speaking that does not create a good environment for discussion. Glorious Edict is far less subjective to enforce than "We are adults, act like it".
I don't know what it could be replaced with and we have recently seen that having such a clear, objective rule has it's own problems.
"Name-calling is not permitted, full stop."
I don't even think we need exceptions for Nazis and fascists - just report them to the mods.
The issue is that some people disagree with the long-standing "Don't be a dick" rule. Not explicitly, of course, everyone thinks that nobody should be a dick. It's just an argument over whether something like "Your views are morally repugnant and I hope you die" counts as being a dick if your cause is sufficiently righteous.
But hey, if we're going to declare that naked hostility and character attacks are hunky dory, may as well nix the Edict and let people get really creative.
This framing is manipulative to the point of being actively malicious, and I find it to be in really poor taste.
If you want to debate the value of the Edict, sure, whatever, but you can do it without inventing a strawman wishing fictional death threats on other posters.
Quibble with the specific language used in my made up example, whatever, but the point stands. Some people want the ability to be actively hostile towards people who they think have sufficiently bad views. You have had entire threads dedicated to arguing in favor of such strategically-directed hostility. I find it hard to take protestations of this point seriously.
I just wanted to focus the discussion, because it's honestly not about the Edict itself, it's about the Don't Be a Dick rule. Arguing about "silly goose" is a distraction.
I've had several infractions over the years from basically losing my cool, having my emotional disregulation bullshit from my ADHD trigger, and me basically posting "fuck off" or "fuck you" to someone who is 100% being a dick, with whomever is goading me on getting by without nary and infraction.
The problem with the combination of "don't be a dick" and the glorious edict is one gets confused for the other. That being a dick isn't an objective thing. Telling someone who's being overly hostile or aggressive or condescending to fuck off isn't being a dick, it's having an emotional response.
I'm all for having lines, but I think maybe the lines should be redrawn, made clearer, reimagined to better suit managing to moderate this number of people. We need to find clearer and less subjective rules that accomplish what the old rules were aiming for, but for a group of 30-50 year olds instead of 12-30 year olds.
Losing your cool and being a dick are things that can both be true about the same action. Having an emotional response and being a dick are things that can both be true about the same action. "This is why I lost my cool" is not the same as "therefore I shouldn't be held responsible for it".
Frankly, rules for a group of 30-50 year olds should not need to include "you can't just tell people to fuck off" because that's just assumed and not because it doesn't apply anymore.
As it has been pointed out and alluded to, the issue is less about the Glorious Edict, and more about "Don't be a dick" has been non-standardly applied across the years and subforums.
You can be polite as fuck and still be an asshole, as anyone who has had a "Bless your heart" or "I'll pray for you" thrown their way will know. Stamping down on dickish behavior earlier and more often, with warnings and minor infractions is needed in so, so many cases. But it also needs to be spelled out to people why their behavior is dickish. Not just the poster in question, but everyone.
There are definitely instances where I've wandered into a thread a day or two after an incident, and as I go through and see a spat between folks, and one or both sides are warned or infracted, but it's coming on posts that either were relatively tame compared to other stuff said, or on posts edited by mods with no other commentary or explanation, and it just leaves a sense of "wtf happened here". Which post was actually the bad one? Was there a certain length that hit a critical point for a mod to step in, or was that post just when one logged in?
Which I get not wanting to dwell on drama (or wanting to edit out particularly hateful shit), but the lack of transparency and explanation definitely contributes to the arbitrary feeling of moderation.
However, I do think there is value in something like the Edict as a supporting rule for making sure people behave, not promoted to it's starring role as it has been. There are gonna be a lot more instances of hurtful personal insults, and using language we really don't want to be associated with, if you loosen those gloves. And the folks most affected by it are still going to be the most vulnerable of the forum folks. Hell, we still have to remind people not to fat shame, call folks ugly, etc. because of unintended effects of using that kind of language. And since a current issue is a lack of available moderation power, letting that shit sit around for hours or days is not really something I'm eager to see in this new iteration.
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I was actually pushing for us to start to solve our problems now, or at least lay some heavy ground work, rather than pushing to put it off indefinitely. If we move to the new forum with some more healthier experiences dealing with each other under our belts, that upcoming transition to the new structure will be a lot smoother
At the same time we have a more immediate problem that needs solving and I don't want to risk subforum structure conversations impacting that
I don't know about others, but it just "feels" a bit more urgent with only 7 months instead of 13 months as our timeline. I know that a forum can be spun up rather quickly, all things considered, so maybe this feeling is unwarranted. Perhaps we do have plenty of time to hash some of this out before the move, and I want to be open to this. But the shortened timeline is influencing my thinking.
