On Board Decorum

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 290
  • Views: 9K
  • Off-Topic 
NYCBlueBlood said:
One thing you may or may not want to think about... and it's something I'm occasionally "guilty" of as well. Your posting style is a bit self-selecting.

Because of the way your brain operates and because you type at hyper speed, you have the habit of giving a 5-page response to a 3-sentence comment. While it's part of what I like about you as a poster, because you are extremely thoughtful and good at expressing those thoughts... it's also why I respond to maybe 1 in 5 or 6 of your responses to my posts.

If you respond for 5 pages (forgive the hyperbole) to a 3-sentence post, imagine how much time/effort it will take me to formulate a repose to everything you wrote. 80% of the time I'm here, I just have 10 or 15 minutes between calls at work to glance through the board and see what's going on. I could spend that time only responding to one of your posts... or I could spend it reading half of what's been posted on the overall board.

Now I suspect a lot of posters do the same... they intend to respond to something you wrote... but just don't find the time to actually do it... and then time goes past and it's too late.

However, there are two types of posters who are highly likely to respond every time... the ones who for whatever reasons do not like you, and the trolls. They do not need to respond to the content of your post, as the first category is just responding to insult or make fun of you... and the second category never responds to the content of posts... they pick one nit, and move the goalposts 5 yards to the right to focus only on that not... ignoring everything else you said.

Like you (and this post is an example), I sometimes do the same... but I tend to be conscious of who does finally respond, then it's on me to decide whether they are worth responding to... or I should just ignore.
Click to expand...
1. that is a very interesting set of considerations that i havent really considered, thank you.

2. i will say that my numbering approach is partly an effort to address the general issue. It increases readability. it highlights the main pointsa of every section at the outset so people can skip if not interested. and it allows people to respond more easily to just one part of the response. like, if you want to respond to point 1 or point 2 without getting to point 5, you could say, "having only read part 1, it seems to me that your analysis there is wrong because . . ." most of the time, people can just engage on that point (and this happens). if i think that point 3 is required to fully to assess point 1, i can say that.

3. generally, if a person says in advance they have time only for one point, how can anyone harsh on them for that? it's analogous to saying, "i'm not extremely well-read on this issue, but based on what i have studied, i assert x and y." and since i do that frequently, obviously i don't think poorly of it. well, what goes for scholarly articles also goes for my posts.

also, if point 3 is required to understand point 1, then i have organized my post poorly. that doesn't happen very often, because i am pretty good at organizing my thoughts. maybe pretty good is an understatement. my total level of organization is at best average; my ability to organize arguments is matched by my inability to organize my life. this is one factor leading me to think i am on the spectrum despite no formal diagnosis. and also i try to organize thoughts. it comes naturally after teaching law courses i designed.

4. regardless of points 2 and 3, i will reiterate point 1 -- that is a thoughtful commentary. a bit ironic, since usually i am the guy who sniffs out self-selection. but usually isn't always as your post makes clear.
 
After reading all 14 pages:

1) NYC - I have previously complemented you on your moderating in large part because you have had the wisdom and sense to stay above the fray. If you try to moderate "decorum" you will ultimately fail to achieve "decorum" because one, decorum and anonymity are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Anonymity brings out the worst in people. Two, you won't be able to maintain complete objectivity due to board pressure and your own internal biases (that isn't an insult as we all have them). The most objective position a person moderating a politics board can take is the most simple one. Unless another poster is trying to pierce the veil of anonymity of another poster, is making threats against another poster, or is making CLEAR racist or homophobic attacks on another poster, the most objective thing is to do as you largely have done and to stay out of it. You are already starting to make excuses for Super. Any rules have to be applied evenly across the board. The IC mods didn't have the stones to ban many of those that clearly broke the rules but were players on their team. Keeping it simple reduces that burden on you and allows you to be as unbiased as possible.

2) GTY lives rent free in Enigma's head - After reading all 14 pages it is clearly evident that any breach of decorum was done by Enigma. Yet, for "team" reasons, the overall sentiment is that GTY is the bad guy and Enigma is justified in his attacks on GTY. The primary reason for that is that GTY's political views are in the minority on this board. He is the black swan in a nest of white swans. There are claims of trolling, trying to be intentionally obtuse or argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, etc. What it really boils down to is political differences of opinion. Trying to create decorum in that setting is almost impossible given the board makeup. Why put that burden on a moderator?

