|
And yet straight after your post, Vic says that you don't have to be nice. I doubt they're ignoring what people say if they say it in an abrasive fashion; sure, they may weight it less (that's human nature, perhaps) and they have apparently sent some emails requesting less snark, but I trust them to see when logical points are made.
To be fair, Vic specifically said you don't have to be nice, but you shouldn't be mean. In other words, at worst you should make your posts inoffensive.
Very mean -> mean -> a little mean -> neutral -> a little nice -> nice -> very nice.
Vic wants us somewhere between Neutral and Very Nice.
|
I would add that, although it's hardly the playtest's purpose, the threads where CoL is posting, and P_R and LogicNinja and Squirreloid, etc, are the ones where I learn the most and that happens as a result of them being strident and other people responding with their own posts, which results in a really enjoyable breakdown of what's going on behind the rules. I certainly feel that what all that has in common is the rather aggressive posting style of those guys which encourages the back-and-forth. So from my point of view as a spectator (and sometime contributor, but at the fringes), it's great.
So from my point of view as a spectator (and sometime contributor, but at the fringes), it's great.
People slow down to watch car wrecks too. Doesn't make it an activity that should be encouraged, though.
For every gem that comes up on the threads that devolve into bickering, the amount of dross to be waded through is stupendous. Its not worth it. I pity Jason if he is actually bothering to.
Edit: Sorry if it double posts. Darn PostMonster!
To be fair, Vic specifically said you don't have to be nice, but you shouldn't be mean. In other words, at worst you should make your posts inoffensive.
Very mean -> mean -> a little mean -> neutral -> a little nice -> nice -> very nice.
Vic wants us somewhere between Neutral and Very Nice.
Personally I think chaotic nice is a reasonable compromise, maybe neutral nice. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I usually argue for lighter moderation but I wonder if I'm operating on a false assumption. The boards I watched previously were more moderated and nastier. I came to the conclusion that moderation didn't work (that the moderation just made things nastier). I could be wrong.
What I saw in the more moderated boards worked like this:
Original Post: Something mechanical.
Post 2: Response.
Post 3: Response, with sarcasm.
Post 4: Response to Post 3 with insult.
Post 5: Call for moderation of Poster 4.
Post 6: Accusation by poster 4 that Post 3 was out of line as it contained an implied insult.
Post 7 through 17: Argument about who started it continues.
Would a more moderated Paizo just become a crapfest like that? Or would it be like it often has been?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Tarren, we could go all in and just shut down any thread that gets out of line to avoid the whole "who started it" routine.
I'm not advocating it, just suggesting it. Discuss.
Are you suggesting ... smurfing?? I think that's what Heathy thinks you mean.
I think you mean that just shutting down the thread avoids this. My concern is that the moderated boards were usually worse and I wasn't convinced they were moderated because they were worse. I think they might have been worse because they were moderated.
But, I'm beginning to doubt my assumptions.
rougerogue: I think "nonproductive conflict avoidance" would be to sit back and let the gnarly run roughshod all over the place.
Frankly, I think it's exactly what you're suggesting. I don't think "let's cede the beta playtest forum to the roughboys and go talk about Pathfinder modules" is an apt example when you just said what amounts to everybody on Paizo displays unproductive levels of conflict avoidance.
No, but if you're going to BE conflict-avoidant, I thought I'd put in a plug for my preferred area of the forums.
And, since I've been fairly severely personally attacked as a sexless, !!@#$%a-less failure of a man in one controversial thread and NOT gone running to call for moderation, I don't think I'm calling for allowing anyone to go roughshod. I'm advocating for posters to stand up for themselves and use persuasive approaches that work, not call for moderation.
I find it enormously odd that a number of posters on this thread are complaining that they are winning a thread because another few posters went negative and failed to persuade the majority of posters on this board. And the winners of that argument want the moderators to stop their opponents from using sub-optimal strategies.
There's a modules section? ;)
It's here: Go to Pathfinder Modules.
Tarren, we could go all in and just shut down any thread that gets out of line to avoid the whole "who started it" routine.
I'm not advocating it, just suggesting it. Discuss.
If you make moderators elected from the majority vote of paid subscribers, then you'd have me listening. Having moderation imposed from on-high and from Paizo Publishing, especially when they could be writing modules for me to use, not so much. But if we subscribers were to actually have a direct voice in moderation, I'd be much less in favor of a hands-off system.
|
I find it enormously odd that a number of posters on this thread are complaining that they are winning a thread because another few posters went negative and failed to persuade the majority of posters on this board. And the winners of that argument want the moderators to stop their opponents from using sub-optimal strategies.
Because most of us do consider their *ideas* to have merit. We just wish they could articulate them better so that we could discuss them without, as you call them, all the sub-optimal strategies they are using. Masters of the min-maxed communications strategy, they clearly are not.
Or, to put it in other words, despite having some good ideas, they inevitably obscure them with counter-productive confrontationalism and hyberbole, which means that their arguments are full of fail.
|
|
No, but if you're going to BE conflict-avoidant, I thought I'd put in a plug for my preferred area of the forums.
And, since I've been fairly severely personally attacked as a sexless, !!@#$%a-less failure of a man in one controversial thread and NOT gone running to call for moderation, I don't think I'm calling for allowing anyone to go roughshod. I'm advocating for posters to stand up for themselves and use persuasive approaches that work, not call for moderation.
I find it enormously odd that a number of posters on this thread are complaining that they are winning a thread because another few posters went negative and failed to persuade the majority of posters on this board. And the winners of that argument want the moderators to stop their opponents from using sub-optimal strategies.
I don't think the issue is conflict-avoidance. I have no problem pointing out where I think there might be an error of judgement or, dare I say, logic, for any of my fellow Paizoans. What I don't then feel the need to do is attack them for being, in my view wrong, because I don't need to bolster myself in that way. My job involves me going around telling senior people they are doing things wrong. If I did it the way some posters here do, I would be out of a job pronto. And not because I was wrong.
In fact, the thing which has hindered me from getting involved in the PF stuff is the presence of a small minority of boorish posters who monopolise and attack people whose views dissent from theirs. And I know I am not the only one. The only reason I do post there is because I don't want to feel that there is a place on the Paizo board where I cannot go. And I still got drawn into a conflict because over saving throws, figments and golems where I was effectively attacked until I went away. Other game designers with credits to their names are also avoiding the boards here, which doesn't seem like a particularly good result.
In respect of moderation, you indeed did not call for moderation in the controversial thread that we were both involved in. I felt I learnt some important things from that thread. However, you are also a reasonable man who does not hang his self-esteem upon his understanding of D&D. Some people cannot be reasoned with, especially when something is dear to them (we are all like that to some extent, but our triggers are different). And it is not like it hasn't been tried. As a result of past incursions, this place is now less tolerant than it used to be, me included, which is also not to be welcomed. People have responsibilities as well as rights - if they ignore the former they cannot expect to retain all of the latter.
The lack of moderation on these boards is not so anyone can say anything to who they like, it is a part of the fact that the community here has been open, polite and tolerant in the past. The last year or so has been turbulent, with controversy over both PF and 4e. I have been a fairly longstanding member here, and I have considered throwing in the towel and doing something else because of the way things have changed.
And the stupidity is, their ideas are OK, have merit and should be explored. However, they are probably getting less scrutiny they deserve becaue of all of this nonsense.
Then what do you suggest, Aubrey? The constraints seem to be administrator time, desire for a vigorous play test, a clear and flexible policy, and a policy that protects unpopular viewpoints. How do you solve this particular Gordian knot?
Thinking about it, my solution really is moderator elections combined with administrator veto of elected moderator actions and a prompt and clear recall process. The people who could run for moderator and the people who could vote would be subscribers only. (Heck, you could even make it that you got proportionally more votes the more things you subscribed to, which would cut down on the possibility of voter fraud by raising the barriers to entry.) The benefits might include posting board "ownership" of the solution to this problem, possible increased revenue, and outsourcing the labor of moderating this morass to customers. A modified model of 18th and 19th century democracy could conceivably work.
Consider it an extension of the open play test philosophy.
Alternatively, people could just report EVERY SINGLE post that they find abusive to the moderators via email, rather than let things get out of hand then post one of these call for moderation threads every three months. Of course, if that's what people ARE doing and the system is not working for them, then perhaps they need to try something else.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Then what do you suggest, Aubrey? The constraints seem to be administrator time, desire for a vigorous play test, a clear and flexible policy, and a policy that protects unpopular viewpoints. How do you solve this particular Gordian knot?
