Controversy

[Simon]

Just a quick idea re: moderation of controversial topics - particularly in Corner Coffee.

I've see a fair share of debates come and go, and sometimes it just feels like moderation of these topics can be a bit heavy-handed, and participants can become needlessly overheated.

Essentially, most people are here to discuss theme park geekery, and the off-topic forums are just a side-show. As they are provided, it seems pertinent to ask 'what are they for?'. For me (who really only discusses off-topic), they are a social diversion, meeting people and learning about them and their views; or else an entertaining way of exercising intellectual muscles, through debate, games and jokes, to argue, think logically, sharpen wits, practice humour and imagination.

I expect different things from different topics. In debate, I confess, I enjoy a robust approach, can readily dish it out, but am also prepared to take it. I'm not being big-headed when I say I'm a seasoned debater with a relatively thick skin. Even so, I don't see a massive amount of "personal attacks" in these topics, and where I have I am quick to call it out (sometimes in the "unofficial" way, I admit, but I have reported posts as well). The key rule with debate is, for me attack the argument, not the person, and this is clearly understood by many members. There's a clear difference between calling someone "an inhuman scumbag" or "a childish prig with no experience of the real world" and saying that you find their particular view on something "inhuman" or pointing out a specific real-world experience of your own as part of a counter an argument put forward in theory.

It just seems to me that by choosing to enter into a debate about controversial issues, any member should use a little circumspection, and therefore, maybe some of these topics should come with a bit of a heath warning before a more light-touch moderation policy than at present?

Everyone wants a nice community where everyone gets on, but I don't see that there's necessarily a tension between this and a really good ding-dong about the Monarchy, Olympics, Religion, Politics, or whatever. Maybe I'm odd in being able to come out of gruelling scraps over issues and still be able to look someone in the eye and still speak to them, and consider them a friend. If I wasn't able to do this, then I'd be estranged from most of my family.

In summary: members who enter discussions like this should be aware of the nature of robust debate and choose whether to enter accordingly. This being the case, moderation could be lighter, with moderators only stepping in to cover clear crossing of the line (racism, sexism, homophobia, actual ad hominems), and perhaps to call time when arguments begin to get circular, but everything else should be up to the debaters to deal with (counter-arguments, challenging non sequiturs etc.)

Could it work?

 

[Dave]

The trouble is often these debates do get silly and people unable to actually argue well just start with the personal attacks ( some of those who do this are regular contributers to these topics).

Often a reminder will be posted when things are heated but not yet crossing a line, this is usually due to reported posts and it just highlights to people that it has been noted by the team. Having looked at the moderator logs there is very little active moderation or deletion of posts occuring.

EDIT: Assuming this is primarily regarding the Crime and Punishment topic there has been a few deletions because they where pointless one-liners aimed at insulting someone mostly and one post edit again firing an insult back. No truely valid arguments have been deleted including the "inhuman" comment.... in context we had 9 seperate posts reports in that topic, so we havn't been to happy with the edit button

 

[Tom]

I generally think the status quo is fine, the staff are typically quite tolerant and allow things to get fairly heated without people crossing the line.

There are some people that would pick a single sentence or word from a post of many paragraphs and pick at that error or tiny little point which isn't even relevant to the subject matter at hand. I think people like that should be warned about conduct. Obviously the personal insults and excessive sarcasm should be stopped, but they usually are.

The only thing I don't agree with is the locking of topics, to me if it has become a farce then all of the bad posts and/or the entire threda should be deleted - not just left there looking like garbage in the street.

I also think that the report button is used by people when they see something they don't like or, disagree with. I think that many posts are deleted simply because of reports and others (which are worse in my view) are left simply because they haven't been reported.

 

[Dave]

Topics are locked temporarily so that people can cool off if things are silly or if it seems the topic isn't recoverable. Its a tricky one to call sometimes...

 

[Simon]

To be fair, Dave, I was surprised this morning to see a mod intervention after you had contributed to discussion yourself (and therefore, presumably, read previous comments and not found too much issue with them).

It just seems to me that certain members are very apt to take umbrage at what amounts to no more than someone pointing out that an argument they've made makes no sense, or that there is a different interpretation of something. To my mind, you take part in these topics and you basically are allowing your opinions to be held up to scrutiny. If you have that many Sacred Cows, then you should probably keep away.

I have had several high-profile run-ins with members past and present, and I hope they'd agree with me that it basically stays within the realms of that debate and isn't allowed to affect our relationship.

 

[Dave]

Capital punishment is an emotive issue for me so i refered the topic to another mod as it would have been up for bias if i did it. The issue is some peoples responce to a point of view they dont like is to generally mock it or mock a part of it and the person, we then lose the debate as 2 or more members fire up into a whirlwind of tit-for-tat. Thats not really good debate though some do try and disguise this by wrapping it up in some level of sense.

A good debater can rebuke a comment without resorting to winding their fellow debater up... Hence why i have never seen a post by the likes of you Simon reported. Others are not so skilled at debate (often me included)

 

[Tom]

Topics are locked temporarily so that people can cool off if things are silly or if it seems the topic isn't recoverable. Its a tricky one to call sometimes...

The cooling off idea is awesome and very useful indeed, it's just when something stays locked forever I struggle to understand why sometimes.

 

[Simon]

Absolutely fair enough then.

By the way, I wasn't liking that post for the praise that was heaped upon me thereby, and for what it's worth, I enjoy your contributions to topics.

 

[Dave]

One thing i will say is we dont always get it right, there have been a few times i have acted and afterwards felt i didn't get things quite right. If people ever think thats the case then PM the team member or Craig/ Kaycee.

 

[James]

I'm generally happy with topics of debate.

I like to think we let things get heated quite a bit before stepping in. The line is only generally drawn when posts turn personal. Which in the Crime and Punishment topic things did. Only 3/4 posts were deleted though. Other posts remain - although we have edited one or two posts, again, due to personal remarks.

It's never easy though. We have to step back and make the judgement of what should and should not be in the topic. We have members on here of all different levels. Some people may be hurt easily by comments that will be seen as no problem by others. So the team does have a hard time trying to determine what is and what is not suitable. We don't always get in right though - and when things reach to that point the administrators come in and investigate. Which is very rarely as we seem to do a pretty good job. Moderation is never easy, but as long as we keep an open eye, things should be good enough for the overall majority.

Debates are great, and healthy - as long as it doesn't turn into insulting others on a personal level. We have in the past had things happen with members in real life (so if two people do not get along in person) then those members dragging this into debates. Which isn't nice, it's off topic and ultimately not suitable to be posted on here.

We do not cut out peoples views though, just the stuff that gets off topic and personal - and that is only where the line is ever drawn.

 

[Simon]

Quite, and I suppose that's my point about warnings to go along with topics which are likely to cause heated debate. I think people should be free to argue within sensible limits without worrying that a particular remark may be taken personally.

I'm all for participation and all, but in doing so, it seems to me that you've got to be able to take it when someone tells you you're talking nonsense or that a particular view that you have is ethically repugnant to them.

The Tavern is (rightly) given a warning that some people may find some content offensive; perhaps our more controversial topics should come with an indication from the start that things are likely to get heated and they should be prepared for forthright opinions, robust challenges, and sometimes people being blunt close to the point of (but not over the line of) being rude.

[Actually, scrub that last bit - people being quite rude indeed about your views, but not about you individually.]

 

[IanB]

Maybe a separate forum needs to be created for these topics to go in.

The Debating Chambers or something, similar to the Courtyard Tavern where there is someone responsible for keeping the debate civil, and moving on to the next point when they think the current topic is going round in circles, and helping new members understand, and improve their debating skills?

Maybe there could be a sticky thread that shows good ways to put an argument across, and bad ways. That advises users that anything said in the Chambers is not meant as a personally insult or as putting someone down.

One thing I enjoy about the debates topics is that it helps me understand things better, as I do a little research before posting, to try and get evidence to help support my claims, so I would not like to see them gone all together.

I know I am not the best at debating and wording my posts, and try to avoid conflict, but I hope that these topics help me improve my conflict and debating skills.

Ian

 

[Scott]

The only problem with that idea (which is a good one!) is that many topics on the forum begin as one thing and evolve into a heated discussion on the subject - which is within the nature of a forum. Having structured and planned debate topics are maybe a good idea, but many topics transform into debate without necessarily being planned in that way originally.

 

[Sam]

Simon is absolutely right.

The moderation in those topics is far over the top. It'd be appropriate in theme park-based topics, but not when people are discussing emotive issues.

Aggressive, angry, robust debating is a legitimate form of public discourse. Just look at Question Time.

We're all adults. We all have thick skins. The topics don't need to be shut down or censored every five minutes.

 

[IanB]

We're all adults. We all have thick skins.

That's the problem, not everyone on the forums is an adult, and not everyone is thick skinned.

Some people take it as an attack on them, and some people don't post because they are worried about the aggressive and angry responses they might get.

Surely we should be encouraging more people to post, not less. Some of the topics just come across as something you don't want to contribute to, due to the worry of people going off on one.

That is why I think a separate area, for the more heated arguments to be carried out, and make the Coffee Corner a "family area" where people can discuss things with out the worry of some one shouting or totally dismissing them for there opinion. I am not saying they can not disagree, but it is done in a friendly manner, which does not have the potential to upset them.

Ian

 

[Dave]

Simon is absolutely right.

The moderation in those topics is far over the top. It'd be appropriate in theme park-based topics, but not when people are discussing emotive issues.

Aggressive, angry, robust debating is a legitimate form of public discourse. Just look at Question Time.

We're all adults. We all have thick skins. The topics don't need to be shut down or censored every five minutes.

Yes but on question time and newsnight they avoid actual personal remarks and accusations that can't be backed up by fact, and as can be seen most posts go un-moderated and un-deleted. I have again looked at the mod logs and i don;t think anyone has been over-moderated and i personally am quite satisfied its fairly balanced.

As for aggressive angry debate, it's fine when your actually using it in a focused manner and have the fact and points to back up.... but way too many people just start with the debating equivalent of pulling someones hair because they can't eloquently pull together a coherent argument... That's what needs avoiding.

I will always protect the right to debate, i will join in most of them but if it starts getting tit-for-tat and not moving the discussion in any sensible manner then something has to be done before it gets stupid. If you have an example of a locked topic or moderated post you think is wrong, PM someone and they can break down the decision making process... if you want to ask publicly then ask on here if your happy for your own posts to be discussed.

EDIT: However, and i do want to make this clear if you do EVER genuinely feel something has been over-moderated let us know, PM Craig and he will look into it, moderating decisions have been reversed before now. We can't please everyone as for every report we agree with the poster will disagree and with the reports we disagree with the reporter will disagree so we are doomed to never please everyone but we have to strike a balance so it is important to have feedback... Though just crying "it's over-handed" without giving examples doesn't help us much

 

[Tom]

A separate forum for 'heated debates' is basically a licence to insult and flame each other in a topic - I don't like the concept.

I understand The Tavern isn't meant for serious discussion, but if people were to post in a general 18+ forum that could safeguard against youngsters seeing things.

 

[Dave]

I have no issue with under 18's seeing a good debate, lets just ensure we have good debates, no matter how heated they get!

 

[delta79]

It has been commented on adults should have thick skin. this is forgetting other factors, that could be going on in a members life outside the forum.

e.g a member could have a situation at home that is slowly eroding their mental barriers that create the protection more commonly know as 'thick skin'.

This is the problem with debates and for the mods. where exactly is the line, the members with super thick skin or the members with super thin skin.

my option over moderation. I have been on boards where mods have been heavy handed, to the point of if it not their view its deleted.
Here there may be a little higher mod interaction, but it is at a very low level. usually a "keep it friendly guys" line. which i quite like to be honest.

My thought on debating is simple, you must respect everyone right to they own option. or it not worth debating in the first place.

 

[Jonathan]

As delta79 has pointed out, one of the most important things about debating is respecting the right of other parties to have an opinion, without necessarily respecting the opinion itself. I feel that this line is crossed at times, but times such as these are when I feel the mods should intervene, or when the line is very close to being crossed. My understanding is that this level of moderation is what happens on TST, and I am fine with it this way. I wouldn't want moderation to be too heavy-handed - otherwise, discussions would not flow as freely.