Moderation of contentious threads

[booster]

[Moderator's Note:I have moved several messages from another thread to this new one]

Originally Posted by tgregg

winston,

thanks for trying to educate a fellow member.

just confirms what I already thought that you're not such a bad guy.

Tom and Charlotte

I agree, Winston, but unfortunately you, and the rest of us, are dealing with a couple of folks that don't want to understand and relish using the wrong terms just to irritate everyone else. It is very unlikely than anyone can always be on the contrarian side without doing intentionally. That way they can smugly call everyone else elitest and try diminish the value of actual knowledge and those that are willing to share it.


It seems like the creating arguments is taking over the forum like has happened to so many other and destroyed them. It won't be long before those that have actual knowledge and facts and a willingness to help everyone else will other things to do and that will be left are those that prefer just to cause trouble. There are getting to be more and more of these threads, and it is too bad, IMO, as they serve no useful purpose for anyone.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by booster

I agree, Winston, but unfortunately you, and the rest of us, are dealing with a couple of folks that don't want to understand and relish using the wrong terms just to irritate everyone else. It is very unlikely than anyone can always be on the contrarian side without doing intentionally. That way they can smugly call everyone else elitest and try diminish the value of actual knowledge and those that are willing to share it.


It seems like the creating arguments is taking over the forum like has happened to so many other and destroyed them. It won't be long before those that have actual knowledge and facts and a willingness to help everyone else will other things to do and that will be left are those that prefer just to cause trouble. There are getting to be more and more of these threads, and it is too bad, IMO, as they serve no useful purpose for anyone.

Well said and it is unfortunate. Internet is loaded with these self-promotion comments, videos by clueless like the post #98. At some threshold point contributing folks will leave.

Sprinter forum has the “Dangerous Zone” for political or religious discussions so it is easy to block it off but spills happen often diminishing forum’s value. I guess entropy take over.

We are travelling in Europe still recovering from the jetlag and our plane flew over the ocean at 33 bushel/hr, oops, wrong unit but you know what I meant.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by booster

It seems like the creating arguments is taking over the forum . . .

This has not gone unnoticed . . . maybe in bringing this 'unnecessary debate' issue to the surface, we all can reflect and moderate.

[RossWilliams]

maybe in bringing this 'unnecessary debate' issue to the surface, we all can reflect and moderate.

I think that is right.

Here is an early post that pretty much summarizes the problem:

"Never exceed 52 amps per day"

If you are gonna argue with Booster you need to use the correct units.

That should read "52 amp hours per day"

He is trying to tell you something and you are not getting it.

People need to try to help people, not critique their posts.

There is a difference between saying "I assume you meant amp-hours, not amps" when the meaning is clear and "you are not getting it" and "you didn’t help yourself by not understanding the difference".

Instead of saying "You didn't provide us with enough information." people need to say "we need this information to help you." When someone starts a post "Sorry to break this to you", they generally aren't really sorry. They are about to tell you what an idiot you are. That tends to create arguments.

If you look at the original post the meaning of the information in it is actually pretty clear as is his question, which was whether the system described will meet his purpose. Instead of help, he got a helping of abuse.

[avanti]

As one who helps out with moderation, I have been having real difficulties figuring out how to deal with the recent spate of argumentative threads. Religion and politics are easy: The Forum owners have set guidelines forbidding such topics, so a little aggressive moderating can keep these topics at bay. It is kind of like graffiti: if you don't let it get started, you can keep the situation stable.

But, the problem that has been articulated in the above messages is much more difficult. A very small number of prolific but non-technical members repeatedly start threads with messages that are written in the form of legitimate requests for information and/or feedback. These messages often contain or imply technically dubious assumptions. Honest and generally accurate responses ensue--having the effect of "calling out" the OPs biases or misconceptions. Sometimes, these messages are somewhat "abrupt", but usually don't really rise to the level of personal attacks. This, in turn, leads to hard feelings when OP feels attacked when their initial assumptions are contradicted. Ultimately, this annoys other contributors, who then cease to be helpful and drift toward sarcasm and the ad hominem.

Now, for a moderator, it is really only the very last step that is actionable. None of the rest breaks any rules, as far as I can see. I personally do not see the moderation role as including the picking of winners and losers, whether we are talking about threads, members, or factual claims. Other contributors can and do effectively correct the factual record, but in doing so are subject to accusations of pedantry and self-aggrandisement (justified or not).

