| Author |
Topic:
Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
The_Loyal_Imperial
Title: YAHTZEE Host
Forum Feud Winner
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
4/20 4:36am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
Jedi Ben posted:
I'm not sure it's possible to completely pro-actively prevent such antics but perhaps something like:
"Treat your fellow posters with respect. A SW EU fan can be a fan of as much of the EU as they like without ceasing to be a fan."
While I do think it's a good idea in principle, it may be, once again, subject to those tricks you mentioned before. Written that way, a possible method of evasion would be that they're disrespecting them for some reason other than their view on the EU. Ridiculous, I'll agree, but it happens.
Perhaps it would work better as: "Treat your fellow posters with respect, regardless of their opinions or how they may choose to express them." Just a thought.
-----signature-----
Attack of the Clones was released May 16, 2002.
Star Wars: Republic covered the Clone Wars starting Jan 22, 2003.
What's the next big Star Wars project? Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Fall 2008.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi Ben
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
4/20 5:21am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
|
I think your version works better.
-----signature-----
Howe: Why?
Castle: So they can't walk away. So they can't
profit from the pain they've caused.....
Howe: And no second chances...
Castle: I don't do redemption.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
beccatoria
Title: 181st Imperial Discussion Group host
Registered:
Dec '06
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:00am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
Master_Keralys posted:
Still difficult. I mean, part of the point of the boards is to have lengthy discussions and even arguments. I think the quality and type of discussion is really the issue.
Back-and-forths, marathon posts, etc. I think are the issue being addressed with the point. How do we encourage good, intelligent discussion, instead of dampening it, with this point?
- Keralys
I also have concerns about this point. I have, in my time here, been involved in a few marathon back-and-forth discussions that I know both I and my "opponent" thoroughly enjoyed.
I understand the idea that they may be exclusive to other posters or might monopolise a thread, but in my experience unless they are turning into marathon, back-and-forth arguments (of which I have also been a part, I must confess), I think their presence and the enjoyment I derive from them (and that I derive from reading them when I'm not participating) is a valuable and positive part of the forum. A respectful marathon debate is always open to new posters who want to jump in, and can also be skipped over if posters aren't interested. Selective reading in terms of threads can and should also apply to "tangents" within threads. (I use quote marks because obviously, off-topic shouldn't be widely encouraged. But several discussions along the same lines of a topic can occur and can occur productively within a thread, I think.)
So yes, that's the one specific point I have worries about. Not because I think the mods will actually enforce it in order to shut down a productive "marathon", because I think all the mods here have good judgement. But, I suppose, because it seems woolier than the rest.
And because if I have a more generalised concern it's that the ideals behind this code are great, but impossible to codify, and I fear attempts to codify something so subjective might lead to resentment if the subjective standard - rather than the objective "I am a mod and I say so" - is used as justification for editing/banning/warning, etc.
I guess I worry that the forum is split into people who try to post constructively and respectfully most of the time, and who would respond to modly warnings when they forget regardless of this code, and people who will not be inclined to do so, or pay attention to this. And the second group of people might either resent this or try to use it to justify their behaviour because it's vague.
But I also think that attempting to impose false standards such as "never post in caps," or "you may only quote your opponent x times," are arbitrary and unconstructive.
And so I am in a quandry.
I certainly have no problem in trying to adhere to the tenets of this code: I hope that I try to do so anyway (although I cannot claim to succeed at all times!). I also don't want to undermine any attempts to constructively improve this board or the experience its posters have here, and as I've already noted, there are some wonderful ideas underpinning this CoC. But I have to wonder if it will really change much?
Perhaps I'm just cyclical. We tear ourselves apart and put ourselves back together. I think discussions on Codes of Conduct are probably more useful and constructive to critical thinking on our behaviour and an improvement in atmosphere than the Code of Conduct itself?
Which I suppose, by default, means I support this thread's existence strongly and hope good things come of it and ought to stop rambling. Sorry. 
