What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Things to guide you through this site.

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby ShuaiGuy » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:46 am

<Redacted>
  • 5

Last edited by ShuaiGuy on Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ShuaiGuy
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:38 am
Show rep

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Ceiling_Squid » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:48 am

aviel wrote:Even if we were to accept moderator personal calls as an acceptable standard, which the vagueness principle prohibits us from doing, the problem is that the moderators can't agree on acceptable personal calls by a wide margin. So we need something more specific.

Tess said that sports should go in gendisc. Entertainment can go in the appropriate media forum, and celebrity news can also go in gendisc.


That's perfectly fair. I agree with Tess' call there.

I get vagueness principle, but I really have no problem trusting mod discretion specifically in regards to reputable sourcing. Aside from a few particular blacklisted sources, I don't think there's a need to be that rigorous.

Subject matter, sure. Major media sources - not particularly. As long as your "news" isn't pulled from sensationalist rags or blatantly radical sources, I don't think that's a problem that can't be discussion fodder for the topic itself. If a user wants to call out the bias in the story, that's a valid aspect of discussion in the thread, particularly in how the media itself interacts with specific current events. I don't see that as a pressing need for mod intervention, unless the discussion utterly derails the thread or gets out of hand.
  • 10

User avatar
Ceiling_Squid
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Show rep

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:50 am

ShuaiGuy wrote:What if for noteworthy we just checked Google Results or something.

How does this Google test work?

Ceiling_Squid wrote:I get vagueness principle, but I really have no problem trusting mod discretion specifically in regards to reputable sourcing. Aside from a few particular blacklisted sources, I don't think there's a need to be that rigorous.

Would TMZ be considered sufficiently reputable? What about another site focusing exclusively on entertainment news? I don't know if moderators are in agreement about this.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Ceiling_Squid » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:53 am

aviel wrote:
ShuaiGuy wrote:What if for noteworthy we just checked Google Results or something.

How does this Google test work?

Ceiling_Squid wrote:I get vagueness principle, but I really have no problem trusting mod discretion specifically in regards to reputable sourcing. Aside from a few particular blacklisted sources, I don't think there's a need to be that rigorous.

Would TMZ be considered sufficiently reputable? What about another site focusing exclusively on entertainment news? I don't know if moderators are in agreement about this.


Well then, that's a good thing to ask them about.

Besides, TMZ would probably be relevant to celebrity topics, which are now considered Gendisc. And I don't think Gendisc would have the same rigorous standards for "serious" issues or sourcing.

As much as I despise TMZ, they are concerned with a very particular type of fluff news and I can't fault them for feeding a niche...

Also, when we say "entertainment", it might also be wise to consider exceptions. I'd consider it major and serious news if the matter addressed in a news story was, say, concerning an industry-wide event. In that case, I think it's fair to let case-by-case judgement happen.

EDIT: In any case, I hate to excuse myself now, but I must away to bed. I think I might be ready to finally fall asleep. Hopefully something gets hammered out.
  • 5

Last edited by Ceiling_Squid on Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ceiling_Squid
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Show rep

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:56 am

I think if it concerns an industry-wide event then it would constitute business news, so that would be okay already.
  • 1

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Kate » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:07 am

My feelings on this forum have always been, if you can roll out of bed in the morning, throw on your bathrobe, grab a cup of coffee and sleepily shuffle to the door, pick up a newspaper, plop it on the table, and open it up to your news section of choice and find this story there and you wish to have a quality discussion about it, this is where it belongs. Is it the Sports section? Is it celebrity news? Is it politics? Business? I will make the exception for the Sunday funnies and say that probably doesn't belong here, but why should someone's love of Israeli politics outweigh someone else's love of the Redskins or golf or Chris Pratt's fancy new hairdo, if it is news?

Current Affairs and Serious Stuff involves both Current Affairs and Serious Stuff. It does not need to be Serious to be Current. This isn't the debate place; we have Loud Noises for that. This is for somewhat more serious discussion, but that doesn't mean that it can't be serious discussion about why the British Open was such a disappointment or why the US Women's Soccer Team is awesome.

Does that mean we have no standards here? I don't think so. Like I said, this is a forum for more serious discussion; if you're going to open with a one-liner and invite that kind of posting, maybe take it to General. If it's not really of newsworthy relevance, such as your dog finally pooping after three days of constipation or your *general* distress with the practices of Big Box corporations, it's probably not the right place (though if there's breaking news about dog constipation or Walmart's corruption, that might be a game changer).

