Encouraging meaningful discussions in PRSI

[yaxomoxay]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

 

[velocityg4]

I like it. But it would run the poor moderators ragged. People wouldn't be able to adhere to such rules well. This format would work better on a site like debate.org. Where the purpose is supposed to be an intelligent and cogent debate. This is a site for talking about Apple products, troubleshooting, Q&A and so forth. Which for some reason has a politics section. Which has nothing to do about tech. Outside of something like FCC regulations, trade embargoes and such relating to tech.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I like it. But it would run the poor moderators ragged.

I would expect most of it to be automated somewhat. The meme portion might be the only one that requires some actual work. The off-topic rule is already in place, just not totally enforced.

 

[Weaselboy]

from the evil mods...

Hey now!! 🥰

 

[TiggrToo]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

As admirable as it is, I can’t see how much I any of this would be enforced without either changes to XenForo, or without significantly more moderator interaction with the sub forum.

 

[yaxomoxay]

As admirable as it is, I can’t see how much I any of this would be enforced without either changes to XenForo, or without significantly more moderator interaction with the sub forum.

I would expect changes to the software at least for the word count and the nicknames limitation (admittedly, I don't know if it is possible). I expect moderators to be more engaged at first, but I also would expect PRSI to drastically change its own style causing a trickle down/up effect.
[automerge]1594217077[/automerge]

I like it. But it would run the poor moderators ragged. People wouldn't be able to adhere to such rules well. This format would work better on a site like debate.org. Where the purpose is supposed to be an intelligent and cogent debate. This is a site for talking about Apple products, troubleshooting, Q&A and so forth. Which for some reason has a politics section. Which has nothing to do about tech. Outside of something like FCC regulations, trade embargoes and such relating to tech.

Just to clarify, I am talking specifically of the PRSI section, not the rest of the forum. As for why there's PRSI, there are other threads for that discussion, this isn't the one.

 

[TiggrToo]

I expect moderators to be more engaged at first

And therein may lie the other issue. If our illustrious leader @arn is right (and I’ve no reason myself to doubt him), right now PRSI isn’t the major headache others imagine it to be, what’s the real payoff?

1: Probable software development costs
2: Definition and appliance of new rules
3: Potential increased reluctance of mods to get involved with an ever increasing set of rules and exceptions (e.g. some people deliberately using #44’s full name in an attempt to highlight the non Anglo-Saxon nature of it)

And then there’s the other drawback. If PRSI is currently a feeder to MR then would that drop off?

Don’t get me wrong, I 100% support your ideal here. I’m just unsure if it’s actually worth the cost.

 

[yaxomoxay]

And therein may lie the other issue. If our illustrious leader @arn is right (and I’ve no reason myself to doubt him), right now PRSI isn’t the major headache others imagine it to be, what’s the real payoff?

1: Probable software development costs
2: Definition and appliance of new rules
3: Potential increased reluctance of mods to get involved with an ever increasing set of rules and exceptions (e.g. some people deliberately using #44’s full name in an attempt to highlight the non Anglo-Saxon nature of it)

And then there’s the other drawback. If PRSI is currently a feeder to MR then would that drop off?

Don’t get me wrong, I 100% support your ideal here. I’m just unsure if it’s actually worth the cost.

1) I am not sure about the costs - it's definitely a fair objection. I am not sure what is the opportunity cost of leaving PRSI as is (@arn mentioned that if kept as is it actually drives people away from MacRumors). As I mentioned, I am talking without any knowledge of how the software works and how complex it is to implement changes to it. What I am proposing might be impossible, or it might be just as easy as flipping a switch.
2) They will certainly need to be discussed and adjusted. However if you notice, I am not implementing anything drastic other than forcing a few stylistic changes that should change the overall behavior of most users.
3) I thought about it, but the bottom line is that Hussein is indeed Obama's middle name. There is no escaping from that - and personally I don't see anything wrong with the name. While we can't avoid someone from using the actual name of someone in a mild derogatory manner we can at least limit childish nicknames that don't bring anything to the conversation.

 

[TiggrToo]

I thought about it, but the bottom line is that Hussein is indeed Obama's middle name.

