|
| Thread: OSM Policy Discussion and Feedback Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 20, 2013 05:06 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 07:56, 07 Dec 2020.
|
OSM Policy Discussion and Feedback Thread
As elaborated upon in the OSM Posting Guidelines and Information thread, from time to time the OSM moderators or the general community may wish to change OSM Policies related to thread management, posting guidelines, +QP awardings, feedback, and so forth.
To provide HC members an opportunity to voice their feelings related to proposed policy changes or other specific feedback topics, this thread exists. Moderators may propose policy changes themselves, or HC members may propose policy changes by sending an HCM to an OSM moderator which explains the proposed policy change - or any other topic of discussion pertaining to OSM moderating policies. If the moderators feel the proposed change or topic is worth considering, it will be posted in this thread for discussion. After the discussion period ends, the thread will be closed and the moderators will consider points raised in the discussion to determine if the policy should be changed.
Note that the OSM moderators retain the ability to make policy changes without consulting the community, and they also reserve the right to deny policy changes proposed by HC members without putting them up here for discussion. OSM policies or policy changes should not be debated elsewhere in the forum - such discussion will be deleted and the person initiating the discussion will be asked to submit a proposal in writing to moderators by approved channels. This is to make sure policy discussion is orderly and productive, and to make sure everyone has equal opportunity to voice an opinion and be heard.
To keep things organized and fair, there will be a few ground rules to govern the way discussions will proceed. These rules are as follows:
(1) When a proposed policy change or discussion topic is made, an OSM moderator will post it here. This thread will remain closed when an active discussion is not taking place.
(2) Once a topic is opened for discussion by the moderators, it will remain open for exactly one week.
(3) HC members may feel free to post any constructive feedback on the open topic they wish, but only the policy change under consideration may be discussed. Importantly, there is a limit of one post per user per calendar day. The reason for this rule is to provide each member equal opportunity to voice an opinion and to encourage members to think carefully about what they want to post before they post it. Additional posts by the same HC member each day will be deleted (see also rule # 6). An exception will be made to this rule if I ask a member for clarification on a point.
(4) Members may not edit their posts to respond to posts made after them. The reason for this rule is to prevent participants from using the editing feature to circumvent the one-post-per-day limit. If you wish to respond to posts made after your post, you must wait until the next day to do so.
(5) All posts must adhere to the Code of Conduct and the posting rules set forth in the OSM Posting Guidelines Thread.
(6) Any determined violation of rules 3-5 will result in the offender to be prohibited from contributing to the particular discussion for the remainder of the open period, plus any additional penalties if CoC rules have been broken.
(7) Once a topic is closed, the moderators will discuss the points raised in the open period. A final decision will then be posted in the Announcement Thread. This decision is then considered in effect. If community members wish to change the policy again, or discuss the policy further, they may petition an OSM moderator to open a new discussion period.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 05:20 AM |
|
|
Discussion Open: Wednesday June 19, 2013
Discussion will Close: Wednesday June 26, 2013
Current Topics of Discussion:
The New OSM Posting Guidelines and Information Thread
The New OSM Announcement Thread
The New OSM Policy Discussion Thread
A few notes:
These threads have been developed in response to an escalating awareness by the moderators that the old way feedback was handled was not productive. These new policies and posting guidelines have been developed in consultation with Valeriy and they are now in effect. However we recognize that this will be a work in progress and these policies will be fine-tuned as we feel our way through them, discover what works and what doesn't work, and so forth. Your feedback will be essential toward honing this to something that will have the maximum effectiveness at keeping this place ordered and providing a place where everyone can enjoy themselves.
So, have a look at these new policies and guidelines, and feel free to comment on them here. But keep in mind the ground rules for feedback. They will be enforced.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 06:07 AM |
|
|
I agree with the spirit of the text in general, except I think you guys focus way too much on when to award people with QP's. When you have 3 QP's, 20 posts per day limit goes away, which is practical and an elegant way to avoid trolling. Other than that, I don't think any OSM poster is really interested in constantly grabbing QP's. Turning OSM into (or treating OSM as) some TV show where people are rewarded with shiny little stars for behaving properly is kind of treating them like children.
