OTD rules are going to change in the future.

[neptronix]

Howdy all. I'd like to address everyone who frequents the dungeon of our forum.

Our rules of what is acceptable or not here are going to change in the near future. The course of action is yet decided, but consider this post a tentative 'heads up'.

Generally what i want to see is OTD no longer be a rules-free zone. Not because i don't like what's being said, but that we need moderation so that the discussion can be productive.

This will mean that ad hominem attacks, threats, would be no longer acceptable here, at a bare minimum.
It also means this is no longer a dumping ground for bad threads. That will be established later and 'other toxic discussions' will be renamed 'off topic' or something to that degree.


It is a big moderation burden to allow political speech on this forum, because it's responsible for the most misbehavior. The moderation team will need to decide if they want to handle the interpersonal drama or not. If they won't, we shouldn't allow political discussion at all.

I'd be happy to get another moderator or two on board who have a centrist/politically apathetic bent who can objectively diffuse things between the liberal and conservative factions. If you feel you fit the role, please send me a PM. Right now, we lack moderators who are skilled at this.


Ultimately Justin will make the final choice on how things go. Hint: he is not pleased with the amount of political excrement-flinging that goes on here.

I want the most conservative course of action we can get away with. I want to believe you guys can handle a high degree of free speech. I want you guys to still have an outlet. I want conservatives, liberals, and any other faction to be able to enjoy this place.

I know that's a tall order, but i'd like to see if we can do it as a collective effort. ES is full of exceptional people who have helped this place be a shining success for 15 years. I'd like to believe we are exceptional enough to also not only understand WHY some changes need to be made, but also adhere to them.


Things down here have came to a boil. A few of our political posting junkies have reached out to me saying that they're scared to post here lately. I've seen some death threats made and had to intervene. This kind of stuff makes me sick to my stomach and i will not tolerate it anymore.


So just a heads up, this will change in the future. When the rules change, people will not be retroactively punished... but rules will be consistently enforced until everyone gets the memo.

I'm open to any feedback you have to make this a more peaceful place. I've said my piece, now let's hear yours.

 

[markz]

I am sure you are aware that some other forum websites do not allow political talk all together, even in off topic area's.

It is a big moderation burden to allow political speech on this forum, because it's responsible for the most misbehavior.

 

[neptronix]

I am sure you are aware that some other forum websites do not allow political talk all together, even in off topic area's.

Yes, and that's how i ran ES FB, and it cut flame wars down about 99%.
I limited political discussions to things related to ebikes as long as they didn't get partisan.
It worked, and would be easy to implement here.

But that idea is not popular here. And i think it is worth not subjecting our forum to that.

 

[leisesturm]

Death threats? Really?

 

[nicobie]

Death threats? Really?

 

[nicobie]

I've done my share of being a mod. I paid my dues on Napster and Something Awful way back then. I bowed out when I realized that it was interfering with my posting. I was always afraid of taking sides.

While I'd never accept being a full on Mod, I would attempt being a mod here with only limited responsibilities and no highlighted user name like Mark5 and Amberwolf enjoy. The only thing I would ever do is to make sure insults are removed. I am sick of all the cries of lier and stupid that are posted on most every thread. There are better and more gentlemanly ways to get your points across. While I've been guilty of this too, I can only say that I've only done it to ones that made a regular practice of it. And when rereading have not been too proud of my behavior.

Mostly I'd like this forum to continue to prosper in a more restrained manner with more gentlemanly behavior.

 

[neptronix]

Death threats? Really?

Yes, and more. But that's not the point.

 

[nicobie]

Death threats? Really?

Yes, and more. But that's not the point.

You've right. It's just that I was unpleasantly surprised.

 

[Dauntless]

I'd be happy to get another moderator or two on board who have a centrist/politically apathetic bent who can objectively diffuse things between the liberal and conservative factions.

There as been those posting on this board that there IS no such thing as centrist. But apathetic doesn't really have an allegiance. The moment someone who has posted in here is suddenly a moderator, oh, I think the flinging takes a new direction. We've already seen such extremes that people will post and expect to be okay when they tolerate nothing from others. If someone they haven't tolerated is a moderator, that'll be . . . 'Interesting.' Living in "Interesting Times" is supposed to be a bad thing.

But in that same vein, there's too many cases that what some people here want is simply a fight on the subject, they just expect to be guaranteed a participation trophy such as we joke about with kids' events. But they don't get it. Instead the banned come back with new names.

At least the death threats are bound to be between people out of range for their bikes.

So I think the 'Star Trek' quote: "Peace. The Undiscovered Country" is going to apply to the new OTD. It becomes lord only knows what. I've never known a subforum where people are allowed to run amok to be cracked down on and much activity to continue. Ah well.

 

[leisesturm]

Dauntless. WTF? Never mind that we don't usually know what you are saying half the time. At least you don't usually sound like you are drunk. Does the advent of more personal accountability fill you with that much dread?

