A World News section

[FlynnCoyote]

The Watercooler is too generic an off topic section. I think it's worth giving the super serious discussions their own sub forum away from the less depressing and emotion inducing posts that go there.

People are asking for things like removing the sidebar, sig size restrictions and lots of other crap, so here. This is my suggestion. Leave the watercooler for casual off topic chat, and create a World News or Current Events section or something. Even give it harsher rules from the get go to avoid any inconsistencies.

[Endless/Nameless]

My initial reaction is a yes. It seems sorta useful, and since there are a lot of discussions like this, it's definitely a niche that could be filled.

But it also seems rather micromanagey and splintery so I hope people bring up the cons for consideration. 

 

I vote a "No" on extra rules tho. What good is the existence of a public forumspace for these topics if your speech feels constricted? People come to a forum like this to get away from the mainscene and discuss somewhat more frankly and freely. If they wanted tidiness they could go to Reddit. We already have sufficient rules for keeping propriety, it just relies on posters following them, mods enforcing them--and maybe most importantly, members reporting bad behavior. 

So maybe not extra rules, but rather a subforum description bluntly stating hightened rule enforcement and encouraging people to use the report button. 

[FlynnCoyote]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I vote a "No" on extra rules tho.

That was bad wording on my part. XP

I meant be harsher in enforcing the rules. A lot slips past as is, if this section was to work people need to know that stepping out of line isn't gonna fly. I'll be honest, this is mostly because I see a lot of shit posts in threads where they really don't belong.

[Endless/Nameless]

2 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

That was bad wording on my part. XP

I meant be harsher in enforcing the rules. A lot slips past as is, if this section was to work people need to know that stepping out of line isn't gonna fly. I'll be honest, this is mostly because I see a lot of shit posts in threads where they really don't belong.

Now this I can agree with. 

 

 

 

Even tho I have been known to participate in le shiteposts....

Edited June 13, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[Guest]

A Workaround that may satisfy the needs for a "serious" area of the forums is a"serious" tag. "Serious" tags added to a topic say that shitposts are absolutely prohobited, and first offenses just get theirs hidden, second offenders get a 0 point infraction, etc etc. That way there's no splitting, there's no new sitewide rules, and instead rules in just one thread if the OP feels like it calls for it. 

This is just from what I see askreddit does with threads with [serious] tags on them. How would you guys feel about that kind of solution?

[Endless/Nameless]

40 minutes ago, Lemon said:

A Workaround that may satisfy the needs for a "serious" area of the forums is a"serious" tag.

Nice idea
But could be abused 
And it's not fair for an OP to have that kind of power.

"Shitposts", however they would be defined in this situation, are an integral part of internet social commentary. 
They must be contained, not stamped out.
You need a little cholesterol in your diet to survive.

 

I could see this being a solution for official threads though, although I believe it would be very grating

EDIT: Also, I have a feeling a lot of people don't actually look at the tags real close. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[Spot]

This is a furry-centric community, what constitutes as serious discussion these days is what porn looks the best or how to shitpost more effectively. I highly doubt a dedicated section with tighter restrictions will be an effective method in an attempt to weed out the trolls, drama-whores and whatnot, not the way this fandom is. But could work.

[FlynnCoyote]

1 hour ago, Lemon said:

A Workaround that may satisfy the needs for a "serious" area of the forums is a"serious" tag. "Serious" tags added to a topic say that shitposts are absolutely prohobited, and first offenses just get theirs hidden, second offenders get a 0 point infraction, etc etc. That way there's no splitting, there's no new sitewide rules, and instead rules in just one thread if the OP feels like it calls for it. 

This is just from what I see askreddit does with threads with [serious] tags on them. How would you guys feel about that kind of solution?

Like Endless said, that's only going to be abused here. A dedicated section is at least something you can enforce, and move threads in or out of as necessary.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lemon said:

A Workaround that may satisfy the needs for a "serious" area of the forums is a"serious" tag. "Serious" tags added to a topic say that shitposts are absolutely prohobited, and first offenses just get theirs hidden, second offenders get a 0 point infraction, etc etc. That way there's no splitting, there's no new sitewide rules, and instead rules in just one thread if the OP feels like it calls for it. 

This is just from what I see askreddit does with threads with [serious] tags on them. How would you guys feel about that kind of solution?

