Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
216 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Complaint Department

Subject: Thread locking in a community forum rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
cbazler wrote:
P.S. Did you know Octavian has a guild? It's called "The Awesome Octavian Guild." It contains a total of two threads, it has three members, and hasn't been active for over 2.5 years. It's also really easy to find, on p. 23 under "T" (for "The"). Of course, to make it much easier, you can find it under category "Occupation" (because, why not?).


:D good spot!

On searching for guilds, there used to be a trick where you could enter the following as a QuickBar link and it would pop up a box where you could search for a word in the guild name:

javascript: (function(){OBJ_TYPE='guild';name=prompt('Search '+OBJ_TYPE,'');if(name&&name!='')location='/geeksearch.php?action=search&objecttype='+OBJ_TYPE+'&q='+name;})();

But now it just displays "Missing template name".

Does anyone know how to get it to work again?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
russ wrote:
I.e. it's nothing about the "design or implementation" about the guild system itself (other than the current "discoverability" issue), but rather it is this meta issue about whether it would be "dismissive" to have Rainbow BGGers as a guild and W&G et al not as a guild?
The way you say "nothing about the 'design or implementation'" and then discount "other than the current 'discoverability' issue" is troubling. That's like saying "So nothing about famine is a problem, other than the lack of food and the starvation".

Jesus Christ. I was not minimizing the problem of discoverability, as you seem to be insinuating. And it's not like your famine example. I did not say "So nothing about lack of discoverability is a problem other than that people have a hard time finding it."

If someone says "X has multiple problems, one of which is discoverability" it's perfectly legitimate to ask what some of the other multiple problems are.

Just like if someone says "This game is broken because it has so many bad problems! The red and green pieces are indistinguishable to colorblind people", someone might reasonably wonder "What other problems are there?" That question obviously does NOT mean they are dismissing the colorblind issue, for pete's sake.

Or so I would have thought. I'm beginning to feel like I've fallen into Bizarro World, and that is troubling.

Quote:
In addition to all the ways that the design and implementation make it hard to find anything useful in the guilds, I also don't like how the guild pages are set up currently. They're essentially laid out like a game page... when really the main thing of interest in them is the forum sections. When I randomly go into a guild, most of the page is white space and has a lot of information that could be displayed in a better, more concise way.

OK, sincere thanks for being the first person to actually answer what I thought was a simple question with a concrete example of an additional design or implementation thing which you dislike about guilds. Thank you.

Quote:
And while I've seen guilds that use the calendar, image sections and something other than the general forum... most of them don't.

How is that one a problem? Some guilds do indeed use those sections, so they evidently have value. Having features that not all use is not a bad thing though. Most forum posts e.g. don't use boldface, but it's nice that it's there for when people do want to use it.

Quote:
As it stands now, guilds are essentially just a single sub forum that's really hard to find.

Yes, I suppose we all agree that they are hard to find compared to the "normal" forums!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Boyung
United States
Brookfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
col_w wrote:
OK, but that's still just specifics of their discoverability (which BGG has acknowledged as something that needs to be addressed) - I took Russ's question to be if that sort of stuff was solved, is there functionally anything wrong with using a guild as the primary location for community conversations?

As far as I can tell there's not - they have all the same functionality as a regular forum, plus several additional advantages (including the ability for the guild owner to delete posts and pin/lock/unlock threads).

the very design of the guilds system. In a sense, everything but "general gaming" could/should be a guild in that case. Currently, guilds can cover everything from the significant (1 player guild) to the completely random (Amateur Radio operators guild). The problem now would be one of perception: "sure, you LGBT gamers can have a guild, over there--->
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


You're aware that all of those groups you mention should just be guilds as well, and would be moved to guilds too, if/when they finally fix the information architecture of the site with respect to guilds.

you did see now bolded part of my post right?


you did see now bolded part of my post right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. B. Downey
United States
Suitland
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the problems is that there is little to no visibility into suspensions and bans. The mods are also hesitant to discuss suspensions and bans in specific instances. There exists room for a compromise:

Publicly publish stats on suspensions and bans on the macro level. Such as:

Number of moderations on a regular basis (yearly/quarterly/monthly/weekly/daily/whatever)
Number of moderations per forum
severity of moderations
number of repeat offenders
number of posts reported but not moderated
reasons for moderation in categories
average experience of users moderated (by years at BGG/number of posts to determine if new users/sock puppets are moderated)
number of moderations per moderator
etc.

