IMPORTANT: Discussions & Debates Feedback

[Kanzler]

I think short question OPs are perfectly fine. Simple questions force you to address the framing of the question. With a longer OP, you run the risk of herding the thread in a certain direction. Besides, a lot of these short-form OPs have had a good amount of discussion in them. The question is just a starting point, and as we've seen in the thread themselves, they head down one direction or another. I'd say that an extensive OP is hardly necessary if the discussion is going to develop well anyways. And they haven't burned down in flames yet, which is a lot more than we could say one or two years ago.

All that really matters are the results. Does the depth of the OP affect the amount and quality of the discussion that we see in RT? If short-form OPs are providing a good amount and quality of discussion, then they should stay and there isn't much to criticize them for. Could long-form OPs be an improvement? Absolutely, especially for topics where there is a high information barrier to posting - take global warming or the intervention against ISIS for example. But for threads about sexual orientation, gender, and abortion, for example, I think the average person is reasonably familiar with the topic.

 

[Melody]

As a casual participant I do notice the marked improvement in moderation and in atmosphere since the Round Table's re-launch. However I don't always like the atmosphere anyways. While we have made much progress in prodding the trolls out of here so more serious and level headed discussions can be made; there are still plenty of members who regularly post and frequent this section whom I find to be quite grating. I will not be naming names or confirming guesses though.

I fully realize my dislike of these members may in fact stem from the fact that they likely hold some extreme position on something; I refuse to see the world as only black and white any more, except in certain circumstances where it's needed.

However, I do find that often there are members who do frequent RT that, not only have extreme ideals, but also have very aggressive ways of approaching arguments or do so in manners that are in defiance of the spirit of discussion. These aren't TROLLS per-se, and staff is often unwilling to bar their specific brand of behavior; because often it is a slippery slope into madness, and they want to grow not shrink the section, which is perfectly understandable.

Next is thread quality; which I notice hasn't improved that significantly. I really don't like posts that are one-liner with a link; especially not when a link is to a very biased or slanted article on the topic. I see a lot of this and it drives me nuts. I feel like there are just certain, "News Sources" that we should just outright ban as a source of discussion because they consistently print with large biases or print news that grabs attention and uses ridiculous titles that don't properly represent the article or issue properly.

Single question threads are also somewhat problematic but these are arguably less evil; even if they're still low-effort. As long as the question seems to have depth enough to spark a lively discussion I can't say they're all bad; but I do find it very annoying when the OP basically asks the question and runs; not answering their own question or providing their perspective on it with the opening post. I don't think you should have to dig a few posts down or wait until the OP deems the thread to have "enough replies" for them to answer their own question.

I do count as of now, at least 7 threads on the first page of RT that I count as being...a lot more controversial. Sometimes too much so. These threads are often what I consider to be the worst of the section too. I won't go naming threads because that's just too rude, and perception does differ from user to user; but you'll know it when you see them; they have hyperbolic titles and cover topics on things that make you want to just facepalm from the sheer force of the "Why in the heck are we even discussing this topic and considering it seriously?". These kinds of threads are definitely breeding grounds for trolls, and other prolifically loud, obnoxious or rude members to come out of the woodwork and, "Remove all doubt" of their suspected silliness. These kinds of threads are something I'd like to see a lot less of; as they remind me of an old section, in the past, of PC that shall remain nameless. Long time members though; should know what I'm referencing. :)

Such threads do seem to also cover topics that overwhelmingly; will see one answer from most of society, and that will also on the surface seem to be pushing the envelope or seem to address in some sense some flaw in society's viewpoints but from a common sense standpoint seem to well...have a very obvious answer that governs how society should behave. These kinds of one-sided discussions only leave open sores for the trolls to poke.

 

[curiousnathan]

Single question threads are also somewhat problematic but these are arguably less evil; even if they're still low-effort. As long as the question seems to have depth enough to spark a lively discussion I can't say they're all bad; but I do find it very annoying when the OP basically asks the question and runs; not answering their own question or providing their perspective on it with the opening post. I don't think you should have to dig a few posts down or wait until the OP deems the thread to have "enough replies" for them to answer their own question.

You say they are problematic, but for what and who? There is no indication that threads with single line OPs have any detrimental effect on discussions. Your view on the attitude of OPs "not answering their question or providing their perspective" on their topic is simply a preference. You can't possibly think people will want to post in here, if they cannot post how and what they want. It's not conducive to activity; it's restrictive.

I do count as of now, at least 7 threads on the first page of RT that I count as being...a lot more controversial. Sometimes too much so. These threads are often what I consider to be the worst of the section too. I won't go naming threads because that's just too rude, and perception does differ from user to user; but you'll know it when you see them; they have hyperbolic titles and cover topics on things that make you want to just facepalm from the sheer force of the "Why in the heck are we even discussing this topic and considering it seriously?". These kinds of threads are definitely breeding grounds for trolls, and other prolifically loud, obnoxious or rude members to come out of the woodwork and, "Remove all doubt" of their suspected silliness. These kinds of threads are something I'd like to see a lot less of; as they remind me of an old section, in the past, of PC that shall remain nameless. Long time members though; should know what I'm referencing. :)

Just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean that it will 100% attract a troll or combust into a flame-war. It's up to the individuals how they respond to a thread. Thread owners have no control over who will see, and more importantly, who will post in their thread and with what attitude. Going on a spree to eradicate controversial threads will turn the Round Table into a light-hearted discussion forum; something it isn't and shouldn't be. It's the place for debates, so it will contain heated arguments by nature. I certainly wouldn't like to see the Round Table turned into a highly-censored forum where only topics about unicorns and daises and rainbows can be debated about. There's no fun or interest in that.

 

[Melody]

You say they are problematic, but for what and who? There is no indication that threads with single line OPs have any detrimental effect on discussions. Your view on the attitude of OPs "not answering their question or providing their perspective" on their topic is simply a preference. You can't possibly think people will want to post in here, if they cannot post how and what they want. It's not conducive to activity; it's restrictive.



Just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean that it will 100% attract a troll or combust into a flame-war. It's up to the individuals how they respond to a thread. Thread owners have no control over who will see, and more importantly, who will post in their thread and with what attitude. Going on a spree to eradicate controversial threads will turn the Round Table into a light-hearted discussion forum; something it isn't and shouldn't be. It's the place for debates, so it will contain heated arguments by nature. I certainly wouldn't like to see the Round Table turned into a highly-censored forum where only topics about unicorns and daisies and rainbows can be debated about. There's no fun or interest in that.

Not trying to advocate for overly strict rules; just pointing out that there is progress that can be made to improve the atmosphere. I do believe I mentioned that being too strict on members who aren't actually trolls is a slippery slope and that I knew that the mods of the RT are aiming to be less restrictive for good reasons.

There's no good reason to go on a "spree"; just that I feel that certain threads shouldn't exist even in the RT because I feel like they fly in the face of the spirit of global forum rules, namely the one about respecting others. Unfortunately I don't feel as if reporting them is going to get any action; because I understand why the mods here in the RT want to be less restrictive. But I do feel like such threads do make the section feel a little bit unwelcoming and possibly hostile to some. So I feel like feedback is the better way to go. At least then it will be thought about.

I do believe that something can be done; but to what extent the mods of the RT are willing to go to improve atmosphere isn't clear to me yet. I'm not accusing them of doing the job poorly, because they have done a great job thus far. I just want to make known that I find certain topics a little bit much; even for PC's RT and want to see things like that improve; not be left; simply because they'd rather not act out of fear of being thought too "restrictive" in their duties.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

Whilst I do want the RT to be as accessible as possible, I don't see how a serious topic in a serious forum in any way borders on disrespect to members. If inside those threads the discussion leads to disrespect, we will, of course, take action but I'm not for banning any topic of conversation that isn't outright trolling - and even then it's the action that's the issue not the topic.

 

[Neil Peart]

snip

I honestly think this was just a thinly-veiled shot at those of us who frequent RT. The mods do their job; let us police ourselves when it comes to bogus articles and sources. We're not stupid.

