Off Topic in the D&D (the old troll)

[scottishranger]

I agree. Hopefully with some clever rewriting we can make the rules even shorter still, but that is a matter for another thread.

If you like I could work on shortening the rules, making it easier to understand and such.

Anyways, my main issue with the TOS as it stand now is the area of off topic posting. In my opinion moderators come down to hard on innocous off topic posts. Now this may just be a symptom of rookie moderators eager to enforce the TOS, or it could be how the how the TOS is worded. In my experiance I almost never note off topic discussion, as it is easy to go off topic, especially on a forum such as this. I tend to either leave the post as it is or simply delete the off topic reference from the post. Off topic discussion most of the time does no harm to the forum, it stimulates ideas and helps the average poster feel more in sync with the rest of the users and forumites.(especially if the discussion is about you). Now obviously I dont think we should allow threads soley about one person, but if a side discussion pops up about someone in the thread, I think it should be allowed, or at least not be an infractionworthy offense.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I agree.

It is my opinion that off-topic posting be removed as an offence except for persistant nuisance posters who purposely, for example, keep on posting non-political threads in the mudpit.

I think it should be pretty much ignored in the course of threads. The very nature of discussion means that threads, all threads, eventually go off-topic in varying ways. This is good. It shows development and progress.

[Trax]

I think off-topic should stay but it should be enforced much more rarely, particularly the section concerning other members.

Also, perhaps possible punishment could be reduced from 1-2 points to 1 point. Something truly severe or malicious could be punished as disruptive posting or something like that.

BTW perhaps we should give a clear definition of disruptive posting in the ToS along with appropriate punishment. The disruptive posting as it currently is has caused some confusion in the Tribunal for example.

[pannonian]

The rules do not specify the exact scenario because there will be people willing to go all around the letter of the rules while flagrantly violating its spirit. This was the case after the trolling offence was removed last year, and there was a period when people took it on themselves to drive the likes of .Czar from TWC with posts that repeatedly attacked the person while remaining just the right side of the Insulting Others offence. Now the moderators may not necessarily agree with the views .Czar and others espouse, but we do not condone lynch mobs either. Scorch and I (mainly I) tried a number of measures to try and resolve this, but none worked beyond the very short term, offering very marginal benefits for very large amounts of attention, as well as working against the general moderating system. Thus the D&D clause of the off-topic rule was brought in, and since neither Scorch nor I were particularly inclined to apply it in its intended spirit, Manstein was brought in as the hardman the Mudpit so needed.

Could we dispense with that part of the ToS, since there are already rules for the debating forums? One might think so, but let's remember that the debating forum rules do not hold any authority beyond mere guidelines, and while some people respond to informal chats by altering their posting habits, others are more inclined to ask how the moderators are going to stop them from doing whatever they want. This is why moderators need a fairly wide-ranging ToS to back them up. Does this mean that moderators have the power to do anything they wish? On paper, to an extent, but in practice we senior moderators oversee things and talk to junior moderators who may be getting a little overzealous for the character of the forums they moderate.

If we get the right people in and give them the right mentoring, and keep them active, the moderation system at present works very well indeed. However, at every level it can be difficult to find enough of the right personnel, or to keep enough of an overview, or to keep them actively moderating. Keep the selection and judgement process as rigorous as is ideal, and there aren't enough people. Get lots of moderators in, and there may be a fair degree of wastage. Try to keep enough of an overview, and the senior mods burn out. Gah.

[Trax]

and there was a period when people took it on themselves to drive the likes of .Czar from TWC with posts that repeatedly attacked the person while remaining just the right side of the Insulting Others offence.

And I view it as a legitimate method for marginalising undesirable elements who invade our little internet utopia from time to time.

[Scar Face]

And I view it as a legitimate method for marginalising undesirable elements who invade our little internet utopia from time to time.

I view those that do it to be those very undesirable elements. I think if you look around at those who were constantly attacked by nothing more than Trolls, you will see they are all here, they don't leave. If we allow people to harass them, it draws focus to the issue, it creates drama.

[Dayman]

Off topic as it is used these days doesn't mean off topic, it means trolling or ad hominem attacks.

"Pure" off topic posts are rare.

Perhaps there should be a definition of trolling, very precise such as "a post made, deliberately off topic, meant to elicit a flame or otherwise rile other posters".