Seems like a simple and doable solution. Go for it. Ain't no need for a whole new subforum or a change of rules site-wide: a simple tag and a clearly stated set of rules in the OP will suffice

[FlynnCoyote]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fox said:

This is a furry-centric community, what constitutes as serious discussion these days is what porn looks the best or how to shitpost more effectively. I highly doubt a dedicated section with tighter restrictions will be an effective method in an attempt to weed out the trolls, drama-whores and whatnot, not the way this fandom is. But could work.

I was more thinking the kind of threads around mass shootings and whatnot. The ones where genuine religious and political discussion should be contained and more heavily moderated.

[Spot]

9 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I was more thinking the kind of threads around mass shootings and whatnot. The ones where genuine religious and political discussion should be contained and more heavily moderated.

I know. It's a good idea but that would mean the mods would have to make an effort from giving into peer pressure or favoritism to make it work. Not that easy when you're so used to the norm.

[Falaffel]

These threads become shout fests anyways. I'm really not sure this is the right community for super seriousness. I don't know if I could handle this place and folks' incessant squabbling if there wasn't that one person around with a joke post saying,  "everyone's a big dumby lol." I mean, sure, mass shootings are not a time for jokes, but those are rare cases, and the latest Trump news and some bullshit about bitcoins are not things that need to be serious at all times, and that'll inevitable be majority of what's thrown in the subforum or under the tag. 

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

It's not a good idea. It'll end up being a clusterfuck of favoritism and people yelling at each other constantly, and just make everyone tense.

[#00Buck]

Any post that involves "news" should be moved straight to the black hole where it belongs. 

[Sourdough]

I like Lemon's [serious] idea, but I think it'd be best in its own subforum away from the casual conversation.

As for what can be posted there, I'm uncertain. Not every world news story is relevant to the lil niche this forum covers, and it'd be sensible to limit content to something that'd interest/be relevant to forum users. If this world news section takes off and someone uses it as a legitimate source of sound information, I think I'd cry.

[Clove Darkwave]

I dunno, it helps keep people in the subforum as a whole. Too much splintering isn't good for overall discourse; No one likes having to open tabs for too many subforums to comb through them all.

[RTDragon]

Actually i think this is a good idea since i've been to forums that have a separate section for serious discussions. So it does help keep the trivial stuff out.

[Butters]

Would be nicer to see more serious topics, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. 

[Endless/Nameless]

5 hours ago, Falaffel said:

I don't know if I could handle this place and folks' incessant squabbling if there wasn't that one person around with a joke post saying,  "everyone's a big dumby lol."

[#00Buck]

5 hours ago, Sourdough said:

I like Lemon's [serious] idea, but I think it'd be best in its own subforum away from the casual conversation.

As for what can be posted there, I'm uncertain. Not every world news story is relevant to the lil niche this forum covers, and it'd be sensible to limit content to something that'd interest/be relevant to forum users. If this world news section takes off and someone uses it as a legitimate source of sound information, I think I'd cry.

Some people's idea of a "news" organization will be complete and total tinfoil. 

Once you start deciding what qualifies as news or not then you have bias. 

I can imagine the list now. All left leaning publications are a-okay. Everything else isn't "news." 

[Sourdough]

6 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Some people's idea of a "news" organization will be complete and total tinfoil. 

Once you start deciding what qualifies as news or not then you have bias. 

I can imagine the list now. All left leaning publications are a-okay. Everything else isn't "news." 

Wait, I forgot people were involved in this. This idea is terrible.

[#00Buck]

13 minutes ago, Sourdough said:

Wait, I forgot people were involved in this. This idea is terrible.

That's is why all "news" should go in the black hole. 

If light can't escape from the back hole it means Huffington Post and Alex Jones should be trapped in there if we toss them in. 

[Sourdough]

Just now, #00Buck said:

That's is why all "news" should go in the black hole. 

If light can't escape from the back hole it means Huffington Post and Alex Jones should be trapped in there if we toss them in. 

Well that's me swayed.

If the mods are going to implement this, make a poll for people to vote on. Then ignore the results and do nothing.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sourdough said:

Well that's me swayed.

If the mods are going to implement this, make a poll for people to vote on. Then ignore the results and do nothing.

Its very hard to give the illusion that we're doin anything

[PastryOfApathy]

Is forum traffic really large enough to necessitate splitting the population up like that?

Like it simply seems unnecessary.