Quote:
Words which are automatically censored by HC's language filter must remain censored or replaced with all asterixes.
What about situations in which such a word is necessary to specify something? Example:
When **** hits the fan is a phrase in which anybody who knows the phrase will automatically fill in all four letters. However, **** hole is not so obvious. Calling some place a **** hole is not necessarily insulting anybody, are we allowed to call it a s**t hole for clarification? Note that, if your mother tongue is not English, sometimes the slang definition is the only definition you can immediately think of, thanks to Hollywood. I am sure there is a more polite word for "attention w***e in English but I sincerely don't know what it is.
Quote:
Insults are statements made with the intent to hurt or undermine another person - either directly by assaulting their character, or indirectly by ridiculing some idea, belief, or characteristic closely related to said person (or group of people).
To insult people are uncalled for, yes, but to ridicule ideas is any kind of sarcasm. If sarcasm is banned the world will be such a boring, humorless place. Besides, ridiculing is sometimes the only possible way to deal with a certain way of trolling, when people, instead of discussing ideas, start to use logic(al fallacies) and linguistic loopholes as a smoke screen, ridiculing is your only legitimate counter attack. Well, it's not even attacking in such cases, it's self-defense. It's either that or actually insulting the person.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 06:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, the moderators do consider the act of ridiculing posts by calling them "loony", "hogwash", "poppycock", "bullcrap", "idiotic", "inane" and other obviously negative appelations insulting behavior.
I disagree that calling an idea idiotic or ridiculous or whatever is insulting the person who presented the idea. But as long as the such standards are applied to everyone it is a "fair" standard, but one that is in my opinion strange to apply to debates. Even my use of the word "strange" in the preceding sentence could be considered to be an insult under that standard.
Quote:
n general, the OSM moderators will have a reasonably liberal policy when it comes to insults and provocative behavior. It is impossible to maintain an off-topic forum that spans incendiary topics and expect that insults will never fly. As such, not every insult will be punished or edited out, not every instance of provocation will earn a warning, and not every off-topic post will be deleted.
That does not seem to fit with the standard of respect being preached. I'm not talking about each such post needing a penalty, but each such post needs to be edited to conform to community standards.
If a moderator sees an insult and does edit it out, but instead allows it to remain the person insulted will feel slighted not only by the person who insulted him but by the moderators as well. AND it sends a message that the moderator has given the "green light" to insult the target further.
Quote:
Nevertheless, posters should be aware that any time they engage in negative behavior which violates these rules, they expose themselves to possible disciplinary action, even if it is the first time they have gone against the CoC and even if other infractions are going on simultaneously that are not penalized. It may seem unfair if there are twenty people on a highway speeding, and you are the only one pulled over by the police. But remember the police cannot pull over everyone, and if your behavior is above reproach at all times, then you have nothing to worry about!
Yeah, a cop can't pull over everyone. But a moderator does not have the same physical limitations on who they can "pull over." If a moderator allows people to insult one person over and over and then that person becomes frustrated with all the insults and says says something that could be remotely considered an insult (since saying negative things about ideas is now an insult) and gets penalized for it, I would interpret the actions of the moderator to be malicious and unfair.
The standards should be enforced consistently and fairly. Inconsistent enforcement only leads to more problems.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 07:05 AM |
|
|
This seems a sensible way of doing things.
I have a question: if one poster tells another poster something dismissive, like "stop posting poetry"* or "stop playing stupid", does that fall under insults, provocation, or aggravation? Or are such things okay to post?
*when a member is expressing ideas and not literally posting poetry 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:31 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:33, 20 Jun 2013.
|
I know that this will probably not be accepted (because it will be ratehr difficult to enforce) but I think it should be suggested as a rule nevertheless:
If an user repeatedly ignores the points made by someone else regarding that user's posts in a particular thread; or obviously twists the meaning of other user's posts just to fit his/her own line of thought; or repeatedly posts the same point which has already been discussed in the same thread and arguments have been provided against it but they have not received a response from the user who re-posts the same thing for the third, fourth, etc. time; or an user generally repeatedly fails to address the arguments made against his posts and attempts to lead a one-way "conversation" with the intent to avoid answering questions/arguments to which he/she really has no answer but deliberately does not admit it; then the moderator can ask the said user to answer the questions/arguments that he/she (the user) has failed to address and to warn him that continuing with the trend to not answer, ignore points, twist meanings and generally attempt to shrink and change the object of the discussion to the only size and form which is comfortable for him, then he/she will be banned from posting in the same thread.
