quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Papa Moose, I am distressed that you are distressed enough to lose sleep over this. Please, please don't let what is, for us, a hobby - an entertainment that we don't even have to pay for - loom large enough to distract you from the real, important things going on in your life.
Agree 100%!
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Seems to me when I first came here there was more than one moderator. Seems like dividing up the responsibility may have made it easier overall.
Pretty sure there has never been more than a single primary moderator, although there have always been (still are) others who have mod powers and occasionally use them.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: As far as "good old days" memories is concerned, I haven't seen arguments nearly as divisive in recent months or even years. In fact, those divisive arguments were what made this place so vibrant.
I think it may matter where you are on a certain argument. I, for one, have essentially stopped participating on certain types of threads, because the vicious dogpiling has gotten so bad -- even when I mostly agree with the side doing the dogpiling!
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I also remember that in the past people got booted off the forum. They often came back with an alt, but the message had been received, and the behavior changed.
This has happened very, very rarely.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: A lot of times it wasn't necessary to whistle a post, members just reminded the poster of the TOS and pointed out that this was a "family friendly" forum, which was a lot less antagonistic than tattling.
This is the attitude that I miss, and which is almost impossible to get back.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And finally, is there any way to reach out and bring back some of the members who have left? Surely they remember what it used to be like here.
What's the draw? There are other places they can go that still have the things that used to make Hatrack great.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: As for the banning, that was one of the reasons that pushed a lot of people out. There was a very high profile banning that divided the board between those who agreed and those who disagreed, and that caused something of a diaspora.
Assuming I am thinking of the same banning you are (and I am fairly certain), very few people left. And in most cases (although definitely not all), good riddance.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papa I can't speak for others. Unfortunately there is no secret gathering of Hatrack angels that meet to discuss what is good and what is bad about Hatrack.
But I can speak for myself when I say that you do a very good job. Yes, this was a very well self-disciplined forum and has grown callous and spiteful in its old age.
As far as I can tell none of that blame goes to you or your efforts.
Its more the efforts or lack there of from the fields.
You do much that is unhearlded, un-recognized and unrewarded. You have my salute.
You need,,,,no. We need more than that.
I am hereby proclaiming a new initiative to revive Hatrack. Not only will I refrain from the excesses of caustic attacks and the self-love that is flaming, insulting, and ego-centric one-upmanship we've grown to call debate. I will strive to make this a better, more thoughtful and more considerate place. Even if another, or perhaps especially if another attacks me I will not retaliate. I will offer the open hand.
No assumption or accusation that anyone posting a controversial topic is a troll.
Trolls should not be fed, but they should not be murdered either. They should be taught, and I will do what I can to teach kindly.
Thank you Papa.
I don't lose sleep over Hatrack because I know that it is in your hands. Don't you lose sleep.
It is only a forum.
As Camelot was only a town.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been subject to more personal attacks than practically anyone else here (with no provocation on my part) and I bear no ill will at all for the people in charge here.
quote:What's the draw? There are other places they can go that still have the things that used to make Hatrack great.
I'm sure there are. But they aren't Hatrack. I left alt.atheism years ago, but I still have a fondness for what it was before it devolved into a vicious cesspool of name calling. And I still sometimes go back to say hello. The difference is that there's no one over there reminiscing about how great it used to be and how to get it back to where it was.
Maybe we should start a Hatrack reunion thread and invite them back to say hi. I know many of us are in touch with many of them. And if Pop would lock the thread at the top of the list it will always be there to welcome them rather than falling by the wayside from disuse.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming I am thinking of the same banning you are (and I am fairly certain), very few people left.
The diaspora I am thinking of was a controversial banning at the end of 2003 - one which kicked off a debate over whether it should have happened or not, and led to a large group of frequent posters leaving between fall of 2003 and spring of 2004.
While the banning was not the only reason they left, it was a final straw for many. It gave a big boost to two other forums at the time, where the refugees landed.
And it was not, in any way, a "good" riddance.
I don't think there have been any high profile bannings since then (though I may not have been paying too close attention and could have missed one). A year later, Kathy Kidd stepped down and Papa Moose assumed the moderator job.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, two? Maybe I should check in more (or not?). One was the paternal rights thread. What was the other one?
I don't remember the name, but it was about Creationism. KoM, Blayne, and Orincoro decided to dogpile Ron, KoM and Ron were trading physical threats...it got impolite.
Was there another creationism thread since the one about Kent Hovind's "thesis"?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried to avoid offering advice on this topic for a while. But if you're really collecting suggestions, Papa, I offer this:
You don't really need to bother posting "forum rules." They're not usually read, and people who do read them generally do so to look for loopholes. But write some forum rules, and refer to them (and, if you want, post them somewhere -- but like I said, this is optional) frequently.
