Timeline for Chat - a plea for moderation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 23:29 | comment | added | quux | Let me simplify. A lot of The Comms Room regulars seem to be saying "let our local Sherriffs sort out our local issues, mods from other communities please butt out" ... while the moderator-at-large setup of all SE chatrooms suggests that all moderators are Feds who should go anywhere in the chatverse and enforce national standards as they see fit. There is a seeming conflict between 'local' and 'national' standards, and it would probably be very helpful to understand what if any provision is or should be made for 'local laws', especially if they conflict with 'national laws.' | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | Holocryptic | Generally speaking, whenever someone trots out the "common sense" cannon, I tend to tune them out as their arguments are fluffy feel good hand holding non-sense based on emotion and woulda, coulda, shoulda | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:48 | comment | added | voretaq7 |
@syneticon-dj We'll have to agree to disagree. This is the internet: Home of Goatse, Tubgirl, NgirlsMcups, Lemon Party, etc. If we are judging community standards by the entirety of potential readers we're not just tame, we're a trip to Disney. If we're judging by likely readers (People from SF who may click the chat link) I think we're approaching a line, and we will regulate ourselves accordingly.
|
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:42 | comment | added | the-wabbit | The cops were called by someone else. Whoever it was, whatever the reasoning for his actions, once the cops are there, they act. I cannot see any way to argue against that. The social consensus is defined by the broader society, not just the serverfault crowd and certainly not just the chat crowd - since the visibility is net-wide it would be the entirety of potential readers or at least the likely readers. If people otherwise unrelated are coming by and telling "guys, you really should behave", they are probably not doing so for their personal pleasure. | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:29 | comment | added | voretaq7 | @syneticon-dj Re: your pub brawl analogy, I was a bartender before I was a sysadmin. When there's a brawl my patrons and bouncers usually break it up and deal with it themselves - I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually had to call the cops to deal with patrons. The same holds true for chat: The denizens of SF chat (and SF at large) deal with our own problems. This is as it should be in my opinion (and if you read all of yesterday's transcripts there are at least a few mods and StackExchange employees who seem to agree). | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:26 | comment | added | voretaq7 | Now of course, if one of the community management folks, or Joel, or Jeff, or anyone else from the Stack Exchange network wants to weigh in and say that what we're doing explicitly contravenes their intentions for the chat environment their word trumps our community consensus -- It's their environment, and we're just invited guests. If it comes down to it we can move our BSing into IRC or similar. Personally I'd rather see regulars hanging out in chat and BSing -- It lets us actually help users when they pop up with questions. (2/2 - EOT EOM) | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:18 | comment | added | voretaq7 |
@syneticon-dj you have failed to define the social consensus on the communication protocol -- From where I sit the "social consensus" seems to be "Obscenity bad. Some memes overdone and perhaps not the most welcoming, tone those down. Profanity OK as long as it's not just for profanity's sake. Keep the obscenity and profanity off the main site." That consensus may evolve over time, but neither you nor I nor any single person can dictate "social consensus". The community needs to arrive at a consensus. (1/2)
|
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 15:07 | comment | added | the-wabbit | This is not even close to getting "my way", because I have no "way" in regards to the chat. I have an opinion based on yesterday's events and I am certainly not afraid to express it. Other than that, I do not care. But the excessive moderation in the channel should be a hint nonetheless - no one would ask a police officer to "understand the culture" of a pub brawl before acting and hitting offenders with the club. | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 14:53 | comment | added | Chris S | Apparently "Let he without sin throw the first stone" has been reinterpreted to "Let he with sin keep throwing stones until he finds a sympathetic ear and finally gets his way"... | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 14:40 | comment | added | pauska | I wish I could downvote comments | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 10:13 | comment | added | the-wabbit | As I see it, the rift is not about expectations but about whether a chat room where people repeatedly, explicitly and, according to their statements, deliberately violate the social consensus on the communication protocol (which they might do as much as they please if all of the participants agree on it) really needs to be linked to Serverfault. | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 10:03 | history | edited | quux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 10:00 | comment | added | quux | Personally, I don't believe sense is all that common, or that everyone has the same internal definitions for the words "nice" or "respect." As for people taking offense ... in this post I'm taking no stance on whether that's right or wrong. I'm mostly noting that this rift seems to be centered around how different people have clearly different expectations from the chat rooms, and it isn't clear how to resolve them. | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 9:49 | history | edited | quux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 156 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 9:48 | comment | added | the-wabbit | It is not about written-down rules, it is about common sense. If a mere expression of opinion triggers an instant response to "get off your f***ing high horse" and insults are thrown around shortly thereafter, following a rainstorm of moderator flags, the chat does not look like the place to be. I am the last one to be offended, but I share the concern about the message this chat room is sending out since it is associated with the site. If the participants really want to behave like self-sufficient ops on an IRC channel, they should simply open one and run their riot there. | |
| Dec 16, 2011 at 9:35 | history | edited | quux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added final bullet
|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 9:28 | history | answered | quux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |