Hive workshop moderation

[Nuclear]

It's about time we address the issue of certain subjects being banned in Off Topic. I believe that this is ridiculous hand holding.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/off-topic-478/whats-your-religion-proof-p-240673/

There wasn't anything hostile going on, yet the moderator decided that it was a good decision to close the thread. Why? Because policy.

It's hard to take this forum seriously when there are silly things like this in place.
And it was an interesting discussion.

Here's a manual on how to not have a good forum:
1. close interesting threads

 

[Daffa]

How bout we don't discuss Staff's Actions in Public and just privately talk with them?

 

[Orcnet]

Because such thread is ^obviously loops of unattended flames, trolls, and fun-to-serious topics.

I like how you said its ridiculous hand holding, not to mention how ridiculous the other posts in that thread had passed in front of you.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

I think that got out of hands. I posted my first comment "I believe in food.", just to make religion less serious topic. But then I saw gigantic walls of text Good thing it got closed...

 

[chobibo]

The title of the thread itself incites violence. Proof .

 

[Nuclear]

How bout we don't discuss Staff's Actions in Public and just privately talk with them?

Why?

Because such thread is ^obviously loops of unattended flames, trolls, and fun-to-serious topics.

I like how you said its ridiculous hand holding, not to mention how ridiculous the other posts in that thread had passed in front of you.

Yeah, well, I didn't see anything like that. Ridiculous post as in someone obviously held an incorrect opinion, but that shouldn't be against the rules, I didn't see anyone being angry or hostile.
Not sure if anyone here can blame anything on trolls when we have a community approved troll (takakenji) roaming free without anyone minding.

I think that got out of hands. I posted my first comment "I believe in food.", just to make religion less serious topic. But then I saw gigantic walls of text Good thing it got closed...

I don't think that threads should be closed if someone has a lot to say, or is debating another user.

 

[Rheiko]

Why?

It's about time we address the issue of certain subjects being banned in Off Topic. I believe that this is ridiculous hand holding.

...

There wasn't anything hostile going on, yet the moderator decided that it was a good decision to close the thread. Why? Because policy.

that's why, if you have any complaints contact moderator not make a thread here

Yeah, well, I didn't see anything like that. Ridiculous post as in someone obviously held an incorrect opinion, but that shouldn't be against the rules, I didn't see anyone being angry or hostile.
Not sure if anyone here can blame anything on trolls when we have a community approved troll (takakenji) roaming free without anyone minding.

maybe it's not against the rules but moderator do that to prevent what just orcnet said

I don't think that threads should be closed if someone has a lot to say, or is debating another user.

if you really think that thread is worthy and you want to debating another user
make a thread at medivh tower

 

[Nuclear]

Well if you didn't notice, I'm trying to say that they should be made here too instead of Medivh's tower, which no-one visits.

I can't help but notice how your post reeks of apologism towards moderator actions.

 

[Rheiko]

you see, not everyone have an access to medivh's tower
but it's not like "no-one visits"

I can't help but notice how your post reeks of apologism towards moderator actions.

what do you mean by that?

 

[Ralle]

I'm sorry. But if you want to talk about religion. Do it in MT or find a dedicated religion website. 99% of religion threads turn to shit within a week. This is why we close them.

 

[Ralle]

I have moved the thread to Site Discussion and re-opened it.

While I understand where you are coming from, I will not be changing my mind. Threads about religion are bad news. Within a short amount of time they will always turn to unrecoverable chaos. People have different levels of sensitivity and will easily get offended. This kind of topic is not worth the trouble for the moderators.

 

[Rheiko]

Within a short amount of time they will always turn to unrecoverable chaos

yes, unrecoverable

 

[Daffa]

Pretty much agree with Ralle, so I think Medivh Tower is the only place deserve to have religious threads. Or better, avoid religious thread, so we can avoid unwanted mess.

 

[Rheiko]

religious thread can causes an endless debates
and yes, avoid religious thread is much better

 

[Rui]

I have lent an eye on this subject. You have a point when you say the thread shouldn't be locked because it wasn't generating trouble yet. This is why I always say threads should be locked only when they have reached a point of no return; until then, the moderator was appointed exactly to moderate the thread and prevent it from reaching that point.

On the other hand, past experience is also a strong argument and, in this case, unbiased and very true. We all know that every religious thread outside of MT have turned to flamewars within a week or two from their creation. Xonok summed it up best:

Note that there have been incredibly long discussions in these forums and they didn't reach far.
The main results:
*Atheist/Theist people tend to give their own beliefs special treatment and ignore the fallacies, while using a reversed attitude towards other people's beliefs.
*Atheists and Theists are pretty much the same kind of people(both claim what they can't know)
*One side always states "You can't prove it, so it's wrong", while the other says "You can't prove it's wrong, so it's right".
*Such discussions do very little to "prove" anything, except that people are stubborn(this goes for both sides)
*People take such discussions too personally and get insulted

My suggestion? Let this thread die before it goes like every other one has gone.

I understand you found the thread interesting, but, in this site, it just tends to not work, because of all the aforementioned: participants can't argue religion without flaming and the thread never gets moderated before the flaming has stretched across many pages.

 

[Daffa]

so, if anyone would please to explain why MT permits religious threads?
it's kinda on my head now.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Because Medivh's Tower was made for debate, philosophical discussions and walls of text.

 

[Daffa]

I see, so that's the use of MT.

 

[Rheiko]

what? daffa, you didn't know about it all this time??

 

[Daffa]

not that I don't know. I don't know why religious threads are allowed at MT. that's all, anyway, let's just skip this OT [as it's already solved] and back to the case.

 

[MasterHaosis]

I'm trying to say that they should be made here too instead of Medivh's tower, which no-one visits.

You guys wont believe me, but since I am registered, I never ever asked a permission to get into medivh's tower. I still can't post there

 

[Rheiko]

i don't care about your permission
if there is no-one visits why there is still people who posting or make a thread at MT?

 

[Rui]

so, if anyone would please to explain why MT permits religious threads?
it's kinda on my head now.

It's all empirical. There is a global rule stating that you can't flame, insult people, etc. It has been verified that:

• Religious threads in Medivh's Tower do not (often?) generate flaming and
• Religious threads in Off-topic's root forum have on (nearly?) all occasions ended in flamewars.

Therefore, religious threads are disallowed (or discouraged) in Off-Topic root forum.

The words with question marks surrounded by parenthesis denote my uncertainty on the matter, but I believe this is it. I never actively moderated Off-Topic, so I don't know, but moderators who do never seemed to quite grasp my previous point:

This is why I always say threads should be locked only when they have reached a point of no return; until then, the moderator was appointed exactly to moderate the thread and prevent it from reaching that point.

 

[Nuclear]

So my suggestion is simply:

Close threads if they get bad, not because they're about subject X

Seriously, "religious threads often get trolls and flaming"? Bullshit. How about punishing the inappropriate users instead of topics? I have never seen this on any other forum.

Religion is a very basic subject, it's not to be reserved for the pseudo intellectuals of MT, anyone should be able to talk about it.

 

[Celaquil]

I am going to agree with the anti-anti-religious-threads-movement here.
- Meaning, I'm against the closing of that (and others like it) thread.

If you're going to start banning religious threads, you might as well ban political threads on the same basis, or ethical threads, or... Oh wait,
that pretty much actually covers a lot of subjects. I also find it particularly strange how it's "allowed" in MT and "not allowed" in off-topic,
while I'd personally prefer having a serious discussion in MT for obvious reasons, that doesn't mean serious discussions should be privy
ONLY to MT, following that logic all threads in off-topic should be utter bullshit.
- Which... Most of them... Well, yeah >.>

Point is, if people are over sensitive, and yes I'm going to use over sensitive, to religious and non-religious claims and then chose to go on
a flaming spree because they felt personally attacked by a statement that probably wasn't even directed directly to them, then there's your culprit,
not the maker of the thread. How are we ever going to be a serious and interesting forum if we can't have serious and interesting discussions,
not only just limited to MT? >.>

I'm sorry. But if you want to talk about religion. Do it in MT or find a dedicated religion website. 99% of religion threads turn to shit within a week. This is why we close them.

Out of curiosity, do we actually have a physical rule implying this?

Also;

Because such thread is ^obviously loops of unattended flames, trolls, and fun-to-serious topics.

• Religious threads in Medivh's Tower do not (often?) generate flaming and
• Religious threads in Off-topic's root forum have on (nearly?) all occasions ended in flamewars.

