Debates, proposals, complaints, (dis)agreement with moderator's decisions

[big bad fab]

It appears to still be locked

See my post before the last one.
I've PMed Inks so that he unlocked it. As soon as he is connected, I'm sure he'll do it.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130219.0

So that every regular user of this sub-board is well informed, here is the link to a thread entitled "Moderator abuse by Big Bad Fab" (sic).

I made the following post in the above thread. I am copying it here to ensure that my view is known to the survivor community, in case they don't read the above thread.

I think that the allowing of film survivors has sent us down this slippery slope- it has blurred the line between what is allowed and what isn't. I think Fab has been too much of a "moderate hero" on this issue. It's debatable as to whether some of the survivors that have been allowed (the film ones in particular) fall into the category of "Election and History Games" (I fall onto the side of "no"). To settle the debate once and for all, I think he needs to take either a hardline stance (banning all survivors that don't have a clear political or historical content, or a libertarian one (anything goes), instead of making arbitrary decisions that some would consider questionable.

[Edu]

Well, i just posted my opinion about the current controversy in the other thread so i come here to say something completely different.

Tomorrow i'm going away on a trip, so there is a chance i will be less active, i'm just saying this so that if i don't connect you don't worry or keep open survivors so i can vote, you just have to go on without me
Hopefully I'll still be able to connect to the forum every day, but i'm saying this just in case.
Everything would go back to normal on the 25th

[big bad fab]

Be patient. I'll post a set of proposals in a few hours.

But, you see, RL is busy and, unfortunately, as I've said before, a recent bad personal news requires a bit of time and of worrying from me.

[big bad fab]

So let's begin a general discussion about rules, specifically about subjects of survivors.

Broadly, we've got 3 solutions, the rest can be more considered as variants:


1- Opening this sub-board to every possible subject.

- This is simple. This is clear. Moderator's role would be about only procedures. It guarantees that we are no short of subjects.

- On the other hand, I’ve set a rule that says that a survivor is again available one year after completion. So, already, some survivors from the beginning of this sub-board are available and can be done again.

And, of course, there is the risk to have indeed every possible subject and, sometimes, waves of non-political survivors that would put some interesting survivors on page 2.
And, what is more, the risk to have far more "failed" managers and a terrible mess.
Already, we’ve got Libertas and some other managers either who have cheated or who have dropped or deleted their survivors.

I was already obliged to change procedural rules (though I did it after some time and NOT right in the middle of controversy and while underlining I don’t want to change rules too often so that they can be known and respected and so that some individual issues don’t lead to consequences for everybody).

Of course, even without the worst managers, there would be a loss of quality in survivors: think about the way Vazdul, Hans, homelycooking, Hash, Hughento, even Magic (),... try to have fine photos, NO MISTAKES, NO TYPOS, fine introductions, clear rules, updates at fixed times, clean lists and results, etc.
Less trustable managers and less trustable survivors. That would (will) be a terrible loss.
I wanted to have this throughout this sub-board. I think that would be mostly lost.

So, this solution would mean that I would have to set stricter procedural rules and very probably to change them.
For example, it’s not impossible that I’d be forced to put a strict limit (only one ?) for the number of survivors managed at the same time by a forumer.
These rules may have disadvantages.

Please note that trying to have a clean sub-board was the only reason for which I've agreed to become mod here, despite my very bad English:
trying to avoid this sub-board being like all the others (even those well-moderated and they are the great majority): a disappointing mess, with uninteresting threads, attention whores, failed attempts, etc, etc, and the need to moderate far more "rudely" and "subjectively" and with more.... abuses than what I do nowadays.

As a side note, and to be complete on my motivation here, with any subject allowed, of course, I’d stop updating these long lists of survivors already created and of past winners. I kinow, Internet is USED as a no-brain and no-history thing but still...
And of course, in the end, I would become only a “procedural” moderator, not an animator.
(which will probably lead to my resignation as a mod in the end) (this is not a threat or an attention whore, just a fact).

And as for Vazdul’s demand to have a sub-sub-board for political (or “well-managed” ?) survivors, unfortumately don’t count on it. Dave Leip has other fish to fry and, when a request is made on creating sub-boards or sub-sub-boards, what is more for a minor thing on this site, he doesn’t pay attention (and, again, he is really right, as all this is only FUN).


