The Low-Tolerance Civility Forum

[Dreadnaught]

Based on a thread or two, I wanted to float a possibly-bad idea to the community to get some feedback.

Several people here seek some kind of elevated, more "civil" discourse. Open discourse being necessarily open-ended, it's hard to get everyone to match each other's definition of civility at a given point in time. From the moderation perspective, "civility" is a completely vague and subjective idea.

But I wanted to see what people thought of creating a new discussion sub-forum with a much tighter sense of civility. For the sake of argument, let's call it the Low-Tolerance Civility Forum.

This sub-forum will feature much more active moderation when it comes to discussions. There may or may not be a more firm code of conduct. But the main goal will be everyone has to be exceedingly respectful with discussions. The etiquette will lean towards more substantial posts and responses. If you break the code of conduct, your posting privileges in this sub-forum will be revoked.

This would just be a test and not impact other areas of the forums. I'm mainly curious if the "stick" of expulsion from a particular sub-forum would substantially change how people post within that sub-forum. Or if the idea is so stupid that the place would go dead and the other sub-forums would continue on their merry way. Though, no matter what, the rest of the place will go on its merry way.

Apologies this isn't as grand or well-written explanation of what I have in mind. But it's late and the government is waiting to devour my soul some more tomorrow. So I wanted to put it out there for discussion to see if people like/hate the general idea.

[wiggin]

I think this is frankly an awful option. I know we have some, ah, abrasive posters at time, but that's part and parcel of being on the internet. Let's be honest - an 'elevated' discussion forum would likely have an even more limited posting base than D&D and would be moribund within a fairly small amount of time.

I'm sure most of you have noticed that certain threads in D&D rapidly degenerate into relatively inane arguments/spats that have little to do with the topic at hand and more to do with the pet topic/posting history of a small group of feuding posters. But plenty of other threads do have substantive discussions, and the occasional interjection of an irrelevant/abrasive nature are either ignored or - better yet - used as a foil to provoke further interesting discussion. We all know which threads are which, and it's simple enough just to post in the threads of substance rather than making some fancy sub-forum of a handful of posters.

As an experiment, I suppose it doesn't matter much - if it dies out as I predict, then who cares? But I also suspect that bannings from the sub-forum might become heated. We all know that members banned from all of TWF (and previously, ACC) have on occasion come back and made a fuss/nuisance due to their upset at their treatment. Even now, there are charges leveled at our mods of favoritism or double standards wrt WLs and the like. Imagine how much more acrimonious the discussions would be if person X is banned from posting in our 'special' forum but person Y isn't? Everyone will still be around for bad blood to fester...

Perhaps a better solution is for the posters who care about such 'elevated' discourse try to lead by example by writing substantive, thoughtful posts for D&D and debating with an open mind?

[Loki]

To add to what Dr. wig said, I really don't see the quality of discussion here improving until there's a significant infusion of new members. As things stand, people constantly bring up old grudges and make no attempt to make a coherent argument because they've made it to the same person dozens of times in the past. Everyone knows everyone else's views, which means there's very little in the way of arguing the merits of a topic (with the exception of new issues that occasionally come up).

[Ziggy Stardust]

One forum I know has some sort of symbol for threads looking for stricter moderation. If a thread starter wants his thread to remain free of the usual, he can opt to add this symbol to the thread when it is started or add it when the thread spirals out of control.

I'm not participating that much here, mostly lurk, but I feel another forum is not really the answer here.

[Nessus]

Like that you're making an effort, Dread, I'll try to chime in when I'm in less of a hurry!

Perhaps a better solution is for the posters who care about such 'elevated' discourse try to lead by example by writing substantive, thoughtful posts for D&D and debating with an open mind?

The problem with this, doctor (tee-hee), is that there's little incentive or reward for posting with an open, honest mind; you get kicked in the teeth every now and then (or more frequently if you can't identify the bad posters with accuracy), the good discussions you mention rarely occur and tend to get drowned by the angry white noise wharglebargle; obviously we have different experiences on the latter part, and you seem to manage just fine to filter your responses and reading effort, so

I'm not going to copy-paste last night's chatroom, but what I was mostly saying amounted to: we tend to have this "civility" talk every few months; we will never get new members and should just assume so; we haven't come up with good sticks and carrots to keep the atmosphere honest; because we don't get new members, we can't keep voting people off the island. Your criticism of the goodie-goodie treehouse (as it will be perceived) are also worth considering. I'm hoping Minx will drop by to share some of his thoughts on why your proposed solution is also less than optimal; things about people's energy, effort and motivation. It's very strange trying to herd a bunch of brainy people with wildly different backgrounds and ideas!

[Aimless]

Hell, I say so many things I can barely remember half of them. I do remember saying we've got precisely the forum we fought to get and that's not a forum that's going to draw and keep new members.



