Ship of Fools: Debate stifled

Thread: Debate stifled Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027542

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
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.

Re the lack of notice when I moved the thread, that was an accident. I tried to move it at about the same time I was posting that I was closing the thread and moving it. Except if you accidentally move the thread first, then it's closed so you can't post on it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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".

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

The quality of uncompensated labour these days.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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?

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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]

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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?

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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 ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

Perhaps the word "dead" confuses some of us simple souls. It's more like a recycling bin.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

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

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

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.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

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]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

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.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

My apologies for resurrecting this thread.

Upthread of here, I was told that the OP'er of a thread has no control over how the thread develops and that if the thread moves into a Dead Horse issue, that is just tough luck. The OP'er can attempt to steer the conversation away from DH material but may not succeed. I think that is a reasonable summary.

Over in Dead Horses at the moment we have a discussion about the alleged immaculateness of the conception of the Virgin Mary. The thread was opened in DH.

After sundry discussion, there is a hostly intervention stating that the topic of discussion seems to be Original Sin, which is stated not to be a DH issue. So far, that is fine. However the Host then goes on to invite the OP'er to clarify what is "intended". If creationism/evolution or Biblical infallibility in relation thereto, the topic would be in the right forum (but, presumably, not if that is not "intended" to be the topic).

I may have the wrong end of the stick, and do not wish to incur further hostly wrath or derision from more experienced shipmates, but I see some contradiction in the two approaches.

The thread which I opened in Purgatory (Stooshie in the RCC) was moved to DH without any reference to me, the OP'er, as to what I "intended" but the process the other way seems to involve what the OP'er intended, irrespective of how the discussion has proceeded subsequent to the OP.

Any view, thoughts?

[ 09. December 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Francophile ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

You're complaining about being consulted?

If the hosts think a thing belongs in DH, they move it to DH. If they're not sure where to put it, they try to clarify things a bit - which might include a better understanding of what the OPer had in mind. This is a problem?

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

No, I'm not complaining about being consulted. I'm complaining about not being consulted.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

All I can say is that if the aim of Hosts and Admins is to stifle debate on these boards, then they're pretty shit at it.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I think that thread is almost certainly in the wrong place, but it's such an odd thread I wasn't immediately sure where it would be best to put it, so I'm fishing for a bit more information. I also want to see what the misunderstanding is, if there is one, that caused it to be started in DH so I can explain, if need be, why it shouldn't be there.

If I was sure the thread had no possible Dead Horse aspect, I wouldn't have bothered asking at all but would just have moved it without asking as happened to your previous thread.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Louise, your PM box is full or else I would have replied to your PM re same. As it is, I e-mailed you with what I hope is a clarification.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Thanks! I've got the email and have deleted some PMs. Just going to reply to your email.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Louise, your PM box is full or else I would have replied to your PM re same. As it is, I e-mailed you with what I hope is a clarification.

You were also asked publicly what your intention was. You could always reply publicly, which would save a lot of time .

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I PM'd to ask in case my message on the thread hadn't been spotted, so a PM in response was fine by me. I've got the info I need, thanks!

[ 09. December 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it is the case that consultation prior to Hostly action is an option, but not an obligation. If any consultation with a Shipmate leads to a dispute about whether the guidelines have been applied correctly, the general view is that such discussions are better in the open for all to see.

That being said, any Shipmate can seek clarification of any Hostly ruling by PM first. That's an option for any Shipmate, just as much as it is for a Host to initiate a prior clarification. But it seems to me that it would be just as wrong to say that Shipmates should invariably consult by PM first before posting in the Styx. It depends on how we see these things. We've got freedoms of action here. Hosts' specific actions can be called out for correctness, and that can include whether they are seen as peremptory, or discourteous, as well as correct.

The only constraint on freedom of action is that extended discussions (clarifications, queries, disagreements over the propriety of Hostly actions) over rulings must take place in the Styx. That's to prevent the discussion threads from being derailed.

My first call to the Styx was preceded by an exchange of PMs initiated by a Shipmate. We agreed to disagree over rules interpretation but we did agree that the gist of the PM exchange could be copied into the Styx. A vigorous and healthy debate followed.

The Styx is an open forum, like all the others. We don't stifle discussion about any Hostly action. Given that fact, does it really matter whether such open discussions happen before or after the event? Or whether they are preceded by prior PMs initiated either by Hosts or Shipmates?

So far as the specifics of decisions over thread movements, which do not stifle discussion, I would add one thought. Policing the boundaries between discussion areas does not seems to me to be a big deal, given our unrestful ethos and open structures. It's just a kind of tidying up. Does it really need some kind of hard and fast guideline over prior consultation? Wouldn't that be just a little bit "picky", as well as over-prescriptive?

[ 10. December 2013, 07:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The thread which I opened in Purgatory (Stooshie in the RCC) was moved to DH without any reference to me, the OP'er, as to what I "intended" but the process the other way seems to involve what the OP'er intended, irrespective of how the discussion has proceeded subsequent to the OP.

Any view, thoughts?

Thread length is a factor as well. It's easier to redirect a thread down the OPer's intended route when it's new than it is when there are dozens of posts all travelling a long way in one direction.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0