2- Carrying on as usual, i.e. a political angle even if “diluted”, as Hughento said

- This is very simple, but, of course, someone has to decide which survivors have a political angle or not.
And, even if you can view a survivor like Earl’s one (for example) as having potentially a political angle, I think some ideas will quickly turn into non-political survivors. And, of course, the first posts and debates in Earl’s thread give evidence of that: this will be a sports survivor (oh, of course, some –not you, Earl, I know- will try to prove the opposite ).
So, the risk is here that, by being more “open”, this second solution will turn in another solution number 1.

- Earl and some others may not be happy. Contrary maybe to what seems to be, I have a great consideration for the feelings of regular voters or managers. Earl is not the most regular, but he is one of them. Others who have given their views are not, like Jas, or no longer, like Xahar. (please understand that this is not a personal attack; just to say that views have different values)

We may indeed face a shortness of subjects that would lead to a hypocritical change of theme, that some of you said has already occurred.

And I’ve already said that this is indeed arguable on some recent survivors. In any case, the debate may always be open.

- Of course we could submit ideas of survivors to polls, so that the “community” decides which one is acceptable or not. But it would be a bit demagogic I think and probably inefficient, as turnout would be low in the end and wih incoherent results.

Homelycooking's idea is to submit proposals to a vote each week, with a moderator veto.
There is problems with even regular voters (like Magic) being absent for some days and with a risk of ballot stuffing, for example in favour of Pokémon (); I guess the veto would be there for that purpose. So, theoretically, it could work.

- And there is the idea of homelycooking, suggesting that each forumer proposes a short list of survivors and the moderator pick one for each. I’m not sure that would be really different and that unhappiness would be lower .


3- Adopting a stricter approach and allowing only political survivors.

It would be smaller and easier because, basically, it would be about elections, leaders, constitutions, political parties, international bodies, local institutions.
And small is beautiful .

On the other hand, there may still be a problem of limits, though maybe less. Think about recent and very original survivor by homelycooking on US presidents’ signatures: they are damn important on laws and regulations, but it may be borderline for a political survivor.


Now, please debate on these solutions.

If you have other solutions, try to explain why it can be considered as a real nr. 4 or 5, and otherwise if they are 2a, 2b, 3a or 3b,... (I doubt there can be a 1a or 1b)

Give also your ideas on procedural rules that must be go with this primary rule on subjects and contents (as the former may be as important as the latter).

Please indicate explicitly your preference.

Try to let everybody and, especially, every regular voter (I hope Edu will have time to write a bit before leaving) post at least once before beginning to shout or to kill me or to drift in other bilateral debates.

While we are debating, I don’t change anything to the present rules, of course (and I’ll delete Hughento’s thread, since it doesn’t fit the rules and since, well, this topic was precisely for this since the beginning of this sub-board).

[homelycooking]

- And there is the idea of homelycooking, suggesting that each forumer proposes a short list of survivors and the moderator pick one for each. I’m not sure that would be really different and that unhappiness would be lower .

bbf, I also suggested that instead of moderator's decision, the weekly survivor proposals could be put to a vote with moderator veto.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Alright, I have another idea, then. I support opening this board to every possible subject, with the caveat that the main focus should be on politics and history. I suggest a limit of three "off-topic" survivors at any given time ("off-topic" being defined at the discretion of the moderator), to ensure that we don't get inundated with them. Any more "off-topic" survivors would have to wait until one of the current three are finished. If there are many suggestions at once, the moderator would maintain a waiting list so that the subjects are dealt with in the order they were received.

This solution would allow other subjects to be dealt with, without the threat of having the board overrun with everything from music to video games.

[homelycooking]

Vazdul's proposal is acceptable to me.

[Hashemite]

3 is ideal to me. 1 is too broad, and would lead to a messy board filled with boring survivors about things which don't belong on the forum. 2, status-quo, would continue the existing contradictory and arbitrary line. 3 might be strict, but it fits with the lines of the forum. Perhaps alternatively, using a wider definition but still strict definition of politics would make option 3 appear less strict. This would include survivors about anything of relation to history, politics and arguably society - but nothing else (so, no sports, music or unrelated movies).

[Platypus]

I don't support homely or vazdul's proposals, largely because they seem to make far too much work for Fab and are likely to fail in the medium term anyway.

I also don't support opening the floodgates, so to speak, and being overtaken by "Favourite My Little Pony Ponies" or "CFL Quarterbacks" survivors.

