Self Moderation of the On-Topic Forum

We have the option to apply OTC-only forum bans, which have been used in some cases.

The problem with using OTC suspensions is that often you have a case where only a few or no posts by someone are explicitly thumpworthy but the aggregate effect is dragging down the standard of discourse in the forum.

That sounds like the exact case where an OTC ban is merited. The Forum Rules do explicitly state that

And "being a dick on aggregate" plainly violates that rule (as well as the "don't be a dick" one).

Not to whine about moderation, but it's been over a week now since Kissinger died and politics wait for no one. Surely the US politics can be unlocked.

It honestly feels way too disproportionate as a punishment.

It's not intended as a punishment, it's a response to the fact that it was turning into a time sink for staff.

That will still be true if we unlock it without a better solution. As admins and mods have posted, we're looking at it. But it's likely to take weeks or more, not days.

Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 8th 2023 at 5:44:40 PM

I don't expect the politics thread to be swiftly unlocked any time soon every time someone tries hasten the decision unless that someone has a very compelling argument why it should unlocked,but right now its looking increasingly like even it does get reopened it will be without the lively discussion that's its been known if hour long limit on the posting in the thread is any indication.

Edited by Ultimatum on Dec 8th 2023 at 5:54:36 PM

I feel that the problem here is that what is wished for (less incivility and therefore less mod time wasted in thumps and suspensions) is contradictory to what is being tried (mods dedicating less time to the forums).

Paradoxically, if you want a well-behaved forum that needs fewer mods attention, you will need more active moderation.

Through fair yet firm monitoring, the forums will be "programmed" to function more civilly, and hostile or rude people will either learn to control their impulses or be banned. As a result, moderators will gruadually spend less time solving disagreements.

I could even argue ( and I may be wrong) that some incivility problems in the forums, were caused by the mods not applying the rules consistently, and not stopping rudeness and hostility when they saw it, encouraging others to participate in the same behavior.

..............

However, the real issue here, is that the site owners clearly are not enthusiastic about having the OTC forum, so we can't ask for more attention to it.

As for the U.S. thread, I am not sure if the slow mode will be necessary before the 2024 elections.

Lately, it used to take hours between posts, and most of them were just news reports.

I think the conversation can remain civil, just by 

a) Not mentioning the Middle East conflict.

b) Adding a new rule, that you can't discuss the past of someone who died recently or was attacked until a week or so has passed, to avoid grave dancing, and generally trying to leave the death announcements to the RIP thread.

.............

By next November, the thread may need more drastic measures like time locks, but that is 11 months away.

Or not, what do I know?

Edited by jawal on Dec 8th 2023 at 6:56:58 PM

I think it would be an interesting approach if instead of arguing why the thread shouldn't be locked, people made a case why it should be unlocked. As in like a pitch presentation. Because every website needs a corner to socialize on broad topics? Because people need someone they trust to parse news for them? The staff made an argument repeatedly that they don't see the bottom-left forum beneficial to the site, and it seems nobody really tried to refute that.

I think the value of the politics threads is that they provide a few things.

• An on-site way for users to discuss news and current events in a managed environment. People getting directed to the OTC Politics Threads means they don’t start fights on pages or other areas of the forum and it boosts self-policing by getting people to say “take it to OTC”. The workload of policing the politics threads is significant, but I’m not sure it’s heavier then the workload of stopping all politics discussions site wide.
• A boost to the quality of site experience by giving people another reason to stick around.
• A place to discuss and curate pages on real life. A lot of the political/history/military/philosophy Useful Notes pages have had people use OTC threads for editing advice. I know that the British Politics Thread has been used for that multiple times. Non-political threads do this more (see the Space Thread) but the political ones do it as well.
• A general place for users to expand their understanding of the world and political events/ideas. I know that I’ve probably educated a number of users on Anarchism as a political philosophy over the years via the political threads. Said users are now better able to understand fiction that touches on Anarchy, better able to connect Anarchy to tropes when relevant and in at least one case able to better use Anarchy in their own fictional work.

Finally as the point about OTC-only users came up, yes that’s presumably a cost on the site (though said users still get ads so they’re still revenue generating), but I think it’s also worth considering how many of our major users hang out in OTC and OTC politics threads as a way of letting of steam between editing. I’ve joked in the past that OTC is worth it to the site just on the Space Thread keeping Fighteer around and contributing to the wiki. Fighteer isn’t the only mod that uses OTC/the politics threads and while I understand the admins possibly considering the OTC-only users a resource drain, I think they need to consider if they’d be getting the same value out of the active users that hang out here if the environment didn’t exist.

A claim like this needs evidence. Do you have concrete examples? Preferably with links?

As for the thread lock, a reminder that admins are currently working on that slow mode solution, though it doesn't have the highest priority (possibly because other changes are needed before that can be implemented).

