Hi, guys.
I'm baaaaaack. Dja miss me?
Let me start with a mea culpa: I'm not a very good discussion board moderator in the best of times and these past few months have surely not qualified as "the best of times." As a result, I've been less effective in helping to guide (and/or corral) the community than I should have been.
That absence seems to have permitted the spread of some fairly unseemly behavior. There's a general sense, expressed both in the recently-closed thread and in an ongoing creek (rather less than a stream) of email to me, that the health of the board has been compromised by tendentious, self-important posts, a proliferation of text-less links and mean-spirited sniping on the part of some.
That's going to stop now.
Let's look at the three dominant complaints ad seriatim.
(1) Tendentious pomposity: that's my specialty, please don't horn in on it. My best work generally comes when I can answer, in advance, the questions (1) what's my point? and (2) how can I make it most gracefully? In general, that rewards short, clear and direct statements which open the door for discussion rather than close it.
(2) Link proliferation: you're welcome to link to any relevant external resource that seems meaningful, but I need you to add at least a sentence to the linking post which explains some combination of why you're linking to this piece, what it claims or what its significance is.
(3) Sniping, whether about the quality of another poster's portfolio or argument: don't. We've reactivated the "flag this" plug-in. Please use that option if you think that you or another member of the community is being treated without respect. I'll take the following actions, in this order: (1) temporarily close the thread, (2) review the questioned post and (3) reach out to the author.
The question becomes, where next? Realistically, the one thing that I can't do is promise big chunks of time on a daily basis to review posts. I would be more than happy to take nominations for a board member who would be willing to moderate discussions. I'd be happy to entertain the suggestion of a multi-moderator format.
With respect,
David
Comments
I never swipe at Ted. He and I go back decades now, through three sets of discussion boards. Over that time, he's posted hundreds of thousands of links as well as thousands of individual comments. It's a trove, he's a treasure.
That said, there's always been a deep divide among members of the community about the utility of pure links on the board. On the one hand, they represent important leads and highlight issues that you might otherwise never recognize. On the other, the sheer volume sometimes threatens to swamp other threads by relatively quickly pushing them down and then off page one. Some folks feel that undercuts the number and diversity of responses that a request or observation might otherwise attract.
I'm agnostic on the matter. I'm pursuing the "add a sentence" request as a way of mediating the legitimate concerns of both sides. Heck, there have been times when I've gone through an tried adding a sentence or two myself, not directly in a linking-post but in the first response to it. We'll see how it works and whether folks have a better solution.
David
Will a summary of the rules and expectations be posted on the home page or elsewhere for existing and/or new members to view?
Regards,
Catch
Like most, my time is limited. I'll pull-up the board half dozen times a day to see what's new. When 15+ out of the first 20 threads are all from the same poster and all linked articles it's overwhelming. I generally turn away. That's unfortunate because there may be a fresh original comment in there somewhere from Scott or Crash or OJ or MJG that's been already rapidly dispatched to page 2 or 3 on my tablet computer. It's a bit like looking for that single can of creamed corn in a cupboard stuffed with string beans. (You know it's in there somewhere:-)
Self imposed discipline is always best. But structure could be created I suppose that would limit the number of threads any one individual can create in a single day to encourage more participation by a broader array of posters. Do many of us seriously feel a need to initiate more than a dozen individual threads in a day? Hopefully, others will come up with better ideas. That's just one.
Regarding civility, that's not normally too much of a problem to my way of thinking. Possibly I'm missing something here. But, yes, there have been some egregious cases of bullying in the past and - with perfect 20/20 hindsight - those mean spirited comments should have been deleted. Everyone, including the perpetrator, would I think have respected such a decision.
Thanks David for your interest in our rumblings and for all you do for our community. I'm ever grateful. I'll try to step aside and avoid any further comment on this. Hopefully many others will chime in in coming days. And, thanks also to Old Joe for bringing these issues to the front. Regards
I get the sense there is a 'curmudgeonly' vibe here.
@Dex: Enforceable rules work if enforced. If posters know that a gratuitously rude comment directed toward another poster (for example) will earn them a day's suspension from posting (or some other limitation), and that suspension is enforced, it has, in my experience, worked quite well.
1. Self-regulation, while a good guiding principle, does not work in an unregulated
forum, especially with anonymous posters on internet. Vociferous minority can
dominate relatively silent minority. Similar reasons why we have laws in our
capitalistic society. The key is moderation in both senses of the word.
If left unattended, the silent minority of relative introverts will just leave.
2. I don't find the links to bothersome although some self-discipline as David suggests is a good idea. The bottomline is that the link was provided for a purpose and a short
commentary, even a single line of simple reason, is good practice.
3. We do need a mechanism to minimize name-calling, offensive posts. As I said before, we are all adults to deal with an occasional small outburst. We have all done that among friends and we do not have to be that sensitive. However, if the behavior persists, the moderator should take action. The other occasion is if a persistent emotional conflict between two posters is distracting from rational discourse, the moderator should suggest that it should be taken outside the forum.
Fight in the stands should not affect others enjoying the match.
4. On self-regulation, we just need to remember why we are here. Exchange ideas,
learn from others, get some satisfaction in offering our knowledge/wisdom among
a community of like-minded participants. Whenever we feel an urge to shoot
down the messenger, just take a deep breath and post only after you had a chance
to calm down.
Actually, I like the links- it's just trying to sort out everything else when there are more links than other postings. Being able to pull up just "links" would make it easier to appreciate them, also.
Regards- OJ
Have not seen much of that here at all, really. Have there been? Maybe I need to read more postings, rather than only the ones that interest me.
As for a set of rules or a mission statement? Nah. As others have said already this forum is far and above a better and more civilized place to share opinions than say Yahoo, MW, or many others. I hope this will spur some of the non-posting members to comment more often. Just today I have noticed some new (old) names here.
And it is not enforceable.
Edit: OK, edited former post. I guess the best way and most harmonious for the board is to simply avoid such posters by not clicking on their posts.
It is not the process, it is the PEOPLE. Everyone simply needs to read Mr. Snowballs original post and take heed.
ONE can ONLY do control what ONE does. ONE cannot control OTHERS.
I think and "Ignore" feature from a thread/discussion basis saved as a cookie/server profile of user will be of tremendous help. IF someone does not like someone's point of view, they do not have to engage. They can simply ignore.
Archaic