Forum policies

[Jae Onasi]

In view of recent events, the negative tone that has cropped up in recent weeks, and questions about moderation, the staff is discussing changes to put in place both on the user end and the moderation end. If you have any comments, please make them here.

 

Please keep them constructive--we don't need any more diatribes at this time. I think people are feeling roughed up enough lately. Keep it civil and steer clear of accusations of each other.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

[Yar-El]

Main Board

 

Suggestion #1:

How about separating Kavar's Corner into a seperate group, so people can collapse the section through the use of the yellow arrows. (upper right hand corner in each section header). All the other sections in the current group are allways civil. Seeing a thread title may provoke people to comment in a negative way. Giving the user the ability to hide the forum will allow them to fully ignore Kavar's Corner.

 

Call the new group similar to Debates, Politics, and Current Events.

 

Suggestion #2

Put everything back into the Senate Chambers and call it a day. Out of sight and out of mind. Anyone who wants to debate heavily can do so, but it will not be in everyone elses face. It can happen quietly and behind closed doors.

 

Suggestion #3

Just close it down. Its extreme, but it is an option.

 

I don't like the idea of relating a Star Wars character to politics.

[Stream]

I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

That could end up making things a lot worse. If you do that, there could be a very strong possibility that the moderation team end up fighting amongst themselves which could create more havoc in the forum than there already is.

 

The general idea you have is a good one but I believe that it could work better if you had more moderators that aren't following the politics at all. The chances are you'd probably need people who don't live in the States and so, to a certain extent, aren't affected by the political issues of America.

 

That way the moderation team shouldn't take sides with any other member whether they're a general user or another member of the team.

 

EDIT: Looking back at this post it could be easy to misunderstand that last statement. Just to be clear, I don't believe that anything like that does happen anywhere on LF, the admins, supers and mods are a good bunch of guys & gals who are honest and fair. All I meant was, if some mods didn't have any reason to be bias with regards to the political affairs of America, then no one could accuse them of this.

 

--Stream

[El Sitherino]

Moderators leave politics aside.

[Prime]

That's so crazy it just might work.

[jonathan7]

Wow, I leave for 5 days, and you all manage to have serious fall outs.

 

I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

 

A moderators political persuasion should have little to do with if a post is acceptable or not. I'm apparently a 'liberal' according to some of you, despite the fact I don't believe in democracy. I'm apparently a democrat, despite the fact I'm British, and couldn't give a monkeys about the American presidential election. - So I have been called biased by those who's posts I've moderated - convenient? A correlation? Perhaps a bias on my part is a convenient way of failing to admit something unacceptable has been posted.

 

I would suggest that remembering there is another human being on the end of a post would be beneficial to all.

 

Finally after recent events, I will be moderating with zero-tolerance - you have been warned - if you can't behave like adults I'll treat you like children, and discipline hard!

[GarfieldJL]

A moderators political persuasion should have little to do with if a post is acceptable or not. I'm apparently a 'liberal' according to some of you, despite the fact I don't believe in democracy. I'm apparently a democrat, despite the fact I'm British, and couldn't give a monkeys about the American presidential election. - So I have been called biased by those who's posts I've moderated - convenient? A correlation? Perhaps a bias on my part is a convenient way of failing to admit something unacceptable has been posted.

 

To set the record straight:

 

It has been argued recently that their political persuasion has had something to do with how they've been moderating and taking disciplinary measures. The arguments apparently have more merit than the usual complaints given the reaction by TK102 in one thread and now Jae in this one.

 

That's why TK102 in one thread and now Jae in this thread are asking for suggestions.

 

That's why I suggested there be an equal number of conservative and liberal mods for Kavar's Corner, I don't mind the idea of the mods being apolitical like what Stream suggested, but it will be extremely difficult to find someone that is apolitical these days.

[KinchyB]

Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...? Not sure there are enough moderators for that, but that should help with anyone trying to say someone is being biased.

 

On the user side... we need to emphasize what is our opinion as opposed to what we believe to be fact. Also, when in a debate we should concentrate on the issues not on the individual (think this may be a rule already, but can't remember off the top of my head). If this isn't done maybe the post should be snipped...?

[El Sitherino]

Do you have proof moderation has been made based on political bias? As far as I can see from privileged information it's been pretty indescriminate.

 

Just because you are only aware of action taken against you doesn't mean action hasn't been taken against others involved in situations.

[GarfieldJL]

Do you have proof moderation has been made based on political bias? As far as I can see from privileged information it's been pretty indescriminate.

 

Just because you are only aware of action taken against you doesn't mean action hasn't been taken against others involved in situations.

 

I'm pointing out that there is more there just a few people complaining, and I really don't like being accused of being a liar and neither do the other people involved. So I suggest we stop with the back and forth.

