Time limits, your input, etc.

[Brandon Martus]

It seems there are quite a few very contraversial topics being discussed in Chit-Chat lately, and it's been causing more problems than not. Instead of just prohibiting non-FIRST discussion, we may start to put a time limit on contraversial non-FIRST discussions. The heated arguments seem to start after everybody has gotten their point across; basically when the nit-picking starts to happen. So, instead of ending on a sour note, the discussions will end at a set time, hopefully before it gets ugly.

Please vote on this poll. We want to get an idea of where to limit these discussions. Please give your input, ideas, and such.

Thanks.

[SlamminSammy]

Is there any way to give each member a certain amount of posts per thread?

[evulish]

I think it most certainly is case-by-case. Maybe set a limit...then have the option of voting on whether to continue the thread...then have the decision go to you if the majority of posters in the thread say yes. (Another idea could be to get more Mods to take some of the load off you and make sure people are being nice...)

I certainly don't think 2-3 days is enough for a thread. From my forum experience, the threads start with broad and general statements then get more nit-picky then ends up 2 or 3 people just harassing each other... That process normally takes a week or two. I'd say end it in the middle of the nit-picky part.

Just warn people a day or two before the thread ends...so that people can basically summarize if needed. I guess it's hard to actually limit this kind of stuff... AFAIK, there aren't really any bad grudges because of things said over some of these debates. I know some other select forums (linuxnewbie.org), threads about religion, politics, and the like result in some people being kicked off their ISP. I have never seen anything close to that here on CD (and hope I never will).

[AdamT]

Case-by-case...

Some discussions about good robotics stuff like motors and wires and that crazy stuff can stay a good, helpful discussions for weeks...

Others luckily end themselves...

As for controversial topics, if there were a way to screen them, I'd say good riddance and find another forum. Since this thread is about time limits, I'd say a single day is more than enough to produce plenty of heated emotions. If they want more then a day, that's what IM, e-mail, and other such private devices are good for.

Yes, this seems to be contradictory to my previous posts in the last week... If you want to know how such a quick change should come about, PM me...

[meaubry]

Brandon,
There will always be the person that must get the "last word in" - a time limit is appropriate in all cases. I'm not sure that it will actually stop some of the stuff going on, but it may slow it down - how difficult would it be to limit the number of responses any one person could make? Say, 1 original post and 2 follow ups. Time limits and number of responses are how most debates are managed. It's too bad we have to correlate a Chit Chat string of postings to a debate. As your Dad and I have talked about many times, our CD website really wants to encourage positive interaction between and amongst FIRST teams and have in the past requested everyone that posts to use restraint in posting. If the problem is focused more on the Chit Chat forum than any of the others, we may want to do something just on that board - until we develop a longer term solution.
Mike Aubry

[Andy Baker]

I agree that case by case closing is probably the best way to go... and I think that Adam has a good point about closing some of these threads in a hurry. Also, you don't always have to explain your reason for closing the thread... it's your (ChiefDelphi's) site, for Pete's sake! Censorship, smensorship... when in doubt, close the thread.

Mike is right (as usual), everyone is always gonna want to get a last word in. If they want to do that, then they can figure out another way to do it (PM, email, or stand on a box in a local park).

Andy B.

[Rick]

the controversial posts get publicized in the portal page. Why not just take all rumor mill and chit chat posts off the portal page (if it can be done)

[Brandon Martus]

Originally posted by Ricksta121
the controversial posts get publicized in the portal page. Why not just take all rumor mill and chit chat posts off the portal page (if it can be done)

Anything can be done. And that actually is a good idea. We're all about robotics, the chit-chat forum is just an added little area when the discussion turns to non-FIRST. Maybe I'll remove chit-chat from the portal 'recent threads' list.

[Madison]

I tend to disagree with censorship of all sorts. :-/

Censorship sends the wrong message. While I understand you may be trying to prevent heated discussion, censoring posts, threads, and limiting discussion will go much further toward perpetuating a climate of intolerance, misunderstanding, and disagreement than letting them run their course ever could. Not only does it limits a students' opportunities to learn about specific topics, but it steals from them a value lesson about living and working in the "real world" - people do not always agree, almost never 'agree-to-disagree', and being able to stand forth and defend your beliefs is one of the most valuable skills someone can possess.

If they don't learn that now, when will they learn it?

Time limits; the longer the better; are the best option, I guess. Still, I don't like it at all.

[Neal Probert]

I think the chit-chat and non-FIRST topic areas should be shut down. This is not censorship, but the real-world reality in the office workplace where professionalism is demanded of you. An outpouring of personal, private, political and religious sentiments is not acceptable professional behavior and is generally not welcome.

The technical reason for closing down the chit chat and non-FIRST topics are that it consumes resources. The legal reasons for closing that area down is that Chief Delphi is liable for damaging content (libel, slander, ...).

The main political reason for closing it down are that it has nothing to do with FIRST. Chief Delphi is a forum about FIRST and FIRST related topics. Period.

From a user perspective, when the signal to noise (chit-chat) ratio gets so bad, it's no longer worth listening in on. That is what happened to Usenet.

There are tons of other bulletin boards, chat rooms and forums out there for non-FIRST topics.

[Bill Gold]

This is probably going to be a bit disjointed, I should have slept more last night.

I think that setting a firm time limit for all off-topic threads is a bad idea. If it's going to happen, I'd like to request that threads which involve a debate or an exchange of philosophy (Iraq, Dem/Rep, etc.) remain open as long as threads about nonesense. This is, of course, assuming people don't say that their views are universal, or that someone who doesn't agree with them is a "poopy-head."

