The Fate of the Buster - Looking for Input

[NorthSideSox72]

Busterites-

 

I will make this brief. This particular forum has become somewhat difficult to manage. There is a lot of snark going on, and people are pretty constantly toeing or going over the line in the stated rules (see pinned thread). The overall tone back here has been in decline for a few years, and there is discussion of whether or not SoxTalk should even have a political forum at all. And if we do, there has been talk about how best to manage it.

 

Here is what we are looking for: your input. Tell us what you like and don't like about the Filibuster specifically (there is a more general thread about the direction of SoxTalk in the PHT forum). This is NOT - repeat NOT - about any specific posters, so don't go there. We will quickly delete any such posts. What we want to know is...

 

1. Should there even BE a Filibuster? Should it be its own site?

 

2. If there should, are the rules as posted satisfactory? What would you add, remove or change from them?

 

3. How should enforcement be handled? We've been pretty hands-off recently... should we do more to corral certain types of posts?

 

4. Should there be any limitation on topics discussed? Anything we should simply not discuss at all?

 

5. How has SoxTalk performed with handling this forum? What can we do better? What do we already do well?

 

6. Are there any "soft" measures we could take to improve things? By soft, we mean not suspensions and bans and the like, but smaller measures.

 

Your input is important here, as we look to decide where to go with this forum. How people respond will have a strong bearing on the decisions made. So please discuss (and remember, NOT about individual posters).

 

We thank you for your support.

 

[StrangeSox]

Would it be possible to make the discussion open to the rest of the users?

[iamshack]

Since when has any political forum been able to not be snarky?

 

It's the nature of the subject matter.

[Balta1701]

Ok, I'll start this off.

 

I disagree with a significant chunk of the premise of this discussion. I think that when this area gets a worthwhile topic, it's the most active, interesting, and thought provoking area of the board. I pick up a whole lot of policy details googling to come up with responses to statements back here, and that fills out a very significant chunk of my brain...which I tend to call on every time someone else brings up politics over beer somewhere else.

 

Yes, we occasionally have problems...but among the regular posters, I don't think they're any worse than what we have in the other forums on this board, and i can note a half dozen other threads where people do things that would get lumped into that description, referring to snark & such, outside of this forum. And frankly, I don't think it's a big deal. People want to make snarky comments about Joe Cowley, fine, a snarky comment on tax policy is just fine for me too, as long as it's got some creativity to it.

 

I tend to give a lot of leeway when someone pushes buttons back here. I will often ask someone from the same political side to give the first warning when a person steps over the line, and that has annoyed other mods before, but I think it's useful.

 

The only problem I think we seriously run into too often is having someone come back here, lose it, and start spouting off insults, but that very rarely happens among the people who show up back here more than a few times. But that's where the "We've had a lot of problems in this forum" comes from, because of the occasional person who ignores that particular rule.

 

The one thing the post asks that I agree with...yes, some discussions have been brought up before, a lot. For example, I don't post the same stuff back here that I would have posted back here 5 years ago. I'm not going to post a new study showing something about medicare's cost effectiveness back here unless it really has something revolutionary, because we've been over that. Revolutionary things like "The stuff happening in the Earth's current climate", or a completely new issue cropping up, that's what I wind up coming back here to discuss and post.

 

But...that's not an issue with the existence of the forum, and that's not people getting annoyed with everyone else, that's people not wanting to repeat debates without new facts.

 

I think we do just fine in enforcing this area. I don't think there's more snark here or more annoyance here than anywhere else on the board. I think people ought to know the personal attack rule is the one we're going to enforce the hardest becaused that's the only thing that really no one wants to see, since it just begets more attacks.

 

Finally, I really would dislike being part of a group of admins that just declared some set of subjects off limits because they're controversial or a certain type of politics. I'd really hate to have to decide that it's ok to talk about Ozzie Guillen's love for Castro and the Sandusky case because they fit in other forums but not be able to discuss the Martin case because it's too political, when they're basically the exact same type of discussion.

[iamshack]

I will say, after spending a lot more time reading this stuff over the course of the past year or so, I do think things have improved over where they used to be.

 

That is probably due to the mods/admins doing a good job of enforcing rules and the posters getting a good sense of what those rules mean and how they are enforced.

[mr_genius]

The overall tone back here has been in decline for a few years

 

i think it has been improving the past few years.

 

[mr_genius]

SoxTalk should even have a political forum at all.

 

good question

[StrangeSox]

Would it be possible to make the discussion open to the rest of the users?

 

To clarify, I was referring to the discussion among admins (and mods?) that NSS is alluding to. Open moderation is always a better policy imo, and it's hard to know exactly what I'm supposed to be responding to if I don't really understand what concerns admins have.

 

I can't recall very many warnings or suspensions being handed out back here. I haven't seen posts that have been edited by mods for content aside from one very recent one, and I don't remember threads being locked or posts deleted. I guess I don't really know what the supposed problem back here is.

 

[kapkomet]

The biggesr reason of the decline of posts and why traffic has died down is because too many people talk down to everyone or everything who dares have a different opinion, and the holier-then-I-know-better-then-you gets really, really old.

 

Opinions are that way, I get that, but the pompous attitudes are a major factor of the level of posts going down. A main reason that this forum is "getting better" is people don't post anymore.

 

[StrangeSox]

How would moderation change that?

[kapkomet]

It's funny you say that. Moderation ... I don't think is the problem.

 

I think people are just genuinely sick of it. There's a lot of good posters that no longer post here, or on the board in general due in large part to the snarkfest that this has become.

 

I am not sure that this is the issue, do you?

 

[Balta1701]

It's funny you say that. Moderation ... I don't think is the problem.

 

I think people are just genuinely sick of it. There's a lot of good posters that no longer post here, or on the board in general due in large part to the snarkfest that this has become.

 

I am not sure that this is the issue, do you?

Again, I don't think this forum is the issue.

 

I think we've been complaining about how negative and snark filled PHT is since my first year here. And that's not because of this forum or because people disagree strongly about political issues.

 

And people are going to come and go from places like this. Message boards aren't the hot thing any more. Twitter is. So yes some people leave and get annoyed...but they're not leaving here because of the political forum, they're leaving because of the baseball talk quality. And the difference now is that since the hip new thing is some other application, you don't have people breaking down the door to get in.

[southsider2k5]

To clarify, I was referring to the discussion among admins (and mods?) that NSS is alluding to. Open moderation is always a better policy imo, and it's hard to know exactly what I'm supposed to be responding to if I don't really understand what concerns admins have.

 

I can't recall very many warnings or suspensions being handed out back here. I haven't seen posts that have been edited by mods for content aside from one very recent one, and I don't remember threads being locked or posts deleted. I guess I don't really know what the supposed problem back here is.

 

It isn't going to happen. We have found over the years that discussion of suspensions and warnings in pubic leads to much bigger and more personal problems down the road.

[iamshack]

Again, I don't think this forum is the issue.

 

I think we've been complaining about how negative and snark filled PHT is since my first year here. And that's not because of this forum or because people disagree strongly about political issues.

 

And people are going to come and go from places like this. Message boards aren't the hot thing any more. Twitter is. So yes some people leave and get annoyed...but they're not leaving here because of the political forum, they're leaving because of the baseball talk quality. And the difference now is that since the hip new thing is some other application, you don't have people breaking down the door to get in.

Hmmm...I don't think message boards were ever the hot or hip thing

[farmteam]

I do think Soxtalk needs a political subforum; the other options are to either altogether ban political talk of any kind (which seems likely unwise and certainly difficult) or to let it be part of SlaM...and then those threads would essentially be like the Buster anyway.

 

One improvement I would like to see if a Political Catch-All thread. Maybe having Republican/Democrat catch-all threads doesn't necessarily lead to more snarkiness/partisanship, but at least for me, I often find it difficult to post new material in those threads because I don't want it to be perceived as having a slant when I'm all really trying to do is say "Oh hey, here's this article some people [democrats, republicans, communists, whoever] might like."

[StrangeSox]

It isn't going to happen. We have found over the years that discussion of suspensions and warnings in pubic leads to much bigger and more personal problems down the road.

 

I didn't mean suspensions and warnings. I was referring to NSS's statement that this forum has become difficult to manage and the discussions about the fillibuster in general. I was pointing out that I personally haven't seen this forum being difficult to manage or moderate.

 

kap's post is not without merit, but I don't see how you can 'fix' that through rules and moderation.

