How about requiring [Serious] to be added to the titles of some AH threads?

Since it's gotten so serious there, I think it would be good to visibly separate them.

It could add a more relaxed vibe to regular threads and it would be easy for mods to point to them.


AskReddit uses this system.

Beasty

There's a wider question we've been contemplating. Rather than continuing to allow "serious" current topics in AH we are considering a separate "current affairs" forum. We've had previous Feedback discussions on this as a alternative to sending stuff to Politics Cafe. That would hopefully allow a bit more of the "fun" to return to AH hopefully without needing to tag what is serious and what is not

The ball's in my court though as I agreed to work on a charter and discuss options with the mod community

Its some time since I promised this though, and thus thread is a timely reminder

I think a two-step process could be work quite well. For a month, have those threads tagged as serious and make people aware that they will be the ones moving to current affairs.

The new forum may have a better chance of high community involvement. Just a thought.

Captain Obvious

Seems like it would just be Politics Cafe without the entry requirement.

Beasty

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Seems like it would just be Politics Cafe without the entry requirement.

We had that - it didn't work

The fundamental issue is people want to use AH for serious discussion, while AH actually grew as a fun place. We now have those who want AH to return to a semblance of what it used to be, and I can fully understand that. We also have AH mods who really want it that way also, and equally don't want to have to be clamping down on "serious" discussion (I'm not saying that's the case with all AH mods, but that is not really the type of stuff they signed up as mods to)

We've had a suggestion of getting more mods in to "police" such discussion. We set up Politics Café to take some of the serious stuff away. That didn't work, as posters wanted to treat PC as they did AH, which simply did not work.

The idea behind a Current Affairs forum, which would sit outside Politics and AH (but within the Social and Fun Category), meaning there is no format of posting already established, but hopefully can work without the constraints of PC while allowing discussion of current topics to be undertaken in a more light-hearted way. I would propose it would have its own mod team with that remit That does not mean that anything goes, and we would not be able to allow defamatory content, or anything illegal, or encouraging illegal activity, but those are rules that apply site-wide already.

I don't think it would work if we demand sources for all statements, but equally suspect we would not want outright speculation of a nature that could be harmful to others, including potential viewers of/contributors to the forum

Tom Mann Centuria

How about a [bashing] prefix and you can just add religion, gender, sex, traveller etc. to it as necessary.

Captain Obvious

Will you not have the same issues that are so prevalent in AH though? Fake news, agenda spammers, rereg accounts and shills. Probably even more of an issue because the content within the forum will be exactly the kind of stuff the above are attracted to. I get that you probably want a more casual free flowing discussion of some issues but I'm not sure if that is possible without becoming a big target. How do you moderate something like that?

OldGoat

After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh and not to piss anybody off while doing so.

The first line of the above (from the AH charter) is to me the most important thing in the charter. AH is likened to a pub and if you try to separate conversations to the serious and the nonsensical then that would be a dull pub. The joy of the place was to have a discussion interrupted by a joke and then for the conversation to continue on after. Telling people that they can only post 'serious' comments in a 'serious' thread is going to stifle the glory of the quips, bon mots and throwaways that are part and parcel of any pub discussion.

Beasty

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Will you not have the same issues that are so prevalent in AH though? Fake news, agenda spammers, rereg accounts and shills. Probably even more of an issue because the content within the forum will be exactly the kind of stuff the above are attracted to. I get that you probably want a more casual free flowing discussion of some issues but I'm not sure if that is possible without becoming a big target. How do you moderate something like that?

That's probably why PC has failed. I guess though one thing I would like to give a go is making the modding lighter than we have seen in PC. We can deal with re-regs, but sometimes they do start threads that gather momentum. We need to recognise that there are more extreme views out there (at each end of the various spectra). If posters want to contribute in the forum they would need to recognise that. Shouting down opposition to someone's view is certainly not conducive to debate. However we need to recognise people can be very passionate about certain topics. We need to facilitate people getting their points across, but not in a way that disrupts the forum and/or site. If posters are getting in arguments across the forum, then perhaps the forum is not for them. That does not require an access process, but does require the removal of posting privileges to disruptive posters. That then starts to smack of over-modding to some, but certainly not all. Equally so long as posters are warned that their behaviour is leading up to a potential ban, hopefully they will adjust their style, but if not they can then have no complaints if they are banned. To make it work though, we would need everyone to understand where lines will be drawn, either though the charter or active mod intervention or more likely both. There will certainly be grey areas and posters will need to try and avoid getting into them to avoid trouble.

I personally think it would take some time to allow such a forum to bed-in, and the direction of travel may vary as we strive to get the right balance. However it's something a lot of people have been requesting for some time, and I think we should give it a final go.

