[Discussion]N&P Cleanup

[Surlethe]

I've seen my name tossed out as a possible moderator nominee. The reasons I've been relatively absent as of late are my wedding, honeymoon, and moving into our apartment. Things have now settled down, though I'm not sure just how heavy time-wise my homework load will be -- and that will of course vary within semesters and semester-by-semester.

In any case, while I have no moderating experience to speak of, if I'm chosen I'm more than willing to learn.

[Spyder]

I've also written entire essays during my degree on the topic of self censorship and frankly it's the worst kind. All you need to look at for that is the US media, where stories dont get covered because of self censorship rather than outside powers. Oops, Poe will be along in a moment to bitch, but it's a relevant analogy.

I don't think that analogy quite fits with what I was proposing. What I'm suggesting is that we don't introduce any new rules (which you seem to agree with) but what we do instead is just make a point to ensure that our own posts are up to scratch and try and encourage others to do the same. That's not going to result in 'stories not getting covered' just (hopefully) less 'lol'.

If we can encourage a culture of meaningful replies then it should solve or at least mitigate any problems raised here. It's much harder to construct a meaningful reply to a crap story (or political op/ed) so if we can raise awareness on the need for good replies we won't need to regulate what kind of articles that get posted as they'll just sink.

If N&P is already fine then no harm done, at worst we might encourage some better posting habits.

[Surlethe]

A thought from an anonymous constituent:

Why not rejig the 'no-post-and-run' rule? That worked quite well to the point at which we don't seem to get post-and-run news quotes without some sort of accompanying text these days. Why not expand it to include a requirement that the first poster gives a couple of clearly specified discussion points or questions to kick start debate, rather than just producing a snappy one-liner about xxx group or xxx event?

i.e.
---------------------------
{quote}

{comment}

{1) Discussion point 1}
{2) Discussion point 2}
--------------------------

If a user is posting an article without any specific question or discussion point in mind, then they probably shouldn't be posting it anyway, otherwise N&P just becomes like the 'email to a friend' button on most news websites. Specific, clearly stated discussion points would also give a starting focus to the thread which might bypass initial spam and one-liners and hopefully go straight into debate.

[Coyote]

Any post-and-run without commentary shall be... flushed to Testing?

[Edi]

Any post-and-run without commentary shall be... flushed to Testing?

Not a bad idea.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Any post-and-run without commentary shall be... flushed to Testing?

Some of it does trigger actual useful commentary, but otherwise, a news article posted without any commentary is, if not "gee whiz, ain't this cool???" spam, uncomfortably close.

So this is actually a pretty decent idea.

[Connor MacLeod]

If there are topics or discussion (or stuff like Op/ED pieces) that don't want to be seen in the main N&P forum, why not create a separate forum for that stuff? (something like "misc" news, where the human interest/crime stories, the "opinion" stuff, etc.) can go.

Hell, if its really viewed as garbage, couldn't one do something like testing where old and "dead" stuff is periodically flushed out? If you added that you could probably tolerate more of the spammy/flaming BS too (in essence it would become more like a sewer/outlet for the undesirable behaviour already present in N&P, much like testing is for the rest of the board.)

Also, we don't HAVE to come up with immediate or definitive solutions or perfect answers right now or in the short term. We can implement steps a little bit at a time and wait to see if it improves anything. If it doesn't, then we can go back and change or add to what we've already done, and keep revisiting the isssue for as long as we need until achieving the desired results.

Really, there's no rush nor time limit on doing this, nor do we need to have discussion finished by any specific timeframe. There's been years for some of this stuff to set in, it will take time to undo as well.

Small steps, such as implementing new moderators if we can, can be a good step.

[Pablo Sanchez]

As a test case on how you feel, make me a call on this thread. As far as I'm concerned posts 2, 6, 7, and 11 could be kicked to testing for being brief me-too comments. What does the Senate think about this standard?

[Surlethe]

Definitely 2, 6, 7. If 11 goes, should 8 or 10 go too? The others seem reasonable enough (especially 12 ).

[Pablo Sanchez]

Definitely 2, 6, 7. If 11 goes, should 8 or 10 go too?

Actually yes to 8 and 10, I just didn't pay that much attention to them. I'm not going to touch it for now, because I want other senators to give me an opinion as a test case.

[Ender]

As a test case on how you feel, make me a call on this thread. As far as I'm concerned posts 2, 6, 7, and 11 could be kicked to testing for being brief me-too comments. What does the Senate think about this standard?

I'd say 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 could do with bouncing.

[Broomstick]

As a test case on how you feel, make me a call on this thread. As far as I'm concerned posts 2, 6, 7, and 11 could be kicked to testing for being brief me-too comments. What does the Senate think about this standard?

Kick 2, 6, 7, and 11. There are a few others that arguably would fit the trash bin, too, but I'm willing to err a bit on the side of caution here.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As a test case on how you feel, make me a call on this thread. As far as I'm concerned posts 2, 6, 7, and 11 could be kicked to testing for being brief me-too comments. What does the Senate think about this standard?

Yes: 2, 6, 7, and 11 can be punted. Posts 8 and 10 too, although I'm a bit conflicted on 10. The rest of the thread, conceivably, could go into OT, as the only real discussion that can be had from it is "Gee whiz, well he sure had it coming, didn't he?" and there's only so many ways to say that before the me-tooing begins.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Yes: 2, 6, 7, and 11 can be punted. Posts 8 and 10 too, although I'm a bit conflicted on 10. The rest of the thread, conceivably, could go into OT, as the only real discussion that can be had from it is "Gee whiz, well he sure had it coming, didn't he?" and there's only so many ways to say that before the me-tooing begins.

I don't think "Can it be discussed a lot?" is a standard that we should apply to N&P, just a more general "is it News and/or Politics?" is what we need. The thread is definitely News and Politics.

I flushed the posts on which everybody agreed into a locked thread in Testing, where they can disappear. We can start by erring on the side of leniency and then ramp it up if we feel it's necessary. I have an idea of where to draw the line now.

[Coyote]

I'd like to point out right here in this thread about the police, where Dark Hellion sorted things out and brought some rational thought to the whole thing.

Well done!

[Coyote]

Proposal:

"The Appian Way"

How about this, a suggestion from a denizen:

Why not make a sticky thread in N&P titled "What not to do" or something? Then all flushed posts can go there at least temporarily until people get the hang of what's acceptable commentary/reply and what's not. Mostly to serve as a proverbial "Head-on-a-stake-outside-town", and also to curb any mewlings from repeat offenders and people who should know better that "Hey! That's like so totally relevant because <stupid reason here>"

We already have the Flavian Amphitheatre; how about we also post a sticky in N&P that mimics the route to Rome lined with the crucifixions of those who wronged the empire.

We could either post them diresctly, or if we want to be humane, "sanitize" them of their SIGs, etc, first to give a pretext of privacy. It would not be to mock or ridicule the poster, but simply to provide an example of what not to do. The Moderator who puts it up there should provides some commentary as to why the post was worthy of... crucufixion.

Anyone who mocks or ridicules a poster for getting their stuff moved to the Via Appia will find their own posts up there as well. Eventually it would all be flushed -- to eithe rTesting, where it will disappear, or to the HoS for particularly spectacular examples.

[Connor MacLeod]

I dont think we can vote on anything yet (Wilkens computer is down I think) so there's not really a whole lot of changes we can make now, just discuss them.

I'm happy with starting with small changes. posting examples of inappropriate debating is good (make examples) - maybe the Senate can help there (there are still more Senators than Mods, so we can help spot stuff that might be "example-worthy" - this should probably be done in a separate thread perhaps, since the issue of whether or not something should be added willb e up to debate. This can be done without a real need to vote on it too.

As Pablo has already done, undesirable BS ca n be flushed to testing for eventual deletion, as long as the mods don't get too overworked in doing this. If it gets bad we can move from there.

This does lead to another small question: Why is it alot of what is obviously spammy or useless BS gets flushed to the HOS when it doesnt serve an apparent purpose rather than testing? Isn't that just still clogging Mike's forum with pointless crap? Makes sense to dump it in testing, where that stuff belongs.

Lastly, we can work on recommending new mods (any other staff based concerns probably aren't the Senate's purview anyhow) and then the mods/admins/etc cna do whatever they want with the suggestions (again its not anything the Senate need do other than make a recommendation - we certainly don't need to VOTE on it)

If anyone has any other "simple" suggestions that may not require alot of work to do to make changes has one that I've forgottne, feel free to add to the list or remind me.

Edit: Of course, this doesnt mean the issue of "cleaning up N&P" has to end there, either. It probably shoudl be revisited periodically to see if we need to make more changeS (or if some new problem crops up.)

- Double Edit: What if we incorporated some of the Guidelines from SLAM and ARSE into N&P? That might help some, at least as a starrting point.

[seanrobertson]

There are other possible mods I could suggest:

1.) Seanrobertson, whom I believe may be a senator here (I haven't checked). He's incredibly incredibly nice, but no pushover. He's smart, he's meticulous, and he's always polite and very supportive of his friends. He's also part of the Babtech staff on Brian Young's website and has similar associates like Ted and myself (See below). I dunno if he'd go for N&P or modship, but I flet its worth mentioning him.

You're too kind, my friend (And yes, as you can no doubt tell, I'm a Senator *winks*)

I'd definitely be interested in moderating a forum someday, but:

*I'm not sure N&P is ideal for me/vice-versa.

*I just got out of the hospital -- micro-perforation in my colon thanks to a freshly-diagnosed case of diverticulitis -- and, since I have to take it easy, I do have tons of free time.

However, I'm generally cranky and find it hard to concentrate (due in part to my antibiotics) so, much as I'd like to occupy myself, I'd be a better moderator when I'm fully recovered.

Thanks again, though. 'Tis most appreciated!

[CmdrWilkens]

Allrighty I have my computer back 100% so...

In order to procede with anything what I am asking for is an item by item motion for a vote along with a seocnd of that motion. The only items for which I will request that we not hold any vote (even an advisory one) is for alterations to the mod staff. We can deal with advisory motions after we clear up votes on how to procede in N&P. So again:

1) Motion for a vote on any line item we have discussed
2) Get a second for the mtoion
3) We vote
4) Rinse and repeat for as many line items as receive #1 and #2

Preferrably we shoudl do this all at once so I won't post any polls until tomorrow night which gives everyone all day Friday to motion and obtain seconds.

[CmdrWilkens]

So having posted what I did above are there ANY motions for a vote on ANY of the proposals?

[Coyote]

Oddly enough, but for some reason EVERYTHING we were in a lather about 3 weeks ago seems to have just completely dropped from all radars.

[Surlethe]

Folks, let's get on the ball here. RedImperator posted a motion on Page 2; to start things rolling, I second it, unless there are any objections.

[seanrobertson]

Folks, let's get on the ball here. RedImperator posted a motion on Page 2; to start things rolling, I second it, unless there are any objections.

If the "human interest stories" aren't automatically given the shaft to Testing, I'll third the motion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, I don't support automatically flushing human interest to testing either, so consider me to be the second for Sean Robertson's amendment.

[CmdrWilkens]

I have a second for all three of RedImperator's proposal's (including flushing "human interest") due to the amendment offered that vote will be structured differently. I have to work a few things but expect polls to be up within the hour.