general nz-wi tour thread metathread

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Exactly. Public infractions would make it much worse IMO.

Not if you acted against the baiting as much as acting against the response. I'm surprised you of all people would be inclined to nanny people like this, but there you go.

 

[Howsie]

didn't read the OP, exhibit a.

Ah yes, time to enforce the rules is it. Love it

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I must add this is a very real thing and has happened in the past.without this system.

With this, we'd get over 9000 petitions per tour thread with or without context or validity for consistency regarding why a specific post was not infracted while that specific post was - without inner knowledge of the dynamics of warnings which is only accessible to moderators.

Unless warnings work differently here, they can be shown as a yellow card under vBulletin with infracted posts shown as red.

 

[Spark]

Unless warnings work differently here, they can be shown as a yellow card under vBulletin with infracted posts shown as red.

He's talking about the inevitable flood of reports that would come in complaining about consistency.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This is all well and good until the thread degenerates into a flamewar, though.

Isn't the thread degenerating into a flamewar the response to a lack of clarity over what has been infracted or not? Is this a chicken and egg thing or what?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Is it possible for the ignore list function to not leave a massive "THIS POST IS IGNORED" message? I'd rather just pretend certain posters don't exist.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He's talking about the inevitable flood of reports that would come in complaining about consistency.

And I was replying to his point that you'd have given loads of posts warnings that wouldn't be visible which would increase the volume of complaints.

 

[Spark]

Isn't the thread degenerating into a flamewar the response to a lack of clarity over what has been infracted or not? Is this a chicken and egg thing or what?

Personally I think it's a bit of a red herring tbh. Flaming tends to be an instinctive and not especially rational response, I think it'll happen anyway even if we bring this in simply because people get mad on the internet. It might cut a bit of it out IMO, but not that much.

 

[Spark]

Ah yes, time to enforce the rules is it. Love it

This is actually a good indicative example of what I was talking about re: complaints about consistency. There's no way we're going to win this fight, so for the moment we're choosing to avoid it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Personally I think it's a bit of a red herring tbh. Flaming tends to be an instinctive and not especially rational response, I think it'll happen anyway even if we bring this in simply because people get mad on the internet. It might cut a bit of it out IMO, but not that much.

Yeah, it just fails the cost/benefit analysis. The amount of times people would choose not to flame someone because they'd received an infraction for their post would be far outweighed by the number of people annoyed by a perceived lack of consistency IMO.

It's absolutely true that we already have people baiting others into bannings, and we already have people complaining about perceived inconsistency. But it's also true that this proposal would make these problems worse for not much gain.

 

[Dan]

We do sometimes let people know if we've given infractions to others. I still definitely don't think it's a good idea to make all infractions public for a few reasons.

Firstly, people baiting others into infractions deliberately is a real thing. Experienced members know where the line is and how to push the envelop just enough for someone they don't like to take the bait and get an infraction. Completely public infractions would give people intimate knowledge of other people's infraction points and how close they were to a ban, which could encourage that sort of baiting, particularly as baiters would also then have a list of which of their baits were successful in the past.

Secondly, I firmly believe we'd be inundated with consistency complains. We don't have the time or the inclination to sort through hundreds of questions month about why X got an infraction but Y didn't, and completely public infractions would result in that sort of situation IMO. It's the sort of transparency that would be desirable if we were elected or paid, but as volunteers it would make the position too demanding and tedious.

We do go to the effort when we think it'll help calm a member down, and maybe we could do more of that, but creating a public list would create more problems than it solved.

Baiting is a thing, yes, but I don't think many people are going to draw up a spreadsheet with who has how many points (you and perhaps sledger aside, since you're a robot and sledger is a trouble-making bastard*). Out of all the arguments against public infraction notices, I feel this is the weakest.

Consistency complaints is definitely a huge argument against it. The problem with us making moderation decisions is the partisanship and subjectivity. I do quite a bit of umpiring, and anybody else who's ever responded to a close LBW shout knows that there's no way to win -- the batsman reckons he's been sawn off, or the bowler reckons it was plumb. Either way, you lose and the person on the wrong end of the decision reckons you're on the other team's payroll.

When you're a paid umpire, its part of the job description. When you're a member of the community who also happens to be a mod, it's a serious pain in the arse to deal with -- we don't officiate and go away, we're posting alongside you before and after the moderating decisions.

And this is where the tension between moderating-by-consensus and infract on-sight really comes out -- as members of the CW community who just happen to be moderators, we're emotionally invested in threads. I've sat in tour threads and reported posts that I thought were textbook trolling and required censure, only for everyone else to go "nah Dan, you're overreacting in the heat of the moment" (before anyone asks, I'm not giving examples or names).



*said with , please don't infract me Spark

 

[Athlai]

This is actually a good indicative example of what I was talking about re: complaints about consistency. There's no way we're going to win this fight, so for the moment we're choosing to avoid it.

What a silly thing to say.

 

[Spark]

I've sat in tour threads and reported posts that I thought were textbook trolling and required censure, only for everyone else to go "nah Dan, you're overreacting in the heat of the moment"

This has happened to me as well. I'm stubborn as **** so it tends to stick, but there's definitely a trade-off to be made if we move to the more on-sight method.

 

[Prince EWS]

Baiting is a thing, yes, but I don't think many people are going to draw up a spreadsheet with who has how many points (you and perhaps sledger aside, since you're a robot and sledger is a trouble-making bastard*). Out of all the arguments against public infraction notices, I feel this is the weakest

If you make infractions public they will literally appear to everyone in their profiles like they do to the mods, I think. You wouldn't have to keep a spreadsheet; you'd just have to click on their profile and have a look.

I'm more concerned about the consistency complaints too though, really.

 

[Blocky]

One of other major problems is the gang mentality you have of posters who have been around for a tonne of years and the way they interact with newer posters or people who don't post as much. Look at the "Wow, you banned Flem but not WW" mentality from Howsie, because he's used to Flem, because he attacks people for attacking Flem.

Remember Martin Crowe and Jimmy Neesham's experience on the forum? And the whole "You're at risk of losing good posters because of this" threat also tells me they're not good posters, most good posters know how to have heated discussions without getting bothered, most good posters also tend to ignore people they don't want anything to do with, rather than constantly court their opinion and vitirol.

How you stop scenarios where two to three people make constant little snipes at someone, meaning that someone seems to be "the problem" because "everyone" is arguing with them would make the place a lot easier to moderate.

 

[Blocky]

This has happened to me as well. I'm stubborn as **** so it tends to stick, but there's definitely a trade-off to be made if we move to the more on-sight method.

You'll see a lot of major forums refuse to have "personalities" as moderators, the administrator account simply exists and you have no clue who that person is and that person isn't made known to you during discussions. It's because moderators are people to and can quite easily be in the wrong and make wrong decisions, I always question any scenario where a moderator has been involved in a discussion that results in someone being banned.

I think I had a ban overturned once due to me having major disagreements with a moderator who subequently banned me, only for James to reinstate my account. I like the idea that seems to be in this thread, that mods generally won't make a decision, they'll use the report functionality to make it impartial and absolve themselves of favoritism. That's a good system.

 

[Spark]

One of other major problems is the gang mentality you have of posters who have been around for a tonne of years and the way they interact with newer posters or people who don't post as much. Look at the "Wow, you banned Flem but not WW" mentality from Howsie, because he's used to Flem, because he attacks people for attacking Flem.

Remember Martin Crowe and Jimmy Neesham's experience on the forum? And the whole "You're at risk of losing good posters because of this" threat also tells me they're not good posters, most good posters know how to have heated discussions without getting bothered, most good posters also tend to ignore people they don't want anything to do with, rather than constantly court their opinion and vitirol.

How you stop scenarios where two to three people make constant little snipes at someone, meaning that someone seems to be "the problem" because "everyone" is arguing with them would make the place a lot easier to moderate.

Frankly, this argument has a flipside too. If a legion of previously docile posters who never got into fights all suddenly get into fights with one poster, it could indicate that the one poster is getting on their nerves in an untoward manner. This, in the end, is a discussion forum, not a debate forum, and we do expect a certain level of geniality and graciousness during discussions, particularly in tour threads, in order to maintain forum atmosphere. My ideal tour thread - and I'd say most others would agree with me - is something approaching a pub-like atmosphere, where good cricket discussions are had and not everyone has to agree, but stupid ****fights don't start because one poster took offence to this poster's argument or this poster was too aggressive or whatever.

