|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Debate stifled
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Rather disappointed about the hosting decision to move the thread about the suspension of the Scottish Catholic priest from Purgatory to Dead Horses. And without the courtesy of a hostly explanation either.
As any reasonable reader can see, this thread was about the action of the priest in speaking out about alleged abuse in seminaries, the reaction of the Catholic hierarchy to the disclosure and (most noteworthy) the reaction of the laity to the reaction of the hierarchy.
That the abuse which the priest was alleging happened to be sexual abuse perpetrated upon young seminarians by older male clerics is incidental. It could equally have been allegations of paedophilia within the priesthood on young girls (or boys). Or financial misdeeds. Or whatever.
The thread was emphatically not about homosexuality or gay priests.
A good debate has been stifled.
Just my opinion.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Eutychus offered a challenge to see if people contributing to the thread could avoid it becoming a discussion centred around the subject of homosexuality. Within a few posts of that there was a series of posts about homosexuality within the RCC in Scotland. To me it seemed clear that people failed to rise to the challenge of not centring the discussion around homosexuality. I guess one of the Purgatory hosts felt the same, and hence moved it to the appropriate board where the discussion people seemed to want can run unstifled.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To be fair, I am not sure the challenge was achievable. Not with the particular subject/situation.
Really though, I do wish people would not view DH as a death knell to a thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The snag appeared to be that there's a gap between shipmates who have been following this saga since February and who are chiefly interested in the current situation of the congregation who are totally scunnered with the treatment of their priest, and shipmates who are coming to this story afresh and who naturally want to start at the beginning to understand what's going on.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Thanks NEQ.
The starting point was Fr Despatd's allegations of sexual abuse in seminaries in the past. He spoke out in print (first 2 points of debate: should he have spoken out and, if so, should he have spoken out in that manner). After the (now retired, not resigned) previous Bishop (not Archbishop) of Motherwell Joseph Devine decided more than 6 months ago not to take any action against the whistle blower, we now have Devine's temporary replacement Bishop Toal instituting proceedings v the priest and suspending him from parish duties (points for discussion: should he be proceeded against for making allegations in the way he did without these allegations having been adjudicated upon? is the timing appropriate? should he be suspended meantime?).Then we have a congregation up in arms at the treatment of their priest and walking out of two masses presided over by the Bishop, and the Bishop now threatening to close the church (questions arise about the actions of the laity and the Bishop's response).
Nothing in all this is about homosexuality in general, or priests with a gay orientation or actively in a gay relationship.
The starting point is sexual abuse, not homosexuality.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really though, I do wish people would not view DH as a death knell to a thread.
Well, quite. I don't even notice what board most threads are on most of the time (the major exception being Hell threads, which are obvious even to me), as I use the view all active threads feature.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Well, quite. I don't even notice what board most threads are on most of the time (the major exception being Hell threads, which are obvious even to me), as I use the view all active threads feature.
Given the fact that different boards have different guidelines, it would help you post more appropriately if you paid more attention.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Nothing in all this is about homosexuality in general, or priests with a gay orientation or actively in a gay relationship.
The starting point is sexual abuse, not homosexuality.
I appreciate all that. I posted a heads-up because Dead Horse issues were all over the subject from my perspective and my feeling was that they were not where you wanted the discussion to go.
As I tried to make clear, I'm sure there was scope for discussing what I saw as the key issue (the revolt by a Catholic congregation against its hierarchy, irrespective of the root causes) without straying into Dead Horse territory, but the succession of posts immediately following shows that other respondents felt differently.
I know by experience as an OPer that other shipmates may not always take a thread in the direction I'd hoped for. Taking some time to frame the question in the OP can help.
Once the topic is up, I personally think OPers have a right to attempt to steer the debate, but I also know from experience that this doesn't always work.
That said, I agree fully, again from personal experience, that Dead Horses should not be taken to mean "Death Knell".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Well, quite. I don't even notice what board most threads are on most of the time (the major exception being Hell threads, which are obvious even to me), as I use the view all active threads feature.
