Making CD a More Constructive Place

[Jaine Perotti]

As I was writing a post in this thread, I thought that perhaps it was time that we, the ChiefDelphi community, try to address a problem which many of us feel is growing: the issue of non-constructive posters (sometimes referred to as "trolls").

So what do we do about it?

There have been some good suggestions in the previously mentioned thread about "troll control", but I felt that perhaps it would be a good idea for us to collect our thoughts about what may be possible solutions (or at least methods to improve) the problem. The administrators/moderators of this site can feel free to read the ideas presented here, and discuss whether or not they can be implemented.

So, to get this brainstorming session rolling:

- What do you think is the best way to prevent runaway rants and hateful, slanderous posts?
- What should be the standards that define "constructive" discussion and "destructive" discussion?
- What makes a post inappropriate?
- What do we do to educate posters about proper discussion etiquette?

I want to hear your ideas about making ChiefDelphi a more constructive place.
The purpose of this forum is for us to communicate our ideas, so that we can collectively strengthen our ability to inspire others.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

-- Jaine

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

As I was writing a post in this thread, I thought that perhaps it was time that we, the ChiefDelphi community, try to address a problem which many of us feel is growing: the issue of non-constructive posters (sometimes referred to as "trolls").

So what do we do about it?

There have been some good suggestions in the previously mentioned thread about "troll control", but I felt that perhaps it would be a good idea for us to collect our thoughts about what may be possible solutions (or at least methods to improve) the problem. The administrators/moderators of this site can feel free to read the ideas presented here, and discuss whether or not they can be implemented.

So, to get this brainstorming session rolling:

- What do you think is the best way to prevent runaway rants and hateful, slanderous posts?
- What should be the standards that define "constructive" discussion and "destructive" discussion?
- What makes a post inappropriate?
- What do we do to educate posters about proper discussion etiquette?

I want to hear your ideas about making ChiefDelphi a more constructive place.
The purpose of this forum is for us to communicate our ideas, so that we can collectively strengthen our ability to inspire others.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

-- Jaine

Outside of tracking and banning IP addresses there really is nothing that can be done.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Outside of tracking and banning IP addresses there really is nothing that can be done.

Are you sure? You don't believe that moderators have any standards by which they judge posts?

Well, I might as well jump in with my own opinion.

My main concern is for the balance between too much and too little censorship. It is important that we allow others to bring up problems that need to be solved, even if they come from a minority opinion. However, it is very easy for discussions about these issues to digress into emotional rants. A fine line seems to exist between adressing a problem in a constructive manner, and addressing a problem in a destructive manner. We don't want ChiefDelphi to become a homogenous group of people who have the same opinion about everything. A diversity of opinions is necessary for progress.

I think that moderators should weigh posts against two very important standards when deciding whether or not to delete a post or close a thread.

1) Does the post ask the community to provide legitamate solutions to a problem?

An example of a post which does not ask the community to solve a problem is one which may complain about a bad call by a ref, the fact that their team did not get picked for finals, the fact that other teams have more resources than they do, etc. The purpose of this type of complaint is to get people riled up and angry along with them, not to try to come up with a constructive solution. This kind of complaint serves no purpose except to express and release anger.


2) Is the post presented maturely and accurately? Does the post use REAL events and circumstances to show that there is, in fact, an actual problem that needs to be solved?

A post which is not presented factually and maturely is one which uses speculative remarks which are unjustifiable by actual events. If the poster does not address a problem which actually exists, it is impossible for the community to provide them with a solution to the problem. The only thing a post like this accomplishes is by hurting the accused and causing people to be very angry about the statements that the poster made.

I also felt that Evan (Nuttyman54) made a very interesting suggestion in this post. Perhaps this relates more with the way we all personally treat negative posters, but I do believe that a ton of negative rep bars should only be given to a person who constantly, consistently writes numerous destructive posts. For those of you who didn't click on the link:

1) Allow a maximum of 5 or 10 negative reps PER POST. This will get the point across well enough, but ensures that it is not too damaging. It also means that "instigators" (those who make multiple offending posts) can still be penalized heavily, hopefully notifying them that their conduct is unacceptable. Also, if someone receives the maximum negative reps for a post, they should be notified similar Billfred's suggestion in this thread


2) If someone has recieved more than a specified number (like 30 or 40) negative reps in the past 24 hours, their account is temporarily suspended (eg. for the next 24 hours). This makes it so that they have time to "cool off", and could possibly mitigate some of the "hot" threads we see. Multiple temporary bans could be grounds for a longer term ban and/or account deletion. Because of the way the current rep system works, it should be fairly hard to abuse this (it would require a lot of offended peple to cause a temporary ban).

Think about it. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? What else might you do?