Re. the OP, I disagree with the way you cast the civility problem, Dread. I think most of us know very well when we're being uncivil. We're fairly successful adult human beings, knowing this sort of thing is second nature to us by now. If, in the heat of the moment, it becomes unclear we can be guided by questions such as:

Would I say this and in this way

- if important people were watching?

- if I were speaking with my boss or my dean or people who could reject my grant application?

- if I were giving a TED-talk?

- if I were in a good mood and speaking with someone I love and respect and care about? Eg. my mother or my wife or my new and amazingly sweet girlfriend?

There are many ways to approximate an appropriate level of civility and a forum that has once aggressively enforced the "don't be stupid in D&D or we'll bite you" rule should have no problems with identifying generally uncivil behavior. For specifics we can ask ourselves questions such as, "Am I trying to be a smartass? Am I trying to corner my opponent? Am I trying to cast his posts as being absurd? Am I acting as if he's crazy, stupid or corrupt? Am I using bad language? Am I using and ? Am I trying to make my opponent feel small and inadequate? Am I trying to shame my opponent for holding a view I disagree with? Am I treating the subject as being more important than the person?" and so on and so forth. If you disagree with some of my examples I have no doubt you can find better ones, because there are plenty.

We're grown-ups. I usually know when I'm being a dick. You usually know when you're being a dick. Our problem isn't that we don't recognise when we're being uncivil or dickish or crossing boundaries--it's that we recognise it but do it anyway. When it's pointed out to us by others we do our best to justify it. When we inadvertently step on someone's feelings it either doesn't come to light because we act as if feeling stepped on isn't legitimate, or, if it does come to light, we explain it away and insist that the person in question submit and grow a thicker skin; as if having to say "Sorry, that wasn't my intention," or to accept an apology or to accept someone else's feelings of offense as being valid or to give someone more chances to save face by asking for clarification or giving things a second go or even just letting things go constitutes unacceptable restrictions of freedom that would make this place no better than the last days of Atari. Worst of all, we don't even encourage each other when we aren't openly fighting.

That is how I'd characterise the problematic aspects of this forum. Would you say I'm very far off the mark? I sincerely doubt that things are the way they are because Dread twiddles his thumbs all day long and shirks his modsticking duties.

[Illusions]

Aimless this isn't just about being nice, this is about civil on topic discussions. For instance, if you pulled one of your tangents that you sometimes go on, yet do it in a happy, friendly manner, you'd still be warned/kicked from the Low-Tolerance Civility Forum. This point should demonstrate why we can't just agree to always be civil from here on forward like we have tried several times. We don't come here to be civil, we come here to be ourselves and discuss things how we discuss them. Do you think Lewk comes here for civil discussion, or to state his disgust with imaginary liberals? Do you think you could go a month or more and not take a tangent in a thread, without being reminded? Exactly. The Low Tolerance Forum would be like a fancy party where we all put on top hats and be civil to one another for the duration of it, but we can always leave and get back to being ourselves when we get bored.

[Aimless]

Aimless this isn't just about being nice, this is about civil on topic discussions.

I'd consider staying more or less on topic without going off on a disruptive unrelated rant to be a part of civility. On that matter, most of us can see when we're being disruptive. If I forget I can be reminded in any forum, by anyone. It shouldn't require a separate forum or zero tolerance, it should just require an agreement to stop doing it when it's pointed out. You're welcome to remind me at any time. We've always had the ability to split discussions off into separate threads or just abandoning tangents

[Illusions]

How would you feel about posting here if you could never go off on a tangent again?

Also a post about how you like whipcream on your pancakes in the morning wouldn't be split off of a news post about someone shooting up an IHOP, and put into a new thread, it would just be thrown down the memory hole.

[Aimless]

We can use our collective judgement to tackle the whipped cream problem if and when it arises. Re. your first question, I wouldn't enjoy it, but why wouldn't I be able or permitted to go off on a tangent ever again? That would be only if we were to have some sort of impractical zero-tolerance policy. Practical wisdom mate, it's da bomb

I'd say that the status quo would be better than zero-tolerance policies or a separate low-tolerance forum. Exercising judgement would be ideal.

[Illusions]

We can use our collective judgement to tackle the whipped cream problem if and when it arises.

I don't see how debating whether or not something fits an abstract and vague standard, every time a possible infraction arises, is conducive to fluid discussion of a topic.

[Catgrrl]

I honestly thought that was what D&D was supposed to be from the get-go, but that didn't take long to get muddled. I know I've been a part of that at times.

Would anyone actually post in this separate subforum? Would Loki be banned from answering every question with another question? Would Cain be muzzled? etc etc. No one would be left to post!

