Requesting clarification / instruction?

[Kastor Krieg]

 

=][=

Guys and gals, it's been Moderately noticed over other topics that discussions/responses are targeting specific opinions.  Usually, this happens with reference to the topic at hand and that is welcome.  But when a post directly, and negatively, comments toward another Frater, it is pushing the line about constructive criticism.

 

Use PMs for that.  The open threads are for open dialogue about the topic.

=][=

 

 

Moderati, 

 

We're witnessing quite an upswing in the number of absolutely, utterly, vehemently negative voiced posters, for whom nothing is good enough, most things are worse than not good enough, especially anything new and anything GW. Their posts literally suck the enjoyment out of any otherwise positive and happy thread.

 

I'm a poster of some age on this board, coming up on my fifth year. I have several thousand posts which seem to be appreciated, as my like count is higher than the post count. And still, there are select few posters that make me cringe and lose interest in posting to a thread anymore. I am more than sure you know who they are.

 

I can't Ignore them, as this IP.Board functionality is not enabled on the board. I can't speak to them not to be so negative because I get warned off. So, I'm forced to sit through the negative waves making my milk go sour in the kitchen and take it.

 

This is a very passive-aggressive and destructive behaviour on part of those posters. It damages the community and the eagerness to exchange thought whenever they show up with their drive-by nihilism.

 

What should we do?

 

EDIT:

To reflect upon Moderati Bannon's commentary - these posters are just that - non-constructive posters. They cannot be subjected to critique of their behaviour, as it receives warns and moderation commentary, how else are threads and discussion protected from deteriorating?

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I would start by reporting the posts when appropriate. As the mods inbox fills in with reports from a sour grape action will be taken.

Of course you have to separate what is negative but constructive from what is negative and disruptive.

 

Saying " I don't like it, I wish they would do Y instead of X" is negative but constructive and it's an opinion. Even if repeated across several posts and threads.

 

Just posting "this sucks, GW sucks, this is dumb" is both negative and not constructive, and when posted in several threads becomes disruptive, so it should be reported so the mods take notice of the modus operandi of said sour grape.

I hope this helps.

[WarriorFish]

If someone is out of line it is best to let the mods handle it, then ignore them and move on. The line is drawn by common sense, it is quite possible to say you don't like something without descending into hyperbole or pouring scorn on others. For those that are unable or unwilling to do this, again, the Report button is there to bring things to the mod team's attention sooner.

 

If you dislike what someone is saying enough, there is always the Ignore functionality that may be put into use if you don't wish to do so "manually".

[Space Truckin]

There is an "ignore" user feature on this board. 

I've been using it since Warseer crashed.  Never ever had to do that on a board before.

 

The only drawback is if someone else quotes that user - which happens almost with every post now.  Seems we have some quote happy posters.

 

I'd like to add a bit to what Kastor says.   I hate to "report" posts  - but seeing a lot of people calling things ( rules, units, posts )  "cancerous"  or even one Frater went so far as telling another he should call a Suicide Hotline for being so negative is a bit too much.   So I guess "reporting" people is the thing to do.

[Kastor Krieg]

Appreciated, I was used to seeing the Ignore enabled directly on the person's Profile and thought the option is still not there.

Will report exclusively negative and unconstructive posts, thank you.

[Kastor Krieg]

In similar vein, after a way this is handled on a very well-moderated hobby forum I've known for years (RPGnet) - would it be possible to make [+] threads a thing? That is, threads which require a positive approach, where negativity is not welcome at all.

For example, I would like to make an "[+] Ultramarine heroes" thread, to avoid all the "but Matt Ward!" and "I, Cato Sicarius!" or "pfeh, poster bois!" drive by crap.

Would such a thread marker / tag be acceptable and would mods help to enforce the request for positivity only?

[WarriorFish]

There's no need for any addition as such a concept already exists. When you create a topic as the OP you can specify what it's for - within the bounds of the B&C's rules naturally. If you want to focus purely on the positive stuff then state as much when you open the topic, so people know what to expect and what is expected. Context is key as always, it's not going to be a blanket rule of nothing negative at all so some nuance is to be expected but if a post is focusing on negativity then it may find itself removed as off topic.

