|
KillHour posted:This goes back to my "be heavy handed about forcing people to make threads if they want to do this" suggestion. If you get told to shut up or make a thread about it, you should eat ramping probes for ignoring that. I think we're basically saying the same thing and loudly agreeing with each other at this point. Doctor Nutt posted:I agree with this completely, and feel like a new OP for USPOL with a solid directory of other threads and a big ol warning in the thread title to read the op (as much as I love funny topical titles) would a solid step in the right direction. Not that more granular discussions aren't welcome or possible but that there are often places more appropriate with more in depth levels of discussion in them. A lot of them are much more slowly moving and easy to keep up with as well, if you are only interested in reading about specific topics. One of the things about this forum that bums me out is that we get approximately one trillion posts in USPol per hour but a lot of more interesting threads about specific subjects are almost DOA even on the first page while we get zero content hot takes on the same subjects in USPol continuously, so if you want to talk about those subjects you can either post in one of those other threads and watch it crawl back toward page 2 oblivion or you can go try to engage in the USPol slap fight. IKs aggressively shoving back-and-forth discussions out of the megathread would at least help with that I think, although I also think that the gravitational pull of a megathread like that is so intense that there will be no way for that to work without also aggressively clamping down on the white noise and chat-thread style posting at the same time.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:One of the things about this forum that bums me out is that we get approximately one trillion posts in USPol per hour but a lot of more interesting threads about specific subjects are almost DOA even on the first page while we get zero content hot takes on the same subjects in USPol continuously, so if you want to talk about those subjects you can either post in one of those other threads and watch it crawl back toward page 2 oblivion or you can go try to engage in the USPol slap fight. IKs aggressively shoving back-and-forth discussions out of the megathread would at least help with that I think, although I also think that the gravitational pull of a megathread like that is so intense that there will be no way for that to work without also aggressively clamping down on the white noise and chat-thread style posting at the same time. I agree with this post so much that I will, in fact, post my OP about political corruption sometime before... Friday
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
eke out posted:It is funny to see how someone angrily posted a tweet by a liberal they don't like in order to complain about it, and that gets turned into "USPOL posters are saying they think this is the worst thing to happen to america ever" I mean, obviously some posters had an issue with it, seeing as it devolved into an argument that has now been dragged into here. Seems like the correct course of action would have been to just let the post pass by, if them tearing into Favreau was such a nonissue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
A few thoughts from observing how strictly moderated forums manage to maintain a high level of consistency: 1. First off, the rules need to be prominently posted somewhere and updated as they change. For example, as can be seen from the quoted tweet on the previous page, not everyone is aware of the recent rule discouraging hot takes from random Twitter nobodies. Posting a new rule on page 1824 of an 80,000 post thread means barely anyone is going to see it. Ideally they are posted above the reply box so everyone has to re-read them before they hit that post button. 2. Rules need to be detailed and specific. The more generalized a rule sounds the less likely people are going to think it applies to them. Catch-all rules are the least effective because while you might think "ah, yes, this one rule covers all situations" they usually end up being perceived the opposite way. 3. For moderation purposes it would be best if each probation referenced which specific rule # was broken. This helps reduce the perception of moderator bias and the feeling that probes are being handed out for arbitrary reasons. If you think you caught a probe simply because a mod/IK doesn't like you, you're more likely to chalk it up to the whims of capricious moderators and less likely to re-evaluate your own posting. 4. Moderation needs to be timely and aggressive. It doesn't help much if probes are handed out hours after they've already caused multi-page derails. Moderation should be used as an active, preventative, measure, not as an after-the-fact punishment. If you don't have enough mods/IKs to do this, add more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:One of the things about this forum that bums me out is that we get approximately one trillion posts in USPol per hour but a lot of more interesting threads about specific subjects are almost DOA even on the first page while we get zero content hot takes on the same subjects in USPol continuously, so if you want to talk about those subjects you can either post in one of those other threads and watch it crawl back toward page 2 oblivion or you can go try to engage in the USPol slap fight. IKs aggressively shoving back-and-forth discussions out of the megathread would at least help with that I think, although I also think that the gravitational pull of a megathread like that is so intense that there will be no way for that to work without also aggressively clamping down on the white noise and chat-thread style posting at the same time. I mean, that god-awful Marxism thread remained stickied for weeks, so I'm sure if you make a high-quality OP about your topic of choice, you can convince one of the mods to sticky it, if you're concerned about it falling off the front page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:A few thoughts from observing how strictly moderated forums manage to maintain a high level of consistency: A corollary to this would be that poo poo happens and sometimes real lives get in the way of being able to rush to the computer to mash buttons. More mods/IKs would probably help, but it would still happen, and with the exception of direct threats to self or others, a bad post is not an emergency. The best way to react if you see a lovely post that breaks rules is to report it, ignore it, and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Respect the Mods lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