Given the fact that different boards have different guidelines, it would help you post more appropriately if you paid more attention.
Moo
You mean like the fourth commandment applying outside Hell? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
If one regards Dead Horses as somehow a "second rate" zone, rather than a particular extension of Purgatory for a selected range of topics, then I guess there may be some affront.
That's the problem. The modern guideline re Dead Horses says this.
quote:
1. Types of threads
This board is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music. If you want to discuss any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here. Please go to the appropriate board if you want to talk about worship practices or seek support.
[The boldening and italicisation of "any aspect" are mine]
The truth is that any topic of which homosexuality is a significant aspect cannot be sensibly retained in Purgatory without stifling the debate. Given that we have Purg and DH and this demarcation between them, the way to free up the topic if folks wish to draw in the significant DH aspect is to transfer the thread. That is emphatically not a downgrading.
Far from stifling debates, moves like this are intended to free up debates from what would otherwise be an artificial constraint.
I appreciate that DH has had a chequered history in this respect and the border between it and Purgatory have been the subject of many Styx discussions. Admin have responded to Shipmates' views and modified the guidelines.
The only real alternative is no Dead Horses at all. That's also been discussed, but the present framework is believed to be a better enabler of free discussions for the generality of serious topics.
[ 20. November 2013, 14:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
As any reasonable reader can see, this thread was about the action of the priest in speaking out about alleged abuse in seminaries, the reaction of the Catholic hierarchy to the disclosure and (most noteworthy) the reaction of the laity to the reaction of the hierarchy.
I can see that that was what you wanted it to be about, but not how the thread turned out. Dead horse topics are like rotting horse meat to flies and once the smell gets out there's rarely any turning back.
My advice as a fellow shipmate and non-host/non-PTB would be to frame those questions, which I agree are worthwhile, using a different scenario.
In fact if you stick with the OP as is I don't think you'll get the discussion you want whether the hosts leave it in purg or not. If the hosts had left the thread in purg you'd just be left doing a King Canute against a tide of dead horse coming in.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Thanks for advice.
Between myself and l'organist, along with the various links giving the background, I dont think it could have been clearer what the issues were. That people like Zach choice to derail a useful debate with his own agenda, and with (on his own admission) little or no knowledge of the particular situation, is hardly my responsibility.
Good moderation would prevent the intentional, or unintentional, hi-jacking of threads intended to provoke serious-minded discussion.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Between myself and l'organist, along with the various links giving the background, I dont think it could have been clearer what the issues were. That people like Zach choice to derail a useful debate with his own agenda, and with (on his own admission) little or no knowledge of the particular situation, is hardly my responsibility.
Good moderation would prevent the intentional, or unintentional, hi-jacking of threads intended to provoke serious-minded discussion.
(My italics)
The problem is that what the thread starter might consider to be a derail, others may see as an interesting tangent. Once a thread has been started, it's out there in the wild and will go where it pleases. Starting a thread doesn't confer any power over what course the discussion takes...
In any case, as has already been said, a thread being moved from Purgatory to Dead Horses isn't a demotion or a stifling of debate. Threads get moved all the time and I don't think there's ever a value judgement in it; the question is simply where does the thread fit best. Mind you, the board subtitle for Dead Horses is a touch negative; 'endless, no-resolution-ever discussion'. Maybe that's where the sense of a move to DH being a demotion comes from?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Good moderation would prevent the intentional, or unintentional, hi-jacking of threads intended to provoke serious-minded discussion.
If your wish was implemented then I think complaints of hostly heavy-handedness would be along in seconds - and far outnumber complaints of derailment.
The best way round this in my view is to frame the OP more carefully (and then spend every minute of your day and night watching the thread like a hawk to try and head off what you perceive as derailment).
In the meantime, the discussion is still serious-minded. It's just that it's now about DH material.
[ 20. November 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It is about degree, not really about principle. Hosts are not required to keep a thread exactly in line with the debating intentions of the OP, but we are required to deal with derailing tangents as best we can. There's a large grey area in-between. Discussions develop in accordance with the interests of the various participants and on the whole that is a good thing.