Therefore, religious threads are disallowed (or discouraged) in Off-Topic root forum.

I don't honestly understand how you can see these opinions as legitimate reasons to ban a subject from being talked about,
it's like saying one can't make a thread about racism, because a racist might get offended, sure it's generally agreed upon that
racism is a bad thing, but there's a hell of lot of people out there that actively practice it.

Mind you, I'm very extremely well aware that "Racism" is against the site rules,
but discussing it isn't, or well, not to my knowledge it isn't.

So, another point is, why disallow a certain topic because it causes people to flame?
Seen in a different light, this might be a good thing. You end up seeing
who's able to follow the site rules when it really matters, and who doesn't.
That in turn helps an efficient Moderator to weed out the bad grass, if you catch my drift.
Would you want to have people like that on your forum...? >.>

 

[Nuclear]

I agree with everything Keiji said.

You have essentially selectively banned one subject that causes debates and that people often disagree about - why not rule objectively and ban them all?

 

[RED BARON]

This is why I always say threads should be locked only when they have reached a point of no return; until then, the moderator was appointed exactly to moderate the thread and prevent it from reaching that point.

I concur with Rui's statement, though I would suggest an alteration: Move the thread if in one of those areas to for instance MT if it turns serious. If it turns into gags or similar, like pictures of Cheezus, let it stay in off-topic and close if it goes crazy.

 

[Nuclear]

So if a thread is going well, it should be moved into an exclusive area so few people can access it?! That is an incredibly bad idea.

 

[Rui]

(...)
Seriously, "religious threads often get trolls and flaming"? Bullshit. (...)

:< But I swear it's true!

How about punishing the inappropriate users instead of topics? (...)

Because users fight back and other people support them even if the moderator took a (seemingly) right decision. Then those people send private messages to Ralle, who gets the impression that the moderator is abusing his power. Memory bell ringing
Point being: punishing people generates, directly or indirectly, more trouble than it fixes and I reckon having learned this the hard way. Therefore, it is not always the right decision. However, I also am NOT for the «everyone pays for the mistakes of a few» ideology, thus why I defend the position RED BARON quoted.

If you're going to start banning religious threads, you might as well ban political threads on the same basis, or ethical threads, or... Oh wait,
that pretty much actually covers a lot of subjects.

Like I said, empiricism. There's no need to ban those subjects as there haven't been problems with a large proportion of threads involving them.

I also find it particularly strange how it's "allowed" in MT and "not allowed" in off-topic,
while I'd personally prefer having a serious discussion in MT for obvious reasons, that doesn't mean serious discussions should be privy
ONLY to MT, following that logic all threads in off-topic should be utter bullshit.
- Which... Most of them... Well, yeah >.>

Having any thread anywhere is a dream utopia, but whether it works is, to some extent, beyond the staff's control.
I no longer have access to the threads with the grounds for this off-topic/MH distinction. It's all experimental: over the years, it has proved to work, so it was kept this way.
I do confess to see mixturing of Something Else in root Off-Topic with casual threads (e.g. "What do you study?") which, by exclusion of parts, go in Off-Topic.
Food for thought!

• Religious threads in Medivh's Tower do not (often?) generate flaming and
• Religious threads in Off-topic's root forum have on (nearly?) all occasions ended in flamewars.

Therefore, religious threads are disallowed (or discouraged) in Off-Topic root forum.

I don't honestly understand how you can see these opinions as legitimate reasons to ban a subject from being talked about,
it's like saying one can't make a thread about racism, because a racist might get offended, sure it's generally agreed upon that
racism is a bad thing, but there's a hell of lot of people out there that actively practice it.

If you created a thread about racism and there were two sides, one with racists, the other with anti-racists, both passionately defending their point of view, then yes, you actually have a good analogy. In this case, I wonder if defending racism wouldn't be the same as inciting it.

So, another point is, why disallow a certain topic because it causes people to flame?
Seen in a different light, this might be a good thing. You end up seeing
who's able to follow the site rules when it really matters, and who doesn't.
That in turn helps an efficient Moderator to weed out the bad grass, if you catch my drift.
Would you want to have people like that on your forum...? >.>

I don't quite catch your drift, I'm afraid. I would want to have people on my forum and people have their beliefs, things they hold dear, things they consider holy to them and, well, feelings. Sometimes, when they see those things profaned through words, images or some other mean, they lose their temper. I wouldn't want to neg-rep, infract or ban them for being the way people are.



