Discussion for new forum policies

I was about to say “Well said Field marshall”, but a new post was submitted.  I add to my original post with “and Vance”.

I think if you are going to be engaging in debates on this site in particular, you ought to at least play the game or be curious about playing it.  I am far far from perfect, my friends never mind my enemies will attest to that.  That being said, I wonder out loud if Kurt ever played Axis and Allies…ever?

A number of good, insightful, on-topic posts have been made in this thread. I only became aware of this thread’s existence today, so I’d like to respond to those posts.

1. First, I’d like to thank David (djensen), both for the work he’s done on these forums, and for getting the ball rolling with this discussion. I think he’s asking the right questions, and asking them in a constructive way.

2. I fully agree with what David had to say about the need to prevent cyber bullying.

3. I feel that ethnic and racial slurs have no place in this forum.

4. I agree with CWO Marc’s post in which he wrote that criticism should be focused on the other person’s argument, not the other person.

5. I also agree with CWO Marc’s point that “even when something is phrased politely and expressed as a nicely structured argument, it can still constitute (or be perceived as) hate speech if the point that is being made is a highly controversial one.” He is 100% right, which is why vaguely defined, open-to-interpretation concepts such as “hate speech” should be avoided in the drafting of list policies. Instead, those policies should prohibit specific behaviors, such as making hateful statements about a person or group of people on the basis of race.

6. I also agree with CWO Marc that if a thread goes too far off-topic, the off-topic posts should be moved to a new thread dedicated to the subject. The new thread should not be some sort of garbage can–as Malachi Crunch seems to envision. A discussion of a new topic can be every bit as valuable as a discussion of the original thread topic.

7. I agree with Vance that the policies used by moderators should be written, and should be accessible to forum users.

8. I also agree with Vance that moderators should never edit other people’s posts. (Except if requested, or except if something illegal in the United States has been posted.)

9. Vance is also correct to state that moderators should be held to the same standards as regular users.

10. Vance, DutchmanD, and JWW are right in saying that the job of moderators should be minimal.

11. I agree with CWO Marc that the primary job of the moderators should be to ensure threads remain civil. If participants begin drifting away from civility, then and only then is action necessary. To the extent sanctions are applied, they should be applied against those guilty of initiating or perpetuating the uncivil tone of the discussion. In no instance should a controversial opinion be viewed as an “excuse” for a violation of civility standards which would otherwise have applied.

12. I agree with Axisplaya about the critical need for quality moderators. Just to add to what he’s written, I believe the ideal moderator is level-headed, intelligent, avoids the appearance of conflicts of interest, and is restrained in his or her use of power.

13. JWW is correct to state that the “mod footprint” should be as small as possible. His proposed solution (of requiring two or more mods to agree before a moderator action can be taken) may have merit. Another possible solution is to remove the moderator powers from anyone who is too different than that described in 12).

14. I agree with Cromwell Dude that we should be able to discuss WWII with as much freedom as we discuss WWI. I also agree with his point that “free speech except when talking about the Nazis” is not really free speech.

Not to sound too much like Woodrow Wilson, but if the above fourteen points are implemented, we’ll have a much better forum! :)

@djensen:

No matter what the rules, they are going to be open to interpretation by a moderator and the community.

I’m also starting to like what Field Marshall (not to be confused with Field Marshal Games, of course) is saying about history. I’m thinking we should limit it to military history. I don’t need discussions on this forum about just war as it relates to WWII. And of course Dresden was bad, war is bad, there were atrocities all around. However, last I checked NONE OF YOU hold a PhD in history specializing in WWII (if you do please point me to your credentials) so as far as I’m concerned any post about history without references (and references on those references) is all armchair historian junk.

When I was playing a lot of A&A Minis, I would play with a guy who knew a lot of military history and he would talk about how the German set up pill boxes or how what happens in a paratrooper drop or details about certain tanks. It was very military focused and it never touched academic/political history topics.

I’m starting to think that:

• WWII talk should be limited to military history
• No political WWII discussions
• Provide references or risk that your post will be deleted

Requiring references is going to cause you trouble, because you can find or make any references you want (we all have the internet after all).

Expecting your moderators to go and read the references to determine if they are valid, is way too much.

Instead, any topics which you would allows only with references, just should not be on this forum at all, and instead should be on a different forum dedicated to that kind of stuff.

@Veqryn:

@djensen:

No matter what the rules, they are going to be open to interpretation by a moderator and the community.

