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

[pcprogrammer]

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.

Well I guess you understood wrong. The General Technical Chat is being misused for "social, political, economic and humorous charged posts". As long as no one complaints about a thread or one of the moderates spots it and feels the need to lock or delete it, they are more or less allowed.

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.

In itself a reasonable idea, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The poll still leans to no, and it is up to Dave to think it through first.

[PlainName]

Say it out loud or be silent but stop mumbling

I think that's the wrong approach. Sure, for trivial stuff it might be fine, but for stuff that needs moderating there are problems:

1. Perhaps the complaint isn't valid (misunderstood rules or something). If that had been brought up in public there would be arguments, probably pedantic and leading off on tangents to other arguments). Afterwards, the complainer would have his card marked by some subset of participants. On the other hand, a non-public complaint can be settled by a quiet word from the mod setting out why it's not a valid complaint.

2. Perhaps the complaint is valid. Bring it up in public and... well, repeat of 1. I am sure. A non-public complaint can see the mod have a quiet word with the transgressor, and it's more likely to be settled then because there would be no big ego losing face as there would be in public.

We used to get pop-up single-post vendors flogging stuff, and a following trail of posts telling them to push off or questioning what they're about, etc. But we don't get that now because instead of whining people hit the compaint button and a mod just goes and deals with it, no fuss. Sometimes it's a pukka post and the mod leaves it, and the difference is there isn't a long thread of complaints to go with it.

[tggzzz]

Say it out loud or be silent but stop mumbling

I think that's the wrong approach. Sure, for trivial stuff it might be fine, but for stuff that needs moderating there are problems:

1. Perhaps the complaint isn't valid (misunderstood rules or something). If that had been brought up in public there would be arguments, probably pedantic and leading off on tangents to other arguments). Afterwards, the complainer would have his card marked by some subset of participants. On the other hand, a non-public complaint can be settled by a quiet word from the mod setting out why it's not a valid complaint.

That doesn't stand up to scruitiny. If it isn't valid then an open discussion will clear that up. If it is valid, then an open discussion can give the perp an early warning that peers are applying pressure.

2. Perhaps the complaint is valid. Bring it up in public and... well, repeat of 1. I am sure. A non-public complaint can see the mod have a quiet word with the transgressor, and it's more likely to be settled then because there would be no big ego losing face as there would be in public.

That doesn't stand up to scruitiny.  If a transgressor realises other people think they are transgressing, then they may speedily modify their behaviour due to peer pressure. If they aren't warned until "later", then the behaviour might have become more entrenched and so there's more face to be lost.

We used to get pop-up single-post vendors flogging stuff, and a following trail of posts telling them to push off or questioning what they're about, etc. But we don't get that now because instead of whining people hit the compaint button and a mod just goes and deals with it, no fuss. Sometimes it's a pukka post and the mod leaves it, and the difference is there isn't a long thread of complaints to go with it.

That isn't the case under discussion. When there is a clear cut case forum rules deliberately being broken for commercial gain (or equivalent) then I warn the mods so they stop on such perps.

Basically I think it cowardly and deceitful to "go behind someone's" back, and "complain to mummy" that "I don't like what Bobby Droptables is saying". Or, as in too many states, tell the Authorities "I suspect Mary Jo is a communist/capitalist enemy of the people" (delete as appropriate). When that happens, Mary Jo isn't told of the details of the accusations, so they can't set the record straight and can't discredit the evidence amd/or accuser.

There were echoes of that in the recent debacle, and they have left a bad taste in some people's mouths. That's partly why some of the departed aren't keen to return.

[PlainName]

...

You're essentially saying to get rid of the report button.

[PlainName]

deceitful to "go behind someone's" back, and "complain to mummy"

It can be disrespectful to call out someone in public. Perhaps if they sent a PM all this fuss wouldn't be necessary, but people don't. They just mouth off (for a good example, your derogatory comment designed to stir up emotion, and we're not even arguing about a complaint) and then it will progress to name calling and the like.