Captain Obvious

Beasty wrote: »

That's probably why PC has failed. I guess though one thing I would like to give a go is making the modding lighter than we have seen in PC. We can deal with re-regs, but sometimes they do start threads that gather momentum. We need to recognise that there are more extreme views out there (at each end of the various spectra). If posters want to contribute in the forum they would need to recognise that. Shouting down opposition to someone's view is certainly not conducive to debate. However we need to recognise people can be very passionate about certain topics. We need to facilitate people getting their points across, but not in a way that disrupts the forum and/or site. If posters are getting in arguments across the forum, then perhaps the forum is not for them. That does not require an access process, but does require the removal of posting privileges to disruptive posters. That then starts to smack of over-modding to some, but certainly not all. Equally so long as posters are warned that their behaviour is leading up to a potential ban, hopefully they will adjust their style, but if not they can then have no complaints if they are banned. To make it work though, we would need everyone to understand where lines will be drawn, either though the charter or active mod intervention or more likely both. There will certainly be grey areas and posters will need to try and avoid getting into them to avoid trouble.

I personally think it would take some time to allow such a forum to bed-in, and the direction of travel may vary as we strive to get the right balance. However it's something a lot of people have been requesting for some time, and I think we should give it a final go.

Will this be replacing the Politics Cafe?


I'd suggest you come down hard on Fake News. By "fake news" I mean "deliberate, agenda driven misrepresentation of actual events or fabrication of non existent events." We've seen how destructive it has become across Europe and the US. It completely distorts proper discussion and is generally used to polarise groups.


I also think it would be worth considering offering moderators separate user accounts from which to moderate to avoid the perception of bias and allow moderators to engage freely in threads in the forum.

OldGoat

OldGoat wrote: »

The first line of the above (from the AH charter) is to me the most important thing in the charter. AH is likened to a pub and if you try to separate conversations to the serious and the nonsensical then that would be a dull pub. The joy of the place was to have a discussion interrupted by a joke and then for the conversation to continue on after. Telling people that they can only post 'serious' comments in a 'serious' thread is going to stifle the glory of the quips, bon mots and throwaways that are part and parcel of any pub discussion.

That wasn't my intent. It was meant to work the exact opposite, where serious stuff stays in serious threads, but in them, people can post as they do now.

dulpit

After Hours has become a cesspool that I actively avoid, so any attempt to clear it up would be greatly appreciated. I would prefer a separate forum for people to bash travellers/homeless/LGBT/feminists/SJWs/Snowflakes/etc rather than tagging their posts with [serious].

If the new forum/new rules could avoid ongoing threads about individuals who can't defend themselves (e.g. the thread near top of AH right now with >3,000 posts), that'd be sweet too.

dulpit

dulpit wrote: »

After Hours has become a cesspool that I actively avoid, so any attempt to clear it up would be greatly appreciated. I would prefer a separate forum for people to bash travellers/homeless/LGBT/feminists/SJWs/Snowflakes/etc rather than tagging their posts with [serious].

If the new forum/new rules could avoid ongoing threads about individuals who can't defend themselves (e.g. the thread near top of AH right now with >3,000 posts), that'd be sweet too.

AH clearly isn't conducive to your leanings, perhaps you would be best to avoid it altogether. Moreover, your tone is passive aggressive and doesn't lend your argument credibility.

kneemos

dulpit wrote: »

After Hours has become a cesspool that I actively avoid, so any attempt to clear it up would be greatly appreciated. I would prefer a separate forum for people to bash travellers/homeless/LGBT/feminists/SJWs/Snowflakes/etc rather than tagging their posts with [serious].

If the new forum/new rules could avoid ongoing threads about individuals who can't defend themselves (e.g. the thread near top of AH right now with >3,000 posts), that'd be sweet too.

Throw in threads on retrying court cases as well

dulpit

Deleted User wrote: »

AH clearly isn't conducive to your leanings, perhaps you would be best to avoid it altogether. Moreover, your tone is passive aggressive and doesn't lend your argument credibility.

I think the issue is that AH has "leanings". It used be a spot for general pisstaking and nonsense, but it's become pseudo-political in the last few years, and the moderation has not clamped down on this. It's a pity, there's no alternative within boards that mirrors the AH of say 2010 or so

Sad Professor

Isn't "serious" threads what the rest of the site is supposed to be for? Whatever happened to moving threads out of AH to to a more suitable and "serious" forum? It seems like everything and anything can be discussed in AH these days.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Isn't "serious" threads what the rest of the site is supposed to be for? Whatever happened to moving threads out of AH to to a more suitable and "serious" forum? It seems like everything and anything can be discussed in AH these days.

