Moderation Commentary Thread

[Jagdpanzer]

DimeBagHo has locked down a lot of threads on the first page of the Mudpit because the OP provided insufficient basis for discussion. Is this a coincidence or is moderation becoming more strict in the Mudpit?

[DimeBagHo]

I usually close threads with low quality OPs when I see them. I think we just had more than the usual number of such threads today.

[Denny Crane!]

If there is a discussion going on it shouldn't be closed just because the OP didn't happent o be good enough. The forum is supposed to be there for discussion and fun not just randomly holding OP to arbitrary standards. If there isn't any discussion from a mediocre OP then fine close it otherwise its just crapping all over an ongoing discussion and unfortunately once closed a thread is rarely redone.

[DisgruntledGoat]

One of those threads had 14 replies and was going somewhere. Two others were building with 5 replies. A little over zealous on Dime's part I think.

[Darth Red]

Nothing wrong with those thread closures. Out of the 5, all were one liners with a copy-paste article. 4 out of 5 had a "" emocon and the other one had a "" (at the end of the bad joke one liner). Not the kind of OP's we are looking for in the D&D. Yes some joking is acceptable if it was accompanied by at least a paragraph of serious discussion in the OP. Those were not.

[Denny Crane!]

Nothing wrong with those thread closures. Out of the 5, all were one liners with a copy-paste article. 4 out of 5 had a "" emocon and the other one had a "" (at the end of the bad joke one liner). Not the kind of OP's we are looking for in the D&D. Yes some joking is acceptable if it was accompanied by at least a paragraph of serious discussion in the OP. Those were not.

The OP is not the ultimate determinant of a threads worth, if a decent discussion has started then who cares because isnt that all an OP is supposed to do.

Has moderation forgotten that discussion and debate is about duscussion and debate. Hell just simply posting an article with no comment can spawn a decent discussion or debate but we dont allow that because...because....STANDARDS! Actually no that isnt right because standards are things like not allowing leet speak and other things that would impede or lower the tone of discussion, anything which starts a d
Good discussion on the topic in the relevant fora ahould be allowed.

Lets drop the random assignation of standards on the OP because it isnt helping.

[Darth Red]

Spam begets spam. Those discussion weren't headed anywhere when they were closed, they attracted more spam one liner responses and a few more that needed to be removed. I don't disagree that if good discussion broke out from a bad OP that the thread would most likely remain open. Out of those closed on the front page of the mudpit I can only see one that I could 'possibly' make a case for to be re-opened. Which one(s) in particular do you see as good discussion that should be re-opened?

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

I would agree with you Denny but then we both would be wrong.

[Denny Crane!]

Spam begets spam. Those discussion weren't headed anywhere when they were closed, they attracted more spam one liner responses and a few more that needed to be removed. I don't disagree that if good discussion broke out from a bad OP that the thread would most likely remain open. Out of those closed on the front page of the mudpit I can only see one that I could 'possibly' make a case for to be re-opened. Which one(s) in particular do you see as good discussion that should be re-opened?

Both ones from hellheaven, hey you know what maybe im wrong and nothing would have came from it but I personally would have commented on both of them so how about in future we give threads time to breath and if it is nothing but spam then we can close them and whats the worst that could happen if they werent closed? Willing to bet theyd just drop off the page. This is the mudpit its a busy place.

Close threads for starting flame wars, close threads where the OP merely says Derp, but not ones with serious articles or videos that people want to share

[Pontifex Maximus]

If there is a discussion going on it shouldn't be closed just because the OP didn't happent o be good enough. The forum is supposed to be there for discussion and fun not just randomly holding OP to arbitrary standards.

The standards aren't exactly arbitrary, probably just not well known. The problem is that not everyone reads that very important thread. Those rules are essentially binding thanks to this curial decision. So the problem here isn't an arbitrary set of rules, I think, but inconsistency in enforcement. Essentially individual moderators choose whether or not they want to enforce the debate guidelines because they exist in a gray area to be sure. They aren't technically part of the ToS but they are important to ensure quality control. So either there needs to be consistent and fair enforcement of these guidelines or they need to not be enforced at all methinks.

[Denny Crane!]

