Serious Discussion: Does It Belong Here?

[vito]

Don't make "secret" clubs, it gives off a bad vibe. Newcomers will feel left out, and those kicked will be bitter and spread that on the outside. It can create a whole another subtext dynamic that those not in the subforum won't aware of in the sense they'll only feel the consequences.

Usually politics and such can really stink up a place. Eva is something that unites the userbase, even if the opinions clash, politics can turn a lot more toxic since they have a real effect on our daily lives.

[Rosenakahara]

Absolutely, but at the very least we get to keep it.

And I imagine a lot of users will go along with it. Perhaps they'd like that to happen?

Personally i would just go full time-lurk mode as the off topic section here is a majority of the reason i find this forum so fun, however i do recognize there has been some bullshit around the forums recently so im split half-half on that and as such don't find myself agreeing with either extremes (keeping the same (yes my stance changed) or getting rid of the off topic section).
We need to find a middle ground and so far the closest i have seen is sorrows modified version of the separate section proposal.

[A.T. Fish]

But let's say everyone who is currently a user is granted permission to enter, then new members won't miss it, and it will be something they can look forward to, and anyone who gets kicked out only has themselves to blame.

If all the current users were allowed than what would be the difference from simply leaving off-topic as is? It would only keep new people out, but the current state of affairs that has led to the mods getting fed up was caused by people that are already members now (obviously).

[Merridian]

OK.

1) Nuking OT dissolves at least +50% of current EGF usership as far as I can tell. As Trajan noted earlier, EGF's OT section has consistently proven itself to be one of the prime staying-factors for users. Evangelion has been discussed to point that there really isn't much left to say, and Rebuild has hit something of a wall with 4.0 lacking even a release date. OT is where the users who came for the wiki, the discussion, and the DEEP of NGE ended up staying, because people with similar tastes congregated and could discuss similar things. It's certainly why I stuck around, even if I take long-ass hiatuses.

Given that this seems to lack support, this doesn't seem like a serious claim of solution

2) Heavier moderation in OT seems counterproductive. From what I can tell, mods already overmoderate OT (in form of prune-happiness) to point of reducing common discussion there to be little more than glorified chit-chat and threads that exist solely for sake of egoist pandering. This thread's question regarding "blanket bans on srs bidniss" is natural extension of that attitude, and I'm not particularly fond of it.

3) Splitting OT into OT - Mostly Harmless and OT- [Trigger Warning] strikes me as an even more awful idea--particularly the admittedly sensible idea of making OT - [TW] section member's only and subject to its own set of banning options. Although this seems sensible as a "solution", it's also enforcing culture of elitism and fostering the notion that some topics aren't fit for popular consumption on EGF. This is basically the same as telling those of us that bother to read these topics that we're welcome to stay and participate so long as we follow a second set of rules in order to do so, while simultaneously telling anyone who may WANT to read these subjects that they have to sign up or sign in to do so. This discourages potential users that you would WANT to contribute to discussion, while also alienating those of us that want new blood in the debates.

These solutions sound insane. That tells me there's something wrong with the interpretation of what the problem is in the first place.

So what IS the problem, exactly? That the userbase argues about politics? That the users cause "internet drama" between each other which causes hostility across threads? That the staff is, in NemZ's words, "simply fed up with this shit"?

Trying to answer the first question doesn't offer solutions to a 'problem' that is rooted in the other two questions. I put the word 'problem' in quotes because there seems to be a fundamental disregard around here for sheer fact that internet drama is a non-issue. If a handful of users want to be pissed off at each other, slap 'em on the wrists and tell them to behave. That's what mods do, and that's what EGF HAS done with relative consistently in the past.

With regard to the last question, what "shit" are the mods tired of? Cleaning up childish insults and pruning topics that are full of replies to posts users didn't even read? That sounds like being fed-up with being a mod--correct me if I'm wrong, but EGF's ALWAYS had this sort of problem with discussion, even in the NGE-related subforums. The only differences now is the subforum in question and presumably the magnitude of the so-called problem. The latter comes as a result of the forum growing in userbase, which is generally a good thing.