A Workaround that may satisfy the needs for a "serious" area of the forums is a"serious" tag. "Serious" tags added to a topic say that shitposts are absolutely prohobited, and first offenses just get theirs hidden, second offenders get a 0 point infraction, etc etc. That way there's no splitting, there's no new sitewide rules, and instead rules in just one thread if the OP feels like it calls for it. 

This is just from what I see askreddit does with threads with [serious] tags on them. How would you guys feel about that kind of solution?

That's not a horrible idea.

[Toshabi]

Can I start a journalism RP forum account on here and post controversial screen shots of posts on 15 pages of exciting and riveting journalism blog posts? 

[FlynnCoyote]

21 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

I dunno, it helps keep people in the subforum as a whole. Too much splintering isn't good for overall discourse; No one likes having to open tabs for too many subforums to comb through them all.

Actually, having a section specifically for potentially volatile political threads does seem to keep the trouble fairly contained. Or at least that's my personal experience from Heresy. But I won't vouch for that for certain, it's definitely a different breed of user between the two sites.

[Vae]

I feel like a subforum for serious discussion would be redundant.
People should be able to tell the difference between a serious topic and a more lighthearted one, and what's appropriate in either.

Then again, people also tend to show a severe lack of any semblance of self-awareness, here and otherwise, so I like the idea of just putting "[Serious]" in the tags or title.

As for the discussions of such things, and the threads that have been locked lately, I think it's perfectly reasonable to close those threads now and in the future, when they devolve into nothing but a bunch of anti-religious masturbation.
This isn't fucking r/atheism, guys.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

8 minutes ago, Vae said:

I feel like a subforum for serious discussion would be redundant.
People should be able to tell the difference between a serious topic and a more lighthearted one, and what's appropriate in either.

Then again, people also tend to show a severe lack of any semblance of self-awareness, here and otherwise, so I like the idea of just putting "[Serious]" in the tags or title.

As for the discussions of such things, and the threads that have been locked lately, I think it's perfectly reasonable to close those threads now and in the future, when they devolve into nothing but a bunch of anti-religious masturbation.
This isn't fucking r/atheism, guys.

"DAE LE RELIGION IS BAD??? XDXDXD"

[Endless/Nameless]

36 minutes ago, Vae said:

I feel like a subforum for serious discussion would be redundant.
People should be able to tell the difference between a serious topic and a more lighthearted one, and what's appropriate in either.

Then again, people also tend to show a severe lack of any semblance of self-awareness, here and otherwise, so I like the idea of just putting "[Serious]" in the tags or title.

As for the discussions of such things, and the threads that have been locked lately, I think it's perfectly reasonable to close those threads now and in the future, when they devolve into nothing but a bunch of anti-religious masturbation.
This isn't fucking r/atheism, guys.

I agree with everything except the "serious" tag and the thread closing. 

I still belive the "serious" tag could be abused, and would choke expression. 

And threads should be MODERATED, not locked, if at all possible. 

[Vae]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I agree with everything except the "serious" tag and the thread closing. 

I still belive the "serious" tag could be abused, and would choke expression. 

And threads should be MODERATED, not locked, if at all possible. 

I think sometimes threads need to be templocked for cleanup purposes, so 50 people aren't responding to one inflammatory comment, and derailing the thread so hard it's falling off a cliff.

Also, I never looked at the suggestion of a "SERIOUS" title as a "Don't disagree with the OP" warning. I don't think the mods would abide by that kind of insane expectation either.
I think it's just an indicator not to shit up serious topics, as people have been doing frequently, lately.

It's only choking expression if, again, people have no ability to look at a topic and come to a conclusion on their own. I think there's a certain point to where users need to be expected to have some element of personal responsibility for the things that they do, and insofar, they haven't really been forced to.

[Vallium]

We have a cars section thats essentially useless so I dont see whats rhe difference

[Endless/Nameless]

14 minutes ago, Vae said:

I think sometimes threads need to be templocked for cleanup purposes, so 50 people aren't responding to one inflammatory comment, and derailing the thread so hard it's falling off a cliff.

I can understand short temp locks, in order to assess a situation.

But I do take issue with the idea of "cleaning up" a thread, unless there was something offensive; that reeks or censorship more than anything else.

We need more assertive mod action like what I've linked below more than the floppy-dick treatment of "everybody shut up":

14 minutes ago, Vae said:

Also, I never looked at the suggestion of a "SERIOUS" title as a "Don't disagree with the OP" warning. I don't think the mods would abide by that kind of insane expectation either.
I think it's just an indicator not to shit up serious topics, as people have been doing frequently, lately.

