Life In 19x19

I just happen to stumble over this thread again:
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 65&start=0 'This is Haengma' were contrubuters are requested to evaluate a book.


It is one of many in the last time which seems to 'explode' IMO and digresses quick & strongly by some early objections. The fun of browsing, reading through or contributing to Li19x19 is thereby heavily diminuished for me.

RobertJasiek wrote:Tommie, if "excellent" becomes the standard for something that can be improved significantly (and, as the thread has shown, the book's contents can), then later better books on any (or the same) topic cannot (by the same standard) be assessed as better because "excellent" is the best possible quality.

Open a new thread for off-topic contents.

One does not need to have read the book to come to this basic insight.

Then do not post on this issue.

As suggested by others already, I request moderators herewith to force off-topic contributions quick and early into their respective Topic, usually 'Off Topic - All non-Go discussions should go here.' would apply.
As moderators are busy people too, who cannot read and evaluate every contribution on its OT-ness,
Eisenhower's 80/20 Method in mind, prejudiced shifting on perhaps 0.1 % of contributions might get rid of 99.9% of annoying clutter.

(not sure whether I opened this thread now as new thread or Reply. Sorry in advance if a moderator has to shift now my entry to OT)

Policing exactly when a thread goes off topic is virtually impossible and would inhibit helpful contributions.

Given your personal involvement, it sounds as if you'd like off-topic posts you don't like moved to OT.

Why didn't you just send a message to the mods?

Harry Stevens (who?) authored the Participate conferencing software in the 1980s. One of its excellent features is that it gives moderator power to users over threads that they start. IMX, both as user and what was called Lead Helper for such software, that worked quite well.

How about allowing those who start threads to move notes that they deem off topic to Off Topic? The original note would contain a link to the moved material. The author of the note would, OC, be the moderator for the new thread that was created by the move.

That would allow the starter of the thread to decide whether to allow digressions or not. Specific decisions might not suit everybody, including those whose notes are moved. However, those whose notes were moved would have their own topics in which to continue the debate.

I like Bill's suggestion about giving the thread starters the possibility to move posts to Off-Topic.

In the Haengma-review-thread, even after editing by moderators, the thread contains a lot of posts which should not be there, imo.

Is the suggestion technically possible??

Tommie, that you cite me here again while the context is floating elsewhere in other threads does not mean that I copy what I wrote in the other threads, although something would also fit here and more than what you cite. IOW, if you want on-topic discussion that much, then not citing rather arbitrarily selected messages is also a good idea.

And no, I do not like your proposal because it gives users some power of censorship.

This is a bad idea. Part of being on an online forum is the freedom to post about whatever you really want. It doesn't really have to be "on-topic" as much as it is just going with the flow of where the discussion is going towards. It's not like you'd tell someone in real life to "stick to the topic!". This is a CASUAL forum, keep it that way. Lastly, If someone or something offends you, you should report the person(s)/ thread.

I don't really understand why it's a big deal. Couldn't you just ignore the irrelevant posts anyways? It's pretty easy when people start quoting each other to figure out who is not speaking about the things YOU are interested in.

judicata wrote: Policing exactly when a thread goes off topic is virtually impossible and would inhibit helpful contributions.

The author of an entry knows whether s/he is off-topic to the initial subject-matter of the thread.
It IS thus possible for her/him to mark his/her own topic 'Off-topic'.

judicata wrote: Given your personal involvement, it sounds as if you'd like off-topic posts you don't like moved to OT.

It unclear what you might want to express.
Perhaps you refer to my oversight (error) when hitting the 'SUBMIT'-button to early (still being in the thread.
I have started an OT-thread - q.e.d.

judicata wrote: Why didn't you just send a message to the mods?

I am not sure about the single most important reason.
Perhaps because I find a fundamental discussion about this forum's policy more useful than
individual purging requests.
Keeping threads on-topic by each contributer self appears to be more efficient than
having to inform moderators, which then have to take an action - correction - (too often) (too) many actions.
I appeal thus to entry posters to save moderators a lot of work.

