Vote on Your Desired Priorities for P&N Moderation (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[Idontcare]

Building off of the expressed positions voiced in the prior Community Poll and Open Mic thread, this poll is intended to give the P&N moderators guidance on what the community wants moderation to prioritize.

In a 2:1 ratio, the community expressed a desire to have more enforcement of the rules to some degree.

The remaining question is: which rules and to what degree?

We can't do everything all at once, so vote here on what you feel is the MOST pressing issue for P&N with the understanding that the other poll options are not going to be ignored, just ranked lower in priority for the immediate future.

Are personal attacks the most pressing issue? Or do you feel the flamebait nature of threads titles, thread opening dialogue, source citation, etc are the more pressing issue? Or perhaps you feel that discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice are the larger issue that moderation needs to address first and foremost.

Vote here for what you think Moderation in P&N should prioritize and tackle first.

And of course feel free to post in this thread to discuss the polling options as well as posting questions you may have on the options - clarification on what the topics are intended to entail, concerns you have in how enforcement would be implemented, etc.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[heymrdj]

I'm going to go with option 2 because I feel that incorporates alot of 3 as well. Everyone can have their valid opinion, the guidelines just need to spurn them to produce those opinions in a more properly debatable form, rather than libtard/conservatard curse filled slanders.

 

[fskimospy]

Building off of the expressed positions voiced in the prior Community Poll and Open Mic thread, this poll is intended to give the P&N moderators guidance on what the community wants moderation to prioritize.

In a 2:1 ratio, the community expressed a desire to have more enforcement of the rules to some degree.

The remaining question is: which rules and to what degree?

We can't do everything all at once, so vote here on what you feel is the MOST pressing issue for P&N with the understanding that the other poll options are not going to be ignored, just ranked lower in priority for the immediate future.

Are personal attacks the most pressing issue? Or do you feel the flamebait nature of threads titles, thread opening dialogue, source citation, etc are the more pressing issue? Or perhaps you feel that discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice are the larger issue that moderation needs to address first and foremost.

Vote here for what you think Moderation in P&N should prioritize and tackle first.

And of course feel free to post in this thread to discuss the polling options as well as posting questions you may have on the options - clarification on what the topics are intended to entail, concerns you have in how enforcement would be implemented, etc.

Administrator Idontcare

I think obvious trolling behavior as well as flamebait threads are by far the largest problem.

 

[dank69]

I think logical fallacies and misinformation are the biggest problem. If you can't have an honest discussion then what is the fucking point?

 

[Pens1566]

I think logical fallacies and misinformation are the biggest problem. If you can't have an honest discussion then what is the fucking point?

I went with this as well. It's a root cause of a vast majority of the other options listed.

 

[Infohawk]

#4 I'm thinking not every thread needs to devolve into a screed against British people...

 

[RabidMongoose]

#3 is a big deal for me. Also #4 is a big deal since some posters always go off-topic, sometimes even accusing of others going off-topic when those posters are the only ones talking about that off-topic subject.

 

[RabidMongoose]

#4 I'm thinking not every thread needs to devolve into a screed against British people...

Agreed, and also not every thread needs to devolve into a hatred of Muslims and/or minorities.

 

[cybrsage]

#4 I'm thinking not every thread needs to devolve into a screed against British people...

Agreed, and also not every thread needs to devolve into a hatred of Muslims and/or minorities.

But what about Minority British Muslims?


I selected number 2 because it tends to cause much of the others with number 4 being a close second.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Agreed, and also not every thread needs to devolve into a hatred of Muslims and/or minorities.

Agreed, and Jews should be added to that as well. in the last few days, ive seen some threads devolve into some borderline stormfront material.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I voted for this one -- Insults/Personal Attacks/Flaming/Flamebaiting/Inflammatory rhetoric
Because people tend to have tunnel vision and think that because you said something they don`t like or you expressed an opinion that they don`t like that they can accuse you of the most violent act imaginable because after all your out spokeness can lead to...which can lead to.....
When instead of reading exactly what you said or exactly what your sig says they read into what you said and embellish on what you said and strech what you said into something you did not say!

 

[dank69]

I voted for this one -- Insults/Personal Attacks/Flaming/Flamebaiting/Inflammatory rhetoric
Because people tend to have tunnel vision and think that because you said something they don`t like or you expressed an opinion that they don`t like that they can accuse you of the most violent act imaginable because after all your out spokeness can lead to...which can lead to.....
When instead of reading exactly what you said or exactly what your sig says they read into what you said and embellish on what you said and strech what you said into something you did not say!

What you are describing sounds more like fallacy/misinformation.

 

[cubby1223]

Are personal attacks the most pressing issue?

It's a complicated topic.

Personal attacks that come right out and present themselves as personal attacks, not a big deal, they are not all that common.

It's the personal attacks that are disguised as reasoned arguments to an onlooker. These usually come when someone writes an opinion that they themselves do not believe in. To anyone who has read this forum and knows the generality of the users, it's clear it is a personal attack, but to someone who isn't familiar with the users sees it as a reasonable argument.

