In viewtopic.php?p=150591#p150591 Bantari asks, what can be done to improve discussion (involving me). I have a few suggestions:

- I can use quotes less. Everybody can.
- Everybody can be more careful about not accidentally saying wrong things, which others (e.g. I) then wish to correct.
- Everybody can avoid (in particular general and very) wrong statements about others (e.g., me, e.g., "You always do this or that.") that the others then need to correct carefully in order to protect their own reputation. Instead, everybody can make statements only about contents - not about persons themselves.
- Everybody can avoid asking questions that at least one person (e.g., the OP of a thread) might see as a derailment. Such questions can be posed in new threads. E.g., when somebody asks me 5 things on-topic and 1 short, but nevertheless very interesting thing off-topic, it would be an overkill to open a new thread just to answer also the 1 extra question. Nobody notices when just one person asks one extra question, but when a couple of persons ask extra questions in a couple of messages to the same person (e.g., me), then sooner or later it is seen as derailment, even if that person starts at least a few new threads to keep the original thread as clean as reasonably possible.
- When some contents is obviously wrong, then don't defend it until your death, but accept that other persons' opinion is also valuable.
- In general, view other persons' on-topic opinion as constructive contribution, instead of derailment. A different opinion is not a derailment, but just a different thesis.
- If somebody argues very strongly against another person's arguments, then expect the other person to participate equally strongly with counter-arguments. This is good discussion culture. It has nothing to do with derailment.
- Avoid meta-discussion as a means to escape further discussion. Meta-discussion can sometimes be useful, but not as an excuse for not having further arguments in a discussion.
- Everybody can respect everybody else as a person and avoid attacking somebody as a person. Discussion is for exchanging ideas about contents.
- There simply is no point in derailing a thread by complaining that or discussing whether the thread might have been derailed earlier.
- A gentle PM can do wonders - no need to derail a thread instead.
- If an OP dislikes third and fourth persons discussing a lot, he can set a very tight subject and specify very clearly a limited scope of discussion in the first message. With a broad subject, he can expect to get a broad discussion.
- Contrary opinions cannot be suppressed by prohibiting speech or resorting to meta-discussion. They can only be refuted by better arguments.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

This is a good point, and in particular one which I think John Fairbairn should take to mind. If he is not interested in hearing your defense of your arguments, it might be better just to let them stand. On the other hand, you do have a way of framing your thoughts not as opinions but as a facts, which makes them hard to ignore. But perhaps more to the point, it also has the possibly undesired effect of infuriating people. The words "I think," or "In my opinion" might also work wonders.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Why? And why are you implying I haven't already taken note of it. I have objected to no-one else making arguments.



Totally missing the point. I am interested in (some of) RJ's work. In the thread in question, my response to his first post was that it was a good point. What I am objecting to is the following bombardment, and being told he is making "constructive" criticism, whereas being hit by a non-stop series sledgehammer blows seems to me the very opposite of that. And more specifically, I am not specially keen to hear his points about "proper moves" in such depth simply because we have already been through this ad nauseam - I believe it was this topic that led to his alleged ban. You need to remember, too, that RJ is just as active on other forums.



It may work with others but not with me. Adding, "I think" in front of every sentence while you stand outside someone's house and shout at them non-stop for hours through a megaphone does not alleviate the nuisance one little bit.

The problems are not just noise. It's the way this sort of behaviour makes it so tedious to sort the pearls from the dross, the way it discourages some people from contributing at all, the way it even drives some people away from the forum altogether.

Some of the solutions proposed are like curing a headache with a lobotomy. Asking someone to move house to get away from a guy with a megaphone is extreme. Claiming it's democratic to allow someone to annoy others with his megaphone might sit well with pc people on American campuses, but my approach is to ask about the rights of the annoyed. In addition, telling me to spend money and time on setting up a rival blog or forum is, let me be frank, showing a lack of empathy to the point of stupidity. I would also be more likely to listen to people who themselves compose posts of substance and decent length and who treat a discussion forum as that rather than as the digital equivalent of scribbling on toilet walls.

Last but not least, for RJ to create such a huge barnstorm of annoyance over something as trivial as go is getting everything out of proportion.

