JBoard Moderation Discussion

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
StevenH
Not J! Contestant Material
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by StevenH »

The message board that I would rank as the best one that I have ever been a member of (it's no longer up) in terms of quality of discussion had VERY strict moderation (and a strict "No Politics" rule, but I don't think that that has been a problem here). As in people were regularly banned for the types of posts that have become prevalent here and on the old Sony board over the last 5-6 years, i.e. ones that fall into the "annoying but harmless" category. That kind of moderation required a high level of time and attention that I would never reasonably expect from any moderator. I also don't know if it was really worth it to silence people who want to contribute to discussions of things that are interests of theirs and also intimidate other posters out of posting their opinions for fear of being ridiculed, temporarily banned, or permanently banned.

So yeah, I don't have a strong opinion on which way the level of moderation goes. I have learned to read the posts of boardies whose contributions I enjoy reading and ignore the others, so I can still enjoy this place. And as was implied by Alietr in his first post of this thread, this message board is still better than most others.

User avatar
nightreign
#TeamAlsoRans
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:18 pm
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by nightreign »

As a former contestant, I like what you said about me in my game thread. My interview embarrasses me to this day, so I'm glad nobody brought it up. On the other hand, until I started coming here, I didn't really know there was any strategy to Daily Double wagers besides "I hate that category-I'll bet $1,000" or "I love that category-let's go all in." I think the DD wagering discussions are harsher than the FJ ones because not everybody is necessarily wagering-minded (Vermonter, I do read The Final Wager and enjoy it, but not everyone has that luxury).
I agree that people are meaner to people who haven't been on the show. I think a lot of the former contestants' problems come from heavily criticized wagers.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8333
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by opusthepenguin »

Fishercat wrote:However, when the person starts posting here, the tenor changes 180% and the people are (perhaps overly) nice and conciliatory.
Well, maybe it doesn't change THAT much. But it's a good 100 degree turn. :)

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8333
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by opusthepenguin »

Rex Kramer wrote:With one exception -- a former contestant whose performance almost none of us has ever actually seen -- the people we are unnecessarily mean to have never been behind the podium, and we therefore are not mean to them because of their performances on the show. Clearly these people have been put on these Boards to test us and to force us to grow into our most humane and fully-developed selves, but, being human, we sometimes fall short of that ideal.
Ok, Rex, point well taken. I'm going to try to stop making fun of you.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Rex Kramer »

jpahk wrote:i used to be a regular game thread participant. what has driven me away is not the negativity towards contestants, but what i perceive to be a drastically reduced signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion threads.
This is a good, though different, point. Personally I try to make my noise high-quality noise, but I often cannot stop myself, and rarely even try, from riffing on whatever random discussion comes up, even in a game discussion thread. For me that is one of the joys of interacting with such a group of intelligent and creative people as we: the opportunity to make references, puns, and allusions across a wide spectrum of fields of knowledge with a realistic expectation of appreciation. On the other hand, it doesn't take many riffers to drag the signal-to-noise ratio down.

Now, if we had a "Like" button, and even a "Dislike" button, it would be much easier to see which digressions were appreciated and which were considered tiresome and off-putting. Boardies would learn to self-regulate the quality and frequency of their riffing, and posts which did not reflect this could be easily identified and deleted. Maybe the whole system could be set up so that anything that had accumulated, say, five more "Dislikes" than "Likes" would automatically be consigned to electronic damnation, so that the moderators wouldn't even have to intervene. Drivel would become a thing of the past, as uninspired off-topic posts would quickly be dismissed by the wise majority, and even unnecessarily mean posts would likely disappear quickly. Only the unrepentant harlequins whose side commentary has inherent merit will continue to post off-topic, and the signal-to-noise ratio will improve dramatically.

Rex

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Rex Kramer »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Rex Kramer wrote:With one exception -- a former contestant whose performance almost none of us has ever actually seen -- the people we are unnecessarily mean to have never been behind the podium, and we therefore are not mean to them because of their performances on the show. Clearly these people have been put on these Boards to test us and to force us to grow into our most humane and fully-developed selves, but, being human, we sometimes fall short of that ideal.
Ok, Rex, point well taken. I'm going to try to stop making fun of you.
[wipes grateful tear from eye]

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by gnash »

My two cents, perhaps discounted because I post occasionally, in spurts, when something on the show revives my attention.