It's the internet, where there are no real consequences.


This place would clean itself up if people would not feel so compelled to respond to obvious troll threads. There was one earlier today, I put in the first response as an adequate "this is a troll thread" message, then the thread spawns into 3 pages of "on-topic" bickering, of which the thread creator never once replied. This forum would be so much better if people realized this is just an internet forum, not a proving ground.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I also think that some of these issues are the same. #2, 3, and 4 can all happen in the same post that is an insult/personal attack based on discrimination/bigotry/prejudice that is off-topic and threadcrapping.

I think that most of the time a personal attack against an actual poster is pretty much off-topic and a lot of those attacks are based in racism and/or bigotry.

 

[Perknose]

I wish I could have voted for all of them.

 

[Bowfinger]

I picked #4. I think blatant trolling, dishonesty, and deliberate disinformation are what keeps P&N's signal to noise ration so low. Attempts at productive discussion are quickly drowned out by posters who either don't know how to make reasoned, cogent arguments, or don't want to make them because they cannot effectively defend their position. Clean this up and many of the other issues will subside on their own.

Next on my list would be overt bigotry. It adds no value -- it's essentially an admission one has nothing productive to offer -- and some find it highly inflammatory. While I'd also suggest those who are so offended by it get a thicker skin, there's really no upside to bigoted comments.

I think the other two issues are pretty superficial and fall squarely into the category of "get a thicker skin." The exception would be those threads and personal attacks that exist solely to troll or create noise ... but they would also fall under #4.

A personal attack or flame that is on-topic to the context of a discussion, e.g., "You're an idiot because ...", doesn't bother me at all, especially in a political forum where emotions will inevitably run high. I'm a big boy and I'm perfectly capable of defending myself. I don't need to run to Daddy to protect me from the big meanie. I believe in the quote in my .sig, and I try to live by it.

Similarly, inflammatory rhetoric can be an intentional troll ... but it can also be a sincere expression of a passionate view. Very difficult to moderate consistently. Thus my suggestion that if a particular comment offends, ignore it. Focus on the substance and stop fixating on the expression. (If there is no substance, then we're back at #4.) Again, see my .sig.

 

[Pens1566]

I picked #4. I think blatant trolling, dishonesty, and deliberate disinformation are what keeps P&N's signal to noise ration so low. Attempts at productive discussion are quickly drowned out by posters who either don't know how to make cogent arguments, or don't want to make them because they cannot effectively defend their position. Clean this up and many of the other issues will subside on their own.

Next on my list would be overt bigotry. It adds no value -- it's essentially an admission one has nothing productive to offer -- and some find it highly inflammatory. While I'd also suggest those who are so offended by it get a thicker skin, there's really no upside to bigoted comments.

I think the other two issues are pretty superficial and fall squarely into the category of "get a thicker skin." The exception would be those threads and personal attacks that exist solely to troll or create noise ... but they would also fall under #4.

A personal attack or flame that is on-topic to the context of a discussion, e.g., "You're an idiot because ...", doesn't bother me at all, especially in a political forum where emotions will inevitably run high. I'm a big boy and I'm perfectly capable of defending myself. I don't need to run to Daddy to protect me from the big meanie. I believe in the quote in my .sig, and I try to live by it.

Similarly, inflammatory rhetoric can be an intentional troll ... but it can also be a sincere expression of a passionate view. Very difficult to moderate consistently. Thus my suggestion that if a particular comment offends, ignore it. Focus on the substance and stop fixating on the expression. (If there is no substance, then we're back at #4.) Again, see my .sig.

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Other: Leave it alone

This forum pretty well mirrors the political tone in this country. Politics itself is all about using those things in the poll to your advantage. Other than outright bigotry (which I don't truly see a whole lot of around here, and when it is it's put down pretty quickly without moderator intervention) the president himself uses the other tactics on a regular basis. Cracking down on any of those things will turn this a pointless forum.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I think logical fallacies and misinformation are the biggest problem. If you can't have an honest discussion then what is the fucking point?

Add obfuscation and just being cagey to the list as well. If you have to spend a day just to get them to define their position, they then "support" it with a couple cherry-picked facts with zero supporting context, then after the hammer they retreat into ever-widening generalities and finally dump you off into a political conspiracy theory website without laying out any lines of argumentation back to their original point, you're looking at a shit-ton of work trying to corral that nonsense while the defender can sit there sipping Mai Tais.

If a poster won't hold himself to a system in which his beliefs can be disproved or refuses to do any work to test his own beliefs for the existence of disproof, he should be rather sternly guided towards doing such.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Other: Leave it alone

This forum pretty well mirrors the political tone in this country. Politics itself is all about using those things in the poll to your advantage. Other than outright bigotry (which I don't truly see a whole lot of around here, and when it is it's put down pretty quickly without moderator intervention) the president himself uses the other tactics on a regular basis. Cracking down on any of those things will turn this a pointless forum.