3) Any attempt to improve decorum is futile unless rules that are clearly black / white / unambiguous / and don't require any subjective interpretation are implemented. Along the lines of "the word, fuck, is forbidden in any situation, circumstance, or context. That way the moderator is out from under the burden of enforcing the rule, regardless of who used it. Otherwise, this is the path back to the IC way of board management.
 
Callatoroy said:
After reading all 14 pages:

1) NYC - I have previously complemented you on your moderating in large part because you have had the wisdom and sense to stay above the fray. If you try to moderate "decorum" you will ultimately fail to achieve "decorum" because one, decorum and anonymity are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Anonymity brings out the worst in people. Two, you won't be able to maintain complete objectivity due to board pressure and your own internal biases (that isn't an insult as we all have them). The most objective position a person moderating a politics board can take is the most simple one. Unless another poster is trying to pierce the veil of anonymity of another poster, is making threats against another poster, or is making CLEAR racist or homophobic attacks on another poster, the most objective thing is to do as you largely have done and to stay out of it. You are already starting to make excuses for Super. Any rules have to be applied evenly across the board. The IC mods didn't have the stones to ban many of those that clearly broke the rules but were players on their team. Keeping it simple reduces that burden on you and allows you to be as unbiased as possible.

2) GTY lives rent free in Enigma's head - After reading all 14 pages it is clearly evident that any breach of decorum was done by Enigma. Yet, for "team" reasons, the overall sentiment is that GTY is the bad guy and Enigma is justified in his attacks on GTY. The primary reason for that is that GTY's political views are in the minority on this board. He is the black swan in a nest of white swans. There are claims of trolling, trying to be intentionally obtuse or argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, etc. What it really boils down to is political differences of opinion. Trying to create decorum in that setting is almost impossible given the board makeup. Why put that burden on a moderator?

3) Any attempt to improve decorum is futile unless rules that are clearly black / white / unambiguous / and don't require any subjective interpretation are implemented. Along the lines of "the word, fuck, is forbidden in any situation, circumstance, or context. That way the moderator is out from under the burden of enforcing the rule, regardless of who used it. Otherwise, this is the path back to the IC way of board management.
Click to expand...
So nice of you to provide an example.
Pecksniffian (a. sanctimoniously hypocritical)
 
Callatoroy said:
After reading all 14 pages:

1) NYC - I have previously complemented you on your moderating in large part because you have had the wisdom and sense to stay above the fray. If you try to moderate "decorum" you will ultimately fail to achieve "decorum" because one, decorum and anonymity are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Anonymity brings out the worst in people. Two, you won't be able to maintain complete objectivity due to board pressure and your own internal biases (that isn't an insult as we all have them). The most objective position a person moderating a politics board can take is the most simple one. Unless another poster is trying to pierce the veil of anonymity of another poster, is making threats against another poster, or is making CLEAR racist or homophobic attacks on another poster, the most objective thing is to do as you largely have done and to stay out of it. You are already starting to make excuses for Super. Any rules have to be applied evenly across the board. The IC mods didn't have the stones to ban many of those that clearly broke the rules but were players on their team. Keeping it simple reduces that burden on you and allows you to be as unbiased as possible.

2) GTY lives rent free in Enigma's head - After reading all 14 pages it is clearly evident that any breach of decorum was done by Enigma. Yet, for "team" reasons, the overall sentiment is that GTY is the bad guy and Enigma is justified in his attacks on GTY. The primary reason for that is that GTY's political views are in the minority on this board. He is the black swan in a nest of white swans. There are claims of trolling, trying to be intentionally obtuse or argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, etc. What it really boils down to is political differences of opinion. Trying to create decorum in that setting is almost impossible given the board makeup. Why put that burden on a moderator?

3) Any attempt to improve decorum is futile unless rules that are clearly black / white / unambiguous / and don't require any subjective interpretation are implemented. Along the lines of "the word, fuck, is forbidden in any situation, circumstance, or context. That way the moderator is out from under the burden of enforcing the rule, regardless of who used it. Otherwise, this is the path back to the IC way of board management.
Click to expand...

This reads like a libertarian's screed against government, which is fine in theory until you have to pave your own road to the emergency room in a pinch.

