Soapbox - Open it up and moderate it?

[Tim Bennet.]

Before anyone can vote for any form of moderation on 'Soapbox', surely we have to agree exactly what type of behaviour is acceptable and what is not? Otherwise the mods will be open to accusations of either arbitrary decisions or projecting their own prejudices.

What exactly is it about Soapbox that is so objectionable?

For me there are only two things; one is gratuitous personal abuse and the other is where people are clearly not advancing a personal belief, but are solely trying to be controversial or antagonistic towards others with malice aforethought.

 

[jonesy]

Before anyone can vote for any form of moderation on 'Soapbox', surely we have to agree exactly what type of behaviour is acceptable and what is not? Otherwise the mods will be open to accusations of either arbitrary decisions or projecting their own prejudices.

What exactly is it about Soapbox that is so objectionable?

For me there are only two things; one is gratuitous personal abuse and the other is where people are clearly not advancing a personal belief, but are solely trying to be controversial or antagonistic towards others with malice aforethought.

+1

Edit:

Chuffy, don't imagine that you'd get rid of the problem by closing Soapbox. As before, if Soapbox isn't there, then the problems will simply become a moderation problem for Cafe. So why not deal with them in Soapbox in the first place? If you want a particular type of discussion to go into a particular forum, then don't put up barriers to people going into that forum.

 

[simonali]

Option 4 for me. Just get shot of it and all the big brave keyboard warriors that frequent the place I say!

 

[jonesy]

Option 4 for me. Just get shot of it and all the big brave keyboard warriors that frequent the place I say!

Hmmm. I hope that one of your objections to Soapbox isnt that people indulge in name calling and petty insults there....

 

[Crackle]

If you want a particular type of discussion to go into a particular forum, then don't put up barriers to people going into that forum.

It's a fair point and as I don't want Soapbox in Cafe then perhaps Shaun can default peoples profile to include Soapbox and those of us who don't want it can opt out.

On the subject of moderation where would you start. Remove the entrenched views, remove the usual rivalries, ban certain subjects, ban all swear words or just some or just those in a certain context, only alow those with a certain post count in, start banning people who didn't tow the line. I can't see how it would work, as this thread clearly shows we all have different views.

 

[Chuffy]

Chuffy, don't imagine that you'd get rid of the problem by closing Soapbox. As before, if Soapbox isn't there, then the problems will simply become a moderation problem for Cafe. So why not deal with them in Soapbox in the first place? If you want a particular type of discussion to go into a particular forum, then don't put up barriers to people going into that forum.

No, it wouldn't be an instant cure. However, there is a very different atmosphere in the Cafe and that alone (going from experience of the pre-Soapbox C+) would moderate (with a small m) any threads. There is also a different expectation of the way to behave in the Cafe, so there would be greater support for the Mods/Admin if they did have to take action. As it is, given that Soapbox is advertised as being unmodded then there is more resistance to any action being taken. The user mods in particular would find it very hard to take effective action without a lot of potentially unhelpful grumbling.

FWIW I'm glad that at least we are having a discussion about what to do. There was the danger that nothing would ever happen and that people would gradually leave the forum without ever saying why.

 

[simonali]

Hmmm. I hope that one of your objections to Soapbox isnt that people indulge in name calling and petty insults there....

Don't get all pedantically PC on me. My calling some of the people in there that isn't the same as some of the stuff the same people come out with, because I haven't aimed it at anyone personally.

There's a big difference between accusing someone of being a KW and telling them to "**** off, you stupid ****"!

 

[spire]

Soapbox is a place for robust debate and thick-skins. The regulars are all very happy with it, otherwise they wouldn't be regulars.

We really don't want much moderation. (The existing 'light touch' is spot-on.)

Pussies should stick to Cafe.

 

[jonesy]

...On the subject of moderation where would you start. Remove the entrenched views, remove the usual rivalries, ban certain subjects, ban all swear words or just some or just those in a certain context, only alow those with a certain post count in, start banning people who didn't tow the line. I can't see how it would work, as this thread clearly shows we all have different views.

Whether someone has 'entrenched views' is a matter of personal opinion, and not something anyone need take offense at; certainly not for moderation. Likewise 'rivalries' etc. Tim has identified the main problems, and those can be handled with 'light touch' moderation as happens elsewhere, and was done OK on the old C+. Swearwords can be handled with the basic filter as was done on C+. Yes it can be bypassed- but we are looking for improvement, not perfection.

Basically Soapbox should be a place for debating issues, not personal abuse, and that is where the line should be drawn. Posts that are racist, incite crime, or are libellous etc aren't appropriate anywhere, whether the forum is open or not, but it is informal moderation by other forummers that is the best defence against that sort of thing.

 

[redcogs]

There is obviously another place named 'soapbox' that i havn't been to yet.

It sounds pretty good, has anyone got a link?

 

[jonesy]

There is obviously another place named 'soapbox' that i havn't been to yet.

It sounds pretty good, has anyone got a link?

Clearly that reference to 'entrenched views' didn't ring any bells then?

 

[Crackle]

Basically Soapbox should be a place for debating issues, not personal abuse, and that is where the line should be drawn. Posts that are racist, incite crime, or are libellous etc aren't appropriate anywhere, whether the forum is open or not, but it is informal moderation by other forummers that is the best defence against that sort of thing.

Again it's a fair point and there are some good debates occasionally but I don't see why you can't do that but still allow those who don't want to see the debate, be drawn in or just not want to acknowledge them mentally have the option to opt out.

If Shaun changed the default so that we opted out instead of in and put a sticky at the top to indicate you could opt out then that satisifies everyone. You can then move on to debate exactly how to manage Soapbox in future. Perhaps when some of the abuse has been reigned in, the name calling, post stalking and general baiting has stopped you may attract people back in to those debates, whereas now I feel people are going the other way.

 

[yenrod]

Respect to Admin for being so democratic.

 

[redcogs]

Anyone aksed 'Monkey?

He has usually got a fair bit to say.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Whether someone has 'entrenched views' is a matter of personal opinion, and not something anyone need take offense at; certainly not for moderation. Likewise 'rivalries' etc. Tim has identified the main problems, and those can be handled with 'light touch' moderation as happens elsewhere, and was done OK on the old C+. Swearwords can be handled with the basic filter as was done on C+. Yes it can be bypassed- but we are looking for improvement, not perfection.

Basically Soapbox should be a place for debating issues, not personal abuse, and that is where the line should be drawn. Posts that are racist, incite crime, or are libellous etc aren't appropriate anywhere, whether the forum is open or not, but it is informal moderation by other forummers that is the best defence against that sort of thing.

One problem with moderation is that things are never quite what they seem. I remember someone PMing me about a ding dong with redders. I think he had suggested that I be hung with my own capitalist entrails from the rafters of the Lodge. I had to explain that redders and I actually get on very well on a personal level and the abuse is not to be taken seriously.