Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[Perknose]

It's no secret to those who care that attack/insult/troll posting has been running rampant in P&N.

I know from personal experience that it can be difficult to keep a civil tongue in the course of an overheated political "discussion." But we do need to address the gutter into which P&N has fallen.

So . . . there will be a new poll, and a new vote on the "no insults" and other rules of engagement in the forum. To that end, this thread has been posted so that members can help formulate how they would like the P&N posting rules to read, and how they would formulate the upcoming poll that members will vote on.

Know this going in: The member vote will be advisory only. We, the assembled overlords and such, are reserving the right to make the final determination as to what the new rules will be. We are here to listen to you folks, but this is simply not a democracy. I hope everyone understands this basic fact.

One of the problems with the old poll was that it was uncompromisingly binary -- "all insults" vs. "no insults."

There's likely some middle ground that might work best, so help us formulate one or two "middle" options for the upcoming poll.

Warning: Trolling, inter-member squabbling, and endless personal attacks will NOT be tolerated in this thread.

Final Words: I'm an optimist. Please behave and contribute. Don't make me turn this car around!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes! Thank you for doing this! :thumbsup:

 

[EagleKeeper]

My views are well know , both by members on each side of the fence (for good or bad) and also inside the Mod community.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You know, I was trying to think about what set of rules would make sense here, when I thought to myself.. do we really need to reinvent the wheel?

Can't we just apply the same rules here that we apply to the technical forums?

 

[Perknose]

You know, I was trying to think about what set of rules would make sense here, when I thought to myself.. do we really need to reinvent the wheel?

Can't we just apply the same rules here that we apply to the technical forums?

I don't believe that they are easily applicable to P&N. I believe we do have to take into account the passions that political discourse engenders, and give P&N posters more leeway to engage in "spirited" back and forth, to a far greater degree than we allow elsewhere.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think that's been a long-standing premise around here that's worth revisiting.

People can get worked up over almost any topic. We're all familiar with techie "holy wars" like Apple versus PC, MS versus Linux, Intel versus AMD (well, not the last one quite so much any more).

Why given open consent to allowing more flaming and arguing about P&N than elsewhere?

We already have an "anything goes" forum -- Off Topic. Why not let the people more interested in flaming than discussion go there?

 

[fskimospy]

I think that's been a long-standing premise around here that's worth revisiting.

People can get worked up over almost any topic. We're all familiar with techie "holy wars" like Apple versus PC, MS versus Linux, Intel versus AMD (well, not the last one quite so much any more).

Why given open consent to allowing more flaming and arguing about P&N than elsewhere?

We already have an "anything goes" forum -- Off Topic. Why not let the people more interested in flaming than discussion go there?

How is this any different than OT, and why should it be?

We all know what the real problem is here, a handful of purposefully disruptive individuals. I think if you asked the people on here to honestly identify them there would be far more agreement than you might think as to who those individuals are.

I personally don't think this forum needs ironclad, specific rules. We all know who doesn't contribute and who just exists to crap this place up. We just need to be willing to ban them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't believe that they are easily applicable to P&N. I believe we do have to take into account the passions that political discourse engenders, and give P&N posters more leeway to engage in "spirited" back and forth, to a far greater degree than we allow elsewhere.

If people want to participate, they can act mature.

Trolling, swearing is something that they chose to do, most often when on a losing side of a discussion or when they want a distraction.

Weak command of the language?

They want to get their $0.02 in. Even if it is not worth anything.

Guidelines for the technical forums will work here. There just has to be the will power of the Mods' to enforce it and not tolerate certain members to slide. Equal enforcement and leadership by example. sndeaferdhip

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How is this any different than OT, and why should it be?

Right now it isn't.. it's a sewer, just like OT is. The idea is to make it better.

Why? Because it's become nearly impossible to have a rational discussion around here.

I personally don't think this forum needs ironclad, specific rules. We all know who doesn't contribute and who just exists to crap this place up. We just need to be willing to ban them.