1. There is an "ignore" feature, right? If so, that's something to point out to people who might join but for the meanness of discussants. You don't have to see the posts of people you consider bullies.

2. I don't think the discussions have truly been mean to contestants. I don't enjoy seeing people stating that they dislike a contestant for what turns out to be the poster's subjective, idiosyncratic reasons, but I don't think you can prevent that without stifling discussion. Really, if you go on TV, you should be prepared that someone on the internet will call you a big fat idiot. I think this message board is better than most places in that respect.

3. I would like seeing less ridiculing of posters who lack social skills due to Asperger's syndrome or related issues. Again, if they annoy you, there is the ignore function (I hope).

Fishercat
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:32 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Fishercat »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Fishercat wrote:However, when the person starts posting here, the tenor changes 180% and the people are (perhaps overly) nice and conciliatory.
Well, maybe it doesn't change THAT much. But it's a good 100 degree turn. :)
Maybe that's why I don't get the callback...haha

User avatar
xxaaaxx
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2131
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:29 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by xxaaaxx »

gnash wrote:1. There is an "ignore" feature, right?
I've asked this a bunch of times in the past (usually when the subject you alluded to in point 3 comes up again). It's tempting to believe it's a myth, since no one seems to use it. Friday's thread/disaster is proof of that.

I'm happy with the level of moderation here, but when things go off the rails, feel free to break out the blow torch. If multiple pages of that wreck went up in smoke, could anyone reasonably complain of heavy-handedness?
Last edited by xxaaaxx on Sun May 18, 2014 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zakharov
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 7:27 pm
Location: NYC

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by zakharov »

You don't even need an ignore feature. If someone waltzes in with a nutbar theory or rant, practically begging you to quote them and start a multi-page soul-scarring derail, just don't hit the button. It's remarkably easy,and most trolls aren't subtle. (edit: especially when they flat out tell you "I'm not changing my mind.")

All this being said, it's worth remembering that Jeopardy is a television game show, and following it is supposed to be fun. If watching or discussing the show starts to become legitimately aggravating for you, it may be time to go read a nice calming book.
4-time pool swimmer - last audition June 2019
Follow me on Twitter @JakeMHS

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Vanya »

dhkendall wrote:Personally, I don't foresee too much difference from the way things have been, I for one have always been in favour of alietr's light-handed approach, and intend to keep it that way regardless of any outcome change here. (Perhaps maybe a discussion among moderators before something is deleted might be appropriate?) But I think one of the impetuses, in addition to the BotD contestant's admission to alietr, is the thread hijacking in the Friday thread by mbclev. While allowed under the "light-hand" policy, I personally don't like seeing the conversation derailed and degraded into troll feeding (but then, I've always expressed as much), and feel a slightly more heavy hand, or at least discussion among mods before agreeing on deletion, would make this place brighter and cleaner.
Vanya wrote:
Sage on the Hudson wrote: After my initial thought of "who knows this kind of stuff about Secretaries of State, anyway?" rational analysis of the clue took over, quickly leading me to "who's the most prominent lifelong bachelor in the history of U.S. government?" At that point I felt it didn't matter whether I had any idea if Buchanan was ever secretary of state or not. Rice took longer; though I've actually met her (long before I had any idea that she'd go on to become an agent of the Devil), I had to do the math once I'd settled on Buchanan.

I do agree with those who feel that the clue was somewhat misleading: "never married" more than implies that the books are closed on both secretaries and that, as with Buchanan, marriage at a later date is forever an impossibility. I suppose there might still be somebody out there who likes the soon-to-be-sixty-year-old Rice's piano-playing.
Now this is an unnecessarily mean post. I'm still not in favor of moderation. Posts like these reveal the character of the poster.
Ah, but one has to consider is it mean only because he's bashing "your side". Sage might very well call this post of yours mean, and revealing of your character:
Vanya wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Another detail that helps the FJ make sense, if you know a little more than just "bachelor" about Buchanan's biography, is that he was pretty old as president (he was in his 70s when he left office, I believe; by contrast, Lincoln was 52 when he took over). This gives him plenty of room in his pre-Presidential career to, say, hold a cabinet position. I don't think knowing that would have helped one guess Buchanan, but if I had settled on him, I would have used that knowledge to justify him as a response.