Roguerouge, you've mentioned protecting unpopular viewpoints a few times. Wouldn't that REQUIRE moderation? The worst abuses of the low-to-no moderation policy have been when someone posted something unpopular and then was attacked personally and repeatedly for it. Their view may have been poorly worded, poorly thought out, or just plain wrong but the attacks that followed crossed the line.
|
|
Then what do you suggest, Aubrey? The constraints seem to be administrator time, desire for a vigorous play test, a clear and flexible policy, and a policy that protects unpopular viewpoints. How do you solve this particular Gordian knot?
I'm broadly happy with what goes on, to be honest (though this one seemed to go on for a long time, probably because of the weekend). While I don't care for the tenor of the some of the debate, I was not especially surprised that things turned out the way they did as it follows the general pattern - aggressive poster shows up, he gets admonished, he gets more aggressive, flame wars errupt, aggressive poster gets drunk on his "victories", aggressive poster earns a warning and either calms down, gets a ban or leaves. They follow a fairly predictable life cycle.
I also expect this all to go away once the furore about 4e dies down and once the Pathfinder play test ends. There will still be occasional spats, but I take comfort that the more aggressive posters are not interested in the broader community and will almost all go away once their particular hobby horse has ridden off. I think the Paizo staff always act with great discretion in these matters, and wouldn't really want to change what they do at present.
I guess my post above is less about what I would change as a refutation of the notion that the medium of the message doesn't matter. Even if the rudeness was not offensive at a basic level, to state that Pathfinder is better for it (or in spite of it) is misguided. I appreciate that that was not your (Roguerouge) point as such. I am also reluctant to defend the right of someone to act like a pratt - sure, it's their right I suppose, but they can exercise it somewhere else.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Two notes:
1) There's a difference between a "difference of opinion" or "unpopular stance" on one side, and being deliberately rude and insulting on the other. I've had delightful conversations here with people who had strange opinions, or even when I've been the one with a strange opinion.
2) This particular thread is painting several posters with the same brush. I'd actually like to hold "squirrelloid" up as an example of Good Practice. He (presumably, he) has strong opinions, expressed directly, but without the kinds of condescention and arrogance others have displayed.
I invite everyone to view individuals on their own merits and flaws.
|
|
Two notes:
1) There's a difference between a "difference of opinion" or "unpopular stance" on one side, and being deliberately rude and insulting on the other. I've had delightful conversations here with people who had strange opinions, or even when I've been the one with a strange opinion.
Thanks - words I was groping for.
2) This particular thread is painting several posters with the same brush. I'd actually like to hold "squirrelloid" up as an example of Good Practice. He (presumably, he) has strong opinions, expressed directly, but without the kinds of condescention and arrogance others have displayed.
I invite everyone to view individuals on their own merits and flaws.
Agreed. I would also suggest that those who say that it doesn't matter which way a message is delivered are also doing a disservice to those who share their views but don't feel the need to ram the message home with hostility.
|
|
So from my point of view as a spectator (and sometime contributor, but at the fringes), it's great.People slow down to watch car wrecks too. Doesn't make it an activity that should be encouraged, though.
My point is that those are the most informative threads, in my opinion. I'm not there for the ghoulish spectacle -- as far as internet disagreements are concerned, it's pretty vanilla, in any case -- but because it's interesting and to learn stuff.
Agreed. I would also suggest that those who say that it doesn't matter which way a message is delivered are also doing a disservice to those who share their views but don't feel the need to ram the message home with hostility.
I don't think that I, for example, owe anything to people that might have similar views to me. Also, I don't think that the case that CoL and others have made -- that 3.5 and PFRPG fighters are too feeble -- has been at all weakened by them making it, quite the opposite. I can see that the problem probably won't get fixed, because of backwards compatibility, but as it is for many people the signature of the key flaw in 3.5 (overpowered spell casters), it's well worth the effort.
The fact is that hardly anyone else is making those points very forcefully and making the strong case for its importance; if you look at the typical thread, there are comments, some disagreement and then everyone agrees to disagree. Now, that's an excellent way to debate politics, for example, because everyone gets to pick what they want at some stage and the individual opinion, at least in a democracy, is the fundamental unit; it's the epitome of civilised discussion. However, in a playtest and/or design discussion, there's going to be a decision made in the end and that's going to be what the game ends up like. Sure, there may be some synthesis -- which can be a good or a bad thing in much the same way that grits can be a good or a bad thing (it depends on exactly what's in the mysterious gloop) -- but on other issues there's going to be a pretty tough decision made. Thus, the 'everyone agrees to disagree' politeness that is good to have in debates about politics, or which existing game system does what well and what badly, etc, doesn't, in the playtest/design discussion, do so well.
Again, as I say, I am not easily offended in any case, myself. There are people that are -- some of the people in this thread, and other people that left Paizo and stopped buying Paizo stuff because of the hostility they felt they experienced on these forums towards 4e -- but I would say that a tough discussion where the people on either side don't it personally works really well. It is unfortunate that some people on the other side of the discussion from CoL or the others (P_R, etc) making the similar case, or some of the spectators, do take it personally, but as I say, I perhaps callously think that the improvement of the game -- which I believe to be furthered more with these debates than any of the others (and it is here that some of us disagree, clearly) -- is significantly more important than their feelings, because at the end of it all, I can unashamedly say that I care more about the game, from which I selfishly gain enormous amounts of enjoyment and into which I'm sinking relatively significant time and money, than I do about the emotional state of people that come to the forums voluntarily. I've been playing (A)D&D for a fairly long time, now -- since 1980 -- and at this stage maybe PFRPG is the last chance for a viable game going forward with support that feels, to me, like D&D (I don't like 4e and have little faith that what follows it is going to be what I like, either) so, yeah, I think that it's important that the game isn't just what I like but also that it's popular enough to survive by making Paizo money. But, as I say, the big difference is probably that I genuinely believe that the sorts of conversations we're talking about are much more productive than some of the other conversations that have been going on.
Also, the particular thread about which this thread was written was, let's be honest, sort-of asking for what happened. That's a good thing, though, because the thread that resulted, the overall discussion about whether fighters are overbuffed or at least suffuciently buffed in PFRPG Beta, is for my money now about the best thread in the playtest forums. Again, this is one of those areas on which we will have different judgements, but if you ignore the snark (which I don't, because some of it's pretty funny, but which I separate from the content to try to achieve the same effect) there's some really interesting stuff there.
I say all this, incidentally, as someone with no enthusiasm for optimisation, myself. I also find that DM management solves a lot of the problems and I'm absolutely not a gamist (I'm more into simulationism with a dose of narrativism). However, when designing a game, I think that this issues discussed by CoL, P_R, etc, are really important, because designing it and playing/DMing it are different, although clearly interconnected, things. For one reason or another, and across all the forums I've seen, the people that are really into the game design/breaking the game down thing seem to have a particular abrasive/macho approach to it (it's not that dissimilar from the approach I've seen from various theoretical physicists, incidentally, in, say, cosmology and it works there, too).
Again, this is all Just My Opinion, and I should add that if I thought that the nicey-nice discussion approach was producing the same quality of discussion I'd probably be less bothered (although I prefer light moderation in general).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So from my point of view as a spectator (and sometime contributor, but at the fringes), it's great.People slow down to watch car wrecks too. Doesn't make it an activity that should be encouraged, though.
My point is that those are the most informative threads, in my opinion.
No, they aren't. They aren't informative at all.
Too few ideas are generated because they very quickly turn into flame wars. The ideas that are generated and interesting aren't discussed because they can't be framed as 'functionally retarded,' 'broken,' or 'fail.' The conversation very quickly becomes about personalities and not mechanics.
The type of interaction you are describing -- strongly worded criticisms of others' opinions -- hinders brainstorming. It may have some value after a bunch of ideas have been tossed in to the mix but too much, too soon, too disrespectfully does not work.
As for your suggestion about 'thin skins,' I've got one of the thickest hides you've ever seen. I can put up with a lot of crap. I don't want to do it here and I don't have to. The playtest discussion should not be some sort of macho bloodsport / juvenile power fantasy. That may work for some people but it will turn off a lot more.
|
|
No, they aren't. They aren't informative at all.
Well, as I said, it's my opinion. We clearly don't agree and it may be that the disagreement is contingent in part on whether or not we ignore the snark:
Too few ideas are generated because they very quickly turn into flame wars. The ideas that are generated and interesting aren't discussed because they can't be framed as 'functionally retarded,' 'broken,' or 'fail.' The conversation very quickly becomes about personalities and not mechanics.The type of interaction you are describing -- strongly worded criticisms of others' opinions -- hinders brainstorming. It may have some value after a bunch of ideas have been tossed in to the mix but too much, too soon, too disrespectfully does not work.
As for your suggestion about 'thin skins,' I've got one of the thickest hides you've ever seen. I can put up with a lot of crap. I don't want to do it here and I don't have to. The playtest discussion should not be some sort of macho bloodsport / juvenile power fantasy. That may work for some people but it will turn off a lot more.
See, I completely disagree. I work in academia and some of the best brainstorming I've seen has come from this sort of free-wheeling, quickfire, occasionally aggressive and always forceful debate. I particularly disagree on the case of the thread in question, which for my money has been the best thread in the PFRPG forums.
I also don't think that this is well-described as 'juvenile power fantasy', incidentally; I can see, I guess, why you're describing it that way (denigration of opposition behaviour, exactly what CoL does, although he also has personal stuff in his) because you're irritated by it, but I am completely inconvinced that that's a fair description of the general position.
As for the rest, of course, this is clearly just your opinion (I labelled what I said as Just My Opinion, but yours is clearly Just The Same, albeit apparently a more popular one than mine).
Another point I would make and which I guess comes from my teaching days is that I personally feel that expecting, wanting or demanding 'respect' from other people is a complete waste of time. One can demand certain behaviours -- people who want more decorum, for example, are perfectly entitled to call for that even if I disagree -- but 'respect' is a statement about motivation and, frankly, I don't think that's the thing to aim for. 'Behaviour consistent with respect' is the thing you may be looking for, i.e., you don't care why people behave that way so long as they behave in the sort of way that someone that respected another person would behave toward that person (even if they are actually engaged in making graphic and insulting doodles of you on the pad next to their keyboard...).
Roguerouge, you've mentioned protecting unpopular viewpoints a few times. Wouldn't that REQUIRE moderation? The worst abuses of the low-to-no moderation policy have been when someone posted something unpopular and then was attacked personally and repeatedly for it. Their view may have been poorly worded, poorly thought out, or just plain wrong but the attacks that followed crossed the line.
I tend to take John Stuart Mill's stance on these things, which is that content controllers tend to protect the popular ideas that support their status quo, rather than ideas on the upswing. In my experience, speech referees who are not accountable to the will of the participants tends to lead to problems, whether it be personal bias, over-reaching, or bowing to the will of the mob because that leads to less hassle. (For example, after the Mutual Film decision of 1915 declared the film was not protected by the first amendment, it was Emma Goldman's Birth Control, not Griffith's Birth of a Nation, that got banned.) YMMV.
Bagpuss wrote:
Daeglin wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
So from my point of view as a spectator (and sometime contributor, but at the fringes), it's great.People slow down to watch car wrecks too. Doesn't make it an activity that should be encouraged, though.
My point is that those are the most informative threads, in my opinion.
No, they aren't. They aren't informative at all.
Too few ideas are generated because they very quickly turn into flame wars. The ideas that are generated and interesting aren't discussed because they can't be framed as 'functionally retarded,' 'broken,' or 'fail.' The conversation very quickly becomes about personalities and not mechanics.
The type of interaction you are describing -- strongly worded criticisms of others' opinions -- hinders brainstorming. It may have some value after a bunch of ideas have been tossed in to the mix but too much, too soon, too disrespectfully does not work.
As for your suggestion about 'thin skins,' I've got one of the thickest hides you've ever seen. I can put up with a lot of crap. I don't want to do it here and I don't have to. The playtest discussion should not be some sort of macho bloodsport / juvenile power fantasy. That may work for some people but it will turn off a lot more.
I'd be one of those turned off.
I'm very interested in hearing playtest opinions, but I've taken to staying away from those threads. I can't enjoy or learn from a thread which becomes a shout/insult fest. Any discussion that includes the thought (however unspoken) that 'I'm right, so you must be wrong' is an argument, not a discussion.
It's good to hear ya'lls opinions but the crucial thing to remember is 'Your Game May Vary'. We all play differently, so don't expect us to agree with your efficency ratings or why some rule is broken.
To me, the important part of the game is the players. The rules are second. Good people make good games, good rules only help. And yes, bad rules make good games worse. But it's imagination and stories that count for me. I guess I'm still that kid who played with the box and paper as much as the present that was inside.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
See, I completely disagree. I work in academia and some of the best brainstorming I've seen has come from this sort of free-wheeling, quickfire, occasionally aggressive and always forceful debate.
I've taught in universities for 13 years. If I allowed this tone of discussion to take place in my classroom, I'd be brought before the dean.
As for denigrating the opposition in describing certain behaviour as a juvenile power fantasy, I'm quite comfortable saying that anyone who describes ideas they disagree with as 'retarded' is being juvenile.
|
|
I also don't think that this is well-described as 'juvenile power fantasy', incidentally; I can see, I guess, why you're describing it that way (denigration of opposition behaviour, exactly what CoL does, although he also has personal stuff in his) because you're irritated by it, but I am completely inconvinced that that's a fair description of the general position.
Actually, it is only part of it. The other part is a desire to strangle the debate to ensure that only one message gets through.
And brainstorming in person can be forceful, but if CoL said the things he writes to people's faces he would probably be in the Emergency Room. The internet, as you probably know, allows all sorts of stupidity because of the anonymity aspect. And, as an academic, you also probably know that people get all riled up in deeply immature ways about stuff which actually matters to no one else.
The point is, most of us have jobs and responsibilities and don't want to have to deal with this crap on the board we go to to relax. This isn't just about Pathfinder, it is about the Paizo community. You say you find it "amusing" when CoL has a go at someone. I am offended that people I respect are being disrespected by juvenile hooligans. The difference in our reactions probably means that you are not really connected with the community at large, and see this purely as "Pathfinder RPG" and not "the broader Paizo community". Up to you, but then please stop telling us ("man up", get thicker skins) what to do if you don't give a damn how any of us feel.
See, I completely disagree. I work in academia and some of the best brainstorming I've seen has come from this sort of free-wheeling, quickfire, occasionally aggressive and always forceful debate.
I've taught in universities for 13 years. If I allowed this tone of discussion to take place in my classroom, I'd be brought before the dean.
And in the academic conferences I've gone to, it seems to be bad form to ask even pointed questions after a paper is delivered. I've been teaching in academia for 8 years now, and I've yet to see a sustained debate between committed advocates of opposing viewpoints amongst my peers. (Professoriate-management debates are a notable exception.) Perhaps they occur in department meetings, but they only invite the 30 percent of higher ed that is not contingent labor to those things.
My two cents...
And I have a opening disclaimer. I lose my temper sometimes too, and not that long ago either. Its hard not to sometimes. I have to recognize that otherwise I'd be a hypocrite. On other hand, I spoke my peace and walked away afterwards.
Anyway.. for my comments.
In some of the playtest threads I see a lot of what I consider to be theatrics. Colorful phrases that you would expect in a face to face spoken conversation. The practice of conversational writing is not bad in of itself, but some posters write that way in order to minimize their audience while elevating themselves. In the end, they create so much resentment in the person they're addressing that their otherwise worthwhile point goes unheard and unconsidered.
This is an example of something that was said to me:
And has it occurred to you the reason they are not is because *wait for it* you are always better off hitting it in the face than moving it a little?
The little touches like "*wait for it*" don't come across as inviting consideration of an alternate opinion, all it actually conveys is that the speaker is talking down to me.
Though for the records, my feelings weren't hurt, I wasn't angry, but I didn't take the poster very seriously either. To the deteriment of what we were trying to accomplish.
That way of posting to other people doesn't help the process.
I've read that we should develop thicker skins, and this isn't about making friends. I would counter that it is about communicating and sharing ideas. If writing in a snappy witty style starts to interfere with that, then perhaps trying to make your point with style needs to be set aside in favor of just getting your message out and heard.
Likewise, being heard also requires that you listen.
I'm interested in one thing, Neo, the future. And believe me, I know - the only way to get there is together.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I tend to take John Stuart Mill's stance on these things, which is that content controllers tend to protect the popular ideas that support their status quo, rather than ideas on the upswing. In my experience, speech referees who are not accountable to the will of the participants tends to lead to problems, whether it be personal bias, over-reaching, or bowing to the will of the mob because that leads to less hassle. (For example, after the Mutual Film decision of 1915 declared the film was not protected by the first amendment, it was Emma Goldman's Birth Control, not Griffith's Birth of a Nation, that got banned.) YMMV.
Roguerouge, you've mentioned protecting unpopular viewpoints a few times. Wouldn't that REQUIRE moderation? The worst abuses of the low-to-no moderation policy have been when someone posted something unpopular and then was attacked personally and repeatedly for it. Their view may have been poorly worded, poorly thought out, or just plain wrong but the attacks that followed crossed the line.
I've emboldened the words 'the will of the mob'. I understand the need to protect 'the counter-hegemonic voices of the other/othered'. I don't think anyone is talking about squashing dissent. I think what is being suggested is cautioning posters about personally attacking individuals. For example, some guy came up with a 'CyborgRodent_of_Logic' avatar and used it to infer that CoL had the discursive style of the borg. That's just low. That guy should get a warning.
I'm fairly ambivalent about moderation and am just popping in to explore my ambivalence. I'm interested in hearing what people think should be the 'rules' of the forum if there were to be moderation.
For example, some guy came up with a 'CyborgRodent_of_Logic' avatar and used it to infer that CoL had the discursive style of the borg. That's just low. That guy should get a warning.
"The listener infers. The speaker implies." -- Cerebus the Aardvark.
-- Professor Darby
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Tarren, you should be banned. Or at least forced to change your alias to Trollin' Day. ;)For example, some guy came up with a 'CyborgRodent_of_Logic' avatar and used it to infer that CoL had the discursive style of the borg. That's just low. That guy should get a warning.You're my hero. :)
Only Canadians will understand that last bit.
A Canadian politician by the name of Stockwell Day proposed that if 3% of the Canadian population signed a petition that should be adequate to force parliament to debate the proposed issue. Rick Mercer, a television comedian, collected that number of signatures on a petition to have 'Stockwell Day' change his name to 'Doris Day' thus killing the proposal.
|
|
I'm interested in hearing what people think should be the 'rules' of the forum if there were to be moderation.
One of the rules that has been imposed over at ENWorld is this - no poster is ever allowed to call another poster a troll. I wasn't sure about that when I first heard of it but I have come to think that if we removed the word from our vocabulary, discussions might improve. As it is, it is too easy to dismiss a person with a contrary viewpoint as a troll and as soon as the accussation is made, the conversation is over. This is especially true in the 4e threads.
Likewise, comments about the motivations or personalities of posters should be off limits. You can tell them how they come across but should refrain from insulting them personally or their thoughts or playstyles.
Those who begin down the road of personal attacks should be warned, asked to leave a thread, but not the board. Time outs, when given, should be for two days, then for a week.
And if I was a moderator, I would ban the word "fail" but thats just me. :)
And where is Dayenn Naight?For example, some guy came up with a 'CyborgRodent_of_Logic' avatar and used it to infer that CoL had the discursive style of the borg. That's just low. That guy should get a warning."The listener infers. The speaker implies." -- Cerebus the Aardvark.
-- Professor Darby
I believe he is still standing in the hallway of an asylum ... Ahem.
|
|
I've taught in universities for 13 years. If I allowed this tone of discussion to take place in my classroom, I'd be brought before the dean.
I'm not talking about classrooms, I'm talking about researchers brainstorming and at conferences. I've seen shouting matches, chairs being kicked around, insults, all sorts (this is in physics, mostly theoretical physics). Some of them do take it personally, alas, but most don't. There are also some that don't engage in that stuff at all and either bow out of those particular debates or else don't really engage others much. It takes all sorts and, as a community, a fair amount of mutual tolerance, but the community is (fortunately) big enough to allow for all those sorts.
For classroom stuff, I've taught at University and at Highschool and, sure, I control the tone because it makes my life a lot easier (and as you say, if some student complained that they were insulted it'd create trouble; I was talking about researchers, though, who are entering this thing of their own free will and for a common purpose). That's a discussion mostly for the purpose of learning, though; I haven't seen any significant developments in the understanding of theoretical quantum mechanics, or the study of dark energy, arise in a classroom. We're teaching them so that they can go on and get themselves to a position where in a few years they are near enough the edge of what's known to make some contribution to the field themselves. Different subjects will do things differently, of course.
As for denigrating the opposition in describing certain behaviour as a juvenile power fantasy, I'm quite comfortable saying that anyone who describes ideas they disagree with as 'retarded' is being juvenile.
That's sort of my point.
