Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Moderation
In this forum, the only moderation we do is for grammar and spelling. The reason we do this is not only because we don't want to become dens of trash like the Penny Arcade or GameFAQs forums. It is because we think that if people take the time to check their posts for grammar and spelling, that they will only post something they have thought about more than once. It reduces quick reactionary pointless posts, and encourages longer well thought out posts.
Well, this works to some extent, but it's not perfect. People still make useless posts like just quoting and writing QFT! People also frequently post questions that can be answered by a quick Google search. And people also post without carefully reading all that has come before.
I know as well as anyone that when a thread gets long, it becomes very difficult to read all of it and catch up. Yet, you might have something to say pertaining to the discussion, or it's current tangent. Doing so, however, can often lead to looking stupid. You will often end up writing a post that might be high quality but entirely redundant. You did a good job, but it was a waste of time. Reinventing the wheel is a waste of time, except as a learning exercise.
Every moderation system that exists is based on writing. It judges the content of what someone has written as good or bad. My idea is to make a system that is based on reading as well. It will punish people who post without reading and fully comprehending prior posts. It will punish for asking questions about what has been answered, or can be answered by Google. It will reward for adding to a discussion instead of just extending and retreading it.
How this will work? Who knows. Specifics always come after ideas. But I think the root idea of somehow moderating based on reading has merit. If implemented properly I think it can go a long way towards creating a forum that contains fewer reactionary and inflammatory posts, and more deep, useful, and thoughtful discussion.
Well, this works to some extent, but it's not perfect. People still make useless posts like just quoting and writing QFT! People also frequently post questions that can be answered by a quick Google search. And people also post without carefully reading all that has come before.
I know as well as anyone that when a thread gets long, it becomes very difficult to read all of it and catch up. Yet, you might have something to say pertaining to the discussion, or it's current tangent. Doing so, however, can often lead to looking stupid. You will often end up writing a post that might be high quality but entirely redundant. You did a good job, but it was a waste of time. Reinventing the wheel is a waste of time, except as a learning exercise.
Every moderation system that exists is based on writing. It judges the content of what someone has written as good or bad. My idea is to make a system that is based on reading as well. It will punish people who post without reading and fully comprehending prior posts. It will punish for asking questions about what has been answered, or can be answered by Google. It will reward for adding to a discussion instead of just extending and retreading it.
How this will work? Who knows. Specifics always come after ideas. But I think the root idea of somehow moderating based on reading has merit. If implemented properly I think it can go a long way towards creating a forum that contains fewer reactionary and inflammatory posts, and more deep, useful, and thoughtful discussion.
Comments
Unfortunately, it's often used when someone gives a differing opinion. So instead of it being used to slap the wrists of people who post incorrectly, it can be used to hurt people who say "Ghey marriage is teh wrong!" or something.
I'm not sure if moderating these sorts of posts is entirely necessary to begin with, as this is already one of the better forums I've come across. The whole thing with grammar and spelling has become a self-enforced standard here, more so than an authoritatively enforced one (although still occasionally enforced). Penalizing people for not reading threads/previous posts or asking simplistic questions can become this also, with regular members linking people to Google or pointing out their post is redundant etc.
My knee-jerk reaction to this is "...I don't know ", but I know you have a high standard for this forum. I just don't think you need to worry about it becoming the same as Penny Arcades forum any time soon.
I agree that it's irritating when people just post and don't seem to be "joining" the discussion so much as stepping in and blurting something that has already been said and is actively being discussed. However, I'm pretty sure that doing that once in awhile does not mean that the person is illiterate or should be banned. So the question is how would be implement moderation that is appropriately...uh...moderate?
The system proposed would make this a much duller board.
I look at a rule like this kind of like taking your shoes off at the airport. It's just going to annoy and inconvenience everyone to stop a couple bad people. Since a bomb on a plane is a lot more dangerous than a bad forum post I don't think this is really necessary.
EDIT: As cool as a "statue of limitations" might look, I meant "statute."
People reiterating other people's points serves to create a sense of community, and to further emphasize a certain point. If two people disagree with each other, they have a back-and-forth argument; if ten people all echo the same sentiment, it becomes a different experience. Rather than being a personal disagreement, such a discussion becomes a duel between different ideologies, and such things are always worthwhile to read, at least in my opinion.
While it is sometimes annoying to have someone pop in and repeat something that's already been said, it doesn't necessarily detract from anything. If seeing the same point posted again bothers you, maybe you should just not let it get to you.
Personally, I'd say that the enforcement of the spelling and grammar has done quite a bit to raise the overall quality of posting on this board. You could make it more quality by making it private and only allowing a select group to post, but that's, well, a bit of an elitist circle-jerk setup. The whole point of a forum is to get wide and varied opinions on things; that generally means that, along with thoughtful and intelligent posts, you're going to see some crap. The crap often helps the really good posts stand out that much more.
You could put up a sort of "general guidelines for posting" wherein you let members know that they should, generally, be trying to contribute. The only real way to weed out crap posters would be to observe a member's posting habits and discern their posting habits; then, you can tell them what they're consistently doing wrong and give them an opportunity to correct it.
In summation, I wouldn't put any sort of hard and fast rules on the actual "utility" of posts; rather, have a statement that serves to remind members to actually contribute to a discussion, and have a more subjective sort of moderation for anyone that seems to be consistently posting crap. Enforce the spelling and grammar rules strictly alongside this policy.
With that said, I certainly could use less of the "QFT" and whatever the latest trendy lingo is, though, as I feel that that falls under the banner of being annoying.
There are certain threads that call for a degree of levity, and others that require a more academic approach. The trick is finding a moderation tool that knows which is which. It's already possible to assign categories to a thread when starting it; perhaps the author could have a second option to flag the thread as care-free or serious. Then a bot or human moderator could use their discernment inside those parameters.
It seems a few people in here are using the strict grammar policy to stroke their own egos by enforcing it. I suggest a new warning banner that reads ''I am on probation until i learn how to interact with others''.
Edit: Damn, Scott beat me to it. I hadn't reloaded the page from earlier.
I didn't think this merited its own thread, and didn't know where else to put it where it would be seen.
The thread he's referring to is here, by the way. While there are a few on this forum who can enjoy being assholes (I guess I am one, though to a lesser extent), it probably should be made clear to newcomers that this kind of behaviour is merely tolerated, rather than the default way to behave around here (even if it is lying to say so =D).
As for moderating reading, it sounds like a good idea but, like others have mentioned, I don't think it is much of a problem. Multiple threads on the same topics don't happen that often (compared to every other forum I've read) and the questions that can be answered by Google moderate themselves. After two new threads with no replies people learn quickly what other people are interested in.
We're harsh only because if we're not, this forum would be useless to us. I'm still toying with the idea of banning three particular people for generally being annoying.
I'm still annoyed that we automatically close religion discussion threads. If either of you do not feel like posting a response to the thread just ignore it, people like Pete and I enjoy butting our heads against concrete walls or just have a cut and paste rant about how stupid the person is because of these following points or better yet, have a topic on sticky that says what arguments you don't want to hear.