(He was the last president born in the 18th century, and the last former SoS to become president. One of these may change.)
Nah. Hillary has brain damage from running into brick walls.
This is what I always consider before getting into political debates, despite being a liberal (capital L and small l) I know that if I bash their guy, they more than likely can bash my guy, and it solves nothing. I am convinced my taunt is "correct", but I also realize that they are just as convinced theirs is too.
I was bashing mbclev more than Hillary, and it was intended as a joke, (and a poke at "my side," for making it an issue). I actually voted for Hillary in 2008 because I thought (and still think) she would have made a better president than Obama.

However, for serious political discussion re: 2016, Ms Clinton's health and age must be considered. Whereas Ms Rice's (and I really wish she would run) marital status, or her prospects, is irrelevant.

User avatar
ElendilPickle
ToC Enabler
Posts: 2655
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 12:53 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by ElendilPickle »

Leah wrote:While I think more moderation would be good-- perhaps in the form of a warning protocol if comments are too rough-- to me the downside is that it would take up even more of the mods' time, with which they are already very generous.

It's my belief that criticisms can be stated politely, without ad hominem nastiness. Whether every poster has the ability to do that is the question. Maybe one or two paragraphs suggesting how could be added to the board instructions, and sent to the non-compliant when they post, with eventual barring after too many infractions. Accepting a double standard in which casually insulting non-boardie contestants is OK but telling them if they show up on the board they'll be discussed civilly is not a good option, in my opinion.
Leah said most of what I was thinking.

I'm a member of http://www.ravelry.com, the largest community of fiber artists on the Internet. The moderators there have a "don't be a jerk" policy which applies to ad hominem insults, thread derailing, and the like. They have some kind of tool to gray out posts and label them DBAJ (you can highlight the post if you still want to read it). Replies to that post get the same treatment.

I don't know if the mods here want to go to that much trouble, though. Generally, JBoard works well with a minimum of moderation.
Now, if we had a "Like" button, and even a "Dislike" button, it would be much easier to see which digressions were appreciated and which were considered tiresome and off-putting.
Ravelry uses "agree" and "disagree" buttons for this purpose, and I've seen this done at places like AV Club as well. I don't know if they help people be more civil, but it would be nice to think so.

alamble
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by alamble »

xxaaaxx wrote:
gnash wrote:1. There is an "ignore" feature, right?
I've asked this a bunch of times in the past (usually when the subject you alluded to in point 3 comes up again). It's tempting to believe it's a myth, since no one seems to use it. Friday's thread/disaster is proof of that.
It does, in fact, exist. It's called the "add foe" function and it's available under the "Friends & Foes" tab within your User Control Panel. However, it does not prevent you from seeing posts made by someone you've blocked, when they are quoted by someone else.

User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8782
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by dhkendall »

ElendilPickle wrote:Generally, JBoard works well with a minimum of moderation.
I hope I've always expressed clearly that this is my view as well (and I'm pretty sure alietr is in this camp as well). But I think that we're talking about a slight increase, and at this point I only see it affecting the disaster that is Fridays thread.
ElendilPickle wrote:
Now, if we had a "Like" button, and even a "Dislike" button, it would be much easier to see which digressions were appreciated and which were considered tiresome and off-putting.
Ravelry uses "agree" and "disagree" buttons for this purpose, and I've seen this done at places like AV Club as well. I don't know if they help people be more civil, but it would be nice to think so.
While I've always though a "like" or "dislike" isn't needed here, you may be on to something. Many of us are familiar with Sporcle, enough "down votes" (usually d-bags bragging about their high score, or people complaining an answer is wrong when they clearly didn't RTFQ) makes the comment hidden like our spoilers. If we instituted similar buttons I'm wondering if auto-hiding of comments could be instituted (or at the very least, mods can spoilerize manually with enough down votes), this also makes the community responsible for what we should have here or not.