The problem we're having now is the same one plaguing all well-intentioned large scale work groups: Too many cooks, no head chef. People are doing things on their own, discussing all sorts of individual concerns, but we really need a much more unified, structured direction to get anything done.
Something I've been wanting to bring up... Mod posts need to be different than regular posts. Like, posts by a mod as a mod saying mod stuff should be treated differently when displayed inline on the forums. No reactions allowed to these posts.
Any mod posts in a thread should be visible on every page under a dropdown at the top so that any "don't do this, stop doing this, please why are you all still fucking doing this" type rulings are easily visible.
I think the Glorious Edict is great. I know there are many harmfully restrictive Social Constructs in the real world but it's also true that fake politeness can go a long way towards real politeness and having certain standards, however arbitrary, of social decorum do a lot to calm the tone down. I don't think we should underestimate how much it can defuse unnecessary hostility to be forced to use a goofy insult instead of what you want to say.
As far as SE and D&D go, I am an D&D user, not because I have any problem with SE "culture" (I don't know anything about it!) but because I would rather catch up on a few well-considered, on-topic posts in a thread I'm following than have to read through pages of stream-of-consciousness. I only just started dipping into chat and while I do enjoy it, I had to train myself to just pick up from the last page instead of trying to catch up. It's a different style of conversation. I don't know if that means its worth keeping SE and D&D separate or not. I just feel like right now D&D threads move at a good pace, with a good amount of thoughtfulness and staying on topic while not being overly strict about it. If that stayed the same after a merge, that'd be fine.
Unfortunately when I do see SE folks posting in these "crossover" threads, I get the impression that they would consider me a bad person for what I said above about the Glorious Edict. So while I don't want to offer an opinion on the "culture" stuff without having an understanding of SE culture, I would want to make sure that if there really is a big userbase of people who hate the idea of decorum, that they have their own space and we have ours.
So I see the arguments for merging and for keeping things as they are, I guess.
As someone from the South
Oh no.
No no no; it never has. No. Absolutely not.
It’s pretty much a tool for stifling any kind of social dissent by the dominant social group, because they set the standards for what is the “polite behavior”
This is an almost inescapable facet of human behavior in societies with fundamental power differentials and social hierarchies, whether those hierarchies are formalized or not.
I specifically clarified that I realize this is not how it works in the real world but it can work in forums.
I think it's a mistake to discard the idea of politeness itself as an inherently toxic thing just because it is used in toxic cultures.
There are also polite cultures that aren't horrible cesspits of bigotry underneath.
+4
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I wish you all so much needed luck. I still think AGORAphobia would be good as a subforum at least.
Something I've been wanting to bring up... Mod posts need to be different than regular posts. Like, posts by a mod as a mod saying mod stuff should be treated differently when displayed inline on the forums. No reactions allowed to these posts.
Any mod posts in a thread should be visible on every page under a dropdown at the top so that any "don't do this, stop doing this, please why are you all still fucking doing this" type rulings are easily visible.
Definitely things we can address when we're not hamstrung by a featureless and broken forum deployment.
Already some good ideas being put forward to pin mod decrees and stuff.
Honestly I'd be A-ok dropping agrees/awesomes entirely and heavily moderating no content posts like "this" or "lol" or "limed". Maybe if you want to pin a gold star on a post you can buy points or something. While I agree agrees solved the "limed for truth" problem, it creates other problems.
I think we've got a technical problem and a social problem. Trying to solve them both in one big bang by moving to a new site while also changing the social structure is going to cause more dropoff than tackling each individually would. That's too much change to the community all at once
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I was actually pushing for us to start to solve our problems now, or at least lay some heavy ground work, rather than pushing to put it off indefinitely. If we move to the new forum with some more healthier experiences dealing with each other under our belts, that upcoming transition to the new structure will be a lot smoother
At the same time we have a more immediate problem that needs solving and I don't want to risk subforum structure conversations impacting that
I don't know about others, but it just "feels" a bit more urgent with only 7 months instead of 13 months as our timeline. I know that a forum can be spun up rather quickly, all things considered, so maybe this feeling is unwarranted. Perhaps we do have plenty of time to hash some of this out before the move, and I want to be open to this. But the shortened timeline is influencing my thinking.
