Forum direction

[Xan]

Poll will be active for 7 days. What does everyone think?

Edit: No promises on going by these results, this is just a straw poll. And I'll be discounting votes by accounts that are "on the bubble".

[WiseOne]

Poll will be active for 7 days. What does everyone think?

Edit: No promises on going by these results, this is just a straw poll. And I'll be discounting votes by accounts that are "on the bubble".

I voted for Option 1. However the big question is who will do the moderating, and are those parties willing to spend the time needed to do those things?

If it brings us back to the era of intelligent, far-ranging discussions, I'd be all for it. Since I'm not a moderator though, I can't volunteer anyone else's time.

[Xan]

Poll will be active for 7 days. What does everyone think?

Edit: No promises on going by these results, this is just a straw poll. And I'll be discounting votes by accounts that are "on the bubble".

I voted for Option 1. However the big question is who will do the moderating, and are those parties willing to spend the time needed to do those things?

If it brings us back to the era of intelligent, far-ranging discussions, I'd be all for it. Since I'm not a moderator though, I can't volunteer anyone else's time.

Yeah, that's a big question. Probably it would take the form of being easier on the moderators, which is banning people who cause problems, rather than micromanaging discussions.

[jalanlong]

Can't people moderate themselves? If there is a person who post things you don't like then you can just block them or scroll past them can you not? Why do I need a third party deciding what is inflammatory and shielding me from it? Plus this would mostly apply to the politics section which people could avoid altogether if they so wished.

The issue I have with moderators is that every person has internal biases and there is no reason to think a moderator is any different. I don't like a third person with said bias deciding what direction conversations can take. The exception being any sort of direct insults or racial slurs or some such which I have never seen on this board.

[Maddy]

I can't vote without a third option, which is to leave honest, genuine discussion alone--even when inflammatory--but to show no mercy to those people who consistently abuse the forum and/or who have demonstrated that their principal purpose is to disrupt.

[Tortoise]

I can't vote without a third option, which is to leave honest, genuine discussion alone--even when inflammatory--but to show no mercy to those people who consistently abuse the forum and/or who have demonstrated that their principal purpose is to disrupt.

+1

[Xan]

Maybe I used a bad term "inflammatory". What I meant by "inflammatory" was dishonest discussion designed to rile everybody up. I guess that's really more "trolling". I've adjusted the wording. If it causes anybody to want to change their vote they're welcome to.

[Xan]

If someone's satire is so close to reality that you can't tell it apart, then perhaps the problem isn't with the satire, it's with the ideology being satirized.

Be that as it may, an ideology widely held out in the world isn't something that anyone here is in a position to fix. So regardless of where the "real" problem is, the problem we can fix is the satire.

[glennds]

If someone's satire is so close to reality that you can't tell it apart, then perhaps the problem isn't with the satire, it's with the ideology being satirized.

Serious question - unless your fellow forum reader is somehow in the know, how on earth can they tell whether what they are reading is playful satire, sincere discussion, or outright deception?

[Kbg]

Satire is fine, it's great way to make a point.

When 90%+ of one’s posts are satire often mixed with lies and demonstrable false statements, then there is no value added and they are mostly in the disruptive category.

Xan if you have to ban me for what I’m going to say, so be it. We don’t have a board members problem. We have a two posters problem. We may be moving to a 3 poster problem. Everyone who has been here for any length of time can put their finger on approximately when things headed south. I really thought things would chill after the election, nope.

As for moderating, who wants to be the edit/delete police? That’s a lot of time. I’ve been on or am part of several boards where it was simple, be disruptive, get warned a couple times, no change, gone.

[Xan]

Satire is fine, it's great way to make a point.

When 90%+ of one’s posts are satire often mixed with lies and demonstrable false statements, then there is no value added and they are mostly in the disruptive category.

Xan if you have to ban me for what I’m going to say, so be it. We don’t have a board members problem. We have a two posters problem. We may be moving to a 3 poster problem. Everyone who has been here for any length of time can put their finger on approximately when things headed south. I really thought things would chill after the election, nope.