Again, I want to inform people that this shouldn't affect more than 90% of the stuff around here and there probably won't have much change around here (and this still might not have the BotDer's friends come by) but it could solve some recent problems.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012

User avatar
sarah0114
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:15 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by sarah0114 »

alamble wrote:
xxaaaxx wrote:
gnash wrote:1. There is an "ignore" feature, right?
I've asked this a bunch of times in the past (usually when the subject you alluded to in point 3 comes up again). It's tempting to believe it's a myth, since no one seems to use it. Friday's thread/disaster is proof of that.
It does, in fact, exist. It's called the "add foe" function and it's available under the "Friends & Foes" tab within your User Control Panel. However, it does not prevent you from seeing posts made by someone you've blocked, when they are quoted by someone else.
I think it would be helpful to explain the Foes feature in a sticky post so that new users understand how it works.

User avatar
jpahk
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:16 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by jpahk »

Rex Kramer wrote:
jpahk wrote:i used to be a regular game thread participant. what has driven me away is not the negativity towards contestants, but what i perceive to be a drastically reduced signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion threads.
This is a good, though different, point. Personally I try to make my noise high-quality noise, but I often cannot stop myself, and rarely even try, from riffing on whatever random discussion comes up, even in a game discussion thread. For me that is one of the joys of interacting with such a group of intelligent and creative people as we: the opportunity to make references, puns, and allusions across a wide spectrum of fields of knowledge with a realistic expectation of appreciation. On the other hand, it doesn't take many riffers to drag the signal-to-noise ratio down.
i didn't make myself clear: i don't mind the riffing. that's signal, not noise, as long as it's pleasant. the noise is the trolling and bickering and uninformed bombast.

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 10677
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Bamaman »

jpahk wrote:
Rex Kramer wrote:
jpahk wrote:i used to be a regular game thread participant. what has driven me away is not the negativity towards contestants, but what i perceive to be a drastically reduced signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion threads.
This is a good, though different, point. Personally I try to make my noise high-quality noise, but I often cannot stop myself, and rarely even try, from riffing on whatever random discussion comes up, even in a game discussion thread. For me that is one of the joys of interacting with such a group of intelligent and creative people as we: the opportunity to make references, puns, and allusions across a wide spectrum of fields of knowledge with a realistic expectation of appreciation. On the other hand, it doesn't take many riffers to drag the signal-to-noise ratio down.
i didn't make myself clear: i don't mind the riffing. that's signal, not noise, as long as it's pleasant. the noise is the trolling and bickering and uninformed bombast.
What are your feelings on informed bombast?

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by Vanya »

One man's noise is another man's signal. IMO those who refuse to use caps are noisy.

User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 9341
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by econgator »

Vanya wrote:One man's noise is another man's signal. IMO those who refuse to use caps are noisy.
As are those who don't spell out simple words. :)

MFalk
KJL #152
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:21 am

Re: JBoard Moderation Discussion

Post by MFalk »

The answer isn't necessarily more moderation.

Having real, genuine, honest discussions does NOT preclude decorum. I agree that a person appearing on national television does open them up to being discussed throughout the nation. Just the same, that doesn't make it right to ream someone for their strategy (or mannerisms or appearance or demeanor) here, or on Twitter, or on TWoP, or wherever. Just because one can make a big deal out of something doesn't necessarily mean one should, or that one is a better person for bringing it to their attention. Most J! contestants who live mundane, non-public lives (myself included) are taken aback when people they've never met on the internet very publicly call them stupid, annoying, or wish for harm to come to them. Saying that contestants should have a thicker skin is fatuous; most J! contestants have never had to deal with anything like random hatred or insults from strangers in their lives and, unless they're thinking of entering show business or politics, never will again. There's nothing that "should have" prepared them for it.

I agree with Vanya that posters here are nicer if they think the target of their criticism is going to show up here. I think that's human nature. People are a lot more measured with their opinions if they have to face their target. Even so, I think many contestants see the tenor of the discussion, dragged down by a few insistent trolls, and decide it's not worth it. They don't need to be told they're stupid for letting some clue go dead or for some neg on some other clue. I didn't go reading #buzzerdrop on Twitter after I played Ken last month, because why would I put myself through that? I think some contestants feel the same way about coming here.

So what is the solution? I don't know. 80% of the people here don't need to do anything differently. Just do your part not to drag the conversation into the mud. Don't feed trolls. And, if you are one of the trolls, try Wheaton's Law.

Post Reply