Meta: An Experiment with Heated Discussions
Hi all!
During the running of Mike's article introducing the moderators and how we moderate, a sub-discussion came up about articles that are flamers. We have a group called "Heated Discussions", where these articles could go. It is an unmoderated group for those who like life on the edge. The issue has been that in the past, no one used the group, since they couldn't see the article in the group and if they could would people would they go to them? To that end, I am going to put a ticker right under the main forum where you can clearly see the articles in "Heated Discussions". If it worked we could get flaming articles off the main Forum, where discussions would be moderated and more civil.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think that adults should be able to look at an articles title and in most cases, figure out if it was their cup of tea or not. No one forces you to enter an article. On the other hand, I would like the site to not look like the wild west.
So I am putting this out to the members (for you new comers, this is how the community takes control of important issues)... I am going to run a test of a ticker under the main forum. It will have all the articles in "Heated Discussions". I would like to see all flaming articles off the front page and in "Heated Discussions" and let's see if people go there. I will give it a two week trial run. If there is no action in "Heated Discussions" then I will revert it back to the regular format.
This function is now live on the front page.
Tags
Who is online
161 visitors
I was reading along and saw the suggestion that topics that go heated be moved to the heated arguments section. Is there a way to couple this with the new format? Because often the title doesn't convey the heated discussion if it starts because of a tangent.
I don't care if the site goes back to the original way, but if moderators are called in and they ask the poster if it's okay to move to heated to keep the discussion going... I think this could maybe allow those discussions to continue on as the participants see fit.
And of course, the poster/author of the article should have final say on whether to move the discussion and keep it going or to moderate a crackdown on the offensive postings.
Miss D has the right idea. Let the author decide at first if it should be moved. If the author decides to keep on the front page then the author has to try and keep it from becoming Three Mile Island. If the author can't do that...then the moderators step in.
Wow! You've been working so hard!
I think this is a great idea! I hope that it works!
I think that all sounds very reasonable. I would like to give the author the chance to figure out where they think their article should go. If it get's wild, a mod could close it to comments and move the whole article to "Heated Discussions". This way the author has the chance to keep their article under control, without the heavy had of administration, which none of us want.
Always listening to the membership and always willing to give something a try, Dowser. That's how we roll here!
You rang?
That is an option. Having two versions of the article.. one civil the other a slap fight.
Kind of like the RomanColiseum? LOL
BTW It's live now!
Always listening to the membership and always willing to give something a try, Dowser. That's how we roll here!
that's how a great site works!
oo! oo! Cage match!
Mike wrote:
I like like anyway.Actually it's not a new idea. It was set up in the "other place" by one of the guides in order to take flaming fights off of topic articles and transfer them to a site set up to continue with a fight to the death. Perhaps "heated discussions" should be renamed "The Arena", a place where such battles have in history been fought. Usually the lions won.
I demand an "i" button!.....Just like I had before.
Although they always used it.....They always asked for more
I could never figure out what that thing would do.
Was it made for me or was it made for you?
My name is moron, asshole, f**khead.....just to name a few.
Although I never used those words.... I think the same of you.
I like this place a little bit.....and think that it will last.
And just to let the others know....they can kiss my azz.
This probably is the last time....you'll see me act this way.
I'll try to keep it in the road.... and try to use Fair Play....
I suppose give this idea a coupla weeks and see if it generates traffic...A good idea worth a shot.
Oh Bruce..
You can do it in either place. That wasn't that toxic.
This is just a trial, so don't get your panties in a twist
Thanks Sexy Bigfoot!
( you felt that one coming didn't ya?)
But Robert, where would you leave your wittyrepartee?
Buzz,
But we are not trying to hide the flame throwing. It's just a click away... if you click on the ticker, it takes you to the article.
And the lions always won.
LOVE IT SIX!!!
Yeah.. it works great. It doesn't oh well, we tried.
So, we are now relegating flaming articles to heated discussions. Not that I dont see the poetic notion of the whole thing, but what will the gays think about being castigated once again?
But seriously folks....that is a great place to call somebody an fucking imbecilic asshole pussy whore cuntmuffin without fear of moderation.
titty fucking balls.....
Why did I feel that one coming on? Maybe because of this:
What I was talking about was a group to which a dialogue is TRANSFERRED when it appears to flame up to the extent that it will distract from the purpose of an article discussion. It was not, like our Heated Discussions group, one on which to START an inflammatory discussion.
LOL...
Thanks Perrie!
*snort*
Think its a great idea and would preclude this site being considered off limits for young adults interested in politics economy and discussions of rigt wing versus left Liberal V/S Conservative. Hope it works.
Question: I'll use Mikes original article of Moderator Introductions as an example.
That article started off in a manner that was in no way heated or confrontational. It ended up morphing into one that could be described by some people as "heated".
When that happens....with the article be removed from the front page and hidden in the Heated Discussions Group? Also, what is the determining criteria for when an article becomes "heated" if it didn't start off that way?
OK. Now I'm really confused. Out of curiousity, I just clicked on one of the "Heated Discussions". One titled "Goodbye Newstalkers". I have to say, I was shocked by the sheer nastiness, swearing and name-calling in the comment thread. I was also shocked that a mod lost his moderating privledges for saying what he truly believes in an area of the forum that I was lead to believe was a "no-holds-barred", anything goes, part of the forum. The individual was not posting in purple and was posting as himself.
Looks like there is no home for people who call a spade a spade. And are merely blunt. On one side of the forum, we have to be careful about hurting another's feelings if we make a joke about MSNBC....on the other side of the forum, we have to sift through some of the nastiest, swear word laden things I've ever seen.
I also noticed that comments I make in a "heated discussions" article don't show up under "my discussions".
Another Question: I noticed one mod was called out on the appearance of *bias* in a heated discussion article, but another mod was was allowed to tell a member that they were going to remove their privledges if the vitriol continued.
I guess I don't understand what "anything goes" means.
I get that. What I DON'T get is that exchange appearing in a thread (on a no holds barred group)...where another mod is threatening to take away another posters privledges and doing so by posting in black, rather than purple.
IMO, this creates confusion for newbies that one member can take another members privledges away
Pat,
Think of moderators as judges (which is essentially what they are). If a judge hears a case and has publicly shown bias against one of the parties to the case, that judge must recuse himself from hearing that case. This is true no matter where that bias was expressed. If he does not recuse himself, a superior judge will do it for him. It does not apply, of course, to hearing other cases with other people involved.
And again....that is precisely what was done with one moderator but NOT another moderator in the exact same article in the "Heated Discussions" group.