For me to get so annoyed is likewise probably disproportionate, but this has been going on literally for years. I also think I am the major sufferer simply because I seem to post rather substantive posts more than most others and because the topics I post on just happen to appeal to RJ.

I also think my response is actually lukewarm. I have never called for bans or appealed to admins. I just tend to sound off and then go dark for a while. You might say that I have chosen in effect the extreme measure of moving house, but that too would be a caricature. I have simply shut the window. But there is still noise filtering through, and enough to remind me not to open it again in a hurry.

(Note that we still await RJ's comments on the details his alleged ban and restrictions.)

If there was a world championship "defending to the death of wrong contents", then Robert Jasiek would take gold, silver and bronze.

I long ago stopped reading anything from RJ. Only occaissionally do I do so, usually in error before I realize he is the author. There is nothing wrong with occasionally expressing oneself as the authority (after all, I have been known to do it myself) but to constantly do it on every post and to not be willing to listen to other opinions is sure to drive people away.

For someone like JF to post the results of his research on factual matters is one thing, and to be perfectly acceptable. But RJ's constantly pushing himself as the authority on a subjective matter such as rules is just boorish.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

We had an issue years ago with a user on a forum I used to admin (sorry for harping on about this, but its relevant here). Every thread they got involved in would turn into a mess, with them versus, normally, everyone else in the thread, tirelessly rebutting every point and drowning out everything else. We tried for about six months to talk to them about it, to talk to the other users and ask them to not to respond so much but every thread someone would not be able to stay quiet and the whole thing would cut off again.

You know what? After we removed this user from the forum, the issue disappeared. If every thread you end up in is turning into a mess, the problem isn't the other people in the forum, it's you. Either your posting style, topic, attitude, use of language or something. Sometimes people who do this can be rescued, sometimes not, it usually turns on whether they can realise they are far out of line and this isn't due to other people not not. This wasn't a once off, I can think of four or five other users who created the same problem. The most recent one, and possibly the most relevant, was a fan of MMT (http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013 ... r-mmt.html). This theory, not really presented as a theory but as a fact by the user, is so at odds with pretty much everything else in economic/political theory that everyone is going to disagree with you when you bring it up. What was happening was every thread they got into turned into a thread where he was going on and on about MMT and defending it from every other poster in the thread. The main issue was that it was mostly happening in threads which were about current issues not theoretical considerations. To them MMT was the truth, and needed to be spread. Every thread would turn into them ramming it down the throat of everyone else.


Not everyone would end up banned though. An example was a new libertarian poster. Libertarians are very rare in Ireland, even on online politics forums where small groups are over represented. We took him aside and explained that every time he brought up Thatcher or called someone a Maoist that he was polarising the discussion very heavily and would never get anywhere convincing the opposing posters of anything because their backs were already up. If, however, he merely pointed out the issues in whatever policy was being discussed without the name dropping the thread wouldn't descend into a right/left mud-slinging contest. He stopped dropping names and calling other people Statists and suddenly no longer did his presence in a thread create 20 pages of brawling.

There are ways to fix this, it just usually requires working out what the disruptive poster is doing that is causing the problem. In the latter case, it wasn't the Libertarian viewpoints but the language and arguments used to defend it. In the former, it was the poster treating an economic theory that's never been tried as a fact and arguing from there, which was impossible to fix.


Sorry, too much rambling there.

Lets take a look at the Honte - a primer thread. The subject of the thread is the meaning of the Japanese word Honte, to which you posted an informative essay followed by carefully chosen examples and your conclusion which was the defense of your translation suggestion.

Robert's first comment was this:


Kirby cleverly commented "Good post" which garnered from you a rare "like." I wonder what you liked about it. Perhaps you appreciated Kirby's succinct sarcasm which highlighted the fact that the post was a prime example of diverting a discussion from the meaning of a word to RJ's interpretation of it. And yes Robert, this was a diversion, because the meaning of the term term honte is not dependent on being more or less specific. By introducing this comparison between your definition and John's, you are changing the subject from the meaning of a word to your criteria for a definition.