I’m also starting to like what Field Marshall (not to be confused with Field Marshal Games, of course) is saying about history. I’m thinking we should limit it to military history. I don’t need discussions on this forum about just war as it relates to WWII. And of course Dresden was bad, war is bad, there were atrocities all around. However, last I checked NONE OF YOU hold a PhD in history specializing in WWII (if you do please point me to your credentials) so as far as I’m concerned any post about history without references (and references on those references) is all armchair historian junk.

When I was playing a lot of A&A Minis, I would play with a guy who knew a lot of military history and he would talk about how the German set up pill boxes or how what happens in a paratrooper drop or details about certain tanks. It was very military focused and it never touched academic/political history topics.

I’m starting to think that:

• WWII talk should be limited to military history
• No political WWII discussions
• Provide references or risk that your post will be deleted

Requiring references is going to cause you trouble, because you can find or make any references you want (we all have the internet after all).

Expecting your moderators to go and read the references to determine if they are valid, is way too much.

Instead, any topics which you would allows only with references, just should not be on this forum at all, and instead should be on a different forum dedicated to that kind of stuff.

If you want to play professor here then you should be prepared to post your references, either internet or printed. If people want to reference Wiki links and ruin there creditability here, so be it, but its easy to type clap-trap when you don’t have to post references. Certain personality types get pretty brave when sitting behind a keyboard and must be challenged and a reference is the most peaceful way. I doubt moderators will have time to check references but the members do and will be checking and advising mods as to indiscretions. If the post doesn’t pertain to a game, a scenario or ordinance then it belongs elsewhere. I’m not sure if anyone here has read any discussions from dedicated WWII forums but they get real ugly and people get ganged up on by the group which divides the forums, we don’t want to go there!

@djensen:

• Provide references or risk that your post will be deleted

I can see a couple of potential problems with this idea.  The first is that giving references will not in itself prevent some of the kinds of nasty fights we’ve seen because several of those fights have been over the validity of the sources that people have quoted in the first place. Given that some people will never change their minds about what sources they consider valid and what sources they consider illegitimate, requiring people to always provide references won’t automatically convince the folks on the other side of a debate that the argument being presented is a sound one.

The second problem is that the reference requirement may do more harm than good, and in most cases may not be necessary.  There have been plenty of military history discussions on this board in which unreferenced information has been provided without this causing any problems.  Someone will ask a question about a subject, or bring up a topic for debate; various people will then contribute to the thread, offering facts or opinions, and the discussion will proceed in a perfectly cordial way without posters being challenged to back up their statements.  Sometimes a person will ask politely where a particular bit of information came from, and the poster will just as politely provide the reference – which is entirely fine.  I’m worried that if people are required to always cite their sources, this will stiffle discussion too much.  I know that I don’t always remember where I got a particular bit of information when I post something on the board.  Sometimes the information isn’t always from a single source, but rather is the result of many years of reading, which makes it hard to provide specific references.  And sometimes what people are asked to contribute in these threads are opinions rather than facts – for instance, their views about what such-and-such a country could have done in such-and-such a battle to change the result in such-and-such a way.  These kinds of opinions can be fun and valuable to read about, even thought they can’t be proved (though it helps when evidence is provided to back up the poster’s conclusions).

My preference would be to have a simpler system: people can provide references if they want, and should be willing to provide references on request if a contentious point comes up, but otherwise they should not be pressured into always citing sources under the threat of possible post deletion.

Providing references should be done as a matter of routine when required.  I would prefer to think of references as a source of additional knowledge valued by everyone rather than a controversial piece of information that supports a controversial subject.  Ah but that is in the eye of the beholder.

I try to cite sources when I can and I often do a google search to verify my memory is correct, then post what I think are valuable links.

But strictly requiring them, I have to agree with what others wrote.

Kurt, nice 14 point plan.  I like the segue to history and Woodrow Wilson.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Providing references should be done as a matter of routine when required.  I would prefer to think of references as a source of additional knowledge valued by everyone rather than a controversial piece of information that supports a controversial subject.  Ah but that is in the eye of the beholder.

I try to cite sources when I can and I often do a google search to verify my memory is correct, then post what I think are valuable links.

But strictly requiring them, I have to agree with what others wrote.

Kurt, nice 14 point plan.  I like the segue to history and Woodrow Wilson.

Thanks for the kind words.

On another matter, I’ve enjoyed the discussions about history on the WWII history forum. If in the future that forum is limited to strictly military history, most of its current value will be lost. I don’t see the harm in having a place where people can discuss WWII history like civilized adults; with moderators acting only when someone departs from the list’s standard of civility.