[southsider2k5]

For my two cents, I hate this part of Soxtalk. It's hateful, it's spiteful, it's arrogant, and it is net detriment to the board. Anymore it is just a pissing contest for one side to show up the other. I don't see why that is a good thing. Way too many people have gotten banned and suspended, or just quit posting because of this one place. I don't understand the have to have of politics on a baseball board. It is one thing to have something come up in the course of baseball, it is quite another for posters to get banned for nothing to do with baseball.

 

Read the Martin thread and tell me what that brought to the page? Veiled racist insults, snide comments, name-calling, stereotyping, anger... Multiple people said they wouldn't post in the thread because of the stuff being said in there.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't mean suspensions and warnings. I was referring to NSS's statement that this forum has become difficult to manage and the discussions about the fillibuster in general. I was pointing out that I personally haven't seen this forum being difficult to manage or moderate.

 

kap's post is not without merit, but I don't see how you can 'fix' that through rules and moderation.

 

Without getting into to much detail, there was a discussion about some of the things that were said back and forth in the Martin thread, how and if they violated rules, and what should be done about it.

 

This forum has been historically miserable to moderate.

[StrangeSox]

Without getting into to much detail, there was a discussion about some of the things that were said back and forth in the Martin thread, how and if they violated rules, and what should be done about it.

 

This forum has been historically miserable to moderate.

 

How is anyone to know what the board policy actually is if these things aren't discussed in the open or at least explained to members afterwards?

[southsider2k5]

How is anyone to know what the board policy actually is if these things aren't discussed in the open or at least explained to members afterwards?

 

Technically the rules are posted very clearly at the top of the page, and everyone who posts in here has agreed to them. They are never followed by anyone (and I will be the first to admit, I am a part of that) so it makes deciding when to take action and what action to take much harder. No one wants to be the bad guy, and usually it just is ignored, and the insults and arguments roll on.

[southsider2k5]

And for example, if you knew I felt you should be suspended for X, and it did or didn't happen, what would your thought be after that?

[StrangeSox]

Technically the rules are posted very clearly at the top of the page, and everyone who posts in here has agreed to them. They are never followed by anyone (and I will be the first to admit, I am a part of that) so it makes deciding when to take action and what action to take much harder. No one wants to be the bad guy, and usually it just is ignored, and the insults and arguments roll on.

 

Rules-as-written and rules-as-enforced-or-interpreted are never the same thing.

[southsider2k5]

This would be the meat of how this forum is supposed to operate from the NSS post of July 2008 at the top of the READ AND AGREE thread

 

--Couching an insulting statement, i.e. "if you think/do X, you must be an idiot". This is the same thing as calling someone and idiot, and is not OK.

--Baiting or pushing people over the line, i.e. posting the same silly request repeatedly, as if they didn't hear you the first time.

--The use of ridiculous hyperbolic statements that are so far over the top, that no resonable response of discussion can follow them.

--Sarcasm as a way of insulting other posters, like saying "oh yes, because so-and-so knows everything, we must bow to his wisdom!!!!11!1!1!!"

--Making threatening or questionable statements about elected officials or others in the public eye, i.e. "someone needs to assasinate that SOB"

--Litter threads with every little news item on a specific subject that can be found - in this case, if you want a thread just to catalog the missteps of a specific candidate, then start a thread for that purpose.

--Alternately, if a topic is already being discussed in a thread, don't start new threads just to post new articles.

 

These are just examples, but, I'm sure you get the idea. Starting now, these sorts of posts will be deleted or moved as appropriate. If someone starts having repeated problems of this sort, then further action may be taken.

 

So, by adding a post to this thread acknowledging these guidelines, you are stating the following...

 

1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly

2. I will not threaten anyone, even in jest

3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons)

4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others

5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point

6. I will try to make posts that actually add to the discussion at hand

 

Please post your acknowledgements, and then enjoy posting in the Buster.

[kapkomet]

How is anyone to know what the board policy actually is if these things aren't discussed in the open or at least explained to members afterwards?

 

 

I think a lot of us try to let stuff roll. No one wants to come off as heavy handed or being biased to suspend someone because a person has an opposing viewpoint. That's why you don't see much conversation here about just what you're trying to ask about, if I understand you correctly.

[Balta1701]

My biggest issue with everything 2k5 just said is tht I think, for example, I can say every single thing e just said about any thread where Joe Cowley is the subject. Constant snide remarks, one upmanship, a pissig contest. Game threads too. The NBA thread too. And Hell, the pet thread too. But people only let it get under their skin back here.