A recent exchange between @jamal and me. Apparently we are entering a new and less open forum. That openness is what makes this forum better and more successful than all the rest.
This is a low quality post TC—it ignores Banno’s objection entirely—and hostile too. Please don’t submit posts like this. As you can see I’m trying to be more strict here.
And it wasn’t low quality and it didn’t ignore Banno’s comment. It made a serious point—the definition of art is personal and just because he didn’t like it doesn’t mean the definition is not valid.
It isn’t a sign of the forum becoming less open. If anything it’s the opposite. Discourse encourages accountability: flags require reasons, moderation actions are logged, and when action is taken it’s usually visible in context rather than hidden behind the scenes.
On the old platform, moderation actions were opaque: flags didn’t require reasons, users couldn’t see what prompted them, and moderators couldn’t explain decisions in context until after the fact. (On top of that, the change log in admin was pitiful: non-searchable and lacking all context and reasons)
One reason we’ve moved to Discourse is precisely because it supports clear, accountable moderation: posts can be addressed directly, reasons can be given openly, and discussions about moderation can happen in the open rather than behind the scenes.
The aim is to keep discussions thoughtful, which sometimes means pointing out when a reply doesn’t engage with the point at issue.
I’ll note that in this case I was acting on a flag (report) that came in, so it wasn’t just about me rooting out things I don’t like, unilaterally.
While I am grateful for @Jamal not going around slamming down the ban hammer on everyone like a lot of online moderators tend to do, this is a worthy topic to discuss.
What constitutes a low quality post? Would it be just a one-liner? I don’t find @T_Clark’s post to be of low quality; it states a point, bluntly and as short as possible.
There are many other posts I can find that are much lower quality than what T_Clark said. I think saying “Please don’t submit posts like this” is discouraging and doesn’t promote a free and open conversation.
Instead, I think we shouldn’t be reporting short and blunt posts like these and rather asking the OP to expand on their point. There are much better ways to go about this than saying, This is a low quality post; don’t submit this.
Did you go to the topic and read the context? It’s clear to me that the post was dismissive in that context. Such was my judgement at the time, at least.
Anyway, it’s important to emphasize that I didn’t delete the post, and appealed to @T_Clark directly not to post in a way that I believe corrodes discussion.
EDIT: And I think it’s obviously hard to justify such posts with respect to the new guidelines. For example, this part:
Help us make this a great place for discussion by always adding something positive to the discussion, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.
I did read the topic, and rereading it now I do think it was dismissive. But I still think @T_Clark has a point, and I don’t believe his comment was hostile or ignored Banno’s objection.
While it wasn’t the best way to convey his point, I do think it should have been expanded on, like he did in his messages to you:
It made a serious point—the definition of art is personal and just because he didn’t like it doesn’t mean the definition is not valid.
Again, I do give you credit, @Jamal in the way you moderate; not deleting the post was the right move. But I don’t think we should be analyzing every post and calling things low quality when it does in fact add to the conversation.
Thanks, I appreciate the reasonable way you’ve put that.
With my admin hat on I’m not going to object to the point that definitions of art can be personal; I guess that can be reasonably argued for. My issue was with the actual reply in the thread, which in context dismissed the objection rather than engaging with it. In other words, it didn’t reasonably argue the point at all. If it had, then others would have been able to respond and the discussion could have grown. As it was, it tended to shut things down.
I don’t want to be a micromanager, but I do mean to make a point of beginning as I mean to go on, trying to encourage members to improve conversations. That sometimes means nudging people.
What happens if someone puts forward something that clearly do have a counter argument that shuts things down because it simply is a factual response that disproves someone’s post?
There’s been numerous times of people being actually wrong, proven by facts and an answer with those facts, even if that fact is a pure logic, is needed in order for a discussion not to spiral into nonsense.
Is it just a matter of tone, or engagement in how the argument is written, even if the conclusion is a fundamental shutdown of someone’s statement because it’s clearly wrong?
I’m not talking about this specific case, but in general of what would happen if there’s nothing much else to say than “you’re wrong–because of this logic”?
Well, I don’t think your question is clear enough. Is it about facts, or is it about logic?
Anyway, if you’re asking if it’s ok to say No, that’s not true, and nothing else, when someone says something you think is false, well, I guess it depends on context, but not really—usually you’d be better off writing a longer post or else ignoring it completely.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t intend to be dismissive of Banno’s point and I don’t think I was. My tone was dismissive because 1) I thought Banno’s response was low quality and dismissive and 2) You might not have noticed, but he and I have a history. I hope you will address his posts in the same manner you did mine.
Such interpersonal dynamics often seem crucial to how a discussion unfolds and who gets to (continue to) participate.
I’ve left many discussions, and the forum itself for extended periods of time, because there are some posters who can be mean to me, who can attack me personally, but that’s apparently okay. If, however, I returned in kind, I was the one who got accused of a “personal attack” and told to go elsewhere, my posts deleted.
At the old forum, there was/is clearly an Old Boys Club: special posters who can get away with things ordinary posters can’t.
I’m curious to see if a forum can function without such inequality and what that will look like.
The same is expected here of everyone, namely a focus on arguments, avoiding personal remarks, and assuming good faith if possible. When discussion gets unpleasant, flag the relevant posts or contact staff and we’ll try to sort things out.
There is more of a focus here on preventing discussions from descending into acrimonious disputes, as laid out in the new guidelines.
I hope you find that this platform reset helps discussions stay constructive.
For my part, I agree with @Jamal; Clarky didn’t address the point made.
Further, my original reply undermines the vast bulk of the replies in that thread, which naively and uncritically present definitions despite the absurdity of doing so. It’s a very poor thread. Hence I hadn’t bothered continuing my involvement.
Given the way the previous forum was moderated, this seems both extremely unlikely, or a clear sign that we’re running into the exact same biases we saw at at the old one.
I guess time will tell. FWIW, I fully agree with OP. You can roughly tell how this is going to go/has gone because Banno’s post above mine is exactly what Jamal claims would violate some standard. Sweeping, derogatory statements about other’s posts or themselves are ridiculous and, prior to dismissing bad criticism, should be on the top of hte moderators agenda. That’s the exact low quality that messes up discussions in service of some form of arrogance.
We are all, I hope, trying to make the new forum a good place to be, so let’s keep feedback specific and constructive.
As we get things up and running, I’d like us to try not to import expectations or grievances from the old site. That applies to staff as well as everyone else; none of us succeeds at this perfectly all the time.
Well, this is the Feedback category and we’ll probably follow the tradition of moderating discussions here only lightly, even the dismissive criticism of other people’s discussions. But please avoid criticism directed at people.
As always, if there’s a specific issue, flag it and we’ll take a look.
I read in the guidelines that the mods/admin can change the posts without notification to the posters. I wonder if there could be a mark left on the audited post. Meaning, if a mod changed the wording or a whole sentence in a post, that the text by the mod could be displayed in a different color. Similar to using a software where manually typed entries are displayed as a different color.
That way, the posters know what was audited.
T_Clark