Totally, but consider these two situations:

1) Poster states “I proudly voted for President Barack Hussein Obama!”
2) Another poster states “The most pro Muslim president we had was Barack Hussein Obama!”

The second often uses it to emphasize the non Anglo-Saxon aspect of his heritage, which, TBH, is 100% irrelevant.

Now, should the second usage be moderated? Sure, they used his correct legal name, but for what purpose? Now one has to spend even more time ascertaining the reason for the usage. Trolling or factual?

That’s the first example that popped into my skull this very moment. I’m sure that there’s many many more.

What’s petty, and what’s rule breaking? The tighter and more restrictive the rules, often the more it takes to enforce.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Totally, but consider these two situations:

1) Poster states “I proudly voted for President Barack Hussein Obama!”
2) Another poster states “The most pro Muslim president we had was Barack Hussein Obama!”

The second often uses it to emphasize the non Anglo-Saxon aspect of his heritage, which, TBH, is 100% irrelevant.

Now, should the second usage be moderated? Sure, they used his correct legal name, but for what purpose? Now one has to spend even more time ascertaining the reason for the usage. Trolling or factual?

That’s the first example that popped into my skull this very moment. I’m sure that there’s many many more.

What’s petty, and what’s rule breaking? The tighter and more restrictive the rules, often the more it takes to enforce.

This is a bit off-topic as it's more about content than style. Let me be clear: none of my proposals aims at solving all the gray areas or even a majority of them. The idea is to reduce them, and to reduce low-quality posts, by forcing users to work in a certain manner (longer form, basic conversational norms).
We can argue all day long about your example, but what we can agree upon is that calling "Drumptfs", "Melanoma", "Killiary", "Osama" [in ref to Obama] is obvious childish name calling that doesn't serve any purpose. Once we eliminate the obvious things we might be able to tune the gray areas somehow.

 

[ericgtr12]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

I personally could not think of a better way to kill that forum, but if that's the goal then by all means. For anyone who supports free speech, this is certainly crossing the line. Imagine moderating this for each one of these rules, imagine those who want to nitpick each post and will be reporting.

Let's consider that most of the topics posted in this forum are actually politically based news. If one wants to post "this politician is accused of this or that" or "race relations are at an all time hight in such and such areas" to share the story by quoting it and citing the source with a blurb of text to get the discussion going, then it's enough.

Forcing people to write huge diatribes with a ton of granular rules is ridiculous. Just my .02

 

[yaxomoxay]

I personally could not think of a better way to kill that forum, but if that's the goal then by all means

Certainly not my goal.

For anyone who supports free speech, this is certainly crossing the line.

Why exactly? Honest question, I am not suggesting what can be said, but how it can be said. As far as I my proposal go, you can be an Illinois Nazi Party supporter or a member of AMBLA, and you can write it as long as it's within some format parameters.

Imagine moderating this for each one of these rules, imagine those who want to nitpick each post and will be reporting.

With the exception of the memes and the puerile name-calling, nothing of the above would be truly moderated. And even most of the name calling can be automated.

Let's consider that most of the topics posted in this forum are actually politically based news. If one wants to post "this politician is accused of this or that" or "race relations are at an all time hight in such and such areas" to share the story by quoting it and citing the source with a blurb of text to get the discussion going, then it's enough.

But this doesn't happen so often, and PRSI has a serious quality issue which leads to more and more people asking for its removal from MR.

Forcing people to write huge diatribes with a ton of granular rules is ridiculous.

They wouldn't be long diatribes in my opinion. However, it would greatly reduce the # of posts.

Just my .02

I truly appreciate it!

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

Some good suggestions there I say. I look forward to taking part in a year or two lol.

BTW just to answer a question from the other thread. @arn : I had remembered my claim slightly incorrectly and am not a liar like one of the possible suggestions stated. I made a mistake with the wording and hold my hands up. The post did exist though. Cheers

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

Excellent post, @yaxomoxay, and thank you very much for taking the time to think about and post about this.

Thank you also for your very kind words, they are very much appreciated.