(sorry to pick on you two, that's just what came to mind first)

[Ominous Gamer]

two debate sections would be stupid. two general chat sections would be stupid.

how you describe this new subforum being managed is what the entire forum should strive for.

[Aimless]

I don't see how debating whether or not something fits an abstract and vague standard, every time a possible infraction arises, is conducive to fluid discussion of a topic.

I'm saying we shouldn't debate it every time something fails to meet an abstract and vague standard but rather when someone is eg. becoming disruptive. At that point you'd think the fluid discussion had already been interrupted because, well, of the disruption it's not "rule-breaking" itself that's the problem, it's the consequences. See the Mens Rea thread for some analogous situations.

[Aimless]

We can also make sure to not have all those meta-discussions in the actual discussion threads.

[Dreadnaught]

The problem with this, doctor (tee-hee), is that there's little incentive or reward for posting with an open, honest mind; you get kicked in the teeth every now and then (or more frequently if you can't identify the bad posters with accuracy), the good discussions you mention rarely occur and tend to get drowned by the angry white noise wharglebargle; obviously we have different experiences on the latter part, and you seem to manage just fine to filter your responses and reading effort, so

I'm not going to copy-paste last night's chatroom, but what I was mostly saying amounted to: we tend to have this "civility" talk every few months; we will never get new members and should just assume so; we haven't come up with good sticks and carrots to keep the atmosphere honest; because we don't get new members, we can't keep voting people off the island. Your criticism of the goodie-goodie treehouse (as it will be perceived) are also worth considering. I'm hoping Minx will drop by to share some of his thoughts on why your proposed solution is also less than optimal; things about people's energy, effort and motivation. It's very strange trying to herd a bunch of brainy people with wildly different backgrounds and ideas!

I actually think we have good carrots. We all like posting here and hearing each other out. The struggle is with the sticks —*we are effectively a forum without rules. This is something we all wanted, but also something that clearly gets to people from time to time. Not everyone has the same level of tolerance for mosh pits.

There are many ways to approximate an appropriate level of civility and a forum that has once aggressively enforced the "don't be stupid in D&D or we'll bite you" rule should have no problems with identifying generally uncivil behavior. For specifics we can ask ourselves questions such as, "Am I trying to be a smartass? Am I trying to corner my opponent? Am I trying to cast his posts as being absurd? Am I acting as if he's crazy, stupid or corrupt? Am I using bad language? Am I using and ? Am I trying to make my opponent feel small and inadequate? Am I trying to shame my opponent for holding a view I disagree with? Am I treating the subject as being more important than the person?" and so on and so forth. If you disagree with some of my examples I have no doubt you can find better ones, because there are plenty.

We're grown-ups. I usually know when I'm being a dick. You usually know when you're being a dick. Our problem isn't that we don't recognise when we're being uncivil or dickish or crossing boundaries--it's that we recognise it but do it anyway. When it's pointed out to us by others we do our best to justify it. When we inadvertently step on someone's feelings it either doesn't come to light because we act as if feeling stepped on isn't legitimate, or, if it does come to light, we explain it away and insist that the person in question submit and grow a thicker skin; as if having to say "Sorry, that wasn't my intention," or to accept an apology or to accept someone else's feelings of offense as being valid or to give someone more chances to save face by asking for clarification or giving things a second go or even just letting things go constitutes unacceptable restrictions of freedom that would make this place no better than the last days of Atari. Worst of all, we don't even encourage each other when we aren't openly fighting.

That is how I'd characterise the problematic aspects of this forum. Would you say I'm very far off the mark? I sincerely doubt that things are the way they are because Dread twiddles his thumbs all day long and shirks his modsticking duties.

The thing here is you're throwing back the question at users and assuming they are more aware than they may be. It's clear that not everyone can agree on when they are being uncivil, compared to when they are just being assertive.

[Ominous Gamer]

we are effectively a forum without rules. This is something we all wanted

this is incorrect.

[Aimless]

The thing here is you're throwing back the question at users and assuming they are more aware than they may be. It's clear that not everyone can agree on when they are being uncivil, compared to when they are just being assertive.

I think most people can aclnowledge that a reasonable person might see and and swearing and "j00s" and calling people crazy or stupid etc. as being more uncivil than assertive.

I agree that there will be unclear cases, but that's something adults should be able to sort out given that we can probably behave irl without requiring rulebooks and police intervention and trials. We don't have to establish universal objective standards of uncivility unless we're really keen on implementing severe formal punishment. With no sticks we can easily have subjective standards of civility: "Hey, that hurt!" "Sorry, it wasn't my intention to hurt. All I'm trying to say is..."