[PlainName]

There seems to be an assumption that if someone has a complaint then saying it in public with either get everyone telling the perp to play the game or telling the complainer they are wrong. But what's missed here is that there tend to be a few mouthy people and the rest - the majority - don't immediately pipe up. It can also be hard for someone to say they agree with something when the noisy section are shouting it down - few want to be the only one to put their head above the parapet, and you never know if there are actually many such because no-one wants to be the first.

I fully accept that there are people that are just fine stating their opinion in front of everyone, and would do so even if it's an unpopular opinion. But there are just as many, if not more, that are not comfortable doing that, and I think it's wrong not to accommodate them (and insinuate the need to hold mummy's hand or whatever).

[wilfred]

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.

I think we can agree vigorously. The context in the film does suggest the local police commander wants to enjoy a peaceful (profitable) life without close scrutiny from the Germans who currently occupy Casablanca. So he does what he usually does, round up the usual local criminals and appears gainfully occupied and collecting the necessary bribes at other times.

I'm not suggesting Dave is doing this. He's trying to do something useful and I think he'd be better off returning to the way things were. It just doesn't seem worth it when trying to meet the needs of everyone on the internet is like herding cats.

[AVGresponding]

...

You're essentially saying to get rid of the report button.

Where do you get that idea? He said he uses it to report shill posts. So do I.

deceitful to "go behind someone's" back, and "complain to mummy"

It can be disrespectful to call out someone in public. Perhaps if they sent a PM all this fuss wouldn't be necessary, but people don't. They just mouth off (for a good example, your derogatory comment designed to stir up emotion, and we're not even arguing about a complaint) and then it will progress to name calling and the like.

It's not disrespectful to call someone out publicly. It is disrespectful to call them derogatory names, or deliberately misrepresent what they said.

There seems to be an assumption that if someone has a complaint then saying it in public with either get everyone telling the perp to play the game or telling the complainer they are wrong. But what's missed here is that there tend to be a few mouthy people and the rest - the majority - don't immediately pipe up. It can also be hard for someone to say they agree with something when the noisy section are shouting it down - few want to be the only one to put their head above the parapet, and you never know if there are actually many such because no-one wants to be the first.

I fully accept that there are people that are just fine stating their opinion in front of everyone, and would do so even if it's an unpopular opinion. But there are just as many, if not more, that are not comfortable doing that, and I think it's wrong not to accommodate them (and insinuate the need to hold mummy's hand or whatever).

When it's in public, if it gets unjustly shouted down, then that's the time to involve the Mods. Remember in a free and just society, not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

It is not wrong to allow people to state their opinions in private; it is wrong to act on them without due process, which in the cause of justice must include some transparency. This can be achieved by anonymising/redacting names from complaints if they are used as a basis for substantial Moderator action.

[PlainName]

It is not wrong to allow people to state their opinions in private; it is wrong to act on them without due process, which in the cause of justice must include some transparency.

Where is that being suggested? Don't you think the mods will take a look and consider if there is substance or not before doing anything (or not doing anything)?

[AVGresponding]

It is not wrong to allow people to state their opinions in private; it is wrong to act on them without due process, which in the cause of justice must include some transparency.

Where is that being suggested? Don't you think the mods will take a look and consider if there is substance or not before doing anything (or not doing anything)?

In theory, of course. In practice it's not that simple, as gnif found out to his personal cost. He took substantive Moderator action (deleting posts en masse) based on reports received, and his (self-admittedly limited) understanding of the nature of the TEAnonymous thread.

On reflection he realised this was a mistake, and (wrongly in my opinion, but it's his life) stepped down as a Moderator subsequently.

Now, if there had been some transparency in the interpretation of the received reports, it might have been possible to defuse the situation before it escalated to the deletion of posts and the mini-exodus of TEAnonymous members, some of whom have made considerable contributions to that thread and the EEVBlog forum in general.


As ever, 20/20 is hindsight, and all this is just my personal opinion on the matter.

[pcprogrammer]

And can we now stop this please and get back on what this thread is about.

Do we want a new section to post non electronics related topics in or not.

I wonder if a change of the original post with the latest view on it being for other hobbies only, and still no politics, religion and guns weaponry, can help in making a more founded decision.

Edit: Changed guns to weaponry.

[AVGresponding]

And can we now stop this please and get back on what this thread is about.

Do we want a new section to post non electronics related topics in or not.

I wonder if a change of the original post with the latest view on it being for other hobbies only, and still no politics, religion and guns, can help in making a more founded decision.

I'd change "guns" to "weaponry", otherwise you'd likely get some smartass posting about crossbows, combat knives or somesuch and saying "it's not a gun, so I can post about it".

[ebastler]

I wonder if a change of the original post [...] can help in making a more founded decision.

I think this would also need a new poll (and hence a new thread?). Can't change the poll question while keeping the old answer counts which referred to a different question. I doubt that all voters will be checking back regularly and amending their vote to answer the updated question.

[Zeyneb]

I wonder if a change of the original post [...] can help in making a more founded decision.

I think this would also need a new poll (and hence a new thread?). Can't change the poll question while keeping the old answer counts which referred to a different question. I doubt that all voters will be checking back regularly and amending their vote to answer the updated question.

Yeah, I agree. A poll where Dave suggests the Off-Topic Project section a show and tell for things like car/home renovation. Where no politics, religion and weaponry is allowed.

EDIT: I do actually think the "What did you buy today? Post your latest purchase!" thread is a good example for the Off-Topic Project section.

[pcprogrammer]

I wonder if a change of the original post [...] can help in making a more founded decision.

I think this would also need a new poll (and hence a new thread?). Can't change the poll question while keeping the old answer counts which referred to a different question. I doubt that all voters will be checking back regularly and amending their vote to answer the updated question.

Yes you got a point there. But some did change their vote though, going on what is posted a little back. And Dave did change it already by adding "(Assuming the hot-button topic rules REMAIN)"

Still the number of voters is very low for such a big community. Hard to believe only less then 1% being more active on the forum, and care about this.

[pcprogrammer]

Yeah, I agree. A poll where Dave suggests the Off-Topic Project section a show and tell for things like car/home renovation. Where no politics, religion and weaponry is allowed.

EDIT: I do actually think the "What did you buy today? Post your latest purchase!" thread is a good example for the Off-Topic Project section.

I was thinking of what sections would be nice to have next to cooking. To allow for something like a "coworker harassing you" or "how to start your own company" maybe a "Life advice" section.

Furthermore indeed something for house and or car renovation. And a toys section to post about your train set or other construction toys.

Just to name some.

[m k]

Say it out loud or be silent but stop mumbling

I think that's the wrong approach.

1. I as a moderator would mark that complainer and moderate that subset if it appears.

2. I as a moderator would kick a fragile public butt of that big ego, if necessary.

Being public is not changing anything but putting shy voices down and revealing bad actions, all others are more or less inside a readers head.
Shy voices are always unfortunate, you'll never learn their adventures.
I'm also talking from this sub forum perspective, newbies and kids must be dealt differently.

Any kind of moderation is fast if it is present.
Community moderation means that actual moderators are not present until they are summoned.
If reporting is the method then everything else is secondary.

True moderation, where leveling the mood is the goal, is also person first, content second.
It's also very very time consuming.

[ebastler]

1. I as a moderator would mark that complainer and moderate that subset if it appears.
2. I as a moderator would kick a fragile public butt of that big ego, if necessary.

I as a reader cannot understand either of those two sentences. Could you explain please? I think some meaning was lost as you tried for a clever and colorful wording.

What do you mean by "mark" the complainer, and what "subset" are yo referring to? Whose butt and ego are you talking about -- the ones of a person who made a questionable post, or of a person who reported a post, or yet someone else's?

[magic]

I was thinking of what sections would be nice to have next to cooking. To allow for something like a "coworker harassing you" or "how to start your own company" maybe a "Life advice" section.

I suggest a section for suggestions.
Wait, there is one already at the bottom, why can't you go there?

There is no point having sections without content, and there are already a few that are basically dead and could be nuked with no loss to anyone and actually with an increase in exposure for the few unfortunate souls that start their threads there.

By the way, aren't you guys busy writing the new TEA constitution, which by the way appears to be the most active threads in its corresponding section?
 

[pcprogrammer]

Well that new section might soon be closed again. Just read "Emptiness" and you will see.

The name of the other one indicated a possible "constitution", but upon reading the thread you would see that the name is ill chosen and "rules of conduct" might be better. There is good behavior advice in it, if I say so myself.

And why is that section left almost empty, just because the current TEA thread users are happy where it is now.

I guess that the cooking section was also frowned upon at first and now it has reasonable activity, so why not other sections for interests besides electronics.

[AVGresponding]

Well that new section might soon be closed again. Just read "Emptiness" and you will see.

The name of the other one indicated a possible "constitution", but upon reading the thread you would see that the name is ill chosen and "rules of conduct" might be better. There is good behavior advice in it, if I say so myself.

And why is that section left almost empty, just because the current TEA thread users are happy where it is now.

I guess that the cooking section was also frowned upon at first and now it has reasonable activity, so why not other sections for interests besides electronics.

Or because they are unaware of its existence. I only found it by chance. You're assuming all current TEAnonymous users are happy with it where it is; you are mistaken.

[Black Phoenix]

I would not mind a Photography section. I have a portfolio that I would love to show and even learn new techniques and get inspiration, while also being able to help, as a hobby that unfortunately currently don't have time to do (more motivation -  life issues).

[m k]

1. I as a moderator would mark that complainer and moderate that subset if it appears.
2. I as a moderator would kick a fragile public butt of that big ego, if necessary.

I as a reader cannot understand either of those two sentences. Could you explain please? I think some meaning was lost as you tried for a clever and colorful wording.

What do you mean by "mark" the complainer, and what "subset" are yo referring to? Whose butt and ego are you talking about -- the ones of a person who made a questionable post, or of a person who reported a post, or yet someone else's?

Are you assuming that marking is something negative?
All parties are from dunkemhigh's post and I also followed Dave's tip that quoting everything is not always good.

Subset against the marked one and big ego are followed closely and moderated if necessary.

[pcprogrammer]

Well that new section might soon be closed again. Just read "Emptiness" and you will see.

The name of the other one indicated a possible "constitution", but upon reading the thread you would see that the name is ill chosen and "rules of conduct" might be better. There is good behavior advice in it, if I say so myself.

And why is that section left almost empty, just because the current TEA thread users are happy where it is now.

I guess that the cooking section was also frowned upon at first and now it has reasonable activity, so why not other sections for interests besides electronics.

Or because they are unaware of its existence. I only found it by chance. You're assuming all current TEAnonymous users are happy with it where it is; you are mistaken.

It has been discussed in length in the discussion thread about TEA and several of the current EEVBlog TEA thread participants where in that thread, but if you feel that it should be addressed to the greater group of them, place a post about it in the current EEVBlog TEA thread. Sure it is off topic there, but if feelings are strong about it, I guess it should be addressed.

And I'm specifically mentioning EEVBlog TEA thread here to avoid confusion with the new TEA on groups.io.

Dave created the section for both, but some of those who moved to the new TEA on groups.io expressed no desire to make use of it.

And yes, I don't know about the feelings of the current EEVBlog TEA thread users, but they seemed to have moved on with business, more or less, as usual, looking at what is being posted in the EEVBlog TEA thread.

[tggzzz]

...

You're essentially saying to get rid of the report button.

Now you are deliberately being a twat by inventing strawman arguments.
You deliberately choose to make it difficult to follow what someone else did write by omitting not only the context but also a link to the context.
I am finding it difficult to distinguish your tactics from a troll's tactics.

I refer you, and any other reader, to the first paragraph I wrote indicating that I use the report button in some limited cases...
"That isn't the case under discussion. When there is a clear cut case forum rules deliberately being broken for commercial gain (or equivalent) then I warn the mods so they stop on such perps."