The problem is that there's no way to define this objectively. I mean, I doubt there are few people who would be sorry if Incorruptible fell off the face of the planet, but how do you draft objective rules that prohibit what he does? Can we have laws against flat out being stupid?

To some extent, those people have to be tolerated, just ignored. A much bigger problem is the inability to start a discussion on any subject without it immediately being derailed with off-topic comments, flaming and flame-baiting.

I mean, I'd love to see a rule requiring anyone who makes a statement to back it up and to respond to counter-arguments. But it's not really enforceable.

 

[monovillage]

You know, I was trying to think about what set of rules would make sense here, when I thought to myself.. do we really need to reinvent the wheel?

Can't we just apply the same rules here that we apply to the technical forums?

The problem is that the rules would then apply equally to everyone and that's not what some of the more privileged members want. It's what happened in the last episode when they were having the rules applied to friends.

 

[fskimospy]

Right now it isn't.. it's a sewer, just like OT is. The idea is to make it better.

Why? Because it's become nearly impossible to have a rational discussion around here.



The problem is that there's no way to define this objectively. I mean, I doubt there are few people who would be sorry if Incorruptible fell off the face of the planet, but how do you draft objective rules that prohibit what he does? Can we have laws against flat out being stupid?

To some extent, those people have to be tolerated, just ignored. A much bigger problem is the inability to start a discussion on any subject without it immediately being derailed with off-topic comments, flaming and flame-baiting.

I mean, I'd love to see a rule requiring anyone who makes a statement to back it up and to respond to counter-arguments. But it's not really enforceable.

I think any specific rules will just be danced around as they always were in the past. That's my whole point, actually. You don't need to draft a specific legalese rule that bans Incorruptible, you just ban him.

I honestly don't think we need objective rules, we all know what members are disruptive. I think banning a few of the worst and vacationing people who act like assholes and don't contribute would do wonders.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think any specific rules will just be danced around as they always were in the past. That's my whole point, actually. You don't need to draft a specific legalese rule that bans Incorruptible, you just ban him.

I honestly don't think we need objective rules, we all know what members are disruptive. I think banning a few of the worst and vacationing people who act like assholes and don't contribute would do wonders.

Yes, if you have objective rules, they get danced around.

But if you have subjective rules, they get danced around *and* every disciplinary action results in a lengthy argument over favoritism and bias.

To some extent all moderation is based on judgment. But when you make it *only* based on judgment, you end up with more problems than you solve, IMO.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'll toss out another option I've offered before as well: create a subforum called the Debate Room (or whatever) where stringent rules of intelligent debate are enforced, and let P&N remain the current cesspool. I'd be happy to help in setting up and running the subforum. This way those of us who prefer a rational place to discuss and those who like this to be similar to OT can both be happy.

 

[sandorski]

The worst Insults, IMO, are the ones from certain Posters, that simply consist of an Insult. They come into a Thread, post an Insult about the OP or other Poster, then leave without actually addressing the Subject. There are not many who do this and frankly I have done something similar on occasion, albeit usually indirectly by suggesting people put X on Ignore, but those who do it regularly contribute nothing of substance.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This thread is an example of what I would not like to see anymore. Heavy trolling instigated, perpetrated and encouraged.

Insults are a part of it unfortunately. There will be some people you cannot stand and you'll have the desire to let them know from time to time, heh. We are passionate about our politics. There is a limit however. You cannot badger, stalk or intimidate a fellow member and expect to be excluded from punishment.

1.Limit trolling by not allowing the derailment of threads but acknowledge that trolling is inherent to an internet forum and eradication is a pipe dream. More realistic to control what we can and allow what we can't.

2. Allow insults with limits. Cannot be excessive. Insulting a particular member in multiple threads could be considered badgering (moderator discretion).

All I'm saying is there's room for us to be adults and also allow for political discourse to be heatedly debated within reason. You decide.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll toss out another option I've offered before as well: create a subforum called the Debate Room (or whatever) where stringent rules of intelligent debate are enforced, and let P&N remain the current cesspool. I'd be happy to help in setting up and running the subforum. This way those of us who prefer a rational place to discuss and those who like this to be similar to OT can both be happy.

