Modest proposals for promotion of healthy discussion

[Nitro]

I notice that threads concerning the "big issues in life" tend to get closed down quite regularly around here. It might seem odd given this precedent then that they should re-appear under new forms to meet the same fate. However these are topics worth discussing if they can be discussed and debated in a way that leaves overly emotion based rhetoric at the metaphorical door and permits well reasoned and articulated comments to thrive. In this aim I propose that:

1. All posts made for the sole purpose of declaring the thread undiscussable by those not qualified to do so, should be justly considered a hinderance to the exchange of ideas and considered themselves a negative influence on the viability of the discussion. As such they should be deleted without pause. This behavior, while not likely made by ill-intentioned people, is similar in consequence to trolling. Not one quick to point fingers, however it is worth noting that some of the more prolific members of this site are also guilty of this offense.

2. Posts that appear to be made in good faith, yet must be removed for their controversial content should not only be removed, but a copy PMed to the author so that the comment may be re-worded and posted. Some people put a lot of effort into their ill-fated comments, it would be a shame and a likely source of aggravation to see such hard work disappear forever on the whim of another human.

[Greggers]

I think #2 is epically a beautiful idea and if executed well could be great in all parts of the forum. It also would help people learn rather than just a simple deleting of there post. If you dont tell someone why there post was deleted they are either going to get mad or make the mistake again. I know that that might be a hard under-taking for the staff to try and do, and regulating the forums is hard enough already. It would definitely be of use though.

It might also be worth it to take down a list of the types of topics that keep getting threads locked or deleted out of emotional uproar. You could try and post gentle reminders on these types of threads before they start getting out of hand? Learning from history and past mistakes to try and stop future ones? Its no surprise the cries of "Oh no, here we go again" come up when we spot the word "religion" on a thread. Even just linking to the code of conduct and reminding people that you can offend people without trying to might help. God knows i could use that reminder once in awhile

[George]

Quite a few times when I've made mistakes like this in my posting I generally get a PM from a mod asking me to edit my post before the edit timer elapses, whereas others will just go and close/delete the thread straight away...

[Jim1454]

As a moderator, and speaking only for myself, I can't help but wonder what you think we are already trying to do here in EC.

We're trying to provide a web forum that supports LGBT people. We strive to keep it as positive and supportive as possible. We strive to encourage open and respectful dialogue and don't put very many topics off limits if they are discussed in a mature and respectful way.

All of that requires subjectivity.

And your suggestion here ALSO requires subjectivity. Because I would ask you - Who would be deteriming when a post or portion of a post fell into the following categories:

• overly emotion based rhetoric
• well reasoned and articulated comments
• posts made for the sole purpose of declaring the thread undiscussable
• whether someone is qualified to declare a thread undiscussable
• trolling
• appear to be made in good faith
• controversial content

While I understand that you might be frustrated, keep in mind that what you deem to be rhetoric might be someone else's well reasoned argument - and vice versa.

The admin team are volunteers who either have full time jobs or attend school - just like the other members. I don't believe any of us have the time available that would be required to moderate the forum more elabourately than we already do. As a result, we are forced to simply close threads that have run their course or do not appear to be evolving in a way that reflects the values of EC.

[Nitro]

There is no questioning the fact that the volunteers will do their best, have been doing a great job, and have outside life forces acted upon them and commitments to keep. It is the constant upholding of the values of EC that makes this place a rare gem. Elsewhere almost unimaginable that a community could so amicably grow in number for the purposes of providing help, support, and a safe place to chat among the queer alphabet soup and allies.

Allow me to clarify the two propositions and you may see how reasonable they seem (biased view from a mere post maker admittedly).

- Whether someone is qualified to declare a thread undiscussible as a sole purpose of a post is not subjective. Only a moderator or an administrator can close a thread, thus only they are qualified to put that last post at the end that explains why the thread had to closed.

- Given the above, posts that are only for nay-saying - I like Greg's given example given above of "Oh no, here we go again", distract from the topic, make it seem futile to discuss here, and do incite non-constructive responses. Identification of such posts is rather straight forward; no discussion of the topic is made, only the noting the futility of the discussion as it is not discussible in a reasonable manner here. Other made up on the spot examples to clarify the point:

"Cue the angry atheist horde in 3 … 2 … 1"
"I better post something before this thread is closed."
"Oh gee, because this always goes over well."