[Jolemai]

KK, it doesn't matter whether or not a reply is positive or negative, what matters is whether or not it's constructive.

 

Perhaps you can tell us how a debate is constructive (or even a debate) if only "happy-clapping" is permitted?

[Kastor Krieg]

The happy-clapping insinuation is faintly insulting.

 

A "[+] How would you want to see Sanguinius return?", for example, would require people to be 1) on topic, 2) positive about the premise. There's NOTHING to be gained from ANY negative voices in that thread, wherever on the spectrum between "I don't really think this is a good idea" to "Returning Primarchs SUUUUUUUUUCK!" they would be.

This is basically a request to not derail the thread off the positive notion / premise. There is value in the ability to discuss a scenario or idea without people drive by negating the need for the thread altogether or disrupting with "why do I think this will not work" kind of posts, which may be constructive in of themselves, but not constructive and disruptive in the light of the premise itself.

[Scribe]

The happy-clapping insinuation is faintly insulting.

 

A "[+] How would you want to see Sanguinius return?", for example, would require people to be 1) on topic, 2) positive about the premise. There's NOTHING to be gained from ANY negative voices in that thread, wherever on the spectrum between "I don't really think this is a good idea" to "Returning Primarchs SUUUUUUUUUCK!" they would be.

 

This is basically a request to not derail the thread off the positive notion / premise. There is value in the ability to discuss a scenario or idea without people drive by negating the need for the thread altogether or disrupting with "why do I think this will not work" kind of posts, which may be constructive in of themselves, but not constructive and disruptive in the light of the premise itself.

 

So enforced echo chambers of support.

 

Boil it down, thats exactly what it is.

 

Someone made a thread like that in the Amicus last year.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/326548-primarchs-in-41st-millenium-constructiveness-mandatory/

 

In the end, just do as I have done, and if you have certain posters you do not wish to endure (maybe I'm one!) put them on ignore. Its a far better experience that way.

[Kastor Krieg]

> So enforced echo chambers of support.

No, explicitly no. Enforced on-topicness. Just the fact that being negative is off topic if you want to discuss HOW not WHETHER.

[IronDrake28]

Following that logic, just saying 'I like this.' should be just as off-topic as 'I don't like this.' Surely?

[Kastor Krieg]

Following that logic, just saying 'I like this.' should be just as off-topic as 'I don't like this.' Surely?

In a "[-] Why the new Not-Assault Primaris seem so ridiculous to me?" thread - sure.

[Scribe]

> So enforced echo chambers of support.

 

No, explicitly no. Enforced on-topicness. Just the fact that being negative is off topic if you want to discuss HOW not WHETHER.

 

Respectfully, this board is hard enough to have meaningful discussion on, any drift of topic whatsoever has tears flowing from half a dozen regular posters. I dont like the concept, but I like less Moderation/Control as a default.

[Kastor Krieg]

 

> So enforced echo chambers of support.

 

No, explicitly no. Enforced on-topicness. Just the fact that being negative is off topic if you want to discuss HOW not WHETHER.

 

Respectfully, this board is hard enough to have meaningful discussion on, any drift of topic whatsoever has tears flowing from half a dozen regular posters. I dont like the concept, but I like less Moderation/Control as a default.

 

If I want to discuss "how to implement grav suspension in new vehicles again", guys coming in telling me "this will never happen because X" or "this is a bad idea because X" are not participating meaningfully in the discussion, instead dragging it off topic into ther "whether to implement grav suspension at all" area.

 

How is the [+] or exactly not helping? It's a clear indicator "either stay PRECISELY on topic or get a new, opposite titled thread".

[Soldier of Dorn]

 

If I want to discuss "how to implement grav suspension in new vehicles again", guys coming in telling me "this will never happen because X" or "this is a bad idea because X" are not participating meaningfully in the discussion, instead dragging it off topic into ther "whether to implement grav suspension at all" area.

 

How is the [+] or exactly not helping? It's a clear indicator "either stay PRECISELY on topic or get a new, opposite titled thread".

