Tesseracts wrote:I’m afraid you’re going to have to make things more clear to me Gis, or else I’m going to continue making guesses about what you’re getting at and you’re going to continue thinking I’m wrong about your intentions on purpose. I’m not certain what threads you mean, what behavior you object to, or what you expect to be done about it.
http://thecommentsection.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10740
Here's the rest:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10711
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10421
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10606
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10704
If you broaden the scope to stories about the justice system fucking up, the following count as well:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10751
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10575
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10628
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10635
Looking at all these threads together makes it easier to see what gisambards' objection is, I think. There's an awful lot of inflammatory rhetoric in the titles and opening posts, and some clickbaity "you won't believe what's in this video" language that obscures more than it informs. In short, I do see a legitimate problem there. Whether mod intervention is a good means of solving the problem is a separate question, of course.
gisambards wrote:3) All I want is for the staff to say officially that clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided. This is not unreasonable, it absolutely will not shut down anyone's opinion, and has been discussed before. The fact that you were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?
1). Post Quality: Try to write posts that contribute to the forum in some way. This doesn’t mean every post needs to be a 1000 word essay, nor does it mean the same thing for every sub-forum on TCS. General forum-wide guidelines would mean that simple posts with one or two words, or just a smiley are to be avoided. If you want to say something like “I agree” a thumb does that nicely. At the least, write a few sentences on why you agree. These guidelines are especially important for posts made in Current Affairs And Serious Stuff and Loud Noises, where more reasoned and thought out posts are appreciated. In Until Someone Loses An Eye or The Social Cellar, the aim is fun and games, silliness is encouraged, and the one or two word guideline doesn't necessarily apply.
3). Specific Thread Titles: When creating a new thread, use a title that is specific and gives information about what the topic is going to be about. Avoid titles that are inflammatory or don't give any information about the topic.
Examples of bad thread titles:
Another Terrible Article
Man on the Internet is a Real Prick
Oh for Fuck's Sake!
What do you think of...
Examples of Good Thread Titles:
5 Baddass Military Heroes
So You Have A Hamster Stuck Up Your Ass (Bulchoz Kills It Again)
US Congress Goes On Strike
4). Thread OP (original post): When creating a new thread, the OP should set the tone for the discussion and provide introductory information about the topic. Please don’t just drop a link with no additional comments, if it's about an upcoming game or movie elaborate on why you're excited. If you want to have a debate or discussion about an idea, or an article, lead with your thoughts, and what it is you want to discuss.
gisambards wrote:And yes, while I did refer to SandTea as an idiot, that was after they'd made it clear the only thing they were going to contribute to the thread was to repeatedly accuse me of wanting innocent people to get murdered (which apparently doesn't qualify as a direct insult).
gisambards wrote:Irregardless, it's simply inaccurate to claim I was the only person being at all hostile, and I was only that after having to put up with the sort of thing I'm complaining about.
1) The threads I'm referring to are those provided in the list by Crimson.
The complaint I've made is not limited to the one thread everyone keeps referring to.
2) The behaviour I am objecting to is primarily the inflammatory nature of the titles and OP of each thread, which I really don't think it's unreasonable to want discouraged. It would not be shutting down anyone's opinion - quite the opposite - and it is blatantly against guidelines. I am also concerned, however, by the fact that people who post on those threads with anything other than anti-police opinions are prone to being personally attacked.
3) All I want is for the staff to say officially that clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided. This is not unreasonable, it absolutely will not shut down anyone's opinion, and has been discussed before. The fact that you were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?
Lindvaettr wrote:If you were to ask my opinion (which you're under no obligation to), I'd say that you should make the thread titles as neutral as you can. For example, instead of "Police Instantly Kill Innocent Man Over Prank Call", perhaps consider something like "Innocent man killed by police in Call of Duty SWATing incident".
Marcuse wrote:1. How should such titles be identified?
2. What should be done about such titles?
3. Why should moderation by the tool used to implement this?
4. What protects the user base from moderator abuse or restriction of speech?
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.
Marcuse wrote:Firstly, the thread this arose from is a microcosm of the rest of them. The decisions on the one thread can be easily extrapolated to the rest.
Marcuse wrote:Secondly; number of reports made about these = 0. Number of PMs sent to moderators complaining of such threads (to my knowledge) = 0 Number of posts made where the fact the thread is clickbaity is used to shit on other users and denigrate their ability to argue = nigh beyond number.
Marcuse wrote:Pretending that this has been an issue for a ton of time and staff have ignored it when nobody has been complaining about it until now except as asides within threads where meta discussion of board policy is off topic. I don't know how strongly I need to say the words when you have a problem bring it to the attention of the people whose job it is to resolve those problems.
Marcuse wrote:It's a quirk of how people choose to title threads and while we absolutely do recommend to title threads in a way that doesn't presuppose things, we also allow threads calling Trump an asshole, or saying Social Justice is insane, or calling people on the internet dumb.
Marcuse wrote:What you're asking for is moderators to intervene in discussions in order to tell some people, but not others, on a scale which nobody can decide on or is even talking about, that their thread title is wrong.
Additionally, I would be really careful about complaining about personal attacks. I don't think many people involved in that last discussion came off looking like reasoned debaters.
At what point has any staff member said that any person in that thread should have their right to express their opinion restricted? The only thing we have done is ask people to stop being aggressive towards each other (the much denigrated calling for civility) and then locking the thread when certain people couldn't stop arguing when they'd been directly instructed to. What about that is restricting the opinion of anyone? The entire reason why I said people should use the ask a mod forum was to give this issue the opportunity to be voiced and to have a proper response that wasn't prematurely shut down because it was off topic for a thread about police shootings or whatever. I literally took your hand and showed you how to sound off about this. I'm unsure why you're saying that your right to express your opinion is being restricted when a staff member told you how to do it, and you did so, and have received a detailed response to that.
I literally took your hand and showed you how to sound off about this. I'm unsure why you're saying that your right to express your opinion is being restricted when a staff member told you how to do it, and you did so, and have received a detailed response to that.
Everyone wrote:Damiana
Tesseracts wrote:Gis, I don't see how pointing out the lack of reports is an attack on your character.
Marcuse wrote:number of reports made about these = 0. Number of PMs sent to moderators complaining of such threads (to my knowledge) = 0 Number of posts made where the fact the thread is clickbaity is used to shit on other users and denigrate their ability to argue = nigh beyond number.
If you're upset that we interpreted your complaint to be about one thread, one opinion, or one person, consider that maybe that's how you actually come across. Attempting to address the point your making isn't an attack if it's what we actually believe your point is.
I brought up potentially locking the Trump thread because I was trying to show that I do understand that a hostile environment can be an issue. I almost never publicly talk about staff decisions which haven't been made yet, I made an exception this time in an effort at diplomacy. That only seems to have made you more mad though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests