|
Re: Method for Containing ForestFires
by CountZero (Bishop) on Nov 06, 2011 at 18:09 UTC
|
Too much admin work I'd say. Who is going to patrol the Monastery and relocate all the flames? Much better we all just refrain from responding to trolls and flamers and use our consideration powers to remove the worst and most offensive nodes.
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James
| [reply] |
|
|
I don't think it would be that much more work than past instances with batches of spam posted quickly to the site and how members have responded. As for ignoring bait, unfortunately there will always seem to be at least one person who responds. It can be for all kinds of reasons with good or bad intentions but once that first person does respond the 'ignore' strategy is underminded.
"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
| [reply] |
Re: Method for Containing ForestFires
by graff (Chancellor) on Nov 06, 2011 at 22:07 UTC
|
IMHO, the scope and frequency of the problem doesn't seem big enough to merit the extra effort you're requesting in order to give it "special treatment" -- which includes having to make case-by-case decisions about where the line gets crossed between a substantive debate (which might include some "inappropriate remarks") and a pointless exchange of insults or baseless/inflammatory assertions.
We have the default (and user-adjustable) depth limit on viewing threads, which serves well not only in runaway flame wars but also in the "conscientious but too detailed" pursuit of perl questions. And it remains easy to drill down whenever you want to.
As for isolating bad behavior in its own section of the Monastery, I'd rather see it remain (or be reaped, when possible) in context, and I'd rather not see a section devoted to holding bad behavior, for fear that some might see it as encouragement to continue in that vein, given that there's a "safe" place reserved for it. | [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I'm not suggesting one large sandbox for all the flame wars to reside and/or a new section on the site labeled as such. I'm also not suggesting replacing the existing consideration system for individual offending nodes. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. Each flame war that spans across multiple threads would be collected in it's own thread.
We have a mechanism for enacting this through consideration. Earlier I mistakenly responded to this thread's parent (me) when I meant to respond to CountZero. I requested an edit to fold the node under his reply. This would not be that different. I also don't think it would involve that much more effort by the community once it's been integrated. If it's not that frequent a problem as you suggest *(Personally, I disagree.) then it should be even less work. If it is more frequent then, I believe, it would be worth exploring.
Please have a look at the article I posted earlier on dealing with flame wars through soft security. It's very thorough with what I believe are some good ideas:
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForestFire
* I'm not simply referring to the last few months or individuals. We have members on our site who seem to, more than occasionally, let there emotions get the better of them, carrying their back and forth across different threads. I wouldn't suggest this just for a random trouble maker that stops by once in a while.
| UPDATE |
| Sunday, 06.Sunday.Nov.2011 :: 7:03 PM :: |
Added note on personal view of frequency of disruptive threads. |
"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
| [reply] |
Re: Method for Containing ForestFires
by JavaFan (Canon) on Nov 07, 2011 at 10:12 UTC
|
So, who's going to decide what'a flame war, and what isn't? What if we have a flame war about the decision to make something a flame war?
If you are going to make changes, why not allow people to say "from here on, I consider this post and its subthread a flame war, don't show it to me anymore", and "I never want to see posts from this person again". IMO, far, far, far more useful than someone else deciding it (it's functionality Usenet readers gave me 25 years ago). | [reply] |
|
|
As I said before, this would work through the consideration system we currently have. No one individual can reap or edit a node. This would be no different
We already have ways of blocking user's posts (there are some CSS hacks floating around the site somewhere). However that seems to assume that all the users involved in flame wars are -always- involved in flame wars. Individuals may in fact end up blocking people who usually post good answers, questions etc. If we just block them until the flaming calms down it still assumes that they are only engaging in the distraction during that time without any other posts. I just think those solutions may be heavy handed.
I like the idea of giving members the ability to block threads from a certain point down. I seem to remember something similar being mentioned before but can't recall how it would be implemented or if someone even came up with a hack for it. Again nice idea, thank you ++ :)
"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
| [reply] |
|
|
How about a method to completely ignore posts made by Anonymous Monks?
| [reply] |
|
|
Ignore all AM?
Far too broad a brush, for me. AM's are not infrequently the authors of particular insightful and useful replies. Do you want to miss all those to avoid seeing that a sicko has posted a node?
Yes, some AM's are leeches, asking questions like "how to I started the cmd promp?" or 'my PERL code isn't working. Why doesn't it print?
$foo = he is a very new coder;
type foo;
... and some are trolls...
... but, really, one might just as well require logins to post; that's hardly less draconian.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Method for Containing ForestFires
by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Nov 08, 2011 at 09:06 UTC
|
If this is going to happen, then PM should inject whatever is necessary to blast the Mortal Kombat theme while said participants are posting. | [reply] |
Re: Method for Containing the BrowserGami Wars
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 08, 2011 at 18:43 UTC
|
Imagine, collected in ONE beautifully crafted volume, the entire saga to enjoy at your leisure.
| [reply] |