I'm not talking about classrooms, I'm talking about researchers brainstorming and at conferences. I've seen shouting matches, chairs being kicked around, insults, all sorts (this is in physics, mostly theoretical physics). Some of them do take it personally, alas, but most don't. There are also some that don't engage in that stuff at all and either bow out of those particular debates or else don't really engage others much. It takes all sorts and, as a community, a fair amount of mutual tolerance, but the community is (fortunately) big enough to allow for all those sorts.
For classroom stuff, I've taught at University and at Highschool and, sure, I control the tone because it makes my life a lot easier (and as you say, if some student complained that they were insulted it'd create trouble; I was talking about researchers, though, who are entering this thing of their own free will and for a common purpose). That's a discussion mostly for the purpose of learning, though; I haven't seen any significant developments in the understanding of theoretical quantum mechanics, or the study of dark energy, arise in a classroom. We're teaching them so that they can go on and get themselves to a position where in a few years they are near enough the edge of what's known to make some contribution to the field themselves. Different subjects will do things differently, of course.
Its still fundamentally different when the communication is on a message board as opposed to face to face. Its too easy to dehumanize the speaker or the listener. Concessions have to be made for the medium of communication that may not have to be made to the same extent when you have direct access to the other party.
Also, the incentives to particpate in such contentious confrontation are much greater for scientists and researchers in the field of theoretical physics.
Most people don't want to put up with that level of absurd nonsense in order to improve Dungeons and Dragons, and you're losing sight that shouldn't be necessary. The goal doesn't merit going to those extremes.
|
|
I'm not talking about classrooms, I'm talking about researchers brainstorming and at conferences. I've seen shouting matches, chairs being kicked around, insults, all sorts (this is in physics, mostly theoretical physics). Some of them do take it personally, alas, but most don't. There are also some that don't engage in that stuff at all and either bow out of those particular debates or else don't really engage others much. It takes all sorts and, as a community, a fair amount of mutual tolerance, but the community is (fortunately) big enough to allow for all those sorts.
For classroom stuff, I've taught at University and at Highschool and, sure, I control the tone because it makes my life a lot easier (and as you say, if some student complained that they were insulted it'd create trouble; I was talking about researchers, though, who are entering this thing of their own free will and for a common purpose). That's a discussion mostly for the purpose of learning, though; I haven't seen any significant developments in the understanding of theoretical quantum mechanics, or the study of dark energy, arise in a classroom. We're teaching them so that they can go on and get themselves to a position where in a few years they are near enough the edge of what's known to make some contribution to the field themselves. Different subjects will do things differently, of course.
Its still fundamentally different when the communication is on a message board as opposed to face to face. Its too easy to dehumanize the speaker or the listener. Concessions have to be made for the medium of communication that may not have to be made to the same extent when you have direct access to the other party.
Also, the incentives to particpate in such contentious confrontation are much greater for scientists and researchers in the field of theoretical physics.
Most people don't want to put up with that level of absurd nonsense n order to improve Dungeons and Dragons, and you're losing sight that...
And even Bagpuss admits that not all researchers enjoy those kind of debates, either not participating or leaving when they have had enough. In other words, the conversation is not as effective as it could be without everyone involved.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I've taught in universities for 13 years. If I allowed this tone of discussion to take place in my classroom, I'd be brought before the dean.I'm not talking about classrooms, I'm talking about researchers brainstorming and at conferences. I've seen shouting matches, chairs being kicked around, insults, all sorts (this is in physics, mostly theoretical physics).
Hmmm. Most of the theoretical physicists I know are more of the mutter to themselves and stare at the ceiling while rolling their eyes types. ;-) Likewise, the conferences I've been to (not theoretical physics conferences) have been a lot calmer. I propose some pretty radical stuff in my presentations and I get strongly worded responses. I explore racism in textbooks and have had authors of those textbooks challenge me at conferences. I've always managed to have intelligent discussions with them without either of us throwing anything.
Who was it who said that in academia the conflicts are so fierce precisely because the stakes are so low?
As for denigrating the opposition in describing certain behaviour as a juvenile power fantasy, I'm quite comfortable saying that anyone who describes ideas they disagree with as 'retarded' is being juvenile.That's sort of my point.
Not sure if I get you here. It is a 'juvenile' discourse style. It is something that most people grow out of. I could have called it 'youthful' but that doesn't carry the negative connotation. 'Retard' and 'retarded' are intended as insults and display insensitivity to the many people who are or have family members who are challenged by cognitive impairments.