@djensen:

I’m starting to think that:

• WWII talk should be limited to military history
• No political WWII discussions
• Provide references or risk that your post will be deleted

My earlier post from this morning addressed djensen’s third point from this list.  I’d just like to add a comment about the first two points.  Drawing a distinction between the political and military aspects of WWII is potentially tricky, and would rule out many valid and interesting areas of discussion.  Keep in mind that most A&A games cover either the entire globe, or one of the two main theatres of the war (the European-Mediterranean theatre and the Asia-Pacific theatre), and as such are strategic-level wargames.  At that level, in which players represent the national command structure of entire nations, the political aspects of the war are a valid subject of discussion.  In Global 1940, just to pick one example, player decisions about when Japan goes to war against the U.S. or about whether a neutral country should be attacked represent high-level political policy decisions in the real world, not operational-level or tactical-level decisions of a purely military nature.

Really looking forward to you opening this thread up to Garg & IL…. :-D

I keep coming back to see some action and nothing…sigh.

Kind of the same feeling when I check out the “general discussion” forum…nothing happening there either…

@djensen:

It’s a long process to get this right.

I understand and respect that.

I’ve been a participant in forums in which people are allowed to post whatever ideas they want, as long as they adhere to the list’s standards of civility. The civility bar is typically set fairly high. Like someone stamping out a spark before it turns into a fire, moderators will typically post public warnings whenever someone starts becoming uncivil. There are no exceptions. Violations of civility standards are not tolerated even if the moderator likes the poster in question, agrees with the viewpoint being expressed, and disagrees with the viewpoint of the person being attacked.

This model works extremely well. People who, in other forums, are unable to discuss controversial issues such as politics without getting into name-calling, are in these forums able to have civil, intelligent, informative discussions about those subjects. Once you get rid of incivility, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes much higher.

As I’ve mentioned in my earlier posts, I think civility should be a prime consideration, and I think that forum members should have a fair bit of latitude in terms of the subjects they discuss as long as those discussions remain civil.  The problem, however, is that some subjects which have been raised here have a long track record of generating ill-tempered posts.  Partly this is due to the fact that the subjects are controversial, and partly this is due to the fact that these subjects have popped up over and over again in the middle of threads which are about something else.  This is the three-part combination that has caused the most trouble – the controversial nature of the subjects, the hijacking of threads to bring up these subjects, and the repeated occurence of this kind of annoying situation.

To go back to a suggestion I made earlier, my preference for dealing with this problem would be to set up a few threads dedicated to these specific subjects in a corner of the forum where people who insist on raising about these topics can argue about them without bothering the rest of us.  Any posts on these subjects showing up elsewhere would be moved straightaway by the moderators to these dedicated threads.  That would eliminate the annoyance factor for those of us who don’t give a flying buttress about these topics and who don’t want to keep running into them in threads dedicated to other subjects.  It would make life easier for the moderators, who wouldn’t have to make easy-to-criticize decisions about closing hijacked threads or deleting posts that go off-topic into areas which are notorious for being provocative.  And it would make it harder for those people who do insist on discussing this stuff from complaining that they are being censored, since their posts – rather than being deleted outright – would simply be moved to an area where would have the undivided attention of fellow controversy-debate enthusiasts.

To borrow an analogy that anyone who’s read Heinlein’s novel Tunnel in the Sky will recognize, this practice of moving known-controversy posts to a few dedicated threads would basically function like “stobor traps” : a wall pierced with narrow tunnels leading into deep pits where people who insist on raising provocative controversies can chew on each other like Kilkenny cats, while the rest of us can either watch in amusement or ignore the spectacle completely according to our individual preferences.

If you are crafting a new “forum rules” thread, may I start giving some actual substantial rules suggestions?

Specifically, since it appears to have pissed off a number of users, here is my suggestion for “Mod powers with regards to editing and/or deleting and/or moving posts”.

1. If a forum post breaks any of the rules of this forum, then the moderators will simply replace the ENTIRE content of the message with this line:

“This post was deleted by <moderator name=”“>due to violating the rules of this forum.  <optionally list=”" which=“” rules=“” were=“” violated=“”><optionally include=“” a=“” link=“” to=“” the=“” forum=“” rules=“”>"

2. No moderator shall edit and change the wording of any post by anyone, regardless of the content of that post.  The moderator will either delete the entire content of the post, replacing it with the line above from #1, or the mod will completely leave the entire post alone.  No middle ground.