I would also agree with this, it's a good idea.

 

[monovillage]

This thread is an example of what I would not like to see anymore. Heavy trolling instigated, perpetrated and encouraged.

Insults are a part of it unfortunately. There will be some people you cannot stand and you'll have the desire to let them know from time to time, heh. We are passionate about our politics. There is a limit however. You cannot badger, stalk or intimidate a fellow member and expect to be excluded from punishment.

1.Limit trolling by not allowing the derailment of threads but acknowledge that trolling is inherent to an internet forum and eradication is a pipe dream. More realistic to control what we can and allow what we can't.

2. Allow insults with limits. Cannot be excessive. Insulting a particular member in multiple threads could be considered badgering (moderator discretion).

All I'm saying is there's room for us to be adults and also allow for political discourse to be heatedly debated within reason. You decide.

I had never seen that thread. It's an eye opener for some and positive and absolute confirmation for others.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think any specific rules will just be danced around as they always were in the past. That's my whole point, actually. You don't need to draft a specific legalese rule that bans Incorruptible, you just ban him.

I honestly don't think we need objective rules, we all know what members are disruptive. I think banning a few of the worst and vacationing people who act like assholes and don't contribute would do wonders.

I know I'm a broken record on the subject, but this, exactly. Certainly high level rules are appropriate to set expectations: no trolling, no intellectual dishonesty, no excessive insults, no mod call-outs, etc. Beyond that basic structure, however, every attempt to make rules more specific simply opens more loopholes for misfits to be disruptive, meeting the rigid letter of the rules while brazenly disregarding the spirit.

It appears to me one of the big problems with moderation here is that management is too concerned about accusations of unfairness. As Perk points out, this is not a democracy, yet I get the sense someone above isn't really comfortable with that. Moderators' hands are tied with the the fear their good judgment will be second-guessed, so they are often reluctant to take simple, obvious actions. It reminds me of a culture I've seen in some companies where line managers are uncomfortable making decisions because they are regularly undermined by their leaders and HR. If I am mistaken about this, I apologize, but in my many years in management, that is what it feels like to me.

My suggestion? Establish the high level rules, then let the mods use their best judgement in enforcing them. Yes, mods are human and may occasionally make mistakes, but except in rare cases that's OK. The default rule should be the ruling on the field stands unless there is a truly exceptional reason for overturning it. If a specific moderator develops a track record of poor decisions, offer constructive coaching at first; retire him or her (from P&N, at least) only if the problem persists.

Does this mean members may occasionally be treated unfairly? Sure. But this is not a court of law, the decisions are not life and death. This is a free social site and we are all freeloaders. We have no "rights" and the consequence of being punished, though upsetting, are objectively trivial. Absolute worst case, a consistent offender is banned here and finds another free social site better suited to his style. It's not the end of the world.

For those who would cry this approach is unfair, that they'll be persecuted for their beliefs, that "Moderator Sam has a chip on his shoulder for me." -- suck it up, princess. Either live with it (and maybe do a little introspection on where the real problem might be), or exercise your freedom to choose and go somewhere else. You can get a full refund of your dues on your way out.

My $0.02. Thank you Perk, and good luck.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It appears to me one of the big problems with moderation here is that management is too concerned about accusations of unfairness. As Perk points out, this is not a democracy, yet I get the sense someone above isn't really comfortable with that. Moderators' hands are tied with the the fear their good judgment will be second-guessed, so they are often reluctant to take simple, obvious actions. It reminds me of a culture I've seen in some companies where line managers are uncomfortable making decisions because they are regularly undermined by their leaders and HR. If I am mistaken about this, I apologize, but in my many years in management, that is what it feels like to me.