 

 

Anyways, as I said about having an equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives in the mod staff for Kavar, it would at least help stiffle the accusations of moderators acting out of partisanship to silence one side or the other.

[Astor]

The moderators, in so far as I have seen, have never used their position to add more weight to their points.

 

That's why they have the different colour text for when they put on their moderating hats...

 

Every time i've seen something that has been edited, it's been for good reason. I had someone say some hurtful things to me, on a personal level, and they were removed because they were, quite rightly unacceptable things to say to someone in a discussion.

 

I've certainly never seen a mod delete or edit perfectly valid responses to a relevant discussion - they're there to see that things stay civil, and within the bounds of decency.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Anyways, as I said about having an equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives in the mod staff for Kavar, it would at least help stiffle the accusations of moderators acting out of partisanship to silence one side or the other.

Politics get put aside when a moderator has to clean up someone else's mess, and as stated before, having partisan moderators is just going to create more bull**** that smods or admins will have to come in and clean up.

[Web Rider]

I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects. Threads do that, everywhere I've ever been except here threads talk about the subject and transition into a new subject, sometimes directly related to the topic, sometimes not.

 

When threads are separated it really feels like a lot of the momentum gained just dies when that happens. I suggest this because that way mods could focus on when people get out of line instead of when a topic starts to stray.

[Stream]

I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects.

In my opinion that wouldn't actually help anything much, if someone comes into a thread halfway that could cause some major confusion.

 

Threads do that, everywhere I've ever been except here threads talk about the subject and transition into a new subject, sometimes directly related to the topic, sometimes not.

 

And if the subject changes to something not related to the original post, what becomes of the thread title - it becomes useless, and the title is what draws a person into the conversation.

 

What the guys are doing here is fine, they're keeping threads in line with the original post, if it derails then it needs to become a completely new subject and thread - that way everyone knows what it is they're actually talking about.

 

--Stream

[Jae Onasi]

Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...? Not sure there are enough moderators for that, but that should help with anyone trying to say someone is being biased.

I try to avoid moderating in the religion threads now for that reason (usually I'll PM another mod to have them look at something I think needs to be addressed), unless it''s such a clear violation of rules that withholding action would be worse. For example if someone started spewing a bunch of expletives or blatantly racist remarks in a religion thread, I would feel compelled to act on that violation.

 

The people who moderate here are in this forum because we're interested in current affairs and challenging issues just like the rest of our members here, and for the most part we can separate moderation issues from discussion with ease, barring specific subjects that turn out to be hot button issues for us personally. We also don't have the same level of staff available to us as something like the EvC forum which is a single topic, professional-level kind of place with a lot more participants than Kavar's will ever see. We're never going to be able to achieve something like that on a gaming forum with people ranging in age from 13 to 130. So, there is a limited pool of people interested in these topics, and an even more limited number of people who can moderate.

 

On the user side... we need to emphasize what is our opinion as opposed to what we believe to be fact.

Easier said than done. Some of the people posting here just don't have the critical thinking skills developed enough yet. We have people here whose educational levels range from middle school where they're still learning the difference between a verb and an adverb all the way to people with doctorates who not only are comfortable researching but know how to evaluate those sources. It would probably be easier to assume everything here is opinion unless stated specifically otherwise with quoted sources. This forum was designed to run as discussion: 'here's what I think about x' (opinion), with ideally adding 'here's why' (insert fact).

 

Also, when in a debate we should concentrate on the issues not on the individual (think this may be a rule already, but can't remember off the top of my head). If this isn't done maybe the post should be snipped...?

That level of moderation is certainly doable. It will take some time for people to become accustomed to that, but I don't think it would take long for people to adjust.

[tk102]

I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects... When threads are separated it really feels like a lot of the momentum gained just dies when that happens. I suggest this because that way mods could focus on when people get out of line instead of when a topic starts to stray.

Hmm. I'm going to try to take that consequence into account. I know that threads that go off-topic bother me quite a bit. Guess that comes from getting my start with Holowan where tangents can severely limit the effectiveness of a thread. Though debate threads aren't serving the same purpose and modding threads, it's still a bit disorganized to try to find that one discussion about Obama's legal cases with ACORN in a thread named "Dow dips below 10000" (most recent example).

[Darth333]

I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

 

We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal...not sure about the US though)... Don't forget that while LF is a US based forums, there are members (regular and staff) from all around the world and from diverse backgrounds, age and origins who visit here and therefore, what you propose would be totally useless and would only create more problems. The objective of Kavar is to discuss "serious" topics and share your opinions with other LF members in an informal and friendly manner. Politics is only one of the many subjects that can be discussed here... if we start doing this with politics...then what about the threads on religion, foreign policy, etc...