Agree completely on the puerile name-calling, and nicknames and petty insults. They coarsen discussion, add little to a debate, indeed they even serve to substitute insult for any attempt at reasoned debate, and are extraordinarily childish and immature. Actually, I find it hard to take someone seriously, or, rather, I find it hard to take their arguments seriously, if they resort to such insulting nicknames in the course of their posts.

And I agree with your thoughts on the prohibition of memes; even when funny, - which most are not - but humour is personal and subjective, - the vast majority have simply served to deflect or derail a political thread.

That a first post in a thread in PRSI should set out what the OP would like to see discussed and explain why it may matter or be of interest, makes total sense to me.

That puts me pretty much in agreement with your points numbered 1, 3, and 7.

And yes, no 2 (that replies should also suggest a serious response), and no 6 (that an attention- grabbing, or outrageous title, or a form of click bait that bears some sort considerably exaggerated link - at best, - to the accompanying link in the post should be discouraged) also meet with my complete agreement.

Points 4 & 5 also make total sense.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Excellent post, @yaxomoxay, and thank you very much for taking the time to think about and post about this.

Thank you also for your very kind words, they are very much appreciated.

Agree completely on the puerile name-calling, and nicknames and petty insults. They coarsen discussion, add little to a debate, indeed they even serve to substitute insult for any attempt at reasoned debate, and are extraordinarily childish and immature. Actually, I find it hard to take someone seriously, or, rather, I find it hard to take their arguments seriously, if they resort to such insulting nicknames in the course of their posts.

And I agree with your thoughts on the prohibition of memes; even when funny, - which most are not - but humour is personal and subjective, - the vast majority have simply served to deflect or derail a political thread.

That a first post in a thread in PRSI should set out what the OP would like to see discussed and explain why it may matter or be of interest, makes total sense to me.

That puts me pretty much in agreement with your points numbered 1, 3, and 7.

And yes, no 2 (that replies should also suggest a serious response), and no 6 (that an attention- grabbing, or outrageous title, or a form of click bait that bears some sort considerably exaggerated link - at best, - to the accompanying link in the post should be discouraged) also meet with my complete agreement.

Points 4 & 5 also make total sense.

Thank you for your feedback, I am glad you're in agreement. I truly think that changing the style will change the quality to some extent.

(Funny thing for some reason I got tagged for insulting someone on this thread 😛 … no idea what and who, I guess I can't follow my own rules).

 

[JayMysterio]

Yesterday my friend @Scepticalscribe wrote a wonderful post on the "Macrumors and Racism" thread, and I thought about it for a long time, especially her conclusion that "thought may have to be given to the notion that rules that may have worked in the past, in the case of MR, in regulating debate in the forum may have to be revised somewhat, both in how they are defined and how they may be implemented and enforced."

First of all, I'd like to thank her for the kind, personal words. Dear friend, you're truly the soul of this forum; you always bring good points and food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reassure @arn that I am not bringing back the topic that was discussed in that thread that he wisely closed. I don't want to discuss content per se.

As I said, I gave thought to @Scepticalscribe's post and I asked myself the question: how can we make PRSI not only more meaningful, but an interesting section of the forum?

It is clear that the socio-political environment has changed, and that at the same time MR (and PRSI) audience is growing at a fast pace. I think that there is little that MR's staff, from the evil mods to @arn, can do to truly control content, especially those posts in the gray area that will always leave someone unhappy. However, they might be able to control a) the level of effort one has to put into a PRSI post b) the surface quality of a post c) eliminate or greatly reduce low-quality posts that truly don't add anything to a thread.

A few proposals - and their rationale - will follow. I am not sure if any of these are possible from a technical point of view (I trust that the mighty programmers might find ways to implement these). Independently on how feasible and reasonable these proposals are, I hope that they will at least spawn a discussion on how to make PRSI more meaningful and interesting (again, this is NOT about which ideas should be allowed or moderation per se). I will also throw some #'s, which of course can be modified depending on how reasonable/unreasonable they are in your opinion.

1. First post on a PRSI thread must be at least 300-500 words. This is to prevent posts such as "X sucks, their party sucks, look at this [link]" type of thread which ends up in a "your side sucks" "no yours" perverted mechanism of conversation. It also forces the user to put some effort on why the topic presented is interesting. While the post might not be of the best quality, users that tend to throw a stone and lave will certainly need to either do some work or don't post at all.
2. Replies must be at least 150-300 words (excluding quoting section if possible). Same as above, this will greatly reduce snarky comments, personal attacks, meme-only posts, and it will cause users to put basic effort in their replies. This should lead to better exposition of one's thought
3. Memes should be completely banned from PRSI threads. Although I find many memes hilarious, I think that a discussion on serious topics proceeding with a meme is a turn off. I might write a 5,000 words philosophical post on Locke, and a reply with a meme might completely derail it (especially if the meme is offensive or somewhat controversial). I might be in favor of having one thread - and one thread only - specific for memes, similar to the "Coronavirus humor" thread in the Community Section. Of course, offensive memes should not be allowed.
4. The above don't apply for MR's news articles in PRSI if possible. The reasoning is that since they appear on the first page, many non-PRSI users want to discuss on the Apple related portion of the discussion rather than the political discussion.
5. There should be ZERO tolerance for off-topic remarks. This does not mean that off-topic = ban or even a strike.
6. A thread that links an article and discusses the article on its first post must have the same title of the article. No: "Look at these racists/thugs/criminals/whatever" with a link to a The Hill article with a mild title.
7. I am also for banning nicknames of the individuals in discussion unless they are accepted nicknames by the individuals themselves. I think it's not nice to write a serious post just to see a reply with "Drumpft, Killiary, Osama, Melanoma etc." which is insulting to those who want a civil discussion; however a nickname such as Dubya or 44, 45, Madam Secretary, would be acceptable for obvious reasons. If we talk about a person it should be either through their actual name, or their title (or at least a former title, such as Vice President Biden).

As I said, the above might be crazy suggestions and they might not even be possible. However, I think that by forcing the user to do some basic work we might be able to increase the overall quality of MR's post. This should also lead to a reduction of overall threads and posts, making moderation easier.

[For the record, the above is 862 words]

Okay, problem.

I just adopted a new shortened 3 line format for PRSI, because SOME thought my posts were too long.

Wha da f- ?! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[yaxomoxay]

Okay, problem.

I just adopted a new shortened 3 line format for PRSI, because SOME thought my posts were too long.

Wha da f- ?! 🤣🤣🤣

that’s their problem, right ???
I expect - and desire - long essays from you.

 

[AngerDanger]

Okay, problem.

I just adopted a new shortened 3 line format for PRSI, because SOME thought my posts were too long.

Wha da f- ?! 🤣🤣🤣

I wouldn't worry too much about it: they won't be able to survive in @yaxomoxay's New World the PRSI once the suggested changes are made.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I wouldn't worry too much about it: they won't be able to survive in @yaxomoxay's New World the PRSI once the suggested changes are made.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that PRSI posts should be in Latin or Classical Greek yet. You know, to make sure that they are truly universal and timeless.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I could get behind some of these. Very frustrating when I make an effort-post and it's met with memes and "lol" and other such numbskullery.

 

[TonyC28]

Oh man that word count requirement. I can’t think of anything more maddening than someone using more words than necessary. I stopped reading certain posters because their posts were insanely long. I used to have some fun on PRSI but I’m banned now. I’ll admit I’m biased, but if you ask me PRSI needs FEWER rules. It’s the Internet. People argue and get snarky. Moderate threats and the basics but tone it down. If the mods truly believe they are going to get a group of strangers together on the Internet to argue about politics and nobody’s feelings are gonna get bruised once in a while then I have to conclude the true goal is to get a group of like-minded people together to pat each other on the back over a political topic.

 

[ericgtr12]

Oh man that word count requirement. I can’t think of anything more maddening than someone using more words than necessary. I stopped reading certain posters because their posts were insanely long. I used to have some fun on PRSI but I’m banned now. I’ll admit I’m biased, but if you ask me PRSI needs FEWER rules. It’s the Internet. People argue and get snarky. Moderate threats and the basics but tone it down. If the mods truly believe they are going to get a group of strangers together on the Internet to argue about politics and nobody’s feelings are gonna get bruised once in a while then I have to conclude the true goal is to get a group of like-minded people together to pat each other on the back over a political topic.

