Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

User-moderated threads

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 8:00:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's now close to impossible to have a rational discussion in the Politics or Economics sections of the forms. A few members hijack the thread with crazy theories and wild insults. Those forums are now useless.

My idea is to allow the person who starts a thread to keep his own list of members who are blocked from adding posts. This is consistent with the current "blocked" feature that allows a member to block others from posting to the member's profile or accepting debate. The easiest implementation would be to add "block posting to threads I start." It would be better if the list could be modified for each forum or thread.

This methods allows screaming moonbats to start their own threads where people who enjoy trading insults can have at it. At the same time, it would restore the possibility of threads that stay civil and on topic. It also minimizes having to ban members for Forum behavior.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 8:10:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think a better approach would be something like Youtube.

We should have the capacity to vote on posts (like/dislike, support/reject, something like that), and if they get too many negatives, their post isn't visible to anyone unless they specifically elect to read it.

Problem solved!

Whatcha think? ^_^

It could also be a much more effective way to draw positive distinctions, which this site seems to cumulatively really enjoy.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 9:23:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The YouTube method is better than nothing, but it still allows flooding a thread with posts. YouTube posters seem to rarely return to make a new post with essentially the same stuff. Here it never ends.

Also, threads can be 90% trash posts. So the YouTube method requires that a fair number of people read all the trash in order to vote to conceal it. Readers are discouraged and the topic can go dead before that happens. I sure don't want to spend a lot of my time sorting trash.
Zealous1
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:48:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 9:23:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The YouTube method is better than nothing, but it still allows flooding a thread with posts. YouTube posters seem to rarely return to make a new post with essentially the same stuff. Here it never ends.

Also, threads can be 90% trash posts. So the YouTube method requires that a fair number of people read all the trash in order to vote to conceal it. Readers are discouraged and the topic can go dead before that happens. I sure don't want to spend a lot of my time sorting trash.

I agree that youtube's system COULD work, but as you said people need to read through the junk in order for it to work.

If only the thread moderator gets to choose who is blocked, that would be perfect.

Trollolols who need to be removed, and quickly, could be removed, and quickly.

Lastly, the OP's method is deterrence-based, while the youtube system is punishment based.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:47:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You could designate a thread that is controlled by the author, in that any report sent by that user would result in an unquestioned action by the mod. This would be the easiest way of dealing with it, but the problem would be the non-real time action by the mod.

I agree that your suggestion should be an option, and I can throw it at juggle, but don't get your hopes up.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 1:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 8:00:08 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's now close to impossible to have a rational discussion in the Politics or Economics sections of the forms. A few members hijack the thread with crazy theories and wild insults. Those forums are now useless.

My idea is to allow the person who starts a thread to keep his own list of members who are blocked from adding posts. This is consistent with the current "blocked" feature that allows a member to block others from posting to the member's profile or accepting debate. The easiest implementation would be to add "block posting to threads I start." It would be better if the list could be modified for each forum or thread.

This methods allows screaming moonbats to start their own threads where people who enjoy trading insults can have at it. At the same time, it would restore the possibility of threads that stay civil and on topic. It also minimizes having to ban members for Forum behavior.

I think this is a great idea and agree 100%, as per ushe.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 4:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is absurd. This is a debate site where you throw out ideas and have ideas scrutinized by others.

What Roy is proposing will lead to circle-jerk threads where they block all dissenting opinions. This is nonsense.

What we need to do is continue our anti-troll policy and eliminate trolls causing havoc and interfering with intellectual discussion.

If the person isn't a troll, why block them from your thread?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 5:04:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 4:58:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is absurd. This is a debate site where you throw out ideas and have ideas scrutinized by others.

What Roy is proposing will lead to circle-jerk threads where they block all dissenting opinions. This is nonsense.

What we need to do is continue our anti-troll policy and eliminate trolls causing havoc and interfering with intellectual discussion.

If the person isn't a troll, why block them from your thread?

I think that the reason is, the quality of the posts have dropped considerably over the last year or so. The bickering has become predictable, and shallow, whereas once there was true intellectual discord and opposition, there is just rhetorical posturing and name calling. I think that Roy is looking to have a thread where challenges are made, but those with a certain amount of legitimate gravity and thoughtfulness.

I was just having an off site discussion with Darkkermit who deactivated his account for this very reason. It seems the old days of real philosophical battles have become pedestrian and baseless bickering.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 5:05:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 4:58:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is absurd. This is a debate site where you throw out ideas and have ideas scrutinized by others.

What Roy is proposing will lead to circle-jerk threads where they block all dissenting opinions. This is nonsense.

What we need to do is continue our anti-troll policy and eliminate trolls causing havoc and interfering with intellectual discussion.

If the person isn't a troll, why block them from your thread?

Agreed. Censorship isn't the answer the our problems...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 1:28:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 4:58:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is absurd. This is a debate site where you throw out ideas and have ideas scrutinized by others.

What Roy is proposing will lead to circle-jerk threads where they block all dissenting opinions. This is nonsense.

What we need to do is continue our anti-troll policy and eliminate trolls causing havoc and interfering with intellectual discussion.

If the person isn't a troll, why block them from your thread?

Roy's idea has nothing to do with blocking all dissenting opinions. If you listened to what he was talking about, you would realize that he was referring to members who constantly derail threads and resort to empty personal attacks instead of contributing intelligent perspectives.

You claim that we should just continue our anti-troll policy. What does that mean? Should we just eliminate every annoying member on DDO?
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 6:29:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd love to see this implimented. I'd also like something under religion.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:08:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think alot of us are sympathetic to the problem Roy brings us, sometimes you want quality and don't want to go though 99% bs to get 1% good stuff.

Never the less, what this proposal will lead too is dissenting opinions being blocked. Now sure I have confidence that some one like Roy wouldn't use this ability that way, but can we really say that about everyone on here ?

So yes I get that you are saying that your not advocating dissent be blocked, just that "derailing" be blocked, but one mans dissent is another mans derailing.

Never the less, maybe worth a trial, but it has to be explicit and enforced that no one is banned for dissent opinion, only "derailing", what ever exactly that means.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:30:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
the present system effectively blocks dissenting opinion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to start a thread on a serious subject in several of the forums, because I know it has no chance of leading to serious discussion. My opinions are therefore effectively blocked. some forums don't attract much trolling, so they still function, but forget politics or economics.

Good forums require effective moderation, and that takes a lot of work by someone. It costs way to much for the site owners to do it. Getting user-moderators requires screening the potential moderators. That's cheaper, but still too expensive. The method of letting users moderate individual threads is the least expensive method.

Nothing prevents any user from starting a new thread on the same topic. A trolls-only thread is allowed, if a troll wants to set one up. The part of free speech that is restricted is where the speech occurs, not what is said.

It's an interesting reflection of society. There is a segment that believes that free speech conveys the right to shout down speakers on campus so that the targeted speakers lose the right to speak. Protestors are thought by some to have a right to prevent others from meeting or going about their business. That's not free speech.

"Have a nice day." >>

"Only atheist infidels demand nice days."
"Nice days prove Ron Paul will win."
"You only say that because you hate Black people."
....