The general purpose of the above is to maintain a healthy and fruitful discussion. What usually destroys an otherwise good thread is the manner in which the participants debate some topic. Insults and such are already being addressed by the CoC, however rarely someone starts directly insulting someone else and usually there's a chain of posts made by one or more users which frustrate some other user(s). Hijacking, twisting or ignoring the point of a discussion is never treated well by the people who genuinely want to have a productive and serious conversation and exactly that behaviour is what usually results in flame wars. I think that posting in the OSM should be done keeping in mind that when you engage in a discussion you should be able to fully explain why do you defend or object against a particular position. For anyone who wants a jabber on some topic, be it interesting to him/her or not, there's the VW.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:54 AM |
|
|
*Triple sigh*
Mvass has managed to be the first violator of the new rules, congrats for that one.
For the rest of it:
Corribus, in all fairness, don't you think, you people are overdoing this? Where is the bloody SIMPLICITY? The mods are not supposed to introduce all kinds of fancy rules and threads and "cooldowns" for posting in threads and whatnot. They are not supposed to teach visitors here policy, decency, style, or respect. This isn't the bloody House of Commons - and if it was, language would be somewhat cruder most of the time.
In any case I think we are firmly on the wrong track now. Moderation seems to be a weighing process - it's basically a "translation", and since that's my job I understand a lot about it. In my opinion it makes no sense whatsoever to make finer scales and to look at single words. Moderators are no lawyers, most of the time, and the use of language in order to transport subtext messages is an art. Even if the message is an offense, if it's artfully enough delivered, the right persons may find something like that even worth a qp.
Having finer scales, does nothing. Like Elodin said, if "idiotic" is taboo - what about "strange"? I agree with him on this case. The English language knows many words and you can use many in questionable ways to make sure everyone understands how low your opinion on someone or something is. In the end it leads to more work and yet more bickering, as has been apparent over the last few weeks, after Elodin got his "public lashing", as he likes to call it in true martyr tradition.
(For the record: the last one was a deliberate sting to underline the point.) EDIT (I'm deliberately breaking the rules now, because belatedly I realize, that the sentence above may not be enough to transport the message): In case it wasn't clear, I apologize to Elodin for using him to underline my point with a somewhat finer jab. No offense meant.
So I can only say that I completely disagree with the direction this is going. This is a posting forum with posting limits - posters shouldn't be obliged to work over their posts like they tried to formulate a watertight contract. As anyone knows - or maybe suspects - I'm a sucker for Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, and in my opinion "uncertainty" is THE key element. There SHOULD be an element of uncertainty in moderating, even an element of arbitrariness.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with leaving people enough rope to hang themselves. People SHOULD be able to express their opinion. I still think, that the difference between an insult and a constructive post is the reasoning: if you just say, "What an idiotic post!", (or "what a STRANGE post") you could have saved 3 of the 4 words and just write, "Idiot!" - it's an offense, mainly because it means "communication breakdown" - what can you answer?
However, if you start your post pointing to 5 others in the thread who said the same thing, and to a couple of links and posts who refuted it, closing with, "therefore it's an idiotic post, because not only it regurgitates for the sixth time what has been said, but also because it has been refuted as often and even more thoroughly", I don't think there is anything wrong with that one.
If insults fly - maybe it was worth the one week ban. If so, fine, if not, next time may be different.
Maybe, what people have to learn is, to once in a while just shut the hell up, instead of going for every bait presenting itself. After all, no one will see Elodin in tears, posting something like "all the time you were so right, this whole God business is such a load of nonsense", nor will Elodin see any of the guys he's wordbattling with fall on their knees one day and thank the Lord publicly for the revelation they just had.