And once again you show that you're not very bright.
The use of ads in the world does not make anything but throwing ads pointless. This is supposed to be a discussion forum. The point is to get under the glossy version to the truth beneath.
Seriously, you're posting on a forum whose main site puts hardware through real-life tests so consumers have hard data to use to make their buying decisions. If you think that the world is nothing but spin you should go somewhere else. (The Apple forum may be more to your liking)

 

[irishScott]

Another vote for number 4. I often skip many threads which appear legitimate because I see many of the usual players sounding off with their usual lines and the original tone of the thread is long gone.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to more rules to enforce some semblance of a scholarly standard. Not saying everyone needs to write a thesis paper, but there should be enforced standards for source material and, most importantly, IMO there should be a rule that when an argument is challenged, the proponent of the argument must provide a valid source supporting their argument within 3 responses to the same user, or else they should be barred from the thread (if this is technically possible).


Example:

Poster 1: *Starts legitimate thread about Obama*
Poster 2: Obama is a communist. He's goin down!
Poster 1: No he's not, he has a highly capitalist agenda and his chances for reelection look good, as supported by this transcript of his state of the union, this definition of capitalist, and this preliminary election poll.
Poster 2: Are you kidding me? He's a post turtle.
Poster 1: Got any sources to back that up?
Poster 2: It's obvious. He's a communist, socialist, black Muslim Marxists from Soviet African Indiastan... *insert opinion paragraph with no sources*
Mod: Poster 2 is now barred from further posting in this thread.

Examples of allowed sources would be:
News organizations
Printed Journals
Primary sources (interviews and so forth)
Encyclopedias
A cited wikipedia article
Recognized polling agencies

Examples of illegitimate sources would be:
Blog posts
Uncited opinions (ie: Bill Mahr calls NRA "The Assassin's Lobby", so it must be true)

Basically slightly less than the standards high school kids are held to. And unsupported opinions would still be allowed, so long as the user prefaced that it was merely their opinion. Even a simple IMO would do.

And honestly I don't think this would require much of an increase in moderation. I could name half a dozen people off the top of my head who's lack of posting would take away most of the problem. It's not the radical views we need to get rid of, those can actually provoke good discussions even if the view is illogical and ridiculous. It's the unsupported opinions that simply use P&N as a sounding board that need to be controlled.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Another vote for number 4. I often skip many threads which appear legitimate because I see many of the usual players sounding off with their usual lines and the original tone of the thread is long gone.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to more rules to enforce some semblance of a scholarly standard. Not saying everyone needs to write a thesis paper, but there should be enforced standards for source material and, most importantly, IMO there should be a rule that when an argument is challenged, the proponent of the argument must provide a valid source supporting their argument within 3 responses to the same user, or else they should be barred from the thread (if this is technically possible).


Example:

Poster 1: *Starts legitimate thread about Obama*
Poster 2: Obama is a communist. He's goin down!
Poster 1: No he's not, he has a highly capitalist agenda and his chances for reelection look good, as supported by this transcript of his state of the union, this definition of capitalist, and this preliminary election poll.
Poster 2: Are you kidding me? He's a post turtle.
Poster 1: Got any sources to back that up?
Poster 2: It's obvious. He's a communist, socialist, black Muslim Marxists from Soviet African Indiastan... *insert opinion paragraph with no sources*
Mod: Poster 2 is now barred from further posting in this thread.

Examples of allowed sources would be:
News organizations
Printed Journals
Primary sources (interviews and so forth)
Encyclopedias

A cited wikipedia article -- I would say as a legitimate source for legitimate information the use of wikipedia should be banned! Here is why -- posted directly from the wiki site --Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
No formal peer review

We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of articles. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

No contract; limited license



Recognized polling agencies

Examples of illegitimate sources would be:
Blog posts
Uncited opinions (ie: Bill Mahr calls NRA "The Assassin's Lobby", so it must be true)

Basically slightly less than the standards high school kids are held to. And unsupported opinions would still be allowed, so long as the user prefaced that it was merely their opinion. Even a simple IMO would do.

And honestly I don't think this would require much of an increase in moderation. I could name half a dozen people off the top of my head who's lack of posting would take away most of the problem. It's not the radical views we need to get rid of, those can actually provoke good discussions even if the view is illogical and ridiculous. It's the unsupported opinions that simply use P&N as a sounding board that need to be controlled.

shalom

 

[irishScott]

shalom

I left wikipedia in there because for a quick fact check, it's very useful. Say I wanted a quick source to get the size of the US Army, I go to the wikipedia page and it shows the US Army has "561,984 Active personnel". If in the course of the debate information comes up to the contrary, obviously wikipedia will lose assuming the challenging source is of a higher quality.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I left wikipedia in there because for a quick fact check, it's very useful. Say I wanted a quick source to get the size of the US Army, I go to the wikipedia page and it shows the US Army has "561,984 Active personnel". If in the course of the debate information comes up to the contrary, obviously wikipedia will lose assuming the challenging source is of a higher quality.

Point well taken! I do know that at several major univesities in some classes wiki is not allowed to be used.
Still good point!!

 

[cybrsage]

I don't think there should be any punishment for not providing any support for your position. When people do not support their position after being asked to do so, we should just mention that an unsupported position is not worth discussing and move on.