EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 133
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36976 Posts
On May 02 2018 00:10 brian wrote: sorry to be ‘that guy’ but can we also get an example for the conservative standard for such a post? my understanding is these are generally stricter. I don't understand the question. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 01 2018 21:21 Seeker wrote: Just at a curiosity, how many people have actually seen and read the new statement we put up when the new thread was created? I'd like to know if this statement covers everything or if it has some loose ends we still need to go over. Because if this statement covers everything then there is no need for me to draft a public statement. Yes, we all saw it. I think it's fair to say that we were looking for something more than "we are going to do whatever we want and not explain ourselves." Typically, organizations that interface heavily with the public do not take this approach. Instead, these organizations reach out to key stakeholders and actively solicit their opinions and perspectives on matters that are germane to the public's participation. Why TL has been so reticent to do this is quite inexplicable. This is also why TL Staff's oft-repeated excuse of "we are all volunteers and have limited time to address these matters" rings so hollow. There certainly has been no shortage of feedback and assistance offered by competent posters from the thread. I really don't think that the thread is that hard to fix. First, get rid of the news and twitter spam. Mission accomplished here. The new standard works, and it is also quite clear and easily understandable. Second, be evenhanded with the moderation. Apply the same standard to all of the posters. If you really want to clean up the thread, then start warning and banning all of the posters who (intentionally or otherwise) misstate the arguments of the posters that they respond to. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to implementing a license system that heavily restricts the participants in the thread to just those who have demonstrated a good ability to follow the argument and stay on point. The single greatest cause of attrition of good posters in the thread is the over-abundance of morons in the thread. Yeah, posters like WhiteDog, oneofthem, and sam!zdat certainly broke TL's rules by attacking other posters, but those attacks were always born from their frustration of the sheer stupidity of the people that they were attacking. I would much rather have those guys who were banned around (because they were interesting and actually had something to say) than the vast majority of the current posters in the US Politics thread. However, the thread is not going to be an enjoyable or viable place for these posters when they are constantly frustrated by and unprotected from the hordes of snarky fools. As Sermokala pointed out, TL needs to figure out who the real content providers to the thread are and implement policies that make the thread a friendly environment for them. Of course, this presumes that TL actually wants the thread to be vibrant and active. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 02 2018 00:51 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, posters like WhiteDog, oneofthem, and sam!zdat certainly broke TL's rules by attacking other posters, but those attacks were always born from their frustration of the sheer stupidity of the people that they were attacking. I would much rather have those guys who were banned around (because they were interesting and actually had something to say) than the vast majority of the current posters in the US Politics thread. To some extent I agree with your main point, but is that the best list of people? Whitedoge requested his ban, arguably as a constructive ban but he did request it. Oneofthem really got out of control with the Bernie Sanders bashing after a while such that although he did have something useful to say, it was buried under a heap of shit. No comment on sam!zdat. I contend that perhaps an equally important question is: of those posters who used to be interesting, why did pretty much all of them either stop posting or regress to low-content status? That's really at the core of what is the problem and while the bumbling self-righteousness of the current batch of actively commenting moderators is an issue, I doubt it is the issue. Your "this is an example of what we find acceptable" post used as a "statement" fails to address any of the previous concerns and to provide any form of delineation of what is and isn't good enough. The precedent of what came up as issues in this thread suggests that the lazy description fails to encompass people's concerns in the face of apparent capriciousness in decision making, therefore you could stand to draft an actual statement, rather than a deflection. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It’s a little vague. And more than a little subjective. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 01 2018 23:00 Seeker wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=158#3147 This is 100% what we are looking for. 1) Source quoted 2) Source link provided 3) Supporting statement about the source itself and why it is relevant That's it. We really don't require more than that. FYI it took me longer to copy the content of the article and remove the ad text than to write the few sentences. It’s really not that big of a burden for anyone. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28600 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
| ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36976 Posts
1. An introduction explaining why the mods felt that a revamp was needed. 2. An explanation on the posting culture that developed over time because of the lack of moderation, and why we felt the need to shut it down. 3. An explanation on the new guidelines when it comes to posting sources. 4. An explanation on thread bans. If there is anything that you guys feel needs to be addressed then please let me know now. I only want to do this once. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think part of the problem/issue is that being a consistent high-quality poster takes a lot of effort. For people to do that consistently for years is an anomaly more than that people fade in and out. Do you consider the widely perceived overall decline in quality to be 1) real and 2) consistent with your above logic? On May 02 2018 02:32 Seeker wrote: So, currently, in the public statement that I'm drafting, here is what I have so far: 1. An introduction explaining why the mods felt that a revamp was needed. 2. An explanation on the posting culture that developed over time because of the lack of moderation, and why we felt the need to shut it down. 3. An explanation on the new guidelines when it comes to posting sources. 4. An explanation on thread bans. If there is anything that you guys feel needs to be addressed then please let me know now. I only want to do this once. (1) is almost ubiquitous enough to be trivial IMO - I think the meat of what was interesting about that would be (2) anyways. Keep it short. (3) could perhaps also include some thoughts on "when does an argument go too far" as well. Another major recurring issue. Hopefully (4) covers specific cases that drew controversy here, along with the logic that supported those decisions. A major issue has been pussyfooting around the task of providing justification, which is really not great if you want there to be any form of respect for the decisions made. Arbitrary and capricious seems to dominate, which is a large concern. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:13 LegalLord wrote: To some extent I agree with your main point, but is that the best list of people? Whitedoge requested his ban, arguably as a constructive ban but he did request it. Oneofthem really got out of control with the Bernie Sanders bashing after a while such that although he did have something useful to say, it was buried under a heap of shit. No comment on sam!zdat. I contend that perhaps an equally important question is: of those posters who used to be interesting, why did pretty much all of them either stop posting or regress to low-content status? That's really at the core of what is the problem and while the bumbling self-righteousness of the current batch of actively commenting moderators is an issue, I doubt it is the issue. I could have picked a bunch of posters who have come and gone over years, but I picked those three specifically because their problems with moderation were born of the larger problem of poor posting from the masses. And to your point in bold, this problem is "the issue." I know Sermokala posted a few days ago that the reason why I stopped posting in the US Politics Thread is the moderation, but that's probably only about 30% true. I had already scaled back my posting because I came to the realization last December that there really wasn't anyone left in the thread who was worth talking to. Posting regularly in the thread had become an irredeemable chore given that 1) almost all of the posters with whom I really enjoyed have discussions were either gone or posted infrequently, and 2) I still had to deal with the endless barrage of badly misplaced shitposts from people who are completely unaware of their own limitations. Quibble with the accuracy of my characterization of my posting experience if you want, but there's no denying that that there is little reason for me to post in the thread if that's my experience. Toss in the moderation problems where the TL staff have clearly signaled that they would rather simply ban conservative posters like myself instead of truly moderate the thread (letting the thread be the Wild West, which was also acceptable, apparently isn't an option anymore), and the whole situation becomes quite untenable from my perspective. And to be clear, it's not like I haven't asked TL to address this stuff previously. The 2,600+ posts in this thread are littered with me raising these issues for TL's consideration. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:51 xDaunt wrote: I could have picked a bunch of posters who have come and gone over years, but I picked those three specifically because their problems with moderation were born of the larger problem of poor posting from the masses. And to your point in bold, this problem is "the issue." I know Sermokala posted a few days ago that the reason why I stopped posting in the US Politics Thread is the moderation, but that's probably only about 30% true. I had already scaled back my posting because I came to the realization last December that there really wasn't anyone left in the thread who was worth talking to. Posting regularly in the thread had become an irredeemable chore given that 1) almost all of the posters with whom I really enjoyed have discussions were either gone or posted infrequently, and 2) I still had to deal with the endless barrage of badly misplaced shitposts from people who are completely unaware of their own limitations. Quibble with the accuracy of my characterization of my posting experience if you want, but there's no denying that that there is little reason for me to post in the thread if that's my experience. Toss in the moderation problems where the TL staff have clearly signaled that they would rather simply ban conservative posters like myself instead of truly moderate the thread (letting the thread be the Wild West, which was also acceptable, apparently isn't an option anymore), and the whole situation becomes quite untenable from my perspective. And to be clear, it's not like I haven't asked TL to address this stuff previously. The 2,600+ posts in this thread are littered with me raising these issues for TL's consideration. That’s a pretty solid characterization of the larger problem. I more or less agree. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36976 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:37 LegalLord wrote: Do you consider the widely perceived overall decline in quality to be 1) real and 2) consistent with your above logic? (1) is almost ubiquitous enough to be trivial IMO - I think the meat of what was interesting about that would be (2) anyways. Keep it short. (3) could perhaps also include some thoughts on "when does an argument go too far" as well. Another major recurring issue. Hopefully (4) covers specific cases that drew controversy here, along with the logic that supported those decisions. A major issue has been pussyfooting around the task of providing justification, which is really not great if you want there to be any form of respect for the decisions made. Arbitrary and capricious seems to dominate, which is a large concern. It's going to be very difficult to provide specific cases and examples. The old thread and the new thread combined have over 10,000 pages. That's way too many pages to go through to try to find supporting examples for this public statement. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:32 Seeker wrote: So, currently, in the public statement that I'm drafting, here is what I have so far: 1. An introduction explaining why the mods felt that a revamp was needed. 2. An explanation on the posting culture that developed over time because of the lack of moderation, and why we felt the need to shut it down. 3. An explanation on the new guidelines when it comes to posting sources. 4. An explanation on thread bans. If there is anything that you guys feel needs to be addressed then please let me know now. I only want to do this once. More details on how you intend to handle controversial posters like GreenHorizons, Danglars or Testie. I don't mean them specifically, I'm just curious how you plan to keep peace in the thread without making it look like you're fine with bullying out people with controversial views. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 02 2018 03:07 Seeker wrote: It's going to be very difficult to provide specific cases and examples. The old thread and the new thread combined have over 10,000 pages. That's way too many pages to go through to try to find supporting examples for this public statement. The past 20 pages of this feedback thread would suffice, as that’s the most relevant to the current iteration of rules. Sent’s suggestion would be equivalent to what I’m asking. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28600 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:37 LegalLord wrote: Do you consider the widely perceived overall decline in quality to be 1) real and 2) consistent with your above logic? It's hard to define really, and it depends on what you perceive as the mission of the thread and what constitutes quality. I haven't been part in any moderation efforts to redeem the thread - I've been too preoccupied with other things in life to really engage in the moderation as of late. This isn't an attempt at distancing myself from the actions the rest of the staff has taken - but rather to signify that the following opinions are my own. I'm also not really answering your question I guess - but part of that is because I haven't really been following the thread that much lately. I don't have a strong opinion on whether there's been a decline in quality or not, because I think that's a mixed bag. But I'll detail how I feel about the thread in general. Personally, I've always enjoyed the thread. I thought it gave me really valuable insight into the 'feel' of the american political climate. What issues mattered the most to people, what arguments were most persuasive, which politicians were most relevant. I liked it as a news-aggregate, as an arena to get exposed to different perspectives, and as a method of getting valuable feedback to your own more or less staunchly set political beliefs. Now, I think sometimes, politics should be antagonistic and confrontational. This is the nature of discussing issues that actually matter. Tesagi doesn't actually matter, and when we discuss brood war or sc2 balance or who is the best player or what is the best strategy for dealing with +1 5 rax, it's important that we manage to do so cordially. And no opinion on any of these subjects should be so offensive that maintaining your cool and composure should be particularly difficult. But when we're discussing whether or not to invade Iraq, whether or not to combat global warming, whether or not racism is a problem in the US today, whether we should support Israel's aggressive settlement policy, to what degree rural americans should accept being mocked and belittled, to what degree they should accept jobs disappearing and their communities disintegrating. Sometimes, people are right to get angry. At the same time, it's a tough thing to balance - because too much anger makes productive, enlightening discussion impossible. But it's also impossible to have productive, enlightening discussion without any emotion. Nobody will care enough to make the effort to persuade, then. In one way, the Trump-election-period was amazing for the thread. It really functioned as a reflection of the evolution of the american level of discourse. People would be pissed at each other before Trump's emergence, too, but Trump really enhanced the 'factional' element. Before, there were some political points of view that would brand you as evil, naive or an idiot - now you'd be one or more of those through giving your support for - or the lack of opposition - towards either Sanders, Hillary or Trump. This was a big blow for the idea of the thread being an outline for pleasant, civilized and enlightened discourse. But it was amazing in terms of how well it reflected the american political climate. In a way, I think what we're seeing now, is part of the same. It seems like society is kinda processing how to deal with the editorial (or, where the editor is invisible and unaccountable)-free media consumption habits spurred on by social media. There have been good and bad elements to this. Giving the formerly voiceless a voice, that's fantastic. Widespread persuasively designed fake news getting shared millions of times and believed by millions of people? That's potentially disastrous. Likewise, the recent crackdown and more harsh moderation has influenced the thread in several ways. It negatively influenced the activity. But is that necessarily negative? In 2016 following the thread was almost a full-time job - it might be a good thing if fewer people repeat the same message. Has it negatively influenced the average post quality? I think not. Has the thread become a lesser outlet for opinions that distinguish themselves from the acceptable mainstream? Certainly. Is the discussion more pleasant and less antagonistic? My impression is also yes. Maybe the balance moved from being slightly off-center on one side to off-center on the other. But like, if I really wanted to make the thread better, what I would do is post more good posts in the thread. That's how you go about it. My personal opinion is that the thread is better off with GH, xDaunt and Danglars participating in it - I enjoy being exposed to different perspectives, these three all bring it. But I also don't think any of these posters have been actioned for their best posts, and I think they would all, if they really tried, be able to contribute their point of view without being banned. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13816 Posts
On May 02 2018 02:32 Seeker wrote: So, currently, in the public statement that I'm drafting, here is what I have so far: 1. An introduction explaining why the mods felt that a revamp was needed. 2. An explanation on the posting culture that developed over time because of the lack of moderation, and why we felt the need to shut it down. 3. An explanation on the new guidelines when it comes to posting sources. 4. An explanation on thread bans. If there is anything that you guys feel needs to be addressed then please let me know now. I only want to do this once. Honestly I don't really understand this if this is your focus on the statement. The initial statement to the thread basically answers 1 and 2 will answer 3. The problem isn't that people don't understand why the changes were made the problem is with how they were made. Up and just silently banning one of the most frequent posters without any explanation or warning, apparently making the new thread for this whole sake, all under new standards that were never stated or explained. What we have been given is spin from a dozen or so moderators ranging from "not everyone agreed with this" to "I really don't like conservatives". If this is really going to be the statement you want to end speculation then just ignore everything in the past and lay out of the laws of the land going forward. The threads already closed and conservatives don't feel safe anymore. Outline what the new rules are in a clear way and then have mods defer to a constistant standard to those rules. If decisions are made to change the rules then tell people that they're different and change the standard with respect to those changes. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Zlefin vs dauntless moderation. | ||
| ||
