Does the GDB need an outlet for off-topic comments?

[SuchDragonWow]

The poll options speak for themselves.  I voted for le box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57I4MTuxh54

[Thunkkin]

But what would we even call such a thread?

[RogueGunslinger]

Nonspecific Zalanthas Opinions?

[TheWanderer]

Words and Thoughts Vaguely or Intensely Related to Armageddon/World/Conversation Thread.

[Refugee]

It's not something I care about, but...isn't that what the Non-Armageddon Discussion forum is for?

[BadSkeelz]

Chaotic Armageddon Thoughts thread.

[SuchDragonWow]

It's not something I care about, but...isn't that what the Non-Armageddon Discussion forum is for?

Are you advocating a new thread be started in the Non-Arm sub every time someone wants to make a one-off remark that isn't on topic?  Because I can put that option in the poll ...

[Delirium]

Fun fact, Non-Armageddon Discussion was changed to that name some time ago from "OOC Discussion" or something similar to that.

Personally I think limiting Non-Armageddon Discussion to strictly non-armageddon topics is going too far along the letter rather than the spirit of the rule.

My hesitation on the chat box is that as a moderator, it sounds like it would be a nightmare to monitor.

The RAT thread was definitely a needy child as well, but it was one known thread, so it was a central place we could keep an eye on, since people will always be people and as a result threads will always end up needing to get moderated or at least have some warnings doled out. So I don't feel like it made things worse or better to get rid of it.

I'm not okay with getting too draconic about staying strictly on topic, but there's a line between conversational deviations and passive-aggressive flaming or trolling.

I do think that a lot of times people fail to give mods the benefit of the doubt when they do have to crack down on a thread.

[Patuk]

Huh, looks like Akaramu managed to drag someone into Armageddon. Nice.

[Majikal]

Just here to boost post count.
+1

[SuchDragonWow]

I'm not okay with getting too draconic about staying strictly on topic, but there's a line between conversational deviations and passive-aggressive flaming or trolling.

In a perfect world, people would simply be nice to one another and there would never be tension or conflict.  When the answer is to punish the group for the misgivings of one or the few, then I feel we've gone the draconian route.  I don't feel like this community needs a mother hen so much as a tap on the shoulder.

[evilcabbage]

if people would be nice and stop being dicks, we could have a nice rat thread.

rat as in random, not rat as in squeakum.

[nauta]

I think the rules to the forum should just get posted when someone makes an oopsies and violates them.  They're pretty explicit.  Especially #2 is one that a lot of new posters don't realize is a rule.  

One common offender is vague posting which falls somewhere between #1 (flame, baiting, trolling) and #2 (IC information).  Maybe some verbiage on that.

This board is for general discussion of Armageddon MUD. No flames, no IC-sensitive information.

1. Please don't flame. While you can criticize the opinions of other people, do so with respect for them as a fellow human.  Unnecessary, flaming, baiting and trolling will be removed and the instigator and respondees may have their posting privileges revoked.  This rule extends to criticism and baiting of staff. If you have a complaint against a staff member please place a complaint via the request tool, complaints and flaming of staff on the boards will not be tolerated.

2. Do NOT post information that is IC-sensitive. While debates over definitions of this term have raged in the past on the discussion boards, one fact has emerged: some people really prefer to experience things in the game, rather than inadvertently have the experience spoiled for them from reading this board. Therefore, when asking yourself whether or not what you're posting is too IC-sensitive, err on the side of caution.

3. We reserve the right to edit or delete any post or thread.

4. If you are abusing the PM privilege, your ability to send PMs will be removed. Attempts to get around such a removal by creating alternate accounts will result in the banning of your game account. Abuse includes persistent flaming, trolling, or harassing other players. If you feel you are being harassed and have already politely requested the harasser stop, please forward a copy of your request along with PMs received after the request was made and received to the mud account to be dealt with. Attempts to provoke other players into such a situation so you can request that they be banned will be treated as trolling.

5. Deliberately derailing a thread (posting nonsense, disrupting the topic etc) will be treated as trolling.  Idle commentary and discussion that is off topic belongs in the OOC topic forum.

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,28823.msg308728.html#msg308728

ETA: I also noticed that RAT got locked during a time when (I assume) we had a low helper/player moderator count, since a call was put out a few weeks afterwards for more helpers.  I'd imagine the workload of monitoring RAT is high.

[valeria]

I really don't mind posts that meander around a topic, and I wouldn't mind an off-topic area on the GDB. I would mind a chat box though. Keeping it civil under rule 1 would be a nightmare.

Q.E.D. RAT, which turned into was a bunch of people being passive-aggressive or downright aggressive dicks to each other. Because you're not in the moderatorsphere, you probably don't have a realistic idea of how much of an issue it was because the posts got moderated out under the flaming/trolling rule, but the sheer number of complaints RAT generated and amount of moderation it required (and we're talking multiple complaint emails a day toward the end) made it a problem child. Since that's about how I picture a chat box would look, I'm opposed.

For some reason, "While you can criticize the opinions of other people, do so with respect for them as a fellow human" is very difficult rule for people to follow. And yes, we really should just punish the offenders. Ideally, if we could implement a system of swift and sure correction, a chat box or RAT resurrection would probably work fine.

But GDB bans are neither swift nor sure. Just because something gets moderated doesn't mean there's a ban attached. In my experience, some people seem to look at it as a yellow flag to keep doing what they're doing and skating over the line. Most of the time there is no consequence at all because staff are too busy to talk to everyone that really should know how to behave civilly already but don't (which is why we ended up with player mods in the first place).

Anyway, that's just my take on it. People seem to feel that because it's an anonymous Internet game they have the right to be dicks. We could probably get into the psychology of why that is, but the bottom line is that unlike other Internet game forums, we're trying to maintain some standards here. I think having a chat box would make that much more difficult to do.

