slappy
01-13-2007, 06:27 PM
I've been hanging around here for a brief period, but I've gotten one strong impression from both the current threads and some of the older ones that are still to be found on the first page of several forums: There's a strong interest, on the part of some posters and all mods (including Labrocca, the site's owner) in making DF the best quality politics forum possible as it continues to grow.
I assume that, to at least some extent, this interest is fueled by past experiences that various DF members and mods have had on various other politics forums that did not work so well. Perhaps these other forums were downright dysfunctional. I've had my own varied experiences on different forums, and so I thought it might be interesting to start a discussion of what works best and, perhaps, falls short of its intended effect, in an undertaking like this.
To be clear, I'm not starting this thread as a veiled critique of what Labrocca and the other mods have done at DF. On the contrary, I'm starting it specifically because my impression of these folks, so far, is that they remain very open-minded about and interested in the formula for a truly successful forum. If some of my views are at odds with what is done here, please take this in the spirit of discussion, rather than as me lobbying for changes to a forum I've only recently joined. I'm no newcomer to forums, and this is not my primary source for online discussion, so I'm quite content to see DF continue pretty much the track it's on right now, or whatever track Labrocca and/or the rest of you deem best. This is just a subject I've thought about for a while, and you seem like a reasonable bunch with whom to discuss it.
Before I offer my own thoughts, I'd like to propose one ground rule for the discussion: Let's do everything we can to keep the discussion completely hypothetical and/or abstract. I think that avoiding concrete references to this forum or other real forums will be of help in keeping the discussion from going off-road into the mire of personal squabbles and flames.
Now, what makes good forums good?
In my view, good discussion is mainly a function of posters (not moderators) who want good discussion. It can't really be legislated. It can only really be modeled and encouraged.
At best, you can lead discussion, by example, in the right direction. At worst, you minimize bad discussion by ignoring trolls and offering positive suggestions on good rhetoric to immature posters. When I say "you" here, I mean members of the community in general. It doesn't take mod powers to tell a new member that typing in caps or name-calling is doing nothing to sell his argument. It doesn't take mod powers to ignore those who ignore such advice.
The more rules you lay out and the more active your moderators are in enforcing them, the more potential bickering you invite over the behaviour of the mods and the need for more or different rules. The ignore feature really solves almost every problem with stubbornly poor behaviour. An obscenity filter will take care of most truly nasty language. The only thing you really need mods for is the rare occasion that a single poster becomes so destructive (spamming with multiple posts to a thread, etc.) that a quick deletion of his account is called for. When those things happen, no explanation or public inquiry is really needed. You don't need to do it very often because ignoring trolls and jackasses solves the vast majority of issues. The rare deletion will almost never be questioned, let alone sour the generally positive mood among the grownups.
To sum up, my sincere feeling is that, the more a forum focuses on poster behaviour, the more posters will be preoccupied with behaviour rather than debate. Encouraging an adult atmosphere will lead to more adult behaviour. Fewer threads will be devoted to rules and squabbles, and most trolls and other immature types will tend to get bored and wander off to greener pastures.
Now, there may be many other aspects of a good forum that I'm ignoring here. For instance, is it better to divide the discussion into as many sub-forums as possible or just a few? Is partisan debate to be encouraged or will it happen on its own and discourage non-partisan types from entering the fray? I just focused on this one issue because I see so much attention paid to it here, and it seems to be the biggest single obstacle to serious political discussion. Perhaps the thread will evolve to deal with other ideas about good forums as well.
As to my views on the behaviour issue, I'm quite sure that some of you have had experiences that I have not considered in laying my thoughts out here. But that's why I started the thread, so have at me. :)
I assume that, to at least some extent, this interest is fueled by past experiences that various DF members and mods have had on various other politics forums that did not work so well. Perhaps these other forums were downright dysfunctional. I've had my own varied experiences on different forums, and so I thought it might be interesting to start a discussion of what works best and, perhaps, falls short of its intended effect, in an undertaking like this.
To be clear, I'm not starting this thread as a veiled critique of what Labrocca and the other mods have done at DF. On the contrary, I'm starting it specifically because my impression of these folks, so far, is that they remain very open-minded about and interested in the formula for a truly successful forum. If some of my views are at odds with what is done here, please take this in the spirit of discussion, rather than as me lobbying for changes to a forum I've only recently joined. I'm no newcomer to forums, and this is not my primary source for online discussion, so I'm quite content to see DF continue pretty much the track it's on right now, or whatever track Labrocca and/or the rest of you deem best. This is just a subject I've thought about for a while, and you seem like a reasonable bunch with whom to discuss it.
Before I offer my own thoughts, I'd like to propose one ground rule for the discussion: Let's do everything we can to keep the discussion completely hypothetical and/or abstract. I think that avoiding concrete references to this forum or other real forums will be of help in keeping the discussion from going off-road into the mire of personal squabbles and flames.
Now, what makes good forums good?
In my view, good discussion is mainly a function of posters (not moderators) who want good discussion. It can't really be legislated. It can only really be modeled and encouraged.
At best, you can lead discussion, by example, in the right direction. At worst, you minimize bad discussion by ignoring trolls and offering positive suggestions on good rhetoric to immature posters. When I say "you" here, I mean members of the community in general. It doesn't take mod powers to tell a new member that typing in caps or name-calling is doing nothing to sell his argument. It doesn't take mod powers to ignore those who ignore such advice.
The more rules you lay out and the more active your moderators are in enforcing them, the more potential bickering you invite over the behaviour of the mods and the need for more or different rules. The ignore feature really solves almost every problem with stubbornly poor behaviour. An obscenity filter will take care of most truly nasty language. The only thing you really need mods for is the rare occasion that a single poster becomes so destructive (spamming with multiple posts to a thread, etc.) that a quick deletion of his account is called for. When those things happen, no explanation or public inquiry is really needed. You don't need to do it very often because ignoring trolls and jackasses solves the vast majority of issues. The rare deletion will almost never be questioned, let alone sour the generally positive mood among the grownups.
To sum up, my sincere feeling is that, the more a forum focuses on poster behaviour, the more posters will be preoccupied with behaviour rather than debate. Encouraging an adult atmosphere will lead to more adult behaviour. Fewer threads will be devoted to rules and squabbles, and most trolls and other immature types will tend to get bored and wander off to greener pastures.
Now, there may be many other aspects of a good forum that I'm ignoring here. For instance, is it better to divide the discussion into as many sub-forums as possible or just a few? Is partisan debate to be encouraged or will it happen on its own and discourage non-partisan types from entering the fray? I just focused on this one issue because I see so much attention paid to it here, and it seems to be the biggest single obstacle to serious political discussion. Perhaps the thread will evolve to deal with other ideas about good forums as well.
As to my views on the behaviour issue, I'm quite sure that some of you have had experiences that I have not considered in laying my thoughts out here. But that's why I started the thread, so have at me. :)