I recognize that the forum is growing and that change has to come as part of that. Adding an OT - Trigger Warning section is going to degrade EGF as a whole in ways that are difficult if not impossible to adequately predict. Business as usual with regards to how 'srs bidniss' threads are moderated seems like best approach, and that's what I advocate. If the mods feel overwhelmed, recruit more mods. Drastic measures like splitting OT in this way will cause more harm to forum culture than good.

[Sorrow]

Vito: Newcomers probably feel left out with others having custom titles, and others might feel left out that the staff have a little area where they discuss; some might feel slighted or forgotten that Mr. Hodges got a unique position, access to backstage talks and his own colour after only being here 2 years. It doesn't mean it's unfair. Maybe something like 200 posts or 2 months to enter the sub-forum - nothing really drastic.

If all the current users were allowed than what would be the difference from simply leaving off-topic as is? It would only keep new people out, but the current state of affairs that has led to the mods getting fed up was caused by people that are already members now (obviously).

Because it gives everyone interested in serious conversation a chance to remain a part of it, and threatens to take it away, meaning anyone getting too aggressive will have to think more before deciding to submit their post. It will only keep new people out for a little while, and give everyone else the chance to keep something the staff are considering getting rid of entirely.

[Tankred]

If the mods feel overwhelmed, recruit more mods. Drastic measures like splitting OT in this way will cause more harm to forum culture than good.

If the forum is growing, I'll concede that that would be a good idea and probably the best for this situation.

[A.T. Fish]

Because it gives everyone interested in serious conversation a chance to remain a part of it, and threatens to take it away, meaning anyone getting too aggressive will have to think more before deciding to submit their post. It will only keep new people out for a little while, and give everyone else the chance to keep something the staff are considering getting rid of entirely.

Well, my point is that the alternatives proposed by the staff aren't necessary at all, there is no need to ban "serious discussions" and there is no need to create a separate subforum, if those are the only alternatives then I'd go for the subforum of course, but I don't think it's necessary. Serious discussions already happen and people already get banned for going over the line, I don't know why this has to change. I get that the staff is fed up with it, but I believe this is only temporary, and also part of forum activity in general, conflicts happen from time to time but they get resolved eventually. Honestly, the recent wave of drama that came from discussing controversial subjects seems way smaller than the one that followed Q's spoiler policy and its many unjustified bans.

[Sorrow]

Well, my point is that the alternatives proposed by the staff aren't necessary at all, there is no need to ban "serious discussions" and there is no need to create a separate subforum, if those are the only alternatives then I'd go for the subforum of course, but I don't think it's necessary.

I think many agree, but:

Some change is going to happen, and arguments for the continuance of the status quo are wasted efforts.

That's why I'm arguing for the sub-forum with all it's own rules, as opposed to no "serious discussions" at all.

[Xard]

I think many agree, but:
That's why I'm arguing for the sub-forum with all it's own rules, as opposed to no "serious" discussions at all.

There's currently something of a staff consensus behind "we need some sort of clear changes" yes but even this consensus is a new thing. Total bans have been suggested before in various stages of "pfffft fuck this" but such suggestions have had lukewarm reception. So that staff on the whole is leaning towards need of change at the moment doesn't mean good arguments here (and backstage) can't potentially change said consensus.


Personally speaking I find the whole subforum idea very questionable and it's unlikely to be succesful in promoting better discussion culture. On the other hand total ban is just very extreme idea and it's not hard to see potential trouble with it: drawing lines, hurting discussion culture in general. So I'm not in favour of that either.

[Sailor Star Dust]

Merridian: I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm simply tired of people wanting to talk politics on an anime subforum, period. Like I said in my previous post, there are PLENTY of other places online to take that kind of discussion. Every single time we've had political discussions of any kind, they always end up temp-locked or permanently locked because things get too heated. That's clearly a sign, IMO, the forums aren't a good place to have that sort of discussion.