We're calling it «flaming», but is it actual «flaming»? I was sure it was something along the lines, now I'm not. A junction of factors caused a thread to be sent to MH. What/which were those factors? Thus do I feel the need to attempt to summon Hakeem to read this thread and tell me if something went wrong and, if yes, what did go wrong.

 

[Hakeem]

How bout we don't discuss Staff's Actions in Public and just privately talk with them?

What difference should it make?

I think that got out of hands. I posted my first comment "I believe in food.", just to make religion less serious topic. But then I saw gigantic walls of text Good thing it got closed...

So... Your metric for "out of hand" is "gigantic walls of text"?

The title of the thread itself incites violence. Proof .

And is violence the observed result of the experiment, as your hypothesis suggests?

Not sure if anyone here can blame anything on trolls when [...]

As a general rule, literally anything can be blamed on trolls. Merely having the word "troll" appear in any rule set is opening the door to allow trolls to reign free. They have power in proportion to how much they are feared/hated.

I have previously utilized anti-trolling to my advantage before in other places around the internet. :3

that's why, if you have any complaints contact moderator not make a thread here

This is a policy discussion, not a specified action discussion. The thread was closed on "legitimate" grounds: "Policy." The action itself is "justified," leaving only the policy for discussion. This was not a mistake on the part of the moderator(s).

I can't help but notice how your post reeks of apologism towards moderator actions.

+1

People have different levels of sensitivity and will easily get offended. This kind of topic is not worth the trouble for the moderators.

A sensitivity here and there is not too great a burden to bear, I think. Rather, it seems to me that when you allow sensitivities to be, they become ever more sensitive over time. It's superior, in my view, to have such discussions sooner rather than later. Everyone can afford to grow to be less sensitive. Trying to pander to sensitivity will just make the problem worse later.

Religious thread can causes an endless debate.

Continually endless, yes. I'm not seeing the problem here. It's the same problem that has been raging since the dawn of philosophy.

Close threads if they get bad, not because they're about subject X

I wholeheartedly agree with proper moderation and not trying to take shortcuts that hide the issues (and often times make them worse, by virtue of having them fester while hidden).

Point being: punishing people generates, directly or indirectly, more trouble than it fixes.

While that is true, there are methods of calming users that don't qualify as "punishment." I sought, in my time, to reconcile differences to the maximum extent possible, reserving "punishment" for those that actively refused to consent with behaving.

In this instance, I'd see fit to edit out flaming and instruct users to calm their tempers in accordance with the cited rules of manageable engagement. If there are users that simple cannot cope with calm, reasonable discourse, then we have arrived at the situation where things become sticky, as you allude to.

If you created a thread about racism and there were two sides, one with racists, the other with anti-racists, both passionately defending their point of view, then yes, you actually have a good analogy. In this case, I wonder if defending racism wouldn't be the same as inciting it.

Well, assuming the racists were giving proper credence to their opponents, (which should necessarily be the case unless someone is pretending to be one race or another) while there is surely the potential for offense to be taken at the assertion that one arguing party is inferior in one way or another to another party, I think it possible for discussion to be maintained. It's a tricky position to be in to understand your opponent feels themselves superior and not be offended by it. You almost have to accept within yourself that their opinion doesn't have any reason to mean anything to you.

I wouldn't want to neg-rep, infract or ban them for being the way people are.

Thus do I feel the need to attempt to summon Hakeem to read this thread and tell me if something went wrong and, if yes, what did go wrong.

I actually TL;DR'd that thread pretty heavily myself. Normally I'd force myself to read through every single point, but it was a priority at the time to get up-to-date on it. I'm not sure the exact reason it was moved, but from my skimming it appeared that it was getting moderately out of hand. (Though my judgment is limited by my inability to see all the original posts.)

I'd like to re-iterate my request from that thread, though:

I'd like to request threads do not get moved/merged into MT, opting instead that they are simply closed and any discussion continues in an appropriate thread in the tower, but I invite anyone who gets replied to in here that does not have access to apply for it.