This is not to say you can't call ****ty posts ****ty -- hell, I do that myself a lot -- but the percentage of ****ty posts is actually pretty small in my experience, and "this person disagrees with me" is in no way tantamount to the post being ****, or the person being stupid, or whatever. It kills forum atmosphere when people do that, though it's very difficult to infract.

Something to ponder.

You'll see a lot of major forums refuse to have "personalities" as moderators, the administrator account simply exists and you have no clue who that person is and that person isn't made known to you during discussions. It's because moderators are people to and can quite easily be in the wrong and make wrong decisions, I always question any scenario where a moderator has been involved in a discussion that results in someone being banned.

I think I had a ban overturned once due to me having major disagreements with a moderator who subequently banned me, only for James to reinstate my account. I like the idea that seems to be in this thread, that mods generally won't make a decision, they'll use the report functionality to make it impartial and absolve themselves of favoritism. That's a good system.

That was me, ftr. The problem there was less disagreement, the problem there was that the atmosphere of the tour thread had been completely destroyed by what I saw as an utterly pointless argument that you had started and you alone seemed interested in. Many people have suggested temporary blocking the offending poster from the thread in question to deal with those sorts of situations, that was the nearest thing we have.

 

[Dan]

I think the elephant in the room at the moment is definitely posting styles, and it's not exactly an easy issue to address -- either in a non-flamey manner by other posters, or in a logical regulatory manner as a mod. Obviously every poster has the freedom to post in whatever way they feel gets their message across best (I mean, my method of "dodgy analogy, dodgy pop culture reference, hashtag" isn't exactly widely-used), and those differences are integral to actually having vibrant discussion and not ending up becoming too much of a circlejerk where everyone holds one opinion and spends their time writing posts of agreement about everything.

As mods, we don't want to silence debate or cut out robust discussion on issues in order to enact a 'party line', so to speak (and I admit I have been heavy handed on this on occasion -- e.g. my "ffs dont compare gay people to pedophiles" post in that particular thread which left itself open to serious misinterpretation). But at the same time, that robust discussion turning into massive flamewars and ****fights waged on personal grounds.

I think a lot of the issue is people being unable to agree to disagree -- in the NZ/PAK thread we've seen plenty of disagreements over selection, player ability, and various team comparisons where neither side is willing to cede any ground to the other. Foruming isn't a zero-sum game where one person has to 'lose' the argument for the other to 'win' on behalf of their opinion. That's argument, not discussion or debate. Then, when it's gone around and around in circles for three or four pages, it's only a matter of time before someone makes it personal, and it goes around for another four or five cycles, only this time with personal abuse.

Then every time the posters disagree in future, the number of cycles before it becomes personal shrinks, and the problem gets worse and worse. I genuinely hope we've reached Peak Flamey Arguing in this tour thread, and that we can reset the problem and not degenerate to this level again.

There needs to come a point where both sides are willing to accept that they aren't converting all and sundry to their viewpoint. And even if they did, how boring would the forum be?

"Player X sucks so much, shouldn't be picked."
"Yeah I agree entirely, he sucks and shouldn't be picked."
"Erm, look how hard he sucks."

 

[Howsie]

One of other major problems is the gang mentality you have of posters who have been around for a tonne of years and the way they interact with newer posters or people who don't post as much. Look at the "Wow, you banned Flem but not WW" mentality from Howsie, because he's used to Flem, because he attacks people for attacking Flem.

Yeah, me and Phelgm best buds....

No what annoys me is that WW gets away with this crap all the time. How is "the kiwi's aren't going well, what they need is roach, he would bowl better then this' not straight up blatant trolling get the **** out of the thread type ****? He's not dumb, he knows what he's doing. But because he's a West Indies fan and their is only one or two of them on CW they can't afford to lose him.

As it is you'll probably lose other guys as a result as DoG said which would be a shame.

 

[Dan]

That was me, ftr. The problem there was less disagreement, the problem there was that the atmosphere of the tour thread had been completely destroyed by what I saw as an utterly pointless argument that you had started and you alone seemed interested in. Many people have suggested temporary blocking the offending poster from the thread in question to deal with those sorts of situations, that was the nearest thing we have.

Yeah, the problem there was more a lack of moderation tools in our arsenal, rather than one mod going rogue.