[Discussion]Dogpile prevention

[fgalkin]

One of the biggest problems, according to our members, is that holders of unpopular opinions on the board are often ganged up on by numerous members who simply drown them out in screaming and flames.

I have seen this happened in my own experience (hell, it's why I quit posting in N&P), and I think we need to get this addressed, and now.

What I am proposing is a new rule that would enable the mods to step in and prevent such dogpiles from happening.

An exaple how the proposed rule shall work: A member posts something, for example, defending President Bush's policies in the War on Terror. Naturally, the user shall get ganged up on by the vast majority of the N&P posters, with predictable results. However, when a mod sees this happening, he can invoke the Dogpile Act to
1) Split pure flame posts, or posts that are repetitive of points already raised, or posts that otherwise do not contribute to the debate
2) Give the member the option to ask for the thread to be closed, and start a formal (Coliseum) or informal (1 on 1, 1 on 2, 2 on 2, etc), but strictly regulated debate.

Naturally, there are many loopholes that are possible to exploit, and the opportunities of abuse are rather great, which is why we need to work these things out before it even becomes a draft of a rule, but I think this is something that needs to be discussed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ted C]

Shouldn't the "me-too" rule apply in cases like this? If multiple members are throwing the same arguments in a thread, the mod should be able to tell them to just STFU unless they have something different to add to the discussion.

[CmdrWilkens]

Which is waht we mentioend in the N&P thread, mostly it comes back to we, as trend-setters or old-timers or whatever, shoudl first make sure we aren't doing it and then the Mods should make sure they are enforcing the "me-too" policy. At that point we descended into the problem of overly broad Mod protfolios, an excess ratio of SuperMods to Mods, etc that was brouht up elsewhere.

[Coyote]

I kinda like the "take it outside" idea, or in this case, "take inside-- the Coliseum".

Perhaps if a person feels he is being dogpiled, he can appeal to a mod and ask that he/she be allowed to argue with the person he/she sees as the primary adversary in the Coliseum.

To whit we should ask-- what constitutes a dogpile? 3 on 1? Or just a feeling of being drowned out, even if its just 2 people?

Hmmm... OT would also be a good place to have Coliseum Commentary thread for matches taking place. Of course, those would probably also devolve into flamefests! Job security, I guess, for the Gladiators.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On the other hand, it's a major complain of many people, so I think it should be formally added to the rules to make it explicit. All this "well the rules currently deal with it" that we've been getting in this threads doesn't address the fact that if the rules do currently address it, they're also not working. Additional rules to make it explicit are, I would submit, in order. The moderatorial staff needs to have it made clear to them as well that enforcement of the rules is expected, because if we've banned this, it's basically never once been enforced before.

[Coyote]

We could just state, as part of general board custom, that if you are following an argument, and you notice three people are already on one, just don't get involved; continue to watch on the sidelines, and step in if one of them steps out (assuming you want to join the 3 attackers, not the 1 defender, that is).

Kinda hard to enforce and even quantify in some cases.

[Knife]

Posted this in the 'Coliseum thread' but figured it would be just as well here;

Or tie it in with the Horsemen. Give them authority to put an on going debate, debate the operative word, into the Coliseum that has been bogged down with dog pile and bullshit. The Horsemen can then shit all over dog piles and trolling while the debate can continue in the coliseum by the original debtors.

Discussions and conversations in normal forums that get bogged down with emotion, trolling and other board culture we've been discussion can be 'cut loose' in this manner and separated so the actual points they make are not lost.

This provides a mechanism for actual debate to continue if a shitfest derails it in the normal forums.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I really do think it is an enforcement issue (and AcePace PMed me arguing this point). The Senate needs a Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor with mod powers (and the Chancellor should even possibly be made an Admin). We need to basically double the moderating staff, and in doing so, eliminate moderators who do nothing currently. And we need to fill the Horsemen out to full strength and revive their original purpose. Flames should be ordered toward threads that are HOSed, not toward threads currently in debate, and dogpiling should be strictly policed, with threads that have been dogpiled to the point of making it impossible for debate to continue moved to the Colosseum automatically, and the dogpiling posts flushed to HOS for the re-empowered Horsemen to rip them to shreds.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Basically, I really think that all we can recommend is that Mike increase the staff, while the rules are expanded to explicitly lay out some of the unclear things. And that includes increases across the board--make every regular mod a supermod, but with a focused area of responsibility, increase the number of admins, and re-empower the horsemen. I'd even go so far as to add a fifth Horseman--the Antichrist, of course.

[fgalkin]

I disagree with the Horsemen being used as debate mods- that is not their purpose, and would only conflict with their original purpose (which is to start flames, not douse them). Instead, we should have actual mods doing their job.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[RedImperator]

Give me a mandate to break up dogpiles, and I don't need a new rule. If I can go into a thread and say, "Alright, that's enough. Poster X, Poster Y, you two hash this out, the rest of you, go find something else to do," I'll do it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I disagree with the Horsemen being used as debate mods- that is not their purpose, and would only conflict with their original purpose (which is to start flames, not douse them). Instead, we should have actual mods doing their job.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I meant that we have five horsemen so that we can concentrate the flames in HOS and let them lead the crowd at going at threads that have been HOSed. In short, they're the safety valve for the board, letting us keep our culture while keeping it out of actual debate threads.

[Edi]

Give me a mandate to break up dogpiles, and I don't need a new rule. If I can go into a thread and say, "Alright, that's enough. Poster X, Poster Y, you two hash this out, the rest of you, go find something else to do," I'll do it.

Seconded. If enforcement is requested, I have no problem doing that.

[Ted C]

Forwarded from a PM:

Subject: [Discussion]Dogpile prevention

Shouldn't the "me-too" rule apply in cases like this? If multiple members are throwing the same arguments in a thread, the mod should be able to tell them to just STFU unless they have something different to add to the discussion.

I'm tired of sending PMs about this, but your point is incredibly valid. Many suggested changes to board behavior infact do fall under existing rules. All these "split up spam" and such are existing policy and just need to be enforced. Ruthlessly.

The board used to allow such things because it was small and if a bunch of people wanted to talk smack in a thread it didn't matter, but now it's all over and this policy needs to be enforced.

[Ted C]

Give me a mandate to break up dogpiles, and I don't need a new rule. If I can go into a thread and say, "Alright, that's enough. Poster X, Poster Y, you two hash this out, the rest of you, go find something else to do," I'll do it.

Seconded. If enforcement is requested, I have no problem doing that.

Wherever such "dogpiling" infringes on existing rules... what are you waiting for?

[Publius]

There is already a mandate for the enforcement of the rules; dogpiles are merely an invitation for rigor. Nevertheless, the notion of a member being able to simply throw down the gauntlet and demand satisfaction is intriguing (and would have the happy benefit of infusing life into that chimerical device).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I do like the idea of allowing anyone in a debate to challenge someone else in that debate they've disagreed with to a duel in the Colosseum. It would, indeed, make it a genuinely useful place.

[RedImperator]

Give me a mandate to break up dogpiles, and I don't need a new rule. If I can go into a thread and say, "Alright, that's enough. Poster X, Poster Y, you two hash this out, the rest of you, go find something else to do," I'll do it.

Seconded. If enforcement is requested, I have no problem doing that.

Wherever such "dogpiling" infringes on existing rules... what are you waiting for?

Because often it's not. What do you call a situation where you have one person debating six, seven, eight other people, but they're all attacking a different aspect of his argument or bringing up different counterarguments? It's definitely a dogpile, but it's not a me-too.

For that matter, the "me-too" rule doesn't actually say anything about arguments. It says you shouldn't post "vacuous one-liners". There's nothing in the rules preventing two people from making the same arguments in a thread, or even that could be reasonably interpreted to say that. There's plenty the mod staff hasn't been doing, but we can hardly be taken to task for not enforcing rules that don't exist.

[Connor MacLeod]

I say let Red and Edi and the others loose on dogpilers. Give em a free hand and if there's someone who wants to complain about how they handle it, they can follow the appropriate channels.

[Hotfoot]

I do like the idea of allowing anyone in a debate to challenge someone else in that debate they've disagreed with to a duel in the Colosseum. It would, indeed, make it a genuinely useful place.

I just want to say that, despite my post in testing, which I made there rather than here because it was absolutely irreverent and would give the wrong idea, I like this concept. If someone feels overwhelmed, there's no reason we couldn't just say, "Hold on, let's get this sorted". Dogpiles are no fun when you're on the receiving end, and we could use some old-fashioned one on one styled duels here and there.

[RedImperator]

Maybe I'm just in a nostalgia fog here, but the way I remember it, it used to be that when two debaters really started going at each other, everybody else in the thread backed off and let them hammer each other. Maybe I'm just selectively remembering the debates where all but two people got bored with it.

[Connor MacLeod]

I can kinda remember that too.. Or at least you'd get a few of the good debators taking on a particular troll. Though even back then you had a few "me too" replies. Maybe it wasnt as noticable back then because the forum was still smaller and newer. i daresay the ratio of "peanut gallery" to "contributing partiticpants" has changed rather drastically since the "old dayS".

[Knife]

I say let Red and Edi and the others loose on dogpilers. Give em a free hand and if there's someone who wants to complain about how they handle it, they can follow the appropriate channels.

I have no problem with that either, rather was jumping on the nostalgia bandwagon with the Horsemen to get some enforcement. Horsemen, mods, supermods whatever, you get a thread with an actual debate and not just dick waving spam, toss the debate into the coliseum to debate and send the rest to the flamepits.