A General Feedback thread

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

You appear to be arguing that the only alternative to calling the rioters "scum" etc is to be completely milquetoast about it. Frankly, that's rubbish.

If all people want to do is call people scum, they're not contributing to the debate. If they have something to contribute to the debate, the word scum is redundant.

regards,
Scofflaw

If it's all people want to do then I agree. But it's usually their description of the offenders within a longer comment.

http://news.discovery.com/human/f-bomb-swear-curse-words-biden.html
http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/62/1/dewaeleJMMD25.pdf

You can continue to argue against the fact they are strong expressive words, that cant easily be supplanted by more cerebral hifalutin phraseology

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

... and the moderator's job is to distinguish between those two posts, not just ban mentioning baton charges, is it not?

Mentioning baton charges isn't banned. Not by me anyway.

FreudianSlippers

nesf wrote: »

Mentioning baton charges isn't banned. Not by me anyway.

I was comparing to the "scumbags" logic.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it would have worked perfectly well as "this is the behaviour of criminal rioters, not protesters".
[/B]

Sorry but you are wrong. It wouldn't have worked perfectly well. It's a psychological fact that emotive language has greater impact and expressive sentiment than other cleaner descriptions.

Please provide a source to support them having comparable impact and effect

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was comparing to the "scumbags" logic.

Ah, yeah.

It's not that the mods can't distinguish between the two but that some posters see it being used in context A, don't get it's the context that makes it ok and go off and use it in context B where it's not welcome.

Monty Burnz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Monty, this isn't the Beeb. Nobody has asked you not to use "rioters", or to call them "protesters". So stop objecting to something that isn't happening here, because it's a waste of time.

But 'rioters' per se aren't always in the wrong, and lots of the scumbags in the UK may not be rioting. And presumably the rioters stop being rioters when they go home, or when they queue up to collect their dole. These are not equivalent terms.

Laminations

nesf wrote: »

Depends, the argument should be "is a baton charge reasonable here" not "I think they should be baton charged" imho.

Sorry I wasn't aware contributions needed to be in the form of a question. I was proferring an opinion that I think it's reasonable, if you disagree then feel free to retort. Your point that my opinion on baton charges adds nothing to the debate is shallow, my point invites debate

FreudianSlippers

nesf wrote: »

Ah, yeah.

It's not that the mods can't distinguish between the two but that some posters see it being used in context A, don't get it's the context that makes it ok and go off and use it in context B where it's not welcome.

Right, and isn't it the moderator's job to then punish context B?
Outright banning of a word or phrase does absolutely nothing to solve the problem here. You can see that in the London Riot thread at the moment. Use a different word with the same meaning... then you have to backtrack and say that "oh if it's used with the same intent then it's also banned".

It would seem to be moderation 101. Being naughty right? Dropping in with one word posts or with the intention of trolling is against the rules already.
Just saying "scumbag" or attempting to rile up other posters with inflammatory posts can and should be dealt with by the moderators; and if the moderators cannot keep up with the amount of work then they should be replaced or more should be added.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

Ah, yeah.

It's not that the mods can't distinguish between the two but that some posters see it being used in context A, don't get it's the context that makes it ok and go off and use it in context B where it's not welcome.

So we have a choice of unwelcome posts using terms in a context that brings down the tone of the establishment, or unwelcome censorship?

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it would have worked perfectly well as "this is the behaviour of criminal rioters, not protesters".

I re-read your post and edited mine, probably while you were posting this.

southsiderosie

Is the scumbag debate really that critical to the future of the forum?

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Right, and isn't it the moderator's job to then punish context B?
Outright banning of a word or phrase does absolutely nothing to solve the problem here. You can see that in the London Riot thread at the moment. Use a different word with the same meaning... then you have to backtrack and say that "oh if it's used with the same intent then it's also banned".

It would seem to be moderation 101. Being naughty right? Dropping in with one word posts or with the intention of trolling is against the rules already.
Just saying "scumbag" or attempting to rile up other posters with inflammatory posts can and should be dealt with by the moderators; and if the moderators cannot keep up with the amount of work then they should be replaced or more should be added.

I'm sympathetic to your view, I'd recommend PMing the mods in totality and asking for a change that way. Not all the mods might see this.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

Is the scumbag debate really that critical to the future of the forum?

Absolutely vital. If we can't settle this one, we might as well close the forum down.