There are lots of things the admins could do transparency wise to make everyone feel more comfortable without calling out individual users.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dylan Thurston
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
Brutilus wrote:
Has anyone considered approaching one of the RainbowBGG founders as it were to be a moderator for the comunity? I think that MamaPapillon, DragonsDream, and dlthurston have shown to be pretty level-headed and generally shown the judgement needed to be good mods...

I appreciate the shout out. I do like to think that I am one of the people here who tries to keep things on an even keel, but coming off a 1 day suspension (reduced thanks to post deletion) as a result of the Sandy Peterson thing, that is not always the case. Anyway, I have been a mod on other sites before and I'm not sure I'd want to put myself through that again.
I don't know that "no suspensions" is the right standard for moderating--we're all human and make mistakes.

For myself, one main concern is the time commitment--I spend too much time on BGG already. I also remain concerned about the opaqueness, which seems to lead to extra anger against the moderators. (There's also the issue of letting a white cis gay man represent that whole forum.)
DragonsDream wrote:
I'm not even sure if having a rainbow-person as a rainbow-mod is really even the best solution or if the tendency won't be to simply go the other way, and overlook minor rules violations by rainbow regulars while jumping on top of every minor slight from an "outside" in an effort to protect the community. Not saying that would happen, but, since we are talking about perceptions of moderation, that is a real concern. It also runs the risk of isolating and insulating the rainbow forum by creating an insider/outside dichotomy that doesn't really help anybody.
That's a good point, and I think an argument against having a specific rainbow-mod, as opposed to some other sort of arrangement. (Eg, having a general mod, maybe with a particular focus.)
DragonsBreath wrote:
A community liaison might be an idea. Not a mod, but somebody who can have private communication with mods re: mod issues, so for instance, when an troll is being disruptive, Octavian can let the liaison know that yes, this person was disciplined/suspended/banned and the trusted-by-the-Rainbow-community liaison can then reassure the community that yes, the problem was dealt with.
+1 to this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
that Matt
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.
badge
I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
Dammit!

Pete (wasted all this time pondering when he should have just gone straight to wikipedia)

Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance may also be worth visiting, as it seems particularly on point here.

Quote:
As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julian Wasson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
DAD JOKES
badge
Never trot when you can prance.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
while Women, gaming with kids, designers, gaming photography, every state and country and random chit chat get a forum" No matter the logic or logistics of it vis a vis the site architecture, the perception is that it is dismissive. It shuffles an unwanted minority group off to their own space away from the main discussions. Now, were the forums nothing more than General Gaming and off-topic chit chat (stuff that theoretically any and all BGGers could make use of) while every other group was a guild, you'd have a point.


I don't see having a guild as dismissive. It would be if anyone was forcing all related discussion to be held there, but as Octavian has said before, no-one from the community should feel they have to post there (or in Rainbow Gamers); and we are all welcome to post in General Gaming if we prefer.

The guild is just an option for those that want to use it. They take time to grow, even the largest ones currently were once small.

And the admins have said for some time now that all the regional forums will be converted to guilds anyway, so the list of forums is intended to shrink in time.


Okay but here's the thing: these topics are currently NOT welcome in General, even when the topic is explicitly about games. Because people come in and get all offended that we would dare talk about, say, LGBT+ representation in games, and call the very value of the thread into question, and now we're stuck either ignoring a bunch of jerks trying to tell us we're not valid or we explain that homophobia does in fact exist and we drop to RSP.

Even if it was welcome to talk about LGBT+ issues related to gaming in General, an LGBT+ focused forum like Rainbow BGG or a guild would still be valuable to talk about things that aren't strongly tied to gaming, to foster a sense of community in a hobby that often feels hostile, and to give people who are particularly interested in those topics a place to find them.

Yes, you can be out anywhere on BGG besides maybe RSP and be relatively safe from direct harrassment. But discussion of LGBT+ issues related to gaming is NOT in fact welcome everywhere.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn McCarthy
Canada
Calgary
AB
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
Moved to Complaints Dept


Oh come the fuck on. It was already safely tucked away in our closet, no need to throw it down the well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Lox
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Cosmonaut Zero wrote:
Octavian wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:

but what prevents this from happening? if something problematic occurs in some forum, say a specific game, and this gets mentioned in a thread in RanbowBGG, it seems inevitable and perhaps if necessary that cross-pollination will occur


Individual restraint and group accountability against engaging in people looking to start fights.

I am also serious about support for seeing a discussion in a thread that is locked for reasons unrelated to the original topic continuing in a new thread. I make this suggestion because I have seen it work in the past. However I have had a private discussion related to this situation where it was suggested that there are barriers to continuing a discussion in a new thread. I am interested in minimizing those barriers in whatever ways I can and invite suggestions on how to best do that.


I /really/ don't think that restraint and accountability are any sort of solution in a general sense. What you're saying is that you will do nothing to protect us from attacks, except shutting down our discussions when we dare to step up and try to defend ourselves.

It's an impartial solution to the specific "brigading" issue, because the core problem there is that you can go in to someone else's thread and if you troll hard enough and effectively enough, you can shut down that discussion. In other words, if you can do real emotional harm, then you're rewarded with the added benefit of silencing their discussion. That INCENTIVIZES the very behavior that moderation is intended to fight.

This also cuts both ways. From the perspective of the people in the Ask Sandy thread, we came in, "attacked" them, pissed some people off, and their discussion was effectively shut down. Scare quotes because calling out misogyny in its context is not an attack, but I have enough empathy to see that they're not going to be happy about how this happened either. The policy of locking threads and not deleting comments is one of mutually assured destruction, ensuring that you've pissed everybody off. The changes I'm proposing benefit everybody involved here.



I just wanted to pop in here and thank you for taking the time to empathize with how some Cthulhu Wars fans may have felt regarding the whole situation.

From my own perspective and some others that I talked to it felt like an attack on the community. Personally I agree that calling out misogyny wasn't an attack in itself (this is an important discussion), but there felt like attacks on Sandy such as age/religion/suggestions to ruin future KS's (this affects the community as a whole), and labeling him as spiteful and psychologically fragile. And this was all before any involvement whatsoever from members of the Cthulhu Wars community.

There also appeared to be a willful (maybe even gleeful) desire to troll with comments like "I couldn't help myself. I engaged in the thread. This will be a fun day..." all to the cheering of many other members of the "group" via thumbs up to such behaviour. This lead to the back and forth exchange that saw numerous threads locked, blame on both side for that.

When it comes to fairness it also appears moderation was at least as heavy if not heavier in the CW forums which saw threads moved then locked and sometimes deleted and no opportunity to continue the discussion.

So once again thank you for being open to how the issue might have been perceived from the CW community perspective. I would also like to share that I empathize with some of the Rainbow BGGers frustration with the whole cross posting and thread locking and respect the goal of discussing the concerns with misogyny even if I was frustrated with the way it was handled.




11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cbazler wrote:
It's impossible to talk about one without talking about the other. Apart from a handful of thriving, successful guilds, most guilds are desolate wastelands, in part because no one can find them. Long-defunct guilds are still on the list because BGG admins don't spend time cleaning them up. The "Guild" module is not defaulted on the home page, so it's impossible for newcomers to see which guilds are still active.



And, the fact that guilds offer the guild "owner" no real ability to manage the guild.

Example (not relevant to this discussion; but it's another reason why guilds strike me as a poorly thought out implementation): You can set up a guild and invite your game group members to the guild, to -- functionally -- create a master list of games owned. That's good.

However, you cannot (or, at least, couldn't) refuse people entry or remove them ... so, someone who just joins makes the function pretty useless.

If guilds afforded more control; maybe more people would post/use them, as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:

And, the fact that guilds offer the guild "owner" no real ability to manage the guild.

Example (not relevant to this discussion; but it's another reason why guilds strike me as a poorly thought out implementation): You can set up a guild and invite your game group members to the guild, to -- functionally -- create a master list of games owned. That's good.

However, you cannot (or, at least, couldn't) refuse people entry or remove them ... so, someone who just joins makes the function pretty useless.

If guilds afforded more control; maybe more people would post/use them, as well.
This really isn't my experience with guilds. In the guilds I frequent the guilds' owners have heavy control, essentially wielding full moderation power in any way they want, deleting whatever they feel like and locking threads whenever it suits them.

Pete (doesn't know anything for sure but sees things differently than you do)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
Lemur wrote:

And, the fact that guilds offer the guild "owner" no real ability to manage the guild.

Example (not relevant to this discussion; but it's another reason why guilds strike me as a poorly thought out implementation): You can set up a guild and invite your game group members to the guild, to -- functionally -- create a master list of games owned. That's good.

However, you cannot (or, at least, couldn't) refuse people entry or remove them ... so, someone who just joins makes the function pretty useless.

If guilds afforded more control; maybe more people would post/use them, as well.
This really isn't my experience with guilds. In the guilds I frequent the guilds' owners have heavy control, essentially wielding full moderation power in any way they want, deleting whatever they feel like and locking threads whenever it suits them.

Pete (doesn't know anything for sure but sees things differently than you do)



Is it possible it's changed? I just know - when setting up my guild (which I did, entirely, for the purpose of having a complete and accurate collection of all the members' games); I was unable to add or delete members (to ensure the accuracy of the collection).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. B. Downey
United States
Suitland
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
This really isn't my experience with guilds. In the guilds I frequent the guilds' owners have heavy control, essentially wielding full moderation power in any way they want, deleting whatever they feel like and locking threads whenever it suits them.

Pete (doesn't know anything for sure but sees things differently than you do)


Deleting and locking threads is not the same as controlling membership.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Lemur wrote:
Is it possible it's changed? I just know - when setting up my guild (which I did, entirely, for the purpose of having a complete and accurate collection of all the members' games); I was unable to add or delete members (to ensure the accuracy of the collection).

downeymb wrote:
plezercruz wrote:
This really isn't my experience with guilds. In the guilds I frequent the guilds' owners have heavy control, essentially wielding full moderation power in any way they want, deleting whatever they feel like and locking threads whenever it suits them.

Pete (doesn't know anything for sure but sees things differently than you do)


Deleting and locking threads is not the same as controlling membership.


The guild owner can remove members as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Johnson
United States
Azusa
California
flag msg tools
One of Alabama 3's finest songs, especially the versions on the single this image is from...
badge
Sweet Pretty M*th*rf*ck*ng Country Acid House Music - All night long!
Avatar
Lemur wrote:
cbazler wrote:
It's impossible to talk about one without talking about the other. Apart from a handful of thriving, successful guilds, most guilds are desolate wastelands, in part because no one can find them. Long-defunct guilds are still on the list because BGG admins don't spend time cleaning them up. The "Guild" module is not defaulted on the home page, so it's impossible for newcomers to see which guilds are still active.



And, the fact that guilds offer the guild "owner" no real ability to manage the guild.

Example (not relevant to this discussion; but it's another reason why guilds strike me as a poorly thought out implementation): You can set up a guild and invite your game group members to the guild, to -- functionally -- create a master list of games owned. That's good.

However, you cannot (or, at least, couldn't) refuse people entry or remove them ... so, someone who just joins makes the function pretty useless.

If guilds afforded more control; maybe more people would post/use them, as well.


I've been asked to leave a guild that I was tangentially involved with, because my collection was screwing up the guild's "master" collection.

There should probably be an "include member's collection in guild's collection" flag that the guild owner can set by member.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natureslayer wrote:
Does anyone else find it beyond annoying and pretty problematic when an admin comes into a community-specific forum that's dedicated to LGBT gamers and the troubles we have to deal with and then locks a thread where we're discussing that very thing? The whole point of creating the Rainbow BGGers was because the admins acceded to the request of all the "anti-SJW"s that we silo off our own concerns into a forum that is hard to find and barely discoverable. Sure, there was some sniping from the other thread that was linked to it, but rather than just delete the posts of the people coming in on not good faith, the whole thread was shuttered. I'm glad that the admins have decided to show how dedicated they are to supporting misogyny every single time it comes up. I wish that the community forum itself could have its own moderators so we don't have to deal with admin fiat.
The only thing you can do is advertise loud and proud that guild's existence. For instance, can you link to it here?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.