Rpsc Rip?
- Thread starter Guden Oden
- Start date
I think opening it up for complete unfettered access will be a disaster. Return of sock puppets and one-offs? No thanks.
If you keep some minimal 'requirements' to participate (i.e. post count, or age, or whatnot), then leave it unmoderated, I think we'll do alright without futher moderation.
Well I never really recall seeing the problems that you're talking about, but your posting regularity is much greater than mine so I'll have to take your word that it was an issue. However I still don't agree with the concept, for reasons I've already bored everyone with.Russ said:
On a slightly different note, I still think it's a good idea to make the forum invisible for those members not logged in though.
Well, we already moved it from "Members" (100 core posts) to "Junior Members" (10 core posts) to get in there. We really aren't interested in censoring politics in the sense of picking a side on the questions of the day, tho I suspect there is no lack of folks who think otherwise.
Probably there is some level of outrageousness we will not tolerate if called with a 'Report Bad Post' button. I saw upstream somebody say that level never happens in there, but I'm sorry, I've seen it and seen it removed quickly --perhaps that's why the member does not recall it. I remember one thread that featured in the OP a picture of a hangman's noose, with the statement that's what he'd like to do with 1 million gays.
That thread was deleted quickly, and the member permabanned, if I recall correctly.
So advocacy of genocide is right out, even under a (relatively) "unmoderated" model. And we have certain legal responsibilities and professional courtesy responsibilities to the industry of which we are a proud member, I suspect, that we probably can not cede under any circumstances. We couldn't let a forum become a warez haven, for instance, just because we weren't being called by the natives to come do something about it. :smile:
Probably there is some level of outrageousness we will not tolerate if called with a 'Report Bad Post' button. I saw upstream somebody say that level never happens in there, but I'm sorry, I've seen it and seen it removed quickly --perhaps that's why the member does not recall it. I remember one thread that featured in the OP a picture of a hangman's noose, with the statement that's what he'd like to do with 1 million gays.
That thread was deleted quickly, and the member permabanned, if I recall correctly.
So advocacy of genocide is right out, even under a (relatively) "unmoderated" model. And we have certain legal responsibilities and professional courtesy responsibilities to the industry of which we are a proud member, I suspect, that we probably can not cede under any circumstances. We couldn't let a forum become a warez haven, for instance, just because we weren't being called by the natives to come do something about it. :smile:
I agree. Leave it unmoderated but have people require a certain number of posts and/or reputation before they are allowed to post there (or perhaps even 'see' the forum). Perhaps also move it to it's own section so it's not a sub-forum of general (so posts don't display in 'General' when browsing forums).
Yep, I wholehartedly agree with that.geo said:
I also agree, with the no "official" moderation idea too.
At best, it would be backseat moderation only.
RPSC members calling for calm or moderation, from all parties involved, on their own, when things get too "hot".
With us, moderators, intervening only in extreme cases, such as folks posting inappropriate pictures, Warez talk or blatant call for genocides.
That said, I don't think that a visible to all non moderated Forum would be a great idea.
Maybe by making it invisible to visitors, registreted users, it might work...
Agree that there are some things that can't be left alone.
I guess if there has to be some form of moderation then the only way to do it is to make it democratic. So institute both the license 'agreement' and Natoma's committee suggestion above. I would suggest that the RPSC mods are called 'prefects' or some such and they only have privileges within RPSC. They also agree that explanation for moderation will be provided.
I guess if there has to be some form of moderation then the only way to do it is to make it democratic. So institute both the license 'agreement' and Natoma's committee suggestion above. I would suggest that the RPSC mods are called 'prefects' or some such and they only have privileges within RPSC. They also agree that explanation for moderation will be provided.
You can't have "democratic moderation", it doesn't work...trust me. Been there, tried it. It's kind of like wrestling cats, but not as much fun.
My suggestion would be to leave it unmoderated, (or rather backhand moderated where y'all just zap inapropriate things without comment like the old days), and let the members deal with it. If there is a problem or problem offenders there are plenty of ways for the peeps who hang out there to let the mods know without being a pain-in-the-ass and then just make it invisible to the rest of the forums unless you specifically request to have it visible aka Rage3D style and you have to hit the consent button thingy that lets you know what you're getting into before you can see it/post there.
Also keep the junior member minimum in place, that will keep the sock puppets out.
I've rarely been as offended and put-out feeling as I have by the comments I've seen in this thread, there is a lot of really deeply hurtful shit here.
