Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[Idontcare]

According to the recent polling results, 40% of the voters want to have moderators prioritize sanctioning "Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" while 36% want to have moderators prioritize sanctioning "Insults/Personal Attacks/Flaming/Flamebaiting/Inflammatory rhetoric".

The other three voting options held the remainder of the votes.

In accordance with these polling results, the remaining step to be held is a simple Yes/No vote on the formal adoption of a "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" posting guideline rule for the P&N subforum.

Voting in this poll will be public and the poll will expire in 7 days.

======= Expiration/Trial-Period =======

In the event that the posting rule is approved for adoption by the P&N community, the moderation team here recognizes this type of guideline is very much specific to the existing "community culture" and that this culture changes and evolves over time as the individual members themselves change their viewpoints over time plus the community ranks fluctuate with the addition of new members.

In the spirit of accommodating this reality, the moderators intend to make the guideline policy amendment, as proposed in the poll, to be in effect for a period of 3 months by having the policy expire 3 months from the date of its adoption.

After the 3 month trial-period we would have another community poll to determine if the community still wants to keep the policy or if the community changed its mind based on the experience generated while the policy was in effect.

Think of it as a "try before you buy" type opportunity.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Infohawk]

What is the specific rule? There are a lot of different ideas in here.

Specifically, what is thread-crapping? Is that when someone starts a lot of threads? Or posts a lot in one thread?

I generally like most of these ideas but I'm concerned that someone might vote against the entire thing because they don't think "no logical fallacies" should be a rule even though they think being off-topic should be a rule.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It would be great to have some more explanation as to the what constitutes "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/etc." Overall, I'm liking the direction that the forum is already going.

The 'off-topic' part sounds great, this has been a real problem lately, IMO.

 

[Idontcare]

The rule is "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation".

Since it is a public poll, if people want to vote "yes" conditionally and then succinctly explain in a post what it is they take exception to then we can work with it from there.

I have no idea how to enforce a "No Logical Fallacies" rule. If it goes on the books then I doubt that specific clause will ever be enforced.

We could hold off on this vote and have yet another vote on what to include in this rule...folks seemed to be getting antsy though so I tried to accommodate the impatient folks by expediting this final vote thread.

 

[Idontcare]

It would be great to have some more explanation as to the what constitutes "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/etc." Overall, I'm liking the direction that the forum is already going.

The 'off-topic' part sounds great, this has been a real problem lately, IMO.

Basically its the same as how the technical forums operate.

 

[Infohawk]

We could hold off on this vote and have yet another vote on what to include in this rule...folks seemed to be getting antsy though so I tried to accommodate the impatient folks by expediting this final vote thread.

I can probably vote on this as is but that might be a good idea. (I was one of those antsy posters but I was thinking more along the lines of a discussion on the specific rules or a vote on each issue. )

PS What is thread-crapping I really am not sure about that one since I've heard it used in different ways.

 

[Idontcare]

Thread crapping

(not trying to be cheeky, but those definitions pretty much square up with how it is enforced in the other subforums here)

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think that a political discussion forum is pretty different than most other forums. For example, if I start a thread that says "Obama is great", then under that first definition, nobody can oppose that viewpoint?

Just making it clear...I'm fine with anything as long as the rules are well defined.

 

[Infohawk]

Thread crapping

(not trying to be cheeky, but those definitions pretty much square up with how it is enforced in the other subforums here)

The first definition is a bit different than the rest but they're all bad and I would probably vote for all of them.

Now that I know what thread-crapping is, I guess to save time it seems like "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling" are all related and can be voted on here.

"Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" are the odd men out. You said logical fallacies wouldn't be enforced. That seems realistic to me. (Wouldn't mind if they were enforced but it would be a dramatic change and actually require education of many members if not mods not to mention honest mistakes by people familiar with the fallacies.)

What about misinformation? What is that exactly? It's already been said posters can't misrepresent posters. Is this something different?

 

[cybrsage]

thread crapping v.

Thread crapping occurs when a person comes into a thread and posts something contrary to the spirit/intent of the thread, often derailing the discussion or turning it into an argument.
Coming into a thread titled "I love my new Apple Macintosh!", and posting "PCs are better and cheaper" is thread crapping.