Laminations

No but it is an important debate that should be had elsewhere. IMO the use of emotive language, as long as it is not being used to attack another poster, should not be discouraged.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

I'm sympathetic to your view, I'd recommend PMing the mods in totality and asking for a change that way. Not all the mods might see this.

Perhaps a poll on the board? Any change made could be reversed in the event that the level of moderation required increases significantly.

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

No but it is an important debate that should be had elsewhere. IMO the use of emotive language, as long as it is not being used to attack another poster, should not be discouraged.

You're forgetting trolling using it.

southsiderosie

Laminations wrote: »

No but it is an important debate that should be had elsewhere. IMO the use of emotive language, as long as it is not being used to attack another poster, should not be discouraged.

Yes, I agree - ELSEWHERE.

FreudianSlippers

southsiderosie wrote: »

Is the scumbag debate really that critical to the future of the forum?

I think it raises a serious issue in regards to the future usefulness of the forum actually.
If mainly contributing posters are being blanket infracted for using a word, while the examples of posts in this post are rampant, then the forum will lose good posters over something relatively silly.

nesf wrote: »

I'm sympathetic to your view, I'd recommend PMing the mods in totality and asking for a change that way. Not all the mods might see this.

I just thought that was the point of this thread in general, but perhaps I will.

FreudianSlippers

nesf wrote: »

You're forgetting trolling using it.

Yep, and that's the crux IMO. Moderators need to be able to distinguish trolling from emotional posts.

Not saying any mods here cannot do that - perhaps it's just too much work for the number of mods present. Being a mod in a Soc forum, Scofflaw is readily available as a CMod and is a very good mod (as are you) - Scofflaw and I disagree on this issue and we disagree on my infraction (and that's a matter we have discussed elsewhere). I have no ill feelings towards anyone of the mods or cmods, it's simply a disagreement regarding the rules and their implementation.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yep, and that's the crux IMO. Moderators need to be able to distinguish trolling from emotional posts.

Not saying any mods here cannot do that - perhaps it's just too much work for the number of mods present. Being a mod in a Soc forum, Scofflaw is readily available as a CMod and is a very good mod (as are you) - Scofflaw and I disagree on this issue and we disagree on my infraction (and that's a matter we have discussed elsewhere). I have no ill feelings towards anyone of the mods or cmods, it's simply a disagreement regarding the rules and their implementation.

True - we've had that one out elsewhere, and I respect your position on this. However, the ban on the word "scumbags" was, I think, rather obviously not ever intended as some kind of lexical suppression. It's actually something of a public order charge, a bit like "loitering", in that it provides something which serves as a clearly defined marker for certain kinds of circle jerks. It also allows us to spot people who don't read the posting rules before posting...

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just thought that was the point of this thread in general, but perhaps I will.

Ish. Mostly it's to gather thoughts on how we could improve the forum so they can be brought into the Politics Mods forum and discussed/implemented.

I don't want to make your argument for you in this instance, thus why I asked you to do the PM.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps a poll on the board? Any change made could be reversed in the event that the level of moderation required increases significantly.

Polls aren't how I want to see moderation policy decided on this forum. Too much room for people to take the piss.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

Polls aren't how I want to see moderation policy decided on this forum. Too much room for people to take the piss.

How so?

And what is the alternative for getting a feel for the view of posters? The poll wouldn't even have be anonymous - just a shorthand rather than everyone having to write something and some mod having to parse the whole lot into 'yay' or 'nay'.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How so?

And what is the alternative for getting a feel for the view of posters? The poll wouldn't even have be anonymous - just a shorthand rather than everyone having to write something and some mod having to parse the whole lot into 'yay' or 'nay'.

Firstly there's no way of knowing how seriously someone has considered the question in a poll. Secondly asking for feedback like this allows us very easily to see well constructed arguments against or for certain rules.

I'll happily change my mind when presented with a solid counterargument. I'm not going to do so just because a poll seems to say something.

southsiderosie

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How so?

And what is the alternative for getting a feel for the view of posters? The poll wouldn't even have be anonymous - just a shorthand rather than everyone having to write something and some mod having to parse the whole lot into 'yay' or 'nay'.

If someone isn't willing to take the 5 minutes to articulate their thoughts on the direction of the forum, then to be honest, why should they really have any say at all?