EDITED BITS: Oh, and for any complaints to mods/reported posts/e-mails/pms I'd have a stock "The RPSC forum is not moderated and is not officially part of Beyond3D. You can not complain to management about it as we don't care, if you are offended by it or insulted by it we highly suggest you not go there" answer and if they complain a second time give 'em a 3 day vacation to make sure they understand you're serious.
My suggestion would be to leave it unmoderated, (or rather backhand moderated where y'all just zap inapropriate things without comment like the old days), and let the members deal with it. If there is a problem or problem offenders there are plenty of ways for the peeps who hang out there to let the mods know without being a pain-in-the-ass and then just make it invisible to the rest of the forums unless you specifically request to have it visible aka Rage3D style and you have to hit the consent button thingy that lets you know what you're getting into before you can see it/post there.
Also keep the junior member minimum in place, that will keep the sock puppets out.
I've rarely been as offended and put-out feeling as I have by the comments I've seen in this thread, there is a lot of really deeply hurtful shit here.
EDITED BITS: Oh, and for any complaints to mods/reported posts/e-mails/pms I'd have a stock "The RPSC forum is not moderated and is not officially part of Beyond3D. You can not complain to management about it as we don't care, if you are offended by it or insulted by it we highly suggest you not go there" answer and if they complain a second time give 'em a 3 day vacation to make sure they understand you're serious.
I don't agree with the idea that standards of age, post count, and such would solve the problem. Best I can tell, such ridged moderation by what are effectively arbitrary rules is exactly what has caused the recent influx of trouble in the forum. I understand that strict literal adherence to our rules has been done with good intentions of avoiding biased moderation; but in doing so we have left the forum open to flagrant and sometimes systematic belligerence. Quite frankly we have been focused on upholding the letter of the law with blatant disregard for the spirit of its intent.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you have a good point there. If you start moderating/trying to control it where do you draw the line on stopping? Seems like the headaches are created by that very effort.
I still think they do need a disclaimer/agreement to disassociate themselves of the responsibility over it compared to the rest of the site, and I also like the minimum requirements to see it/post there to keep out the sock puppets and the trolls.
But after that, just delete spam and things that are too offensive...don't try and baby-sit it. If it can't baby-sit itself then it isn't the place I thought it was.
I frankly don't see the need for moderation. I've been on the internet since mid 80s, and in that time, the most vibrant and informative mailing lists and groups I've been in have been unmoderated. Moderation usually kills most groups.
IMHO, moderation is only appropriate for
a) age restricted newsgroups (e.g. forums frequented by children)
b) illegal stuff gets posted
c) bots posting spam
d) niche oriented mailing lists/forums where offtopic noise is unwarranted
But RPSC is not a niche group, it is a catch all for all non-tech subjects of political or social interest. IMHO, moderation there is unwarranted.
Why does B3D think non-moderation will spoil their rep? I mean, get real, 99% of the internet is unmoderated. You ever seen the talkback at the New York Times forums? Yahoo? Slate? Most blogs!?USENET? We're talking REAL nastinness. We're talking libel, slander, stalking behavior, really vicious personal character assassination.
The RPSC trash talk is Rated-G by comparison. IMHO, the new management of B3D doesn't "get" the internet, and frankly, with the RPSC gone, and no real GPU news, I think I'm gone for atleast a few months until the G80/R600 come out, or RPSC is resurrected.
RPSC was the only thing bringing me back to B3D during this dead GPU news lull. We had a community of regulars, people I liked debating. Now that I can't do that, what's the draw?
IMHO, moderation is only appropriate for
a) age restricted newsgroups (e.g. forums frequented by children)
b) illegal stuff gets posted
c) bots posting spam
d) niche oriented mailing lists/forums where offtopic noise is unwarranted
But RPSC is not a niche group, it is a catch all for all non-tech subjects of political or social interest. IMHO, moderation there is unwarranted.
Why does B3D think non-moderation will spoil their rep? I mean, get real, 99% of the internet is unmoderated. You ever seen the talkback at the New York Times forums? Yahoo? Slate? Most blogs!?USENET? We're talking REAL nastinness. We're talking libel, slander, stalking behavior, really vicious personal character assassination.
The RPSC trash talk is Rated-G by comparison. IMHO, the new management of B3D doesn't "get" the internet, and frankly, with the RPSC gone, and no real GPU news, I think I'm gone for atleast a few months until the G80/R600 come out, or RPSC is resurrected.
RPSC was the only thing bringing me back to B3D during this dead GPU news lull. We had a community of regulars, people I liked debating. Now that I can't do that, what's the draw?
Well, if the mods got to the point where they shut down the forum, then maybe, just maybe, we need to consider it from their point of view. That's why I tried to come up with a compromise.