Admittedly it does seem a bit heavy-handed to delete such posts. Checkmate? maybe not. I suppose a citable part of the code of conduct could do equally well, and it appears that it has been found in the following:

"it is not appropriate to create posts […] [that] are disruptive"

Still, if this seemingly recent phenomenon persists, I for one would not be adversed to stronger measures. This would not be the first time that a newly emerging phenomenon required a creative approach.

On to number 2:

Admittedly this is a subjective matter. However, it is little more subjective than what is already common practice. I merely suggest that when it seems feasible, posts that need to be removed yet do not appear to be made in bad faith should have a copy PMed to the author so that the author can make revisions, cool his head and realize the error(s), and so on without having the hard work lost to the ether. This is about learning from mistakes and keeping heads cool.

While I understand that you might be frustrated, keep in mind that what you deem to be rhetoric might be someone else's well reasoned argument - and vice versa.

Truly the writing of a seasoned moderator. You are quite correct in noting the frustration for the common member and the subjectivity in the appraisal of an argument.

[George]

@Jim1454:
Totally agree.

[silas99]

In my view it completely depends on what kind of service you want from a site such as EC. I have not come across a gay forum for young people quite like EC. I dont think that anyone can deny that the mods on this site do a fantastic job at maintaining the high standard of security and allowing people to put forward their opinions on rather controversial issues. Having read a few closed threads I can see how some members may be rather annoyed that a seemingly "harmless" topic has been closed for further discussion. I think sometimes, as many people have already mentioned, its a matter of subjective opinion. Perhaps at times this limits some of the more cutting edge controversial discussion on this site. However if allowing those threads to continue compromises the safety and moral code of this site then we should support the mods decisions. I think we should also bare in mind that everyone who works on this site has a life outside of EC and I know I wouldnt want to spend every hour of every day modifying every single post on the site.

[xequar]

Regarding the Point #2, I've seen on other forums where the mods, instead of just blowing away a post, will replace it with something like:

Post removed by Moderator. Reason-(inflammatory language)(trolling)(flaming)(derogatory language)(whatever)

It helps those who have their posts "moderated" know what's up, and it's not as though it would take a whole lot of extra time on the mod's part either. It can also serve as a warning to others to keep the rhetoric under control.

[Jim1454]

^ That seems like a good idea.

I'm not really technically inclined so I'm not sure how that would work here.

[xequar]

Originally Posted by Jim1454

^ That seems like a good idea.

I'm not really technically inclined so I'm not sure how that would work here.

I've seen some places where the mods just Edit the original post and fill it in with something like what I posted above. That has the side effect (good or bad) of leaving the info of whoever posted the inappropriate material. I've also seen a couple boards where the mods can actually replace the bad post with a post saying something like what I wrote above.

Given that this is a phpbb board, I'm thinking it might have to lean toward the former, as the latter might not be possible under the phpbb structure. One of the admins here who knows their way around the permissible board functionality would have to make the call on that one, though.

Originally Posted by xequar

Given that this is a phpbb board, I'm thinking it might have to lean toward the former, as the latter might not be possible under the phpbb structure. One of the admins here who knows their way around the permissible board functionality would have to make the call on that one, though.

#

Just to correct you on this, this forum is running on the Vbulletin scripts. I'm a mod on a DJ forum that uses the same scripts. If we deem that a post is breaching rules we just click edit then remove what causes the breach then go Mod/Admin note: then stating what rule was broken, then in the reason for editing box just say see post.

hth

[Chip]

I think the point about PMing the removed post to the OP is sensible *if* the subject matter is something that can or should be reworded. I suspect a majority of the posts removed are because they are offensive or inflammatory.

Other times , it's pretty clear the purpose of the posting is simply to stir up controversy , and we also have a handful of posters here at EC who constantly start threads that are pretty obviously thinly veiled attempts to draw attention to the poster. In some cases they may not even consciously realize that they're doing this to draw attention, so it's a little hard to enforce a rule saying "don't do that."

Finally, a CoC rule saying "It's not appropriate to create posts that are disruptive" would, I think, be redundant because there is other language in the CoC that essentially already covers this. Even so, I doubt it would be effective because I don't think a lot of people (other than the small group referenced above) post messages with the intention of being disruptive.

So the thoughts are well placed, but I think that things are pretty under control as it stands.