context: This started out when Psion commented with surprise that a rather heated thread had actually managed to lead to productive discussion, with people finally starting to see each others' points. I responded with a snippy, backhanded-complement sort of comment to the effect that this [the thread in question] was a perfect example of why a lighter touch when moderating was a good thing--because many flamey threads are also productive threads. I was going to post this followup in the same thread, but it got further and further off-topic as i wrote it. And i've been meaning to start this discussion for some time now, ever since this thread got closed. So, i'll just start this discussion here. Maybe it's just me, and i'll have to live with it because it's what everyone else wants. But i figure i'll put forth my argument, and see if anybody is persuaded.
Might well be. Had to get it off my chest--and i did acknowledge that it was just a rant. It's just frustrating, doubly-so when, as in many such threads, there're a bunch of us conducting a perfectly civil conversation, ignoring the flamefest, and it gets locked. Me, i'd rather put up with having to ignore a bunch of posts in a thread i'm interested in, than not have the conversation. And i can't very well start a new thread in those situations--even if it's not explicitly forbidden around here (i'd have to re-read the rules), it's really poor form to circumvent moderation by simply restarting the discussion in a new thread. I respect the moderation and the moderators around here, i just don't agree with it.
Um, given that Psion just identified this thread as being one of them, which is what prompted my remark, i don't think i have much to prove. Of course, due to my little rant, it'll probably become heated again, with my luck. I guess, if you want to continue this argument, we should "take it outside" (i.e., start a new thread)?
But, around here, in general? Not so much--but then, if you close superheated threads, it's gonna be a little hard for a superheated thread to survive long enough to fix itself, no? So, not a lot of data to go on. Last one i was following got shut down just as it seemed like the hotheads were maybe gonna start communicating (instead of shouting past each other)--and, like many such threads, had some people communicating all along, underneath the noise. Do i know that such threads would eventually straighten themselves out, if left alone? Nope. Would a lot of them continue to be pointless flamewars? Yep. Is there any reason to shut down pointless flamewars? Nope--the participants obviously want them, and those who don't want them aren't required to read them. I understand moderating out blatantly offensive stuff (even if i don't always agree on what qualifies). I don't understand moderating out pointless non-productive flamefests.
But, on RPGNet, r.g.f.misc, and r.g.f.advocacy, i've seen many a very heated thread eventually turn around--and, sometimes, those produce the most interesting discussions. And it's not coincidence, there's a definite link: threads that involve people of radically different viewpoints often lead to nasty flamefests, as they simply fail to communicate initially, and it is precisely that same difference of viewpoint that can lead to real eye-opening, once everybody figures out where the communication breakdown is. You have to have the persistence to keep trying, and the patience to keep working at it--it can take dozens of messages, possibly across a couple of weeks, to break through. But, ultimately, i think it's more rewarding--i often come away (as i have from this thread) with a new understanding, rather than just talking to people that already mostly think like me.
that concludes the original post. Now on to further issues that are much more likely to be inflammatory.
A further issue is that it smacks of paternalism. This is probably just my issue, but it always feels a bit insulting when a thread is closed [for heatedness], because it feels like the moderators are saying "you're not mature enough or intelligent enough to resolve this disagreement on your own, or to have the good sense to walk away from it if you can't resolve it." And, IME, if you assume people have the maturity to police themselves, they will. If you assume they don't, they won't.
And i honestly think that it contributes to a climate of incestuous thought, because people eventually stick to discussing safe topics. Even if what they want to talk about won't get shut down, they don't know that, and there's the feeling that there's no point in trying. Specifically, it means that any ideas that are radically opposed to the majority opinion are likely to attract flames, so, while certainly not the intent of the moderators, it can too-easily lead to squelching radical ideas--and some radical ideas are good ideas that just happen to push someone's buttons. I also look at the output of RPGNet and r.g.f.advocacy for examples of this: i think that both tend to, over the long haul, produce more eye-opening threads--the sort that really open my eyes or shift my POV--as well as having a lot more flamewars along the way. And, in a fair number of cases, those were the same threads.
To be clear: i am not accusing moderators, past or present, of doing anything wrong, or of being unfair, or anything of the sort. Nor am i suggesting that they are idiots or sheep. I'm simply putting forth the idea that the well-considered moderation standards at EnWorld might, nonetheless, have unintended negative results, and a slight moderation (no pun intended) might improve discussion, at minimal cost.
Also, to elaborate on the consequences of letting flamefests either continue or burn themselves out: if a thread is being closed just for being a non-productive flamefest, what's the harm in leaving it open? Yes, flamewars are often pointless. That is, they have no value--positive or negative. And it's pretty easy for viewers to avoid them or stop reading them. Or they can try to turn them back into a civil discussion. Is it really better not to let anyone have the discussion, than to let them have a knock-down drag-out verbal fight? AT least with the flamewar they (1) might get it out of their system and (2) might at some point notice the other person's points. Moreover, someone who's not emotionally invested in the flamewar might be able to (1) learn something, (2) have a meaningful side discussion with one or more of the participants, or even (3) be the neutral party that bridges the gap (if it's a flamewar over something that can be bridged, which many of them are).