Laminations

Can a mod take this issue and the related posts to a dedicated thread?

If not, can Scofflaw please provide some evidence that his gentrified phrasing is comparable in meaning and impact to the less loquacious but more visceral taboo wording.

Monty Burnz

southsiderosie wrote: »

If someone isn't willing to take the 5 minutes to articulate their thoughts on the direction of the forum, then to be honest, why should they really have any say at all?

I'd be reasonably confident that people who are interested would take 5 minutes - but how many would be enough to take seriously, and would the mods enjoy totting up the votes?

Perhaps the 'macro' question here is whether the board is run according to what the mods want or what the posters want. I wouldn't have any problem with the former - a degree of authorship usually ends up with a better product - but then it would be good to be clear on that issue and not pretend that democracy plays a major role.

FreudianSlippers

I've sent a PM which basically contains my feelings that I've already posted on this thread.

It's not the prettiest thing ever, but I don't have all day to do a long paper. I would recommend that anyone else who feels the same way, just send off a quick PM to the mods. It can even be just a post you've made here which you feel articulates your point.

My point boils down to the fact that we have sufficient rules in place to implement the intent of the "scumbag" rule, without blanket banning words. With more moderators, or different moderators (to even temporarily replace those with external commitments) the forum could be actively moderated with discretion and guidance rather than implementation of strict rules.

Laminations

southsiderosie wrote: »

If someone isn't willing to take the 5 minutes to articulate their thoughts on the direction of the forum, then to be honest, why should they really have any say at all?

Being asked to articulate emotional responses is counter productive. You see it in consumer research all the time. People asked to verbalise their response to a new coffee product - you get meaningless words repeated that they think express the unexpressionable feelings they have about the taste - ummmm fresh, full etc.

Sometimes swear words express your feelings better than a fully cleansed cognitively appraised reworking of that feeling

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps the 'macro' question here is whether the board is run according to what the mods want or what the posters want. I wouldn't have any problem with the former - a degree of authorship usually ends up with a better product - but then it would be good to be clear on that issue and not pretend that democracy plays a major role.

It's run how the mods want with the mods asking for feedback and ideas from the users every so often. We also get directives on high on how to deal with specialist issues, like how to deal with threads on ongoing court cases and so on.

southsiderosie

Laminations wrote: »

Being asked to articulate emotional responses is counter productive. You see it in consumer research all the time. People asked to verbalise their response to a new coffee product - you get meaningless words repeated that they think express the unexpressionable feelings they have about the taste - ummmm fresh, full etc.

Sometimes swear words express your feelings better than a fully cleansed cognitively appraised reworking of that feeling

I'm talking about the poll suggestion.

That said, I think that's a ridiculous comparison. Asking someone on the spot to articulate why they may or may not like a consumer that they are just being introduced to is a completely different thing than writing a post on a discussion forum in response to a phenomena that they have presumably (hopefully!) taken the time to familiarize themselves with.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

It's run how the mods want with the mods asking for feedback and ideas from the users every so often. We also get directives on high on how to deal with specialist issues, like how to deal with threads on ongoing court cases and so on.

That's fair enough imv.

Scofflaw

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be reasonably confident that people who are interested would take 5 minutes - but how many would be enough to take seriously, and would the mods enjoy totting up the votes?

Perhaps the 'macro' question here is whether the board is run according to what the mods want or what the posters want. I wouldn't have any problem with the former - a degree of authorship usually ends up with a better product - but then it would be good to be clear on that issue and not pretend that democracy plays a major role.

I think we can largely confirm that that's the case. We don't actually have any of the necessary channels to operate the forum democratically, and a self-selecting poll isn't really a substitute. We're open to reasoned argument, and have certainly made changes on the basis of them, but at the end of the day, yes, the forum is fundamentally not capable of being run on meaningfully democratic lines, and isn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm talking about the poll suggestion.

That said, I think that's a ridiculous comparison. Asking someone on the spot to articulate why they may or may not like a consumer that they are just being introduced to is a completely different thing than writing a post on a discussion forum in response to a phenomena that they have presumably (hopefully!) taken the time to familiarize themselves with.

