Lonelygirl15

I wanted to title this thread:

Threading the Needle (Thoughts on Staying on Topic and Not Ticking Anyone Off )

but it was a little long

I'll step carefully here because it seems the topic is a particularly sensitive one to some. I'm trying to understand the recent spate of locked and moved threads.

I'm offering this in the spirit of open dialogue and constructive criticism. Please accept it as such and respond in kind.

For those of you who may have seen my earlier posts you may think I am argumentative and difficult. I'm not really. My mom likes me and I usually play well with others. It's just that I grew up in a large Irish Catholic family and we just love to argue.

ok, that said, here goes...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Letting", "allowed" and "discouraged" are among the words I've seen associated with locking or moving threads. The words are not very well defined so the reason for administrative action are sometimes vague and difficult to understand.

My observation is that what is "allowed" and not "allowed" is as well defined as it is with the FCC. (and NO Howard Stern is not the only one with issues, just ask CBS, NBC, ClearChannel and other broadcast corporations). One significant difference is that LG15 can't (not that they wouldn't) fine you millions of dollars for a misstep.

If you were just using numbers your first guess would be that the higher the number of posts the more likely it is the thread will be moved, locked or "snipped".

That can't possibly be the reason. It is in fact, only the result.

What I think is really happening is - and this is kind of cool - the longer a thread is active the more likely it is that the conversation will evolve and in that evolution the contributors discover that the original thesis has seeded deeper thoughts.

In philosophy this is known as the dialectic. Wikipedia offers a fair deinition of the word/conversational method.

In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue. It is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion. One way — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth. Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

What's the point?

The point is that there is a lot to be gained from these threads that stray from the original thought. Often, inane theories and comments spur some very interesting debates nd come to soem great conclusions. More often, the threads in question create some great entertainment.

Some times peoples feelings get hurt or soemone is offended. C'mon.... An open forum is a bad place for the sensitive and easily offended. I've been offended a few times and I've had my feelings hurt a lot more than that (for instance...I've got some physical issues and my hands cramp up so bad sometimes I can hardly type, there is no spell checker here, and composing, checking, copying and pasting really wrecks my train of thought and sponteneity). With the exception of deliberate slander and liable it's mighty hard to know what is going to hurt or offend who and at what level. I dare say there are some administrative staff whose feelings have been hurt.

Sometimes people get angry. Lucky thing no one is close enough to get hit with a hammer.

It is likely that some are hurt or offended or angry when there thread is locked or their opinions dismissed.

Again, what's the point?

The point is that even though things can get a little rowdy and passionate one chances to loose a lot more than one can hope to gain by stifling any dialogue. As far as trying to protect people versus benefiting form open debate the profit/loss statement skews widely toward letting things go.

Ok...I am so late for work right now. I just had to say my say. I probably got sloppy along the way becasue I'm in such a hurry but "train of thought" and all that

For the record. I really, really, really, really, reallly (is that trite or is it still cute?) like hanging out around here. It's not unlike ata large Irish Catholic family's dinner table. It's better becasue nmo one can throw the potatoes at you! (mashed are a lot easier to take than baked)

Cheers every one.
Slainte Mhath!
(to your Health and Happiness)


P.S. To the person whom I have had some PM words with. I have finally slept on it. My hatchette is buried if you have one for me go ahead and throw it, throw it as hard and straight as you feel you must, and let's be done.
Pax

Great post.....

I get what your saying completely. Unfortunately, sometimes these forays off topic also get slightly "off-color" and inappropriate and since we are constantly being reminded that there are younger children coming here and that this is a PG/PG-13 they try to keep things moderately clean(ish ). Some of these off topic converstations do mutate into very insightful and intelligent threads, but the majority do not. Especially at times like this, when the OpHeads are getting restless (I'm an Op, by the way ).

Taig,

There is no real answer to your concerns, other than to say that the mods are people too. As users here, we've been given guidelines to follow. There is no actual rulebook to follow. For the moderators, the same is true. They aren't given a rulebook which says when to lock a thread, when to delete a comment, or when to PM a warning to a user. They're just given some guidelines, and everyone expects them to enforce things. Unfortunately, this requires that they make judgment calls, and this leads to some people not being happy with those calls. All we can really ask for is some consistency from a given moderator with the calls that they make. And I think we already have that, at least to as good of a degree as we're going to get as long as the moderators are still human.

'mute

Stipulated without qualification: The Moderators job is a tough one.

I would just like to say that I think BK is doing a great job as moderator and I feels his explainations, on the most part, are pretty clear.
Plus I find he is usually the first one to take care of any major problems.

I think you made a good and well-thought-out post, Taig, and I agree: topics of discussion sometimes take on a life of their own, and the evolution off topic is often a good one. We're pretty lax with off-topic conversations, especially in the video threads, where theories tend to evolve and later become their own threads in Plot Discussions.

I'll often break out a conversation into a new topic for a few reasons. Mainly, it's easier for other people to find that new topic if it has its own title, if it's under 5 pages long, and if it's in the correct forum. And we want, as moderators, to encourage users to browse topics and contribute. The biggest complaint I hear is that lengthy topics are too cumbersome and are often skipped. An off-topic conversation can detract from the original point as well, and by branching it off, people typically go back to and continue the original discussion. This is a lot more obvious when a conversation gets off topic with back and forth conversation, or "threadjacking", which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can confuse the issue.