Bill Spight wrote:(...) Participate conferencing software (...) gives moderator power to users over threads that they start.
(...)
How about allowing those who start threads to move notes that they deem off topic to Off Topic? The original note would contain a link to the moved material. The author of the note would, OC, be the moderator for the new thread that was created by the move.

That would allow the starter of the thread to decide whether to allow digressions or not. Specific decisions might not suit everybody, including those whose notes are moved. However, those whose notes were moved would have their own topics in which to continue the debate.

This seems to be THE solution
every one is allowed to have his/her say
and the thread initiaor decides to listen or not.

RobertJasiek wrote:And no, I do not like your proposal because it gives users some power of censorship.

Censorship is a perjorative word for the suggested moderation.

Moderation means that you can write (almost) EVERTHING WHAT you want,
however NOT WHERE you want.

Censorship the contrary would either be an attempt to alter your message and/or suppress it - this is clearly not the case.

Even I, who suggested this, sometimes like your contributions.
However, I feel as deeply disturbed as being in a movie theater or concert hall and YOUR phone (or mine) rings,
because you want to tell all about rule discrepancies of 22 years ago (while the romantic scenes starts),
dicuss a new ko rule imponderability which you investigated in your free time (while LangLang plays pianissimo) or
imposing use of language to others.

This disturbs the conversation of many, many threads.

It is thus quantitatively much communication,
yet content-wise lower quality communication
when more often than not, threads appear highjacked
by early entries digressing totally from the topic
at best having a distant relation to something in the topic
(e.g. its 'form', e.g. the word 'excellent', take it or leave it, that was the given choice - chose yourself,
however read the book first. You have somewhere a website with book recensions, include the 'Haengma' book there - or not.
However, please RESPECT s.o. else's thread.)

ketchup wrote: Part of being on an online forum is the freedom to post about whatever you really want.

Incorrect, as this is a moderated forum about Go as the subject-matter.

ketchup wrote: It doesn't really have to be "on-topic" as much as it is just going with the flow of where the discussion is going towards. It's not like you'd tell someone in real life to "stick to the topic!". This is a CASUAL forum, keep it that way.

Well, that's the point of THIS very thread. IMO, it has to stay a bit more ON-TOPIC.
A very, very small percentage of users disturbs my pleasant reading of an otherwise interesting subject.
This online forum IS part of real life AND I am telling other about my wish 'Please stay on-topic'
(or talk to s.o. else, in another thread).
Taking up your comparision with 'real life', e.g. on a party,
I would politely move away with a sweet lie 'that I have to greet s.o. else, talk to you later' or so
and could avoid shouting out 'boooring' or 'nonsense' or 'crazy, do you have a life?' or going through pains of faking interest.

ketchup wrote: If someone or something offends you, you should report the person(s)/ thread.

It would take first a deep personal relationship before I could feel offended. This is not the case here.
It is more like a request for dimming the voices so that everyone can hear something sensible.

ketchup wrote: Couldn't you just ignore the irrelevant posts anyways? It's pretty easy when people start quoting each other to figure out who is not speaking about the things YOU are interested in.

Until now, I only know the IGNORE button. I have used it (as many others) for an annoying poster called inigo-weiqi,
who was always talking nonsense, despite denying trolling.

While Robert denies trolling too, he is far from comparable with inigo-weiqi.
Robert often writes something useful, just that I am not interested in it
and especially not in a forum started by s.o. else for a DIFFERENT purpose.

It would be too tough a method, to ignore ALL of what Robert writes.
I just want (all of us) to write at an appropriate place.
If you know a tool (beside Bill Spight's suggestion) already present on Lifein19x19, then please inform me.

Simply put, because there is always a chance the OP will think my contributions are off topic (or use that as an excuse to "moderate," as you euphemistically put it, my post), I will not bother contributing. And even if I did, my posts would likely be devoid of any anecdotes or humor.

Tommie wrote:Moderation [...] Censorship [...] highjacked [...]
RESPECT

I disagree with your definitions / usage of these words and your drawn implications but currently do not want to spend time on them.

