My sentiments entirely.which I think from our existing experience of members trying to 'moderate' each other would generate endless squabbles and bad feeling
My sentiments entirely.which I think from our existing experience of members trying to 'moderate' each other would generate endless squabbles and bad feeling
You're able to understand this:I'm afraid I don't really understand the logic behind this idea [...] when the sole object of this would be to allow members to circumvent a rule which is quite clearly set out in the terms and conditions that everybody had to agree to when they join.
Therefore, you're actually able to understand the logic behind that idea. But I won't insist. I just wanted to help.The purpose of such a software capability would be, not to enable members to break it, but to make Rule 2 obsolete.
To turn the forums into chat boards? To walk away from the original vision for these forums, which is to complement the dictionaries?the logic behind that idea
Where did I say that?To turn the forums into chat boards?
Not if it becomes obsolete thanks to a new piece of code that fulfills what Rule 2 enforces.That would be the outcome if rule 2 becomes obsolete.![]()
Ok, so the off-topic comments will be hidden. That stills fundamentally changes the nature and purpose of these forums.Not if it becomes obsolete thanks to a new piece of code that fulfills what Rule 2 enforces.
I'm not fully convinced about @machadinho's idea but, definitely, the expected increase on the number of complains to moderator shouldn't be a reason to disregard it because that problem has an easy solution: more staff.This would increase the number of complaints to moderators / the administrator because many people would feel that their posts were unchatty enough not to be hidden.
I thought you didn't like that sort of answers but I'm glad to see that you too like them.To turn the forums into chat boards? To walk away from the original vision for these forums, which is to complement the dictionaries?
Yes, they are: Conversations PrivacyBecause conversations are private?
that is ok. but some speculative conversations ,I think, are warmer and more modern in style. modernity/modernism requires good communication.Hey, @rarabara. It looks like the purpose and vision of the forum you refer to are substantially different from those of WRF. I think learning a new language could be a side benefit of engaging in WRF threads, but the main goal of these forums is to work as dictionary entries.
this does not mean that, that forum (also) did not include such members.In fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is high, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.
I would love to understand what you mean by that. Would you mind describing what kind of conversations you are looking for?but some speculative conversations
I mean some side specifications might be good for this website if a revision is considered.I would love to understand what you mean by that. Would you mind describing what kind of conversations are you looking for?
I see. Well, to your point:I mean some side specifications might be good for this website if a revision is considered.
Imagine how challenging and frustrating it would be for a newbie to identify the straightforward answer to their questions if the thread contains side comments that are unrelated to the main topic.this does not mean that, that forum (also) did not include such members.
Which requires 1) implementing a code (with increased operating cost); 2) replacing an existing mechanism that works perfectly fine for hundreds of forum members and dozens of moderators with a new mechanism that could potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary churn and endless back-and-forth discussions between Senior Members and moderators. You didn’t explain yet how you envision Senior Members implementing the code you’re advocating for. Could other Senior Members or the post author remove the code and undo the changes? How do you prevent misuse of those powers?... unless they're hidden, though not deleted...
not for the whole of forum, maybe some specific part(s) be set for that. I cannot provide very clear or transparent suggestion but the thing I imagine might provide an option to the website to be more crowded and more qualified.I see. Well, to your point:
Imagine how challenging and frustrating it would be for a newbie to identify the straightforward answer to their questions if the thread contains side comments that are unrelated to the main topic.
Over the years, the forums have expanded their capabilities to a wider scope of discussions in some contained areas. You may want to explore some of those within a few months, because they require you to be a member for at least 6 months, which allows a reasonable window for you to become more familiar with the overall WRF atmosphere, rules and culture, provided that you are a regular participant.not for the whole of forum, maybe some specific part(s) be set for that.
I am afraid I don’t fully grasp this portion of your post."it does not seem aesthetical also to remain a door open, amongst multilinguals for argument. "
Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.Which requires 1) implementing a code (with increased operating cost);
Perfectly fine?2) replacing an existing mechanism that works perfectly fine for hundreds of forum members and dozens of moderators with a new mechanism that could potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary churn and endless back-and-forth discussions between Senior Members and moderators.
I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.You didn’t explain yet how you envision Senior Members implementing the code you’re advocating for.
I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.How do you prevent misuse of those powers?![]()
Yep. That's why the PM system is unsuitable for side comments.Yes, they are: Conversations Privacy
Multiple members, but not all members, including future or otherwise uninvited ones.Add to this that a private message can be sent multiple members at the same time.
That’s an unpleasant experience as well.I'm not going to disclose which forums I visit as a learner, but I admit it sometimes fills me with despair when I see how some members seem to be more intent on displaying their impressive scholarship than helping a beginner-learner with basic explanations. It has certainly put me off asking questions myself. If a learner is not very expert in the language, it's very difficult to follow a loose, rambling thread. I sometimes come away feeling more confused than I was to begin with.
OK, so do moderators, which is why they only intervene when there are violations! Wouldn’t the same self-regulating principle apply with the current rules? Think of it.I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.
That’s even worse! It would require a sophisticated AI that also understands the psychology of forum members who think their side comments are so precious they need to be preserved at all costs. Imagine the number of complaints to moderators because the code is acting up or “censoring” reasonable content.I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.
Yes, it works perfectly fine for the vast majority of the forum members. Those who insist in circumventing the rules will face the consequences, as it is explained in the forum rules they agreed to upon joining.Perfectly fine?Please have a look at the OP.
