Created by MakotoKamui
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
What do you think should be done with political/intense topics with little context?
Dragon
69441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
So, we've got a rise of political (and in general other intense) topics here, and while that's not in itself a bad thing, it has also meant a rise in topics which are often flamebait, attacks, and so on. Being a mod, I'm curious how others feel when it comes to these things. I've gotten all of these responses in PMs with various folks:
A report on something, which the reporter has also done, but feels like what they reported was a problem while what they did was fine.

Folks saying this isn't the place for such things.

Folks looking for judgement calls on if the report is real, fake, rumor, false flag, or other.

Folks saying everyone should just get tougher skin in such threads.

And so on.

So, what do you think? One of the above? Some other solution?
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
Here are my thoughts:

Option 1: Create a Political Discussion Forum

Before this is entirely ruled out, I would first determine the overall results of this poll. I don't believe that "shutting them down" is going to yield any beneficial outcome for anyone. At the same time, I do (personally) agree that General Discussion isn't the best of locations for such heavy-handed political discussions. I would say if a Political Discussion forum is created that it would follow the mantra of "Abandon All Hope of Civility Ye Who Enter Here". By entering said forum, you're fully aware of the wide array of political discourse and multiple views on the same topics. The rules would only be the same as the overall forum rules, with the exception of no personal attacks (this is the main drive behind a lot of responses on General Discussion when politics are involved).

Option 2: We don't need no water let the ....

Just let it burn. People who engage in the threads should know full well what they're getting into regardless. It doesn't particularly matter which side of the political spectrum it's on, anyone who gets involved in those threads knows the temperament of the "repeat offenders" of such threads. I know that if I encounter DeadlyOaks or redokami or Octorockandroll that each of them has their own political views and method of responding to threads. I would hope that this applies to most users who continue to jump into political-driven threads.

Option 3: The Great Purge

You could out-right ban all political discussions from Crunchyroll forums. This would get whiplash from those who rely heavily on political conversations and overall activity on the forums would decrease. Some users would believe this is "unconstitutional" and that their right to free speech is being oppressed (or something along those lines) and would just overall boycott the forums and/or Crunchyroll altogether. Essentially, I would think this is a reasonable option only if a sub-forum for Political Discussion is completely off of the table as an option. Whichever side doesn't matter, just nuke every politically-driven theory or discussion as if it were the bubonic plague.

----------------------------------

Personally, I would opt for a forum specifically for politics or news discussion. Then, it would result in basically knowing full-well that you're going into that forum without much cause for reporting threads (unless they're extremely offensive and against the rules on CR forums anyways) and that would be the end of that.
34972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Vancouver, BC, Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

ninjitsuko wrote:


Option 1: Create a Political Discussion Forum

Personally, I would opt for a forum specifically for politics or news discussion. Then, it would result in basically knowing full-well that you're going into that forum without much cause for reporting threads (unless they're extremely offensive and against the rules on CR forums anyways) and that would be the end of that.



I concur with the above.
26457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
Honestly, instead of the baito desu people are fond of posting, maybe require a little input from the user that doesn't...

-Require you to watch a video or read an article you have zero info about because the author is too lazy to do anything other than "HEADLINES!"

-Isn't entirely based on the presumed headline

-A real story

-A paragraph setting the table for discussion, of the author's opinion and such, decently typed.

What do I think should be done? Warnings, bans, Iunno. I am tired of threads like....




And then the news article, and subsequently the thread, turns out to be major clickbait.

In obvious, perhaps chastise those with unfounded knee jerk reactions to an overblown political controversy that are one liners. If you actually care about the issue, you probably could write a decent paragraph at least. Perhaps spell out the rules more specifically to what constitutes in context.

I don't know.
Dragon
69441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

ninjitsuko wrote:

Here are my thoughts:

Option 1: Create a Political Discussion Forum

Before this is entirely ruled out, I would first determine the overall results of this poll. I don't believe that "shutting them down" is going to yield any beneficial outcome for anyone. At the same time, I do (personally) agree that General Discussion isn't the best of locations for such heavy-handed political discussions. I would say if a Political Discussion forum is created that it would follow the mantra of "Abandon All Hope of Civility Ye Who Enter Here". By entering said forum, you're fully aware of the wide array of political discourse and multiple views on the same topics. The rules would only be the same as the overall forum rules, with the exception of no personal attacks (this is the main drive behind a lot of responses on General Discussion when politics are involved).

Option 2: We don't need no water let the ....

Just let it burn. People who engage in the threads should know full well what they're getting into regardless. It doesn't particularly matter which side of the political spectrum it's on, anyone who gets involved in those threads knows the temperament of the "repeat offenders" of such threads. I know that if I encounter DeadlyOaks or redokami or Octorockandroll that each of them has their own political views and method of responding to threads. I would hope that this applies to most users who continue to jump into political-driven threads.

Option 3: The Great Purge

You could out-right ban all political discussions from Crunchyroll forums. This would get whiplash from those who rely heavily on political conversations and overall activity on the forums would decrease. Some users would believe this is "unconstitutional" and that their right to free speech is being oppressed (or something along those lines) and would just overall boycott the forums and/or Crunchyroll altogether. Essentially, I would think this is a reasonable option only if a sub-forum for Political Discussion is completely off of the table as an option. Whichever side doesn't matter, just nuke every politically-driven theory or discussion as if it were the bubonic plague.

----------------------------------

Personally, I would opt for a forum specifically for politics or news discussion. Then, it would result in basically knowing full-well that you're going into that forum without much cause for reporting threads (unless they're extremely offensive and against the rules on CR forums anyways) and that would be the end of that.


True, there have been calls for a separate forum/section for those kinds of topics - in a way, that hits the "enter at your own risk" and "let it burn" areas.. which is both good and bad. It's basically saying "well.. this is a rough and tumble area, so it's not really within the rules, but we'll allow it because it's in the octagon". It's also harkening back to the old Extended Discussion, which was removed.

But banning political speech doesn't seem like a good idea, either. I was mostly focusing on topics that rely on a single link and not much more to attack. That was the "worth talking about" middle ground - which is, of course, by far the hardest, both on mods and creators.

The extremely offensive side is likely the hardest, I'll admit. Each mod probably has their own idea of what is offensive, as does each reporter. I personally try to take into account what the reporter has posted themselves when looking at their report of someone else's offense, but that's my way of trying to take my views out of the result for the most part. I've had to leave posts I disagree with, remove posts I agree with, and ban folks across the spectrum, really. And that's just in the last couple of weeks.
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

MakotoKamui wrote:
True, there have been calls for a separate forum/section for those kinds of topics - in a way, that hits the "enter at your own risk" and "let it burn" areas.. which is both good and bad. It's basically saying "well.. this is a rough and tumble area, so it's not really within the rules, but we'll allow it because it's in the octagon". It's also harkening back to the old Extended Discussion, which was removed.

But banning political speech doesn't seem like a good idea, either. I was mostly focusing on topics that rely on a single link and not much more to attack. That was the "worth talking about" middle ground - which is, of course, by far the hardest, both on mods and creators.

The extremely offensive side is likely the hardest, I'll admit. Each mod probably has their own idea of what is offensive, as does each reporter. I personally try to take into account what the reporter has posted themselves when looking at their report of someone else's offense, but that's my way of trying to take my views out of the result for the most part. I've had to leave posts I disagree with, remove posts I agree with, and ban folks across the spectrum, really. And that's just in the last couple of weeks.


Of course, I agree that there's a compromise being made when you simply create a "rough and tumble" sub-forum for these kinds of conversations. I wasn't around for the "Extended Discussion" forum; which, of course, means that I'm lacking in the knowledge of the root cause to its closure. Even though such threads are kind of threading on the "outside edges of the rules" and that they can easily fall outside of the grey line and into the black, some of these discussions do have a "meaningful purpose" to either the users that are on the same political spectrum or interested in the views from those who share that political spectrum.

If you're focusing on the "single link" opening threads that leave little to discuss other than a particular news article or theory or reddit thread, I agree that these are the ones that create the most "controversy" within General Discussion. The reason for this is because it all stems from a personal perspective or bias without much room for conversation on an objective/rational level. Then again, we're speaking about politics - it's difficult for anyone to remain overtly objective in their rationalization when posting on such forums. It's one thing when there's a debate-like structure to the conversation, another when it's merely a slew of personal opinions being tossed out without additional sources/basis of insight. Doing away with all political discussions is a horrible idea just because it would cause too much drama from end-users. Not to sound pessimistic or insulting in saying that, just that people would start to take it as an attack against their free speech and another slew of complications would arise from it (unfortunately). So that premise should be at the bottom of the list in regards to "potential actions".

As someone who has modded large forums in the past, I agree that it's difficult to moderate forums when politics are involved. There's a need to separate person belief and views from the impact that the opposing views (of your own) are having on the thread in question. When I said extremely offensive, I meant threads that were direct attacks against demographics, races, genders, etc. But when trying to analyze the threads or posts reported, you do kind of have to take in account that some users will simply report because they disagree with a view (and such, find it as "offensive"). This is why I suggested a forum specifically aimed at the "edge of the rules" realm of discussion. It would require feedback from all sources, not just on political side, to determine what would constitute as "extremely/highly offensive" (ergo: another poll when/if this forum is created).

The issue I have would be that users are asking moderators to make a judgment call as to what's legitimate or not. For example, I personally disagree with most of the Pizzagate thread. At the same time, I wouldn't assume that the moderators should be responsible for determining whether or not it's a legitimate topic. Such long threads require someone to read through all of the responses and create a personal opinion on the subject; then to expect that same person to determine whether or not the claims are substanciated after the fact is expecting a lot out of an individual (yes, this is one of the "curses of being a moderator", just that it's an unrealistic expectation). It requires a sub-section of rules that determines who debates/discussions should be handled from a moderator and a user's perspectives.

It's a tricky situation and it will require a lot more input than my own. These are just my thoughts so far.
Dragon
69441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Honestly, instead of the baito desu people are fond of posting, maybe require a little input from the user that doesn't...

-Require you to watch a video or read an article you have zero info about because the author is too lazy to do anything other than "HEADLINES!"

-Isn't entirely based on the presumed headline

-A real story

-A paragraph setting the table for discussion, of the author's opinion and such, decently typed.

What do I think should be done? Warnings, bans, Iunno. I am tired of threads like....

And then the news article, and subsequently the thread, turns out to be major clickbait.

In obvious, perhaps chastise those with unfounded knee jerk reactions to an overblown political controversy that are one liners. If you actually care about the issue, you probably could write a decent paragraph at least. Perhaps spell out the rules more specifically to what constitutes in context.

I don't know.


That's basically the type of post I was meaning here. Maybe images of a Twitter feed, maybe a YouTube video link, maybe a link to some site, but usually with no other context other than "haha" or "so stupid" or "I am mad". Figuring out the obvious ones, that's the hard part =\



ninjitsuko wrote:

Of course, I agree that there's a compromise being made when you simply create a "rough and tumble" sub-forum for these kinds of conversations. I wasn't around for the "Extended Discussion" forum; which, of course, means that I'm lacking in the knowledge of the root cause to its closure. Even though such threads are kind of threading on the "outside edges of the rules" and that they can easily fall outside of the grey line and into the black, some of these discussions do have a "meaningful purpose" to either the users that are on the same political spectrum or interested in the views from those who share that political spectrum.

If you're focusing on the "single link" opening threads that leave little to discuss other than a particular news article or theory or reddit thread, I agree that these are the ones that create the most "controversy" within General Discussion. The reason for this is because it all stems from a personal perspective or bias without much room for conversation on an objective/rational level. Then again, we're speaking about politics - it's difficult for anyone to remain overtly objective in their rationalization when posting on such forums. It's one thing when there's a debate-like structure to the conversation, another when it's merely a slew of personal opinions being tossed out without additional sources/basis of insight. Doing away with all political discussions is a horrible idea just because it would cause too much drama from end-users. Not to sound pessimistic or insulting in saying that, just that people would start to take it as an attack against their free speech and another slew of complications would arise from it (unfortunately). So that premise should be at the bottom of the list in regards to "potential actions".

As someone who has modded large forums in the past, I agree that it's difficult to moderate forums when politics are involved. There's a need to separate person belief and views from the impact that the opposing views (of your own) are having on the thread in question. When I said extremely offensive, I meant threads that were direct attacks against demographics, races, genders, etc. But when trying to analyze the threads or posts reported, you do kind of have to take in account that some users will simply report because they disagree with a view (and such, find it as "offensive"). This is why I suggested a forum specifically aimed at the "edge of the rules" realm of discussion. It would require feedback from all sources, not just on political side, to determine what would constitute as "extremely/highly offensive" (ergo: another poll when/if this forum is created).

The issue I have would be that users are asking moderators to make a judgment call as to what's legitimate or not. For example, I personally disagree with most of the Pizzagate thread. At the same time, I wouldn't assume that the moderators should be responsible for determining whether or not it's a legitimate topic. Such long threads require someone to read through all of the responses and create a personal opinion on the subject; then to expect that same person to determine whether or not the claims are substanciated after the fact is expecting a lot out of an individual (yes, this is one of the "curses of being a moderator", just that it's an unrealistic expectation). It requires a sub-section of rules that determines who debates/discussions should be handled from a moderator and a user's perspectives.

It's a tricky situation and it will require a lot more input than my own. These are just my thoughts so far.


Hm, strange, I didn't get a notification about your quote on my message. Did you use the quote link? (Sorry for the derail into the tech side, just want to make sure things are working right when I have an example on hand).

But it's true, some of the threads (and posts) do lead to interesting conversations. I know even an attack as (some group) as all being autistic turned into a discussion on what autism actually is, how to detect it, and why better detection rates has coincided with increased detection, as one might expect. Then again.. that could've been its own thread, and wouldn't need something like the opener attacking some other group.
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

MakotoKamui wrote:

Hm, strange, I didn't get a notification about your quote on my message. Did you use the quote link? (Sorry for the derail into the tech side, just want to make sure things are working right when I have an example on hand).

But it's true, some of the threads (and posts) do lead to interesting conversations. I know even an attack as (some group) as all being autistic turned into a discussion on what autism actually is, how to detect it, and why better detection rates has coincided with increased detection, as one might expect. Then again.. that could've been its own thread, and wouldn't need something like the opener attacking some other group.


Yeah, I actually did use the quote link.

It'll be interesting to see how the mods and Crunchyroll as a whole decide to handle the process of these types of threads. Other than not nuking all political threads, I don't think General Discussion should be sacrificed under the motto of abandoning hope upon entering - but, without any type of action being done about threads in that forum ... it'll quickly become that way on its own (just my prediction/assumption, at least).
Dragon
69441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

ninjitsuko wrote:

Yeah, I actually did use the quote link.

It'll be interesting to see how the mods and Crunchyroll as a whole decide to handle the process of these types of threads. Other than not nuking all political threads, I don't think General Discussion should be sacrificed under the motto of abandoning hope upon entering - but, without any type of action being done about threads in that forum ... it'll quickly become that way on its own (just my prediction/assumption, at least).


Well, interesting, that one worked. Could mean there was a server update around that time - also probably means a few "-1 inbox" threads upcoming, so I'll keep my eye out there. Thanks for letting me know!

I'll be interested as well. This thread is just musing aloud, I don't know if it'll lead to policy change or anything else. I would honestly like to see some policy change, but it's not my call.
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
Imagine a whole bunch of new users join and the first thing they see are people arguing about some political BS on CRs page where it says 'popular forum topics'
If I wasn't a long time user I would have refused to use CR
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16

MakotoKamui wrote:
Well, interesting, that one worked. Could mean there was a server update around that time - also probably means a few "-1 inbox" threads upcoming, so I'll keep my eye out there. Thanks for letting me know!
.


Well.. yeah..


Humms 
12913 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
I don't know about you.

But I get a good laugh from it. Nothing we can do about our political situation other than making a mockery of it.

Which is exactly what GD does.

You seriously want to have a serious political discussion? Make a fucking group! Or do you enjoy all of the random typing nonsense on your thread? Maybe you like it when people are being ignorant. Maybe you don't want to make a group, because you want to thrive off of all the insignificant bottom feeders.

People want to make it a big deal, because they like the tension between people who don't give a shit, and people who actually care. If everyone cared, what fun would that be?
12143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
I voted for the option of deleting it if it's against my side, because I find the idea of you thinking people would vote for that in earnest to be comical.

On a more serious note, I don't think any action should be taken immediately. I know the situation looks bad, but you have to consider the context; a notably heated election just ended in the USA and it's got people so angry that there are actual riots and crimes being committed because of how angry people are over it. This is naturally going to carry over to the attitudes of this website's users but it will of course die down eventually, both on and offline. I think the decision about political threads should not be set in stone until after Trump is sworn in at the earliest.
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/13/16
Shut them all down....
526 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / O / Massachusetts, USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/13/16
Reply with even more intensity and even less context.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.