I strongly agree that the special strength of this forum lies in its relative technical rigor. Not everybody wants to work that hard, though, which is fine. Maybe they have come to the wrong place and don't realize it, but that is up to them. It is certainly not a valid criterion for banishment.

I know I am mostly just ranting here. I guess I am fishing for advice on how to manage the above-described dynamic. I don't make the rules around here (I just try to help enforce them), but the list's owners are engaged, open-minded, and sensitive to the needs and desires of the list members. I am certain that constructive suggestions for addressing this and other issues concerning list moderation would be taken seriously.

[booster]

Well put, Avanti, and it is a tough call in all the ways you mention. I don't envy your location in the middle of all of this stuff.


It can be extremely difficult for me, and probably other technically oriented types to see the continuously repeated, very dubious to proven inaccurate, claims being inserted into nearly every discussion lately and then repeated dozens of times in the same thread, or even another thread started to do it all again with the same things. There is getting to be so much of it in the history, that anyone coming here for useful information will look at the first couple of things and conclude this is not a good place to learn anything, when the reputation of this forum was always that it was the best place to go.


I whole heartedly agree that not all folks want to deal with the tech or do the research, testing, etc and they shouldn't be required to. I think the issue for many of us is that if those that would be in that category refuse to accept or even consider the work of others that have done it for some reason, and stick with what they thought was going on.



My goal when I came here was to learn about RV stuff as we were just starting with our Roadtrek and had no idea what was going on. We have learned immensely from the members who were here when I showed up, and we all have all worked together to come up with ideas and solutions that are beyond what nearly all other RV sites even consider. Along the way we have helped each other and a multitude of posters that have gravitated through here with problems that were not able to be solved by other sites, dealers, or manufacturers in some cases. To me that is what this forum has be about, and should be about.

[InterBlog]

To combat the negativity being referenced in this thread, I wish that the forums had better identification criteria in the left-hand column, because I think that could rectify some of what goes on.

For example:

booster
Platinum Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 7,377

The rest of that column is just empty wasted space. What little information IS presented says absolutely nothing about that poster's experience, competencies, or interests. A casual reader might assume that his high count has a lot to do with posting his favorite pictures of cats (many high-volume posters on other forums are just chit-chatty types).

If readers could see more at a glance what other people are all about, they might hesitate to antagonize. And then people like me who are accused as being non-savvy (and other things) would not have to politely remind posters that they should maybe check credentials before waltzing into ad hominem territory.

In other words, it should be more like a real-life interaction. Approach someone in real life and you can observe their deportment, the social and professional roles that they occupy, the whole package. And that provides cues on how to interact with them.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

To combat the negativity being referenced in this thread, I wish that the forums had better identification criteria in the left-hand column, because I think that could rectify some of what goes on.

For example:

booster
Platinum Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 7,377

The rest of that column is just empty wasted space. What little information IS presented says absolutely nothing about that poster's experience, competencies, or interests. A casual reader might assume that his high count has a lot to do with posting his favorite pictures of cats (many high-volume posters on other forums are just chit-chatty types).

If readers could see more at a glance what other people are all about, they might hesitate to antagonize. And then people like me who are accused as being non-savvy (and other things) would not have to politely remind posters that they should maybe check credentials before waltzing into ad hominem territory.

In other words, it should be more like a real-life interaction. Approach someone in real life and you can observe their deportment, the social and professional roles that they occupy, the whole package. And that provides cues on how to interact with them.

Hi InterBlog,

I did not post when booster posted that, but will now with your post. I can't imagine any good way to implement that concept.

Start imagining what someone might place on the almost empty left side about themselves! Like: I only use the best 'professionals' and they tell me........... And avanti is suppose to moderate that? avanti is very good (imo) at moderation, but I don't see it happening and time consuming and .........

Folks don't get to come on this forum and beat someone up, booster or anyone else. Hey, we lucky - avanti.

Bud

[booster]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

To combat the negativity being referenced in this thread, I wish that the forums had better identification criteria in the left-hand column, because I think that could rectify some of what goes on.

For example:

booster
Platinum Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 7,377

The rest of that column is just empty wasted space. What little information IS presented says absolutely nothing about that poster's experience, competencies, or interests. A casual reader might assume that his high count has a lot to do with posting his favorite pictures of cats (many high-volume posters on other forums are just chit-chatty types).