Jawal,

Straw man arguments aren’t helpful here and neither is finger pointing. We aren’t talking about the overall forums. We’re talking about one tiny section, more specifically one thread in particular that has constant problems.

Silasaw,

We’ve heard more than enough arguments for how useful OTC is or isn’t. That also isn’t helpful to the conversation.

Edited by kory on Dec 8th 2023 at 10:57:55 AM

I will not, because that will break two of the forum rules and personalize the conversation.

I don't feel that I was "straw maning" or "pointing fingers", or at least that was not my intention from that post.

I also gave my opinion and some suggestions (valid or not) about the U.S. thread, so I was not ignoring that issue.

Edited by jawal on Dec 8th 2023 at 8:03:29 PM

"We’ve heard more than enough arguments for how useful OTC is or isn’t. That also isn’t helpful to the conversation."

Then... what is needed for the conversation? I've thought it's about if OTC is to be kept or not, so I may be misunderstanding something.

Edited by Amonimus on Dec 8th 2023 at 10:08:50 PM

Understood. I would advise that this be noted somewhere, as I was responding to a specific ask for a “pitch presentation” for why threads should be unlocked.

So what do you think about our arguments, Kory?

I would like to express my support to all that have argued for OTC here. Sadly, my emotions are the only thing are can give, I have no ideas at the moment. I have great emotional attachment to OTC. It has played a great role in my development as a person. It helped me to understand this world a great deal. I have had many enjoyable interactions with the people here. I'm not crazy, I will be able to live without it if it ever comes down to that. I will just have to look for some other place. Perhaps I should start working on that already with how things are going of late. If it ever gets closed I will respect it the admins are entitled to that, but it will be a sad day for me and surely not just me.

Well, that was a long speech. I know it probably won't help. It is just me getting out my emotions rather than giving a logical argument. I just wanted to get this out.

OTC isnt on the chopping block. 99% of OTC threads are fine. It’s only a couple specific threads that are the issue, mostly US politics. I apologize if anyone got that impression.

We are looking for ideas to reduce the need for moderators to enter these problem threads. Not the forums as a whole, they are mostly fine. So far slow mode seems like a great step towards opening them back up as well as helping with other areas in the forums. Beyond slow-mode I’m not sure what else would help. Banning people more frequently hasn’t helped because new people always find it and it moves so quickly.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I can believe that. It may not be on the chopping block now, but what about the future, that is what I'm worried about really. I will stop here, I guess. There has been a lot of drama of late, it had some effect on me and I have to ask what is next ? Anyway, as I said, I will stop now. I cannot think rationally about this.

The rest of OTC being viewed as fine is certainly reassuring, because removing the section entirely was very implied if it keeps happening.

If only we could have specific kinds of Heralds/Engineers who already regular in OTC and could use elevated privilege to stop or halt conversations if needed until a mod gets a chance to properly review them. Assuming it won't lead to power abuse.

Edited by Amonimus on Dec 8th 2023 at 12:06:28 PM

There is a rather nuclear option for the issue of new troublemakers coming in even once old ones get banned, but it would hit all of OTC and not just the politics threads. It’s also a pretty big hammer to swing.

Make OTC posting rights formally a privillage that gets earned rather than a right you have inherently.

Mechanically this would be done by applying an OTC ban to new accounts automatically, with users having to request (probably via a thread similar to Edit Banned) the right to post in OTC, with such rights being granted only if they can point to a pattern of good behaviour elsewhere on the site. This would also prevent there being any new members who are OTC-only, as that seems to be regarded as a problem. There would however be a process burden on the mod team around administering such applications.

If such a thing was done I’d suggest that current OTC posters (or possibly all current accounts to minimise admin) be grandfathered in, both for practicality reasons and to reduce upset.

If the coding around the Edit Banned thread is ever worked out and able to be replicated with ease then such a system could in theory actually be applied just to “Threads liable to attract controversy”, so the US Politics thread and any similar threads. Limiting them to only users who have a pattern of good behaviour and care enough to ask for such rights.

Edited by Silasw on Dec 8th 2023 at 9:11:27 AM

Locking certain threads by default until a user earns some sort of reputation of handling the conversation well is interesting. It limits the amount of available topics though, which could result in new tropers posting in wrong threads.

Edited by Amonimus on Dec 8th 2023 at 12:09:02 PM

Agreed, that sounds like a good idea.

I've always been fond of something that means users can't just jump into On topic without posting somewhere other then on topic first

I will admit that I'm uneasy about the idea of being "grandfathered in", but it does make sense.

But if the person is going to be rude or uncivil in the U.S. thread, or in OTC, then wouldn't he also be rude and uncivil in any other thread he posts in first?

So the mods will still be called to deal with the situation in that other thread which will take time from the Wiki just the same?

Also they will have an additional task of reviewing the tropers who request to be able to post is OTC, to see if they had been positive before or not.

Edited by jawal on Dec 8th 2023 at 10:19:24 AM