Stryker's op-based thread idea

[Stryker]

It is important to be able to discuss the flaws of a forum you frequent, as well as find means of which to solve such problems. While this may not be the thread for it, we should look further into developing methods to hold and maintain civil discussion without it devolving into shit-flinging.

I thought having someone being able to have personal control as to whoever could post in the thread they make would be an interesting way of dealing with that. This way, someone could start a thread for public view in which only specific posters he invited could post, kind of like a panel. The OP'er could then add more people throughout the thread.

A problem with that idea, though, would be the potential development of cliques within the forum, and since a forum is designed to be inclusive, such a concept would be counter-intuitive. One way of solving that is by having the users ask the mods for permission to do this, in which they would have specific powers for a specific thread. This, though, can become extensively complicated when it comes to scripting.

[Gob Hobblin]

That's not a bad idea, Stryker. I feel like there might be flaws to something like that, but it's worth talking out.

...in another thread (as you adequately pointed out). Is there a mod willing to work some magic to split this tangent?

[NemZ]

Done.

I very much doubt this can be accomplished without essentially needing to switch to entirely different forum software. And an entirely different forum culture if OP gets limited mod status... does that mean only mods can open a thread?

[Stryker]

I very much doubt this can be accomplished without essentially needing to switch to entirely different forum software.

That's the issue, isn't it? I can't speak at all on experience when it comes to scripting in phpBB, and even if I could, I remember it being clearly stated that the code and script on this forum was made into one hell of an amalgamation in order to get it to do what it does now. With this, as well as the fact that I have never witnessed any forum in which people can have specific permissions in individual threads, I can only imagine how daunting, if not impossible, it is to make such a system.

does that mean only mods can open a thread?

Not necessarily; in theory, anyone can open a thread, it's just that if you want a thread where only specific people can participate, you would need to ask for permission.

[pwhodges]

SMF forum software has the capability to allow the starter of a topic to delete and edit all posts made in it; this would in a crude way achieve what's being suggested. But whether anything like that would be possible in this old and patched version of PHPBB I have no idea.

And I think it's a bad idea anyway.

[Dream]

Suppose it can't really make things any worse, and while i honestly doubt it'll bear much fruit it's worth a shot. I think the idea of needing staff sanction first is a very good one, though.

It'll most likely be unpractical or impossible given the way the forum's code is, though.

[Stryker]

And I think it's a bad idea anyway.

Why is that?

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

I'm not a fan of the idea for one of the reasons you mentioned; namely, the clique-type culture that could arise. For talking about things where you only want certain people present, Skype works well for that. Having a thread that everybody can look into but that only certain people could post in would defeat the purpose of having a membership, really; that's the system that we have in place for people that don't have accounts.

[NemZ]

I agree the clique problem occurs to me as well, and would enable someone to simply silence opposition without addressing relevant concerns. That's a bad idea for a place that's intended for open discussion. You want that kind of control, start a blog.

[pwhodges]

Why is that?

The reasons given in the posts above this. The resulting variations in standards and manner of discourse would encourage fragmentation of the forum community.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Yeah, whereas if given the option I would probably still include everyone in the discussion, I am concerned that certain holders of opinions would be excluded from certain topics others would create.

In most of the threads I’ve started, especially ones that would contain controversial ideas of some kind, I try to specify in the first post of the thread exactly how I would like members to participate in the discussion of the topic. Usually if I just specify what the topic is about and how I would like people to approach the discussion, people tend to discuss the topic in a way that’s fruitful to the topic, arguing points and expressing other ideas.

If people aren’t interested in discussing the topic in the way I specified in my first post, they generally lose interest in active discussion in the thread after a couple of posts.

[Dream]

I agree the clique problem occurs to me as well, and would enable someone to simply silence opposition without addressing relevant concerns. That's a bad idea for a place that's intended for open discussion. You want that kind of control, start a blog.

Which is why i thought it was a good suggestion to require staff permission to have that OP privilege, so the staff can decide if this member can be trusted with such responsibility and/or keep an eye on them throughout the thread. I don't think the kind of threads where the OP would want this status would be too frequent (maybe 2 or 3 at a time) so it probably wouldn't be too much of an added burden to the respective staff member in addition to his usual duties.

[Stryker]

I'm not a fan of the idea for one of the reasons you mentioned; namely, the clique-type culture that could arise.

I agree the clique problem occurs to me as well, and would enable someone to simply silence opposition without addressing relevant concerns.

Yeah, whereas if given the option I would probably still include everyone in the discussion, I am concerned that certain holders of opinions would be excluded from certain topics others would create.

One way of solving that is by having the users ask the mods for permission to do this, in which they would have specific powers for a specific thread.

The reason why people would need to ask permission is so that such an issue would be prevented; the privilege comes at the trust and honour that civil debate will be had in the thread.

