Heckler's veto

[Tez]

@Jennkryst said in Heckler's veto:

@Polk The whole thread is not moved, the relevant posts can be individually forked over to a new appropriate thread, as needed.

Yeah. Forking things seems like better practice, to allow the original conversation to continue and a new one to … fork.

[eye8urcake]

@Tez said in Heckler's veto:

@Jennkryst said in Heckler's veto:

@Polk The whole thread is not moved, the relevant posts can be individually forked over to a new appropriate thread, as needed.

Yeah. Forking things seems like better practice, to allow the original conversation to continue and a new one to … fork.

[TNP]

Actually, I agree with the original suggestion: just delete the offending post(s). Just moving them means people can feel free to violate the tone of the sub-forum they’re in at will, knowing if they cross the line it’ll just get moved. So why bother regulating themselves?

Delete it. If they really want to post it, they can start a new thread.

Same with trolls; delete their posts. Leaving them just gives them what they want: attention.

[Tez]

I’m not particularly interested in deletion, outside of some really egregious violations. If someone is deeply violating the rules of engagement, it’s a separate issue than splitting off a conversation that – once begun – others may respond to. It feels easy for someone to be shitty, get a snarky response, and then claim innocence and betrayal if all parties are not dealt with equally.

I DUNNO. Obviously, the other admin may feel otherwise, and this is all speculative. We can see what happens when it happens.

[Herja]

[junipersky]

I’m not opposed to the idea of if a post steps over the lines that it gets erased. If someone writes hateful words on a wall and I catch them, they are scrubbing those words off/painting over, etc. If I don’t, I am STILL making sure those words don’t stay. Hate doesn’t need a reason to continue to exist.

[Tez]

@junipersky Yeah, absolutely. That’d almost certainly be one of those EGREGIOUS!!! things.

[Pavel]

Conversations get heated. We get the offending parties to step outside (fork the rowdy posts) so other people can get back to their chat. If you come into our bar throwing actual faeces, then you’ll get thrown out. Simples.

[eye8urcake]

@Pavel said in Heckler's veto:

Conversations get heated. We get the offending parties to step outside (fork the rowdy posts) so other people can get back to their chat. If you come into our bar throwing actual faeces, then you’ll get thrown out. Simples.

[KarmaBum]

Just wanted to throw out there - if you’re looking for a place that’s heavily moderated to discuss all things RPG, there’s always the RPG-D.

It’s oriented toward play-by-post, but (especially with Ares) they’re really not that far off MUSHing. I usually keep an account there and occasionally attempt to tap this resource for new players, but I’m not a good ambassador.

[Polk]

@Pavel Really glad to hear the forking talk from you guys. Thanks!

[Testament]

So pretty sure this is supposed to be the general commentary thread about the forum itself, so I have a rather hot take I’d want to share.

Maybe consider the idea of getting rid of upvotes. Which, I know, seems almost sacrilege. Or perhaps not getting rid of the function, but hiding the number and upvote gets.

Perhaps this is just me, but it’s one of those love/hate relationship with things. Seeking some kind of minor validation for upvotes received and then having this sense of being ignored when not.

Maybe having that thought or outlook on it is dumb. Or I’m just far too sensitive to the thoughts of others and how things I’m said are viewed. But I’m not sure I enjoy that small sense of endorphins when I receive feedback, positive or negative.

I think MSB(and here)not having downvotes is a good thing, because that can breed a particular sense of animosity and toxicity among the users of the forums, especially when you could see who was downvoting you.

I’m wondering if the same could said of upvotes. Granted, I’m not going to be upset if they’re not taken away or anything, but it has been something I’ve noticed perhaps moreso about myself lately.

[Roz]

I think the biggest issue that would come with getting rid of upvotes is that it’d inevitably end up with an increase in really basic “I agree” posts. So I’d almost fear that it’d make the overall feeling more prevalent, not less.

[Jumpscare]

@Roz I agree.

[Testament]

@Roz On that I agree with you, and how annoying would it be see a bunch of “I agree” posts(I know one of is going post just that at some point). I think the other potential avenue is not getting rid of the function, just hiding how many there are and by who.

And while I really really hate to make a comparison to YouTube and that example doesn’t wholly work here in a sense of sheer scope, but. That was something they did, hence what gave me the initial thought of it.

@Jumpscare Nevermind, it already happened.

[Roz]

@Testament said in Heckler's veto:

@Roz On that I agree with you, and how annoying would it be see a bunch of “I agree” posts(I know one of is going post just that at some point). I think the other potential avenue is not getting rid of the function, just hiding how many there are and by who.

And while I really really hate to make a comparison to YouTube and that example doesn’t wholly work here in a sense of sheer scope, but. That was something they did, hence what gave me the initial thought of it.

YouTube still shows me the number of upvotes a video has gotten – do you mean something else? Just the identities?

I kind of feel like if there’s no feedback for the upvotes, it’d still result in the same behavior as the upvote feature not existing.

[Polk]

@Roz Youtube hid downvotes. They left upvotes.

[Testament]

@Roz Maybe something like that, just the identities. What I don’t want is something to turn into is some kind popularity contest, and there are times where it does seem like that. And in the past, that has seemed like that’s what it is, despite whether or not that actually true, there is a sensation that that’s what it feels like. I suppose not taking the function away, maybe simply leave it more nebulous

ETA: Again, I just wanted to open the discussion as to what people feel about it on the whole. If it stays, no biggie. Just something I wanted to discuss.

[Mourne]

@Roz I think (maybe, thinking might be too strong of a word) that what @Testament means is that we have no downvotes. So the lack of upvotes amounts to the same thing as being downvoted. It’s the silence of either A) Being ignored or B) Nobody agrees with you.

In that respect upvotes are still a measure in which negative connotations can be made. So if we’re trying to avoid negativity, then we need to ignore positivity as well as the lack of positive reinforcement is by it’s nature a negative situation when there is no clearly defined negative response.

Also, in that respect, by seeing names associated with upvotes, we’re again having the potential of seeing ‘blocks’ of individuals, because humans are keyed to see patterns in /everything/. It’s just how our brains work.

[sao]

@Testament I feel some confusion here. Do you mean that knowing who is upvoting creates a popularity contest?