3. No moderator shall delete a posting in a way that makes the posting completely disappear like it never existed.  Instead, the post will be replaced with the content from #1 above.

4. Any posts that are moved, either because they are off topic, or because they are in the wrong forum, shall leave behind a “ghost” posting/thread for a few days.  The ghost posting simply says that "This reply by <username>was moved to ".  I’ve seen this done on other forums, and moved threads even had their own icon (an arrow), and directly linked to the newly created threads. 
IF this is not possible to have ghost threads/posts here, then simply move the thread then create a new post in its place saying that this post was moved.

Why should we do it this way?  Actually I have some experience on this exact issue.  Over at the TripleAWarClub forum, we had a moderator who had on an occasion or two, changed the words of a post.  I had previously deleted several posts as well. 
The result of this was that, in case of a mod changing the words, the author of the post became outraged.  Quite simply, if what the user wrote was bad, it should be deleted wholesale.
In the case of deleting a post, the users also generally became mad at the admins in general, because it removed the evidence that there ever was a post.  It is much better to have a post saying “this post was deleted” then to have no post at all. 
After all of this, I created a similar policy at the war club forum, and got the mods to follow it.

I do not agree with people saying that posts should not be deleted, or that people should be allowed to talk about anything, and engage in or make flame wars at will, etc etc.

But I do think that moderators need follow very specific rules when there is a violation of the forum rules.  If a post needs to be deleted, or some content in that post needs to be changed, then it is best to follow the rules I posted above.

thx,
veqryn</username></optionally></optionally></moderator>

Not sure about point number 4 being feasible, but when a thread is moved, there is a locked thread with the same title that has a link generated to the new location put in its place automatically.

As for 1, I generally send that information to the user in question.  Broadcasting to the world that John.Smith is a flaming, trolling, jerk seems kind of mean - especially if John.Smith has a two year track record of being a generally nice guy, and a valuable member of the community.  Those who go off rail and turn viscious for a couple of months should get banned (a time out for a week or two) and if that doesn’t work, asked to leave permanently (Djensen deleting his account.)

As for 2, I like how DM handles it.  Replacing a vulgar word with F*** so you know it was changed, but it was sensored from underage eyes.  Not everyone here is an adult (and some of the adults arn’t even adults!)

As for 3, well, a deleted post isn’t exactly “deleted” so much as “disappeared.”  There’s a subtle difference.

I like Veqryn’s suggestions.

I’ve had one or two post’s deleted.  I think the saying “Suck it up” comes to mind if one is upset that your post was deleted AND your name is ‘broadcasted’ to the world as being the author.  In fact, I would posit that that most of the authors who have posts deleted would insist on having their name attached to the broadcast of it being deleted/authored by _______ so they would have an easy reference point to the fact.

As for vulgar words, I think we can all agree to what constitutes a bad word….for the most part.  Around here, if you call a dude a “goof” you’re going to get punched out most likely, ‘g’ stands for GO in that case.  I was shocked to have the word Jap pointed out to me as being a bad word, I actually googled it, I read an article on Jen’s favourite place to site from, Wikipedia (I did second source however).  Silly me I thought it was a short form for a nationality.  Rus infantry is fine, Brit fighter is good, Yankee go home is kinda like Canada is not a country.  I can see how calling something a Jewish American Princess would hurt.  I would certainly agree with Jen and DM on point #2 as well.

There should be a word filter or something.  We should not be requiring admins to go in and edit user’s posts to remove bad words or turn them into stars  (****)
If people go to lengths to get around the word filter, like with creative swear words, etc, then the posts can just be “deleted” (ie: replaced by the generic block of text saying that this post was deleted because….)

Perhaps we should adopt George Carlin’s list of 7 “bad” words. Start there with our auto filter?

If you are unsure what words these are you can check it out on youtube. I was going to post a link but thought it might offend someone if they clicked on the link and heard any of these words.

Yikes….we don’t want that.

[quote author=Veqryn link=topic=27387.msg969469#msg969469 date=1338904937]
There should be a word filter or something.  We should not be requiring admins to go in and edit user’s posts to remove bad words or turn them into stars  (****)
If people go to lengths to get around the word filter, like with creative swear words, etc, then the posts can just be “deleted” (ie: replaced by the generic block of text saying that this post was deleted because….)

[/quote]
No, just replace the swear words with those annoying ���� and people are sure to stop swearing.