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, this is a nice board if we can keep it. Decorum by definition is not black, white nor unambiguous. It just requires that we use our damn common sense.
 
Huh? said:
This reads like a libertarian's screed against government, which is fine in theory until you have to pave your own road to the emergency room in a pinch.

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, this is a nice board if we can keep it. Decorum by definition is not black, white nor unambiguous. It just requires that we use our damn common sense.
Click to expand...
Common sense and heavy moderation worked so well at IC didn't it? So bad they discontinued the board. You can't have decorum and anonymity on a politics board. That is common sense.
 
superrific said:
1. that is a very interesting set of considerations that i havent really considered, thank you.

2. i will say that my numbering approach is partly an effort to address the general issue. It increases readability. it highlights the main pointsa of every section at the outset so people can skip if not interested. and it allows people to respond more easily to just one part of the response. like, if you want to respond to point 1 or point 2 without getting to point 5, you could say, "having only read part 1, it seems to me that your analysis there is wrong because . . ." most of the time, people can just engage on that point (and this happens). if i think that point 3 is required to fully to assess point 1, i can say that.

3. generally, if a person says in advance they have time only for one point, how can anyone harsh on them for that? it's analogous to saying, "i'm not extremely well-read on this issue, but based on what i have studied, i assert x and y." and since i do that frequently, obviously i don't think poorly of it. well, what goes for scholarly articles also goes for my posts.

also, if point 3 is required to understand point 1, then i have organized my post poorly. that doesn't happen very often, because i am pretty good at organizing my thoughts. maybe pretty good is an understatement. my total level of organization is at best average; my ability to organize arguments is matched by my inability to organize my life. this is one factor leading me to think i am on the spectrum despite no formal diagnosis. and also i try to organize thoughts. it comes naturally after teaching law courses i designed.

4. regardless of points 2 and 3, i will reiterate point 1 -- that is a thoughtful commentary. a bit ironic, since usually i am the guy who sniffs out self-selection. but usually isn't always as your post makes clear.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, if I'm responding to an 8 point post, I'm not going to respond to point 2 unless I've read the entire post and made sure the point I'm thinking of making is not already covered in points 3 through 8.
 
Callatoroy said:
Common sense and heavy moderation worked so well at IC didn't it? So bad they discontinued the board. You can't have decorum and anonymity on a politics board. That is common sense.
Click to expand...
I think NYC and most others are hoping to set the expectation and everyone try to adhere to it. We're all older and more mature than the average Reddit poster. I don't think anyone is so naive that they expect 100% compliance but all anyone can do is control themselves.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think NYC and most others are hoping to set the expectation and everyone try to adhere to it. We're all older and more mature than the average Reddit poster. I don't think anyone is so naive that they expect 100% compliance but all anyone can do is control themselves.
Click to expand...
I have lots of control and anger issues. 😁

Ignoring posters is really to force myself to think before I post something I have to apologize for. I do think of posters as people, so I try to not say anything that I wouldn't in person.
 
superrific said:
i think my plan going forward is to not get in arguments. i will just state my views and if others want to sound off, so be it. that's the plan at least. whether i am capable of pulling that off is another story. also i think i will try to limit my posting to the morning as i wait for my modafinil to kick in.

and though i run the risk of people complaining that i think i know everything, i should eliminate the risk of people complaining that i always have to have the last word.

i will try to answer questions if posed to me (whether by name or in substance) in good faith.
Click to expand...
I questioned, in the super ignore thread, jokingly, if you had super ignored us because I had not seen you posting for a bit. (I missed all the drama leading up to this thread.) I'm glad to see you're here with us again. I do not agree with everything you've posted, and have pushed back on several of your posts, but, I do appreciate your pov, and thought you put into your posts. Glad you're back!
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
Speaking for myself, if I'm responding to an 8 point post, I'm not going to respond to point 2 unless I've read the entire post and made sure the point I'm thinking of making is not already covered in points 3 through 8.
Click to expand...
interesting. that isnt how i think of things. kind of wish that had been pointed out to me earlier (to be clear, this isn't blaming anyone nor is it sarcastic or passive/aggressive). sometimes i add a couple of numbered points that dont directly address the issue but relates to it, kind of like in textbooks or casebooks where the authors provide "more reading for those interested." maybe i should skip those. i didnt think people would read that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top