If readers could see more at a glance what other people are all about, they might hesitate to antagonize. And then people like me who are accused as being non-savvy (and other things) would not have to politely remind posters that they should maybe check credentials before waltzing into ad hominem territory.

In other words, it should be more like a real-life interaction. Approach someone in real life and you can observe their deportment, the social and professional roles that they occupy, the whole package. And that provides cues on how to interact with them.

That is a very interesting observation, and that you picked my layout as example.


Mostly interesting in the fact that I left all that out very intentionally for several reasons.


*I have never been impressed with titles, degrees, power, etc whether they were mine or somebody else's as they are just words. Some of the very smartest, most innovative, talented, helpful, etc. people I have met didn't have or want any of that as they were always focused on learning, teaching, attacking the task they were doing, etc. Some of the best engineers and researchers I have known could barely remember to tie their shoes or peoples names. Along the same lines, some of the people with the most impressive titles or degrees were just the opposite and more focused on power and status than the tasks at hand or other people.



*In groups that do a lot of the listing as mentioned, it is often exaggerated and/or just looks like unsolicited bragging. Even the lists signature lists of all the posters stuff seem unnatural to me if they list things that don't apply to the group.


*I am normally very private, DW would say antisocial, although if anyone wants to know things I don't hide anything. Certainly, some of things in my past experience influence (well or poorly probably) how I do things and my thought processes, but I think only need to be stated when directly related and relevant.


Different styles for different people, I think, and whatever works for anyone in things like this are fine with me.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

To combat the negativity being referenced in this thread, I wish that the forums had better identification criteria in the left-hand column, because I think that could rectify some of what goes on.

For example:

booster
Platinum Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 7,377

The rest of that column is just empty wasted space. What little information IS presented says absolutely nothing about that poster's experience, competencies, or interests. A casual reader might assume that his high count has a lot to do with posting his favorite pictures of cats (many high-volume posters on other forums are just chit-chatty types).

If readers could see more at a glance what other people are all about, they might hesitate to antagonize. And then people like me who are accused as being non-savvy (and other things) would not have to politely remind posters that they should maybe check credentials before waltzing into ad hominem territory.

In other words, it should be more like a real-life interaction. Approach someone in real life and you can observe their deportment, the social and professional roles that they occupy, the whole package. And that provides cues on how to interact with them.

You can't fix stupid with any amount of information. Members can fill out their resume in "About Me" a click away and their signature at the bottom of the messages but I don't think it will matter. The left side has as much information about any member as you can get and not everyone wants to reveal much more and you really never know who you are interacting with anonymous names.

I admin a group on Facebook with 29,000 members and constantly have to weed it everytime I check in despite thorough information and rules at hand in the "About" this group. I've been at this for over 30 years moderating forums since AOL went live. I'm sure Janet, Andy and Avanti can enlighten us.

So as not to go to waste with my response and pad my message numbers, my cat.

[Boxster1971]

Cute cat! Had to add this sentence to get character count above ten to accept post.

[hbn7hj]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

To combat the negativity being referenced in this thread, I wish that the forums had better identification criteria in the left-hand column, because I think that could rectify some of what goes on

It doesn't take long to identify those that post info worth reading.

JohnnyFry, GeorgeRa, Booster, MarcoPolo, Interblog, Avanti, and others I can't recall at the moment.

Still can't imagine how GeorgeRa found the Kisae DC to DC charger but it is the centerpiece of my two systems.

Reading between the lines you can tell many have stunning backgrounds and accomplishments.

I was on the design team that made the microprocessor in the Apple 1 and Apple 2 computers, used in the Atari and Commodore products. (yeah, I'm old and I wasn't the brains on that project). I built my own plane (Long-EZ) and flew it over 200,000 miles. (1200 hrs)

All of this doesn't mean jack when it comes to RV electrical systems which is why no one posts their credentials. Thankfully others explained how to get better use out of a lead acid battery by charging it at a higher voltage and using a shunt based battery monitor. Should have figured it out myself but I didn't. Anyhow, it doesn't take long to figure out who on this forum has posts worth reading regardless of resume, credentials, or skills. I appreciate them for sharing and have used their information extensively.

To charge any of these folks with self promotion is ludicrous. They have grander accomplishments than this forum. We are lucky to have them.