 

 

While mistakes can happen, we have forum rules and we try to be as objective as possible when we moderate and we certainly don't expect everyone to think alike...Sometimes, discussions get heated (and that is particularly true in Kavar due to the nature of the discussions) and it is not necessarily always easy to determine where exactly to draw the line as there are things that can be considered offensive to some people but not to others. Other times, some things can be misinterpreted too. A bit of tolerance from all sides can't hurt...lighten up!

 

I think everyone, not only the staff, should try to be respectful towards other members, regardless of their opinions and education on some issues. It is perfectly possible to make a point without having to call others "morons", "ignorants" or whatever... If people would take the time to re-read their posts as if they were on the "other" side before clicking the post button, maybe it would help the improve overall atmosphere here.

 

Edit: and I agree with WR to some extent. Just cropping a thread in the middle because it touches another subject isn't always the best solution. However, sometimes it can also be annoying, especially for the thread starter to see his or her thread taking an entirely different direction....I guess that's something that can only be done on a case by case basis and we should look at the possible consequences.

 

 

FYI, while I am not an active poster in Kavar for several reaons, I do read most of the threads.

[Achilles]

I agree with tk102.

 

I do wish there was more consistency with regards to posts that are snipped for off-topic, split for off-topic, merged for off-topic, etc.

[Stream]

We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal)

When I first posted in this thread I hadn't thought about that. Here in the UK the laws would have you straight away for something like that and there would be no way out of it.

 

--Stream

[Litofsky]

It is perfectly possible to make a point without having to call others "morons", "ignorants" or whatever... If people would take the time to re-read their post as if they were on the "other" side before clicking the "post button, maybe it would help the improve overall atmosphere here.

 

Quote for truth. I've almost posted things sometimes that were incorrect- only rereading stopped me. It helps to read things more than once, and rather than call people names, try to punch holes in their logic. If they refuse to see the other side, well, keep at it.

 

Hopefully this is the beginning of a semi-respectful time in Kavar's.

[Yar-El]

Discrimination is an ugly thing. United States has laws against such acts. I don't see how we can accomplish anything through discrimination.

 

Darth333 hit it on the nose. Everyone should be respectful and tolerant. I found in some cases people are agreeing with each other, but they don't fully read the posts in which they reply. Arguments are being made without full comprehension of a poster's statement. Sometimes some of us only read two lines from the top, three lines from the bottom, and then reply without a full understanding. I just had someone do that to me in another thread. He quickly apologized, and everything was oky. However, that was a rare occassion.

 

In another more recent thread, we were all talking about Universal Healthcare. Some how the thread turned into talking about death, but the person being attacked didn't make such of a claim. Following the initial poster's response, another individual made the comment about death. After a third visitor entered the thread, the original poster was accused of making the death statement. Some of the crazyness in here is about people skipping over posts and comments. Reading one post doesn't mean you comprehend the nature of a topic.

[stoffe]

Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...?

 

The biggest problem with that system is that the people who read the threads and knows the participants are generally those who are interested in the topic (and thus tends to participate). Someone completely disinterested in politics, for example, is unlikely to spend hours reading through hundreds of long posts discussing political issues just to make sure that nobody gets out of line. All the active forum staff are volunteers who look after the forum communities in our spare time. (I usually don't read this forum, for example, and would not consider myself either motivated or qualified to do any moderation in it, even if I technically could do so.)

 

Still, I can see the concern that moderators might let their personal opinions influence their decisions and how they perceive what's being written by others, subconsciously or otherwise, but I don't know if anything could be done about that. We're all human beings who make mistakes, can have a bad day, can misunderstand and misinterpret things. We tend to form opinions about others based on what they say and write.

 

In some more complex issues matters are brought up for discussion in the private moderator forum to get second opinions and hopefully reach the right decision. This usually isn't done in more minor or clear cut cases though since it would take too long to get anything done. In those cases it's usually left to the judgment of the individual moderator.

[Ray Jones]

I always figured the mods of Kavar's and the Senate are doing a pretty good job, a job which is not always easy to do at those places. I consider their decisions to have at least heard of the idea of trying to be fair and objective. () And I don't see any problems with the current policy of cropping and merging post, either.

 

I see it that most "problems" really stem from the fact that some seem to think words like "moron" or "****" will strengthen the point they're trying to make. Also, people should consider to whine less when they recognise someone has a good point and just gives a ****load of work to the censor just because he can. -- People need to relax.

[KinchyB]

Suggestion #3

 

How about an IQ type test for those who are posting?!

 

You don't pass or score high enough you can't post! Problem solved!! I'm a solutioner! *

 

/levity

 

Edit by d3: not really a solution...people can still be [*censored*] no matter what their IQ, political affiliations, religious beliefs, education, origins, riches, etc... are.