Content Moderator for Fireside Chat
It is my opinion that we need a content moderator for Fireside Chat to moderate objective things such as when someone is trolling, presenting flame-bait, hijacking a thread, and not backing up their posts when called to do so. I request this because the state of Fireside Chat is in shambles. It is in shambles because discussions rarely survive those things that a content moderator would regulate and presumably prevent.
This would be a new position in addition to the existing moderators, though the content moderator's power would be limited to the aforementioned issues. I think it's important that we improve the quality of discussions in Fireside Chat. I believe that a sure-fire way to do it is the way I have described. The current moderators are overburdened and ineffective at what a content moderator would be designed specifically to do.
You guys would iron out the details, but what do you think of the general idea of improving Fireside Chat that way?
This would be a new position in addition to the existing moderators, though the content moderator's power would be limited to the aforementioned issues. I think it's important that we improve the quality of discussions in Fireside Chat. I believe that a sure-fire way to do it is the way I have described. The current moderators are overburdened and ineffective at what a content moderator would be designed specifically to do.
You guys would iron out the details, but what do you think of the general idea of improving Fireside Chat that way?
Comments
you want someone like me moderating liberal posts/ideas?
would you want Fran moderating the conservative side of things?
fireside is fireside. if someone can't back up their posts with links/content, then they're posts should be ignored.
if something appears to be a troll, ignore it.
if others seem to be falling for a troll, let them know why you feel that way, ask the person you feel is a troll to further explain their views. if they can't your vindicated. if they do the thread is back on track.
as for hijacking threads, it's annoying but a natural outgrowth of discussion. if it's bothersome, do your part to bring the topic back on track.
trying to moderate content/ideas is dangerous, IMO.
edit: i think the biggest problem is that every moderator is also a real person, and has their own viewpoints. keeping the two entirely seperate is virtually impossible.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
this is what i'm referring to. the problem is that what i might see as trolling, someone else might not. my idea of flame-bait would not often be someone else's.
the hijacking would be a bit easier to stop, but as i said, it's often times a natural outgrowth of a discussion. at what point is it hijacking vs. discussion?
The ideal solution would be for the membership to absolutely maintain a level of civility that identified trolls, and a level of restraint that left troll posts unanswered. Failing that, and assuming the current ferocity of the tempests in this teapot, the only other option for the administration is to nuke the forum from orbit.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Have a backbone of your own and state your opinions.
Simple
Don't get all wound up because somebody takes you to task.
with respect,
Fellowship
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>The problem with moderating the sort of partisan deathmatches that characterize FC is that, as alcimedes points out, it's hard to step in without appearing to take sides. That's just about the last thing I'd like to see happen to the moderators here. It's not possible, in an objective sense, to differentiate sloganeering and heated partisan rhetoric from trolling; nor is it possible to differentiate thread hijacking from an attempt to bring a discussion around to what someone feels is the real point. As Mandelbrot famously observed, the noise is an integral part of the signal. Any attempt to cut out the noise will necessarily cut some part of the signal as well. The signal-to-noise ratio of FC is sufficient to make this compromise unattractive (to understate).
The ideal solution would be for the membership to absolutely maintain a level of civility that identified trolls, and a level of restraint that left troll posts unanswered. Failing that, and assuming the current ferocity of the tempests in this teapot, the only other option for the administration is to nuke the forum from orbit.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love this writing! Great work and I love the quotes.
Fellowship
<strong>I do not believe SPJ would open this thread. Fireside chat is a place for discussions where by not all people may agree. If one is to disagree with another person calling for the teacher in the class or the nanny is not what is needed.
Have a backbone of your own and state your opinions.
Simple
Don't get all wound up because somebody takes you to task.
with respect,
Fellowship
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read: "I didn't read what SPJ wrote here, so I'll just flame away"
I see what you mean. What's interesting is that I also advocated the removal of Fireside Chat from its onset as member SJPSU. My reasons have changed since then, but I guess this is just my attempt to salvage what wreck more than 2/3 of Fireside Chat threads are.
<strong>
Read: "I didn't read what SPJ wrote here, so I'll just flame away"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read what you said.
What I would like to know is do you need a moderator in real life when you talk to people?
Is life just so unfair in every day life for you?
People that voice their opinions without a mod to "correct" them.
I hope you do not need a real life mod in your life just to make it fair.
It is just almost funny but it is really sad.
Fellowship
- it reducing the noise is reducing the signal
- no one is strictly neutral
And more important neutrality is not always the right opinion. I means if you consider a blurrian gauss , it 's not because you are in the middle that you hold the trust. Galileo was the only at his time to think that the earth was turning around the sun, he was in the extremetie of the gaussian blur of opinions about the subject. If you take a moderate people of this time, a perfect content moderator, he will have ban him, or say he was trolling. In others words it's not because you have a moderate opinion in every thing that you are right on everything. Sometimes extremist opinons are the good one, even if most of the times they aren't.
A perfect content moderator , will have to be above us, a sort of relation with a master and his student. Frankly i leave school or universities many years ago, it doesn't interest me to find this on FC.