Couldn't agree more with this. First, could you imagine getting reported for being under the word count, "they only posted 250 words instead of 300" and then getting an infraction? People will respond with as many or as few words as they like, and they should have that right as I have a right not to read some boring reply due to mandatory word filler requirements. Ridiculous.

As for letting people argue, IMO they should allow it more and if it gets really out hand then jump in and get it back on track but there needs to be some back and forth allowed. Instead of going through all of the reporting, he said she said BS, as a moderator just jump in every now and then and tell them both to calm down or you'll close the thread. This method works surprisingly well but I've never once seen it here, instead they apply a rigid set of (often arbitrary or vague) rules to penalize you.

Unfortunately, they create a culture of reporting people when you strongly disagree, instead of just letting it fizzle out. I obviously enjoy that forum a lot but still cannot understand why they continue to have it when most of the staff can't stand it, they often make snide remarks about people wanting to talk politics on a tech site, etc. yet they have a political forum on a tech site. They must see the irony.

 

[I7guy]

.....
As for letting people argue, IMO they should allow it more and if it gets really out hand then jump in and get it back on track but there needs to be some back and forth allowed.

I don't see mods not letting people debate civilly, even passionately. When the debate spills over into insults, trolling and what have you, is what the issue is.

Unfortunately, they create a culture of reporting people when you strongly disagree, instead of just letting it fizzle out. I obviously enjoy that forum a lot but still cannot understand why they continue to have it when most of the staff can't stand it, they often make snide remarks about people wanting to talk politics on a tech site, etc. yet they have a political forum on a tech site. They must see the irony.

The moderators and administrators have said repeatedly that they are neutral in terms of content moderated. But yet people still don't believe it. From what I see, posts don't get moderated on a disagreement in a civil conversation. They get moderated due to trolling, insults and the like.

As far as the comment about "most of the staff can't stand it", did you ever do a job where you were 100% satisified with 100% of the time. I haven't, there are parts of my day that I find less than favorable. Doesn't mean I'll quit my job.

 

[TonyC28]

Couldn't agree more with this. First, could you imagine getting reported for being under the word count, "they only posted 250 words instead of 300" and then getting an infraction? People will respond with as many or as few words as they like, and they should have that right as I have a right not to read some boring reply due to mandatory word filler requirements. Ridiculous.

As for letting people argue, IMO they should allow it more and if it gets really out hand then jump in and get it back on track but there needs to be some back and forth allowed. Instead of going through all of the reporting, he said she said BS, as a moderator just jump in every now and then and tell them both to calm down or you'll close the thread. This method works surprisingly well but I've never once seen it here, instead they apply a rigid set of (often arbitrary or vague) rules to penalize you.

Unfortunately, they create a culture of reporting people when you strongly disagree, instead of just letting it fizzle out. I obviously enjoy that forum a lot but still cannot understand why they continue to have it when most of the staff can't stand it, they often make snide remarks about people wanting to talk politics on a tech site, etc. yet they have a political forum on a tech site. They must see the irony.

I have my own theories about the rules but I’ll keep them to myself. As far as the way the rules are written, I think they are a little unrealistic.
[automerge]1594743839[/automerge]

I don't see mods not letting people debate civilly, even passionately. When the debate spills over into insults, trolling and what have you, is what the issue is.


The moderators and administrators have said repeatedly that they are neutral in terms of content moderated. But yet people still don't believe it. From what I see, posts don't get moderated on a disagreement in a civil conversation. They get moderated due to trolling, insults and the like.

As far as the comment about "most of the staff can't stand it", did you ever do a job where you were 100% satisified with 100% of the time. I haven't, there are parts of my day that I find less than favorable. Doesn't mean I'll quit my job.

I think part of the problem is how “civilly” and “insult” are defined and then applied. Also, it’s against rules to call someone a troll, but it’s against the rules to troll.

 

[TPadden]

Meaningful, like beautiful, is in the eye of the beholder. PRSI is merely entertainment, occasionally enlightened entertainment, civility should be the limit of moderation.