If I'm trying to be assertive towards Loki and he thinks I'm being a dick and asks me tone it down, maybe take it easy with the strawmanning etc, then I'm perfectly capable of saying, "Sorry mate, I didn't mean to be dickish. What were you trying to say with your argument?" I don't have to agree with him that I'm being a dick, just acknowledge the apparent truth that he thinks I'm being a dick and his feelings are precious to me Now if it could lead to me being banned for a week then yeah I'd demand rigorous testing and investigation, the stakes would be high enough to encourage even more bickering. If the stakes are low and all it takes is an apology and further attempts at clarification then I wouldn't put my back up so much.

This is just my view, which I'm presenting because I feel it's somewhat relevant to the idea in the OP (or to its background), but not with the intention of stopping your proposal. We can speculate and reason all we want but that shouldn't stop us from trying out new ideas by all means, go for it, we can see how it works. Maybe in time the new sub-forum will end up being the only debate forum once we've gotten used to the new order. It'll be like the development of Europe in miniature

[Dreadnaught]

I think you're giving people either too much or too little credit.

Referencing the j00s is arguably a response to what a few posters see as a steady stream of conspiratorial arguments. Some think it's trolling, others think it's just confrontational.

My point is there could be an experiment where we can implement formal punishment without banning people. I don't believe people will really change simply via persuasion. And it's hard to persuade or punish people for anything because, as I said before, we mostly set-up this place to have little/no formal rules. At the moment, our punishments are constrained between some level of public humiliation and an outright ban.

[earthJoker]

I thought this was made because you didn't wanted to have limits on what topics you discuss, you can still have limits on how to discuss it.

[Ominous Gamer]

I thought this was made because you didn't wanted to have limits on what topics you discuss, you can still have limits on how to discuss it.

Bingo!

[GGT]

This sounds like a congressional super-committee, to do the work congress can't manage to do.

I thought that main forum [article] was the place for strictly dry and academic debates. Might be one main reason it's sparse. Debate and Discussion always meant tangents, anecdotes, personalities, and even appealing to emotion or hubris. Most people (I think) appreciate discussions with debates in between, not the other way around. If any change is needed maybe it's as simple as splitting Debates from Discussions?

Speaking for myself, interspersing great topics with things like j00Gold, j00Banks, nut-jobs, wing-nuts, morons, idiots, or kath-conspiracy digs just escalates emotions by taking it to personal extremes. We may not all be well-liked or respected by everyone here, that's how forums work. But we should all be able to post without being "attacked" by those kinds of verbal text taunts that put people on the defensive.

[Dreadnaught]

I thought this was made because you didn't wanted to have limits on what topics you discuss, you can still have limits on how to discuss it.

Practically speaking, our main rules are no trolling and no insane flaming. And we set a high standard for what is considered trolling or flaming.

My sense is that some people seemed to want more active moderation. Which I think is a bad idea generally, but I would be willing to try in a place that wouldn't lead to forum-wide banning.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, Dread, it's a bad idea but for different reasons than you think. I don't trust your moderating skills anymore.

[Aimless]

khen, your posts are very often very hostile even though they don't need to be. they make discussions unpleasant to read so i at least would appreciate a more buddhist tone

[Khendraja'aro]

It's the measure they've set with their "high standards".

[Aimless]

It's the measure they've set with their "high standards".

Perhaps, but trying to move forward from those standards now... also my mum always said, "If all your friends ate poop would you do the same?"

[Ominous Gamer]

My sense is that some people seemed to want more active moderation. Which I think is a bad idea generally

So its not that we all wanted a lawless forum (which was a BS claim), its that you don't feel comfortable anymore being the one whoms finger is on the trigger.
Should be an easy fix.

[earthJoker]

Practically speaking, our main rules are no trolling and no insane flaming. And we set a high standard for what is considered trolling or flaming.

My sense is that some people seemed to want more active moderation. Which I think is a bad idea generally, but I would be willing to try in a place that wouldn't lead to forum-wide banning.

I would prefer rules that are simple over some ambiguous "high standards". How about simply no personal insults at all in D&D? I don't see how they add anything to the discussion.

I know it somewhat goes against your ideal view of freedom of speech, but I personally think some rules are necessary, because there is always an asshole.

[LittleFuzzy]

I would prefer rules that are simple over some ambiguous "high standards". How about simply no personal insults at all in D&D? I don't see how they add anything to the discussion.

I know it somewhat goes against your ideal view of freedom of speech, but I personally think some rules are necessary, because there is always an asshole.

Define what a personal insult is please. Because I've seen everything from comments about someone else's dick considered innocent and not at all personally insulting to a simple "that doesn't make sense" being regarded as a blatant attack. Whether something is or is not a personal insult is highly subjective, and the recipient is just about always far more sensitive as to what can be considered one than the person who wrote it.