Ranking
Original Post
[SURVEY] What should the Discussion board be?
Moving forward, we're picking up our game. We're going to make this board active and inviting.

-------------------------------------------

OK, we're going to diagnose the current problems that are holding us back.

1. What are some structural (very core) problems with the Discussion board?

2. What are some lesser problems with the board you see?

3. What are we doing well?

Finally, if you want to, tell us some changes you would make to make the Discussion board to make it more active and inviting?
Last edited by Ele; Jun 9, 2015 at 09:32 AM.
You do not need to change the discussion board at all. It does not need to be active or inviting, the board is already relatively active, people post in it daily, just not every single hour like the other threads. The board itself is fine, each discussion can been seen as a productive discussion, and if a discussion is led astray then the board moderators will warn people to get back on topic, and eventually close the thread if it causes problems. The only thing I can think of that might need a bit of improving is the base thread material. Some things shouldn't be put up for discussion in the first place, and you need to be able to look at a thread and say from the start "This will not lead anywhere." But other than that, the discussion board is fine. If you really want the board to be active, you'd have to degrade the quality of the board to attract the players who don't bother to form a valid argument.
Last edited by Valterain1; Mar 24, 2015 at 02:32 AM.
Valterain1 was defeated by hermaphrodite on Oct 17, 2015.
What are some structural (very core) problems with the Discussion board?:
There aren't many, but what comes to mind is certain people who to tend to get carried away a bit. It's obvious that some people on the forum, especially on the discussion board, have it out for each other, won't name names, but like valterain1 said, moderators eventually will solve the issue so it's not too big of an issue. But that's another thing, I've noticed that some moderators will be a bit quick to close a thread instead of simply removing any irrelevant or annoying posts. Maybe threads should be given more of a chance? Other than those two issues, I can't really think of anything else that's particularly problematic...

What are we doing well?:
Recently, I've noticed that newcomers to the discussion board are being given more of a chance in threads which is cool to see, as it gives topics more angles and perspectives.
Covered what I see as the major issues in this post already. Most were targeted towards a more formal debate-focused setup but all should be adjustable to general Discussion.

"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
Debate format does not work, anyone who was part of the debate subforum knows this. To reply to hanz0's points;

1. There's nothing you can do about emotionally charged posts. Playing devil's advocate is extremely effective at keeping threads open, but even if someone knows they are wrong, they will just say "I don't care".

Banning people from attacking others has not been enforced before, which leads to some humorous situations where some people accuse others of insulting them to try and bait the ban/close. Some people identify too strongly with their argument so if you call their argument nonsense they take that as a personal attack. You can't stop that.

2. That's not a problem to me. If everyone knew everything there'd be no point in discussing anything. The best threads are when people are asking questions and sharing information - you know, discussing - instead of just saying "WOW YOU ARE SO DUMB HOW CAN SOMEONE BE THIS DUMB". Something you are often guilty of hanz0... Just look at your sig, how is that acceptable?

On the same note, banning drive by posting was a pointless addition to the rules. It's gone now, but it's spirit lives on in rule E.

3. Unsupported opinions are not a problem to me. The vast majority of my posts are trying to find out why someone holds that opinion, that's part of discussion too. Each post need not be a standalone thesis, this is not a journal. If someone makes a post that you don't see the logic behind you should reply and inquire - and yes, this means you shouldn't edit their post and slam a huge mod message saying "I don't agree with this, post citations".

4. The main problem with this sub is over-moderation (and it always has been). Threads are constantly closed on the whim of lmods, and occasionally an smod who happens to pass by and dislike the thread. Just because 1 user is being stubborn is not a reason to close a thread. People are always free to not reply. If either user feels like the other are running in circles, they could just stop responding - I often do this. Don't limit threads to the first handful of users who post.


So how to fix? There needs to be a rework of the rules, and hidden rules too. Whoever made the sub rules clearly has not read the global rules for one thing - rules A,B,C,F,G can all be abolished for example.

Of the remaining rules, D is completely pointless, it was never enforced and is practically impossible. If you want a citation, ask for it in the thread or in conjunction with rule E, research it yourself. Rule E itself is quite pointless and just acts as a barrier for new posters. I've not seen this rule enforced in any meaningful way other than to ban any user who disagrees with the smod who is posting in the thread. I don't think it's a problem at all, if you want to reply then reply, if not then don't. Also remove several of the hidden rules (for example the ban on discussion of news and current events, or of the forum itself).

May as well briefly talk about the moderator actions; A is pointless to list, B shouldn't happen, C isn't really a problem, B isn't something lmods can actually do anyway, F no shit. Oh yeah, and mods shouldn't be editing posts to express their opinions on the topic, they should post. I don't really give a shit if you're an lmod or an admin, don't edit people's posts if it's not related to actual staff duties. (look at this shit hanz0, if you want to discuss it open the thread and discuss it........................................ I really didn't have to go far to find an example)

Discussion reform should be in conjunction with an offtopic/rapid threads reform. Rapid threads should remain as it is, a place for asking quick questions. Offtopic should be for threads that don't have enough content for discussion (and IMO you shouldn't ban chat/games/user/etc threads). Discussion should be for all threads that otherwise have no home.