Upgrade the forum software. In particular, get software that enables Private Messaging and Ignore functions -- or even more sophisticated "rating" mechanisms -- and remembers where people left off in a thread. This would help more than you might imagine. You don't need to enable avatars, signatures or images if you don't want to; I'd actually advise against it.
Talk OSC into being slightly less of a jerk. He's the main draw. People come to this site because they saw "Hatrack.com" in something he wrote and wanted to look into it. As long as he's playing at being Grego, we're going to get wannabe demagogues who show up wanting to argue with him. That'll affect the available population of recruits, which makes your job harder. If OSC refuses to change (and, honestly, I'm not even saying that with a straight face), you'll need to find ways to draw people to the forums themselves; consider contests, memes, anything that might bring people here before the front page. (Of course, that almost certainly defeats the point of the site itself.)
Intervene more, and at more length. At the very least, step in in situations like the one between Ace of Spades and Lisa, where he's being disingenuously anti-Semitic and she's being, well, Lisa, and publicly suggest that neither of them are entitled to do what they're doing. You don't need to ban either one; you just need to remind them that you can, and use that "power" to get straight answers from them. Of course, that only works when you're dealing with people who actually want to be here; without real forum software, you actual ability to ban anyone is rather limited.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure what the benefit of keeping it all hush hush is. The people who know who's being talked about know who's being talked about and are making their opinion of said person clear (and if they're wrong about who's getting talked about then they're badmouthing the wrong person) and the people who don't know what's going on are just feeling left in the dark.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, not to speak for FC, but I don't think anyone has ventured an opinion on the actual person who was banned, but rather on the fallout thereof.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, the line I was thinking of was "good riddance" which was applying to the people who left I guess. I'm still not sure what the benefit of keeping it a big dark secret is.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was more about the fact that when they left, the animosity/hostility regarding the incident (mostly) went with them.
And now I'm done. Sorry, I should have just let it be to start with; but I disagree with what seemed to me to be a claim that banning a popular poster necessarily damages the board.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Papa I can't speak for others. Unfortunately there is no secret gathering of Hatrack angels that meet to discuss what is good and what is bad about Hatrack.
But I can speak for myself when I say that you do a very good job. Yes, this was a very well self-disciplined forum and has grown callous and spiteful in its old age.
As far as I can tell none of that blame goes to you or your efforts.
Its more the efforts or lack there of from the fields.
You do much that is unhearlded, un-recognized and unrewarded. You have my salute.
You need,,,,no. We need more than that.
I am hereby proclaiming a new initiative to revive Hatrack. Not only will I refrain from the excesses of caustic attacks and the self-love that is flaming, insulting, and ego-centric one-upmanship we've grown to call debate. I will strive to make this a better, more thoughtful and more considerate place. Even if another, or perhaps especially if another attacks me I will not retaliate. I will offer the open hand.
No assumption or accusation that anyone posting a controversial topic is a troll.
Trolls should not be fed, but they should not be murdered either. They should be taught, and I will do what I can to teach kindly.
Thank you Papa.
I don't lose sleep over Hatrack because I know that it is in your hands. Don't you lose sleep.
quote:I disagree with what seemed to me to be a claim that banning a popular poster necessarily damages the board.
I don't think that banning = board damage in a general sense. There were earlier bannings that were definitely needed and were beneficial overall.
That particular banning, however much I may have agreed with it, caused a board schism and lost a lot of prolific, moderate posters. It was an unfortunate fallout of what I had considered a necessary decision at the time. The irony is that the behavior that prompted the banning would have been almost mainstream at this point.
I'd estimate at least a third of the most active posters of the time left in that six month span. Nearly all of the most active posters from 2001-2003 are gone (or post very infrequently) at this point, save a handful.
Now, another big wave of new posters came in 2005, and the board took on a new tone, but most of them have gone, too.
Hatrack has become something a ghost town in the last year or so. Looking back over the archives: In 2003, there were 17 pages of posts in August and 15 in December (with approx 5900 registered usernames at year end). In 2005, there were 21 pages in August and 16 in December (with approx 9000 registered usernames).... in 2009, there were 5 pages in August and 5 in December (with about 12,500 registered usernames).
From 2003 to 2005, the number of members increased 50%.... but volume stayed relatively constant, with a slight summer uptick. Since then, we've added another 3500 members (about 40%), and the volume has dropped off a cliff.
The board has become almost a curiosity to me at this point rather than a community. I used to suggest the site all the time to people who I discussed world issues with IRL - now, I would never. The tone of conversation has just gone so far downhill.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I wonder if it is just that we have run out of interesting conversations. We have beat the debate on what I would consider interesting topics to death and people with moderate enough opinions to have a reasonable civil discussion are getting tired of talking about it. That leaves the more extreme posters and a few dogged responders.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but in "the old days," when people were tired of beating the old controversial topics, the forum would dissolve into fluff threads for a while. Then we'd all frolic like deer through the meadows until a new election was on the horizon. Usually by then, people were ready to discuss abortion and WMDs again.