It's only choking expression if, again, people have no ability to look at a topic and come to a conclusion on their own. I think there's a certain point to where users need to be expected to have some element of personal responsibility for the things that they do, and insofar, they haven't really been forced to.

Again, I see the merit in it, but.........egggggghhhhhggg... It just seems like a step in the wrong direction. I don't think we should be regulating responses as much as moderating them for civility. It could just be taken too far too easily  

 

But it all this is just my personal opinions of course.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

Much better. c:

I also have to ask, did anyone discuss this with any of the mods privately by chance?

Six approached me personally after I infracted him for opening up a thread we had locked for a reason. I told him that I'd reopen it myself ater it was locked indefinitely by Clove. I spent two hours on night, got overwhelmed to leave it to next night, then she stepped down so we refocused on getting the mods re-added. More infractions about adult related stuff came under light, I got admin privileges for the visuals of the site, and then we had to do the Red update right after the modsearch mess. Then I had my personal stuff re: Red's Book

Orlando thread got halfway cleaned up before a shit ton of other, more important things got put on our plates, and then between mod irl and handling the new update it got thrown to the wayside. 

And finally, I've said this before, but I'll put it a little more bluntly.

1. This is a small furry forum, not the forums for like, Forbes. There are bound to be fuckups. No, adding more mods or "junior mods" is not the solution.
2. Other than the orlando thread (a month ago), what else has the mods dropped the ball on? I'm currently working on Forum graphics, fixing BlueBoh's effors, and making a new greyscale forum skin ground up. That is, as far as I'm aware of, all of the current projects on mod table.
3. Again, we're open to criticism. We're probably going to ignore you if you call us retards.

Them's the breaks. 

[Tsuujou]

The last time I had a serious thread locked (The Paris shootings incident) for what I felt were unjust reasons, I took it directly to Zeke with a polite tone and discussed solutions to the thread's problem posts. The thread was reopened in no time at all without any headache or dismissal from Zeke. It ended up locked again, but that was because I said to do so if it devolves a second time which it did.

[Guest]

...... anyways. 

To bring this thread back around to the actual point, and I think other mods have talked about it, but a World News Section is interesting to me as an individual mod, and I'll bring up my thoughts on it. 

You post a factual title, with a mandatory link to a news article about the event, and you discuss in the World News Section. 

Wonder where it'd go? Watercooler? Most likely, then. I like the idea. 

<<EDIT>> All things re: Orlando thread have been hidden as it does not go with Flynn's orginal point of the thread. Orlando thread disucssion has ceased, reasons given, all that fun stuff, so it is now dead in the water at this point and will not be discussed further. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Lemon

[Tsuujou]

2 hours ago, Lemon said:

<<EDIT>> All things re: Orlando thread have been hidden as it does not go with Flynn's orginal point of the thread. Orlando thread disucssion has ceased, reasons given, all that fun stuff, so it is now dead in the water at this point and will not be discussed further. 

inb4 CENSORSHIP

[Endless/Nameless]

because a world news section is SOOO fucking necessary.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

because a world news section is SOOO fucking necessary.

Realistically, folks will fight for this, and have like, maybe two articles a month to put it in it. But that's none of my business. :^)

[Tsuujou]

Me, personally, I don't come here to argue unless it's to tell Imperial Impact he's wrong about a game before I kiss him goodnight. Besides, anytime one of these threads are made, everyone just defaults into apathy and no one wants to talk about it anymore. Then the shit posts come in, then the thread is buried to page 2 by the next evening if not locked. 

I doubt people seriously care even if they'd like to think they do...

No one judges anyone if they don't.

[ArielMT]

I could back it.

Would we call it The Hot Sheets?

[Vae]

The Phoenixed Gazette?

[FlynnCoyote]

World News and Current Events. If it's going to be a serious section it doesn't really need a punny title.

Or WN&CE

Or Wince, since that will be a common reaction.

[Vae]

Well, if we're going super serious, we could just call it "No Fun Allowed". :v

[Endless/Nameless]

"In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away; when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness."

 – Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 

[Tsuujou]

3 hours ago, Vae said:

Well, if we're going super serious, we could just call it "No Fun Allowed". :v

You did always look like a Swatbot.

Or we could just call it the armchair anchorman or faux intellectual section. Since that's usually what we see.