But, I think there can be genuine socio-political interest in sports survivors, at least as much if not moreso than film survivors. But where do we agree on the arbitrary line being drawn?

My solution is to maintain the status quo, but require an introduction in the first post of a survivor explaining the socio-political context of the survivor. If it cuts the mustard, and isn't just a legalistic excuse for putting something irrelevant in, it could go ahead. This would mean that survivors with next to no context, such as Bond Girls or CFL Quarterbacks, would be allowed to be posted - and would then be allowed to be locked. It gives fab the power to keep the board reasonably on-message; it doesn't create more work for him or extra steps for the community (other than the Survivor creator himself), and it gives every topic a chance.

So, call it 2b, I guess.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I have not yet commented on this .

I do not want that the political or historical "mind" in the Survivor comes too short, but it should be interpreted generously.

A Survivor with the theme "US Sport Teams" is from sociopolitical interest. More than my Asterix Survivor and the Movie-Survivors.

[big bad fab]

Please note intermoderate's survivor on Jared Lee Loughner's favorite books has been moderated: topic deleted with a rate of 4 points "inappropriate": this is not very tough, but I can become tougher.

This is just FYI, not for discussion.

You can keep on debating now, with that bad example out of sight but maybe in mind.

I'll let other forumers (Magic, Edu maybe after these new ideas, Earl if he is OK to come back at least just for this debate, etc) intervene before trying to pick a solution.

You don't help me very much as there is a different solution from EACH of you.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I think that my Western films Survivor is dead , but maybe a miracle will happen .

However, I have another idea for a new Survivor:

Member parties of the Socialist International Survivor.

We have not had and I'm sure that would be interesting. At the moment there are 113 parties in the Socialist International.

How does it look? Is there interest for this?

[Hatman]

I'd play that.

My boycott on creating survivors stands though, until some new rules come out. And I have some pretty good ideas too.

[big bad fab]

Earl, if you want to give us your ideas on rules, I'd be glad.

As you see, there are as many views as posters, for the moment. So, it's not really easy

Of course, I'll also take into account the fact that Jas, Xahar, Lewis, Al have expressed ideas or complaints. But, as I've said, except for Lewis, they aren't regular voters and so, I don't want to change rules only because of "outsiders".


As for the Socialist International, should I confirm I'm in ?

I've thought about a Komintern survivor too, but it's uneasy to gather trustable lists, either of organizations who were members (because I didn't want to stop at just political parties and because it changed a lot throughout the years) or of leaders (I mean administrative leaders, beyong just the general secretary).
So, if anybody is interested, (s)he can take my idea .

[Јas]

Of course, I'll also take into account the fact that Jas, Xahar, Lewis, Al have expressed ideas or complaints. But, as I've said, except for Lewis, they aren't regular voters and so, I don't want to change rules only because of "outsiders".

I've already expressed my views, but just on the outsiders point: I usually only participate in Survivors where I feel I know enough to make reasonable votes.  If my voice will carry more weight by randomly voting in other survivors, do let me know.

[big bad fab]

The problem in Internet communities is that everyone is equal to everyone else and you can't know for sure who is legitimate (I mean "konwledgeable" enough) or not to talk about a given subject.

And as everybody (at least, many, many of us) give their opinion about everything, it's difficult to give the right respective weight for each view expressed.

And as the trend is widely "no rules at all", it's even more difficult when the discussion is a bout rules.

So, I'm forced to have some criterion, as I don't want occasional users to decide for regular users (it's so often the case in RL and in virtual life...).

As many forumers don't know how to refrain themselves from posting about everything (and you're not in this category, Jas, but I have to think about a possible flood of comments, ideas, etc.), it's better to listen first to regular voters.
I've already listed the latter. Even if they are very different persons (and may not want to be put in a "category" as Hash has rightly said), none of them vote randomly.

"Outsider" wasn't an offence (plus, take into account my very bad English ).


As a side note (it's more something I wanted to repeat publicly - even though few may read it- and not an answer to Jas' remark), I'd like to underline that I don't want to change rules in a way that would "harm" good managers,
i.e. those who have clear rules, who take time to find fine images and to have clean lists and who manage their survivors in a clean and smooth way.
Hans and Vazdul are the best examples, but, of course, there are many others and I've already paid tribute to them.