The very purpose of this idea was to allow topics that may be controversial, and would otherwise devolve into nonsense, to be held. Not to permit exclusion of people you don't like. If administrators feel that people are trying to use the thread permission as a means to silence dissent, then they are not obligated to give such a privilege to the member (in fact, I would suspect that allowing it would not be tolerated by other members). If such is not detected by administrators, and other members feel that the thread is being exclusive in such a manner, then they can make a complaint, in which they would argue (with moderators and the original poster) whether or not it was exclusive by such means.

Considering how nasty that process may be, it alone should be sufficient reason to not make threads that exclude others for the sake of preventing dissenting opinions from being posted.

And as with all privileges, they can be taken away; if administrators feel that a thread is being exclusive for the reason that they feel that constructive discourse is being obstructed, then they could take away the privilege from the OP'er. Or lock the thread. Or if it has happened too many times with the same user, warn them, ban them, and so on.

This involves more vigilant, active administrators, certainly, but I feel that the EGF mods could take up the task.

EDIT: I'ma keep this post, but Dream ninja'd me.

[Sorrow]

Alternatively, you may as well have the staff remove any comments of the nature that are deemed unhelpful or offensively dismissive and, if possible, lock the poster out of the conversation from then on - allowing everyone else to continue as they were. We don't need mini-moderators looking out for their own interests, but the moderators who consider everyone's.

That should be an easier solution to implement, I'd guess, and should prevent the need for good topics to get locked, also.

[Stryker]

Perhaps, but I imagine that this would be far more micro-managing, and therefore far more demanding of the mods' time than can be mustered.

[Sorrow]

It won't require much more than what they're already doing; very often the mods here will dissect, remove or lock threads when it comes to their attention. Instead of locking them for all, they will lock out the person(s) who have displayed an attitude that is detriment to decent discussion.

It doesn't require them to be more present, only individual locks when they become aware.

Not to mention, what you propose would require a lot of messaging the staff back and forth before you can get certain topics going, or getting more/less people involved. That would appear to require more presence from them.

[Dream]

To be entirely honest, i think the risk or losses of OP looking out after himself is far too small to adopt such an extreme measure. At worst a thread is ruled with an iron fist for a couple days or hours until a moderator gets called and then that person isn't trusted again. Given the thread surgeons we have now, we probably wouldn't even have to lose the thread.

That's literally the worst scenario i can conceive. A minor temporary incovenience in an internet forum.

[Stryker]

It doesn't require them to be more present, only individual locks when they become aware.

How long does it take for mods to become aware?

In the case of the most recent debacle, it took too long. Of course, it is of no fault of the mods (they can only respond so quickly after judging how they think the topic will play out), but if people had the ability to clamp who could and could not participate in such a heated discussion, such a mess could have been avoided.

Not to mention, what you propose would require a lot of messaging the staff back and forth before you can get certain topics going, or getting more/less people involved. That would appear to require more presence from them.

It would take more time to start up a topic, yes, and would therefore involve more participation from mods. But I would argue that the time spent crafting threads in this manner could translate to time saved from moderating threads. The question would now be, "how do we want mods to spend their time?"

I would prefer this proactive approach of where the mods decide whether or not a thread deserves to be able to select who can post, rather than them taking a reactive approach in which they need to clean up after a mess members may make. I think it would look better for the forum, as well as develop a better relationship between administrators and members.

[Mr. Tines]

Apart needing to say "pull requests are always welcome" for the technical implementation, I can see this as a way to invite claims of favoritism, and encourage cliques.

[Stryker]

I can see this as a way to invite claims of favoritism, and encourage cliques.

I keep hearing this over and over in this thread whereas I have already addressed it. Is there a different form of clique that I am not aware of that could be created? Perhaps a form of elitism would propagate throughout the forums, as only the ones who can speak properly on controversial subjects will be the only ones to have a dialogue on such ideas?

Again, if the administration does not want this to happen, it can outline that it does not want this to happen, and therefore, when it suspects that such is occurring, it can clamp down on it and warn them not to do it.

As for favoritism, claims can be disproved if you can disprove them. If there is actual favoritism, then those claims are justified. If anything, the storm that would result from a claim of favoritism should prevent favoritism outright.

I feel that there is a lack of faith in the concept of things fixing themselves. Suppose things get so bad, and there is such a backlash to the use of this that mods decide not to use it anymore: over time, things will calm down, the situation will improve, and people will, very sparingly, use this system again. People will be cautious about it, because they remember that it caused one hell of a storm prior, but it will slowly make a return.

This worst case scenario would happen, of course, only if it is abused. If a cautious approach is consistently taken in regards to implementing this privilege, then such a problem shouldn't occur.

It necessitates a substantial amount of trust in your moderators to choose when or when it may be used, but, again, I find that the mods here are trustworthy enough to be able to give such privileges. If not, then only select administrators should be able to give the privileges.

It should be noted that, yes, there should be a substantial outline as to when this is permitted and when it is not. This is only a concept now; this discourse we are having now should serve as a means to improve the design.