Making everyone wait a full day to post again in any thread would be the death of CC.
8 Likes
For non college related threads I can see your point although 24 hours seems a bit lengthy. But in college threads itâs important to be able to engage with the OP on a more timely basis.
2 Likes
If Slow Mode for every topic in every area was the norm, with 24 hours between posts as @OhiBro suggests, then the page views and engagement would go way down on CC. Iâm sure thatâs not what the owners want.
6 Likes
Agreed. The contentiousness of a topic is usually obvious from the outset. But to be more proactive in discouraging debate (without burdening moderators to constantly monitor for debate ), it seems there needs to be some way to get out in front of the debate. The most extreme response would be to make slow mode default on everything. For reasons you mention, maybe this should only apply to Parent Forum⊠or some other less invasive way.
In several cases, slow mode seems to become a thread killer . Maybe that is the intent, but thatâs unfortunate. There used to be an option that kept threads from being bumped up to the top of the list when someone responded. It would kinda âsinkâ down and one would have to look for it to respond. That was an interesting option, IMO.
As a mod who has frequently used slow mode, thereâs no hard and fast rule as to how often slow mode is used and how long the gaps need to be between posts. Once a day would really limit a conversation and at that point, if the thread was that contentious, it might be better to close it.
For me personally, I look at how rancorous a thread is. Are people tagging other users in a way designed to provoke or call others out in an unhelpful way? Are tons of posts being flagged? Are lots of TOS and Forum Rules being broken? Is profanity being used, or name calling, or obvious ill-intentioned jabs at another user?
The same applies to debate and going off topic. Thereâs a difference between people having back and forth discussion that moves the topic forward, and rapid-fire replies that begin to turn nasty. Sometimes a post going off topic helps give more perspective to the conversation at hand, and eventually goes back to the topic. A thread can be like a road with a few cul de sacs, as long as it gets back on the main road at some point. There can be a few bends in the road, but as long as it goes back to where itâs supposed to, that can be okay.
But again, for me, the main criteria for using slow mode is how nasty the thread is getting. If itâs not too bad, I might set slow mode for 10 or 15 minute intervals. If itâs worse, maybe it could be every 30 minutes or once an hour. Sometimes we close something for the day and reopen the next day. Sometimes we close threads to see how many problematic posts there are.
These decisions rarely happen in a vacuum. We have conversations about the best course of action. This all relies on human judgment. There isnât a rule book for every possible type of action that can be taken on every possible way a thread can go off the rails. We do our best to keep things going, but there are occasions when something shouldnât be kept going. We try our best.
5 Likes
Thank you mods!
5 Likes
As someone whose primary participation here is in the âParents of the HS Class of 20xxâ threads, where much of the purpose is to develop community, this is an absolutely false statement.
And also, we have threads here where people throw around demonstrably false claims about academic issues (e.g., academic dishonesty definitions, published admissions policies at specific institutions), and limiting factual corrections to once per day is actually a danger to the public record.
5 Likes
Nobody on the CC end, AFAIK, is advocating limiting posts to once every 24 hours, so letâs not get caught up in that. Even on the most contentious threads, Iâve never even contemplated doing that. I personally interpreted the suggestion to be in the spirit of A Modest Proposal. Apologies if the analogy conjures up nightmares of HS English class.
2 Likes
Slow down grasshopper.
⊠On active college sites like the one I am active in we can have many, many posts in a day. That would virtually shut down the siteâŠ
2 Likes
You make a good point with flagging and tagging. I would guess itâs the same group of people doing this mostly. Flagging for flagging sake isnât good either.
Too many good discussions are being closed to quickly because the mods donât see the value but hense a good discussion is ensuing⊠But totally agree when it gets out of hand but it also seems to be the usual suspects.
My point about flagging is maybe certain people are just flagging too much. I have flagged when I have seen apparent spam happening and a few other times when someone is beyond repair for advice on what to do. If some people are flagging just because they donât agree or like something, that isnât good either.
7 Likes
100%
5 Likes
I send a message to them if I see this pattern.
5 Likes
This, a thousand times this!
And the current system incentivizes flagging not just stuff that goes over the edge, but also stuff you just simply disagree with, because doing so moves the Overton Window.
1 Like
Jonâs original post was made immediately after the rancorous âConsider your daughterâs healthâ thread was closed, and is obviously in reference to that. That is the context of my suggestion for a 24-hour slow mode, not the âClass ofâ threads, or anything else.
The âConsider your daughterâs healthâ thread was open for 2 days. The top 5 posters generated 53 posts. Under my suggested plan, 43 of those posts (from a 200-post thread) would have been prevented, along with many other posts from other users, and the thread would likely still be openâŠwith adulation thrust upon OhiBro for keeping the topic alive, keeping the community engaged and coming back, etc, etc, etc. But, instead, the topic fizzled away into nothing.
I am not sure what this means. We donât close threads because we donât âsee value.â I do occasionally close threads when they get nasty and people ignore requests to remain civil. Most of the time, threads are allowed to go on as long as people abide by TOS and Forum Rules.
These days, the most likely reason an active, recent thread gets closed is because people continue to break Forum Rules despite our best efforts to keep a thread civilized. But the MOST common reason a thread is closed is because someone, often a spammer, bumps an old, inactive thread by posting on it.
In the last week, threads were closed due to:
-
A more recent version of the event being updated in a new thread, thereby making the previous thread out of date. A link was provided to the updated thread. @skieurope
-
A thread was closed by @CC_Jon at the request of the OP.
-
A large number of threads dating back to as far as a couple of years were bumped by spammers. They were closed due to inactivity and/or because the person who originally posted has not been active for a long period of time. This is the most common reason threads are closed.
-
Only one thread was closed due to breaking Forum Rules/TOS, and that was after a moderatorâs note on the thread to please stop debating in an unproductive manner.
Your point about people who flag often is noted. Yes, some people flag a lot. Some flags are approved, others are not. But every flag is reviewed. The people who flag a lot are incredibly helpful to us, because they are generally quite active on CC and act as a second pair of eyes. We moderators donât read every post in every subforum. I donât have a problem with someone flagging frequently.
I donât know how many of you are aware that if three senior users flag a post, it is automatically hidden. (Correct, @CC_Jon ?). This is because the system values senior users as being a good judge of whatâs acceptable or not acceptable on the site. So itâs not wrong to flag stuff. In fact, it is helpful because it makes the site a little more reliant on CC members moderating themselves to keep a conversation moving forward.
I hope this provides a little more insight into what goes on behind the scenes.
Iâve often seen mods asking specific members to take their debate to pms. But, if that doesnât happen, the thread is shut down.
Is it possible to just block certain posters from commenting on those threads if theyâve been asked to desist and they persist? Iâd rather see that than entire threads being closed.
5 Likes
I appreciate the added insight. Thank you!
2 Likes
Thatâs actually an interesting idea! @CC_Jon , is this a possibility?
2 Likes
Thanks for the insight.
So yes, people do comment on old threads. I have wrongly posted a few times not looking closely enough but also sometimes a new discussion is happening then it gets shut down. If this is happening why not just make like a part 2 to let a new discussion happen? I am speaking of more college related topics in general?
1 Like