[Hashemite]

Of course, I'll also take into account the fact that Jas, Xahar, Lewis, Al have expressed ideas or complaints. But, as I've said, except for Lewis, they aren't regular voters and so, I don't want to change rules only because of "outsiders".

I've already expressed my views, but just on the outsiders point: I usually only participate in Survivors where I feel I know enough to make reasonable votes.  If my voice will carry more weight by randomly voting in other survivors, do let me know.

^^^

[big bad fab]

No idea or comment from Nhoj, Mr. X, Magic ?

[big bad fab]

OK, it seems that there is a sort of a majority not to lose the political spirit, but to try to open a bit more or at least to depend less on mod's decision.

(side note nr. 1: I've already acknowledged that when there are borders, there are always two sides and so, a disappointed side; so, a decision here will always be arbitrary in a way; when I see how Earl's survivor works, it seems to me that my decision wasn't wrong; discussions there are only about sports, not about social, economic, "anthropological" context)

(side note nr. 2: thank you, Hughento, for thinking about my potential additional work indeed, that's why sometimes, "advices" and "ideas" aren't very well viewed by moderators... )

So, despite the latest remark, I think Vazdul's solution is globally the good one.

So, I propose to open this sub-board to off-topic subjects, but only in 3 different topics at any given time.
This will let 20 potential topics on page 1 for "real" political and historical subjects, which is quite a lot.
I don't want to lose the original spirit, but I must also take into account outsiders' views (), I must anticipate the fact that we may run out of ideas and I must try to enlarge the usual group of voters, which is sometimes a bit tiny, when Magic or Mr. X "disappear" (), when Edu, Hans or myself are unavailable, when former fans (like Kal) don't come back (), etc.

So, a "controlled openness" seems to answer all the questions. Of course, it may appear as a half-baked decision; but maybe it's more sound Realpolitik.

Of course, definition of "off-topic" subjects will again give way to arbitrary decision. But it's less "harmful", as it has only a consequence in delay.

So, I'll keep this ability to decide, and I'll be stricter in my definition of "on-topic" subjects.
For example, all movies subjects will be "off-topic".
Current survivors on signatures, even of US presidents, will be "off-topic" (unless a massive crowd opens fire at me on this example ).

If my decision hurts somebody, he should say it openly and in this sub-board, in the debate topic, created just for that. I'll listen to complaints which are expressed in a cool way.

At the same time, there will be another limit in "off-topic" topics: a forumer won't be able to run more than 1 off-topic survivor at any given time (but he'll be able to manage on-topic survivors at the same time), in order not to have to wait for too long.

A waiting list will be created.
And I'll be forced lock every survivor which is inactive for more than one month, so that the waiting list isn't blocked for too long (this rule will be the same for on-topic survivors; originally, it was 3 months; after some time, I switched to 50 days).

On the other hand, I don't intend to change the rule that says a survivor isn't available for one year after its end (except if you think it's too long; but I don't want to have "US Presidents" more than once a year, you see )

Of course, I'm open to changing rules again after some months if need be.

Now, thanks in advance for your views and inputs, so that we can proceed and change rules sooner rather than later.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Current survivors on signatures, even of US presidents, will be "off-topic" (unless a massive crowd opens fire at me on this example ).

I'd consider opening fire, but I should probably delete mine anyway since nobody's freaking playing it!

[homelycooking]

About the signatures survivors. I agree that these are off-topic, but the two currently open should be allowed to run their course. As I've said before, however, Vazdul's proposal is acceptable to me.

(bbf, go ahead and delete the Ivy League survivor. I was really just looking for a way to try out the tournament-elimination method, and I'm sure I can find some better topic.)

[big bad fab]

Don't worry on signatures, guys.
Every topic already open BEFORE our new rules are decided and implemented (and I wait for more opinions) will stay alive.

OK, homelycooking, I delete Ivy League.
But you'll be able to re-open it under the (likely) new rules.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I really think that this solution is the best compromise between the two extremes. Also, bear in mind that the limit on "off-topic" survivors can be adjusted at a later date if it is deemed necessary.

[big bad fab]

3 out of a total of 22 active topics on page 1, it's 13,6%, so it's not bad for a start.
I've hesitated to propose 4 or 5, but it's better to wait for some months and see how it works, indeed.

Of course, in the beginning, we may have a bubble (or maybe not as current turnout is especially low). But it will be more reasonable in the end I think.