[Discussion]N&P Cleanup

[Knife]

I would suggest a fair amount of mod discresion on the issue. Treat blogs like any other source and if it starts with 'I believe' if is firmly on the [editorial] side of the argument. If it's an actual report of a situation with facts and such, I don't see why it can't be submitted as a source.

As with any other source, it doesn't hurt to have more than one to substantiate a claim.

[Broomstick]

At a certain point we will need people to use common sense. I don't want to ban ALL blogs (or similar material) because they can be thoughtful and relevant to a discussion, either as an OP or brought in later. However, I would like to see any blog/editorial/etc. clearly marked as such.

I would prefer not to bog the place down with rules. I think a shitty blog/OP-ED as an OP will be mocked, declared a tinfoil hat or nutjob piece, and may be shuffled off to HoS where we can indulge in "mockery of stupid people". A good blog/OP-ED will provoke thoughtful and lively discussion. To that extent, the board members will decide, but the moderators do need to step up and shovel the shit out of the barn when appropriate.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ok, ya know what? I think we need to table this discussion since it's causing a lot of heated tempers.

I Move This Discussion Be Tabled for 30 Days.


Any seconds?

Sorry, but no. This was fine until Keevan showed up and started throwing a tamper tantrum, dragged personal issues into it (His continued "right winger" bullshit is both insulting and annoying, nevermind that its a red herring) and his threats to ban people for DARING to criticize him (which is basically what it amounts to, obfuscation aside.) In fact Keevan's basically emphsized WHY this thread came into being in the first place, since this little drama is basically underscoring part of the problems in N&P.

[Surlethe]

On the topic of [Op/Ed] and blogs, I am in favor of altering the current policy, but I think we need to define things better. For example, are we saying all blogs are ok opening posts or blogs are gone save editorial blogs, which will be marked as such for discussion of the editorial alone? The proposal both ways was made earlier. Secondly, what about blogs being admitted for discussion into threads that are already progressing? For example a number of them have been cited in the DNC and GOPVP threads, though neither was initially about the topic.

The goal of the [Op/Ed] tag is to draw a bright line between arguments and fact-sources. Blogs, because they tend to lack professional reputations and are not professionally written, should on the whole be treated as arguments. (I shouldn't have to mention that such blogs should be subject to the rules of evidencing - e.g., no tinfoil hattery.) The one exception I can think of to this is a "summary" blog, which links to a whole bunch of news sources to present a summary of news regarding a given issue, with few or no arguments built from that news.

[Ender]

I would suggest a fair amount of mod discresion on the issue. Treat blogs like any other source and if it starts with 'I believe' if is firmly on the [editorial] side of the argument. If it's an actual report of a situation with facts and such, I don't see why it can't be submitted as a source.

As with any other source, it doesn't hurt to have more than one to substantiate a claim.

I'm not certain blogs should be taken like any other source - I would argue more like a wiki. They can be a valuable information source, but by its very nature it is difficult to verify. And there is the ever present issue of bias. I feel a decent point was raised on this topic:

Are we seriously entertaining this tripe about Palin's pregnancy and her daughter? Do we have anything close to resembling a reputable source for this? Or are we no better than Dem. Underground or RedState?

I thought that we're above tabloid scandal in dissecting political creatures. Christ, it's not as though there aren't enough ideological reasons to disagree with and tear into.

It's not so much the rumor but the things which the rumor uncovers about the truth. At best, she's incredibly negligent. At worst, she's a hypocrite who covered up her teenage daughter's pregnancy after yammering about how the state should stick its nose into women's vaginas.

Remember, it's the bullshit tinfoil-hat nuttery that is shedding the light of truth. None of this is substantiated anywhere and yet it's getting serious consideration on this board!!!

When the Enquirer story on Edwards came out, it was dismissed here (rightfully so) because the source was not reputable. Yet crap comes off a fucking partisan blog and its okay?

That is not intellectually honesty but they just can't seem to see it.

In enacting whatever we do, I would suggest a cleanup of the stickies at the top of the page and including in there
1) standards of evidence
2) verifiable resources
3) Common terminology.