So, comrades - it's not going anywhere, and if you don't see anything in another's post you can answer reasonably without getting a fit or to resort to making personal allusions about mental abilities or capacity, just try to ignore it. You'll see, it doesn't make much of a difference anyway.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
well, the mods' "new way" of running things has been forced by all of the constant bickering and complaining, as well as the seemingly gray areas of rule implementation. i can see why they did it. i just think that the actual implementation should be interesting to watch. personally, i don't think it will change anything, either on the users' end, or the mods' end. and if it actually does change things, i hesitate to think that it won't be for the better, in the long run.
the new moderation layout, to me, reminds me of all the rigamarole that the military used. or maybe the irs, with their tax-related jargon.
-offtopic:
yeah, the fun is steadily being zapped from this site. either by:
1.the constant bickering and complaining of the users,
2.by the mods' selective punishments of certain people,
3.that no one is really putting out anything new mod-wise,
4.that the "new" system of moderation looks so unfriendly, that new users will certainly be hesitant to post, and lastly,
5.that new users may stop posting anything at all, being that their ideas are often ridiculed by the users already here.
all in all, i can see this place becoming a ghost town. 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 03:44 PM |
|
|
Mvass and artu: you clearly either did not read the ground rules or did not understand them. These ground rules have been established for a reason, and I will enforce them. Please read them again.
Since this is a new system I will give you a second chance.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 04:09 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 16:11, 20 Jun 2013.
|
honestly, this would be so much easier if people weren't so bloody hyperdefensive and oversensitive about this kind of bull. Just... grow some thicker skin?
I would say it's really annoying but i'd rather not *provoke* anyone into accusing me of attacking their ~*personal integrity*~ by pointing by making such a statement.
I approve of most of these measures, except for the policy on "dirty language", but eh, it's not impossible to follow that rule, so whatever.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 09:07 PM |
|
|
As I read the three new threads,I understand that this is the only one from the 3,where we as HC users can post some feedback and with restriction of one post per day.
So the new system is build mostly on HCMing the mods,which from my experience in contacting them I think could work well.
So I hope the new threads to help OSM being a better forum with better posting practices,based on respect and positive thinking.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
The_Polyglot
Promising
Supreme Hero
channeling capybara energy
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 10:05 PM |
|
|
|
To me, it sounds like putting up a sort of quarantine around the OSM... Which I support wholeheartedly. By all means, do your thing.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 11:45 PM |
|
|
Responses:
@ artu:
Quote:
I agree with the spirit of the text in general, except I think you guys focus way too much on when to award people with QP's. When you have 3 QP's, 20 posts per day limit goes away, which is practical and an elegant way to avoid trolling. Other than that, I don't think any OSM poster is really interested in constantly grabbing QP's. Turning OSM into (or treating OSM as) some TV show where people are rewarded with shiny little stars for behaving properly is kind of treating them like children.
The +QP guidelines have been around for over two years. I just copied and pasted them from the old "Responsible Posting in the Other Side" thread. Nothing is new here. These are only meant as inspirational guidelines so people know what I, at least, look for when awarding +QPs. The point, actually, is not to have people strive to get +QPs. It's to have people strive to post in a respectful manner that encourages productive discussion.
Regarding the HC language filter:
Quote:
What about situations in which such a word is necessary to specify something?
The Code of Conduct makes no distinction about the intention behind the use of the censored word. That is the rule Valeriy has established, and I am required to enforce it. I will take a simple approach: if it's censored, you can't use it, and the reason you want to use it doesn't matter. If it is not censored, you can use it, so long as I judge that it does not violate another rule in the CoC. If you bypass the language filters, you are breaking the Code of Conduct.
Quote:
To insult people are uncalled for, yes, but to ridicule ideas is any kind of sarcasm. If sarcasm is banned the world will be such a boring, humorless place. Besides, ridiculing is sometimes the only possible way to deal with a certain way of trolling, when people, instead of discussing ideas, start to use logic(al fallacies) and linguistic loopholes as a smoke screen, ridiculing is your only legitimate counter attack. Well, it's not even attacking in such cases, it's self-defense. It's either that or actually insulting the person.