 

 

But in that case, that would be off-topic, regardless of positivity or negativity.

 

To go back to your original example, How would you want to see Sanguinius return?, posting about whether the Angel should or shouldn't would be off-topic anyways by your definition, and thus, doesn't have any place there, regardless of whether there is a little + or - in the title. (though I would respectfully disagree in your assessment that the opinion that he shouldn't return doesn't have any place there - method, in my view, is subordinate to whether said thing is a good idea or not, that is to say, the reason behind an action is relevant to the discussion of the conduction of the action itself. Depending on the content of the original post, it could. But that's entirely besides the point, and we're not going to get anywhere by disputing that.)

 

I don't believe such a system is necessary. The frater are provided with ample tools to define the topic of any thread they start with the content of the original post. If you want to make it clear that a thread is meant to focus on the positive aspects of a certain topic, then it is well within the poster's ability to do so by stating the fact.

 

One thing on which I would agree is that the Ignore function is very counter-intuitive to use. There have been too many times when I've forgotten how the system works and searched through a user's page for a button. Admittedly, this is a quality of life complaint, but a button on a User Profile to ignore a particular member's posts would make things far more... convenient? It definitely shouldn't be a high priority thing, though - there's a lot of stuff that needs to/should get done to improve the forum and convenience in that regard is the least of those concerns.

[Kastor Krieg]

To go back to your original example, How would you want to see Sanguinius return?, posting about whether the Angel should or shouldn't would be off-topic anyways by your definition, and thus, doesn't have any place there, regardless of whether there is a little + or - in the title. (though I would respectfully disagree in your assessment that the opinion that he shouldn't return doesn't have any place there - method, in my view, is subordinate to whether said thing is a good idea or not, that is to say, the reason behind an action is relevant to the discussion of the conduction of the action itself. Depending on the content of the original post, it could. But that's entirely besides the point, and we're not going to get anywhere by disputing that.)

This is absolutely THE point. "Shouldn't at all" is not covered by the [HOW SHOULD HE] group of replies. And people will still come in and say stuff like that. And then get replies. And get nowhere, exactly like you said. And then the thread gets derailed before mods manage to kick in and start pruning. Or worse, there will be a discussion whether they are or not off topic and the whole thread goes to .

A strong indication that divergent opinions are not covered by the thread and are not welcome by the OP goes a long way towards those replies NOT HAPPENING. It's not enough that we report them and they do or do not get pruned. By that time the damage is done.

Prevent instead of healing.

EDIT:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/333867-starter-kit-conversion-ideas/?do=findComment&comment=4753909

Well I hate Nurgle so it pretty much puts me out of wanting it (I can wait for some priMarines to come out in a multipart kit)

If I did get it, I would eBay the Nurgle stuff. Some people will have a burning in their loins for that stuff...so I'd ask high.

In a thread asking for "ideas for converting the starter kit", this user post "I hate Nurgle, so I will sell it away" and then goes on rambling about how "some people" have a "burning in their loins for that stuff".

How is that appropriate? On topic? Called for?

Yet a Moderati replied two posts below, a full hour after. And nothing happened with that post. Not sure where the thread will follow, to early to tell and too little traffic in that one, but see? This is not commonly recognized without an indication, even by Moderati. And it's an issue.

I'm not even asking for a "Board Rule" or something. Just a recognition of social contract between OP and everyone who enters their thread. If I post something with a [+] or [-], I'd like it to be recognized as an already stated request for a particular range of replies. None other. And for Moderati help with offtopicness, recognizing that this is the range of the topic intended by the OP. Moderati are supposed to do it anyway. With this indication it will be easier for them to tell whether a reply is on or off topic.

[Dosjetka]

I'm pretty sure lambasting a Moderator for missing a post that wasn't on-topic in a thread is inappropriate, KK. I am not aware of the circumstances behind that particular omission but I'm certain it can be boiled down to "long day, a lot on my mind, missed that one whilst trying to chill on the B&C". The B&C staff is made up 100% of human volunteers, not hard-wired servitors.