What makes you believe that those side comments will be relevant to all the participants or future members?Multiple members, not all members, including future members and otherwiser uninvited ones.
Are you volunteering to moderate ? Because I don’t believe moderators are paid staff, but rather enthusiastic volunteers. The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers. Like I said earlier, a complete lack of empathy for Mike Kellogg and his team.... that problem has an easy solution: more staff.
.
The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers. Like I said earlier, a complete lack of empathy for Mike Kellogg and his team.
The problem, though, with what you're suggesting, is that Mike has no incentive to do it. WRF is run as a business: the forums are a free adjunct to the dictionary part of the site which pays the bills, and like any astute businessman, he likes to keep his customers happy and part of the purpose of this forum is to facilitate feedback.Yep, on the assumption we face a trade-off between such costs and user frustration.
Perfectly fine?Please have a look at the OP.
I have no idea. I meant software, computer code, not a code of conduct.
I don't. I would let users regulate themselves.
I don't believe that. Side comments are irrelevant by definition.What makes you believe that those side comments will be relevant to all the participants or future members?
I failed to make myself clear. The additional computer code would simply allow senior members to hide or unhide some posts for newcomers to a thread. That's all.That’s even worse! It would require a sophisticated AI that also understands the psychology of forum members who think their side comments are so precious they need to be preserved at all costs. Imagine the number of complaints to moderators because the code is acting up or “censoring” reasonable content.
Maybe he does.The problem, though, with what you're suggesting, is that Mike has no incentive to do it.
Do you mean that there wouldn't be enough volunteers to moderate the forums with more traffic? I don't think so. (Less that) 5 days (with a week-end in between) were enough to create a group of volunteers to build WR's Catalan/Spanish dictionary (still under construction) and the number of potential candidates was way way lower than those that you would have in any of the forums with more traffic and the extra staff that you would need to cope with the extra reports would be lower too that the number of members of the group of volunteers building the quoted dictionary. Sincerely, I don't envision a shortage of candidates to moderate as a possible problem but maybe I'm too optimistic and a previous step would be needed to play it safe: to see if you have enough candidates to increase the moderators team. However, if people really like the new feature but don't want to volunteer to make it a reality, they don't really deserve the new feature. Anyway, that's not the main point here, I think the main point is if @machadinho's idea would be a good one and I'm not sure yet.The solution only appears simple to you because you are not concerned with having to find these additional volunteers.
Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".This thread makes me wonder if moderators and the administrator acknowledge the issue to begin with.
I agree. I meant to say to regulate each other instead of themselves.But the 'trade-off' is the cost of implementing any software upgrades against the benefit in terms of making the site run more smoothly and efficiently. I'm afraid making Rule 2 "obsolete" doesn't enter into that equation. Allowing users to regulate themselves is a recipe for disaster: if they could be relied upon to do that, there would be no need for moderators and all posts would conform to the rules which are in place.
Sorry. I shouldn't have said that.Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".![]()
that was presumably different implication. but I am unsure what you expect by your this wording ["high"]:Thanks for your effort to make your thoughts more transparent, @rarabara. I appreciate it.If I understand you well, you are saying some debates you have witnessed are unpleasant? I believe many users can relate to what Velisarius mentioned some time ago:
That’s an unpleasant experience as well.
if you expect me to write rather literal poems ,then sorry,I think I can'tin fact, the members and visitors who are more likely to realize the value of WRF are individuals whose proficiency in their native language and second language(s) is high, because of the complexity of the topics and translations that are discussed.
well, my english is about to B2-C1.I would say learners with at least a B1+ or B2 level, @rarabara, would benefit the most from these forums, considering the style and other discursive elements.![]()
Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:well, my english is about to B2-C1.
Can eliminate repetition and digressions in a text in order to make the essential message accessible.
https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
check the point for you given in my #182nd post in this queue.Awesome. Well, one of your learned competencies should be how to streamline a text, which includes:
![]()
I hope you'll forgive me for repeating the answer I give in post #179:The moderators here are out of control. I don't participate much anymore for that reason.
If we (the mods) were, as you evidently feel, "out of control" we wouldn't bother. We'd simply delete your post and probably the rest of the thread as well, and have done with it. The reason we haven't done is to try and address members' legitimate concerns over all this. You may or may not see it, but I care about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.Well, having contributed a total of fifteen of the 180 posts so far in this thread, along with contributions from at least two other moderators, to try and address some of the points people have raised, I'm afraid I find that hard to reconcile with the proposition that moderators don't "acknowledge the issue".![]()
I shall also not be participating so much until some time.If we (the mods) were, as you evidently feel, "out of control" we wouldn't bother. We'd simply delete your post and probably the rest of the thread as well, and have done with it. The reason we haven't done is to try and address members' legitimate concerns over all this. You may or may not see it, but I care about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.
Having said that, it's entirely up to you, obviously, how much you choose to participate in the forum
I shall put this to the test.I care about how moderation is perceived and am perfectly willing to try and explain - privately if need be - why we take the decisions we do.
Well, there's freedom to, and freedom from. In this instance, they are in conflict. One person's freedom to chat and derail interferes with another person's freedom from chaos and disorder that would interfere with finding valuable information. For me, the moderation in my favorite forums increases my freedom to find the information I need.FREEDOM=MODERNISM![]()