Discussion, not Provocation

[Autumnlicious]

I have a fairly simple algorithm for handling such matters:

- is the interpretation of the source material as linked obviously misrepresented or flat out wrong?
- is the opinion expressed composed with a significant section of trollish flaming (all $political_opponents are pedophiles)?
- would your mother think how you’re saying it is unbelievably out of line?

If you answer “Yes”-ish to the above, you should stop yourself. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to discuss or simply hurt/anger people? If the former, strip out the invectives. We always love people presenting persuasive arguments for their interpretations et al. It’s hard to persuade by insult or slur. One can always do better.

If you’re simply trying to stir up the shit, please don’t. The above only serves me as a smell test. I don’t speak for the other Staff. But what I can say is that we’re providing a discussion forum and cannot let trolling/flaming/abuse rule the roost.

Let’s talk.

[Minimalist]

The phrase "fixing something until it breaks" keeps running through my mind.

[vorlon13]

A total perspective vortex would be the perfect tool to wield against this issue.

[Catholic_Lady]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

[brewer]

Don't confuse provocation with poorly expressed opinion/position.

[Jackalope]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

That depends entirely on the content of the threads, with respect to the rule in question.

We aren't going to go back and moderate anything ex post facto. Posts going forward will be evaluated on their own merits.

[LastPoet]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

Yes. But we will not act retroactively.

[Tiberius]

The phrase "fixing something until it breaks" keeps running through my mind.

The problem is finding a balance. We've tried a (very) hands-off approach and it hasn't worked. People complain about members not being banned despite not bringing anything to the conversation. We've tried stricter rules enforcement and they weren't popular, plus it's hard to be objective with regards to trolling, etc.

As staff we've also had enough with people being provocative for the sake of being provocative. It's not helpful, it's certainly not the way the forum was originally founded to be. People should be able to discuss things without resorting to blanket statements about your opponent. The people who can't don't deserve to be here.

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

No, unless you're making a false equivocation or some other misrepresentation of whatever _______ is.

[vorlon13]

Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

you mean the poopy stuff ??

[Catholic_Lady]

Tiberius, I like the rule very much, but the one point I would raise about it is this:

Let's say someone posts a link to a news article about something stupid a particular political side did, with their brief opinion on how stupid this is and a generalized statement about how stupid those people are.

Whether or not it's "provocative" depends entirely on which political side this article is about. The vast majority of members here are left leaning. So a thread started with a link about something stupid a conservative did with a blanket statement by the OP about conservatives, isn't going to be provocative here. Most people are going to join in and be like "wow, yeah, that's so dumb, they're so dumb... and yadda yadda..."

But if someone posts a link to something stupid a liberal did, with their own blanket statement about liberals, that's going to raise all kinds of Hell. That will certainly be provocative.

So how will this be handled exactly Tibs?