IMPORTANT POLL: Should there be an off-topic section?

[Brumby]

It should be clearly pointed out to you that quite recently the what is now General Technical Chat board was previously just General Chat as Dave changed the name of it and added Technical in an effort to get threads to remain ON Topic.
Therefore what Zeyneb is asking for is no more than a return to how things were and not some step into the abyss as you seem to imply.

Sorry if I gave that impression.  I just want to support the name change that includes the word "Technical" for exactly the reason given.

[EEVblog]

General Technical Chat was General Chat before the word Technical was inserted. But still you see some very tenuous topics started with flimsy justification as technical.

The idea was to have a suble reminder to try and keep new threads at least somewhat on-topic.

[EEVblog]

Could a different tack in Moderation have changed the outcome?  Possibly.  However, it must be made quite clear that there has been very little need for "advanced" moderation skills on the EEVblog since it has been quite well behaved for quite a long time.  The recent kerfuffle was quite unique and escalated quickly.  No-one was prepared for it.

Yep.

[m k]

The recent kerfuffle was quite unique and escalated quickly.  No-one was prepared for it.

Clear indication that moderation must happen from inside.

My guess is that community moderation is not going to work above sanitation level, where it is very good.
Good behaving parties have a tendency to yield, newcomers even more.
I think I've reported once, it was for exceptionally high amount of views, and obviously just accidentally spotted.

Community moderation above sanitation level must also happen publicly.
Reporting behind the scenes is something else and lurkers are not the community.

If silent community moderation is really tried reports must have numerical indicators and maintenance must be able to log them.
Something like an integer and fraction where integer is what and fraction how high, then optional text.
Mood of post is also very important, somebody have used a phrase usual suspects, what its plurality means, if that is many vs. many then I think the community has a problem.

I'm not familiar with many sections here but few possible sub groups I can name, TE addicts, HAMs and Lamp makers.
Partially those groups must be separated permanently, community can't do that.
Generally ignoring is not good for the community either.

Of course there is also a possibility that deepening community is not wanted direction.
Then crippled community moderation is a good level chopper.
But that's obviously not good for cleaned parties and possibly even worse for cleaners.

[wilfred]

General Technical Chat was General Chat before the word Technical was inserted. But still you see some very tenuous topics started with flimsy justification as technical.

The idea was to have a suble reminder to try and keep new threads at least somewhat on-topic.

It was definitely worth trying. You don't want to die wondering if a simple idea was all that is needed.

[PlainName]

Reporting behind the scenes is something else and lurkers are not the community.

Why do you assume a non-public report must be from a lurker? Often, reporting is preferable to public calling out because it doesn't kick off a flame war and can be handled in the (forum's) preferred way.

[wilfred]

Mood of post is also very important, somebody have used a phrase usual suspects, what its plurality means, if that is many vs. many then I think the community has a problem.

I've read your post carefully. I'm going to guess from the Finnish flag English is not your first language. I had difficulty extracting the meaning in this sentence. Most native English speakers don't know what plurality means. Perhaps countries that have a first past the post electoral system it might not be so true. In Australia where we have a preferential voting system I'd hazard a guess not even 1 in a thousand would have a clue. I can say it means, to get the largest portion of votes in an election but still falling short of an absolute majority (half).

The phrase "the usual suspects" comes near the end of the film Casablanca (spoiler alert) where in response to the lead character Rick (played by Humphry Bogart) having just shot Major Strasse the local police commander says to his men  "Major Strasse has been shot, round up the usual suspects". Even though Major Strasse was shot in his presence. It means to appear to be doing something but really try to quietly return to the status quo.

It may not be what you were thinking but I think the group who get moved to report posts that concern them or members whom they disagree with are small in number (i.e. not a plurality or majority) and strongly correlate with very active members (some) who collectively hold a selfish sense of entitlement over other forum members. It is in my opinion few members against few members not many vs. many. I don't think the community has a big problem and complex moderation solutions are not needed and they will be difficult to enforce.  I also don't think encouraging widespread ignoring using forum mechanisms is a sign this is a good idea.

Very few and definitely not all active members engage in this behavior. And there will be members who occasionally make a moderation report if they think the good of the forum merits it. But in general the same few "the usual suspects" would be involved. In these cases self-moderation is called for and they should remember the threads are read by many others who deserve consideration.

So has this thread started to approach an answer?

Should there be an off-topic section? No
Should the level of moderation change? No

Should we round up the usual suspects? Yes.

Just search on "casablanca usual suspects" and you'll find a video.

[m k]

Why do you assume a non-public report must be from a lurker?

Don't assume what I assume.

[mushroom]

...it's about sharing other projects you are working on...

Just changed vote to "Yes, good idea. Open to everyone."

[CatalinaWOW]

As a native speaker of American English (the source of the film Casablanca) I feel that assigning a meaning of returning to the status quo to the phrase "the usual suspects" goes a bit far.  I interpreted this, and assume a great many others interpreted it similarly, to simply mean that there are a group of people known or suspected by many to be prone to a certain behavior.  The extra meaning extracted from the film requires the entire context of usage from the film (plot, speaker, situation).

A return to the status quo may be the right answer in this case.  Or special treatment of the "usual subjects".  Or something else.  I am not wise enough to give a definitive answer here.  Dave obviously feels somewhat similarly, hence the question posed in this thread.

[m k]

And there will be members who occasionally make a moderation report...

Working community moderation must have very low initial reporting level.
It's not working if a member is only reporting when couple dozens of irritations have happened.
Best would be if there would be also a positive side.
Quite complex I think.

[PlainName]

Why do you assume a non-public report must be from a lurker?

Don't assume what I assume.

I didn't; I went from what you wrote. If that isn't what you meant then I apologise for misinterpreting it, and perhaps you could make it clearer what you did mean.

[tggzzz]

Reporting behind the scenes is something else and lurkers are not the community.

Why do you assume a non-public report must be from a lurker? Often, reporting is preferable to public calling out because it doesn't kick off a flame war and can be handled in the (forum's) preferred way.

There is nothing in what MK wrote to justify your comment. Your "critical thinking analysis" needs improving.

Just because all crows are black birds, it doesn't follow that all black birds are crows.

[m k]

Why do you assume a non-public report must be from a lurker?

Don't assume what I assume.

I didn't; I went from what you wrote. If that isn't what you meant then I apologise for misinterpreting it, and perhaps you could make it clearer what you did mean.

"Why" in "Why do you assume" indicates that you know what I assume, obviously you can't.
Leave "why" out and the thing is very different.
My text doesn't connect reporting and lurkers.
"and" is a coordinating conjunction, both of its sides can be independent.
"And pigs fly" is a bad example, but example still.

[m k]

Lurkers are not the community, that's a given, but even an absolute lurker can be a very much, in a sense, a part of a community.
Obviously not an active part but still very much in the know of what is happening.
Has that ever happened is another thing.

But finally all this moderation stuff has a very easy solution, involved insider moderator.

[pcprogrammer]

Define lurker for us.

Do you mean someone who has not registered as a member and is just looking at what is written. This type can't report anything. No "report to moderator" button

Or do you mean someone who has registered and only looks and does not post much, or at least not in a thread that they might disagree on something written there. This type can report.

To me the involved insider moderator idea feels like it will not work either. Partiality might develop over time due to befriending some and disliking others. The forum is still in existence after many years and seems to have done well with only the few, and sadly now one less, moderators. But only long time members can tell if what happened recently has happened before.

If it will happen again, nobody knows.

As long as we are tolerant and don't go for each others throats over some disagreement, we can go a long way.

[Mark19960]

With all due respect to everyone.... if I wanted to be a cheeky bugger and talk politics or religion I would find elsewhere.

[pcprogrammer]

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would have known that it has already shifted back to no politics or religion, and that it is about a section where non electronics related projects can be shared.

[HobGoblyn]

There’s a very popular money saving forum in the UK. It used to have an off topic section called "Discussion Time"

It ended up being removed as the mods were spending 10 times more on that one section than the 50+ sections regarding money.

Trouble is, if you give your opinion of virtually anything, nowadays someone will take offence and report the post. It got to the point where so many people reported (perfectly fine) posts that the mods simply closed threads or removed them without actually having the time to moderate  them properly.

This then ended up with tons of complaints from the regular posters in that section, and in the end the site simply had no option but close it down.

[m k]

Define lurker for us.

Reading but not writing.

Do you have a bias towards the word?

[AVGresponding]

Define lurker for us.

Reading but not writing.

Do you have a bias towards the word?

I'm trying to think of the word for "writing but not reading". I'm sure it'll come to me...   

[pcprogrammer]

No, was just wondering if you are aware of the fact that non registered readers can't report.

Registered members are part of the community, and you stated that lurkers are not the community. But I agree that they should not easily report something they don't like, and if they do the moderator can weigh this in when making a decision.

[Zeyneb]

General Technical Chat was General Chat before the word Technical was inserted. But still you see some very tenuous topics started with flimsy justification as technical.

The idea was to have a suble reminder to try and keep new threads at least somewhat on-topic.

Ok, I understand now Dave and others would prefer to keep this titled General Technical Chat. And that is also the section where social, political, economic and humorous charged posts will go.

I think it is important to start the new Off Topic Projects section in a good way. And make it very clear to members to distinguish if their post should be in Off Topic Projects or General Technical Chat. You know, if Off Topic Projects doesn't really catch on the posts will end up in General Technical Chat.

So how about this: Invite members to prepare some appealing/interesting posts for the new Off Topic Projects section, show them to Dave to determine Yes, this is what I meant for the new section. And when the new section is created launch those posts all at once.

Maybe Dave can already share the intended description text for Off Topic Projects. You know, the text below the section headers.

Also maybe Dave could recruit some more moderators, maybe to start only with the authority to move posts in the right sections.

From the point of view of a forum member, when you open a forum section you skim through the post titles and judge if your intended post will match the relevance/tone/culture of the section, if that is the case and the section has recent activity you'll get the confidence your post will be received well and get responses.

[m k]

No, was just wondering if you are aware of the fact that non registered readers can't report.

Registered members are part of the community, and you stated that lurkers are not the community. But I agree that they should not easily report something they don't like, and if they do the moderator can weigh this in when making a decision.

Ok.
Lurker has had a negative tone but that's a long ago, back then member and post counts were a prestige.
Now bots are probably hogging much more and ad-money is not after quality anyway.

But with community we clearly have some different nuances.
All registered ones are members, later they can come a part of a community, but not necessary.
Now and here we are also occasionally talking what it is to be a part of a community of a community.

I think you are also misunderstanding that insider moderator part.
There moderator is second, first is member and member of community of community.
Depth is completely different, there person part comes first.
Now somebody may even think that being rude is ok if you just stay somewhat on topic.

I wouldn't be a good moderator.
It's probably a cultural thing but first I'd close the back channel.
Say it out loud or be silent but stop mumbling.
I wouldn't hesitate with short penalties or thread splittings either.
What I would hesitate is deleting and locking, excluding illegals of course.
Maybe temporary, not permanent could be my motto.

[pcprogrammer]

Actually the moderators here are also part of the community. They do participate in and even start threads of their own, and that can be problematic, but it seems to have worked very well despite the recent events. I don't think there is a need to change that part of the system.

But take the TEA thread as an example and ask the question if it would have had a different outcome when the moderation had been done by a participating member of the thread. Yes he/she would probably have had a better understanding about some of the posts made and maybe taken milder action, but then other members would most likely still have felt the need for more moderation. When a small group thinks they are in the right, no matter what action taken, it will always fail because they will not back down. You know, because they are right.

I too would be to opinionated for the job.

For now it is all just speculation on what the outcome here will be. Eventually it is up to Dave to decide on a new section or not. It is his castle.