Sarcasm is not forbidden, but you use it at your peril. Even in normal conversation there is a fine line between lighthearted sarcasm and being disrespecfully insulting. That line is even finer in online discussion, where you lose all context in the form of voice tone and facial expression. Sarcasm can also be an insult masquerading as a friendly jest.
So, unless there is some contextual clue that makes it obvious you are simply being silly (a smiley, say), I will take most of what people write at face value. This is not to say that misunderstandings can't happen, and if you are penalized when you were just making an honest joke - I'm sure we can work through it. A good place to start is an act of contrition.
I will leave you with the thought that no matter the intent, sarcasm is not the best way to have an intellectual discussion about a serious topic. I like levity and this place should have plenty of it. But ridiculing other ideas, in jest or not, is not respectful. You may think it's just a joke. But the recipient of your sarcasm may be hurt by it. So my advice is to use sarcasm sparingly or not at all, and try to focus on more respectful and courteous ways to get a point across.
@Elodin
Quote:
That does not seem to fit with the standard of respect being preached. I'm not talking about each such post needing a penalty, but each such post needs to be edited to conform to community standards.
If a moderator sees an insult and does edit it out, but instead allows it to remain the person insulted will feel slighted not only by the person who insulted him but by the moderators as well. AND it sends a message that the moderator has given the "green light" to insult the target further.
The emphasis is mine, and it is an incorrect conclusion. Here is why:
It is impossible for the moderators to edit every post that may contain a negative remark. We cannot be here all the time, and even if we could, we wouldn't have the time to go through and micromanage every thing that anyone writes. And nobody would want us to anyway.
But: The standard of respect is the standard of respect; how we enforce the rules to ensure that standard is upheld is altogether different.
I will again return to the idea of a policeman and speed limits. The speed limit is the law. The fact that the police cannot pull over every speeder does not negate the value of the law. You may be driving on a highway and see another person speeding, and you see there are no police around to pull him over. Does that give you the right to speed as well? It does not. The law exists for a reason. Some people who break the law will get away with it. Some will not. For those that do, it might be because the police were not around at the time. It might be because the magnitude of the breakage is only slight (going 62 in a 60, e.g.) and it is not worth the policeman's time to issue a ticket. Whatever the case, seeing someone else violate the rules with no repurcussion does not mean you are entitled to a free pass. It is certainly not an invitation to commit a crime of your own.
That said, your indignation may be justifiable if, after many weeks, you notice that only people who have red cars are ever pulled over. If the police are targetting people with red cars only, and letting people with other car colors go, then this would certainly be unfair. The police should strive to be unbiased in the way they apply the law - that is, even if they cannot punish every violation of the law, the times they do punish violators should not be motivated by factors having nothing to do with the type or magnitude of the violation. Still, you are cautioned against making rash judgments about how the police choose who to issue citations to, because your viewpoint is subject to certain biases. If you drive a red car, you may be predisposed to taking more notice when other people with red cars get pulled over, and make an erroneous judgment about the police preferring to pull people with red cars over, when in fact the actual statistics show otherwise. You are still free to make an official complaint at your police department, but if they are able to show statistics which show that people with white cars actually get pulled over just as often as people with red cars, well...
This is the point of the Announcement Thread, by the way. This will be a public record of everyone who is issued a warning or subjected to any disciplinary action, no matter how small. Of course, there will be no record of violations which go unpunished, but the system isn't perfect.
In the end, I don't think anyone wants me to award a -QP every time there is the slightest insult. You all would be at infinite flood protect in no time. This wouldn't be fun for anyone. In the guidelines thread I made it clear I will not penalize every little infraction of the rules. I am really interested in patterns of behavior and egregious violations of the CoC: many people speed on the highway without being issued a ticket, but I'd wager that nobody robs a bank without attacting the interest of the police. I do reserve the right to make determinations of what constitutes egregious and what constitutes a pattern. Obviously, if you are respectful always in the way you address others, you will never have anything to worry about with respect to either of them.
Quote:
Yeah, a cop can't pull over everyone. But a moderator does not have the same physical limitations on who they can "pull over." If a moderator allows people to insult one person over and over and then that person becomes frustrated with all the insults and says says something that could be remotely considered an insult (since saying negative things about ideas is now an insult) and gets penalized for it, I would interpret the actions of the moderator to be malicious and unfair.