When people don't follow them, they continue the same stuff in AH regardless.

OldGoat

Sad Professor wrote: »

Isn't "serious" threads what the rest of the site is supposed to be for? Whatever happened to moving threads out of AH to to a more suitable and "serious" forum? It seems like everything and anything can be discussed in AH these days.

Deleted User wrote: »

When people don't follow them, they continue the same stuff in AH regardless.

It's the level of permissible response in different fora that makes the difference. In AH a poster can leave a flippant response to a political thread that would get them banned from Politics. So, for a not so reverent discussion on a political theme AH needs political threads.
The same reasoning should be applied to football threads (and trust me, I'm gagging at having to say that AH should have football threads). Or religious threads, or Lgbtq, or Smoking, or any other topic that usually resides in a more restricted and tailored fora.
AH gives us the ability to drop a "Yore Ma is a traveller immigrant who cycles to mass." onto threads that the other forums deny us. Is this not the reason for the existence of AH in the first place?

Mr. CooL ICE

OldGoat wrote: »

It's the level of permissible response in different fora that makes the difference. In AH a poster can leave a flippant response to a political thread that would get them banned from Politics. So, for a not so reverent discussion on a political theme AH needs political threads.
The same reasoning should be applied to football threads (and trust me, I'm gagging at having to say that AH should have football threads). Or religious threads, or Lgbtq, or Smoking, or any other topic that usually resides in a more restricted and tailored fora.
AH gives us the ability to drop a "Yore Ma is a traveller immigrant who cycles to mass." onto threads that the other forums deny us. Is this not the reason for the existence of AH in the first place?

Fcuk no. Absolutely not.

I'm against political threads in AH for many, many reasons, but we make exceptions for threads that would be considered highly topical. But allowing all and any political threads in AH? Disaster waiting to happen. People simply won't make lighthearted jibes at each other. Arguments between posters spill over from Politics/PC into AH when a similar topic is open in AH and they let out what they don't get away with in Politics. So you'd have posters having the same argument, spread across 2-3 different forums and constantly insulting whilst simultaneously reporting each other.

OldGoat

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Fcuk no. Absolutely not.

I'm against political threads in AH for many, many reasons, but we make exceptions for threads that would be considered highly topical. But allowing all and any political threads in AH? Disaster waiting to happen. People simply won't make lighthearted jibes at each other. Arguments between posters spill over from Politics/PC into AH when a similar topic is open in AH and they let out what they don't get away with in Politics. So you'd have posters having the same argument, spread across 2-3 different forums and constantly insulting whilst simultaneously reporting each other.

"People simply won't make lighthearted jibes at each other."
So the problem is the posters and not AH. It was ever thus.

For me the idea of adding even more restrictions to a forum is what drives the original user base away and the original user base are what made the forum work in the first place.
I appreciate that forums move on and that things change but I feel that we are tripping ourselves up by stifling that which made the place popular in the first instance.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sad Professor wrote: »

Isn't "serious" threads what the rest of the site is supposed to be for?

Let's say I want to participate in a fast-moving discussion on a serious topic without being mobbed by a clique or shut down because of my views. Where do I go?

Politically correct groupthink dominates the Politics forum. Try saying anything remotely positive about the likes of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, and wait for the 25-on-1 mobbing to begin. Politics Cafe? The crackdown and reboot killed that forum. It now gets just a handful of new posts per day.

Humanities? It's been a wasteland for years. A poster started this thread on November 17th, but it's now nearly a month later and nobody has responded. That's what "debate" looks like in Humanities. Economics? Philosophy? Those are niche forums that only occasionally spawn new threads or discussions.

People post "serious" threads in AH for two main reasons: (1) that forum has greater tolerance for a broader set of social and political views, and (2) an actual posting community exists there.

The combination of those two factors simply doesn't exist elsewhere else on Boards. If it did, "serious" posters would move there.

Captain Obvious

Zoey Obnoxious Garter wrote: »

Let's say I want to participate in a fast-moving discussion on a serious topic without being mobbed by a clique or shut down because of my views. Where do I go?

Politically correct groupthink dominates the Politics forum. Try saying anything remotely positive about the likes of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, and wait for the 25-on-1 mobbing to begin. Politics Cafe? The crackdown and reboot killed that forum. It now gets just a handful of new posts per day.

Humanities? It's been a wasteland for years. A poster started this thread on November 17th, but it's now nearly a month later and nobody has responded. That's what "debate" looks like in Humanities. Economics? Philosophy? Those are niche forums that only occasionally spawn new threads or discussions.

People post "serious" threads in AH for two main reasons: (1) that forum has greater tolerance for a broader set of social and political views, and (2) an actual posting community exists there.