-----signature-----
legatus imperatoris britanniæ superior
REMEMBER: CLOAK OF DECEPTION DISCUSSION STARTS IN SEPTEMBER!
Han's a girl, so I got a Golden Ewok.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
leia7
Registered:
Apr '07
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:27am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
Can someone post the lit form rules in this thread or a link to them? I'd be curious to see what those say about the standards for enforcement by mods.
That might be a good place to start a discussion about how the code of conduct would be enforced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Keralys
Title: Manager:
-Lit
-EUC
Registered:
Oct '03
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:47am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
A couple points. One, the code is up for discussion because, well... we want discussion! Another is that any of these points are subject to change and revision. A third is that we're trying to get this to a point where we can have a code that people will willingly "sign" when they join our conversations so that they know what the expectations around here are. We don't think this is any kind of panacea - but the idea was a good one, and one that repeatedly came up from different parts of the "now discussing how to fix the Lit forum" thread. So here we are!
A few more specific points (that are my personal opinions):
1. I love L_I's version of the respect point, and I think it's a good step in the right direction. Treat your fellow posters with respect, regardless of their opinions or how they may choose to express them. What are all of your thoughts on that?
2. I think the Ewok raises a valid point about the contributory (or not) nature of posts. And I think that we're all in agreement that we don't want to shut down discussion; we want to encourage it. This is part of how we're trying to look at doing that. And these are vague, I suppose. So, what are thoughts and suggestions on how "devaguify" them?
3. Becca, you make several really good points here, and honestly I'm not comfortable with that point as it is. I love long discussions back and forth; they're hugely important and they contribute a lot to the thread. I think the problem we're getting at is the argumentation - as you hit on a bit - and the entire pages of quote-reply-quote-reply. Sometimes it's useful, but sometimes it's not, and there are whole threads that have gotten lost because someone decided to hash out their own personal argument on a thread - usually completely derailing an ongoing, productive discussion. (If it wasn't, it wouldn't be high enough on the thread list to get derailed.  ) It's that incessant derailing, and the constant argument rather than productive discussion.
I also agree that talking through all of this is hugely productive. I think that one of the things we want to accomplish is people having an awareness that they should strive to be contributors.
Which leads me back to a point that Thrawn made - we as mods do generally try to be active contributors around here. I try to post at least 10x for every modly action I take, because most of how we can have an impact is by example. Enforcing tone is really, really difficult, and part of what we're trying to do is slowly work to a point where we don't have to enforce tone - where we can have civil, productive, engaging discussion. And that includes discussion that have heated feelings and strong dislikes involved - but where people are willing nonetheless to be good posters and be civil in their discourse.
Suggestions on how we get there?
- Keralys
-----signature-----
God made man. Man rejected God. God became the man Jesus Christ, died and rose again to life, saving man from himself.
The craziest story ever told.
The truest.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The_Loyal_Imperial
Title: YAHTZEE Host
Forum Feud Winner
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:51am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
- Date Edited:
4/20 7:52am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
The_Loyal_Imperial
|
Master_Keralys posted:
Suggestions on how we get there?
I'll just toss in my opinion on this. I don't think you'll get to the stage you're talking about entirely by rules or enforcing them. It can be part of the road, but I don't think it alone will do that. Rather than trying just to control and prevent what you don't want it to be, I'd recommend trying to encourage what you do want. Whether it be a community-building project, or an official discussion with a revolving topic chosen by the moderators, or something else. Just my thoughts on that.
-----signature-----
Attack of the Clones was released May 16, 2002.
Star Wars: Republic covered the Clone Wars starting Jan 22, 2003.
What's the next big Star Wars project? Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Fall 2008.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dgxxx
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:56am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
|
About the long posts I think it not the long post itself that "hurts" a threads is another posters that quote the whole post to say "what he/she said", that way the thread became too long and sometimes boring to read, I think we all posters could work in making good post,long if its necessary but not marathon post just to say "I agree!" or "I don't agree!". That would make the discussion more dynamic and fun
-----signature-----
The Force is strong in Peru too!