[Scar Face]

Thats pretty identical to the old definition of trolling. The problem is of course, determining the motives of the individual. It was considered too ambiguous, and so it was removed. Personally I consider trolling to be a useful addition to the ToS. I agree that you cant just assume someone is trolling, but there are times it is damn obvious, and it gets out of hand. But perhaps we could fit times like those under a different heading, like disruptive posting. Lets face it, being overly aggressive and taunting someone openly in a thread is disruptive.

[Dayman]

That might work. Separate ad hominems and character references to disruptive posting?

The one issue though about the off-topic rule is that some references, say regarding a posters' posting history are, by precedent, considered off topic. I think that anything that is verified by a post on the boards should be free reign. Say if someone changes political stance a reference to the change would be allowed.

[imb39]

The term 'Off topic' in no way equates with trolling. That said, I like to give some latitude in this area.

[Dayman]

The term 'Off topic' in no way equates with trolling.

It doesn't but when I see people challenging them or people being referred to the CdeC for off topic infractions they are what would be considered trolling another user. The off-topic rule as it is now seems to cover trolling as well, by its broad terminology and by precedent. Even though it doesn't implicitly infract someone for trolling, just for a character reference.

[Farnan]

I suggest doing away with Off-Topic and splitting it into two offenses:

Intentionaly Disrupitive Posting (2 or 3 points)

Posts intentionally designed to disrupt the flow of postings will be punished under this offense.

Spamming (1 point)

Posts of no substitance created simply to increase ones post count will not be allowed and will be punished under this section.


Both need fleshed out, but you get the idea. Hows it sound?

[Garbarsardar]

The term 'Off topic' in no way equates with trolling. That said, I like to give some latitude in this area.

I was referring to this:

In the Discussion and Debate forums, statements about other members, whether implicit or explicit, are off-topic. Statements that disrupt the discussion, regardless of intent, will be singled out in particular.


...as the rest of the off topic poses no problem, usually.

[pannonian]

I suggest doing away with Off-Topic and splitting it into two offenses:

Intentionaly Disrupitive Posting (2 or 3 points)

Posts intentionally designed to disrupt the flow of postings will be punished under this offense.

Spamming (1 point)

Posts of no substitance created simply to increase ones post count will not be allowed and will be punished under this section.


Both need fleshed out, but you get the idea. Hows it sound?

Spamming isn't such a serious problem that we'll need a specific category for it - personally I'd just mass delete the posts and PM the user. We currently use OT as a lighter alternative to Insulting Others for things that marginally straddle the line, ie. 1-2 points as opposed to 3-6 points. Splitting the OT offence into twp as above would in practice just up the number of warning points by 1 for the offences we actually infract for.

[Farnan]

Perhaps just keep the intentionally disruptive posting, and then make insulting others go 1-3-6 for points thus allowing the 1 point for minor insults.

[pannonian]

Then you have the problem of defining the criteria for Insulting Others, which was what allowed the crowd to use the absence of the trolling rule to bait .Czar and co without fear of the ToS. Most of the unpleasantness was defined by the attitude, which wasn't covered by the Insulting Others category (the baiters always kept just clear of that rule, whilst inciting their victims to break that rule themselves). The problem wasn't really solved until the D&D clause of the OT rule was added, and Manstein brought in to enforce it. This addressed the salient aspect of the trolling, which was that the poster rather than the post was constantly targeted - the ad hominems rule in the debating forums rulebook was toothless, as it wasn't in the ToS and thus no moderating action based on that would stand up in the Tribunal.

Of course, people who enjoyed those bear-baits complained that they weren't allowed to do it any more. Small loss IMHO.

[Farnan]

That is why you have the Intenionally Disruptive (the bear baiting) and you have insulting others going down to 1 point alongside 3 and 6 for minor insults.

[pannonian]

I think I can see the usual suspects complaining why they get 2-3 points now, whereas in the past they used to get 1-2. Headaches ahoy!

[Farnan]

So?

The goal of this is to make the TOS more effective and understandable not make everyone happy. If we wanted to make everyone happy we'd start a porn forum and send eveyone a free dime bag upon registering...

Anyways if you want you can make the intenionally disruptive down to 1 or 2, or even make it 1, 2, or 3 allowing discretion and hurting repeat offenders.

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is my suggestion of how the off-topic infraction should appear in The Rules

Off-topic posting (1 point)

Moderators may take action against those who post threads unrelated to the topic of the forum they are posted it, or those who consistantly make off-topic nuisance posts.

I don't think it needs anything more than that, and I hope I have phrased it so it will only be used in extreme cicumstances when people are genuinely looking to cause trouble and aggrovation, rather than people being punished just because a thread has naturally evolved over the course of a debate.