 

[neptronix]

Instead the banned come back with new names.

In our new system, a ban will carry a lot more weight. This would also mean that a ban needs to be even more carefully weighed.

I've never known a subforum where people are allowed to run amok to be cracked down on and much activity to continue. Ah well.

I feel that OTD has been sort of a 'trap' to encourage bad behavior, and get people, who would normally be valuable members of our forum, into trouble. The divisive political rhetoric is tempting to participate in. Many people have told me they don't like the temptation.

You've right. It's just that I was unpleasantly surprised.

Okay. I only replied to that comment because i thought perhaps you didn't believe me.

I've done my share of being a mod. I paid my dues on Napster and Something Awful way back then. I bowed out when I realized that it was interfering with my posting. I was always afraid of taking sides.

I've had issues with this. Some say i must consider my words more carefully because of my position. That means i have less right to speak than people who have much less 'skin in the game'. That is not fair. We should all be on the same standing. I decided to pick those battles elsewhere, because ES is collectively more important than me.

The good thing is.. when i decided to fight those battles elsewhere, it resulted in much more impact, and thus fulfillment for me.

While I'd never accept being a full on Mod, I would attempt being a mod here with only limited responsibilities and no highlighted user name like Mark5 and Amberwolf enjoy. The only thing I would ever do is to make sure insults are removed. I am sick of all the cries of lier and stupid that are posted on most every thread. There are better and more gentlemanly ways to get your points across. While I've been guilty of this too, I can only say that I've only done it to ones that made a regular practice of it. And when rereading have not been too proud of my behavior.

In our new system, there is not a way to have a user not show as a moderator when they are one. But i would prefer that we moderate in a transparent way and people know what to expect from the team. Setting expectations are a thing that have been lacking here.

I think if you could separate your political leanings from your choices, and not be a political crusader, you'd make a fantastic moderator. You have a lot of the qualities i am looking for to fill that position.

 

[neptronix]

Dauntless. WTF? Never mind that we don't usually know what you are saying half the time. At least you don't usually sound like you are drunk. Does the advent of more personal accountability fill you with that much dread?

I'm going to ask you kindly to refrain from further ad hominem in this thread. If you do not like dauntless, there is an ignore button that works well.

This is a serious discussion that needs to be had, and i will not tolerate it being derailed into squabbling.

 

[John in CR]

I'm going to ask you kindly to refrain from further ad hominem in this thread...

We need clarity of what is considered an ad hominem attack. For example, is it ok to call someone brainwashed if you're willing to back it up with evidence?

 

[Dauntless]

We need clarity of what is considered an ad hominem attack. For example, is it ok to call someone brainwashed if you're willing to back it up with evidence?

You mean like undercover footage captured at the brain carwash? I don't think there's really evidence to back up all that much of what one says about someone else. No matter how visibly obvious, sometimes.

I mean, occasionally I say ". . . .And right on cue."

. . . . there's too many cases that what some people here want is simply a fight on the subject, they just expect to be guaranteed a participation trophy such as we joke about with kids' events. But they don't get it. Instead the banned come back with new names.

Dauntless. WTF? Never mind that we don't usually know what you are saying half the time. At least you don't usually sound like you are drunk. Does the advent of more personal accountability fill you with that much dread?

I mean I didn't even name names and he provides documentation in his case. But just linking all the hostile posts out of such people is like being Captain Obvious AND unconvincing at the same time.

There's the concept of Reductive Argument, basically not really proving just reducing resistance to the disbelief in others. Like when SWBluto posted something and a few comments were made and suddenly a different poster whom I already suspected was posting as Bluto posts "What I meant was. . . ." Did he mean to log out of this other name and log in as Bluto to post that? It doesn't prove that guy posted as Bluto, nor does the fact that both got banned about the same time. But admit it, I'm really getting you thinking I know who posted as Bluto, aren't I? I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced Bluto was phony.

So here I can ask that goof if he ever bothers to think the problem is just his poor comprehension that he demonstrates on a regular basis. Oh, the things we all could link from his old posts, if we wanted to read them again. But would even THAT make the point? Dread that he's facing more personal accountability? Why would I dread that? I'm LOOKING FORWARD to it. Him and a few others. He thinks just because he's afraid, everyone is.

I guess I'm saying you can point out why you think he's brainwashed, but you can't prove he's brainwashed.

But maybe if you just subtly offer your evidence without saying why. . . .

(Couldn't find one funny brainwash comic.)

 

[neptronix]

I'm going to ask you kindly to refrain from further ad hominem in this thread...

We need clarity of what is considered an ad hominem attack. For example, is it ok to call someone brainwashed if you're willing to back it up with evidence?

Gonna use the google definition:



One cannot expect a moderator team to moderate a thread based on who is wrong and who is right. Moreso, how people are treating people. 'Ad hominem' is an attack on the person, instead of the topic at hand. That's what we want to not see.