Just leave things as they've always been in Off Topic (light-hearted threads alongside the moderated case-by-case basis political threads), unless, again, somebody can give me an example of why and how our current system isn't working.

[Chuckman]

The other places to discuss said topics don't have this community of people.

[Rosenakahara]

The other places to discuss said topics don't have this community of people.

QFT
I would add more but i have been talking in this thread all day, tired Rose is tired.
I hope that i don't come back to a locked thread later.

[pwhodges]

I wouldn't say I have a lot of experience with forums but I never heard of one that had such a system.

When I started with a serious discussion sub-forum elsewhere, I had it behind a post-count wall, on the basis that people had to prove themselves before going in there. But as with age, post count is no indicator of maturity, so I chopped that requirement. However, on that forum it can only be seen to exist when you have a login; Google won't show it to you, and passers-by won't be attracted to it.

I strongly deny, from experience, that putting discussion into a separate sub-forum will magically make people post more. It won't.

Also, I feel that what's required to reduce the load on the moderators here, is stronger application of stronger policies. If people are made unable to repeat the same pattern of drama again and again, then it no longer has to be dealt with on the same scale, and moderation becomes easier. Some people may squeal - but the priority is the health of the forum rather than the individuals.

[Chuckman]

What is the forum but a conglomeration of individuals?

[Sorrow]

Also, I feel that what's required to reduce the load on the moderators here, is stronger application of stronger policies. If people are made unable to repeat the same pattern of drama again and again, then it no longer has to be dealt with on the same scale, and moderation becomes easier. Some people may squeal - but the priority is the health of the forum rather than the individuals.

But how much stronger? In the proposed sub-forum, perhaps, but we don't need people getting banned over humorous comments, under the idea it may spark an undesired tangent, or some don't find it funny or potentially offensive, or something.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Every single time we've had political discussions of any kind, they always end up temp-locked or permanently locked because things get too heated. That's clearly a sign, IMO, the forums aren't a good place to have that sort of discussion.

It seems to be more of a clear sign that users are screwing things up. The topics aren't bad themselves-- it's the people discussing them that act disruptive and create an unpleasant environment.

[Mr. Tines]

Personally, I have an RSS aggregation with a few dozen sources that does me for my politics and comment fix for the day. I would rather this to be a place where we don't have the hot-button topics waved in our faces continually; and the old maximum about not discussing sex, religion or politics at the dining table holds.

[pwhodges]

What is the forum but a conglomeration of individuals?

That is indeed a good question. Should the ethos of the forum be defined by a group - let's call them the staff for want of any other group - or should it be defined by the random comings and goings of whoever happens to find it and wants to post? Random people have different views of life, the world, and everything (to coin a phrase - not), so the forum would become a shifting sand, and the concept of moderation would essentially go out of the window.

Defining a standard requires a committee, or a dictator, to actually do it. After that it can be implemented. It may be that some people are put off and leave as a result; it may also be that some people come and stay as a result. The second is slower. When I applied a new policy , I saw a drop off in forum posting levels for some months; but after that it rose consistently to a higher level than before.

Have a vision for a forum, and implement it, and people will come; exactly who and how many will depend on the nature of your vision.

[Chuckman]

not discussing sex,

Oh no you didn't.

@pwhodges

They're far from random people. An interest in Eva, an intense enough one to register on the forum and join the community, brings in a particular type of people who nevertheless have wildly differing views and experiences and thus something to share.

Every political discussion group I see is either a leftist or rightist echo chamber. Boring.

[Trajan]

I think banning more people with regularity is only going to add more issues. The general consensus around here has been that moderation has always been a bit too strict regarding many things and coming down with the hammer seems like it would only incite further unrest.

At this point, as long as the basic structure and outline of OT is left relatively intact, I'm fine with whatever solution we come up with. Other people have more at stake here than I do; as long as I have places to talk about film, music, video games and other media besides Evangelion, I'll be fine. I just don't want the forum cannibalizing itself in a classic example of over-correction.