Sorry we can only moderate the container in FC not the content.
(For the record, Galileo had credible evidence on his side, trolls presumably do not <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )
<strong>Not really, Powerdoc. I'm sure you understand "content" to be something different than what I intended. And your expounding on that one aspect of the definition of the word is what makes your response somewhat misguided. I understand that it is difficult for moderators to maintain the guise of neutrality in enforcing rules against trolls, flamers, and hijackers. It was that aspect of "content" to which I referred, not deciding what topics to post. In fact you won't see any reference to discussable topics in my original post. Cool though.
(For the record, Galileo had credible evidence on his side, trolls presumably do not <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> )</strong><hr></blockquote>
The word content is translate contenu in French. I never refer to what topics to post but to their content. So even if i speak like shit i have clearly understand what do you mean.
Spealing of Galileo even if he had credible evidence on his side, it's worth nothing if nobody is ready to see them. At his time he was considered to be a troll (translate it blasphemator).
The quality of FC or nearly others forums are based upon the quality of the members.
I think that you expect too much from FC.
<strong>That's pathetic. If you care to address how it responds my original post, be my guest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kids, Suggestions is not Fireside Chat. So let's check this kind of crap at the door, lest there be consequences and repurcussions
<strong>
I think that you expect too much from FC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You nailed it. I certainly do. The following is from a conservative message board's rules. I think they're fairly what I am after:
[quote]1. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use Allied Conservatives.com to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violates any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material, article, or work without a link back to the source of the article or work, and to include the author and date of the article (if included in the article or work) in your post or reply. (There are spaces provided in the software for this purpose) You also agree not to circumvent the 100 word posting limit for copyrighted articles or works in any way. (The software snips copyrighted articles at 100 words to comply with Copyright Law)
2. Although we cannot always review the messages posted immediately and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at Allied Conservatives.com reserve the right to delete any message, or member from this bulletin board for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this BB (Allied Conservatives.com), Infopop. (the makers of the bulletin board software), and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). We at Allied Conservatives.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.
3. Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on Allied Conservatives.com, and will be deleted. If any of the above actions continues after warning to cease, it is grounds for revocation of posting privileges or banning from this site.
4. Absolutely NO FLAMING (personal attacks and the like), HATE SPEECH, THREATS, ADVOCACY or PROMOTING LAWLESSNESS/ILLEGAL DRUG USAGE, or RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION/RIDICULE, WILL BE TOLERATED on this site! Failure to abide by this rule WILL result in banning from this site.
*We will now allow more leeway in the tone of discussions and debate. The ACC Management team will not step into debates and discussions unless we observe blatant and excessive flaming, or if the topic has drifted beyond the point of no return. We are all adults here, and expect you all to behave like one. We ask that you use your mature discretion when it comes to your tone and your style of debate. More "colorful" language will be tolerated, but we ask that you do NOT abuse the leeway we offer by using excessive amounts of foul language. We have removed the software "censor" of certain words for use in debates and discussions.
5. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. However, this site strives for HONEST and TRUTHFUL debate, no matter what your point of view may be. If you are asked to provide VERIFIABLE proof of a claim, assertion, or statement, you are expected to provide it or face potential suspension or banning. In other words, trolling and baiting are not allowed! The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Allied Conservatives.com or any entity associated with Allied Conservatives.com. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.
6. Sending abusive, harassing, or threatening Private Messages at Allied Conservatives.com will result in the suspension of posting privileges or banning from this site and potential criminal prosecution.
*7. A private warning will be issued when a blatant offense to our rules is observed by a member of the management. A member will be given a 1 week suspension after the warning if the offense is repeated. After two suspensions, a member can be subject to banning by the ACC Management team.
8. You also agree to any changes in the rules or policies of this site/bulletin board without notice.
Other rules and policies that are invoked upon registration at this site may be found here. <hr></blockquote>
[ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
The following is from a conservative message board's rules. I think they're fairly what I am after:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No promoting of illegal drugs? And this is supposed to be a liberal board you're after? And no religious ridicule either? If Fireside Chat were a healthy man, you'd propose to chop its balls off.
what I don't like is that several very interesting topics, who are not very "firesidy", are resting in FC.
(example <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000416"; target="_blank">#1</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000389"; target="_blank">#2</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000411"; target="_blank">#3</a>, <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000418"; target="_blank">#4</a>)
I don't like that topics who were before in AO are now created in FC due to non-moderating and lazy declaration of FC.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[edit: I hate that every goddamn topic which is posted in FC, gets ripped to shreds, even if it's a good one like #3
[ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
<strong>
No promoting of illegal drugs? And this is supposed to be a liberal board you're after? And no religious ridicule either? If Fireside Chat were a healthy man, you'd propose to chop its balls off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was that what I said in my original post, dk? Those rules are what I was getting at more or less, which means it generally followed as I described. It's an example that shows it can be done.
And no I'm not after a liberal board in this thread. Nothing I have written comes close to saying that. Restrain yourself, please.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />