Political threads/forum

[David.]

There's the "No Running to Ben" rule, and a mod who could unilaterally consign miscreants to the "anything goes" thread by banning them from the other. Enforcement wouldn't be a problem.

I'm for that in theory but the application would be subjective

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If the rules are reasonable, which I'm sure they will be,

That's the entire point..what should those rules be?

 

[MediumBaller]

I agree with @David. that there should be no rep if the threads come back. That would help reduce the amount of trolling going on.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm for that in theory but the application would be subjective

That's unavoidable. I personally prefer very light moderation to reduce the effect of subjectivity, but that also would end up permitting a lot of behavior that others find annoying.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree with @David. that there should be no rep if the threads come back. That would help reduce the amount of trolling going on.

I am not sure that it is possible to selectively disable rep in certain forums.

 

[David.]

That's unavoidable. I personally prefer very light moderation to reduce the effect of subjectivity, but that also would end up permitting a lot of behavior that others find annoying.

Frankly I'm just not interested in the discussions if it's going to be hundreds of pages of the same as we've seen but I don't know how you apply the separation of shitposters from political s34 fairly.

 

[Nathan S]

Right, but he can't do that job unless we give him relatively clear guidance as to exactly what he is supposed to be doing. Does he police "shitposting", or not? (for example....)

Seems like a huge gray area, like so many other things. What's the difference between "shitposting" and "trolling" even? I think it'll be unproductive to get further down into the weeds of what kind of shitposting crosses the line, and what doesn't (like so many others here, I'm drawing from my own prior experience as a moderator ). If jking thinks a user is intentionally trying to derail the thread with spammy posts or flamebait, then he'll take action to prevent that from happening. If it's more borderline, or perhaps an honest mistake, he can nudge them in the right direction with a pm and take more serious action if the behavior continues.

 

[MediumBaller]

I am not sure that it is possible to selectively disable rep in certain forums.

If it's not possible to disable we could always just make no rep one of the rules. People would have to police themselves and make sure they don't use it.

 

[David.]

I am not sure that it is possible to selectively disable rep in certain forums.

Then there's no way to stop people from trolling or to actually ignore anyone. And people will be posting dumb shit for winner rep. That's not actual engaged conversation

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Seems like a huge gray area, like so many other things. What's the difference between "shitposting" and "trolling" even? I think it'll be unproductive to get further down into the weeds of what kind of shitposting crosses the line, and what doesn't (like so many others here, I'm drawing from my own prior experience as a moderator ). If jking thinks a user is intentionally trying to derail the thread with spammy posts or flamebait, then he'll take action to prevent that from happening. If it's more borderline, or perhaps an honest mistake, he can nudge them in the right direction with a pm and take more serious action if the behavior continues.

I suppose that might be a pain in the ass for him at first, but maybe if/when people are weeded out, it would take much less effort. So that might work.

 

[MediumBaller]

Then there's no way to stop people from trolling or to actually ignore anyone. And people will be posting dumb shit for winner rep. That's not actual engaged conversation

That's why I think having a no rep policy would be beneficial. It's clear cut. It would be easy to enforce and the moderator wouldn't have to worry about subjectivity like he would when determining what constitutes a "troll post".

 

[Nathan S]

You guys make a good case for having no rep...but it is kind of handy for when I'm just skimming through a thread and want to pause to read the posts that others found interesting/contentious. I wish there was a way to maintain that functionality without the obvious downsides.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You guys make a good case for having no rep...but it is kind of handy for when I'm just skimming through a thread and want to pause to read the posts that others found interesting/contentious. I wish there was a way to maintain that functionality without the obvious downsides.

I don't even see the downsides....

 

[Nathan S]

I don't even see the downsides....

People tend to make posts that don't contribute to the discussion but will get likes from their "team."

 

[Wrathe]

I don't understand how you can have productive chats w/ so strings attached like that. It seems like we're way over-thinking it, IMO. Not discussing race is a virtual impossibility when a key point to statistical data is the demographics from which the data is drawn. Gun violence discussions but no talk of inner city violence pretty much leaves ya talking about the angry white guys That would cripple that conversation, IMO.

The single biggest improvement, IMO, would be jk issuing a "get a room" decree in those instances where two people get locked into their pissing match. Ice em both for a day or something to cool off. The personal vendetta's are what got old and toxic real quick. They would completely deride from the conversation and they were just total cancer.