The combination of those two factors simply doesn't exist elsewhere else on Boards. If it did, "serious" posters would move there.

I mean, what possible positive thing could there be to say about Boris Johnson? I don't think it's fair to blame Boards, a particular forum or the posters because you have an extremely unpopular opinion and can't get support for it. The reason you don't have many pro Trump or Brexit supporters in Politics is because they are required to use facts. The reason you get more support in AH is because that same obligation is not there. The truth can be stretched or warped more easily.

osarusan

My own opinion is that some of the people who want such 'serious topic' threads kept in AH do so because they want to rant and bleat and talk utter groundless shyte about these serious topics and never have to back any of it up, and it's only in AH that they'll be allowed do that.

Sad Professor

People always wanted to post everything in AH because of the increased traffic and more relaxed modding. This was true long before AH became the de facto politics and current affairs forum - which is a fairly recent phenomenon btw. Allowing it is all well and good but it pulls traffic from the rest of the site. Traffic which, yes, in many cases is either not welcome or unwilling to go to other forums, which i assume is why efforts in the past to shift that traffic faltered. But simply allowing everything and anything in AH isn't a solution either.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

As a snapshot, I'd say right now it's about 50/50 when it comes to serious vs. irreverent topics on the front page of AH. People can discuss everything from a gun attack in Strasbourg to trivial things that annoy them. There's a lot of variety. Threads move rapidly on and off the front page. I'm not really seeing a problem with this personally.

kneemos

Might end up with two dead forums.

Canis Lupus

It's a nice idea but at the same time I like it as it is.

I think in general, serious issues are discussed seriously. There's some messing for sure but if the topic merits it then the users and mods tend to get everything on track.

I don't agree with a current issues forum. As above it'll be politics cafe lite which will be dull and ignored.

jackofalltrades

The appeal of AH for me is that there's a mix of serious and non-serious threads. A bit like the frontpage on most other news sites.
It's a great place to discuss current topical issues with people in a more relaxed "pub like" setting.
Rather than having to engage in a mutliquoting war of attrition with the regulars in the Politics forum.
Moving these threads to another forum would just create another Politics Cafe and people wouldn't follow the threads there.
I think the forum can exist with both types of threads, but that it takes work to find the right balance.
I think some posters want the forum to return to it's hayday, but the Internet has changed and I just can't see that happening.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It's a nice idea but at the same time I like it as it is.

I think in general, serious issues are discussed seriously. There's some messing for sure but if the topic merits it then the users and mods tend to get everything on track.

I don't agree with a current issues forum. As above it'll be politics cafe lite which will be dull and ignored.

I think so too. You see people saying things like “I can’t believe you posted something so serious in AH” or “That’ll never be discussed properly here” but from my observations, the jokey stuff tends to just be on the first page or so and then the thread settles down. I’ve never bought the idea that frequent AH users are unable to discuss serious topics.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Will this be replacing the Politics Cafe?


I'd suggest you come down hard on Fake News. By "fake news" I mean "deliberate, agenda driven misrepresentation of actual events or fabrication of non existent events." We've seen how destructive it has become across Europe and the US. It completely distorts proper discussion and is generally used to polarise groups.


I also think it would be worth considering offering moderators separate user accounts from which to moderate to avoid the perception of bias and allow moderators to engage freely in threads in the forum.

I think that’s a bad idea. That way a moderator could enthusiastically take part in a discussion and log out, then log in as a moderator and card or ban someone they disagree with. It could be abused.

AFAIK, if a mod takes part in a thread with gusto, the mod etiquette is that they refrain from modding in that thread. I think that’s better. It’s much more transparent then mods being given “civilian” accounts. It would be obvious to all if a mod took the hump under their mod account and started actioning other forum members. Yes, if they had a civilian account, other mods might still pick up on it. But the mods can’t be everywhere and really rely on forum members to report things they notice.

Captain Obvious

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think that’s a bad idea. That way a moderator could enthusiastically take part in a discussion and log out, then log in as a moderator and card or ban someone they disagree with. It could be abused.

AFAIK, if a mod takes part in a thread with gusto, the mod etiquette is that they refrain from modding in that thread. I think that’s better. It’s much more transparent then mods being given “civilian” accounts. It would be obvious to all if a mod took the hump under their mod account and started actioning other forum members. Yes, if they had a civilian account, other mods might still pick up on it. But the mods can’t be everywhere and really rely on forum members to report things they notice.

People regularly claim bias anyway. Users can still notice a pattern of a particular moderator from their actions and the CMods will notice if a particular mod is being accused more often and will know the accusation is based solely on their moderator actions.