We currently have some threads like that, however there are 8 of them, some of which have not been updated since 2004.

[Connor MacLeod]

I suppose OP/Ed pieces might be worthwhile as a topic of discussion, but only if they have a discussion-worthy value or relevance to a actual news or scientific topic. Part of the problemw ith Blogs and Op/ED pieces is that no discretion at all is used (by the poster who posts them.) The other end of the scale is that you just have people "posting opinions about opinions" and we honeslty already get alot of that and it seems kinda worthless to me.

A possible example of what we want to root out is this which I agree doesnt belong in N&P and better discretion on the poster SHOULD have been exercised (though its lack is honestly unsurprising to me. Einy has a habid of disregarding warnings unintentionally or intentionally and just posting whatever hits his fancy, whether it may be relevant or not.)

One possibility is that for a Blog or Op/ED piece to be posted, it could be relevant to a current discussion, or must be accompanied by an actual, genuine, and relevant news article to show how it IS relevant. (That is, lets say the BBC posts something about the war in Iraq and some new decision by the US President. One could further attach an Op/ED or Blog piece that DID bear relevance to the topic - ie something that say criticizes or supports the activities the Bush Administration took with regard to what is described in the article.)

Another, albeit far mre complex option is that OP/ED and esp blogging pieces must receive approval before being posted. This is dependent upon the frequency (and how many people do it often) because I know off the bat this could just overload the mods. So it could be limited in certain ways:

- Op/ED pieces that are introduced into an ongoing debate are excluded, but they still must be relevant (anyone posting an irrelevant one is either open to outright mockery,d eletion fo the post, or whatever.) Only Op/ED pieces that are the basis of an entirely new thread must receive approval

- People who have demonstrated an inability to judge between what is a "relevant" or "good" op/ed post and one that is total crap cannot do post one without running it by a Mod/admin first. Exact guidelines (IE how many times one must screw up before making "a list" of ppl without judgement, or whether or not making the list is permanant or if you can get off for good behaviour, and whether repeat offenders warrant further actiopn, etc.)

[Keevan_Colton]

Two things, first, broomie, mike hasnt posted in here in over two weeks.

Second, Connor you've amazingly picked out a thread that was swiftly locked as an example...since it was locked, what problem exactly is it an example of?

[LadyTevar]

- Mighty Mike Wong seconded this, meaning it's a good idea to discuss what might/might not need fixing.

Where did he say this, Broomstick? I couldn't find it in this thread.

[Surlethe]

I thought she meant that he had approved a general moderatorial cleanup of N&P, to which several mods have alluded.

[Connor MacLeod]

Second, Connor you've amazingly picked out a thread that was swiftly locked as an example...since it was locked, what problem exactly is it an example of?

Its an example of something that should not have been posted in N&P to begin with, hence why it was locked. Is that somehow a difficult concept to grasp?

[Keevan_Colton]

Second, Connor you've amazingly picked out a thread that was swiftly locked as an example...since it was locked, what problem exactly is it an example of?

Its an example of something that should not have been posted in N&P to begin with, hence why it was locked. Is that somehow a difficult concept to grasp?

It was locked, problem solved.

[Connor MacLeod]

Second, Connor you've amazingly picked out a thread that was swiftly locked as an example...since it was locked, what problem exactly is it an example of?

Its an example of something that should not have been posted in N&P to begin with, hence why it was locked. Is that somehow a difficult concept to grasp?

It was locked, problem solved.

And it wouldn't have NEEDED LOCKING in the first place. Is that really that difficult a concept for you to grasp, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

[Keevan_Colton]

What I'd like to know is why exactly locking isn't an adequate solution?

[Connor MacLeod]

Nice distortion - I never said anything was wrong with locking. Obviously you either don't know what a preventative measure is, or you're just deliberately being an ass (given how you've been acting in this thread from the get go, I'm guessing the latter. I dont know what rod you have shoved up YOUR ass, but I suggest your remove it and stop pretending that N&P is somehow your personal fiefdom and everyone else is the barbarians at the gate.)