Besides, I think the topics only seem repetitive because of the same brash posters that feel the need to dominate them.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective, the flames start blazing forth whenever the Evolution vs. Creation debate is rejoined. I will not allow put-downs of Creationism or Intelligent Design to go unchallenged, nor will I allow assertions that Evolutionism is the only truly "scientific" philosophy of origins to go unchallenged. There are a few people who cannot abide my challenges to their paradigm, no matter how calmly and reasonably and factually I do it. These certain ones always resort to personal attack rather than responsible and mature debate, and once one starts in, the others have to try to outdo each other.
For the most part, I feel I have excercised great restraint under immense provocation. One thing that does send me over the line is when someone totally without cause presumes to call me a liar. Perhaps younger generations simply do not understand how much personal honor means to some of us older folks, and that throughout history, calling someone a liar has always been grounds for a fight, even a duel to the death, before dueling was outlawed in this country. I am one of the people who still feels this strongly. I once called out RickyB on this same point.
When King of Men called me a liar, I had to try to let him know how much this mattered to me, that such a claim was out-of-bounds, and stated that if we met face to face, he would have to answer to me for it. That is all I said. I did not engage in any childish trash-talking about what specifically I might do to him. Perhaps it would be better if I had not said it, though at the time I felt that I had to. Because now someone like steven can claim that I and King of Men "exchanged threats of physical violence." This, even though what I said still was restrained, expressing only the basic reality of the seriousness of the personal offense he was committing by calling me a liar; and what he said was way over the top, egregious, explicit, and could be fairly characterized as childish trash-talking to the extreme.
So how can this situation be mitigated in the future? I would hate to see any discussion of Creationism and Evolutionism precluded. The question of origins is important and worthy of discussion, even formal debate, especially in a forum mainly frequented by fans of science fiction, who are generally informed and interested in science and scientific issues.
Perhaps it might help to ban "trash-talking." Some people seem to engage in this for fun and sport, but in a written medium like this, it is entirely too dangerous for anyone to indulge in it. There is no way it can be engaged in without being offensive to everyone.
That is my suggestion, anyway: Ban trash-talking.
If I might point out by way of comparison, Lisa and I (and a few others) have at times engaged in prolonged and inherently emotional debates over religion and the proper interpretation and use of Scripture to back up our religious views. Despite the occasional heat, we have never, that I can recall, ever directly impugned one another's honor, and we have certainly never issued any threats of violence. Despite the frequent sharpness of our debates, I rather like and respect Lisa; I am grateful that she is willing to engage me in debate, when I have been used to many other Jews just refusing to discuss these matters with Christians. And I am intrigued by her responses to various arguments I have set forth. Many of them I had never heard before.
Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem debating topics with people, and whether I am in the majority or minority I enjoy it just the same. A few years ago this could happen without being called any names.
Now however it seems that if you disagree with someone's viewpoint, you are called all sorts of names. Words such as stupid, idiot, liar, and moron are used by some to demean others. Why? Just because someone has a different point of view? In another month, year, or decade you may feel the same way that person you just called an idiot feels.
This forum has always been a place for intelligent discussion of topics. It still is, but now there is the name calling. It is ok to disagree with someone, but calling them names does not help your point. If anything, it makes it seem as though you must insult someone to prove your point.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Well, it seems to me that we have only one Christian Creationist on the board, and he's said that he will "not allow" any put-downs of Creationism to go unchallenged. So 100% of Christian Hatrack Creationists get worked up over challenges to Christian Creationist belief.
Assuming 100 other non-Creationist regulars (which is probably a lowball number), we have only about five or six who will reliably criticize Creationism and defend the theory of natural selection when given the opportunity. So only 6% of "evolutionists" care as much as you.
Does that seem possible to you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the most part, I feel I have excercised great restraint under immense provocation. One thing that does send me over the line is when someone totally without cause presumes to call me a liar. Perhaps younger generations simply do not understand how much personal honor means to some of us older folks, and that throughout history, calling someone a liar has always been grounds for a fight, even a duel to the death, before dueling was outlawed in this country. I am one of the people who still feels this strongly.
So am I. 'Liar' is not a charge I fling about lightly; I am quite aware of the seriousness of impugning someone's honour. I still stand by my words. You are welcome to make me 'answer for them' at any time.
quote:Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Of course we do; that's how we managed to arrive at actual truth in the first place, by caring about it and not being satisfied by the first convenient mythology we came across.