Unofficial #EU Chatkiller.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Bly
Registered:
Mar '05
|
Date Posted:
4/20 7:57am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
The_Loyal_Imperial posted:
Master_Keralys posted:
Suggestions on how we get there?
I'll just toss in my opinion on this. I don't think you'll get to the stage you're talking about entirely by rules or enforcing them. It can be part of the road, but I don't think it alone will do that. Rather than trying just to control and prevent what you don't want it to be, I'd recommend trying to encourage what you do want. Whether it be a community-building project, or an official discussion with a revolving topic chosen by the moderators, or something else. Just my thoughts on that.
Took the words from my mouth, LI.
-----signature-----
Honored recepient of Thrawn McEwok's Bronze Thranta™  A Liberal and proud of it "Politics is simply the continuation of war by other means." --Mandalore the Ultimate Formerly known as Commander5052
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi Ben
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
4/20 8:03am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
I think if you go with the notion of CAPs = shouting, then few people will use them because, in actual discussion, should you end up shouting? If it's to be a good discussion probably not. Does that mean capitals should never be used, well there's grammatical rules to obey and a careful use of them can work e.g. Oh, come ON! Surely you're not saying....Yet bold or italics could work just as well.
One suggestion in regard to long discussions that arose out of the dp4m retirement thread was for a tangent to become a new thread. Part of the problem with this has been that discussion of new books with spoilers have been restricted to the general discussion thread for a month, thus people can't take it elsewhere. I can well understand the need to control spoilerage but would permitting spoiler threads reduce the derailing effect when everyone is posting in one thread? Right now people are probably inclined not to create new threads as they're trying to respect the rules.
The other aspect to long discussions is: Is it changing and evolving? If it is then you've a discussion that merits its length and depth, if not you're probably going round in circles. The difficulty is telling the two apart can be hard. If you look at a spiral staircase from above it's a circle, from the side it's an ascending stair. What may be evolution of a discussion to one person may be circling to another.
One final comment: Self-interest is never a bad thing to appeal to, the idea that it's in people's interest to abide by the rules will do a lot of the actual enforcement for the Mods and leave them the aggro bunch to deal with.
-----signature-----
Howe: Why?
Castle: So they can't walk away. So they can't
profit from the pain they've caused.....
Howe: And no second chances...
Castle: I don't do redemption.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rogue_Follower
Title: Manager: Literature
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
4/20 9:56am
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
- Date Edited:
4/20 10:04am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Rogue_Follower
|
Thrawn McEwok posted:
Moreover, even with that said, I'm concerned that there's potentially a huge flaw on the enforcement side of this.
By creating these rather vague and subjective standards, with an even vaguer indication about how they're to be enforced, you're opening the door to more disruption: spurious complaints will have to be taken more seriously, and the Mods have a vague right to intervene without tight controls.
I really don't want to see a climate of censorship and accusation.
I don't think you get it. This isn't expanding mod power at all. This is writing down the expectations that we already have. We aren't going to ban people because they "break" these guidelines---we already have rules that we can ban for, though several of the bullet points fit under those rules. The code is more of a set of suggestions on how people should behave on the boards, for Lit to be a better place, with more intelligent discussion. That's all. "Act like this and you'll be a better poster."
And censorship and accusation? Please. No.
Since someone asked, here are the Lit forum rules, off the top of my head:
- The TFN TOS.
- The Spoiler Policy.
- No VIP/author/artist bashing (includes VIPs who aren't TFN users.)
- Discussions should follow LFL's canon policy. i.e. no arguing that something is/isn't canon when LFL says otherwise, though with certain exceptions (like when canon isn't clear on a matter.)
- Don't link to "competing" boards without a compelling reason.
- Don't post "favorites" or "versus" threads.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
4/20 12:52pm
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
Looks good!
You shoulda had this up when I first came over. 
Do enforce it, though, don't slack around with it, because then it will quickly become useless.
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
s65horsey
Title: EUC Manager
SWC Lil' Sis
Forum Feud Winner
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/20 1:05pm
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
|
SuperWatto posted:
Looks good!
You shoulda had this up when I first came over.
Do enforce it, though, don't slack around with it, because then it will quickly become useless.
QFT.
As far as Becca's concerns, I think there is a big difference between the quote respond posts that add to discussion and those that don't. If you find yourself responding with a blanket "No." but without showing proof as to why, then you're not helping discussion.
If you find yourself going back and forth on something where you're basically repeating yourself, you need to realize that this is a discussion not a "I must convince everyone that my opinion is the correct one" and that doesn't add to discussion.
-----signature-----
Sexy Sinre's Sey  "Excellence, did you forget your 3P0 unit when you left Lit for Comms?" - dp4m "Me give up Cade's chappless butt? Only when they pry it from cold, dead hands. Wait, that didn't sound right. . . . " - John O
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
BobaMatt
Title: TFN EU Staff
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
4/20 1:48pm
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
- Date Edited:
4/20 1:49pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
BobaMatt
|
The_Loyal_Imperial posted:
Looks good from where I'm sitting, though I see one thing that may be problematic.
Literature Code of Conduct posted:
Do not start unnecessary arguments or debates.
Perhaps some clarification on what "unnecessary" means, in this situation? What one person considers necessary could be considered unnecessary by another, after all. Just seems a little vague, and could stand to be slightly more specific. Perhaps an example would be useful, here?
Maybe it's better kept vague so that we can trust the mods' discretion. Sometimes if things get too codified it leads to problems.
-----signature-----
The Clone Wars is OT quality good. Really. Emperor Fel's badassery knows no bounds. As Father and Son (An AU RP) - Looking for a few good replacements...see profile for info. http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/28357048/p1/?10
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The_Loyal_Imperial
Title: YAHTZEE Host
Forum Feud Winner
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
4/20 1:53pm
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
- Date Edited:
4/20 1:56pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
The_Loyal_Imperial
|
BobaMatt posted:
Maybe it's better kept vague so that we can trust the mods' discretion. Sometimes if things get too codified it leads to problems.
I don't necessarily think that somewhat vague rules are a bad thing, just that "unnecessary" is not quite the best word to use. For example, there are plenty of discussions, debates, and arguments I've seen that I would consider unnecessary, but most would disagree. "Unnecessary" being one of those problematic terms with no common agreement on what would qualify for being unnecessary. Have it be too vague and we'd probably just end up having this discussion all over again.
-----signature-----
Attack of the Clones was released May 16, 2002.
Star Wars: Republic covered the Clone Wars starting Jan 22, 2003.
What's the next big Star Wars project? Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Fall 2008.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Thrawn McEwok
Title: TFN EU Staff
Registered:
May '00
|
Date Posted:
4/20 3:27pm
Subject:
RE: Literature Forum Code of Conduct Discussion
- Date Edited:
4/20 3:28pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Thrawn McEwok
|
Rogue_Follower posted:
I don't think you get it. This isn't expanding mod power at all.
Well, you would say that.
Rogue_Follower posted:
This is writing down the expectations that we already have.
Are they the right ones, though?
Rogue_Follower posted:
The code is more of a set of suggestions on how people should behave on the boards, for Lit to be a better place, with more intelligent discussion. That's all. "Act like this and you'll be a better poster."
Then the question is, as I said, but with a little more emphasis: how do we keep the discussion constructive?
Rogue_Follower posted:
And censorship and accusation? Please. No.
Maybe that was too strong, but I think the emphasis of these expectations is wrong, and they could potentially cause problems of that sort. I hope that doesn't seem too forthright, but I'm not convinced that another statement of principle is the best way to communicate with the people who're not acting on the ones we already have.
Does that make sense? 
- The Imperial Ewok
-----signature-----
A/T = OTP  "To write one Solo twin as an angstbunny, Master Skywalker, might be considered unfortunate. To write BOTH that way looks like carelessness."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