Trying to move discussion back into the realms of debate is a terrible idea, I can't express that enough. It doesn't work, and the majority of users dislike it. You are just going to create problems for yourself. Less moderation leads to more discussion in every single thread.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
My points were originally for the debate organization which is why they probably seem excessive or whatever to you. As I said, they could be adjusted to general discussion. Posted right after I got home from work so I wasn't in the best state to be figuring out the adjustments at that point.

Please note that I'm not advocating "DELETE ANY POST THAT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THESE STANDARDS". These are guidelines and things that I think should exist for a good discussion to happen, and are all things that can organically arise if a good poster encourages them to. They do NOT need to exist in every single post immediately.

1. is fair though I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done. If someone's blatantly unable to separate the arguments from the people making the arguments then they ought to be warned. That sort of thing kills discussions because it degenerates into personal attacks very quickly.

2. I think you misread my point there. I don't expect people to understand everything about a subject, just the really really really really fundamental basics, before they start asserting opinions. So in a thread about evolution I'd hope that the people discussing know (or try to find out), say, that acquired traits aren't heritable, what a theory is in science, that sort of thing. Nor am I advocating the shaming of questions - if the people in my sig-threads had asked for clarification and been willing to listen to the answers then those threads would have gone a different direction entirely. The first thread I actually did try to correct peoples' misconceptions for a while, and I don't even think I was that harsh about it. I tried, Gorman. I really tried.

3. So going back and reading this one I realize that it may have been more focused on citations than I intended. While in the context of a pure debate being able to cite your sources is really important, for general discussion (and what I had in mind when I wrote that) what's important is - as you've said - explaining why you think what you think. See:
Originally Posted by emphasis added
Convince us that your ideas are worth considering - that can be with facts and evidence or with some good solid logic, depending on the topic at hand. There is a big difference between "Well in my opinion, X." and "Based on A, B and C, I believe X."

Also, when I said this:
Originally Posted by hanz0
I don't think the solution is to turn every post into a research paper full of citations and footnotes, but at the very least you should be prepared to cite sources for major/controversial points

I think for gendisc (got bored of typing it all out, decided to come up with a cool Newspeak-esque name) it's pretty translatable into this:
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If someone makes a post that you don't see the logic behind you should reply and inquire - and yes, this means you shouldn't edit their post and slam a huge mod message saying "I don't agree with this, post citations"

4. Again one of the more pure debate-only points. Though I do think there are threads that peter out because everyone (not just one person) ends up saying the same thing over and over, a better solution for gendisc would be for someone - whether mod or just a good poster - to attempt to guide the discussion towards a different facet of the topic.

In terms of the rules:
As I said in my fancy bold statement at the beginning of my post, I'd agree that the current rules would better be described as guidelines and probably don't need to be enforced as fervently as they tend to be.

D and E fall under what we said about points 2 and 3: posts do not need to be academic papers, but discussion should encourage people to explain why they think what they think. I think people should understand the bare minimum needed to talk about a topic before jumping in and arguing opinions about it, but that doesn't preclude them asking questions in a thread to clarify their knowledge.

Moderator actions:
A bla bla whatever.
B and C See my point 4. There's almost always different facets of a topic to discuss. Threads with real discussion topics should really only be closed if the discussion has gotten so toxic as to prevent legitimate discussion (and in those cases, it should be made clear that people wanting to continue a legitimate discussion are free to recreate the thread). Possibly also threads where bad discussion ("I HAVE AN OPINION AND YOU CAN'T DISAGREE WITH IT", "i too think racism/sexism/genocide is bad" circlejerks, OP doesn't want people to disagree [can't find the thread I'm thinking of here, will find it eventually because it was really weird and deserves to be remembered] etc. come to mind) has progressed to the point where it'd be easier to simply recreate the thread. In terms of the dress thread, the thread had already been closed and the OP had asked for information on the science behind it.

"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Debate format does not work, anyone who was part of the debate subforum knows this. To reply to hanz0's points"WOW YOU ARE SO DUMB HOW CAN SOMEONE BE THIS DUMB". Something you are often guilty of hanz0... Just look at your sig, how is that acceptable?

Lets not focus on telling Hanz0 he is wrong please, this thread is for problems with the discussion forum in particular, if you have a problem with Hanz0 which you think is worth addressing properly try writing a complaint in the appropriate sub-forum (not that this sort of complain is serious enough to put there, but you get the idea, problems with Hanz0 are not problems with the discussion forum, PM him or something if you have not already done so.)