But I don't think that we need to start being the arbiters of what is and what is not newsworthy with a heavy bent on politics and major events.
  • 23

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:10 am

Kate wrote:My feelings on this forum have always been, if you can roll out of bed in the morning, throw on your bathrobe, grab a cup of coffee and sleepily shuffle to the door, pick up a newspaper, plop it on the table, and open it up to your news section of choice and find this story there and you wish to have a quality discussion about it, this is where it belongs. Is it the Sports section? Is it celebrity news? Is it politics? Business? I will make the exception for the Sunday funnies and say that probably doesn't belong here, but why should someone's love of Israeli politics outweigh someone else's love of the Redskins or golf or Chris Pratt's fancy new hairdo, if it is news?

Tess has explicitly stated that sports is for General Discussion and not CAaSS, so this cannot be the standard. People are free to discuss all those topics in the appropriate forum.

Does that mean we have no standards here? I don't think so.

Right now it does, because moderators admittedly do not know what those standards are. If the decisions are going to be vastly different from one moderator to another, then we need specific policies.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Kate » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:17 am

I never said I agreed with Tess on that. I absolutely think that discussions of sports should be able to go in here if it's current and relevant (though it's not something that has really come up often), and the fact that we regularly move posts out of here for not meeting the standards means that we do have standards and they are generally agreed upon. An intramod disagreement over one thread, in over two years, does not make a situation of no standards. Generally, it's pretty easy to work out what goes here and what doesn't, in my experience.
  • 14

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby LaChaise » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:22 am

I can see one standard for TCS: at least I'm sure we'll never run out of topics to argue about, even if said topic is which ones to argue about and where to argue about them.

Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

Image
  • 18

"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody’s gonna die. Come watch TV?"

"I'll die soon. But the last twenty minutes have been the best years of my life."
User avatar
LaChaise
TCS Necromancer
TCS Necromancer
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:00 pm
Location: France
Show rep
Title: Lust in Translation

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:23 am

Kate wrote:I never said I agreed with Tess on that.

You don't have to. Her word is binding over yours.
we do have standards and they are generally agreed upon.

I was just talking to moderators in IRC who couldn't agree on very basic principles, like whether celebrity news or sports belonged in CAaSS, so there are no generally agreed upon standards.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby ghijkmnop » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:33 am

I have always worked under the adage "Your house; your rules." I feel that this is a valid discussion, but I honestly feel that it needs to be taking place among the moderators and operators of the forum, without input from those of us who would possibly take things personally when threads we posted are singled out as inappropriate.

That being said, I was under the impression that CAaSS was the sole subforum where members were allowed to bitch about their world, and that LN was specifically for debate. Using both those descriptions and the Guidelines and Sensibilities sticky post, I would argue that most of the threads posted in CAaSS in the last several weeks belong there, BUT nearly all of them need to be locked by the time they reach reply #50 for violating at least one of the G&S-- or merged into one superthread, because the same discussion is occurring on multiple threads.

That's all I've got.
  • 1

Erogenous zones, I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?
User avatar
ghijkmnop
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:22 am
Show rep
Title: Oldest member of TCS

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:36 am

ghijkmnop wrote:I have always worked under the adage "Your house; your rules." I feel that this is a valid discussion, but I honestly feel that it needs to be taking place among the moderators and operators of the forum, without input from those of us who would possibly take things personally when threads we posted are singled out as inappropriate.

Mods will be discussing this, and that philosophy is why I dismissed the idea of a poll. But a moderator requested I create this thread to house suggestions.

That being said, I was under the impression that CAaSS was the sole subforum where members were allowed to bitch about their world

Probably best for the rant thread in GenDisc.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Kate » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:38 am

I'm aware that her word is binding over mine. I'm also aware that she is a reasonable human being who listens to other people and who doesn't just ignore them, decide she wants to do something, and never changes her mind again even if other people have valid arguments ;) I credit Tess with having a high-quality brain and sound judgment. This doesn't mean I think she'll necessarily agree with me on this, but it does mean that I can reasonably expect to have a conversation with her and not have her stick her fingers in her ears and go "LA LA LA LA I ALREADY SAID IT IN IRC, BINDING FOREVER! Ask avi if you don't believe me."