This is what I always understood threat crapping to be. Is this the definition to be used?

 

[dank69]

The first definition is a bit different than the rest but they're all bad and I would probably vote for all of them.

Now that I know what thread-crapping is, I guess to save time it seems like "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling" are all related and can be voted on here.

"Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" are the odd men out. You said logical fallacies wouldn't be enforced. That seems realistic to me. (Wouldn't mind if they were enforced but it would be a dramatic change and actually require education of many members if not mods not to mention honest mistakes by people familiar with the fallacies.)

What about misinformation? What is that exactly? It's already been said posters can't misrepresent posters. Is this something different?

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 

[Infohawk]

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Only in the sense that it's impractical? Look, I'd probably vote for it just to see what would happen. But it would be a dramatic change to the forum and would require intensive mod involvement. I'd rather it not be done at all than done incompletely or improperly.

 

[Idontcare]

I think that a political discussion forum is pretty different than most other forums. For example, if I start a thread that says "Obama is great", then under that first definition, nobody can oppose that viewpoint?

Just making it clear...I'm fine with anything as long as the rules are well defined.

Yes

If the thread was titled "Is Obama great?" or "I think Obama is great, what do you think?" then you are free to go in and "rain on the OP's parade".

If the OP wants to make a thread that is not open to all sides then that thread can be an Obama lovefest if desired, or if the community has no interest in such threads they will fall off the frontpage anyways.

This is what I always understood threat crapping to be. Is this the definition to be used?

Yes

 

[RabidMongoose]

Yes

If the thread was titled "Is Obama great?" or "I think Obama is great, what do you think?" then you are free to go in and "rain on the OP's parade".

If the OP wants to make a thread that is not open to all sides then that thread can be an Obama lovefest if desired, or if the community has no interest in such threads they will fall off the frontpage anyways.

Hmmm...this is quite interesting.

 

[Infohawk]

And I might as well cut to the chase, my motivation for voting yes is to stop the longstanding problem of many threads being derailed into a discussion on the European monarchies or discussion of all the evils of certain European countries, but mostly the UK in topics that have nothing to do with those issues. Examples of threads were those discussions aren't relevant are threads about the Canadian Navy or threads about the BP oil spill.

I think being off-topic should only be sanctioned when it becomes a clear pattern of abuse. I often enjoy random or tangential discussions. And we should all have our assumptions challenged so even the above posts aren't a problem UNTIL they become repetitive and abusive. I believe in the example above that one can tell from the nature of the posts that it's clear in many cases the intent is to troll and that no evidence is given in support of outlandish positions. There's only so many times someone can repeat that Obama should invade the UK before it Anandtech starts to look like a tinfoil hat board.

The reason I point this out is that I've seen very few other examples of problematic off-topic posting. For example, in a thread about George Bush, people might bring up evidence leading to the Iraq War or in a thread about Obama they might bring up talk of Acorn. I think in most cases these are not that disruptive. Mainly because I've never seen other posters harp on a single subject so religiously.

 

[Idontcare]

What about misinformation? What is that exactly? It's already been said posters can't misrepresent posters. Is this something different?

Misinformation is basically stating something as fact instead of opinion and yet not having any way of proving/confirming/verifying the statement.

Example:

Obama is great

This assertion is unprovable, if a member wished to challenge the assertion they might post "prove it, links please". If the response is unsatisfactory then a mod would get involved, again requesting/requiring validation of the statement.

Example:

Obama is great IMO

Now perfectly fine, regardless whether it is true or not.

But some things can't be turned into acceptable on the basis of it being opinion.

Example:

1+1=3

Prove please, if no proof then sanction.

Example:

1+1=3 IMO

Doesn't cut it. Prove please, if no proof then sanction.

It basically up's the ante when it comes to posting claims. If you can't back it up then don't claim it to be fact, etc.

Again no different than how the technical forums operate. There is no mod retraining involved in misinformation/thread-crapping/trolling as there would be for logical fallacies...