Well what this thread is is simply us asking "are you happy with your experiences on here or would you like to see some things changed." It's very different to a vox pop on the street.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we can largely confirm that that's the case. We don't actually have any of the necessary channels to operate the forum democratically, and a self-selecting poll isn't really a substitute. We're open to reasoned argument, and have certainly made changes on the basis of them, but at the end of the day, yes, the forum is fundamentally not capable of being run on meaningfully democratic lines.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nor has anyone ever given me an argument in favour of running a contentious and divided forum on democratic that swayed me.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Being asked to articulate emotional responses is counter productive. You see it in consumer research all the time. People asked to verbalise their response to a new coffee product - you get meaningless words repeated that they think express the unexpressionable feelings they have about the taste - ummmm fresh, full etc.

A bit like "scum", "scumbag", "subhuman", etc...

Laminations wrote: »

Sometimes swear words express your feelings better than a fully cleansed cognitively appraised reworking of that feeling

Yet we have a swear filter. It's as if there was a conspiracy to prevent people trying to race to the bottom.

amused,
Scofflaw

Laminations

And who says I agree with the swear filter? There is using profanity to emphasise an actual point and then there is just using profanity to be vulgar. Thats the whole point, the very distinction we are trying to get across here that the mods aren't recognising. Without blanket bans and swear filters, people could express themselves yet still be infracted for nonsensical swearing. You seem to be arguing that swearing is always nonsensical, thats patently untrue.

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

And who says I agree with the swear filter? There is using profanity to emphasise an actual point and then there is just using profanity to be vulgar. Thats the whole point, the very distinction we are trying to get across here that the mods aren't recognising. Without blanket bans and swear filters, people could express themselves yet still be infracted for nonsensical swearing. You seem to be arguing that swearing is always nonsensical, thats patently untrue.

You can express it clearly without vulgarity so I don't feel like it's a meaningful restriction on you.

Laminations

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm talking about the poll suggestion.

That said, I think that's a ridiculous comparison. Asking someone on the spot to articulate why they may or may not like a consumer that they are just being introduced to is a completely different thing than writing a post on a discussion forum in response to a phenomena that they have presumably (hopefully!) taken the time to familiarize themselves with.

I'm very familiar with the London riots, the antecedents etc but I'd still use the s word, cos that is the best description.

Laminations

nesf wrote: »

You can express it clearly without vulgarity so I don't feel like it's a meaningful restriction on you.

Verbosity is often trumped by the simple use of a single more apt word, I can use a hundred words to express my views on these looters, rioters and general thugs, but there is one that would better and more succinctly express my opinion of them and their behaviour.

Conciseness should be the preferred method of communicating a message

Laminations

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

Verbosity is often trumped by the simple use of a single more apt word, I can use a hundred words to express my views on these looters, rioters and general thugs, but there is one that would better and more succinctly express my opinion of them and their behaviour.

Conciseness should be the preferred method of communicating a message

You can be perfectly concise without needing vulgarity.

Laminations

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

Easy, tell them to back up what they're saying with evidence. If they don't, ask them to withdraw the point. If they don't, report the post and the mods will step in.

Laminations

nesf wrote: »

You can be perfectly concise without needing vulgarity.

The issue again is that you see swear words as merely vulgar where as I see them as having expressive functions not available in common (or less common ) language.

I think a distinction can be made between when they are used for the former vs the latter

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

The issue again is that you see swear words as merely vulgar where as I see them as having expressive functions not available in common (or less common ) language.

I think a distinction can be made between when they are used for the former vs the latter

I think they can have expressive functions, but this is a site policy not a forum policy and I'm bound to uphold site policy whether or not I agree with it. I'm merely providing counter arguments to you.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

What you're comparing there is inaccuracy with vulgarity.

Laminations wrote: »

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

I'm keeping an eye on that one - there will probably be a point where we ask that that be dropped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

We do get fairly regular complaints about this, but we pretty much never get any requests to do it at the time. As nesf says, tell them to put up or shut up, and if they won't do either, give us a call.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

So basically your feedback is that people with a different political viewpoint to yours should be banned?

What a charmer you are.

Kivaro

There is a very fine line to moderate in the Politics forum, which ranks in the top 2 of my list of fora/forums. Even though I know that we ('the users') have been told frequently that freedom of speech is not guaranteed in this private entity (aka boards), the spirit of the concept is mainly adhered to.

Extremely intelligent discussions can be found here and they can become very passionate, which is why one sometimes needs the wisdom of Solomon to moderate this forum.

My general feedback is "job well done".