Of all of the threads that have been reported, or not reported, and not moved, or moved, they almost universally involved a majority decision. Rarely has a topic been moved without a few other moderators agreeing that it is in an inappropriate place. I appreciate that it is frustrating how vague things seem, but, so far things have worked in practice. The standards you are suggesting are too strict, first of all. Secondly, dictating what is and what is not newsworthy when professional publications say otherwise is not something I am interested in and I highly doubt I am alone. Third, this is the place to have a more serious discussion of current events in general; deciding that only a select few genres are worthy of serious discussion is restrictive to anyone who has interests that lie outside of yours. Fourth, it would be highly inconvenient to need to check multiple forums to find discussions on all current news items that one might want to discuss.
  • 17

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby aviel » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:40 am

Kate wrote:I'm aware that her word is binding over mine. I'm also aware that she is a reasonable human being who listens to other people and who doesn't just ignore them, decide she wants to do something, and never changes her mind again even if other people have valid arguments ;) I credit Tess with having a high-quality brain and sound judgment. This doesn't mean I think she'll necessarily agree with me on this, but it does mean that I can reasonably expect to have a conversation with her and not have her stick her fingers in her ears and go "LA LA LA LA I ALREADY SAID IT IN IRC, BINDING FOREVER! Ask avi if you don't believe me."

She said it on the forum, and it's been used to support decisions to move sports threads from CAaSS before. So it's recorded and there's precedent.

Of all of the threads that have been reported, or not reported, and not moved, or moved, they almost universally involved a majority decision. Rarely has a topic been moved without a few other moderators agreeing that it is in an inappropriate place.

And other moderators disagreeing.
I appreciate that it is frustrating how vague things seem

then provide more transparency into these decisions.

The standards you are suggesting are too strict, first of all.

What issues are caused by my proposed standards?

Secondly, dictating what is and what is not newsworthy when professional publications say otherwise is not something I am interested in and I highly doubt I am alone. Third, this is the place to have a more serious discussion of current events in general; deciding that only a select few genres are worthy of serious discussion is restrictive to anyone who has interests that lie outside of yours.

No it is not, they can discuss those interests in the appropriate forum.

Fourth, it would be highly inconvenient to need to check multiple forums to find discussions on all current news items that one might want to discuss.

You would not, my standards comprise all news items. On the other hand, it is inconvenient to not have all the news items I want to discuss gathered exclusively in a convenient place; instead I have to sift through things that don't belong there. Everyone has a different workflow. The best you can do as moderators is set up reasonable expectations. As of now, because policy is undefined, nobody knows what to expect. Actually I want to go back to this:

I appreciate that it is frustrating how vague things seem

You clearly do not appreciate this sufficiently, because every single time I have suggested a clarification, regardless of whether other users have supported me or not, you've said no. Users shouldn't have to whether moderators will or won't moderate them. They should know beforehand, and you've consistently refused to provide the tools necessary to allow users to make that determination. Moderator standards shouldn't exist to make moderators' lives easier, they should exist to make user's lives easier, and the only people who benefit from "you know it when you see it" standards are moderators.
  • 0

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: What is On-Topic for CAaSS?

Postby Australia » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:52 am

Image

But if it doesn't include silly, incongruous or amusing news stories (aka current affairs), retitle it "Serious stuff" or "And Serious stuff" if you want the better acronym.
  • 15

YamI JamesT Eyebrows Edgar Logan Eric Michael Tess Sunny Notch Kate Jamish Lao Carp Moo FaceCitizen Aquila Nisi Qinglong Chaise Nullbert NotCIAagent JackRoad Delta MURDA Bert Czar Ambi JulyJack Adric Marcuse SilverMaple Nudge 52xMax Damiana Doma Pumpkin Toy Fry Andro Carrie Snarky Royal RLG Pikajew Windy skooma Kleiner Java Sellers Piter Gisarmbards Grimstone Recluse Esteban Syrup Krashlia Twistappel MacReady Funkotron mcfooty Pseudoman Creepy Kivutar nerd Ladki Jim Youghurt satan GL Angler
Snowflame
User avatar
Australia
Resident Dickhead
Resident Dickhead
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:15 pm
Location: Take a wild guess
Show rep
Title: Anna And The Halfpocalypse

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest