Feedback Thread closing/ Moderation

[VICE]

What, in your opinion, is the old system? I've not been keeping up with things the last couple of weeks due to some offline stuff, so you'll have to bear with me while I catch up.

Arbitrarily closing threads when the situation is perceived to be out of hand.
It saves the Staff from the headache of deciphering what is political and what is not.

 

[Lisa]

Arbitrarily closing threads when the situation is perceived to be out of hand.
It saves the Staff from the headache of deciphering what is political and what is not.

That may be your perception of what happened, but is actually far from the truth. Most threads that get closed do so only after discussions behind the scenes over whether it's necessary.

 

[s.molinari]

It apparently really is too difficult for them to stay civil.

And that, to me, is the point to stop the "rule breaker". It should be the base to a set of rules for a user warning and banning procedure. Closing a thread should be a very last resort and basically shouldn't be necessary at all. It isn't the thread that is a problem, but rather the one or two people being uncivil. To rule out any type of discussion for fear of uncivil activity isn't the proper solution to the problem - which is the uncivil activity.

Scott

 

[VICE]

uncivil activity

What is an uncivil activity?

Suppose the following example happen (based upon what transpire in reality): if I argue in a persuasive and nonbelligerent manner to wipe out every single member of your family because one of them happen to commit a murderous crime, do you consider my post civil?

 

[PoetJC]

That would be here, https://theadminzone.com/threads/re-summarily-closed-political-threads.139266/page-3#post-1043392

This suggestion, https://theadminzone.com/threads/a-return-back-to-the-old-policy.139569/

I actually made the initial suggestion:

1. political discussions are simply no longer allowed on TAZ OR BETTER YET...
2. allow political discussion threads to remain open, thread-banning all who engage in personal attacks.

Those are my suggestions, the former being a horrible one IMO. But honestly - it's no more horrible than the frustration of seeing [closed threads]

Howard opted for the first option. As someone who likes to indulge all sorts of mindsets, opinions and perspectives ... I was simply frustrated about seeing threads closed, posts edited and the like. Thus the suggestion. Had I my own way - we'd have the Hotseat back open with directions to the proverbial freezer should anyone feel the need for ice

J.

 

[PoetJC]

And that, to me, is the point to stop the "rule breaker". It should be the base to a set of rules for a user warning and banning procedure. Closing a thread should be a very last resort and basically shouldn't be necessary at all. It isn't the thread that is a problem, but rather the one or two people being uncivil. To rule out any type of discussion for fear of uncivil activity isn't the proper solution to the problem - which is the uncivil activity.

Scott

Already someone in this thread has posted the tongue-in-horrific-cheek "i take it somebody dared to post a conservative opinion." In my estimation - it is the bulk of conservative folks who are constantly engaging debate ... constantly laying down groundwork for dissension. Someone else's civil conversation is obviously not everyone else's interpretation of what's civil.

I tend to POST CAPS when I want to emphasize A POINT! I was told that it comes across as aggressive, when I'm not at all intending to be aggressive. Sometimes it's difficult interpreting a person's intent via forum post. It's unfortunate really... Difficult situation, as I myself thought that the 'conservative opinion' comment above was more passive aggressive-ish than I've dared to post on TAZ in a good long minute.

I do not envy TAZ Staff's job at this particular moment in time

J.

 

[s.molinari]

What is an uncivil activity?

That is what should be pointed out in the rules. I would say one rule would be, when the discussion moves away from the subject and turns to personal insults. That is "uncivil", in the sense of a discussion, and should be a quick way to get a warning.

Scott

 

[PoetJC]

That is what should be pointed out in the rules. I would say one rule would be, when the discussion moves away from the subject and turns to personal insults. That is "uncivil", in the sense of a discussion, and should be a quick way to get a warning.

Scott

2016 politics has folks thinking that "right wing nut job" and "liberal left pinko pansie" are par for civil discourse... Personal insults are personal insults.

if I argue in a persuasive and nonbelligerent manner ...

... While belligerence may be up for debate, some folks will call a persuasive argument overly aggressive and such.
There's distinctions to be made between persuasive argument, belligerence and personal insult imo...

J.

 

[VICE]

That is what should be pointed out in the rules. I would say one rule would be, when the discussion moves away from the subject and turns to personal insults. That is "uncivil", in the sense of a discussion, and should be a quick way to get a warning.

Scott

Please don't complicate the political life here with your micromanagement, Scotty. While I am fully in favor of the model put forth by Justice Joe, I also understand that such model is unrealistic for an admin forum of which basically suppose to be non political and non partisan. Your repressive, authoritarian and unworkable idea on the other hand, is to the far right of Joe's far left model and had been tried several times (e.g. the hot seat) and never work. Lets just face the reality, every political discussion will have ad hominems in them, such is an integral and inseparable part of any political discourse. Returning back to the old regime means the staff will let benign ad hominems to slide without letting loose the temper tantrums. There is no reason for TAZ staff, most of whom are unfamiliar with the variety of political discourse, to labor beyond what is simple and rudimentary; watch out for extremely toxic language and just close the thread when it started to get out of hand. Serious political discussion is not a niche for TAZ to begin with.

 

[VICE]

Lets look for an example of what what I said on non political section of TAZ. Here and there we will see snide remarks towards vBulletin. I consider these type of ad hominem to be benign and to be honest, quite funny. But if the amount of rhetoric becomes too much, staff can just step in and remove some or all the ad hominem. Simple, rudimentary and without the need to resort to long ass rule number xxx. Nobody read the rules anyway, most of us just use common sense.

 

[s.molinari]

I tend to POST CAPS when I want to emphasize A POINT!

You can write all the CAPS you want, as long as you don't use the CAPS to insult another person. The complication arises with the subtle indirect kind of insults some people seem to come up with.

Your repressive, authoritarian and unworkable idea

Heh? How is it repressive?

Make a set of rules, which set the boundaries for proper and civil participation. Like..."No personal insults", for instance. When the rules are broken, the person breaking the rules gets punished. It's how discipline in any society/ community is upheld.

I'll ignore the micromanagement insult too BTW. But, you should be aware it's exactly those kinds of unnecessary comments that go to a personal level and heat up threads only to have them eventually get closed.

Scott

 

[The Sandman]

I could simply prevent 3 or 4 current members from participating on TAZ and 95% of my problems would be solved. I prefer not to do that...

 

[s.molinari]

I could simply prevent 3 or 4 current members from participating on TAZ and 95% of my problems would be solved.

So you'd rather punish the other 99% of your active members by not letting them discuss politics or religion?

Scott

 

[PoetJC]

I could simply prevent 3 or 4 current members from participating on TAZ and 95% of my problems would be solved. I prefer not to do that...

I'd dare say such a thing would lead to a clique of yes-men agreers as opposed to a community of well-spoken, creative thinkers, and would inevitably be a detriment. I mean - if you seriously believe that there are 3 or 4 members as toxicity rather than integral asset to TAZ... And that by preventing their involvement on TAZ... Wow. That's something else there. To think that 3-4 active members out of 36,564 total registered members are so negatively influential... You believe that?

Anyway - off to bed I go. Have a great rest of the day fellas and ladies.

J.

 

[s.molinari]

I'd dare say such a thing would lead to a clique of yes-men agreers as opposed to a community of well-spoken, creative thinkers, and would inevitably be a detriment.

I'd say, that isn't going to happen. I mean, there wouldn't be a clique-ess kind of culture here. On the other hand, there is also no need for complete bans. Not yet.

What are the rules here on TAZ for civil participation? What are the punishments for breaking them?

Scott

 

[Digital Phoenix]

So you'd rather punish the other 99% of your active members by not letting them discuss politics or religion?

Scott

How the hell is it punishing anyone? This is not a political/religious/debate forum, don't try to use it as one and you'll be fine.

If you want to discuss(argue) politics and religion, there are plenty of forums out there that are dedicated to such.

 

[s.molinari]

How the hell is it punishing anyone?

Because the other members aren't allowed the chance to even open up these discussions, because others aren't able to follow rules (are there rules? and why I asked above.). Whether or not TAZ wants these discussions at all is another subject. But currently, the rule was made to avoid the discomfort of penalizing people directly, so instead, everyone gets "the shaft".

In effect, I could actually care less about religious or political discussions on TAZ myself. It's more about the principle.

Scott

 

[Digital Phoenix]

Because the other members aren't allowed the chance to even open up these discussions, because others aren't able to follow rules (are there rules? and why I asked above.). Whether or not TAZ wants these discussions at all is another subject. But currently, the rule was made to avoid the discomfort of penalizing people directly, so instead, everyone gets "the shaft".

In effect, I could actually care less about religious or political discussions on TAZ myself. It's more about the principle.

Scott

Again, this is not a political/religious/debate site, show why should people be allowed to discuss it?
Howard has deemed that Taz is not an appropriate site for such discussions and has changed the rules accordingly.
It's not punishing anyone, it's simply a change in policy.

 

[Steve]

I'd say, that isn't going to happen. I mean, there wouldn't be a clique-ess kind of culture here. On the other hand, there is also no need for complete bans. Not yet.

What are the rules here on TAZ for civil participation? What are the punishments for breaking them?

Scott

Rules? https://theadminzone.com/help/terms

4th point....

As for punishments, trying to punish another forum admin is like telling your significant other to sit in timeout. Not going to go over well. Then that leads to a ban when the user is usually helpful in other parts of the site.

 

[s.molinari]

Again, this is not a political/religious/debate site, show why should people be allowed to discuss it?

The fact people are limited here now is a punishment, only because of the circumstances which led to the decision. You seem to want to ignore that part of the story, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sometimes a simple convo will resolve the issue.

Agreed. One doesn't have to resort directly to punishment in the first instance of an infraction.

Steve - you all do a pretty good job for the most part and I enjoy being a member here. The reasoning for closing the threads I noted above seemed to allude me. You've reopened the one thread. Thank you.

I'll admit I flew over the rules page rather quickly, but what I missed was any reference to the process of judgement and punishment, should any of the rules be broken. For discipline to work, that process must also be known and followed....consistently.

Scott