So, questions? counter-arguments?
Driddle said:
Might well be. Had to get it off my chest--and i did acknowledge that it was just a rant. It's just frustrating, doubly-so when, as in many such threads, there're a bunch of us conducting a perfectly civil conversation, ignoring the flamefest, and it gets locked. Me, i'd rather put up with having to ignore a bunch of posts in a thread i'm interested in, than not have the conversation. And i can't very well start a new thread in those situations--even if it's not explicitly forbidden around here (i'd have to re-read the rules), it's really poor form to circumvent moderation by simply restarting the discussion in a new thread. I respect the moderation and the moderators around here, i just don't agree with it.
Driddle said:
Um, given that Psion just identified this thread as being one of them, which is what prompted my remark, i don't think i have much to prove. Of course, due to my little rant, it'll probably become heated again, with my luck. I guess, if you want to continue this argument, we should "take it outside" (i.e., start a new thread)?
But, around here, in general? Not so much--but then, if you close superheated threads, it's gonna be a little hard for a superheated thread to survive long enough to fix itself, no? So, not a lot of data to go on. Last one i was following got shut down just as it seemed like the hotheads were maybe gonna start communicating (instead of shouting past each other)--and, like many such threads, had some people communicating all along, underneath the noise. Do i know that such threads would eventually straighten themselves out, if left alone? Nope. Would a lot of them continue to be pointless flamewars? Yep. Is there any reason to shut down pointless flamewars? Nope--the participants obviously want them, and those who don't want them aren't required to read them. I understand moderating out blatantly offensive stuff (even if i don't always agree on what qualifies). I don't understand moderating out pointless non-productive flamefests.
But, on RPGNet, r.g.f.misc, and r.g.f.advocacy, i've seen many a very heated thread eventually turn around--and, sometimes, those produce the most interesting discussions. And it's not coincidence, there's a definite link: threads that involve people of radically different viewpoints often lead to nasty flamefests, as they simply fail to communicate initially, and it is precisely that same difference of viewpoint that can lead to real eye-opening, once everybody figures out where the communication breakdown is. You have to have the persistence to keep trying, and the patience to keep working at it--it can take dozens of messages, possibly across a couple of weeks, to break through. But, ultimately, i think it's more rewarding--i often come away (as i have from this thread) with a new understanding, rather than just talking to people that already mostly think like me.
that concludes the original post. Now on to further issues that are much more likely to be inflammatory.
A further issue is that it smacks of paternalism. This is probably just my issue, but it always feels a bit insulting when a thread is closed [for heatedness], because it feels like the moderators are saying "you're not mature enough or intelligent enough to resolve this disagreement on your own, or to have the good sense to walk away from it if you can't resolve it." And, IME, if you assume people have the maturity to police themselves, they will. If you assume they don't, they won't.
And i honestly think that it contributes to a climate of incestuous thought, because people eventually stick to discussing safe topics. Even if what they want to talk about won't get shut down, they don't know that, and there's the feeling that there's no point in trying. Specifically, it means that any ideas that are radically opposed to the majority opinion are likely to attract flames, so, while certainly not the intent of the moderators, it can too-easily lead to squelching radical ideas--and some radical ideas are good ideas that just happen to push someone's buttons. I also look at the output of RPGNet and r.g.f.advocacy for examples of this: i think that both tend to, over the long haul, produce more eye-opening threads--the sort that really open my eyes or shift my POV--as well as having a lot more flamewars along the way. And, in a fair number of cases, those were the same threads.
To be clear: i am not accusing moderators, past or present, of doing anything wrong, or of being unfair, or anything of the sort. Nor am i suggesting that they are idiots or sheep. I'm simply putting forth the idea that the well-considered moderation standards at EnWorld might, nonetheless, have unintended negative results, and a slight moderation (no pun intended) might improve discussion, at minimal cost.
Also, to elaborate on the consequences of letting flamefests either continue or burn themselves out: if a thread is being closed just for being a non-productive flamefest, what's the harm in leaving it open? Yes, flamewars are often pointless. That is, they have no value--positive or negative. And it's pretty easy for viewers to avoid them or stop reading them. Or they can try to turn them back into a civil discussion. Is it really better not to let anyone have the discussion, than to let them have a knock-down drag-out verbal fight? AT least with the flamewar they (1) might get it out of their system and (2) might at some point notice the other person's points. Moreover, someone who's not emotionally invested in the flamewar might be able to (1) learn something, (2) have a meaningful side discussion with one or more of the participants, or even (3) be the neutral party that bridges the gap (if it's a flamewar over something that can be bridged, which many of them are).
So, questions? counter-arguments?