[Kastor Krieg]

I'm pretty sure lambasting a Moderator for missing a post that wasn't on-topic in a thread is inappropriate, KK. I am not aware of the circumstances behind that particular omission but I'm certain it can be boiled down to "long day, a lot on my mind, missed that one whilst trying to chill on the B&C". The B&C staff is made up 100% of human volunteers, not hard-wired servitors.

Are you absolutely certain that I was "lambasting" you or anyone else? Assaulting violently? Attacking verbally? I yelled profanity? Sorry if you feel I did, but I don't think I did at all...

I simply pointed out that in cases like that those posts get overlooked. That it happens, for those reasons you've mentioned, among others. Not blaming you, making a point that with an indicator you might've had an easier time spotting the off-topic one.

[Antarius]

While there might be a bit of sidetracking here, with the discussion of how fast mods can reasonably be expected to react -and the mods are ovviously only human and doing a great job- I think KK has a very good point overall.

 

As much as it may be ridiculed as "enforced echo chambers" and so on, the fact is, people come here to talk about things they enjoy. My hobby time is precious to me and if I make a thread about some aspect of the game I like, it's kinda draining to have it turn into yet another debate about whether or not GW suck (or any other example you might think of).

 

Frankly, I think the ability to say "this thread is about the positive aspects of X" is a very valuable addition for a hobby forum, because it allows people to talk about the stuff they enjoy without it turning into an enthusiasm-killing slugfest.

Similarly, if somebody wants to make a thread about how they don't like Y, they can do so (I personally think your enjoyment of the hobby will be greater if you focus on stuff you like, but I absolutely think people should be allowed to not like stuff in peace).

 

In any case, it's not a "freedom of speech" issue and I think it's more productive if we don't look at it like that, even in the slightest. It's a hobby forum and if I'm not allowed to speak my mind about my hatred of X in the middle of the X-lovers' club annual gathering, well then that's a feature not a bug.

[Kastor Krieg]

^^^ This.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

You're asking for over-moderation and we don't really want to see dozens off-topic reports for a single thread because it didn't strictly adhere to the narrow focus of what you consider acceptable replies.

[Antarius]

Well that's that, then.

 

I can't help thinking you're kinda talking past each other though, as my impression of the proposal is actually that it would be a way of reducing moderation (the experience from rpg.net that KK cites has certainly had that effect).

 

Oh well.

[Kastor Krieg]

You're asking for over-moderation and we don't really want to see dozens off-topic reports for a single thread because it didn't strictly adhere to the narrow focus of what you consider acceptable replies.

I am not sure my point is coming across? Antarius has the gist of it - since Moderati are coming into threads and reading them looking for offtopic to remove, especially in the most active threads I assume, this would help them delineating the intended on-topic?

 

To be honest, if a user wishes to talk "Why do Blood Ravens seem so cool?", will you not cut the replies claiming they aren't and "Magpies suck balls, why won't you find yourself a proper Chapter?". Or if a user wants to cover a specific topic, like "which kSon Brotherhood Blood Ravens hail from, if not Corvydae?" and people go in and claim they are not kSons at all and the premise doesn't make sense or there's no basis for it?

 

Why exactly does it seem like over-moderation where the OP clearly indicates the specific detail they want to discuss and that they want to do it in a positive, constructive manner, avoiding the bashing of the overall premise?

 

If anything, it would reduce the need for moderation, because people would clearly know better than to go with a "no way that's possible" into a "how to make this possible?" thread.

[WarriorFish]

There's no need for any addition as such a concept already exists. When you create a topic as the OP you can specify what it's for - within the bounds of the B&C's rules naturally. If you want to focus purely on the positive stuff then state as much when you open the topic, so people know what to expect and what is expected. Context is key as always, it's not going to be a blanket rule of nothing negative at all so some nuance is to be expected but if a post is focusing on negativity then it may find itself removed as off topic.

This has been answered already, I have no idea why this topic is still going so given it is resolved I'm closing it before the circle gets worn any deeper.

 

You can already make your focused topic that is about one particular thing for example, but please remember that the rules of the B&C always take precedence. Where you have potential grey areas of what is on or off topic that is decided by the mods with the available criteria.