Yes, there are some threads which deserve to be closed immediately. I, also, don't think it's fair to those of us who would like to state our opinions, and then why we feel that way to close threads like the Dem/Rep one. Yes, a couple people were getting upset, but I saw promise. I thought with my next post I might have been able to cool things down and get back to a real discussion (I realize some of you may find this hard to believe, but it's true). But I was in Riverside over the weekend without an internet connection. Deep down I feel cheated that I didn't get a chance to aid the discussion, but there's nothing I can do about that now. I'd also like to say that having the time limit be a single day shelf life is a bad idea. Not everyone reads these forums every 15 minutes like some of us , and maybe those people are the most enlightened and persuasive with regards to certain subjects. I also agree with Andy in that this is your site Brandon, and you should do whatever you want and without explaining yourself. I'd also like to vote for taking Chit-Chat topics off the portal page.

Really quickly I'd like to add/reply to Neal Probert's post. There hasn't been any damaging content, and I think people know what they should/shouldn't write when it comes to this. Also, I doubt ChiefDelphi is liable for me saying that Adolf Hitler wears a tutu, or something of that sort. Also, it's true that the Chit-Chat forum usually has nothing to do with FIRST, but why is that such a bad thing? I think it's great that CD has nurtured an online institution which draws in FIRST people, but then also gives them a side forum to talk about either nonesense or hold discussions about real world topics. The Chit-Chat forum should be viewed as something comparable to a "break room" at a job. I think it's up to CD to decide what this website is about, I don't think it's appropriate for us who aren't on the team to tell them that their website should only be about FIRST, and nothing else. Finally, if the signal-noise ratio gets bad, then why continue to read the material? There's no one forcing us to read every single new thread. I ignore plenty of them, and I suggest that people who get fed up with the nonesense do the same.

Yeah... I think that's enough of me for now.

[Brandon Martus]

Originally posted by Bill Gold
Finally, if the signal-noise ratio gets bad, then why continue to read the material? There's no one forcing us to read every single new thread. I ignore plenty of them, and I suggest that people who get fed up with the nonesense do the same.

An easy way to ignore these is to subscribe to every forum, and then remove the static (ie: chit-chat, etc). I have a quick SQL query to do this real quick, instead of clicking 'subscribe' on every forum.

Once you're subscribed to everything but the noise-makers, you can then hit 'New Posts' next to 'Subscribed' instead of next to 'All Forums'. It will work the same exact way, minus those not subscribed to.

Send me a private message if you want me to do a mass-subscription for you.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by M. Krass
I tend to disagree with censorship of all sorts. :-/

While I agree with the above statement, we may not agree on a definition of censorship. I regard censorship as a Government prohibition of certain kinds of speech in any place at any time. For example, certain other countries have laws making it illegal to express criticism of the government at any time, in any way shape or form.

The Supreme Court in a famous ruling whose name I can't recall, commented that it was not inappropriate for a local government to make it a crime to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre when no fire exists. It has also repeatedly ruled that local government has the right to regulate when and where large assemblies of any kind can occur. It just cannot prohibit them altogether, nor can it regulate what is said at such assemblies.

So if you want to have a political rally for the Purple party, whose express policy is the violent overthrow of all forms of government other than theirs, the city government can tell you to have it in the town square or out at the stock yards or wherever else is usual in the town for such things.

They can also make sure you do not hold your rally at 2am and disturb the neighbors who have their own freedom not to listen. But once they have told you an acceptable place and time, they cannot tell you what you can and cannot say at your meeting. To do so WOULD be censorship. To prohibit your parade through a residential neighborhood at 2am would not, as long as they made a more acceptable (to the community) place and time available. They may also, at their discretion, prevent such speech as may be morally offensive or inappropriate for young ears from taking place at all in a public area. They may do this to protect those who would other wise be forced to hear such things from having to. But they may not prohibit it in private.

Nor would it be censorship for me to throw you out of my house for using bad language. Such things are not tolerated there at any time and it is private, not public, property. I have the right, even the responsibility, to regulate what is said there and how it is said. Not that I expect such things of you, Mr Krass, but just to make a point.

Regardless of what you may think, there is a place for proper restraint by those in authority. This website is private property, not public. Those who own it do have the right and responsibility to regulate what is said here, though they have been very lenient and gracious and have rarely needed to step in and do so. I feel this is a credit to the larger community that they have invited to visit. But if, for some reason, the powers that be at Chief Delphi decided to close this website to all of those NOT on their team, it would not be censorship. You might miss it, but you would not even have grounds to complain. You would also be free to build your own similar website to fill the hole that loss of this one would leave in the FIRST community.

Freedom means responsibility. It seems that some are being irresponsible, so some of their freedom may need to be curtailed for the benefit of the larger community. This may be regretable, but it is NOT censorship.

[Rich Wong]

We must consult with the "higher" spirit of FIRST.....

...let's all close our eye and hold hands

...clear our minds and focus....

focus...

Ken...

Ken...

Ken Leung where are you... we need your wisdom and long input.



(I'm sorry... I can't help it, I have nothing to do until
the Kickoff)

[David Kelly]

i don't think that this should really even be an issue. Brandon may do as he pleases. They pay the money for it, so they can use it how they want to. this is Chief Delphi's forum. you go by their rules or leave. it's as simple as that.


[edit]
i am the moderator for our teams forum http://forums.cyberblue234.com im not afraid to close/ delete threads that i feel are inappropiate. certain stuff doesn't need to be posted on these forums. if they dont like it, tough luck. you live by my rules. i've even had to ban 2 members of our own team for a period of time for inappropiate content. yeah, they were mad. they should have thought about what they posted before they did it.
[/edit]