Getting back to this thread's topic, a tool I've seen used on other forums is the thread-specific ban; as in, "Poster X, post in this thread again and you will be banned from the entire forum." It's much less of a blunt instrument than deleting or locking threads.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perspective, the flames start blazing forth whenever the Evolution vs. Creation debate is rejoined. I will not allow put-downs of Creationism or Intelligent Design to go unchallenged, nor will I allow assertions that Evolutionism is the only truly "scientific" philosophy of origins to go unchallenged.
You are very straightforwardly demonstrating one of the major issues that hit forums. Put in context with the way that you 'debate' in those threads, you act as proof that because of your presence, Hatrack is no longer a place that can have a thread on this subject not become dysfunctional.
The coarse term for it is a subject troll. It's coarse because it uses the word 'troll' without regard to intent. I'm sure your intent is entirely to propagate truth and counter harmful misinformation, as far as you are convinced. It's irrelevant to when it comes to the kind of poster you are in practice.
When subject trolls grow in number, they begin to nuke progressively larger and larger portions of a forum's ability to productively discuss a larger and larger portion of topics, because whether or not they are self-aware of it, or are self-aware of why, their actions only derail productive discussion.
As many of you can guess, hatrack hit a threshold a while back where subject trolls put a hard cap on the maturity or productivity of the majority of serious subjects discussed on this forum. All well and good to people like me who love to go at it in threads now beyond hope of salvation (does that make me a subject troll subject troll? ha) but it was way too long ago that I realized that had lost the functionality required to provide me (or anyone!) much besides these trainwrecks.
Shortly afterwards, the moderate, polite, and ultimately functional and productive members of the forum started dropping like flies. People like us stay behind.
It's a very reliable way to make a forum suck in short order.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, another tool is the subject-specific ban. On another forum I frequent, I'm banned from discussing religion, including creationism, on the grounds that the moderator there is a fascist who blatantly favours the theist side of any debate, but that's a separate issue. The point is that he bans from specific threads and specific issues, rather than closing or deleting entire threads; this allows him a much more fine-grained control over what can be said on his forum. That he does not use this tool impartially is not the fault of the tool.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be an unfortunate ban. We're already banned from proselytizing, and I understand why. But wouldn't eliminating the discussion of all religion therefore prevent those who have religious reasons for their opinions from voicing them and elaborating on them?
What I mean is, wouldn't banning religion just be banning the practice of disagreeing with you? Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're all trolls then can we at least go guard a bridge or frighten a small village? I'll bring candy!
on a more relevant note I came here long after any of the Golden Ages of Hatrack (as I am reffering to them) but have found my experiences here highly pleasant. I like the family friendlyness and the refrainment from bad language here. I just want to thank everyone that makes this forum a fun place because hey, fluff threads are the best!
I mostly just felt left out for not posting in this topic so here i go Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:When subject trolls grow in number, they begin to nuke progressively larger and larger portions of a forum's ability to productively discuss a larger and larger portion of topics, because whether or not they are self-aware of it, or are self-aware of why, their actions only derail productive discussion.
I had never heard the term "subject troll" used before, but this paragraph rings particularly true to my experiences with hatrack recently.
It also makes sense why so many posters have abandoned ship, and why I've been so often tempted to follow them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also started frequenting this forum after the Fall from Grace. Could someone who was here during the golden age bump a representative thread, so us newbies know what we should be aspiring to?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: That would be an unfortunate ban. We're already banned from proselytizing, and I understand why. But wouldn't eliminating the discussion of all religion therefore prevent those who have religious reasons for their opinions from voicing them and elaborating on them?
What I mean is, wouldn't banning religion just be banning the practice of disagreeing with you?
No, no, it's a subject- and poster-specific ban. So everyone except, most likely, me, would still be free to discuss religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, if you think that would help the forum, you could easily implement that ban on yourself.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anything of the kind; no forum is improved by censoring truth. I do think, however, that other people are likely to think so, and thus I offered you a solution to what you perceive as a problem. I feel a bit like the engineer in the old joke about the priest, the lawyer, and the engineer being executed by guillotine, but that's beside the point.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
posted
You know what really saddens me about that thread, FC? I remember a time when I considered Kasie to be one of the more inflammatory posters when it came to disagreeing with me, and she and I still spoke outside of the forum in friendly chats.
I guess what I mean is that inflammatory was merely itchy and I was probably too sensitive, and no one was bad enough for me to avoid them or leave a thread just because they were posting in it.
Just...musing, I guess.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: feel a bit like the engineer in the old joke about the priest, the lawyer, and the engineer being executed by guillotine, but that's beside the point. [/QB]
Speaking of jokes, have you heard this one: A mathematician and a prostitute are at a cocktail party, and the following conversation ensues:
M: What do you do?
P: I'm a sex worker.
M: Sex, huh? Yeah, well... never really got the hang of that.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