If you feel the rules are not being applied fairly, you may make a complaint to a moderator or to Valeriy. There may also be an official mechanism to do this in the future.
However, please do not waste my time or Valeriy's time by making frivolous complaints based only on "principle". All this does is gum up the works. This doesn't benefit anyone in the long run, and will benefit you the least. I'm not legally bound to respond to every complaint you make - if you start making them every two seconds just for S&G's, I will likely start to ignore you. In short: pick your battles.
@mvassilev
Quote:
I have a question: if one poster tells another poster something dismissive, like "stop posting poetry"* or "stop playing stupid", does that fall under insults, provocation, or aggravation? Or are such things okay to post?
From the new posting guidelines thread, see the bold text:
Quote:
In many cases this will be obvious, but sometimes not: posters cited for insulting other members are welcome to ask moderators why their posts were considered insulting, but they should not expect or demand moderators to lay out precise definitions of everything that might be considered an insult, because this is impossible.
As you know, everything depends on context. If it is a one line flippant response, it will likely be considered a junk post. But I am not here to give you an algorithm for what you can get away with. If you know it is insensitive, flippant, rude, disrespectful, or whatever: don't post it. If you are unsure of whether it is disrespectful or insulting, then there probably is a better way you can say it anyway. Again: when in doubt, take the high road. You can never be penalized by being friendly and respectful. For that matter, you can never be penalized for saying nothing at all.
@Zenofex
Quote:
If an user repeatedly ignores the points made by someone else regarding that user's posts in a particular thread; or obviously twists the meaning of other user's posts just to fit his/her own line of thought; or repeatedly posts the same point which has already been discussed in the same thread and arguments have been provided against it but they have not received a response from the user who re-posts the same thing for the third, fourth, etc. time; or an user generally repeatedly fails to address the arguments made against his posts and attempts to lead a one-way "conversation" with the intent to avoid answering questions/arguments to which he/she really has no answer but deliberately does not admit it; then the moderator can ask the said user to answer the questions/arguments that he/she (the user) has failed to address and to warn him that continuing with the trend to not answer, ignore points, twist meanings and generally attempt to shrink and change the object of the discussion to the only size and form which is comfortable for him, then he/she will be banned from posting in the same thread.
While I am a moderator, I do not view my role as being to force people to respond to your questions. I cannot enforce "good debating techniques". My role is to keep the discussion on topic and to ensure people are treated respecfully. If you feel a person is failing to live up to your standard of debate, I encourage you (all) to exercise a sort of self regulation. Which means - nobody is forcing you to discuss a topic with someone else. If you feel that another poster is not addressing your arguments, or is not supplying satisfactory responses, or whatever, you have every right to ignore them. Someone who is being constantly ignored, will likely either change their posting style or simply leave.
@JJ
There is a lot in your post, but here seems to be the crux of it:
Quote:
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with leaving people enough rope to hang themselves. People SHOULD be able to express their opinion. I still think, that the difference between an insult and a constructive post is the reasoning: if you just say, "What an idiotic post!", (or "what a STRANGE post") you could have saved 3 of the 4 words and just write, "Idiot!" - it's an offense, mainly because it means "communication breakdown" - what can you answer?
I'm not sure where your gripe is to be honest. Nothing has really changed at all with respect to what people can say or what the standards of behavior are. I have already made it clear that what is an insult depends a lot on context and cannot be precisely defined a priori. I will point out that of "what is polite" there is no doubt. My job is to use judgment of what is and what isn't an discipline-worthy insult based on the context of the post, and I will take recent behavior into account. More to the point (again): if you treat other people respectfully at all times, then you need not worry about any of this.
The only place where there are true posting restrictions is in this very thread. And I think the reason for this is very clear. We have tried the "simple" way of handling feedback, and it has proven to not be efficient for anyone. The other stuff is just a codification of the way things have already been done for some time. All of it is consistent with the existing Code of Conduct. But sometimes it helps to have the rules posted closer to home.
