Or some sort of meter that indicates the severity level of the user's "trollingness" and disruption.
Discipline around low effort posts or poorly sourced posts
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Guys ... can you please stop with these off topic discussions like which poster or forum is worse than another, this is exactly the point of this thread including "Discipline around low effort posts or poorly sourced posts"
I must admit I had too much to do at work within the last weeks to reply properly and I will do that in a few days ... but please stay on topic in order to find a solution and do not derail the issue on question with off topic accusations.
I must admit I had too much to do at work within the last weeks to reply properly and I will do that in a few days ... but please stay on topic in order to find a solution and do not derail the issue on question with off topic accusations.
If the mods decided to enact new rules, I think the forum should give members at least a few weeks grace period. Firstly, many members are not active and might not be up to date with the new rules. Secondly, members need time to adjust and understand the new boundary between low effort posts or acceptable posts.
I would also suggest to add at least 3-4 new mods. Implementing new rules and actively monitoring the site require 6-8 mods. Adding 1-2 new mods just won't do or make a difference.
I would also suggest to add at least 3-4 new mods. Implementing new rules and actively monitoring the site require 6-8 mods. Adding 1-2 new mods just won't do or make a difference.
Mr T
Senior Member
It's similar to the previous proposal to have reddit-style up/downvoting with votes being collapsed under a certain threshold. It would inevitably be abused and used to drive people with unpopular ideas off the forum. That's why forums have select groups of moderators who are trusted to impliment the rules objectively. If people are trolling they should be warned and then banned in the normal way.
That's not a bad idea. However, they'd have to be reannounced on the day they went live, in case people who were away when they came into force didn't see the message.
I don't know if moderators can send a message to all users?
Personally I think that 1 or 2 new moderators would be fine as a starting point. More could be hired if it didn't help.
However, if that's deemed not enough, we could have two new moderators for the forums overall but focusing on the premier threads, with another part-time one just to cover World Strategic Area - for one thing it would be easier to convince someone to just deal with part of the forum than the whole thing.
Last edited:
First, thanks to @Bltizo for the vote of confidence, but I will not consider moderating. It's too much work for me.
My two cents on the topic: The moderation here at SDF has overall been rather satisfactory, at least for the last 2 to 3 years, in no small part thanks to the fine efforts of our moderators.
I do not agree with removing non-military threads and sections. For sure, a lot of discussions there have a tendency to devolve into geopolitical shit-flinging due to the sensitive nature of certain topics (looking at you, Ladakh Flash Point). They are not technical but they are still relevant to defence. If we get rid of them, then what? We'd just continue posting blurry satellite photos and deciphering "big shrimp" bullshit that we won't learn the truth about for years. A lot of the original insiders are inactive or no longer with us. A lot of these secondary threads are engaging and entertaining, as long as the participants remain mature.
What I hope to see here is continued high-quality moderation. The military boards are well-managed because pointless speculation and nationalist arguments are cut off before they are allowed to fester. For boards like Strategic Defense, it's inevitable that there will be some level of nationalist behaviour, but sometimes it becomes ridiculous. Like those 20 pages of "should China get more nukes" cancer in the nuclear arms thread. Why does that matter in a technology thread? That debate should have been stamped out much earlier than it did. Is it because there are not enough moderators? Do we really need new rules or is it just a manpower issue?
I use Reddit quite actively as well, and it is a shame that people's attitudes are so biased against China in all regards. But the last thing we need is for this forum to become another r/Sino. That subreddit is a sore thumb because its users are culturally at odds with the rest of the website. We don't need to be a sore thumb. We could consider an approach where all perspectives are tolerated as long as the nationalism and comparisons stay out. This sense of impartiality should be indoctrinated into user culture, not just by moderating inappropriate content but also actively encouraged by community contributors.
Encourage observation, deter speculation. Normative thinking is a sin. The moderation so far has been good. Not only do we need more of it, we should encourage all members to self-moderate. At the same time, let's avoid fixing what isn't broken. The moderation standards are good, there just isn't enough enforcement.
My two cents on the topic: The moderation here at SDF has overall been rather satisfactory, at least for the last 2 to 3 years, in no small part thanks to the fine efforts of our moderators.
I do not agree with removing non-military threads and sections. For sure, a lot of discussions there have a tendency to devolve into geopolitical shit-flinging due to the sensitive nature of certain topics (looking at you, Ladakh Flash Point). They are not technical but they are still relevant to defence. If we get rid of them, then what? We'd just continue posting blurry satellite photos and deciphering "big shrimp" bullshit that we won't learn the truth about for years. A lot of the original insiders are inactive or no longer with us. A lot of these secondary threads are engaging and entertaining, as long as the participants remain mature.
What I hope to see here is continued high-quality moderation. The military boards are well-managed because pointless speculation and nationalist arguments are cut off before they are allowed to fester. For boards like Strategic Defense, it's inevitable that there will be some level of nationalist behaviour, but sometimes it becomes ridiculous. Like those 20 pages of "should China get more nukes" cancer in the nuclear arms thread. Why does that matter in a technology thread? That debate should have been stamped out much earlier than it did. Is it because there are not enough moderators? Do we really need new rules or is it just a manpower issue?
I use Reddit quite actively as well, and it is a shame that people's attitudes are so biased against China in all regards. But the last thing we need is for this forum to become another r/Sino. That subreddit is a sore thumb because its users are culturally at odds with the rest of the website. We don't need to be a sore thumb. We could consider an approach where all perspectives are tolerated as long as the nationalism and comparisons stay out. This sense of impartiality should be indoctrinated into user culture, not just by moderating inappropriate content but also actively encouraged by community contributors.
Encourage observation, deter speculation. Normative thinking is a sin. The moderation so far has been good. Not only do we need more of it, we should encourage all members to self-moderate. At the same time, let's avoid fixing what isn't broken. The moderation standards are good, there just isn't enough enforcement.
broadsword
Brigadier
Writing about US-China flame war had nothing to do with low quality posts. It was forbidden topic.
I think the addition of new moderators and having a grace period for new rules is entirely reasonable and would of course be part of any package to reform the forum's rules.
===
The question I'm specifically asking and which I was hoping to get feedback on was whether the community, fellow moderators and the webmaster agreed with the thrust of my proposal in the opening post of this thread, specifically aiming to tighten moderation in the military specific subforums and formalizing rules that explicitly allows for warning and subsequently banning members for the below infarctions in the military subforums:
1. "Low effort" posts
2. "Irrelevant" posts
3. "Poorly sourced" posts
4. "Reposing articles/tweets/poor quality pictures only" posts
The specifics of which I described in the opening post of this thread and which of course would have clear guidelines as part of any revisio to forum rules as well.
Furthermore there will of course be a strike system whereby if an individual commits only one of those offences there will only by say, a formal warning, followed by a one month ban (one week ban imo is useless), followed by a one year ban, followed by a permanent ban. The durations of the warning bans (month and year) is to give those members time to observe the forum instead of actively participating so that once their bans run out they should've learned enough to know what is useful to contribute.
But if the community, fellow moderators and webmaster agree with the above, it would be beneficial for it to be formalized in the rules -- perhaps even as a separate rules thread stickied at the military subforums. Drafting such rules would be quite easy to do but I don't want to waste any time beginning to do so if the community, moderators and webmaster disagree with this idea.
I think we do have consensus of cracking down on poor quality posts. Some members feel that enforcement is the main issue. Others suggest that the forum needs a reorganization. Personally, I think only strategic defense subforum would face resistance to the rules. Other military subforums shouldn't have too much problem to implement new rules if the mods are active.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
I think also add members who derail a flagship thread should also get the same treatment. Often the poor quality posts starts due to threads going off on a tangent. If we can prevent derailing from starting, there is a good chance to prevent poor quality posts.