[Broomstick]

- Mighty Mike Wong seconded this, meaning it's a good idea to discuss what might/might not need fixing.

Where did he say this, Broomstick? I couldn't find it in this thread.

Two things, first, broomie, mike hasnt posted in here in over two weeks.

I thought she meant that he had approved a general moderatorial cleanup of N&P, to which several mods have alluded.

^ bingo - the moderators have mentioned this. I do not have it from God Wong but from His prophets.

[Ghost Rider]

The reason I have a particular care to see this passed is for many things but a few are.

-Mike did dictate a few months ago for a certain amount of clean up in N&P. There is a certain abuse of topics and me-tooing that even that back was getting extraordinary, let alone now with the national conventions and such not. The fact the moderators complain heavily about certain N&P toics alone was why Mike wanted some action taken. If it requires the Senate, all the better. This was a primary purpose of said creation of the place.

-It has always been held the place is a flame pit, but there is a level of small groups acting as if their are the arbiters of truth and that needs to be looked at and dismantled. As such, taking a harder look at the place is what should happen.

As for Mike not posting, anyone can inform him if they believe he does not know the situation and it requires his personal attention. He's been posting all this time, and I doubt he's missed this amount of debate just because he needs to weed whack someone.

[Coyote]

What a shocker, one of the shittiest posters in N&P gets upset about people talking about cleaning up N&P.

Gee, what a massive contribution you make to the board. I'll be sure to get out of your hair and let you get back to playing model UN with the other right wingers. You and Knife can jerk each other off as part of the chosen people of SDN.

The irony of this sort of commentary being included in your slam about "contribution to the board" is unintentionally hilarious.

All this "Move it to Off Topic" stuff is nonsense, News and Politics was created to move some of the load away from Off Topic. By it's very nature, Off Topic is the forum of last resort for posting something. Crime and Human Interest stories are part of the news and have been since the first caveman thought of grunting about what happened that day.

There's News, and there's news. There's not a lot that can be added to "man rapes, beats puppy to death" except a bunch of tough-guy "kill 'im!" "raarrgyh!" type posturing.

That does not measure up, content-wise, to things like the ramifications of Palin as VP pick, or the failure of contractors to rebuild the New Orleans levees, and the like. News & Politics is just that-- news, and politics. Information worthy of protracted debate.

[Coyote]

And, how suprising...it's the rightwing cuntfaces that I've argued with on many an occasion that are against me here. It's a shame Lonestar and Shep cant post in here or you could have a complete little club going.

Ender, consider this a little warning in my capacity as a member of the staff of this board. Going after a moderator for their conduct doing their job on the board is not a good idea without being able to back it up. Parting shots has quite a few examples of people that have failed to grasp that concept.

Funny-- in the same post you take a potshot at two people who have no way to respond to you. All the while, you can't simply disagree about the N&P agenda being discussed; you come right out swinging and using this as an arena for personal insults and aggreivements from elsewhere on the board. Then, you make a fucking threat about what you're going to do to someone because you disagree ideologically with them.

Yes, indeed. The very essence of professionalism.

That right there is a hint of your conduct.

[Coyote]

A comment from Monsieur leShep:

Arik, you can post this attributed to my name in the senate thread.

I'd like to point out that, in my opinion, N&P has really declined in the last couple of years, from being a forum where you could at least see some sort of debate to now.

Now, I know that N*P was always a flamepit; but it's really bad now, compared to several years ago.

Nowadays' it's just flamage of rightist ideas for the point of flamage to the point where the few remaining right-leaning people or centrists on the board don't give a damn anymore.

Some cleanup ideas:

1. Muzzle Einhander's conspiracy/evil businessmen posts. They're basically the board equivalent of those guys who are always at your college green with posters for Lyndon LaRouche. I'd suggest moving them to the HOS where they belong.

2. Institute a more centrist moderatoral staff for N&P. I'd suggest Coyote, Lonestar, Phong, Sikon, Hipper, and perhaps a few others I've missed as possible N&P mods. They're centrist enough to see the points the other side is making rather than trying to drown out them with pure flamage; and thus would be good moderatoral picks for N*P.

PS - I know you love me Keevan; come back! I'm willing to change!

[CmdrWilkens]

While I have no authority to do so I'm going to request that if we are going to keep talking about this we keep the personal attack elsewhere. I understand exactly where Tevar is coming from is looking to table the discussion but we need to talk this out BECAUSE there are these differences. That being said there is exactly ZERO contribution to this debate for us to endlessly agrandize whether one senator is pissing in another's cornflakes or a moderator isn't moderating enough.

So that being said we are discussing means of addressing perceived shortcoming in N&P. Please indicate either support for already proposed means of fixing it indicate a new idea for fixing things, or indicate that you think nothing is broken but for the sake of clarity I'm asking everyone to confine posts to THOSE three points.

Right now the biggest canidates under discussion include:

1) Proposal for post size minimum limiting N&P

2) Access restricing N&P

3) Seperating the P from N&P

4) Adding [Op/Ed] or equivalent as a tag for opinion only articles (along with concurrent discussion abotu what oped pieces should be included)

5) Moving "True Crime" and "Human Interest" stories to another forum

6) Adding or altering the Mod staff (we are advisory ONLY in this regard, all modding decisions take place amongst the senior staff/Mike)

7) Creating a specific "relevance test" (my phrasing) for new posts and emboldening moderator action to seperate non-relevant posts.

8) Promoting an increased mod incursion to eliminate "me too" and other +1 postings (avisory only)

9) Within #8 I have proposed that a seperate sticky thread be created within N&P containing said posts that gets moved to testing once it reaches somewhere in the 5-10 pages range.

Now if I missed something we are discusing or if anyone has any other ideas please present them. Currently I am without the master voters list until roughly sometime after the 5th (when my new PC ships) so any vote held between now and then will be constrained by my inability to vote spam all members.

While governors remain free to post a poll at any time once a paticular motion has been seconded I am going to request that no vote be started until I get the master list back up at which poitn I think we will either deal with suggestions a one massive omnibus or else have multiple simutaneous votes on each policy point under discussion.


Motion to table has been object and debate will proceed.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'd say thats enough to start with. Odds are any ongoing cleanup or changes to N&P is both going to involve trial and error and gradual revision. We won't grab everythign all at once, so we can take it in steps.

One thing we'll need to address eventually is behaviours in N&P. Part of that is that the forum is a very "emotionally" oriented forum compared to others. That is, alot of the topics discussed there will tend to be alot more personal (politics, religion, etc.) and expecting pure logic there is not quite reasonable or possible.

The problem isn't so much that N&P is "emotional" in that its overly so, and there's very little logic and too much emotion, and that tends to lead to all the sniping, flamewars, and all the other BS. Hell, given how people have reacted to the idea of cleaning up or changing N&P is proof of that, methinks. We'll never get rid of insulting or flaming (nor should we) but this is STILL SD.net

As an added point I would like to point out that because it is emotional N&P is also more prone to:

- sniping, "flaming without argument" and related problems.

- internet tough guy BS,

- outright spammy/retarded shit (which includes topics not related to n&P, fringe lunatic BS, etc.)

- vendettas and grudges (not everyone who argues with another person or a group of people has a "Vendetta" as the board describes it, but alot of people would seem to develop dislike for other people or groups of people.),

- baiting (And here I include "look at the stupid fundies, Republitards, or "ha ha look at what that idiot Bush Administration did".) - Certain topics and issues are invariably designed to incite up passions and someone can stir up bullshit in the forum just by bringing them up. We've also excluded certain threads because they are useless or never produce anything useful (not just IvP, but Supershadow, Gor, and other nonsense.)

Eliminating it totally of course is not the point - the point is to curb it to the extent that it at least is roughly comparable to the actual, geunine discussion, not just becoming "Testing 2.0 (now with more politics!)", and that should basically be the end result we aim for.

And if that's not enough to consider, I could also point out that curbing alot of the stupid/spammy/inflammatory BS that does not actually contribute to or encourage actual discussion would help cutting down on wasting board resourecs (I believe that is already a considertion for spammy BS as it is.)