Robert often writes something useful, just that I am not interested in it
and especially not in a forum started by s.o. else for a DIFFERENT purpose.

The same I could say about you but the implication I draw is different: Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules.

I just want (all of us) to write at an appropriate place.
If you know a tool (beside Bill Spight's suggestion) already present on Lifein19x19, then please inform me.

Be a model for others. If it is convincing, others will follow you voluntarily.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Tommie wrote:Robert often writes something useful, just that I am not interested in it
and especially not in a forum started by s.o. else for a DIFFERENT purpose.

The same I could say about you but the implication I draw is different:
Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules.

Robert, we agree here by 100 % on our common concern (concern = Deutsch 'Anliegen':

Freedom of speech for everybody (incl. you) subject only to laws and forum rules.
and the implication I draw is different:

Robert, that is interesting, because our concern ('Anliegen') seems the same (Freedom of speech for everybody),
we should be able to find common grounds, despite that our positions still differ:
you want to allow everyone to utter everything everywhere,
while I prefer that the one starting the conversation may focus on-topic and allow others to continue their OT-talk elsewhere.

Be a model for others. If it is convincing, others will follow you voluntarily.

That is far from enough, as some are pushing boundaries.
Therefore I lobby for better rules. I assume that you like rules.

Freedom of speech includes the right of the writer to write where he wants. You want to eliminate that right.

I think any higher levels of post-moving would be a terrible idea. Currently the friendly neighbourhood mods will do it in extreme circumstances, and I think it should stay that way. Most off-topic contributions are interesting to somebody, and if you look at a couple of recently split threads you can see that various things suddenly lack context. To be honest, I would have preferred all the split threads to remain whole.

Allowing OPs to split threads would let some start vigilante actions (or at least lead to an annoying proliferation of contextless threads) and asking mods to be more proactive about it is also putting more pressure on our precious volunteers.

Stable wrote:I think any higher levels of post-moving would be a terrible idea. Currently the friendly neighbourhood mods will do it in extreme circumstances, and I think it should stay that way. Most off-topic contributions are interesting to somebody, and if you look at a couple of recently split threads you can see that various things suddenly lack context. To be honest, I would have preferred all the split threads to remain whole.

Allowing OPs to split threads would let some start vigilante actions (or at least lead to an annoying proliferation of contextless threads) and asking mods to be more proactive about it is also putting more pressure on our precious volunteers.

The point, as I see it, isn't that (OP post + separate contextless thread) is better than (Single derailed thread), it's that by (lightly) punishing the derailers and horse-floggers we might encourage them to think carefully about how to be productive and constructive when they post, and deter them from out-and-out unpleasant tangents.

Stable wrote:Allowing OPs to split threads would let some start vigilante actions (or at least lead to an annoying proliferation of contextless threads) and asking mods to be more proactive about it is also putting more pressure on our precious volunteers.

I can speak from experience here. You are right that "vigilante" actions could be taken by the OPs. The Participate software gives even greater moderator power to users who start their own threads than I am suggesting. As I recall, the moderator of a political thread had a subthread that he named Garbage, to which he would move notes that he thought belonged there. While such things caused some arguments and grumbling, they were accepted because everybody could start their own threads. Nobody's freedom of expression was squelched. It seems reasonable to me to let people who start a discussion keep it on track. It is not like they are preventing others from having their say.

Speaking of vigilante actions, I am unhappy that two people here whom I consider my friends are at outs and that one is harassing the other. I think that that is worse than any vigilantism implied by allowing OPS to move notes in their threads to Off Topic. But people do not always get along. <shrug>

The way I see it: The more unfriendly a forum gets, the fewer participants.
So which is the most friendly?

Thread creators own their threads and can moderate them however they see fit
or
People can post more or less off topic posts mostly anywhere and will only be moderated according to known rules of the forum?

Both ways are friendly in some ways and unfriendly in other, but the latter is easier to predict, i.e. "Will this post be moderated or not?"

There is a risk of losing members if this is implemented. Especially if the original request is followed, to increase moderation without adding some extra friendliness somewhere else.

/Mats