The vast majority of my posts are trying to find out why someone holds that opinion, that's part of discussion too. Each post need not be a standalone thesis, this is not a journal. If someone makes a post that you don't see the logic behind you should reply and inquire - and yes, this means you shouldn't edit their post and slam a huge mod message saying "I don't agree with this, post citations".

On this subject, Ele recently changed the rules to allow one line posts asking for further explanation of posts, not sure if that helps much though...

4. The main problem with this sub is over-moderation (and it always has been). Threads are constantly closed on the whim of lmods, and occasionally an smod who happens to pass by and dislike the thread.

I haven't seen any threads closed on a whim by an Lmod recently. While I was sceptical of Ele closing the racism thread, he provided well thought through and mostly conclusive reasoning as to why he did it. The amount of moderation you see is why there are two separate sections for "off-topic" and "discussion". Just because 1 user is being stubborn is not a reason to close a thread.
If either user feels like the other are running in circles, they could just stop responding - I often do this. Don't limit threads to the first handful of users who post.

If a thread starts repeating itself then it tends to stop being a discussion since no points are being discussed, it is just opinions with very little progression. Nevertheless, reducing the amount of moderation is something we (Ele and me) have talked about in the past, I think that as long as moderators remember that their duty is to the members of the forum rather than to the quality of the board itself then they will do fine, more often than not this is the case.


Whoever made the sub rules clearly has not read the global rules for one thing - rules A,B,C,F,G can all be abolished for example.

Although a lot of the rules stated for discussion are the same as the general forum rules, they are described in more detail (useless posts have been defined in 4 bullet points rather than one line for example). Furthermore, by describing the general rules we don't have to rely on people knowing how links work or being bothered to read the general rules. Rule F is pretty important, not sure why you think it should be abolished.

May as well briefly talk about the moderator actions; A is pointless to list

I'm not sure point A is as obvious to new users as it is to someone who has been on this forum for years such as yourself. We tell people what we are going to do to try to stop them complaining when we do it, and people do sometimes have problems with us moving their thread so it is a necessary thing to say.
B shouldn't happen

there are only so many threads we can moderate at once, if threads aren't closed eventually then the board can start to turn into a bit of a mess.
C isn't really a problem

If it isn't a discussion anymore (which requires some degree of criticism) then it doesn't belong in the discussion thread.
B isn't something lmods can actually do anyway

did you mean D? If so then it doesn't matter if it is just Lmods, otherwise fair enough.
F no shit.

Did you mean G? If so then: It's not always as obvious to new members as it is to experienced members such as yourself. It is unlikely that experienced members will have so many questions so this is directed very much to newbies.
Oh yeah, and mods shouldn't be editing posts to express their opinions on the topic, they should post. I don't really give a shit if you're an lmod or an admin, don't edit people's posts if it's not related to actual staff duties.

I feel like this isn't abused as much as you imply.
(look at this shit hanz0, if you want to discuss it open the thread and discuss it........................................ I really didn't have to go far to find an example)

Did you read the thread, the thread poster literally asked: "anyway, if anyone knows the science behind this, please tell me because I am honestly confused about it." and I'm pretty sure he didn't edit anyone's post. He didn't want to discuss it since there was nothing to discuss, he was just being useful.

Less moderation leads to more discussion in every single thread.

Often unmoderated discussions cease to be discussions after a while.

I realise that in the time it took me to write this (since it wasn't written in one go) Hanz0 has probably responded but hopefully we cover different points.

Thanks for your cooperation.
-----
Oh yeah, and personal digs are problematic because they can dissuade people from returning to the board. We just want people to be nice to each other.
Last edited by Zelda; Mar 24, 2015 at 04:51 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Okay, so, I'd like to think I have some experience with how the discussion board works.

So, here's something I thought would be very beneficial to discussion:
Anonymous posting(to everyone but the moderators obviously). It would completely take care of bullshitters, but it would also allow people to post a bit more freely about what they actually think.

As for moderation, moderators should try to facilitate discussion through controlling topics of discussion.

I think discussion is fine as it is, and it's never really going to be incredibly active, just due to the nature of it and the nature of the forums. These aren't forums dedicated to discussing world events or issues, so overmoderating can become an issue.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
So, here's something I thought would be very beneficial to discussion:
Anonymous posting(to everyone but the moderators obviously). It would completely take care of bullshitters, but it would also allow people to post a bit more freely about what they actually think.

I feel like this isn't the place for this sort of suggestion. This thread (I think) is for discussion things we, as moderators, can change. This suggestion seems a little drastic for this thread and might do better if you made a thread for it in the SandI section as an improvement for more than one board.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I feel like this isn't the place for this sort of suggestion. This thread (I think) is for discussion things we, as moderators, can change. This suggestion seems a little drastic for this thread and might do better if you made a thread for it in the SandI section as an improvement for more than one board.

Oh boy.

Do I have to explain to you why this belongs in this thread, or are you going to figure it out after reading the main post again?

NUDGE NUDGE WINK WINK

Hoss.