[Connor MacLeod]

I forgot about this over the weekend: someone sent ths to my PM box regarding the N&P discussion here. I dont know if the person wanted to be anonymous or not, so I'm just playing it safe and doing so. IF they wish to be identified they can contact me later:

The Senate is addressing this but if I may offer my two cents...

If I could sum up what would make me more interested/likely to join discussions in this forum it would be "More info, less venting".

A recent example of this is page 3 of the Republican VP Poll thread. People were mentioning the abuse of power investigation of Palin in Alaska with scant details and not one news reference. I don't want a thread in N&P to start looking like a Wiki entry but if someone makes a claim, the old retort of "proof, quotes?" should still apply.

I grant you that in my case "posting more" probably means make 3 posts in N&P between now and November... but I still like to look through the forum for information that may have slip through the cracks; especially in an election season.

Thanks

Opinions of course shouldn't be discouraged, but constatn repetition of opinions (especially when its spammy) can and probably does clog up a discussion thread. Sometimes people can post opinions simultaneously or nearly so and therefore duplicate it without knowing, but I daresay its harder to think that if you have half a dozen or more saying the same thing (Especaially if its basically a one liner.)

This may be something we have to leave up to mod discretion to handle, but its something to keep in mind.

[Coyote]

Right now the biggest candidates under discussion include:

1) Proposal for post size minimum limiting N&P

Too easy to negate by use of either blank spaces or spam phrasing. I say No.

2) Access restricing N&P

Temp-bans that are publicly posted (or done with the board software) can be helpful, but blanket bans asking for proof of 'seriousness' before granting access won't be effective-- the problems will migrate elsewhere, where restrictions aren't in place-- whether that is good or bad is another point of discourse. Also a lot of work for mods.

3) Seperating the P from N&P

Unrealistic goal; will limit discourse and be seen as a muzzle. Hard to interpret and difficult to enforce.

4) Adding [Op/Ed] or equivalent as a tag for opinion only articles (along with concurrent discussion about what oped pieces should be included)

A simple procedural change that can be implemented without changing software or admins. Highly recommended.

5) Moving "True Crime" and "Human Interest" stories to another forum

They add nothing to real discourse and only provide opportunities for brief tough-guy posturing. Who's going to defend a molester/abuser/animal torturer? What can be said apart from "that's fucked up; send him to prison for eleventy skillion years, etc". Put in OT, let everyone get a chance to fap about how they'd put the guy in a wood-chipper/feed him to rabid dogs/violate him with a rod of crushed glass/etc and then lock it after a few days.

6) Adding or altering the Mod staff (we are advisory ONLY in this regard, all modding decisions take place amongst the senior staff/Mike)

Recommended.

7) Creating a specific "relevance test" (my phrasing) for new posts and emboldening moderator action to separate non-relevant posts.

Hard to enforce without a long set of rules and criteria being established and argued, perhaps endlessly. Also very subjective. Not recommended.

Promoting an increased mod incursion to eliminate "me too" and other +1 postings (advisory only)

Not a bad idea, but again some clear guidelines should be set out to clarify what is expected.

9) Within #8 I have proposed that a separate sticky thread be created within N&P containing said posts that gets moved to testing once it reaches somewhere in the 5-10 pages range.

The idea is understandable, but I have to ask why? It seems to be just a way to make work for mods.

[RedImperator]

While I have no authority to do so I'm going to request that if we are going to keep talking about this we keep the personal attack elsewhere.

That reminds me: I think you're going to have to talk me out of creating, when all this N&P stuff is over, a proposal for you to be the man in charge of this forum when the Chancellor, Mike, and the admins are out. It will probably pass by a landslide, so if you don't want to be the boss, better let me know now.

As for the summary of the proposals, I agree with Coyote's analysis.

[Lord Poe]

I completely agree with Shep's points. The last couple years on N&P have degraded into attacks if you're not "left" enough. Then there's the "'Merica is eeeeevil!!" snipes in a multitude of news stories that have nothing remotely to do with America!

News story: "Venus explodes!" N&P: "Fuckin' Americans...."