Rules Questions Subforum: Making it a better place

[Scythia]

I honestly don't think there's any way to guarantee civility in an internet forum that is certain to cause disagreement.

To that end, I suspect a clear statement of expectation, like the one on the off-topic forum, and effective moderation, as we currently have, are the best options.

[Jiggy]

Diego Rossi wrote:

The "simplest" way is to have a extra tab in your personal page:

Your moderated posts accessible only to you.
If you can go back and read them after a time, with a calmer mind, maybe you will be able to see why they have been moderated.
(Simplest for the forum goers, probably it would require a good quantity of work for the forum administrators)

Now THAT is an intriguing idea! :)

Quote:

I disagree with you on one point: not only people that are wrong get angry/frustrated. Trolls can get you and push you into making questionable posts and/or sometime we resort to strong posts when the other guy seem totally unable to get the rules, even when presented with rule quotes.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that only people who are wrong get angry/frustrated. I even pointed out that the issue typically escalates to a (two-sided) shouting match where both parties end up with deleted posts.

Ironically, what you describe above about trolls is exactly what I was talking about, except instead of calling them "trolls", I called them "people who need to shoot down a threatening idea". I don't think it's very often (at least in the Rules forum) that the motivation really is just to troll.

[Jiggy]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Powergamer, min-maxing, rule-lawyer and so on have legitimate uses, not only derogatory uses.

Pretty much every derogatory term has a legitimate usage somewhere. For instance, friends with dark skin sometimes greet each other happily with "What's up, n****r?" But the term still has enough history as a means of disparaging people that it's not acceptable for a public forum. The same goes for some of these gaming-related terms. Sure, in some contexts they might have legitimate uses, but most often (at least here) they're used as a means of putting people in boxes for easy dismissal.

[Diego Rossi]

Jiggy wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

I disagree with you on one point: not only people that are wrong get angry/frustrated. Trolls can get you and push you into making questionable posts and/or sometime we resort to strong posts when the other guy seem totally unable to get the rules, even when presented with rule quotes.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that only people who are wrong get angry/frustrated. I even pointed out that the issue typically escalates to a (two-sided) shouting match where both parties end up with deleted posts.

Ironically, what you describe above about trolls is exactly what I was talking about, except instead of calling them "trolls", I called them "people who need to shoot down a threatening idea". I don't think it's very often (at least in the Rules forum) that the motivation really is just to troll.

If some poster isn't trolling on purpose, I can only say that they have a unusual way to read the rules.

Sometime people has an honest problem reading the rules, other times they see them with fresh eyes and notices real problems in the text that people that know the story of the development of the game don't see, sometime I am completely wrong, but there is a very small minority that seem to thrive in creating strife.

[Jiggy]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

I disagree with you on one point: not only people that are wrong get angry/frustrated. Trolls can get you and push you into making questionable posts and/or sometime we resort to strong posts when the other guy seem totally unable to get the rules, even when presented with rule quotes.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that only people who are wrong get angry/frustrated. I even pointed out that the issue typically escalates to a (two-sided) shouting match where both parties end up with deleted posts.

Ironically, what you describe above about trolls is exactly what I was talking about, except instead of calling them "trolls", I called them "people who need to shoot down a threatening idea". I don't think it's very often (at least in the Rules forum) that the motivation really is just to troll.

If some poster isn't trolling on purpose, I can only say that they have a unusual way to read the rules.

That's the thing, though: when somebody's sense of identity is on the line, they can lose the ability to process data properly. They can deny what's right in front of their faces "because that just can't be right!"

Sure, there are some people who are just trying to cause trouble, but they're an unbelievably tiny minority; even among people whose 'interpretation' of the rules makes no sense whatsoever, the vast majority aren't intentionally doing anything wrong. They're just doing what it takes to preserve their identity, and are blinded to just how much they have to contort the data to get it to fit into their box.

But in either case (actual troll or nice person who doesn't realize they feel threatened) the lifespan of the thread follows a similar pattern, and can probably be handled similarly.

[Caedwyr]

I've previously communicated the below to paizo via another medium, but I think it's worth reposting to the current discussion:

The current moderation approach of deleting all offending posts, is self-defeating and creating more work for the moderation team.

Another quote, about profanity filters

Another community manager wrote:

What’s the reason for the filter? To stop people swearing. The theory is that there’ll be no fun in swearing if the words don’t come out right. In practise, one of the following things happens

• The users continue swearing constantly, happy in the knowledge that it will be filtered regardless. Your forum becomes ****** full of this kind of ****, and it looks ****** terrible.
  
• The users respond to your filter by trying to find the limits of it. Is **** filtered? What about if I spell it with a ph instead of an f? What if I use numbers instead of letters? What if I- etc. You will never beat human ingenuity on this matter.
  
• Some users are bright enough to stop swearing, and are simply more creative and passive-aggressive in the ways that they’re awful to each other.

Aside from the fact that swearing is manifestly brilliant, a profanity filter is a software solution to a management problem. If you don’t want people swearing on your forum, tell them that it isn’t allowed. Put it in the rules. Use whatever gradual punishment systems you have in place if they ignore you. Ban them if they persist. If your users won’t do what you ask them to without a software solution, you’re getting something wrong.

What is happening is that people are treating the deletions as a profanity filter, in that they feel free to be as awful to each other as they like, safe in the knowledge that all that will happen is a few posts might get deleted. Even worse, people learn to game the system and figure out ways to get stuff by the moderators, which in turn creates an even more toxic environment.

If instead, the offending posts were flagged in some way, and a visible graduated punishment system (points, jailing, infractions, temp bans, etc) was used to show that the behaviour was not appropriate, experience on other sites shows that this is less work for the moderators in the long run.

To go with this, you would also need a rule to not +1 a moderator's response or comment on the moderation (cheering on, etc) in the thread, or you get the negative dogpiling that can make a community unattractive.

[Steve Geddes]

I think those are good points.

The piling on of "how dare you? I've flagged this and it will be deleted...." etcetera posts isn't useful. I can see value in comments like that once or twice (for information purposes) - Paizo's hardline stance on discussing anti-copy protection measures is a semi-regular source of confusion, for example.

Similarly, the people who say "This is going to be deleted, but...." are pretty obviously intentionally breaking the forum rules.

[TOZ]

I always get slandered in these things.

[Caedwyr]

The other big thing you need to prevent, because it helps foster a negative atmosphere, is people piling on in agreement to whatever moderation action is taken. Either prevent people from +'ing a moderation post, or make it an infractable offense for doing so. Otherwise you can very easily get an "I told you so" or a "I win" type atmosphere that further engenders hard feelings. Ideally, when the moderation happens, everyone stops discussing/acting in the way that triggered the moderation. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, it takes two to have an argument and in a self-policed forum people will just choose to not engage or cross the line in the first place. It takes a while to achieve such a community, but it is very rewarding and tends to allow for an expansion of the audience to people you would never have thought were potential community members.

[Steve Geddes]

I favourite moderator posts reasonably often. I'm not intending that as a "Ha ha! I was right!" thing (I'm rarely a participant in the threads that get heavily moderated).

Rather, I'm intending it as a thank you to the moderator. I don't want to derail the thread with an actual post, but I do want to let the staff know that I appreciate their efforts to keep us playing nice, since I suspect it's one of the worst parts of the job and might begin to feel pointless.

[Caedwyr]

I've done it as well in the past. I'm just saying, that on other forums it is something I've observed that gets weaponized when lots of the other ways people can be unpleasant and nasty to each other gets locked down. Also, even if we don't mean it that way, it is very easy for the person to get moderated to take it as others attacking them if they see a moderator post with a huge number of agrees. It contributes to the feeling of being dogpiled. If you want the moderators to be seen as not taking sides in an argument or more of a neutral faction that enforces the spirit of the rules, it has been shown to be better to prevent one side or another from co-opting them or be seen to co-opting. This isn't for some high-minded reason, but rather just what I've seen work best at other forums.

[Steve Geddes]

I must admit that I don't visit the rules forums much any more and one of the things I'm always perplexed by when I do is the use of the favourite feature. It's relatively common to see half a dozen posters arguing with one alternate viewpoint and favouriting each of "their side's" posts. You've probably got a point that it has evolved into a kind of scoring system there, even though that isn't really how I use it.

[upsidedownlamp]

A stickied policy reminder at the top of the Rules subforum could go a ways. Mostly, the sort of common-sense and oft-quoted reminders to step back sometimes, to remember that Pathfinder is a pretty thick rulebook, and to understand the rules, but to ultimately to do what's best for your table.

Make the post community-positive, and ask mods to refer or quote from it. Posters may do so, as well. The intent is to take those "let's step back" and "do what's best for your table" things that get said from time to time, and make them a more forward and visible part of the community conversation.

[Chris Lambertz]

Caedwyr, you bring up an interesting point about moderator posts and favoriting. Part of the reason we chose the "Favorite" label on this function is to make it as neutral as possible (as opposed to "like" or "+1"), with the intent that folks can come back to their favorited posts later for referencing (which is why it's a tab under your profile). I can certainly see it being viewed as a "dog piling" issue.

As an aside: I am currently covering for a couple out of the office staff, but I am keeping up on this thread, and hope to have some form of implementation as soon as I have a moment to truly focus on these issues. Just want to make sure that there's no feeling that this is being ignored or left aside :)

[captain yesterday]

Well I shall personally stop favorite-ing moderators in Ooc mode then, I don't want to be a jerk to others. :-)

[CampinCarl9127]

Chris is certainly correct in how the favorite function works. I only favorite posts that I intend to reference for one reason or another; I don't have room under my favorites tab for posts that are used to dog pile others. In fact every few months or so I go through my favorited posts and clear out the ones I no longer have a need for.

[Caedwyr]

If you look at how a lot of people use the favourite function, I would suggest that many are using it more as a +1/agree tool than a favourite post I want to keep track of for later tool. From what I've seen on other sites, this is a pretty common adaptation by the forum populations. If there is no other visible reaction button, people will start to use whatever is available.

[captain yesterday]

Well I use it for both, when I need to find something, and when I agree with someone.

I also use it as a barometer of how my posts are seen thru the community, which I strive to be a positive one.

I think making it so you can't favorite moderators in Ooc mode is probably the best way, rather than take it away entirely.

[Caedwyr]

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

[upsidedownlamp]

Caedwyr wrote:

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

[Duiker]

Caedwyr wrote:

If you look at how a lot of people use the favourite function, I would suggest that many are using it more as a +1/agree tool than a favourite post I want to keep track of for later tool. From what I've seen on other sites, this is a pretty common adaptation by the forum populations. If there is no other visible reaction button, people will start to use whatever is available.

Huh, I had no idea I could go search by what I'd favorited. This changes everything.

[Caedwyr]

upsidedownlamp wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

That would work as well, but I'd suggest changing the symbol on the forums to something that looks more like a bookmark. Otherwise people will see the little + sign and just continue to use it as a +1/agree button (as well as some people using it for the intended purpose).

[CampinCarl9127]

upsidedownlamp wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

Ooh, I like this suggestion. It takes away the implications of dog piling for sure.

[Joana]

The post introducing Favorites to the boards:

Gary Teter wrote:

Today we're introducing favorites for messageboard posts. They're basically an internal bookmarking system, so you can refer back to posts you want to be able to find later. Favorites are public—everybody can see what you've favorited, and can see who's favorited a post.

To favorite a post, click the "+" beneath the reply link. You can remove your favorite at any time. We show a count of how many people have favorited a post next to the "+", and if you click that text, you can see who favorited the post.

There is a new "favorites" tab on your user profile page, which shows all the posts you've favorited. There's also a tab to show you which of your posts have been favorited, including those you may have posted under aliases.

A note about the terminology: We've specifically selected "favorites" rather than "+1" or "like". Anybody can favorite a post for any reason, not just agreement with the sentiment expressed or how it was said.

As someone who has seen the boards both before and after the introduction of the feature, it definitely reduced the proliferation of "+1" or "me too" posts. I've certainly used it as an alternative to posting, "Yes, this is how I read the rule as well" or the like and would be sorry to see it explicitly not mean that anymore.

Particularly when the List function is much better at bookmarking posts you want to find again.

[Kalindlara]

I often use it for agreement as well.

[Chris Lambertz]

So, for some background: I recently had to have a detailed discussion with a friend of mine why the altering of "stars" to "hearts" on Twitter was such a big deal (and believe me when I say I was very much surprised by how into it I got). It's very much the same issue that I'm seeing being raised here (where a neutral symbol literally changes into an affirmation/symbol of agreement). Since the overall function is deeply coded into the forums, changing it up is a bigger conversation for us to have internally and devote resources to (and I can't really say at the moment one way or the other if we *will* see a change to that function). But I think it's incredibly valuable to consider where we go as the community continues to evolve.

[Steve Geddes]

Joana wrote:

The post introducing Favorites to the boards:

Gary Teter wrote:

Today we're introducing favorites for messageboard posts. They're basically an internal bookmarking system, so you can refer back to posts you want to be able to find later. Favorites are public—everybody can see what you've favorited, and can see who's favorited a post.

To favorite a post, click the "+" beneath the reply link. You can remove your favorite at any time. We show a count of how many people have favorited a post next to the "+", and if you click that text, you can see who favorited the post.

There is a new "favorites" tab on your user profile page, which shows all the posts you've favorited. There's also a tab to show you which of your posts have been favorited, including those you may have posted under aliases.

A note about the terminology: We've specifically selected "favorites" rather than "+1" or "like". Anybody can favorite a post for any reason, not just agreement with the sentiment expressed or how it was said.

As someone who has seen the boards both before and after the introduction of the feature, it definitely reduced the proliferation of "+1" or "me too" posts. I've certainly used it as an alternative to posting, "Yes, this is how I read the rule as well" or the like and would be sorry to see it explicitly not mean that anymore.

Particularly when the List function is much better at bookmarking posts you want to find again.

I definitely agree that the implementation of favorites improved the forums (via reducing the "+1" posts).

I'd personally think the risk of returning to the way things used to be in that regard outweighs the benefits of reducing the feeling of dogpiling (if that's what the perceived benefit is).