Be that as it may, John, you then responded, first pointing out first the linguistic problems with the word "proper" (on topic), but then by making the fatal mistake of following Robert off the cliff and taking up the question of the quality of his definition.



Surely by now you must know that there will be no stopping him. In Robert's eyes, the subject of the thread is no longer the meaning of the word honte, but rather his definition of said word.

But Boidhre is right and so are you. If it's not you who takes up the diversion, surely someone else will.



Robert - you really should take this to heart.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, I disagree, but I do not want to make this another honte thread. Nor have I intended to make this a thread with RJ as the major topic. This thread is mainly for discussion culture in general, regardless of the person. Discussion is 'for everybody' - it is not 'against one particular person'.

Then I would have to say that it is poor discussion culture to divert the topic of a thread from a subject to one's own theories on that subject.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

When I first became a Helper on Participate on the Source, I was amazed that about half of our time was spent dealing with one user (out of around 1500 active users, those who posted). This user had an uncanny way of pushing people's buttons. It is quite possible that he had a paranoid personality disorder. He certainly could get people to attack him, which would then elicit his claims of persecution. He also produced volumes of notes, often long and rambling. This was in the '80s, when online discussions were more like the Wild West than today. The Source refused for years to ban this guy, on the basis of free speech, even though one of their executives spent a great deal of his time dealing with him. Finally they did remove his Participate account, and peace descended.




Words to take to heart and consider thoughtfully, if you always find yourself at the center of a storm. But at the same time a non-sequitur. As the saying goes, it takes two to tangle. Groups do gang up on people who are different in some way or who hold unpopular views. Do we then say that it is right to ban them?

Now, as I have mentioned before, one aspect of Participate was that the person (called the moderator) who started a discussion (the topic) had administrative powers over it. So in fact some moderators did ban people from posting to their topics or removed posts in their topics for whatever reason they wanted to. That caused some grumbling, but also kept discussions on point and minimized disruptions and hijacking. Also, being banned from a topic by the moderator was not as drastic a measure as being banned from the whole service.

I would like to make the following suggestion, based on my experience. Grant the person who starts a thread the right to have posts removed that, in their judgement, are off topic. They can't remove the posts themselves, but say that the administrators would honor such requests as a matter of course. Let the admins send the removed note to the author's inbox, in case the author wished to use it in a different thread.

As for other norms of civilized discussion, such as not engaging in personal attacks or disruption, those are already in the admins' bailiwick.

As for Robert's post about his definition of honte in John Fairbairn's thread, whether it is off topic or not is, IMO, a question of judgement. I would be quite willing to let John make that determination.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

A rule of thumb I've used is: if I see posters who are normally at each others throats in a debate backing each other up constantly against this person then I know I need to go and take a read through the threads (which is usually very painful in these cases). When everyone is arguing against you something is up.


Whether to ban or not. Well, I've never viewed one user as being more important than the forum, so I've no problems removing a user if I think they are going to have a long term negative effect on the forum. I don't think people have a God-given right to be heard online. They have to earn that by civil interaction with other users and not being overly disruptive. I have seen one user drive away many good users who used to contribute a lot purely because of them posting and essentially ruining any of their threads. I don't think you shouldn't at least consider banning here. The issue is more when you have a massive influx of such users, there's no real easy way to handle that (imagine this site overrun with ddks who refused to learn or recognise that they were beginners at the game and you can imagine what I'm talking about).

Bill: a thoughtful and well intentioned post, as ever, but not an idea that I think will work.

I am not really of the internet age or the bulletin board/forum culture, and when I see terms like "off topic" and "derailment" I tend uneasily to follow the crowd and use the same terms myself, but somewhat hypocritically as a mere follower of fashion.

The truth is I often enjoy the serendipity of the sharp turns a discussion can take. Derailments that take us on a long roller-coaster to who knows where can be exciting.

My objections are not normally to do with content per se or with direction. They are rather to do with behaviour and what I think is better called "disruption" (as in disruptive behaviour of course). I glean the impression that the past cases elsewhere you and Bhoidre describe may fall into the same category. It refers in my mind's eye to two things. One is to behaviour where the same point is being repeated over and over again until a mutation occurs, and while this "derailment" may afford a brief moment of respite the repetition soon resumes on this new point. To play the word association game, the sort of (printable) words or phrases that come to mind to me when I see this behaviour might be bombardment, repetition, bludgeon, stagnation, trench warfare, oh god not again, pounding, relentless, and so on. This association of words creates a red light in my brain that says stop.

The other kind of disruption I see is splintering. Every splinter may even share the original DNA of the thread and so be on topic, but the result is the sort of bushy tree that we humans are so patently bad at following.

In contrast, posts that evoke associations such as new, different, disagreement or even off-topic tend to evoke a shiny green light, or at worst an amber one.

In the thread under discussion, if I were a moderator I would ban only Robert's second post, though would also assume that a largish number of subsequent posts, by him and others, would fall away simply because the stimulus for them has been removed. The resulting thread would be going in a direction I would never have envisaged, and parts could be described as off topic, but the important point for me would be that the thread is visibly moving, and every new point would be a bonus.

My objections to RJ's second post are obviously coloured by the fact that I have seen all this many times before, but it is not the content that is the main problem. It is his behaviour: the technique (which did not appear in his first post) of creating a dozen splinters and then ramming each one home by incessant repetition, and creating intense focus and thus stagnation by trying to insist that we talk only about these splinters which relate to "my" definition, "my" research, "my" invention, "my" books, and so on.

It is because I see the problem as behavioural (some prefer to call it a problem of presentation or delivery) that I think the idea of a moderated main thread would fail. The disrupter would just create disruptive parallel threads. These would not be ignored. It is the nature of L19 that it is something of a coffee-break forum. People mostly come to fill in empty moments and be amused. When bread is tossed out they don't really care which circus they go to.

There is also the problem that it creates more work for the OP. If the OP has already put in a lot of work, extra work is the last thing he wants. It could apply in a mainly academic forum, say, but not here.

Banning might work, but is it not the case we already have a ban in place here and it is just being flouted? I'd like to know. But I have to say I feel uncomfortable with bans in general, and certainly strongly disapprove of those (?like the current one) based on anonymous complaints. On top of all that, there seems to be a law of the universe that states that all forums will have one and only one disruptive member. Get rid of one head and the snake just grows another.

daal: you over-analysed. My rare likes are the result of thumbs hitting the wrong spot on an iPad when I'm trying to scroll (which I sometimes do between trying to throw the machine at the wall). Lack of likes means nothing either, other than that like buttons are not part of my antediluvian world. On top of that, I didn't even understand Kirby's "good point" post, let alone attribute sarcasm to it. (Sorry, K.)

Personally, I did not really see RJ's posts in the honte thread as off topic.
So to me, the issue here is not that much being off topic or thread derailment or hijacking per so.

First, let me say that I honestly see RJs posts here as valuable, thus I am trying with all these many words to try to help. Both sides.

Here is how I see RJ's posting problems and what I think we/he can do:

Problem #1: bad initial delivery (minor problem)

• As somebody already mentioned, RJ dresses his valuable opinions as 'facts', which tends to press all kinds of buttons in all kinds of people, me included. Especially if the matter at hand is clearly (in large part?) subjective. As a result, people would post en-masse to start an argument with him. Or, at least, this is one of the reason. And people, being people, often get caught up in the argument, and we end up in a mess.
• Another aspect of the same 'type' is RJ's quest for over-precision, even when not needed. This also tends to get people going, for no reason really, but it does. Often the stuff he writes only applies to himself, but the way it is worded it seems he is reading "universal truth".
• Sometimes, when I read RJ's posts, before I realize who wrote them, I think: nice troll... but then I notice the author, and I say: nah, not a troll, he's serious. I would not be surprised if others had the same feelings from time to time.
• I am not sure if putting "I think" in the beginning of each statement would fix the problem. JF said that for him it would not, and I agree - this would be more of a snow-job than actual change. Especially if the rest of the statement had the same form as now.
• Anyways - in these aspects of the problem - both parts are equally guilty, I think, with RJ being the catalyst. But, as it says above, this is a minor thing. We all have quirks, and we all have mannerisms that some others find annoying, so no biggie.

Problem #2: bad discussion template (major problem)

• Once people start disagreeing with RJ, he then turns into what I called a 'little bulldog' - trying to take apart every and each statement the other person is doing, and then arguing till death that this is wrong and he is right. Sometimes the statement is right, sometimes it is wrong, but regardless - being a bulldog is not cool. At some point you have to realize that you said what you needed to say, and the rest from now on will be repetitive, even if you use different arguments.
• As a result - I somehow have the feeling that RJ thinks he has to correct every error in every sentence the other person wrote, and non-correction of even the smallest of things would mean agreement and be *wrong*. But this is not so. I think that discussion on a forum like here is more about: "I say my piece, you say your piece, and we either agree or we don't" Of course, some back-and-forth argument exchange is always welcome, but the trick is to know how to do it without alienation and derailment and when to stop. Observing others, especially the more successful posters (i.e. the liked ones, like JF or BS, just to mention a couple, but there are many more) - can be very educational. They tend to make their points, sometimes controversial points, without alienating most of the community.
• As a temporary solution/exercise - I think here the suggestion I made about restricting one's post to one quoted block and one 5-sentence-or-less response block can do wonders. And maybe to not arguing one particular point more than once or twice - no matter how much you disagree with what is said (this is hard, I know from experience).

Avoiding the problem altogether (better template example):

• Combining the techniques I mentioned before, I think that if RJ said something like that:
  
  • Here is my definition: blah blah blah
    And here is why I think it is better: blah blah blah
  And then, when invariably arguments against what he said appeared (as the always do), he would say to his collective opponents:
  
  • I hear you guys, and I agree that in most cases, (or in some cases, or in your case) what you have is sufficient or satisfactory - or at least I can understand you feeling this way. But for me personally - I like my definition better because I feel it is more precise and it lets me build on it or whatever. And since for me my definition just works better, so I thought I'd mention it here as well, maybe it helps somebody. But its overall not a big deal - we all have our preferences, this is mine. Peace out!
  Period! End of discussion. Everybody is happy, every voice is heard, every point is made. No need to add anything else. In particular - no need to disseminate each post sentence-by-sentence to prove how each of those sentences are wrong. I know that you will still many of the statements made by others are 'obviously wrong' and your trigger finger will be itching to write scathing corrections, but just let it go, dude... just let it go. This is what starts all this, and in the end - people will not get convinced, they will get angry. Because it is simply not reasonable to do what you do, no matter how you might disagree, just trust me.
• I know RJ will still be itching to comment on how he is right and others are wrong, but this is where the self-discipline comes in. Being a bulldog is not a way to make friends, nor it is to get people to listen to you - which is more important here, I think. It leads to people starting to ignore you, and I assume this is not what you want. But what do you expect if the template you are suing is:
  
  • You are wrong because of this this and that,
    and you are wrong because of this this and that,
    and you are wrong because of this this and that,
    and...
  See the angry red color? This is because this kind of template makes people angry - it does not solve problems, does not lead to understanding, and certainly does not create compromises. Yet this is what you keep doing. Just saying...

Other/additional solutions/techniques for RJ:

• If you really need to keep talking about how everybody is wrong - write an essay. Or start a blog where you can say your piece and people who want to read and argue, read and argue with you. On L19 - just do as I indicated above - live and let live, don't be a bulldog. I think for RJ to start a personal blog is a much better and more reasonable approach than to expect FJ to do the same.
• If you absolutely cannot do that, for whatever reason, just make each of your *argumentative* posts in separate threads. Post your opinion in the original thread - this is where it belongs, but when you have the urge to start one of your bulldoggy arguments - do it in a separate thread, prefix it with [RJ Argues] or something - like your own personal column on this forum. Maybe even, depending on the volume, a separate subforum can be created for this purpose. There is no reason we cannot live-and-let-live here. If you get no opposing arguments in your 'column', means you win every argument - but something tells me that this will not be the case. I think your splintering of threads into separate threads is a good technique - my idea is to expand that a little and do it more diligently. The trick will be to know what belongs in the original thread, and what in the [RJ Argues] column.

Anyways - this is how I see the issue here. I speak not only as a poster myself - a rather argumentative poster, so I know how hard it can be to just shut up sometimes - but also as somebody who is arguing with RJ since the mid 90s or so... so - an experienced RJ-argumentator, a resume-worthy skill, heh.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

You can prevent such ruination by granting those who start threads more power over them. See my suggestion above.




Banning is an extreme measure.

You know, in family therapy there is a person who is called the Identified Patient (IP). This person acts crazy or "acts out", causing trouble for the rest of the family. Well, it usually turns out that a common sense approach of trying to fix that person or that person's behavior is not a good approach. Human relations are not as simple as they appear on the surface. Everyone's behavior is open to question.

Now, an online community such as ours is not a tight system like a family. But generally it is best to take the attitude that we are all in this together instead of focusing strongly on an identified person as the problem.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

And in the same spirit, to fix the danger of power-hungry OPs removing each contrary post and poster - lets give the thread participants the right to ban the OP.
Ah, perfect world.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Moi aussi.



As I have indicated, I would be happy with that call by you.



You are a very smart man, John. I have observed just that sort of thing.



Right again. IMX on Participate, when an argument started on one thread which the moderator deleted, it would often continue on a new thread started by one of the participants. This kind of thing caused some distress, but the level of heat we saw back then would violate the TOS of this community today.



I take it that you mean the work of monitoring posts in your own thread?



Moi aussi, as I think is clear.



I think that is true to some extent, but Boidhre and I have experienced some truly horrendous cases.

As for your feeling that my suggestion would not work, who knows? Aside from experience I am following the principle that things usually work out better when you have a lot of people making small decisions instead of a few people making big decisions.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I don't see a problem with that. As long as your thread lives long and prosper, what do you care if a few hotheads are having a parallel argument about RJ's stuff? If, as you say - you would ban his second posts, and thus remove all the subsequent responses and responses to responses - this aim would have been accomplished.

I mean - obviously either there are forum users who see value (or fun) in arguing with RJ or there are no such users. If they are, why would you rob them of what they would like to talk/argue about? And if there are not - none of the parallel threads would go anywhere anyways, so no problem. In either case - *your* thread would be safe, moving forward, and seriously discussing an interesting topic without derailment.

And still - we all will have our voice heard and our argument made.

So - I really don't see your objection to this.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea, and a lot of the disruptions would be organically weeded out. It would also be a good 'training' tool... if you want to post in *my* thread, you need to behave with certain standards, can't just go on mouthing off at everything I say.

In any case, I don't think phpBB has this functionality, so its a moot point. Unless, as I suggest, people like RJ try to self-moderate.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi Robert,

Whenever you post to this forum, I think you consider very deeply about the correctness of the technicalities (related to Go or otherwise).
Correct me if I am wrong about this.

I am curious -- when you post to this forum, how much do you consider about people's feelings:

• None at all -- Zero. People's feelings are completely irrelevant. All that matters is technical correctness.
• Very little -- Technical correctness is much more important than people's feelings.
• Somewhat -- Technical correctness is more important than people's feelings.
• Average/"normal" -- Technical correctness is equally important as people's feelings.
• Quite a bit -- People's feelings are more important than technical correctness.
• Very deeply -- Technical correctness is irrelevant. The most important thing is people's feelings.
• Other/Depends -- Please explain. For example: technical correctness is extremely important, but people's feelings are also relevant.

I'm specifically not drawing a direct line between here and forums and communities I've been an admin for, precisely for the reason you allude to. What I worked with were communities many times large than this one, i.e. orders of magnitude. Users, as a rule, would not have spoken to other users online, never mind know them personally. This is not the same situation as here where there is much more familiarity between the users (both a good and a bad thing) and admin actions have to be more delicate.

Edit: Sorry, I'm being unclear there. When you've a faceless mass of users you have to use the bullwhip a lot more because users who feel anonymous can often act a lot more rudely than they would where they were known. Since here, most people are known to at least some others, if only within their national community, there should be a lot better level of self-moderation amongst users.