 

[Melody]

Whilst I do want the RT to be as accessible as possible, I don't see how a serious topic in a serious forum in any way borders on disrespect to members. If inside those threads the discussion leads to disrespect, we will, of course, take action but I'm not for banning any topic of conversation that isn't outright trolling - and even then it's the action that's the issue not the topic.

But that's the problem. There are threads that I feel are trolling in some way that I feel like, in the name of keeping things unrestrictive, that are hand-waved and considered OK. Not really a fan of that to be honest; sometimes even the way that some members might toe the line closely is too much and I'd like to see those at least discouraged if you don't want to zip them shut outright the moment they appear. My problem is that I don't really feel comfortable pointing out exactly which threads I find to be on the border of offensive because I feel it's uncertain that they'd be seen as such, nor do I think it makes sense to make individual reports of them when there's a high likelihood that there's going to be more than I'd like that would be considered OK anyways; despite the fact that I take offense to them. I understand why that may be necessary; but I don't feel like that should be something that I allow to justify avoiding the RT if I can put my two cents in and have it considered as why one may want to avoid the RT

So it simply makes more sense to raise awareness about the issue so that even if I don't feel comfortable with reporting something; that it will be considered and looked for in some way that balances the needs of the section with the needs of people who find the Round Table off-putting because of such topics.

I honestly think this was just a thinly-veiled shot at those of us who frequent RT. The mods do their job; let us police ourselves when it comes to bogus articles and sources. We're not stupid.

This doesn't really add anything to the conversation whatsoever; it simply flings an accusation without context or reference to the specific post or seeming to recognize previous posts relating.

 

[Neil Peart]

But that's the problem. There are threads that I feel are trolling in some way that I feel like, in the name of keeping things unrestrictive, that are hand-waved and considered OK. Not really a fan of that to be honest; sometimes even the way that some members might toe the line closely is too much and I'd like to see those at least discouraged if you don't want to zip them shut outright the moment they appear. My problem is that I don't really feel comfortable pointing out exactly which threads I find to be on the border of offensive because I feel it's uncertain that they'd be seen as such, nor do I think it makes sense to make individual reports of them when there's a high likelihood that there's going to be more than I'd like that would be considered OK anyways; despite the fact that I take offense to them. I understand why that may be necessary; but I don't feel like that should be something that I allow to justify avoiding the RT if I can put my two cents in and have it considered as why one may want to avoid the RT

So it simply makes more sense to raise awareness about the issue so that even if I don't feel comfortable with reporting something; that it will be considered and looked for in some way that balances the needs of the section with the needs of people who find the Round Table off-putting because of such topics.



This doesn't really add anything to the conversation whatsoever; it simply flings an accusation without context or reference to the specific post or seeming to recognize previous posts relating.

OK, so put your money where your mouth is. Go to the RT, find the threads you think are "trolling," and report back to us. Let US decide. None of this means a thing if you don't provide examples, which just furthers my point about you taking a shot at us under the guise of constructive criticism. So go through the topics, and let us know.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

The RT's purpose is literally a place to house serious and potentially controversial topics that we can debate and discuss in-depth. Policing the topics that you feel push boundaries is rather counter-intuitive to what the section is all about.

What we can do though, as others have suggested, is try to incorporate more news and science topics as well as the more controversial theological or ethical debates that you find off-putting.


Also just a reminder to everyone, please keep it civil in here. This is a thread where we want to improve the section we love, not a place to start taking shots at each other.

 

[Her]

Whatever is decided upon/heightened/changed etc in the future, a big fault is that there's no advertisement or publicity for the section. Now, I understand there hasn't been much to advertise in terms of news/events/updates, but as far as I can remember there haven't been any postings on the bulletin board or associated mediums in, well, ever. The last time I can recall something like that happening is when D&D was transformed into Round Table.

In short, whatever happens, go full out in advertising it. Literally nothing to lose.

 

[Kanzler]

omg i got a good idea

Okay. So on reddit there's a whole subreddit called r/changemyview. What it is that the OP posts an opinion, and people who participate try to provide a convincing enough argument to change that opinion. Usually the most interesting threads are the ones with a popular or mainstream opinion as the OP.

So... why not do that here? :D It would definitely be a showcase of debating skills. And everybody would be on the same side, so there wouldn't be much room for conflict and "drama" there. The only downside is that it might uh... bait trolls and all that so moderation will be a must.

Mayybe it can even be an event! Because events are nice, but also to have some control over baity posts and threads.

Think about it!

 

[gimmepie]

omg i got a good idea

Okay. So on reddit there's a whole subreddit called r/changemyview. What it is that the OP posts an opinion, and people who participate try to provide a convincing enough argument to change that opinion. Usually the most interesting threads are the ones with a popular or mainstream opinion as the OP.

So... why not do that here? :D It would definitely be a showcase of debating skills. And everybody would be on the same side, so there wouldn't be much room for conflict and "drama" there. The only downside is that it might uh... bait trolls and all that so moderation will be a must.

Mayybe it can even be an event! Because events are nice, but also to have some control over baity posts and threads.

Think about it!

"Moderation is a must" is not really a deterrent in a section where you have mods who are constantly checking threads. I would personally love to run it as a series of short events. Would you be interested in hosting, or would you prefer myself/Nah to do so?

If you want to do it just shoot me a PM of your post before you put it up.

 

[Nah]

To bring up another thing to talk about.....Kanzler PM'd me an gimme an idea that El Heroe/Matt came up with the other day: Basically to have some sort of more light-hearted event with a low knowledge barrier, to attract more people to the section. Do it regularly enough and hopefully people will start to look into some of the other threads and then realize that RT is not the scary hellhole it's often made out to be. It sounds like a good way to kill 2 birds with one stone to me. Was wondering what the rest of you thought about that, maybe pitch some ideas for use to start with.

The only downside is that it might uh... bait trolls and all that so moderation will be a must.

its ok I like my banhammer and want to use it more

 

[Neil Peart]

To bring up another thing to talk about.....Kanzler PM'd me an gimme an idea that El Heroe/Matt came up with the other day: Basically to have some sort of more light-hearted event with a low knowledge barrier, to attract more people to the section. Do it regularly enough and hopefully people will start to look into some of the other threads and then realize that RT is not the scary hellhole it's often made out to be. It sounds like a good way to kill 2 birds with one stone to me. Was wondering what the rest of you thought about that, maybe pitch some ideas for use to start with.

Your username comes in handy when it comes to my response to this. I don't like the idea of watering down the RT.

 

[gimmepie]

Your username comes in handy when it comes to my response to this. I don't like the idea of watering down the RT.

Watering down the RT is far from our goal, debate and controversy are an integral part of this forum. It's who we are and I encourage those deeper topics to continue - I love them. What we do want to do though, is open up the forum to bring more people in and ease them into the harder topics rather than expect people to jump from your typical Treehouse chat to "Hey, what do you think of abortion?".

It's not about changing the nature of the forum, it's about opening it up to others and removing the negative stigma of days gone by. We still want to talk about the serious stuff, we just want to make it easier to get into.

 

[Neil Peart]

Watering down the RT is far from our goal, debate and controversy are an integral part of this forum. It's who we are and I encourage those deeper topics to continue - I love them. What we do want to do though, is open up the forum to bring more people in and ease them into the harder topics rather than expect people to jump from your typical Treehouse chat to "Hey, what do you think of abortion?"

So, SOMEWHAT watering it down. I understand why some people don't go to the RT - some people just don't want to get involved in political and social issue discussions. How do you propose to "ease them in" without watering everything down? Disallowing certain topics about certain issues?

For example, I don't go to the Anime forum because I have no knowledge of anime. Irrespective of what you do, you can't change the reasons why people don't come here.

 

[gimmepie]

So, SOMEWHAT watering it down. I understand why some people don't go to the RT - some people just don't want to get involved in political and social issue discussions. How do you propose to "ease them in" without watering everything down? Disallowing certain topics about certain issues?

I said this earlier (I think) we have no intention of policing the topics started here outside of assuring there's no duplicate threads or trolling going on. Everyone is still free to make threads as controversial and deep in nature as they wish and are encouraged to do so.

For example, I don't go to the Anime forum because I have no knowledge of anime. Irrespective of what you do, you can't change the reasons why people don't come here.

Our feedback suggests otherwise, numerous people within this thread and outside of it have told us that if there were a few lighter threads they would feel more inclined to post here. I don't see how promoting a few easier/lighter threads is in any way preventing you from enjoying the complex and deep ones.

 

[Kanzler]

So, SOMEWHAT watering it down. I understand why some people don't go to the RT - some people just don't want to get involved in political and social issue discussions. How do you propose to "ease them in" without watering everything down? Disallowing certain topics about certain issues?

Alright, let's not jump to conclusions. There are plenty of ways to "water it down" without banning topics.

I'd argue that "watering RT down" isn't a bad thing. I believe RT should be a lot more than abortion, taxes, and gender all day every day. If you've been here as long as I have, you'll grow sick of them over time. They're definitely not the only topics you can have an in-depth discussion about. I actually want to make some threads that are very much non-contentious - for example, philosophy threads. Some people spend their entire lives doing philosophy, so you can't say that discussion won't be deep enough, but it seldom leads to heated arguments.

The knowledge barrier to posting is a very important one. There is a reason that I don't make too many geopolitical threads anymore. They're not very popular, because most people don't enough or aren't familiar enough about the topic to say much about them. They might know enough to state their opinion, but not enough to really analyze what they're talking about. If creating low-knowledge barrier threads means encouraging people to participate when they otherwise wouldn't, I don't see what's wrong with that.

"There is no such thing as too much speech". In this case it's true. Having discussions about topics that are equally contentious but not as hot-button doesn't take away from your ability to discuss hot-button issues. Having threads that are more discursive than argumentative doesn't take away from your ability to have argumentative threads. It's up to you to post in whatever thread you want. It's up to RT to give people the opportunity to post in whatever thread they want. We can't change the reasons why people don't come here, and we don't want to change the purpose of the Round Table - a place for more formal and in-depth discussion as well as to learn more about the world around us, but what we do want is a Round Table that better fulfils its potential by serving more people.

tl;dr - the issue is about RT needlessly limiting itself, as well as PokeCommunity's perception of it. If you come to RT for the controversy, there's no reason to worry. If you would like to come to RT for a reason that's not just controversy, the mods and some of us regulars are working on that. If you enjoy RT because you feel that adding less controversial topics is the same as taking away controversial topics, 1) we can't help you there and 2) you're probably responsible for arguments that don't go anywhere.

I'm just kidding by the way. Don't take it too seriously if it's sounds tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Neil Peart]

If you say so. You're basically saying "let's dumb it down to make it more accessible," no matter how you spin it. It's not like anything I say is going to change the change in direction given that I'm the lone dissenter, so let's just see how this goes.

 

[Kanzler]

If you say so. You're basically saying "let's dumb it down to make it more accessible," no matter how you spin it. It's not like anything I say is going to change the change in direction given that I'm the lone dissenter, so let's just see how this goes.

You should be more open-minded. None of the content that currently exists will be "dumbed down". I see no reason to "dumb down" any future abortion/gender/government/social issues threads. What we're talking about is adding new non-hot-button content, which you might fully consider "dumbed down", but that's on you because I wouldn't know how to dumb down a thread about utilitarianism, let's say, or whether secondary school education still meets our needs, or the value of organic foods. I, for one, see a difference between the controversy of a topic, and the depth of discussion of a topic. And the rest of PokeCommunity does as well - the complaints that we've been hearing is that people are turned off by the controversy in RT, not by how deep the discussions are here. So we're not basically saying "let's dumb it down to make it more accessible".

The only thing that would be going down is the "edginess" of the section, which I don't think is a bad thing. I don't think the RT is controversial for the sake of being controversial, we use controversy to share and more importantly explain points of view which is ultimately the point of any discussion. We shouldn't have to rely on controversy, and that's the direction I think we should go in.