@fred
Quote:
personally, i don't think it will change anything, either on the users' end, or the mods' end
It may change nothing.* However since warnings are going to be more "officially treated" from here on out, I think people will start to change their behavior fairly quickly when they begin to lose their QPs due to continual breaking of the rules. They will have to, because the alternative will be an increasing flood protect that will prevent them from posting anyway. This is the way Valeriy designed the QP system here.
*Well, it will certainly change one thing: it will change the nasty atmosphere of the feedback thread. Which was really the point of all this anyway. The rest of it was just because we didn't have a real OSM FAQ. Now we do.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 09:02 AM |
|
|
I somewhat disagree with your conclusion, Corribus.
The feedback thread has been abused, because a poster felt treated unfairly. The problem may have been, that you've been issuing MOST of your official warnings and penalties in PMs, the latter, probably because you felt they were isolated incidences with regard to the people in question - while it got quite PUBLIC with Elodin's, this one probably, because it was NOT an isolated incident since you'd identified a recurring pattern, with others falling in and so on.
Now, while your intentions with said public thing were pretty clear to me, it would seem that not everyone took the gist of it to heart, and the main problem seems to be that from that point onwards the feedback thread was flooded with "reports" of offensive language and basically the request behind it: if *I* got seriously lashed, this one should be lashed as well - and of course people debated about that, so the feedback thread became a discussion thread.
Factually, though, this basically means that your "public effort" was pretty much wasted. I compared this with warnings in sports, and what you can't have as a ref is a) people demanding warnings for others and b) people debating every warning while c) things are necessarily unjust, because if there is an escalation in fouls, you will be bound to give a warning for a foul you let go half a minute before, just to stop the escalation. Inevitably the one who got the warning will feel unjustly treated, but that's just something he'll have to live with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion - and I have this opinion for a very long time - this all could be avoided, if the SPAM rules would be applied more ... thoroughly. The points are called +-QUALITY points, not +-POLITENESS points, and the main problem seems to be that there are +points given for QUALITY posts, but -points, if any, for OFFENSIVE posts.
How about giving -qps for REPETITION/SPAMMING?
That would solve most, if not all problems, without the need to change anything. ONE frivolous complaint is a complaint identified as frivolous, TWO are unnecessary repetition, three are spamming and worth a -qp, provided there has been a warning after the second.
It would also solve the escalation problems in certain threads; most of the time it escalates because it's repetitive, and if it's not repetitive in the thread in question, it's repetitive because it has been debated to death in some other thread and everything is known.
Then there is the OFFTOPIC problem, the second reason for escalation. Some issues seem just to be bound to swerve offtopic, and if you ask me, directing a discussion to an offtopic issue and engaging in an offtopic discussion is -qp-worthy as well. I again point to the Q as in QUALITY.
On the other hand LANGUAGE as such seems clearly overrated. Idiotic, poppycock, nonsense, foolish, silly ... all somewhat disrespectful, but not offensive, at least not in my book. You should refrain from typing the f-word just to let your statements sound just forceful (you might say, blasphemously, you shouldn't use it in vain), and you shouldn't call people names - "you are a dumb ****" is CLEARLY an offense, but it's also spam and most of the time off-topic as well.
Apart from that, with all due respect, this ballyhoo about what is offensive and what not, what is disrespectful and what not, what is polite and what not, is ... poppycock. OF COURSE it gets disrespectful. when people backhand each other with the same lines of discussion over and over and over again. Regard of each other MUST NECESSARILY wane, because everyone thinks the same thing of each other.
You can see that in the Byzantine thread. Without any board history this might have become a fine thread, but it would seem it started out with spam right away, like, not THAT again.
I'm going to close this with the advice that if you want a nice OSM with nice, but interesting discussions, start handing out -qps not for offensive wording, but for repetition spamming and offtopic swerving, and you will see that all offensive language, impoliteness and disrespectful behaviour will vanish away seemingly like magic, while the +qps will start rolling in as well.
I might phrase it differently: if you give a +qp for a fine post, you just should have the balls to give a -qp for a post that will obviously be the start of a derailing process.
|
|
NoobX
Undefeatable Hero
Now, this is a paradox...