e: Athanatos posted:This is not the correct thread for this. \/\/\/oops, sorry.\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:4. Moderation needs to be timely and aggressive. It doesn't help much if probes are handed out hours after they've already caused multi-page derails. Moderation should be used as an active, preventative, measure, not as an after-the-fact punishment. If you don't have enough mods/IKs to do this, add more. Doctor Nutt posted:A corollary to this would be that poo poo happens and sometimes real lives get in the way of being able to rush to the computer to mash buttons. More mods/IKs would probably help, but it would still happen, and with the exception of direct threats to self or others, a bad post is not an emergency. The best way to react if you see a lovely post that breaks rules is to report it, ignore it, and move on. I think successfully moderating USPol is going to mean mods/IKs looking at it more continuously (as much as that's even possible) and shoving people to take it to other more purpose-built threads to head off reports at the pass rather than using the buttons more harshly when reports come in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm sorry to hear you don't like that thread. I think it's excellent - the folks who made it and post in it regularly have put a lot of work into it. What don't you like about it, other than that it was stickied for a while? This is not the correct thread for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Make the top 50 posters IKs and let God sort them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Aruan posted:Make the top 50 posters IKs and let God sort them out. I kind of like the idea of a rotating IK hat to reward / punish (but let's be real - mostly punish) prolific thread posters. All the regular IKs and mods are getting black lung from having to deal with us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
you could add another 20 iks, set up a shared spreadsheet to track ramps and modnotes, and enforce every rule to the letter, and uspol would still suck poo poo. the bad posting is an emergent property of having such a high volume/concentration of posts – it just couldn't happen to the same extent if the same volume of posts was spread across a number of threads!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
What about created a Jira/Spira/Confluence and have the reports auto-generate issues which can then be flagged and categorized by a larger pool of volunteers, for example you can give all IK's basic permissions to edit and move along issues/reports, add context, like a law intern, and then flag it to a mod/admin for action? You could even recruit non-IK's, or create a special form of SA-Intern who don't have site buttons, but maybe a fancy icon, who can volunteer their time to handling a lot of the grunt work, like how its down in big law firms with regards to discovery? You'd solve the manpower issues without having to entertain potential for mischief from giving a lot of peoples badges and guns, instead all you're doing is asking them to read the post that was reported, research the surrounding context, and then modify the generated issue/report to set its priority and severity for a final decision by modmins?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Assume that anything beyond very basic modifications are beyond the current report system which is, and I must stress, just a special subforum a bot posts in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
I think you could probably setup a pipeline where SA automatically email's a report to Jira via some sort of Jira extension or widget to create a report as long as its in a relevant format. If you have access to php scripts it's probably doable although I wouldn't envy the person who is responsible for writing that spaghetti code. e: Jira even seems to support creating issues from emails
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
perhaps instead of using project management software to help moderate a web forum, the problem thread could simply be broken up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: ---Rename USPol to USNews; thread is in permanent slow mode ---Make it clear that when big breaking news happens, anyone can feel free to make a fast thread for that topic with very loose OP standards. Generally encourage people to make more threads. ---We put a big directory of threads on US affiliated topics in the OP, and people are allowed to advertise new threads there. ---Mods and IKs will monitor USNews and push conversations and arguments that last over-long into appropriate threads. ---Add a rule to USNews that any posted article or tweet should have a minimums of a sentence of two summarizing the context and what they find interesting, funny, or informative about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
proposal: lets create a gofundme to crowd source some funds to send fool of sound and maine paineframe to get six sigma certified so they can create a better, more efficient USPol. fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: don't start with slowmode, just add it in if things get especially busy and then break things out into a TVIV thread for urgent breaking events
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Aruan posted:don't start with slowmode, just add it in if things get especially busy and then break things out into a TVIV thread for urgent breaking events Slow mode is a good idea, but it's most important outside of breaking news events. Just look at what happened for the capitol attack: at first there were a bunch of people posting, and any slapfights or super-hot takes were quickly drowned out. Slow mode wasn't even really necessary, but it wouldn't have done much harm; with that much of an audience in the thread and on twitter/f5ing news sites, new updates would have been posted instantly anyway. Unless you wanted the fleeting glory of being the one who gets to post a specific tweet, no harm done. Once things started to wind down in the late evening, it turned into a couple of much smaller, angier groups (both sides, hilariously, accusing the other of being weak fascist-loving liberals). That's when slow mode would have helped put a lid on things by having people take a breather between posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: Worth a shot
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: This sounds like a good starting point. If you can adjust the minutes between posts in slow mode, I would prefer something along the lines of ~3-5 minutes though, 10 minutes is a tad too long. Otherwise, 10 minutes is probably better than going without slow mode. Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now:
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:16
|
|
|
Perhaps it was an environmental impact decision; after all, threads are a finite resource. E: I tend to agree if slow mode is going to be implemented it needs to be shorter than ten minutes. Three to five as suggested by a poster above would probably be a good starting place to calibrate, but honestly I think with all the other proposed changes I might wait to see how it goes before implementing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
Actually I think ten minutes might be an interesting way to incentivize people making new threads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