I don't know if the mods want to have the current system in place, and I'm pretty sure none of the forum posters want the opposite end of the spectrum.
We should come together in the middle somewhere, and it would be nice to see other suggestions to doing that other than "Leave it the way it is!!". If I were a mod I'd probably feel a little put off by that.
Just my two cents.
I don't know if the mods want to have the current system in place, and I'm pretty sure none of the forum posters want the opposite end of the spectrum.
We should come together in the middle somewhere, and it would be nice to see other suggestions to doing that other than "Leave it the way it is!!". If I were a mod I'd probably feel a little put off by that.
Just my two cents.
Most people who wander into a political site, at least understand they are wandering into a political site, and have some experience and pre-existing interest with that concept and what it might mean. Most people who wander into RPSC think they are at a graphics site. We actually encourage them to think that, in fact. That's the difference between us and say, Slate, on the "informed consent" issue.
That's what I find so puzzling. RPSC was utterly harmless compared to most places on the internet where people discuss matters of politics - and that's why I don't find the reasons that have been given to be neither convincing nor particularly credible.
Btw., after re-reading Vysez's posting, I find to even more impertinent than before.
I feel exactly the same way. Without RPSC I'll probably be gone for good.
Slate and the NYT are "respectable" publications and the degree of vitriol to be found in their comments sections is certainly not to be expected by the average user.
Furthermore, people who wander into a sub-forum named "Religion, Politics and Socio-Economic Climate" will probably expect to find postings on, um, religion, politics and the socio-economic climate there, no? And if the forum title isn't a dead giveaway then the thread titles will be. The fact is that everyone with half a brain knows that there are postings of political nature in a forum that is titled as such.
I'm getting the vibe here that some people got "offended" by some opinions that were voiced in RPSC and did the thing that seems to be all the rage nowadays: complain to the authorities. It's sad to see the "new management" cave in to this, especially since there is rarely anything to be found in RPSC that is totally off the chart and intolerable.
I'm seriously not buying that RPSC moderating has been such a "gigantic burden" - it would certainly help if the moderators were a bit more specific. Currently, I am simply assuming that shutting down RPSC has been a political decision (maybe to make the forums more mainstream by removing anything that might be disagreeable to some) and this is IMO corroborated by the fact that no public attempt has been made to fix whatever it was that supposedly went wrong.
I'm deeply disappointed. RPSC has been a fixture of my online activities for many years and seeing it shut down (and getting insulted by some mod in the process of it) is a hard pill to swallow.
Honestly, the conspirary theories aren't helping the situation at hand.
If we wanted to get rid of RPSC for any other reasons we'd say so. Why shouldn't we?
The situation is pretty simple, the RPSC and its internal conflicts were troublesome to the site staff during the last weeks.
Something related to RPSC happened today, this something was, like what I said earlier, the straw that broke the camel's back.
And, for those who are complaining about the bluntness of my tone.
Well, sorry if it sounds offensive to you, but understand that it's not meant to be read that way. I'm just being direct, like I often do, while giving you the lowdown on the situation. It's not meant to be a lecture, or a patronizing sermon, just a quick explanation on what's going on what the folks who cares about RPSC should do to try to get it back.
Really, it's not about agreeing, disagreeing, it's about trying to make things work.
If folks start arguing on a passive agressive tone about how illegitimate the decision of taking RPSC down is, or what obscure untold reasons motivated this decision, I'm not certain that would be of grand use if anyone's plan is to bring the RPSC, in some form, back.
If we wanted to get rid of RPSC for any other reasons we'd say so. Why shouldn't we?
The situation is pretty simple, the RPSC and its internal conflicts were troublesome to the site staff during the last weeks.
Something related to RPSC happened today, this something was, like what I said earlier, the straw that broke the camel's back.
And, for those who are complaining about the bluntness of my tone.
Well, sorry if it sounds offensive to you, but understand that it's not meant to be read that way. I'm just being direct, like I often do, while giving you the lowdown on the situation. It's not meant to be a lecture, or a patronizing sermon, just a quick explanation on what's going on what the folks who cares about RPSC should do to try to get it back.
Really, it's not about agreeing, disagreeing, it's about trying to make things work.
If folks start arguing on a passive agressive tone about how illegitimate the decision of taking RPSC down is, or what obscure untold reasons motivated this decision, I'm not certain that would be of grand use if anyone's plan is to bring the RPSC, in some form, back.
Why not bring this up to the RPSC forum before just eliminating it? We're too childishish for that? Or mayhaps we lack your delicate mannerisms when it comes to politeness and civility so you didn't consider we'd be interested or care?