From a "holy fuck we need something" timeframe, I can guarantee that barring a mass bussening of all the folks who've volunteered, we'll have something stood up well in time. I could have something set up tomorrow if absolutely needed. It might struggle with a massive load of users, and would be pricey for me to pay out of pocket solo (due to definitely overprovisioning), and it definitely would just be a bare bones version of anything, but it would be up and working.
Don't worry about having something. Let's worry about getting things done right.
Something I've been wanting to bring up... Mod posts need to be different than regular posts. Like, posts by a mod as a mod saying mod stuff should be treated differently when displayed inline on the forums. No reactions allowed to these posts.
Any mod posts in a thread should be visible on every page under a dropdown at the top so that any "don't do this, stop doing this, please why are you all still fucking doing this" type rulings are easily visible.
Absolutely! resetera does exactly this with the threadmarks features on Xenforo
Posts
How many do we currently have (active)?
I think 6 or 7 at the moment. I don't think there is a way to specifically search for users with the mod attribute on our end.
PSN:Furlion
Again: My issue is not with your made up example, it's that you keep invoking this particular strawman that has absolutely no value in this conversation.
And if the issue is that you think people shouldn't be able to criticize others' posts because you disagree with the criticism, that says more about you than any rule under discussion.
There is definitely value in the forums and I think everyone here is in agreement on that. Nobody is really arguing both groups should go our separate ways or that this is a hopeless endeavor. That should be heartening that even with some tension everyone is basically working towards the same goal.
The culture stuff isn't going to be fixed overnight, but for now if we can all work together as a team we might have a chance to figure it out or at least figure some of it out down the line.
A lot of it feels very much like two family members sniping at each other during holiday dinner. You might not like each other, but you did both show up.
PSN:Furlion
Objective moderation sucks. You have to be able to take action because the vibes are rotten, not constrain yourself to easily dodged rules.
All in all outside of maybe a half dozen people on this forum, we do all want similar things, though we may not agree on exactly how to get there.
The technical problem has a definite deadline and has a lot of work involved so the work on that should go on unimpeded. The social aspect is going to cause issues further down the road, and the proposed solution can be done at any time via any forum software
I'd suggest that the social problem is something that we can start tackling at any time, even right now. We've got this new subforum here where we'll be talking for the next few months, in an ideal world we make some progress working together
I think tighter moderation can help reign that in, but it would be less thread kicks and or thread kicks that only last a few hours or a day. There's only like five threads that cause most of the reports and even that could be tempered if there was a mod who was just in the thread telling people to chill as it was happening, I know that's not as easy of a request as it sounds, since people have lives and those threads can suck to read.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I do have to ask, though, is it truly "made up" that we have seen threats made against others on this forum, in jest or otherwise? At least from the outside, I've seen multiple instances where someone has attempted to bully someone out of a thread or even forum, using tactics like passive-aggressive "subtweeting," name calling, cussing, mod reports, dogpiling, and the like. Heck, some of the attempts I've participated in and agree with.
Like.. are there people that you truly feel do not belong to this community as a whole, and you wish to see leave (either of their own volition or via mod decree)?
I'm trying hard not to make a strawman here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
This is not a made up example. It may not be what you think of as a primary or widespread issue, but it is not fake.
I honestly don't care about the Glorious Edict in as much as I think personal attacks are rarely acceptable, but having the GE at least allows some kind of outlet.
If people have the stance that they should be allowed to call each other names and the GE is "holding them back" then I'm not sure I want to be in the same community as those folks.
I've had several infractions over the years from basically losing my cool, having my emotional disregulation bullshit from my ADHD trigger, and me basically posting "fuck off" or "fuck you" to someone who is 100% being a dick, with whomever is goading me on getting by without nary and infraction.
The problem with the combination of "don't be a dick" and the glorious edict is one gets confused for the other. That being a dick isn't an objective thing. Telling someone who's being overly hostile or aggressive or condescending to fuck off isn't being a dick, it's having an emotional response.
I'm all for having lines, but I think maybe the lines should be redrawn, made clearer, reimagined to better suit managing to moderate this number of people. We need to find clearer and less subjective rules that accomplish what the old rules were aiming for, but for a group of 30-50 year olds instead of 12-30 year olds.
I was actually looking at the election thread in d&d and noticed it had like 6 people banned and it made me curious which thread had the most banned posters. Probably no way to actually find out without looking manually but i am very curious now.
I know which is why it feels very silly to me sometimes.
PSN:Furlion
Meanwhile the heinous speaker is allowed free reign as they did not break decorum.