I've put in the request to the code team, but for now it's 10 minutes or nothing.Jarmak posted:Actually I think ten minutes might be an interesting way to incentivize people making new threads. This also might work out pretty well tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Actually I think ten minutes might be an interesting way to incentivize people making new threads. Honestly if 3 minutes doesn't make people want to start threads you should add a minute every day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: This sounds like a great start. Thanks for going through this process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:That's another thing. Sometimes probations are not "You are a bad person for this idea," sometimes it's more of a "chill out a while, go outside, go do something you enjoy, walk away and come back." It can seem like some personal attack, but there are points when you are deep in a discussion and it's getting out of hand, that sometimes it's best to take a break. I've used probations as that plenty of times. It doesn't mean your point wasn't valid or that you can't contribute, it just means at that point in time it was getting a bit much. The world does not end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: Sounds like a pretty good place to start with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Maybe also start a new thread while at it? 2021 and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Maybe also start a new thread while at it? 2021 and all. This would absolutely come with a thread reboot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This would absolutely come with a thread reboot. I know it's not fall still, but can we do it on the day of Biden's inauguration so we can start the new thread off on a happy note?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so with feedback, here's where I'm at right now: I don't know why people are continuously obsessed with trying and retrying and trying yet again slow mode, it is a solution to a nonexistent "problem". It leads to complaints and hard-to-follow edited replies to posts that came afterwards. Maybe lurkers who don't post often will be happy, but I'm not sure why they get a vote. Regarding tweets and comments: if the tweet in question is from a AAA reliable source and the relevance is extremely obvious and self-evident, I don't believe any sentence is really needed. (extreme example: AP tweet: "Joe Biden announces that an attack against Iran is 'imminent'" Me: "gee, what sentence should I tack onto this to explain the context?"). Same for an ultra-important individual when they tweet almost anything at all about news or politics (speaker, president, etc not just the junior senator from Wyoming) That may be a bit hard to nail down as a rule so it could just be that if you don't explain why we should care about the tweet, then you are just accepting the risk of being wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't know why people are continuously obsessed with trying and retrying and trying yet again slow mode, it is a solution to a nonexistent "problem". It leads to complaints and hard-to-follow edited replies to posts that came afterwards. Maybe lurkers who don't post often will be happy, but I'm not sure why they get a vote. Probably because those folks make up a solid majority of thread readers and have totally valid reasons for wanting to lurk and listen to ostensibly well-informed people discuss current events. Not everyone is here to  and SA is still one of the better places for civil political discussion on the internet for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't know why people are continuously obsessed with trying and retrying and trying yet again slow mode, it is a solution to a nonexistent "problem". It leads to complaints and hard-to-follow edited replies to posts that came afterwards. Maybe lurkers who don't post often will be happy, but I'm not sure why they get a vote. Eh, a large number of times the headlines tend to be very click baity and the person posting the tweet didn't read the article. There should at least be a reasonable expectation that they: a) Read the tweet, and subtweets for additional context. b) the article the tweet links to. c) Checked to see if its in the opinion section. d) That the article concretely supports the claim asserted by the headline. I don't think a single one of those "Biden mulling over [person we don't like xyzw] for position rbga" articles was correct in the end, but they spawned several pages of arguing that went no where.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 07:47
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Why exactly is it important to probate someone who is getting too involved in an argument, if they aren't being abusive or breaking rules? Sometimes people make arguments they can't back up in the heat of the moment, or say something whose implications they haven't thought through completely. That's ok. There is too much probating of wrongthink and not enough probating of dogpiles and clique behaviour. Do you have some examples of this wrongthink/dogpiles? Everytime I see someone complain about this its usually someone with an rear end in a top hat dumb take and if more then 1 person disagrees they call out "dogpile" or "echo chamber"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 08:01
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:---Rename USPol to USNews; thread is in permanent slow mode i apologize if any of this comes off as rude, i'm having a really hard time thinking clearly and i'm having extreme difficulty articulating myself politely as someone who has experience in organizing communities and discussions, this seems like a bundle of half-measures that attempts to please everyone by working in everyone's suggestions instead of taking an angle of attack to tackle the symptoms of the problems. as i see it, the first big problem is that D&D is roughly 50% US Politics and 50% Everything Else, and encouraging even more threads to be made in D&D that are US-centric is asking for Everything Else to get drowned out even harder. the second big problem is that USPol is too many things at once: chat thread, news thread, tweet dump thread, Who's The Lefter Leftist Thunderdome, and occasional animal pictures thread. this list addresses the symptoms of the issue, but not the source, and will likely cause other issues down the line. to that end, i would like to counter-propose the following:
i feel like trying to keep USPol in D&D is a mistake. There's just too much to it, there are too many users using it, and it requires too much moderation as a single thread. diluting the USPol experience into smaller and more manageable chunks is the best way to reduce moderator burnout and to keep things from spinning out of control like they love to so much these days
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Other than bullet 3- which is something they're already doing- I'm not sure what having USPol: the Subforum is going to do, other than to be the name used as invective for whatever dominant posting team comes to prominence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 08:20
|
|