I guess it is possible to create a debating arena within which moderators are eagle-eyed in their remonstrations to "stick to the point" - but it wouldn't be in keeping with the general ethos of unrest to control debate to that extent. Plus it would require a level of Host/moderator attention that a volunteer Hosting team would find very difficult to sustain.
[ 20. November 2013, 16:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Surely a derailing tangent which takes a Purgatory (in particular) thread away from the serious issue/topic raised into DH territory should be dealt with by the Hosts, rather than move the entire thread? Other boards manage to keep threads on-topic.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mind you, the board subtitle for Dead Horses is a touch negative; 'endless, no-resolution-ever discussion'. Maybe that's where the sense of a move to DH being a demotion comes from?
That and Purg being labeled as the space for serious debate. Subconsciously, DH position on the Community page, below even the Circus, might affect this as well. We are creatures of order and habit.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus it would require a level of Host/moderator attention that a volunteer Hosting team would find very difficult to sustain.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) The quality of uncompensated labour these days.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
One of the joys of the Ship is learning from the huge varities of denominations and nationalities represented here. But it does mean that most Shipmates won't have been reading "The Scotsman" or "The Glasgow Herald" for the past few months and won't be up to speed with what's going on.
It's understandable that a good OP dealing with the events of the past week, is going to drift into a discussion of the background to the current stooshie / stramash / rammy. Unfortunately, that background is Dead Horse territory.
I think there will be enough interested Shippies to sustain discussion of both parts of the thread - the OP and the tangent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Surely a derailing tangent which takes a Purgatory (in particular) thread away from the serious issue/topic raised into DH territory should be dealt with by the Hosts, rather than move the entire thread? Other boards manage to keep threads on-topic.
Purg is a more delicate balancing act, ISTM. It gets heated, but cannot be allowed to boil as Hell can. It can go tangential, but must avoid certain areas. Not an easy thing to do.
Too many thermometers in a pot, no room for soup.
[ 20. November 2013, 17:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Francophile
I refer you to my previous post, particularly the portion about the grey area. What is a clear derailing to you is by no means so clear to me, given our normal relatively laissez faire limits over the fair boundaries of communal discussion.
YMMV, in fact I can see it does, but I can't help that. We'll probably have to agree to differ.
[ 20. November 2013, 17:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
One of the joys of the Ship is learning from the huge varities of denominations and nationalities represented here. But it does mean that most Shipmates won't have been reading "The Scotsman" or "The Glasgow Herald" for the past few months and won't be up to speed with what's going on.
It's understandable that a good OP dealing with the events of the past week, is going to drift into a discussion of the background to the current stooshie / stramash / rammy. Unfortunately, that background is Dead Horse territory.
I think there will be enough interested Shippies to sustain discussion of both parts of the thread - the OP and the tangent.
Can we agree that the background to the story is sexual abuse, not homosexuality?
If we can agree on that, can we agree that sexual abuse is not a DH topic? (if we can't, were in trouble).
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Other boards manage to keep threads on-topic.
Other threads manage to keep threads on-topic. In many cases they appear to be self-regulating. I noticed you had a try on the thread in question, but the fact is that others took the debate elsewhere, uninterruptedly. As SCK says the thread is not your property once it's in the wild.
Single-handed attempts to derail threads are usually ignored. In this case the perceived tangent was taken up and discussed quite seriously by all the other subsequent posters, so in my eyes at least it doesn't qualify as disruptive. It did, however, move the topic firmly into DH territory, so in line with my warning upthread, the thread got moved.
The topics that qualify as DH topics are listed in the guidelines for that board, so that answers your question to NEQ. The reason they are in DH is not that they are not worth discussing but that the Ship's experience is that down in Dead Horses they often thrive quite nicely, whereas they degenerate really fast if left on the Purgatory board, thereby obscuring every other subject - which would indeed stifle debate.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Barnabus62: quote:
Far from stifling debates, moves like this are intended to free up debates from what would otherwise be an artificial constraint.
Well said.
Discussion requiring a heavy hostly hand would really be perceived as a stifled debate. On DH, one doesn't have to tip-toe around the story but may examine any aspect. Yes, the story is about abuse, in this instance alleged homosexual abuse and its aftermath. Thus appropriate to Dead Horses.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Can we agree that the background to the story is sexual abuse, not homosexuality?
If we can agree on that, can we agree that sexual abuse is not a DH topic? (if we can't, were in trouble).
Can we agree that the discussion can happen freely and deeply without ever touching on issues of homosexuality?
probably not.
Don't try to pen people in with questions like that. standard debate tactic, poorly executed.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Can we agree that the background to the story is sexual abuse, not homosexuality?
Even though I'm possibly the closest Shipmate, geographically, to High Blantyre I admit I've not been following the story in any great detail. I'm not that interested in problems in the RCC, there are more than enough in my own church as it is!
However, part of the background to the story as I understnad it is sexual abuse (not exclusively homosexual abuse or paedophilia). But, part of the background is also homosexuality. Many of the people who have shown sufficient interest in the story to contribute to the thread in question have chosen look at that part of the background. They are free to do so if they wish.
An OP that was carefully worded to discuss just the foreground issues, placing discussion of the background issues somewhere else, may have been able to produce the discussion you wanted without it following the tangent into discussing homosexuality - or, it may not have. The reason we have those subjects in Dead Horses is their tendancy to monopolise a discussion once they have been raised.
quote:
If we can agree on that, can we agree that sexual abuse is not a DH topic? (if we can't, were in trouble).
The more general topic of sexual abuse is not a Dead Horse.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Other boards manage to keep threads on-topic.
Where are these boards, and when can I sign up to host one?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
Perhaps this thread should be moved to Dead Horses, as it seems to have degenerated into yet another discussion on ideal moderating practice.
My 2˘: the ideal moderation is done in moderation, to deal with blatant spammers and trolls, but otherwise let things be. Apart from irritatingly unfunny thread titles in Purg. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Perhaps this thread should be moved to Dead Horses, as it seems to have degenerated into yet another discussion on ideal moderating practice.
My 2˘: the ideal moderation is done in moderation, to deal with blatant spammers and trolls, but otherwise let things be. Apart from irritatingly unfunny thread titles in Purg.
so presumably you would have let the thread continue in Purgatory?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Can we agree that the background to the story is sexual abuse, not homosexuality?
If we can agree on that, can we agree that sexual abuse is not a DH topic? (if we can't, were in trouble).
Can we agree that the discussion can happen freely and deeply without ever touching on issues of homosexuality?
probably not.
Don't try to pen people in with questions like that. standard debate tactic, poorly executed.
why not try and answer the questions as your fellow mod has done?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Francophile, I've no dog in this scrap, but really I can't understand what you're unhappy with.
1. Threads rush into territory where OPs fear to tread all the time; there's nothing any one individual poster (let alone the OP-er) can do about that. Hosts can and sometimes do nudge off-track threads back onto topic.
However, attempts to sharply rein in more inclusive discussion would do far more to "stifle debate" than simply moving a thread to a different board. (It might also require paid Hosts with extensive, detailed written remits rather than volunteers, but that's another story).
2. DH may be low on the front page totem pole; it's less populously frequented than Purgatory; lilBuddha notes we're creatures of habit. That said, plenty of robust debate can be had in Dead Horses, and most of us are capable of forming new habits when motivated to do so.
What is your gripe?
[ 20. November 2013, 23:38: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
so presumably you would have let the thread continue in Purgatory?
Moi? If I were dictator, I'd go on a radical merger spree – this board is nowhere near active enough to need so many subforums. The Dead Horses/Purg distinction is pretty thin at the best of times, and is capable of having unhelpful things read into it (as per the OP). And I'm not sure why we need periodic Oblivioning of threads. But that probably paints a good picture of why I'm not dictator... Really, I don't particularly care, so long as it makes hosts feel happy and useful (rather than miffed) when they have to do a filing job.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Traffic volume goes up and down, pereirin. The boards are I think less busy currently than they have been in the past. Currently, I can get away with about 2 hours a day Hosting activity on average, but it's been higher than that. There has been activity on 16 Purg threads in the last 24 hours; when I first started Hosting, the figure was nearer 30. It's a fair bit of reading for comprehension, even at current reduced levels, and the topic range remains pretty wide. You have to keep your wits about you.
