[FORUM] Sanction OPs for more powers

[Mephistophelis]

An OP who creates a thread should be given powers to:

1. Close a thread
2. Delete any post within the thread
3. Ban players from the thread
4. Petition to delete the thread entirely

Elaborating on all three:

1. If an OP finds that a thread is being:

a. Derailed
b. Attacked due to differences in ideas
c. Turns into a flame war

Then the OP should be given a reserved right to close the thread, ceasing all the above immediately. The advantages of this is that the time between having an OP ask a Moderator close a thread and the act of a thread being closed actually happening would be greatly reduced. Threads can be closed by OPs 2 hours after their initial posting to prevent OPs from creating numerous threads and then closing them all at once. Closing a thread should also have a cooldown of 10 minutes. The decision to close a thread by an OP is not final and can be superceded by a Moderator.

2. This idea allows a thread to continue being open while the OP assumes responsibility for the content therein, wherein an OP deletes any post they find irrelevant or defammatory. One great disadvantage is that any post that might criticise the OP's subject could end up being deleted, leading to a one-sided argument. Instead, the OP should provide a reason for deleting a post which can then be assessed by a Moderator for approval. To reduce the likeliness of a one-sided argument, an OP can only delete a certain number of posts within a thread per day.

3. Banning players from threads will automatically delete all posts they have made towards the discussion. The number of players you can ban within a thread depends on how large the thread is. I'd say the cap on banning users should be at 10% of the total UNIQUE users who posted on forums.

4. An OP can also petition for a thread to be closed providing a reason, which is assessed by a Moderator.

The above numbers indicating how many times an OP can delete a thread, ban a player and so forth are dictated by the system; so the Moderators still have power whom to ban a player from a forum entirely and how many times an OP can exercise their powers insofar. This micro-management of threads can allow the community itself promote maturity on forums with the help of Moderators, rather than just the Moderators.

[Sapience]

An OP who creates a thread should be given powers to:

1. Close a thread
2. Delete any post within the thread
3. Ban players from the thread
4. Petition to delete the thread entirely

1. No. This ususally leads to people closing threads when they realize they have posted on the internet and people don't agree with them. This leads to a new threads being opened about things and flame wars ensue.
2. No. This results in people deleting comments to misrepresent other people's comments or opinions.
2. No. Period.
4. Any OP can report their own thread and ask for it to be closed. It's not a petition it's a request. If the team feels it's reasonable we usually close it. In rare cases we we'll remove it if it has gone very wrong and is an endless stream of violations.

[Fredelas]

4. Any OP can report their own thread and ask for it to be closed. It's not a petition it's a request. If the team feels it's reasonable we usually close it. In rare cases we we'll remove it if it has gone very wrong and is an endless stream of violations.

I wish the community team wasn't so hostile to the word petition. In most of the world, this word simply means asking a person or organization in authority to take some official action.

Petitions differ from simple requests in that they are typically more formal and in the kind of action being sought, and differ from demands in that they are typically more respectful.

In fact, it seems like petition is the perfect word to describe this sort of thing.

[enginekid88]

I don't like Petitions. Just look at some of the things people will sign. Some guy recently posted a video to Youtube where he got hundreds of signatures from oblivious people to add carcinogens to the water supply. Only a few people knew and didn't sign.

[Mephistophelis]

By petition, I really mean it as a formal request, not as in something that needs signatures. However, as the community team are opposed to the idea then the case is closed.

[Ardineck]

I posted a similar suggestion on the suggestion forums some time ago. It was met with some hostility. I don't think my vision was communicated well, but I also think some people go out of their way to deny that something should be or could be done. I don't pretend to have a perfect solution, but I think real substantive discussion gets mired down too often. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I find myself caring less and less about it.

[Rainothon]

If your OP-thread is being derailed, the posters found another subject in that thread more interesting to talk about at that point in the thread. You may wish to post a comment to rail the thread back and shift the focus of interest, not by 'I demand you speak of my subject only', but by trying to recapture the audience's interest for your starting topic. That usually does the trick. Politely call on common forum courtesy if you wish.

If you're being attacked due to differences in ideas, and think it's against the CoC, report the poster(s).

If your OP-thread turns into a flamewar, PM a mod about it if you're actually fast enough to be in before the lock.

If you wish your OP-thread closed, send a motivated request or whatever else you wish to call a polite, motivated call for action to a mod.

The tools/powers you ask for, are quite powerful and would allow much abuse in the wrong hands. And I honestly think you don't need them.

[Khafar]

1. No.
2. No.
3. No. Period.

Thanks - that was precisely the wording I would have used for this suggestion . The last one is already available.

Khafar

[Taravith]

I posted a similar suggestion on the suggestion forums some time ago. It was met with some hostility. I don't think my vision was communicated well, but I also think some people go out of their way to deny that something should be or could be done. I don't pretend to have a perfect solution, but I think real substantive discussion gets mired down too often. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I find myself caring less and less about it.

Well I went through two very different reactions reading OP's post.

1) First a positively intrigued one, imagining a mature and responsible OP trying to have an in-depth discussion about a complex but interesting topic and trying to use those powers to protect his thread against people or posts that could reasonnably be considered to lessen the quality of the conversation.

2) Then a horrified one going back to reality and imagining the average forumer using those powers to mangle a conversation by deleting posts not according to their merit but how vigorously they agree with him, closing threads with no regard to the actual direction of the discussion but only on a whim...

So I guess that when you and OP posted that suggestion, you had 1) in mind. But experience suggests that most (if not all) threads would end up in 2).

But as much as we might dream of the "perfect" discussion, it's also the nature of a conversation: it's organic, it goes in directions you didn't plan or even wish for, it has its own ebb and flow, it can spiral down into the gutter as easily as it can shoot for the stars - and it might not be as enjoyable as it sounds to get rid of all that chaos and life. After all isn't that the whole point of talking to other people as opposed to yourself or a robot?

[Khafar]

2) Then a horrified one going back to reality and imagining the average forumer using those powers to mangle a conversation by deleting posts not according to their merit but how vigorously they agree with him, closing threads with no regard to the actual direction of the discussion but only on a whim...

There was a guy on the LOTRO forums before the game launched who was a passionate, but well-informed poster. He argued stridently for "historic accuracy" for the artwork in the game, such as can be in a fictional setting. And because he wrote well, made good points, and was even a decent artist in his own right (posting examples of how he'd like to see the "look" of the game shaping up), he managed to attract a number of developers -- and a vast amount of discussion -- to his threads. Some had responses well over 1000 posts.

Then, when Turbine didn't deliver on what he thought they should, he left in a temper tantrum, and DELETED every thread he'd ever created. Dozens of them, started over a 3 year period. All told, close to 10,000 posts vanished in a few hours, including at least 100 made by developers giving great insight into how they work, and probably 300 or more of my own posts.

Ouch. They changed the forums within a week so it was impossible for anyone to do anything like that again, but the damage was done. Raph Koster once said that if you gave your players matches in a virtual world, every single thing that could be burned to the ground would be, within a day or two. Sadly, he's right. There's simply no way I'd even consider giving players that sort of power here, were it my decision. Thankfully, the CR people around here have plenty of their own experience to draw on in reaching that conclusion.

Khafar