-- Jaine

[TimCraig]

I think it's important to remember that posts that are negative in nature can be constructive, too. FIRST is hardly perfect and unless the problems are brought to light, they can't be address. Pollyanna might be a nice Disney movie but it isn't how problems are solved.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by TimCraig

I think it's important to remember that posts that are negative in nature can be constructive, too. FIRST is hardly perfect and unless the problems are brought to light, they can't be address. Pollyanna might be a nice Disney movie but it isn't how problems are solved.

I agree with you. That is why I think it is important that a fine distinction is made between too much censorship, and too little censorship.

A post can constructively be made which brings a problem to light, which can be a very beneficial thing. But when it is done only to anger people, or make slanderous accusations, the thread never results in something constructive. Usually the problem is aggravated even more, and everybody leaves the discussion with a bad taste in their mouth.

[KenWittlief]

I dont think this is a matter of censorship. CD is not a pubic access forum, its not a news media outlet, and it is not an official FIRST website.

If someone has an issue with FIRST then CD is not the place to address it. If someone has an issue with a specific team then that team should be contacted.

The CD forum is whatever the people hosting it decide they want it to be. The rest of us are guests here.

If someone goes off the deep end with wild accusations against a team or against FIRST here, I see no problem with the moderators deleting the thread completely, notifying the poster their account is suspended until they account for themselves, and directing them to take their complaints to the proper people or organization.

People who attempt to create multiply accounts can be identified by the IP addresses they use, and blocked from posting.

Literally thousands of people have devoted years of their lives making FIRST what it is today. If someone has issues I agree they should be addressed, in the proper manner - not here.

[Steve W]

I have the privileged to be a moderator here on CD. I can tell you that there has been a lot of discussion on how to handle many issues. We try to work as a team and be consistent. The problem come s from a few different points.

1: Post come on so fast and are responded to before we even read them. These can start at 1 or 2 am or while we are at work or school. It is impossible to be on top of everything as it happens.

2: Moderators are people. We all have different views and personalities. What one may see as OK another takes offense to. Is this a problem? I don't think so. I believe that CD is as good as it today because of this. If we all saw everything the same then no one would be here except those with our views. How boring.

3: Moderators are from all over North America (maybe the world). This causes us to have some lag in our consulting with each other. Again sometimes good and sometimes not. I can tell you however that there is a lot of thought going on behind the scenes. There is also great support by the people on Team 47.

I really like this topic as it really can help us out. There are many opportunities for the users of CD to bring discussions back in line and cool heated discussions. PMing people is good. Calm, thought out responses are good. Reporting posts is good. These are tools that help everyone.

There is the issue of neg reps. I personally have received them from 2 people. They were from people that give a lot of neg points when they do even once. These were probably not needed but deserved. It made me rethink my position and see another side of an issue. I did learn 1 thing even more important. DON'T give neg rep unless it is really ,really, REALLY deserved. I have only given neg rep once and that was to a member of my own team and that person needed it. When I see an issue I deal with it By PMing or some times modifying a post. I prefer that the person posting modifies on their own. Sometimes however there is no time and I make the decision to modify myself (with and explanation)

CD is a wonderful place. In general we have a great bunch of users and mods. If everyone does their little bit, thinks before posting and try to see each side of a view, it will be even a better place. I am not saying that we can't have opposing views, but that they must be presented in a constructive fashion.

All points here are posted by me and represent MY points of view. CD may not hold all or any of the above statements as their points of view. I am sure that one of the big 3 M's at CD will post here at some point.

[meaubry]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

As I was writing a post in this thread, I thought that perhaps it was time that we, the ChiefDelphi community, try to address a problem which many of us feel is growing: the issue of non-constructive posters (sometimes referred to as "trolls").

So what do we do about it?

There have been some good suggestions in the previously mentioned thread about "troll control", but I felt that perhaps it would be a good idea for us to collect our thoughts about what may be possible solutions (or at least methods to improve) the problem. The administrators/moderators of this site can feel free to read the ideas presented here, and discuss whether or not they can be implemented.

So, to get this brainstorming session rolling:

- What do you think is the best way to prevent runaway rants and hateful, slanderous posts?
- What should be the standards that define "constructive" discussion and "destructive" discussion?
- What makes a post inappropriate?
- What do we do to educate posters about proper discussion etiquette?

I want to hear your ideas about making ChiefDelphi a more constructive place.
The purpose of this forum is for us to communicate our ideas, so that we can collectively strengthen our ability to inspire others.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

-- Jaine

Thanks for providing a "brainstorming" thread -
I hope everyone knows the rules of brainstorming and participates in a positive manner.
We (CD) are listening and welcome all thoughts and ideas on how the improve this website for the betterment of the FIRST community.

Mike Aubry

[DjAlamose]

Obviously there are some roots that these discussions come from. Most include words that we do not wish to hear or see. A simple way to prevent posts would be to have the site prevent people from posting if certain key words are used. Obviously people will just remove those words and then try to post again, but to prevent that I feel that there should be a temporary ban for even trying to use these key words. I am not going to provide a list but moderators know what they are looking for and most of the time it begins with a single word.

Logging IPs IMHO is a good thing because it can prevent people form making multiple accounts and abusing the system. Yes there are ways around it, but this is the best solution I can come up with for this. Also, using this you could IP ban someone for a given amount of time for saying harmful things, again, his system could be abused but can be rectified by having a 2/3rds moderator vote to ban someone or something along those lines.

To prevent it from even happening, to gain a membership, you must receive an invitation, much like g-mail. The site can then cut down on those accounts that post once and never again post, find people who want to actively engage in good debate, and not allow those who just wish to slander in. For rookie teams, a set on invitations can be sent to their main contact so they know about the site, and can register for an account on CD. Like Ken said, CD is not a Public access forum.

These are all suggestions that I have just come up with to help solve the problem, you may critique them, share your ideas, but I would just like to remind everyone that this is a brainstorming thread and no idea is a bad idea (until evaluated).

(this was not well written because im writing it in a crunch so dont get me on that stuff)

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by DjAlamose

To prevent it from even happening, to gain a membership, you must receive an invitation, much like g-mail. The site can then cut down on those accounts that post once and never again post, find people who want to actively engage in good debate, and not allow those who just wish to slander in. For rookie teams, a set on invitations can be sent to their main contact so they know about the site, and can register for an account on CD. Like Ken said, CD is not a Public access forum.

Excellent. Thanks for contributing. This is exactly what I am looking for.

I am not sure if it would be a good idea to make ChiefDelphi by invite only. The problem with this is that people who don't already have "connections" with other people already on CD won't be able to ever register. However, I do have an alternative proposal.

What if, during the registration process, a poster would have to submit a short paragraph describing why they want to participate in the forums? It wouldn't have to be anything long or drawn out, but it may end up discouraging people from registering on a whim.

Moderators (or if needed to keep up, other volunteers) could read these paragraphs and approve them before allowing a user to post. The writing would have to demonstrate a clear desire on the part of the poster to communicate with other users in a constructive manner. They must be interested in improving the FIRST community.

There are a few other added benefits to this system. The time it would take for their "mission statement" to be approved may give them time to calm down before they get a chance to post a complaint. Also, people who are too lazy to write a paragraph or can't relate enough to write one (spammers, etc.) would probably be discouraged from registering. Only those who truly indicate a desire to contribute to this community would become approved posters.

I don't really know anything about the rate that new members join here each day. But, if the number is large enough that it would be overwhelming for moderators to read and approve new users "mission statements", perhaps other veteran members can volunteer to take on the posting requests.

This idea may be too difficult to orchestrate, but it might be an interesting possible solution to the problem.

-- Jaine

[Steve W]

One thought that I had was email response before entering site as a poster. You can still read but no posting allowed. Just like other sites I could sign up and get a password sent via email to me. I could then change password to be my own. No valid email, no membership privileges.

[Brandon Martus]

Originally Posted by Steve W

One thought that I had was email response before entering site as a poster.

Email validation is already part of the posting process .. a user must click a link that is emailed to them once registered.

[Mike]

I'm thinking of a meta-moderation system, similar to Slashdot...

[TheOtherTaylor]

I believe that CD becoming a more constructive place is really mostly in the hands of the community that uses CD.

When somebody gets on and posts in anger at something or someone because of something not going their way they're looking for a response. A lot of the negative posts I've seen have been "I'm sore about losing and I want to hold somebody accountable" in semi-coherent grammar.

I say the best way to cut down on this sort of thing is for anyone who sees this sort of post to say immediately something along the lines of:
"Look, we understand you're angry. These forums are here for discussion, not flame wars. When you've calmed down some, come back and try to voice your opinion without being accusatory."

Then after that, the discussion really does not need to continue. Don't give them any sort of "No, you're wrong" response because they'll just come back arguing harder.


Simply stating that the person needs to reconsider the manner in which they are posting then backing off may help get some of the people who make destructive posts to reconsider how they're going about posting and hopefully turn the heated arguments into more calm discussions without having locked threads because of argument.

Then again, maybe it's me being optimistic that a little bit of gentle urging will calm people down.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Jaine et al,
I believe we can best handle this situation by being the best model for the board we can. This has become a huge issue this year due to all the new starts. Many of these posters have bad habits from other boards that they bring to this board. It is so easy for them to sit at home in a darkened room and write stuff they think no one sees. When I do see a particular poster getting out of hand, a PM to explain the problem has worked well for me. The response to these personal messages has been positive and the written responses to me has shown that the poster just didn't think that many people were seeing his post or that it could be viewed as offensive. It has been rare that a CD member just won't comply and has had to be banned. I agree with Steve that these posts are coming fast and furious, maybe we need more moderators. I say one on one dialoque works and we should take that tack as soon as something starts.