The standards aren't exactly arbitrary, probably just not well known. The problem is that not everyone reads that very important thread. Those rules are essentially binding thanks to this curial decision. So the problem here isn't an arbitrary set of rules, I think, but inconsistency in enforcement. Essentially individual moderators choose whether or not they want to enforce the debate guidelines because they exist in a gray area to be sure. They aren't technically part of the ToS but they are important to ensure quality control. So either there needs to be consistent and fair enforcement of these guidelines or they need to not be enforced at all methinks.

Inconsistent and random application of powers seems arbitrary to me and it always seemed to that it was understood that moderation was principally defined by common sense, that if something isnt causing problems then leave it, if as has happened we get a political campaign being waged and one ir two posters starts 2-10 threads a day with little substance but as a spam campaign and never revisit the threads then is the time for applications. Its good to have rules in place that you can point to and have a relaxed attitude to them but if we have a crackdown it should be for a reason. So im not so sure id just dismiss them, Stormfront is bound to come a'callin again.

[(s)AINT]

I usually close threads with low quality OPs when I see them. I think we just had more than the usual number of such threads today.

I think you closing all his threads when some of them had the opportunity to grow and become more insightful discussion really shows the lack of moderation judgement and discretion. And trust me, I've seen a lot worse than what the OP had in his opening posts. As a moderator I hope you would agree with that.

IE: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=448621

[Gigantus]

... if as has happened we get a political campaign being waged and one ir two posters starts 2-10 threads a day with little substance but as a spam campaign and never revisit the threads then is the time for applications.

I believe 5 one liner OPs within half an hour would fall into that category?

[Denny Crane!]

I believe 5 one liner OPs within half an hour would fall into that category?

To be honest that depends, if there were 5 major news stories not being discussed and i went and opened them then no

[Jom]

Inconsistent and random application of powers seems arbitrary to me and it always seemed to that it was understood that moderation was principally defined by common sense, that if something isnt causing problems then leave it, if as has happened we get a political campaign being waged and one ir two posters starts 2-10 threads a day with little substance but as a spam campaign and never revisit the threads then is the time for applications. Its good to have rules in place that you can point to and have a relaxed attitude to them but if we have a crackdown it should be for a reason. So im not so sure id just dismiss them, Stormfront is bound to come a'callin again.

We could apply things a little more consistently, but I think that lack of consistency simply comes from seeing a thread with a sub-par OP too late in the day when it's already onto page two of its discussion. I think that once the thread passes a page in length, that's the watershed beyond which it probably shouldn't be closed for having an OP that's lacking in substance, unless the majority of the posts are spammy or criticising the OP for simply linking to a news story. The main thing to avoid is the Mudpit simply becoming a news aggregator, or, as you point out, a soapbox.

[Denny Crane!]

We could apply things a little more consistently, but I think that lack of consistency simply comes from seeing a thread with a sub-par OP too late in the day when it's already onto page two of its discussion. I think that once the thread passes a page in length, that's the watershed beyond which it probably shouldn't be closed for having an OP that's lacking in substance, unless the majority of the posts are spammy or criticising the OP for simply linking to a news story. The main thing to avoid is the Mudpit simply becoming a news aggregator, or, as you point out, a soapbox.

Indeed.

[m_1512]

Well it is also a matter of how the discussion is. For instance, a person cannot just every time write paragraph after paragraph. Sometimes things would start from maybe 5 liner OPs. But the important part is to see where the discussion goes. Personally, I think there would not be a reason to close it unless there the thread is devoid of healthy discussion.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Well it is also a matter of how the discussion is. For instance, a person cannot just every time write paragraph after paragraph. Sometimes things would start from maybe 5 liner OPs. But the important part is to see where the discussion goes.

I don't think anyone is arguing that short OPs can't be good OPs, it is simply more likely that a longer OP will be better and provide more opportunity for a better discussion.

Personally, I think there would not be a reason to close it unless there the thread is devoid of healthy discussion.

That is still an arbitrary decision based upon what you consider to be healthy or not.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think anyone is arguing that short OPs can't be good OPs, it is simply more likely that a longer OP will be better and provide more opportunity for a better discussion.



That is still an arbitrary decision based upon what you consider to be healthy or not.

Active on topic discussion of any kind should mean no thread closure assuming it isnt a flame war, otherwise it is punishing ordinary members for the sake of imposing standards on the OP.

[Magicman2051]

Which is what Jom said, unless I'm mistaken.

Of course you have a problem whereby if the OP is shoddy, the thread might not be as specific (or it might be too specific/deliberately biased) as is needed to actually get people into the discussion.