As for moderating, who wants to be the edit/delete police? That’s a lot of time. I’ve been on or am part of several boards where it was simple, be disruptive, get warned a couple times, no change, gone.

What I had in mind was that if a poster causes those kinds of problems he'd be out pretty quickly, because you're right, micromanaging just isn't worth it.

I guess this boils down to whether we want to ban people for being disruptive or not. Frankly I'm leaning towards yes. Certainly a downside is in the decision of who's disruptive and who isn't, as jalanlong says. But at some point the forum is just better off without the participation of some.

[Kbg]

I feel given the nature of the board editorial tolerance should be on the lenient side. Not that you care, and it is YOUR board, but to me the line is roughly like this.

Are most of the poster's posts, like 80%+ useful, constructive, value added and are in both the other and PP/finance related discussions? Personally when in the other section of the board I don't mind bombs tossed my way and I will probably throw a few myself from time to time. Somebody in that category I don't mind dealing with and I'm probably going to learn something from them.

But when the reverse is the case, I vote, goodbye. All they do is ruin a good place.

Free speech is not a license to be a buttwad. And while you have a legal right to say what you want to, no one is required to provide you a buttwad forum.

[vnatale]

As I write this...I'm seeing 23 votes so far...do we have any stats as to how many active posters we have here? Like how many have posted at least once in the last 30 days?

[Xan]

As I write this...I'm seeing 23 votes so far...do we have any stats as to how many active posters we have here? Like how many have posted at least once in the last 30 days?

55 different accounts (not including spam accounts which have been deleted) have made a post in the last month or so. But there are also lurkers who might have a preference.

[vnatale]

As I write this...I'm seeing 23 votes so far...do we have any stats as to how many active posters we have here? Like how many have posted at least once in the last 30 days?

55 different accounts (not including spam accounts which have been deleted) have made a post in the last month or so. But there are also lurkers who might have a preference.

So...using my definition of active....42% have voted? Less than the rate at which eligible voters vote in presidential elections? Plus, that percentage would be even lower if we added any amount of lurkers to the denominator.

[Mountaineer]

My vote is for Xan to do what he thinks is best in every situation and to recognize that one size doesn’t fit all. He is the one who stepped up for what can be a vocation with more criticism than than thanks. I do think if we each ignore completely the trolls, they may go away, or at least reduce the shouting into the echo chamber. I also recognize how tempting it is to feed the trolls with harsh comments of our own. We each have done and can do better. Let’s not be a reflection of our divided culture; let’s be the light on the hill that the trolls will aspire to emulate. There is always hope!

Thanks Xan for all you do.

[vnatale]

My vote is for Xan to do what he thinks is best in every situation and to recognize that one size doesn’t fit all. He is the one who stepped up for what can be a vocation with more criticism than than thanks. I do think if we each ignore completely the trolls, they may go away, or at least reduce the shouting into the echo chamber. I also recognize how tempting it is to feed the trolls with harsh comments of our own. We each have done and can do better. Let’s not be a reflection of our divided culture; let’s be the light on the hill that the trolls will aspire to emulate. There is always hope!

Thanks Xan for all you do.

Quite well stated!

[boglerdude]

Make a "serious discussion" sub-forum

[Mark Leavy]

I sort of like the idea of a serious subforum. Where by serious, I mean money talks, bullshit walks.

When a discussion in another part of the forum gets heated, we can say "Take it to the ring". And in the ring, you have to make a very specific prediction where you take one side or the other. And both parties put up an ounce of gold in escrow.

We could have other forum participants provide bids to judge the outcome. The judge would be the one that both of the disputants agreed to hire.

After the decision, the judge delivers the two coins to the winner (minus the judging fee - this isn't a charity after all).

[WiseOne]

I second the idea that Mark posted: subject ban decisions to a forum vote. Not a numerical poll, but have the moderator propose a ban, then members will provide reasons for keeping vs banning the person. Then let the moderator decide.

Exceptions made for obviously/seriously bad behavior and/or obvious spammers/trolls.

I would NOT want to make it a numerical poll, because that would bias the vote against people with ideas not favored by the majority - and a number of people would likely vote based on ideology.


how about it?