We are not going to be ultra strict about or anything.... mostly it is to prevent escalation.

 

[John in CR]

I'm going to ask you kindly to refrain from further ad hominem in this thread...

We need clarity of what is considered an ad hominem attack. For example, is it ok to call someone brainwashed if you're willing to back it up with evidence?

Gonna use the google definition:

2021-02-05 07_59_15-ad hominem - Google Search.png

One cannot expect a moderator team to moderate a thread based on who is wrong and who is right. Moreso, how people are treating people. 'Ad hominem' is an attack on the person, instead of the topic at hand. That's what we want to not see.

We are not going to be ultra strict about or anything.... mostly it is to prevent escalation.

Gotcha, so since it's just pointing out a fact and that fact has lead them to their position that is truly against the greater good, "brainwashed" is ok.

 

[John in CR]

...deleting duplicate post...

 

[Dauntless]

So I keep thinking this Brainwash thing would be such a fun thing to talk about, but I just don't have anything to say. There MUST be plenty, but I'm not coming up with it. Except - - - -

So Ibram X. Kendi was doing a podcast. X. being Brainwasher in chief on Woke, Antiracism, Hypocrisy, all the good stuff. Well, his daughter came home and told him she wanted to be a boy. And X. said he was "HORRIFIED!"

X. being black he went to work using talking about how black kids are supposed to wish they were white kids while white kids are supposed to be glad they are white kids, etc. And all kinds of stuff that's supposed to get him cancelled and all. Of course these are the cancellers who watch his podcasts, you know.

But he's still here. Because this was all said during a brainwash session, as is what his podcast is. And indeed, brains were washed. He's still here.

So I guess now you can use being an X. follower as proof someone is brainwashed.

 

[neptronix]

In general, it's better to attack an idea than a person.
Attacking a person makes them defensive and most people will stop listening immediately.

In most cases, once you've made someone defensive, continuing to attack them progresses to anger. The closer you get to anger, the less likely you are to convince them of your case.

Unfortunately whether you are right or not does not matter in the chess game of managing emotions during a disagreement.

We would like heated debates here.. but they need to go somewhere. Otherwise they just turn into noise.

 

[Matt Gruber]

The thread starter could be the mod.
When i invite someone into my house to talk, if they are rude, i will ask them to leave.
Threads are an invitation to discuss, just like a living room in person.
When anyone starts a thread, they should have to option to delete posts based on their own rules. I'd post my basic rules in my sig.

 

[neptronix]

That's a truly interesting idea. Many social media sites have that kind of functionality. Some users may abuse that, but it's an interesting idea to explore if XenForo has some kind of plugin to allow that.

Perhaps much better ( to preserve context of a thread ) would be to ban a user from your own post so that they cannot make new posts in your thread.
That would be a bit easier to implement in software.

Thanks for this idea, i've put it on my list of things to explore in our new design. :thumb:

 

[Matt Gruber]

I don't want to ban anybody from even 1 thread. I often have a better idea on a topic the next day. If somebody including me, makes a dumb response, they should have the chance to think about the topic, and make a better response. I can go back into my last post and clarify my question, but as it is now, the misguided answer stays, confusing people. So the idea is to delete that post, and on my edited post i'd say i deleted a post because my question was not clear, please try again.
Thanks for trying to make ES better

 

[John in CR]

FWIW this is the only place on the internet that I discuss anything political, and that's because I feel safe here and trust my fellow ESers not to make efforts to deplatform or cancel me. I post my political views only to try to help those with contrary views.

As long as what goes on in OTD doesn't affect the broader forum in any way, then I don't understand why any rules beyond self-policing are necessary. eg I was perfectly comfortable with just publicly pointing out leisesturm's death threat. That was over a month ago, he didn't repeat it, and I didn't take it seriously to begin with, so the self-policing approach seems to have worked just fine.

I think maybe the issue is that Neptronix wants to be able to post in OTD's more interesting threads, but that leads to a conflict of interest or at least an appearance thereof.

My vote would be for no rules and self-policing. ie Anyone who posts something should be man enough to stand by his words and defend them publicly.

 

[nicobie]

I agree self policing is the best but it only really works when everbody is polite to each other.

No more name calling will be allowed. If you must insult someone, at least be witty about it. A bit of humor goes a long way. No need to call everyone an asshole just because you think differently than them.

 

[Matt Gruber]

I'm open to having both. The thread starter could pick the forum and be able to self police as i suggested, anywhere EXCEPT OTD. The only reason i'm in OTD is because a reply was rude, so the thread was moved. I'd pull the rude stuff myself, so no need to move it. I would encourage those with opposite views to post their own thread so their views are not silenced.
I would never post a new topic in OTD, but those that want to have unfiltered comments GO RIGHT AHEAD :thumb: