What if someone is WRONG on this forum?

[wraper]

I thought a bit and if I had to create an actual rule that resolves the situation it would be something like this:
If discussion is somewhat heated, then after thread reaches defined X amount of posts moderator may lock the thread on their discretion. If particular user made over certain % of posts in this thread, and tried creating a new similar one, they get temporary ban. If they reoffend in say 6 months, they get permanent ban. Nothing to do about being right or wrong. In other words, you regulate maximum size of heated discussion rather than judge who is right or wrong.
EDIT: It's not like I propose this rule, just suggest how to look on the problem from different angle.

We have actually done this in the past after peole have reported a thread.

I've seen something like this. However IMHO it was more like on a whim rather than something that was done according to a previously decided way of how things go in these situations. And banning someone or just locking a thread on a whim is not good and hard to justify.

[tggzzz]

We kinda have this already. If someone's posts get repeatedly reported by multiple people then we look at giving a warning.

That's sane good judgement. Mistakes will always be made, but it works pretty well on this forum.

We also have a crude Twitter Community Notes style feature with the Thanks button.

Thoroughly discredited by indiscriminate posters that, for example, "thank" every response in their threads - even those that are making fun or being politely rude. I'm vaguely curious as to the proportion of my thanks that have come from one notorious multi-monikered poster.

Fortunately there is no "downvoting"

[tggzzz]

I almost want a button that works exactly the same as the "Thanks" button but instead of thanks it says "Dip Shit".
However that would almost definitely cause more problems than it solves, so lets not do that.

IIRC we actually tried this a long time ago with a post rating feature plugin, and it was abused. Almost everyone voted to removed it, and the simple Thanks only plugin was installed instead.

Predictable. Good it was removed.

[T3sl4co1l]

A trolling technique residents should probably be aware of: https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/j6i80o/the_famous_sharks_are_smooth/

Tim

[tggzzz]

It guess it comes down to "ownership" of a thread. Should the thread owner have the right to continue going in circles or whatever in their own thread? I think it's probably generally agreed on here (and general forum ettiqutte anywhere) that there are some "rights" that come with being the OP of a thread.
We (mods) have actually had many reports over the years from an OP that someone is derailing the thread and can we give them a tap on the shoulder.

No, I don't think anyone owns a thread, any more than one person owns a conversation in a pub. Conversations drift, full stop. And the drifts often reveal interesting subtle points not imagined early in the thread.

Note that trolling is a very different issue.

[EEVblog]

All in all it is a difficult subject with no simple answers. A big grey area in the middle. Someone has to exercise judgement and decide the "purpose" of the forum. Without that the conspiracy theorists (and others) will gradually dominate.

This forum has had the "free and open" policy since day one, and it hasn't ruined the forum. Free energy, flat earthers, crowd funding scammers etc are free to join and disuss, but they usually don't last long because they get ridiculed or ignored.
Signal to noise ratio has always been very high, and time wasting threads usually just die into obscurity.

[EEVblog]

It guess it comes down to "ownership" of a thread. Should the thread owner have the right to continue going in circles or whatever in their own thread? I think it's probably generally agreed on here (and general forum ettiqutte anywhere) that there are some "rights" that come with being the OP of a thread.
We (mods) have actually had many reports over the years from an OP that someone is derailing the thread and can we give them a tap on the shoulder.

No, I don't think anyone owns a thread, any more than one person owns a conversation in a pub. Conversations drift, full stop. And the drifts often reveal interesting subtle points not imagined early in the thread.
Note that trolling is a very different issue.

But like I said, if they started the thread then surely they have at least some right to continue going in circles and reassert their position in thier own thread?
If others have started another conversation in that thread then IMO they have no right to ask the OP to be banned from their own thread because thet are "disrupting" the new discussion?
We actually get this all the time with people asking to split a thread off into a new topic, leaving the existing thread to die on it's own or continue with what it was doing.

This forum isn't like a standing room only pub, it effectively has tables that people book to discuss a certain topic. Anyone is welcome to join the table, but if the conversation gets out of hand then I think the person that booked that table has at least some right to ask others who came to the table to stay on topic. Or at the very least not get banned or warned because they want to keep spouting what they booked that table to spout.

As a moderator, I for one will give extra priority to the thread starter. So if you report that an OP is talking crap in their own thread, it's going to need to be something fairly extraordinary for me to step in.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

David, have you been on the Whisky? 😆

I don't drink.

You will dehydrate! 😛

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-2mf1mqZVQ0

Dave, it was rherotic... one doesn't reply to rhetoric. I can see we shall have to enroll you in the school of Monty Python and sharpen up your wit

[RoGeorge]

I think this is a forum, so a place for open discussions.  Each with own ideas, and with own level of knowledge.  As long as people are staying polite to each other, there is no harm in asking or insisting on a wrong idea.

A forum is not a reference textbook.

 It is not our responsibility if a search engine will pop up something incorrect at a search.  Side note, search engines does not return the truth, they return related words.

Let's not become "The Ministry of Truth".

[EEVblog]

Dave, it was rherotic... one doesn't reply to rhetoric. I can see we shall have to enroll you in the school of Monty Python and sharpen up your wit

[Halcyon]

Do nothing until it crosses the line of being troublesome.

Who hasn't been wrong at some point in their lives?

[bdunham7]

I don't drink.

I'd recommend you start!  But that's probably bad advice.

I think it is possible for a thread starter to be a troll, but I'm not sure exactly how to define "trolling" in a technically oriented forum like this.  However, I'd much rather be tolerant of such apparent abuses of the debate process rather than see people being censored--even for being egregiously unsusceptible to reason. 

[bill_c]

The ignore list should be all that is needed.  If I just don't like someone for some reason (and some are rather silly), then I ignore them.  There are many other smart and helpful people here with posts that I would rather read.  If someone doesn't like me for whatever reason and decides to ignore me, that is fine too.  People can disagree, post wrong info, post right info, and usually its easy for me to see right from wrong. I think this forum is good as is.  ...or maybe add a popcorn emote when you know this is gonna be a long dramatic thread

[Andy Chee]

I'm not sure exactly how to define "trolling" in a technically oriented forum like this.

Anything discussing the technical merits of Stanley Meyer's fuel cell, to me would be trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

OTOH if it's purely historical interest, for example, Nikola Tesla's ambition for global wireless power, then I suppose that's ok as long as it doesn't branch off into free energy.

[coppercone2]

or stoic discussion

that episode of stargate with the aliens that manner of factly say QM is a common blunder and walk through walls comes to mind.

and I would be cautious being super vehement about abstract concepts and theories, even something as simple as the James Webb telescope seems to be really shaking up the physics community. And I have been reading basically to-the-death arguments and statements about 'simple' astrophysics on the internet for a LONG time that seem to be brought into question... no doubt that the people writing were totally sure they were right. Based on the tones of the various authors over the decades, I am not confident the new facts/data are even being considered properly because there was upmost confidence in some ideas people had.

But in general, when you see people get blazing mad over a black hole we probobly won't even get near for god knows how long, its clear that things are totally blown out of proportion very frequently. Guys almost get into a knife fight over a DSP generated theoretical pixel on a folding umbrella sent down to earth and put through 500 data filters....

[lezginka_kabardinka]

Dave, it was rherotic... one doesn't reply to rhetoric. I can see we shall have to enroll you in the school of Monty Python and sharpen up your wit

But… there ^was^ no joke (and that’s the joke in itself)

Whoosh. Whoosh whoooooooosh. Oopsie.

[EEVblog]

Do nothing until it crosses the line of being troublesome.

But I guess that's the issue, people who think people are "troublesome" and report them. There is always someone who just can't resist reporting someone they don't like and won't take their advice or admit they are wrong etc.

[EEVblog]

Dave, it was rherotic... one doesn't reply to rhetoric. I can see we shall have to enroll you in the school of Monty Python and sharpen up your wit

But… there ^was^ no joke (and that’s the joke in itself)
Whoosh. Whoosh whoooooooosh. Oopsie.

The mistake you made was saying "one doesn't reply to rhetoric".

[EEVblog]

I think it is possible for a thread starter to be a troll, but I'm not sure exactly how to define "trolling" in a technically oriented forum like this.

I actually agree. What I was getting at by asking if it was possible, is that even if they are deliberately trolling, who cares if it's their own thread topic they started? Just walk away and let the thread die once you realise it's a troll.
Of course, one troll could derail an entire existing good thread, and that has to be looked at more harshly.
And you can flood the forum with new threads and that gets annoying, which also needs to be looked at.

[chriswebb]

The purposeful irony of this thread is brilliant.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

Dave, stand out of the way, I'm throwing down a ropeladder.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

[hans]

All in all it is a difficult subject with no simple answers. A big grey area in the middle. Someone has to exercise judgement and decide the "purpose" of the forum. Without that the conspiracy theorists (and others) will gradually dominate.

This forum has had the "free and open" policy since day one, and it hasn't ruined the forum. Free energy, flat earthers, crowd funding scammers etc are free to join and disuss, but they usually don't last long because they get ridiculed or ignored.
Signal to noise ratio has always been very high, and time wasting threads usually just die into obscurity.

To be honest this forum does feel unmoderated at times, where some infamous "nutcases" will be ridiculed and bashed to virtual death. IMO it wouldn't be my choice on how to treat people.

Regarding OP, I think its fair to leave a discussion free and open in case of debate. Moderating on who is right or wrong is how you get echo chambers. Socially, some answers can still win a popularity content using "likes", though.
However, some topics can derail quite quickly. Someone asks how to talk to an I2C on a PIC16F, and in 10 posts we'll have opinionated bloat on 32-bit vs 16-bit 8-bit vs [insert fanboy MCU series], why no one should use a RTOS, and whether rhetorical-OP's choice of MPLAB+XC8 is still bearable. Again, the forums feels a bit unmoderated at times.

On the other hand, I also hang out on a Dutch IT/tech-nerd site which are very strict about off-topic posting, but they are also very strict on "misinformation". However, who/what is information is led to be judged by the average joe, which only confirms the Dunning-Kruger curve, and IMO this in turn facilitates echo chambers by marking individual comment(trees) as "BS". It leads to a lot of unfair moderation as anyone can vote(just like Reddit), and so, the first few voters who disagree with someone (or has something personal against it) basically get to pick the sentiment which "mainstream" folks (who just read to agree) will follow blindly. I'm not a fan of that system.

So in short, for all intents and purposes of this forum, it works. But with the gained insight that some cynical/bashing posts are better read when you're drunk, so you can forget them ASAP.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

˙ɹıɐɟɟɐ ǝnbıun ɐ sı ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ uı sɐɯʇsıɹɥɔ

[tggzzz]

It guess it comes down to "ownership" of a thread. Should the thread owner have the right to continue going in circles or whatever in their own thread? I think it's probably generally agreed on here (and general forum ettiqutte anywhere) that there are some "rights" that come with being the OP of a thread.
We (mods) have actually had many reports over the years from an OP that someone is derailing the thread and can we give them a tap on the shoulder.

No, I don't think anyone owns a thread, any more than one person owns a conversation in a pub. Conversations drift, full stop. And the drifts often reveal interesting subtle points not imagined early in the thread.
Note that trolling is a very different issue.

But like I said, if they started the thread then surely they have at least some right to continue going in circles and reassert their position in thier own thread?
If others have started another conversation in that thread then IMO they have no right to ask the OP to be banned from their own thread because thet are "disrupting" the new discussion?
We actually get this all the time with people asking to split a thread off into a new topic, leaving the existing thread to die on it's own or continue with what it was doing.

This forum isn't like a standing room only pub, it effectively has tables that people book to discuss a certain topic. Anyone is welcome to join the table, but if the conversation gets out of hand then I think the person that booked that table has at least some right to ask others who came to the table to stay on topic. Or at the very least not get banned or warned because they want to keep spouting what they booked that table to spout.

As a moderator, I for one will give extra priority to the thread starter. So if you report that an OP is talking crap in their own thread, it's going to need to be something fairly extraordinary for me to step in.

Analogies are usually dangerous, since people discuss the analogy rather than the issue. This forum isn't usenet, for better and worse. Mostly better!

An OP gently but firmly guiding a thread back to a very specific subject is perfectly reasonable. I've done that on a couple of occasions. It is a group of "equal" people participating in a conversation.

Your "light touch" plus members' comments work very well in 99.9% of the cases. Naturally some things test the boundaries, e.g. 5G cracpkots and the very few who monomanically create very very similar threads about about a particular issue.