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 09:54 AM |
|
|
You know, Corribus, there is an old Serbian saying which goes "A dog that barks does not bite." Right now you're that dog.
Instead of issuing hundreds and hundreds of warnings, you should start penalizing members. Warnings don't work on them because they aren't kids that you scare into proper behavior. IMO, religious talk should be banned because it is the source of 99% of the mess you have to deal with. With Elodin as the guy who always brings up Christianity into discussions, and Seraphim, artu, etc., who always try to bash religion, this place has become the VW with incredibly dull, long posts.
Why doesn't someone start talking about the protests in Brazil? Why doesn't someone start talking about the space exploration? That's because it's always about religion and anti-religion!
You've gotta stop playing Mr. Niceguy and start making order here. That's what I advise you to do.
____________
Ghost said:
Door knob resembles anus tap.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 10:32 AM |
|
|
We can still talk about religion and civilization, religion and philosophy and so on without having to make it a showdown between theism and atheism.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 10:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:45, 21 Jun 2013.
|
@JJ
No, I had no consistent pattern of insulting others, and indeed only addressed their ideas and did so no more harshly than anyone addressed my ideas. And I notice you used "Bullocks" about what someone said in a thread today, and don't see how that differs from "poppycock" or other negative appellations.
Frankly I see no difference in posting patterns so far. Religion is being bashed non-stop and the rhetoric is escalating. Irrational this, irrational that, "synonymous to magic," "practically means it is magical," "wishful thinking at best," your beliefs come "out of the blue," "Religious people can be so impossible sometimes," " I know you wish that everything else is as castle in the air as your faith but sorry to disappoint, they are not," ect.
And constant statements about what I am/believe/want/desire that are not true.
Like I said before, I have no problem with my ideas being critiqued with negative appellations as long as everyone is allowed to do it when addressing any belief.
I am making this post for three reasons:
1) certain people always like to point to me and claim my posts result in all of the problems in the OSM.
2) Disrespectful rhetoric is escalating.
3) A moderator has already accused me in email of "If you insist on abusing the system before it even gets going, to make some kind of oblique point about the sliding scale of insults and as a test of whether I will do something about the first seemingly negative statement you come across, it will not benefit it you in the long run" when sent a HM about things that are already popping up in the discussions and warned me about "a boy crying wolf."
What I was trying to prevent with my HMs is the very thing that is happening now. Rhetoric that is beginning to spin out of control.
The one post per day limit when moderators get annoyed by HMs sent their way is fairly restrictive in anyone being able to offer feedback in a timely manner.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 03:03 PM |
|
|
|
The idea is not to ban every and each bit of negativity you can express, but to prevent stealth insults some posters have been throwing left and right. You can say democrats are irrational all day long, Elodin, by the way, as this is not demeaning or insulting. Compared to poppycock, at least.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 03:33 AM |
|
|
@JJ and Noobx
You are not alone in your feeling that more penalties and fewer silences is the correct course of action. I have always approached applying penalties as a last resort, a far more severe disciplinary action than a silence. Which is why I've issued few penalties and a number of silences.
I have recently become convinced that may be the wrong approach, and your posts solidify my opinion.
Moreover, the Announcement Thread exists to keep a public record of warnings and punishments (among other things like bonuses and so forth), so it is easier for me to see who has had to be disciplined in the past.
I hope a combination of a change in my approach to disciplinary actions as well as place that provides a public record of violations will encourage more respectful posting. Of course, I prefer to encourage respectful posting through positive reinforcement, so I will try to do a better job of handing out bonuses as well.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 03:57 AM |
|
|
If -QPs are going to be the opposite of QPs (that is, being handed out for severe lack of quality), then they should either be handed out rarely, or there should be more QPs.Quote:
everything depends on context. If it is a one line flippant response, it will likely be considered a junk post. But I am not here to give you an algorithm for what you can get away with.
I can't think of a context in which such a comment should be tolerated. Even if it's not a one-line response and is part of a longer post, it should be edited out and the member should be at least given a warning. It's a clear insult in any context. To say something like "stop playing stupid" is completely disrespectful.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
