EPTOn October 30 2007 10:26 lil.sis wrote:
who the hell gave you that picture of me anyway
![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1897/sistrashmancopyvh8.jpg)
who the hell gave you that picture of me anyway
you yourself put it on TL gallery~~~~
(I wouldn't use a pic unless it was public)Political thread on TL = disaster - Page 3
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
you yourself put it on TL gallery~~~~ (I wouldn't use a pic unless it was public) | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On October 30 2007 22:18 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I use to enjoy the political threads, but I think as this site has grown, and more people are here to give input the threads do not stay on track and there are 30 sub-points going on. I will see a thread a few pages deep for the first time and I really wont know where to contribute because there seems to be multiple conversations involved. I think people should be putting more effort into staying on track, and thread creators should be putting more effort in narrowing down the nature of the discussion. This is a good point. I will have to reflect on this. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
The only thing I can think of right now is to give the guy who starts the thread some optional (stated clearly in the OP if he chooses to have them) moderation abilities, like he could type into a box what his rules for the thread are, and then he is allowed to ban people from the thread or edit posts (clearly marked of course) if he feels people have broken the rules he set forth originally. When he's making the thread he could just check off [x] I will moderate this thread. Instructions for users (Warning: You may only use moderation if people violate your specific instructions, so type them carefully.): [ instructions box]. Then in the OP it will say Attencion: This thread has special instructions and will be moderated by its creator. Please read them carefully before posting: [ ...] This would at least let people who really care to start a really good thread, plus save moderators some work hopefully. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
It would probably lessen moderators work load if we actually could mod our own thread, but I suspect they wouldn't want to share the power and prestige with us. | ||
|
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13358 Posts
It's impossible to have a civilised discussion without one side making it personal. Perhaps it is an accurate reflection on the modern day political arena? | ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
On October 28 2007 14:47 Servolisk wrote: Hello, I know it is stating the obvious, but political threads on teamliquid usually suck hard, to the point of debasing the entire website. Because of the nature of politics on the internet in general, these threads have a low chance of maintaining any degree of quality. So whenever someone starts trolling it really has a worse effect than normal. Same with any kind of crappy post, really. It would be nice if there was something done about this. It's been going on for a few years. I think discussion was more decent when Mensrea among others were there to keep things on track. Perhaps moderators could be more strict in these threads, temp banning anyone who deviates from TL's posting rules. Perhaps all political threads should simply be closed. Or a political forum could be made with political forum bans. Perhaps the wrongdoers will read my post here and change their ways. Its because most people are uninformed sheep of the media (also see: Colbert's supporters) | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On October 31 2007 09:18 CTStalker wrote: i think self-moderation of threads is a bad idea. opening a dicussion on a particular subject doesn't correlate to the thread-starter being knowledgeable enough in the subject to discern veiled-garbage from a good contribution to the discussion. in addition, being a thread-starter does not preclude someone from having a pre-formed opinion on the issue, which could potentially affect the moderation of the thread. of course, moderators on this site particpate in discussions all the time and offer their opinions, and even argue to defend their opinion or point out flaws in another member's arguements, however, the moderators on this site are also chosen partly for their ability to maintain an objective view of a given discussion, even while participating. i don't think clicking the 'new thread' button grants that ability I still think self-moderation could work. What I was thinking was that in such a case, eventually someone better will "remake" the discussion, and people will flock to it. And if a topic maker ruins his topics regularly, people will realize this. There would be a competition for making a good thread on an issue, and we would all benefit from this. Furthermore, as in my example I think there would have to be strict guidelines for people that choose to moderate their own topics (much stricter than what mods can do) precisely because they might tend to let their pre-formed opinion dominate too much. They could be required to promise to only moderate to enforce their specific rules that they told people (see my original post), and it would be easy to see if people fail to live up to this (and have their privledges to create self-moderated threads suspended). It should be added responsibility for those who choose to accept it, not just free ability to do whatever they want in a thread they created. Done in the way I mentioned originally, I believe this is possible. It doesn't have to be the way you are fearing. When I suggested self-moderation threads, I tried to do it in a way that would discourage precisely what you're fearing--bad thread makers abusing the ability. I imagined instead, fed-up people who shy away from starting good threads because they can't keep it on track. People who are willing to work on a specific thread, if given the ability, like maybe psylo or servolisk. I would love to see a thread run by them. You could limit the privledge to people who specifically request it and have shown care in making threads, or to people who have thousands of posts, if that is what it will take to prevent its abuse. And if you do let more people potentially use it, and they create bad threads by their poor use of the feature, they will only be doing something they would have been doing already: making bad threads, which we can still ignore and shut down all the same as we do to current bad threads. But at the same time, by having such a feature, don't we make good threads even more possible? | ||
| ||