 

[monovillage]

It seemed straightforward to me, it isn't as if this will interfere with the normal evolution of a politics/news topic, but will stop some posters from bombing a thread they don't like until it dies.

*EDIT*
Too bad any reader of this thread have to wade through all the thread crapping, derailment and off-topic garbage to get to the actual subject of the thread. It's also too bad that the moderator who's working to make this forum more reasonable is getting treated with such contempt and disdain.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I am not sure about these cases of the Canadian Navy or the BP Oil spill, have they even been recent? However, I do feel that there is a severe issue of off-topic and personal attacks from certain people who cannot handle disagreement. It is much more than an isolated case.

For example, in a thread about a dispute between Argentina and the UK, there was a derail about native Americans and US reparations. How anything like this is related to either Argentina or the UK is beyond me, but some people just kept going on and on about it. I find myself having to ask people to stay on topic quite often right now.

I think that overall a more strict policing of off-topic tangents in threads will be good. It has become a big problem.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Also, is a reply along the lines of "This topic is dumb, you are wrong" or "there is nothing to discuss here, end of story" thread crapping?

If people openly admit disdain for a topic or admit that they have no desire to discuss an issue, then is it thread crapping to just post something like that with zero substance and essentially admits no desire for discussion?

I have seen this very often and was wondering about it.

 

[cybrsage]

Policing such off topic things would be good, it will prevent posters from having to respond to correct the incorrect assertion...which then only drags the entire thing further off topic. Instead, a mod can come in and simply vanish the post altogether, making the topic clean again.

 

[cybrsage]

Also, is a reply along the lines of "This topic is dumb, you are wrong" or "there is nothing to discuss here, end of story" thread crapping?

If people openly admit disdain for a topic or admit that they have no desire to discuss an issue, then is it thread crapping to just post something like that with zero substance and essentially admits no desire for discussion?

I have seen this very often and was wondering about it.

I would say yes, it is crapping. If someone has nothing to add, or feels it is not worth discussing, they should stay out of the thread.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would say yes, it is crapping. If someone has nothing to add, or feels it is not worth discussing, they should stay out of the thread.

I'm hoping that the moderators will agree as well. I have seen this especially against people with views that the majority are against.

For example, I feel sorry for a particular poster here of the pro-Ron Paul type, especially one of them who is constantly harassed with posts such as those. Now I don't like Ron Paul, I despise him, but I feel sorry for this fellow since he takes so much abuse in the form of personal attacks and no substance posts (thread crapping) about his topic.

I have even defended this fellow, but was met with ridicule in return. Maybe people thought I was joking. Maybe I even joined in at some earlier point, I don't know, but this is the type of issue that really needs to be looked at.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

A no thread crapping rule in P & N will have the effect of either, driving the denizens we've worked so hard to keep here, moving to ATOT or, moving to another forum or, both. I like being able to wave at the monkeys, I mean well informed politically savvy patrons of P & N but, I don't want to live at the zoo, I mean Washington DC.

 

[Infohawk]

Misinformation is basically stating something as fact instead of opinion and yet not having any way of proving/confirming/verifying the statement.

I would support that.

I imagine there would be abuse of the kind "IMO Obama will be caught in a scandal involving cheating" despite zero evidence of that being likely, but I assume the mods would be able to parse through that kind of stuff where needed.

 

[Infohawk]

I am not sure about these cases of the Canadian Navy or the BP Oil spill, have they even been recent?

For example, in a thread about a dispute between Argentina and the UK, there was a derail about native Americans and US reparations. How anything like this is related to either Argentina or the UK is beyond me, but some people just kept going on and on about it. I find myself having to ask people to stay on topic quite often right now.

I think the Canadian Navy one is from January. If it has stopped, that's great and it won't be an issue going forward and nobody will need to be policed. Win-win.

(I am confident no mods would think the native American comparison made by several posters related to similar arguments made about Argentinian natives would be deemed off-topic. In a thread about whether Obama is a good president, it would be extreme to say that someone else couldn't bring up Abraham Lincoln or a widely-liked foreign president to make a point about what it means to be a good president.)