My suggestion? Establish the high level rules, then lets the mods use their best judgement in enforcing them. Yes, mods are human and may occasionally make mistakes, but except in rare cases that's OK. The default rule should be the ruling on the field stands unless there is a truly exceptional reason for overturning it. If a specific moderator develops a track record of poor decisions, offer constructive coaching at first; retire him or her (from P&N, at least) only if the problem persists.

I have to agree. And I realize that this contradicts what I said earlier, but I was arguing in favor of objective rules under the assumption that the admins wouldn't go for a simpler set of rules out of that very fear of criticism. I trust Perknose and others like him to be reasonable.

And along the same lines, while I admire the desire to be fair by giving people chances, when it is abundantly clear that the individual's only intent is to cause disruption, giving them so many kicks at the can just means we all have to endure them for a very long time before they're finally banned. There's one particular individual I am thinking of here; I'm sure Perknose is aware of whom I speak, as are most of you reading this.

I used to run a board where I tried to have objective rules. I even called it the "constitution" of the site and laid everything in detail. And the place was constantly disrupted by people who "danced on the edge".

I just looked up the rules for my current political board, and they are extremely simple: "Membership at (site name) is open to all reasonable, decent and intelligent posters. I will not censor people based on their political views, but those interested in the site should know that it is specifically geared towards those who avoid political extremes, and who want to discuss issues with other smart, rational people. I will not tolerate people who post inflammatory nonsense just to get a rise out of others ("trolls"), those who demonstrate an unwillingness to be intellectually honest in their dealings, nor those who are just obviously not up to the reasonable standards of smart discussion."

It's a small place, but we have a good core of smart people. We argue a fair bit, but it rarely gets heated. Only one person has ever been banned, and that was because he kept disrupting the place with crazy comments and seemed incapable of backing up anything he said.

Anyway, just another data point.

 

[Retro Rob]

1.Limit trolling by not allowing the derailment of threads but acknowledge that trolling is inherent to an internet forum and eradication is a pipe dream.

All I'm saying .

This is obvious (sometimes) if the OP doesn't post in his own thread after he starts it.

It would be good if obvious troll threads aren't even replied to, thus, discouraging it and NOT become said troll yourself.

 

[monovillage]

I have to agree. And I realize that this contradicts what I said earlier, but I was arguing in favor of objective rules under the assumption that the admins wouldn't go for a simpler set of rules out of that very fear of criticism. I trust Perknose and others like him to be reasonable.

.......................

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2274166&highlight=troll

You've seen the egregious abuses of the "rules" in this thread and yet you still make that claim? It's not as if it's the only thread of that same type in this forum.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2274166&highlight=troll

You've seen the egregious abuses of the "rules" in this thread and yet you still make that claim? It's not as if it's the only thread of that same type in this forum.

1. There haven't BEEN any rules in P&N for the last several months.
2. If people respond the way they do to Incorruptible, it's because he's a brain-dead shit-stirrer incapable of conducting a rational conversation.
3. You call people trolls yourself all the time.

 

[monovillage]

1. There haven't BEEN any rules in P&N for the last several months.
2. If people respond the way they do to Incorruptible, it's because he's a brain-dead shit-stirrer incapable of conducting a rational conversation.
3. You call people trolls yourself all the time.

You've only been here since May. I call people trolls and self admit to being one because in my opinion everyone that has strong opinions steps into the troll role on occasion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Tell yourself whatever you want. The trolling and bogus accusations of trolling *can* be gotten under control, and with any hope, will be.

 

[monovillage]

If I can quote a post from another current topic here at ATP&N that is very apropos to this discussion. It's in the David Gregory thread and it's by BladeVenom.

A shame, but not unexpected in a city run by corrupt Democrats.

If you're not a rich liberal propagandist, they'll go after you for breaking that law.
"at least 105 individuals who, unlike Mr. Gregory, were arrested in 2012 for having a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...david-gregory/

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

If you're part of the favored coterie you can break any rule you like with impunity because you'll never be held accountable.

There should be objective rules and they should apply to everyone that posts in the forum.