Its a ridiculous, loony tunes, childs cartoon version of morality control reminiscent of the movie Demolition Man. "You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality standard."
As someone from the South
Oh no.
No no no; it never has. No. Absolutely not.
It’s pretty much a tool for stifling any kind of social dissent by the dominant social group, because they set the standards for what is the “polite behavior”
This is an almost inescapable facet of human behavior in societies with fundamental power differentials and social hierarchies, whether those hierarchies are formalized or not.
I'm really not interested in litigating hypothetical behavior I have no knowledge of, and if you want to post specific examples I'm happy to avow or disavow them on a case by case basis, rather than engage in a rhetorical argument that has absolutely no bearing on the post from Jeffe I was criticizing.
Which, for the record, I would hope we would also agree someone making up a completely bad faith strawman in a malicious attempt to misrepresent people they disagree with is manipulative and generally ill-advised. Which is what Jeffe just did, to give a specific example.
There’s also a difference in criticizing a post and saying someone is personally a racist/fascist/authoritarian/etc. for a mild difference of opinion.
Folks will claim they are not a thing because you're just repugnant or "agrees don't mean agreement".
But that's just fucking stupid, I'm sorry.
I've seen them, they absolutely happen.
The "I wish they'd all die" happens in all but words sometimes. Sometimes it even makes it into words. Unfortunately I don't catalog someone's entire shitty post history to bring up when convenient for these things so I don't have a ready example ready to go for this discussion.
It absolutely is, unless you can point to a specific post where someone issued a death threat and wasn't infracted or banned for it.
I very much don't think we should move to a new forum with the current subforum structure and then fix it in post later I think that just prolongs the same issues we have now and probably ends up making some kind of a exodus when that culture changes
I know the technical and financial issues are important, but figuring out what the new forums will be and who will be modding and in charge is just as important if not more so. If the new forums aren't an attractive place for people to go the other stuff doesn't matter.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
It will never get addressed if you put it off.
"We can't or shouldn't have this discussion" from a mod means it'll never happen and we might as well just throw in the towel at that point.
We all know (or should know) that reporting a post generates a thread in the mod forum. It's a combination of alerting the mods to an issue, and further to create a space to discuss the report and the context around it. It's one of the biggest calls for transparency, because those discussions happen in secret and are then applied. This, in theory, should have "management" presenting a unified front to the laypeople, but that can be used as cover for shitty behavior if trust and respect is lost.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be subforum-specific mods, because the rules would be enforced equally across the forum. But the very nature of discussions are different between the various spaces, and a universal rule set needs to be as minimal as possible to accommodate the discourse variances. The "glorious edict" is part of that bare-bones skeleton the forum has in place.. so it gets invoked easily. And perhaps that is wrong.
Like, I'd vote for more "mushy" language like "respect your fellow posters - if your actions come across as disrespectful to each other and the community as a whole, then you will be infracted." Yes, that leaves a ton of room for personal interpretation, and can be weaponized. But weaponizing the reporting functions and moderation is just another form of disrespecting the community, so ideally that would be stamped out.
... It is becoming more and more obvious as I type out my thoughts that I live in an ideal utopia that will not survive contact with the real world.
We don't have a choice with regard to this exodus. Sometimes all you can do is pack up and move over without getting all the things that you want right away. It is good that this conversation is happening, but I just want to be realistic about this process. I will say that without the specter of the larger PA organization over us, I feel more empowered with regard to changing things. There's a lot of cultural and institutional inertia that is wrapped up in the whole history of these forums.
With objectivity, I’m talking about mods not playing favorites or unevenly handing out infractions, etc. Obviously repeat offenders will be on thinner ice and all that. I’m talking about mods saying well, I don’t agree with this person’s view on [x], so I’m going to be quicker with the infraction out of spite.
Edit: I realize ‘neutral’ moderation might go down a little better if my point seems fuzzy
I would assume people (who haven't been banned/kicked for being trolls or whatever) are just saying shit because they are the main character and want to say shit, not because some other person is also a main character that they are trying to bait into something
But then I'm also frequently dumbfounded by the tightness with which people grip grievances, so what do I know
Absolutely agree. Whether this is something we figure out immediately or hash out once we get our new home situated, we need to revisit the rules and figure out what they should be, how they're enforced, and what the jurisdictions are. And everyone has to more or less agree on those parameters. (I mean, there will always be some people who think the rules are an abomination, because there are literally thousands of us, but I think we can get to a broad consensus.)