Is the current structure too complex for the current traffic volume? Interesting point for Admin, I guess, but it strikes me as a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Hosts work with the structures and guidelines (including demarcation guidelines) we've got and expect to be judged in the Styx on that.
[ 21. November 2013, 01:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sigh.
Once upon a time, in my first days on the Ship before I had my sea legs, I took exception to the movement of something to Dead Horses because it felt like it was saying 'we don't want to talk about this'.
I know better now. I now understand that the purpose of Dead Horses is to prevent certain topics that come up all the time from overwhelming Purgatory. Dead Horses is saying 'we DO want to talk about this - so much so that it deserves its own board'.
Whether or not an opening poster wants to talk about the homosexuality 'angle' of a story is one thing, but the whole reason that Dead Horses exists is that a large number of threads possessing a homosexuality 'angle' (or an ordination of women 'angle') will pursue that aspect and it will dominate the discussion.
Moving a thread to Dead Horses is not a declaration that posters must only discuss the homosexuality angle, it is a reflection of the fact that this is what posters are doing. It's a confusion of cause and effect to say that the Hosts made a decision and then everyone talked about homosexuality (so the Hosts are to blame). The two events happen the other way around.
This is pretty much the case with all thread moves. We don't consult a set of criteria and say "well, I want the thread to head in this direction". We say "this is the way the thread is actually heading" and consider whether the thread's natural home is on a different board.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
Perhaps the word "dead" confuses some of us simple souls. It's more like a recycling bin.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
You mean like the fourth commandment applying outside Hell?
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Good moderation would prevent the intentional, or unintentional, hi-jacking of threads intended to provoke serious-minded discussion.
Your derision of our rules and staff is noted. It would be preferred for you to keep these sorts of comments constructive. Because, while it is hard to face our own failings and find ways to improve, it is easy to vent petty annoyances on helpless nobodies.
-RooK
Styx Host
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
You mean like the fourth commandment applying outside Hell?
Your derision of our rules and staff is noted. It would be preferred for you to keep these sorts of comments constructive. Because, while it is hard to face our own failings and find ways to improve, it is easy to vent petty annoyances on helpless nobodies.
-RooK
Styx Host
I apologize if that came over as derision of the rules and the staff in their official capacity. What I meant to do was to draw attention this extraordinary hypocritical personal attack that Moo had just made outside her official capacity:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Given the fact that different boards have different guidelines, it would help you post more appropriately if you paid more attention.
I felt that I had good-humouredly invited Moo to repost her personal attack in the appropriate forum so that I could respond to it properly, but if that was not clear, I once more apologize.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
And I'm not sure why we need periodic Oblivioning of threads.
Tidiness is a form of cleanliness, and as we all know cleanliness is next to Godliness.
In practical terms smaller boards are considerably easier to reindex, and reindexing is what helps to prevent software errors. Did anyone else notice the problem in Purg on Tuesday where page 1 wasn't displaying correctly? That was due to an indexing failure, and if Purg was a few hundred pages big rather than five it would have taken us hours to fix rather than the couple of minutes it actually took.
Of course, keeping dead threads on the main boards wouldn't make them any easier to find. We'd just have nine unsearchable, bug-ridden Oblivions rather than one.
The only viable alternative to Oblivionating dead threads is to delete them, which is what we used to do and is an option that has been discussed more than once since Oblivion was set up. Of course, while that would make the boards considerably easier to manage behind the scenes it would be even worse than the current arrangement in terms of being able to read old threads (because they wouldn't exist)!
So there you go, that's why we have a policy of periodic Oblivionation of threads.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Traffic volume goes up and down, pereirin. The boards are I think less busy currently than they have been in the past. Currently, I can get away with about 2 hours a day Hosting activity on average, but it's been higher than that. There has been activity on 16 Purg threads in the last 24 hours; when I first started Hosting, the figure was nearer 30. It's a fair bit of reading for comprehension, even at current reduced levels, and the topic range remains pretty wide. You have to keep your wits about you.
Is the current structure too complex for the current traffic volume? Interesting point for Admin, I guess, but it strikes me as a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Hosts work with the structures and guidelines (including demarcation guidelines) we've got and expect to be judged in the Styx on that.
I've seen much much higher traffic-level sites manage fine with just three or four site-wide moderators, using a separate individual only for the equivalent of the Styx to avoid the impression of total unaccountability in moderation.
The division up into petty fiefdoms here is particularly unhelpful, as it leads to inconsistent moderation (and that strange effect of moving a thread to be someone else's problem!). A particular concern is the special interest discussion area, as there seems to be an issue that some of the hosts there give the impression that they think that the topic matter alone makes their task radically different from Purg in some unspecified way.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In practical terms smaller boards are considerably easier to reindex, and reindexing is what helps to prevent software errors. Did anyone else notice the problem in Purg on Tuesday where page 1 wasn't displaying correctly? That was due to an indexing failure, and if Purg was a few hundred pages big rather than five it would have taken us hours to fix rather than the couple of minutes it actually took.
Why does this board software seem to need so much reindexing? If this is a genuine issue, rather than it just being mentioned here rather more openly than elsewhere, then would it be possible to migrate onto something that didn't need so much reindexing?
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Not at zero financial cost, however. Or a need for significant transitional labour. Plus a bit of voluntary project managing which might not be that easy with a dispersed team. I guess the nettle might have to be grasped some day, but the Ship has close to zero financial reserves. A software collapse could kill the site.
I think Admin manage with the current ancient software because the only "costs" are voluntary labour for fixing and some occasional glitches. Plus oblivionating.
This site has "funny" ways, but it's managed to survive despite its idiosyncrasies when lots of discussion forums have come and gone. And it has evolved over its guidelines and ethos. Despite its obvious vulnerabilities, it seems to have some built in adaptabilities as well.
Your arguments are not new, of course. I see you've been a member for about a year and perhaps you haven't seen some of the previous discussions. The site Admin here are very bright and have been around, in most cases for a lot longer than me. No harm in re-rehearsing the arguments of course.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Is it not a simple fact that debate was not stifled, but moved to a different board - where it seems to be bubbling along in a lively fashion.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Why does this board software seem to need so much reindexing? If this is a genuine issue, rather than it just being mentioned here rather more openly than elsewhere, then would it be possible to migrate onto something that didn't need so much reindexing?
The main thing that means we have to reindex the boards is, ironically, thread moves. The software doesn't automatically catch up to the fact that all those posts are now somewhere else, and if we don't refresh the indexes strange things happen.
So why do we move threads? Because we have nine different active boards, each with a different remit, and sometimes threads either aren't started in the right place or see a drift in topic to one that would be more appropriate elsewhere. Or they get Oblivionated.
In theory we could operate with one all-purpose board, and that was indeed how things started out way back when. But the decision to split discussions according to type was made very early, and for very good reasons - can you imagine one board catering for everything from serious discussion through prayer threads to games, with a stop-off for threads dedicated to personal conflict on the way? It just wouldn't work, and that's without the massive hassle of having to search through page after page of threads to find the one you want.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The division up into petty fiefdoms here is particularly unhelpful, as it leads to inconsistent moderation (and that strange effect of moving a thread to be someone else's problem!).
Sorry, but this is a complete mischaracterisation of how it actually works. We talk to each other, and in my experience it's invariably the case that a thread is not moved until the receiving Hosts have said "yes, send it over".*
Just because we don't show you this discussion in public, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Nor is it the case that every thread we consider moving actually gets moved.
* With the noticeable exception of H&A day, where threads were sent to all sorts of random places. But that's the whole point: lobbing threads between 'petty fiefdoms' isn't the norm, it's the thing we do when we're mucking around and taking a break from being careful, responsible moderators.
[ 21. November 2013, 11:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Again, I have no dog in this fight. That said, while I'm not a frequent flyer, I like this site. So when I read things like this:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
I've seen much much higher traffic-level sites manage fine with just three or four site-wide moderators, using a separate individual only for the equivalent of the Styx to avoid the impression of total unaccountability in moderation.
The division up into petty fiefdoms here is particularly unhelpful, as it leads to inconsistent moderation (and that strange effect of moving a thread to be someone else's problem!). A particular concern is the special interest discussion area, as there seems to be an issue that some of the hosts there give the impression that they think that the topic matter alone makes their task radically different from Purg in some unspecified way.
I have to take exception. So: some questions:
1. When a high-traffic site has 3-4 mods, are they unpaid volunteers? That's who scrubs the pots and bottles here.
2. "Petty fiefdoms?" Seriously?! If that's how you experience the moderation aboard Ship, I find it surprising you bother embarking at all. Why, then, do you? There are, as you note, any number of other sites where you can engage with little moderation (or interference, if you like).
Then there's this: the hosts / mods / interferers (choose your terms) here are generally smart, well-informed, discerning, and engaged. They are also volunteers. They are also human. As the matters discussed on these boards are frequently discussed by posters who are also smart, well-informed, discerning, and engaged, hosting this lot takes a great deal of carefully-nuanced judgment. And I think the Hosts here get it right some 90% of the time. Granted, I generally steer clear of the "religious" threads, as I'm an atheist, so mine is a minority view here in several ways from, er, Sunday.
3. "Avoiding the impression of total unaccountability in moderation." Again, seriously?! IME, the Hosts here aren't about "impressions;" they are also active members (as well as human volunteers). Frankly, this is almost the only site I ever visit these days because the quality of the hosting makes this community worth the time spent engaging in discussion. It's virtually prat-free when compared to other sites I've visited.
4. And last but far from least, if the status quo rankles enough for you to be using this kind of terminology, why are you here? Why bother?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
What I meant to do was to draw attention this extraordinary hypocritical personal attack that Moo had just made outside her official capacity:
Every post that I make outside Kerygmania is outside my official capacity. Most posts I make inside Kerygmania are outside my official capacity. When I post as a host, the post is clearly labeled as such.
I don't understand why you use the word 'hypocritical'. Would you care to explain? Also, I don't understand why you considered it a personal attack, much less an extraordinary one.
There are differences between the boards in terms of such matters as levity/seriousness and venting/kindly support. If you make silly jokes in Purgatory or nasty cracks in All Saints, the hosts will rightly object.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
I've seen much much higher traffic-level sites manage fine with just three or four site-wide moderators, using a separate individual only for the equivalent of the Styx to avoid the impression of total unaccountability in moderation.
Seriously? Assuming you want to cover all time zones, at some times of day you'd only have one person hosting. And for any period of time that you had only one host on, they'd effectively be working full-time, which I personally think would be a hugely unreasonable expectation to have of volunteers (and I am enormously grateful to any volunteers on the Ship who *do* put in that kind of time, even in the context of being part of a team.)
In my view, the Ship has the best - effective, courteous, respectful, unobtrusive - hosting of any discussion board I've used, which is why I keep coming back here, having long abandoned other, well-known sites.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
(I)n my experience it's invariably the case that a thread is not moved until the receiving Hosts have said "yes, send it over".
Or "Only if we have to have it. What do you mean we have to have it? Argh, don't feed me to Fluffy, we'll take it."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Avoiding the impression of total unaccountability in moderation.
Does anybody else find it more than slightly ironic that this comment came on a board, Styx, whose purpose at least in part to hold hosts/moderators accountable? I have never been on another discussion site that had a special place you could go to bitch about the moderators. (Maybe I don't get out enough; that is a possibility.)
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm an atheist, so mine is a minority view here in several ways from, er, Sunday.
Nice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Then there's this: the hosts / mods / interferers (choose your terms) here are generally smart, well-informed, discerning, and engaged. They are also volunteers. They are also human.
Depending on your definition of human, obviously.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