I'm just addressing this particular issue. I think 'mute addressed the basic issue of being a moderator pretty well. We do the best we can to keep this a fun and productive place and to make everyone - from the brand new to the longtime users - welcome.

Taig wrote:Stipulated without qualification: The Moderators job is a tough one.

I shall now bow out of this conversation, as my name is in green again. I don't want that bias to influence the discussion.

'mute

Mute's green again!!! Yay!!!

(Sorry about this gushy post; I have just been rubbernecking through the video comments/concerns thread again.)


I have to say that this thread is quite refreshing. An issue was raised; then addressed peacefully and discussed calmly. And I am sure all sides will continue to consider the issues raised. It also seems like both sides are willing to listen to each other and work together. Until this worthless post of mine, the last words in the thread were by Ziola. And those words were "yah!"

Taig wrote:I wanted to title this thread:

Threading the Needle (Thoughts on Staying on Topic and Not Ticking Anyone Off )

but it was a little long

I'll step carefully here because it seems the topic is a particularly sensitive one to some. I'm trying to understand the recent spate of locked and moved threads.

I'm offering this in the spirit of open dialogue and constructive criticism. Please accept it as such and respond in kind.

For those of you who may have seen my earlier posts you may think I am argumentative and difficult. I'm not really. My mom likes me and I usually play well with others. It's just that I grew up in a large Irish Catholic family and we just love to argue.

ok, that said, here goes...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Letting", "allowed" and "discouraged" are among the words I've seen associated with locking or moving threads. The words are not very well defined so the reason for administrative action are sometimes vague and difficult to understand.

My observation is that what is "allowed" and not "allowed" is as well defined as it is with the FCC. (and NO Howard Stern is not the only one with issues, just ask CBS, NBC, ClearChannel and other broadcast corporations). One significant difference is that LG15 can't (not that they wouldn't) fine you millions of dollars for a misstep.

If you were just using numbers your first guess would be that the higher the number of posts the more likely it is the thread will be moved, locked or "snipped".

That can't possibly be the reason. It is in fact, only the result.

What I think is really happening is - and this is kind of cool - the longer a thread is active the more likely it is that the conversation will evolve and in that evolution the contributors discover that the original thesis has seeded deeper thoughts.

In philosophy this is known as the dialectic. Wikipedia offers a fair deinition of the word/conversational method.

In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue. It is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion. One way — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth. Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

What's the point?

The point is that there is a lot to be gained from these threads that stray from the original thought. Often, inane theories and comments spur some very interesting debates nd come to soem great conclusions. More often, the threads in question create some great entertainment.

Some times peoples feelings get hurt or soemone is offended. C'mon.... An open forum is a bad place for the sensitive and easily offended. I've been offended a few times and I've had my feelings hurt a lot more than that (for instance...I've got some physical issues and my hands cramp up so bad sometimes I can hardly type, there is no spell checker here, and composing, checking, copying and pasting really wrecks my train of thought and sponteneity). With the exception of deliberate slander and liable it's mighty hard to know what is going to hurt or offend who and at what level. I dare say there are some administrative staff whose feelings have been hurt.

Sometimes people get angry. Lucky thing no one is close enough to get hit with a hammer.

It is likely that some are hurt or offended or angry when there thread is locked or their opinions dismissed.

Again, what's the point?

The point is that even though things can get a little rowdy and passionate one chances to loose a lot more than one can hope to gain by stifling any dialogue. As far as trying to protect people versus benefiting form open debate the profit/loss statement skews widely toward letting things go.

Ok...I am so late for work right now. I just had to say my say. I probably got sloppy along the way becasue I'm in such a hurry but "train of thought" and all that

For the record. I really, really, really, really, reallly (is that trite or is it still cute?) like hanging out around here. It's not unlike ata large Irish Catholic family's dinner table. It's better becasue nmo one can throw the potatoes at you! (mashed are a lot easier to take than baked)

Cheers every one.
Slainte Mhath!
(to your Health and Happiness)


P.S. To the person whom I have had some PM words with. I have finally slept on it. My hatchette is buried if you have one for me go ahead and throw it, throw it as hard and straight as you feel you must, and let's be done.
Pax

Great post
I bet the Creators will read it

Well they will now since it's posted twice.

'mute:

Why do you feel that you should bow out? That's nonsense. Your opinion/perspective isn't just relevant it's a very important point of view.

I hope you will reconsider your neutrality.

Taig wrote:'mute:

Why do you feel that you should bow out? That's nonsense. Your opinion/perspective isn't just relevant it's a very important point of view.

I hope you will reconsider your neutrality.

When I posted my earlier reply, I was merely a former moderator. Still a user, but with an understanding of what issues the moderators here have to deal with. Now that I am a moderator again, I just wanted to leave the potential bias out of the conversation.

Since you've asked me to reconsider, consider it done. If I find myself with any additional insight, anyhow

'mute