If there's a global set of rules, or rules that vary based on subforum, I don't think that's so important as general buy-in. If there are two subforums and everyone in each subforum thinks the rules in the other subforum are dumb rules for dummies, I think that's workable as long as they all agree that they need to follow the rules in the other person's house if they go to visit.
I also recognize that there are a contingent of people who don't want to feel constrained to one subforum, and so want their preferred ruleset to apply in both places. I get that, but I also feel it might be unreasonable given how much distance there is between what the median D&Der and median SEer want from their respective environs.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I was actually pushing for us to start to solve our problems now, or at least lay some heavy ground work, rather than pushing to put it off indefinitely. If we move to the new forum with some more healthier experiences dealing with each other under our belts, that upcoming transition to the new structure will be a lot smoother
At the same time we have a more immediate problem that needs solving and I don't want to risk subforum structure conversations impacting that
Geebs let things coast on inertia for a long time and it took a while for things to really get bad. We had the whole kerfuffle happen this past spring, but other than getting a couple new mods none of the structural issues got addressed because without an admin we were basically in a limbo state. With Geebs and PA out of the picture now for sure we as a community and the mod staff / whatever organizational structure we setup we finally have the ability to directly tackle these issues and figure out what needs to be done to turn down the resentment.
Or maybe the resentment can't be turned down and we just all have to find a way to grudgingly co-exist. At least hands are no longer tied and we finally have the freedom to work towards finding solutions to our cultural issues now.
Losing your cool and being a dick are things that can both be true about the same action. Having an emotional response and being a dick are things that can both be true about the same action. "This is why I lost my cool" is not the same as "therefore I shouldn't be held responsible for it".
Frankly, rules for a group of 30-50 year olds should not need to include "you can't just tell people to fuck off" because that's just assumed and not because it doesn't apply anymore.
You can be polite as fuck and still be an asshole, as anyone who has had a "Bless your heart" or "I'll pray for you" thrown their way will know. Stamping down on dickish behavior earlier and more often, with warnings and minor infractions is needed in so, so many cases. But it also needs to be spelled out to people why their behavior is dickish. Not just the poster in question, but everyone.
There are definitely instances where I've wandered into a thread a day or two after an incident, and as I go through and see a spat between folks, and one or both sides are warned or infracted, but it's coming on posts that either were relatively tame compared to other stuff said, or on posts edited by mods with no other commentary or explanation, and it just leaves a sense of "wtf happened here". Which post was actually the bad one? Was there a certain length that hit a critical point for a mod to step in, or was that post just when one logged in?
Which I get not wanting to dwell on drama (or wanting to edit out particularly hateful shit), but the lack of transparency and explanation definitely contributes to the arbitrary feeling of moderation.
However, I do think there is value in something like the Edict as a supporting rule for making sure people behave, not promoted to it's starring role as it has been. There are gonna be a lot more instances of hurtful personal insults, and using language we really don't want to be associated with, if you loosen those gloves. And the folks most affected by it are still going to be the most vulnerable of the forum folks. Hell, we still have to remind people not to fat shame, call folks ugly, etc. because of unintended effects of using that kind of language. And since a current issue is a lack of available moderation power, letting that shit sit around for hours or days is not really something I'm eager to see in this new iteration.
203 days left until forum shutdown.
Any mod posts in a thread should be visible on every page under a dropdown at the top so that any "don't do this, stop doing this, please why are you all still fucking doing this" type rulings are easily visible.
I specifically clarified that I realize this is not how it works in the real world but it can work in forums.
I think it's a mistake to discard the idea of politeness itself as an inherently toxic thing just because it is used in toxic cultures.
There are also polite cultures that aren't horrible cesspits of bigotry underneath.
Definitely things we can address when we're not hamstrung by a featureless and broken forum deployment.
Already some good ideas being put forward to pin mod decrees and stuff.
Honestly I'd be A-ok dropping agrees/awesomes entirely and heavily moderating no content posts like "this" or "lol" or "limed". Maybe if you want to pin a gold star on a post you can buy points or something. While I agree agrees solved the "limed for truth" problem, it creates other problems.
From a "holy fuck we need something" timeframe, I can guarantee that barring a mass bussening of all the folks who've volunteered, we'll have something stood up well in time. I could have something set up tomorrow if absolutely needed. It might struggle with a massive load of users, and would be pricey for me to pay out of pocket solo (due to definitely overprovisioning), and it definitely would just be a bare bones version of anything, but it would be up and working.
Don't worry about having something. Let's worry about getting things done right.
Absolutely! resetera does exactly this with the threadmarks features on Xenforo