[SuchDragonWow]

People seem to feel that because it's an anonymous Internet game they have the right to be dicks.

Would you cite that as the reason for locking the Confessional thread?  Because I'm not seeing it, to be honest.  I see some joking around, but nothing all that hostile or hurtful.

... the bottom line is that unlike other Internet game forums, we're trying to maintain some standards here.

It's okay to have standards and want to hold this community to a higher caliber of discussion, but I think it's equally important to remember that this is a game, and when you suck all the fun out of the air, you're breeding an atmosphere to take this shit all too seriously.

Look at what happened when you isolated a handful of people, and you suddenly had an entire forum where people felt they could speak their mind freely and comfortably horse around.  Like it or not, but we drove them to that.  Last I checked, it's just the crazies over there, now, but that's always subject to the whims of the playerbase.

[Drayab]

I like the GDB to be a place for civil debate and exchange of ideas, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a little joking around so long as people treat each other with respect. If players have demonstrated collectively that we can't be trusted, then I'm fine with keeping discussion strictly on-topic.

[Large Hero]

Would you cite that as the reason for locking the Confessional thread?  Because I'm not seeing it, to be honest.  I see some joking around, but nothing all that hostile or hurtful.

It's okay to have standards and want to hold this community to a higher caliber of discussion, but I think it's equally important to remember that this is a game, and when you suck all the fun out of the air, you're breeding an atmosphere to take this shit all too seriously.

Look at what happened when you isolated a handful of people, and you suddenly had an entire forum where people felt they could speak their mind freely and comfortably horse around.  Like it or not, but we drove them to that.  Last I checked, it's just the crazies over there, now, but that's always subject to the whims of the playerbase.

I think an important part of Valeria's point was that we don't see a lot of the worst posts because they're swiftly moderated away.

I know I've caught eye of a few containing stuff I wouldn't yell at a Peruvian Pudge.

So, some threads that seem tame to us may be already heavily moderated. And it's those moderated posts that get a thread locked and which waste people's time.

[SuchDragonWow]

So, some threads that seem tame to us may be already heavily moderated. And it's those moderated posts that get a thread locked and which waste people's time.

Fair enough.  Ban those idiots.   

[Drayab]

I agree with the sentiment, but I think Valeria's point was that it was becoming burdensome to do it right, so the powers-that-be decided it was better to not do it at all: time better spent elsewhere and all that. I can see that point of view, too.

I don't think that just because we don't have a RAT thread that we can't still have a nice community.

[Armaddict]

Eh.  Sometimes people are overly sensitive, as well, and read total aggression out of what is actually just an assertive post of disagreement with points brought up.

It's hard to tell someone that their post is actually irrelevant to what you were discussing without coming across as a dick; you have to go back and re-edit often to make sure you're not essentially telling them to buzz off, and that's when posting becomes tiresome and hard to do.  If you're in strong disagreement, someone -always- feels under attack because you're pointing out why their ideas are bad ones, or ones that you don't think apply.  In more impassioned conversations, that line gets crossed all the time, even though there is not so much ill will as 'I find your idea appallingly bad.'

At some point, we hit a point of over-moderation rather than people just being able to ignore bad posts.  I post bad posts sometimes; sometimes other people post bad posts.  They happen.  Not every one of them needs to be thought of as a 'Damn, I need to moderate, this is a neverending process.'  One very serious requirement of a peaceful community is everyone maintaining some thick skin.  You can't have a peaceful community if everyone is always ready to jump on everything perceived as an attack.


Soooo....I don't think there's a problem with the RAT thread.  I don't particularly need it, but I think the idea that it had to be this carefully maintained, moderated-to-be-friendly place was part of the problem.  It's random thoughts.  If someone doesn't like how something is in the game, let them post their random little rant and be done with it.  If it explodes, make it a more serious discussion.  If not, let it fade away.

[Vwest]

The pretensions here are hilarious.

Just re-make the RAT thread and let people have some fun.

[Drayab]

If new players come here and the top thread is a cesspool of villany, it's going to turn off new players which are the lifeblood of the game. The argument for a well-moderated forum isn't just to protect people's thin skins. It's to make it a welcoming place to new players.

[Armaddict]

If new players come here and the top thread is a cesspool of villany, it's going to turn off new players which are the lifeblood of the game. The argument for a well-moderated forum isn't just to protect people's thin skins. It's to make it a welcoming place to new players.

If you're insinuating that the on-topic threads are somehow more friendly since the removal of RAT, I'd encourage you to reread some of the more recent threads made by less-well-known GDB identities.  The 'bad posts' are just as numerous in them, and the moderation still occurs.  They are just as prominent to a new player since they are current discussion.  Thus, it's kind of a moot point.

[SuchDragonWow]

If new players come here and the top thread is a cesspool of villany, it's going to turn off new players which are the lifeblood of the game. The argument for a well-moderated forum isn't just to protect people's thin skins. It's to make it a welcoming place to new players.

You're assuming two things:

1) All new players are uptight stiffs with a stuffy attitude towards conversation.  I think even Ned Flanders has more flexibility in communication than the presumed "new player" model of someone who would quit a game over a few internet jabs.

2) Your average GDB posters comprise a cesspool of villainy.  No need to elaborate on this one.  Just:  Really?

[BadSkeelz]

lol cesspool of villainy? Really? At worst the RAT would get an occasional vague butthurt post that, if it garnered any attention at all, was as like to be people refuting the point as supporting it. Even the episode that got it locked was someone being down on a clan, and then being called out on how wrong they were.

I'd argue that a forum containing a bunch of threads about why X sucks is probably more unwelcoming.