Do you feel GTP is becoming over moderated?

[YSSMAN]

Definitely, especially when it comes to factually accurate answered being required for questions.

I completely agree, and it seems like you and I are on the same page. I think most people here know and understand that there are some things that are factually sound and should be known without question, but then there are the ones that are a bit more "free" in association, and are otherwise meant to be a discussion of an object, an ideal, or just a point in general.

 

[Philly]

Is anyone else noticing that a lot of the "regular" members seem to be leaving or becoming far less active? The discussions used to be much greater with a wide variety of members that I sort of knew, and even some that I don't. Yet now it seems like it's the same 10 members over and over again, which does make things less interesting.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Is anyone else noticing that a lot of the "regular" members seem to be leaving or becoming far less active? The discussions used to be much greater with a wide variety of members that I sort of knew, and even some that I don't. Yet now it seems like it's the same 10 members over and over again, which does make things less interesting.

In the areas of the forum I read and participate in I have only noticed a couple 'regulars' that have stopped participating, but based on a lot of the misinformation they posted and the arguments that came from that, I'm not terribly disappointed. In fact, maybe it's a sign they realized that type of behavior isn't appreciated, and found areas or sites where it is, like NeoGAF or something.

However, in their place, I have seen many times more new members exchanging ideas and opinions and sharing information on GTP then before, which is a good thing, and suggests that what ever GTP is doing, they are doing it well. 👍


After all, it's still just an Internet forum, and people will come and go on a frequent basis. What will likely determine the longevity of GTP is the ability to attract more new members on a regular basis, and provide them a place that is unique, offers information that is both detailed and accurate, and encourages appropriate discussions, whether they be meaningful, humorous, or what ever.

Based on that, GTP appears to me at least to be already headed in the right direction.

 

[Philly]

Maybe the parts that I frequent are just dying areas. But I'm sure I could go through the member list and find a good sized list of members that I used to see posting all the time that I haven't seen recently. In some cases, that isn't necessarily bad, but the place does get a little less interesting without the diversity they all brought.

 

[exigeracer]

Is anyone else noticing that a lot of the "regular" members seem to be leaving or becoming far less active? The discussions used to be much greater with a wide variety of members that I sort of knew, and even some that I don't. Yet now it seems like it's the same 10 members over and over again, which does make things less interesting.

I know that when I was able to participate in every discussion, I was far younger with much more expendable time. You get older, and you just can't justify spending hours talking about cars on an internet forum. I'm sure the same sort of thing happened to others...

 

[Wolfe]

I'm not familiar with your console war discussions, Digital-Nitrate, so I won't assume that you act the same way in those cases, but I know from our own conversations that you sometimes confuse "misinformation" and "opinions that differ from yours." As YSSMAN said, this is a forum. People discuss things they disagree on. It's what happens.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I know from our own conversations that you sometimes confuse "misinformation" and "opinions that differ from yours."

Please cite where you claim I have confused "misinformation" and "opinions that differ from mine." I can on the other hand, cite numerous posts where I do not share the same subjective opinion, and do not claim they are spreading misinformation. I understand why you may try and suggest otherwise, seeing as I have posted actual facts that clearly showed that you had posted information about GT3 and GT4 that were not true, and apparently still hold some kind of grudge.

I'll be happy to cite those for you if you would like, although I'm fairly certain you know exactly what I am talking about.

As I have said before, I have no issue with you or anyone else who may not share the same opinion I have about one thing or another. However, the issue I have had with you and others is when you post things that are simply untrue.

Frankly, haven't you ever wondered why, despite the fact that there are hundreds of members on GTP that have posted opinions about GT3/4/P, games, consoles, etc that express opinions contrary to my own, yet I have only had disagreements with very few (and almost always it's the same small group of people, perhaps coincidentally also happen to be quite friendly and familiar with each other). The difference is that the vast majority of those who I don't share the same opinions with don't make post after post misleading people with exaggerations and false information.

There are plenty of people on this forum who share opinions that I do not agree with, but I get along great with them, as they do not post things that are untrue.

As YSSMAN said, this is a forum. People discuss things they disagree on. It's what happens.

As we all have said.

The exception is that some people post things that are simply untrue and try and excuse that behavior as simply posting an opinion. However, there is a significant difference.

The same is true for those that have a habit of exaggerating the facts to make it sound better or worse depending on what makes their opinion seem somehow more valid... which again is just another form of lying intended to mislead.

Would you like me to cite just a few of the times you have been involved in an argument on GTP where you posted exaggerated facts that were not true?

More importantly, would you agree that when someone exaggerates facts, or posts false, misleading, or inaccurate information, that is unacceptable, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their own subjective opinion?

And would you agree that there is a difference between having a subjective opinion and having an objective opinion?

And would you agree that if you make factual statements to support your opinion, others have every right to challenge the validity of those facts without being portrayed as some kind of fanboy or being accused of making a personal attack?

 

[Azuremen]

Nitrate, you refusal to let this go is taking my thread massively off-topic.

You and I got into this exact topic, heavily, in the PS3 Discussion thread. It resulted in you walking away from the forum for a while. Over the concept what you call "Mis-information" being, in reality, a differing opinion supported, more often, by subjective elements that would attempt to invalidate through somewhat related numbers. The irony of irony is that I wasn't arguing against your facts, or even your opinion, but just that your tend to present your opinion as being superior because you feel you draw on more valid sources to develop it.

A classic example would be your argument that PSN is superior to XBOX Live because it is free and you can have multiple accounts at no cost. If someone where to say XBOX Live is better because of the community, you would then follow up with the argument that because you can have different accounts on PSN to have different friends for whatever games you may play, it is better and their opinion is invalid.

Realize that while you have respectable sources and plenty of knowledge, that you can presently quite effectively, you tend to get over zealous when it comes to people having differing opinions than your own. And the fact that numerous people feel you go over board in your arguments and attacks on their opinions might make you want to reconsider your approach. And what you constantly call "misinformation."

 

[daan]

Please keep this on topic. Don't force us to use over moderation...

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Yes. In other words, i'm going against the grain and voted "yes" in a sea of "nos".

I only hang out in the GT1 thru 4 forums most of the time, and i know for sure these lower forums (GT1, 2, and 3, anyways) didn't used to receive the same policing & scrutiny that they do nowadays. Not that it's something i particularly cry over...it's just something i've noticed.

Sometimes, some newer (or not so new) members will start a conversation or thread that quickly gets locked up. Sometimes, of course, these threads are merely topics that have been discussed dozens of times, and deserve a lock. But in other cases, i've seen some over-zealous mods lock up threads in which the conversation could have been of a valid topic, the discussion a good one, but the thread gets locked anyways. And it irks me a bit because i like talking to new members; even tho they are often clueless, they bring new life to the forums. Well, some of them do.

 

[Wolfe]

Please cite where you claim I have confused "misinformation" and "opinions that differ from mine."

Okay. Remember the car list talk?

On that page, you...
- Knock me for making a rhetorical assumption
- Flat out tell me I'm "wrong" for making general subjective statements that you can't even quantify
- Twist my words and claim that I'm "misleading" and "misdirecting" the members of GTPlanet with my opinion that GT4 has too many of the same or similar cars, and also has a few random historical cars that are left without their historical rivals (which apparently contradict each other in your eyes)
- Dismiss my opinion that GT4 could have and maybe should have included more historical European/american cars with the counter-argument that there's nothing better

I understand why you may try and suggest otherwise, seeing as I have posted actual facts that clearly showed that you had posted information about GT3 and GT4 that were not true, and apparently still hold some kind of grudge.

The only "actual facts" I recall were hard numbers related to the discussion of GT4's car list, as I linked to above. Besides, the numbers you posted were irrelevant to my point because I was speaking of the list in both qualitative and quantitative terms. In any case, the whole argument essentially boiled down to semantics on the word "variety." You believed GT4 had the most and best variety because it has a lot of cars. I believed GT4 was lacking in variety because many of the cars are FWD family/economy cars that are relatively undesirable to some people, and many big names in motor racing are completely missing.

These are both opinions, and I would have been happy to discuss them back and forth with you if you hadn't been so eager to dismiss mine as rubbish exaggerations.

Would you like me to cite just a few of the times you have been involved in an argument on GTP where you posted exaggerated facts that were not true?

If you really want to get into this, it's your choice, but I hadn't planned on completely hijacking this thread. I simply felt it a bit unfair to boast of your defense of "the truth" when I and others are familiar with your somewhat dodgy methods. There's no grudge. We just disagree with you. Azuremen did a better job explaining it than I can right now.

More importantly, would you agree that when someone exaggerates facts, or posts false, misleading, or inaccurate information, that is unacceptable, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their own subjective opinion?

I disagree. Some facts are important; some aren't. Sometimes certain facts are important. Sometimes they are not. I tried to illustrate the difference to you before, but it seemed like it didn't matter whether I said GT4 had "5 billion Skylines" or "a lot of Skylines," you'd dismiss it as an exaggerated and wrong statement.

 

[Scaff]

OK everyone Daan has already asked for this to be kept on topic and it now seems to be drifting closer to being personal that it should be.

It would be unpleasantly ironic for a thread on over moderation to get locked, but right now I'm very tempted to do so.

Keep to the topic and keep it friendly please.


Thanks

Scaff

 

[Azuremen]

In an attempt to keep this thread on topic, I have gone multi-quote happy and created a separate thread in which this discussion may continue.

Now, back on the topic of moderation.

 

[Wolfe]

To spin the irony a bit further -- I think, if anywhere, GTP is overmoderated in keeping threads to their original topic. Conversations naturally evolve, and fighting that trend usually grinds everything to a halt or leads to huge threads where people pop in, post their opinion, and don't bother to read anyone else's because there's no real discussion going on. Of course, a topic has no business being discussed in a thread if it is not even tangentially related to the original topic, but I have seen a fair number of civil, tangential discussions killed by moderator intervention.

The topic of facts/opinions isn't really tangential to discussion of moderation, but I won't be surprised if this thread and Azuremen's new thread are left inactive now.

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Well at this point its 85% that say NO its not over moderated,looks like theres your answer.

 

[nk4e]

I may suggest to take this public, rather than Premium members.

 

[Azuremen]

Well at this point its 85% that say NO its not over moderated,looks like theres your answer.

That 15% think it is? I'm not looking for a democratic agreement, I just wanted to see numbers.

nk4e, I may take it public now that a large bit of debate has ensued. I'll wait a day or so more, note the results from the Premium section, and perhaps move it to the Rumble Strip. Or Site Feedback.

 

[Scaff]

To spin the irony a bit further -- I think, if anywhere, GTP is overmoderated in keeping threads to their original topic. Conversations naturally evolve, and fighting that trend usually grinds everything to a halt or leads to huge threads where people pop in, post their opinion, and don't bother to read anyone else's because there's no real discussion going on. Of course, a topic has no business being discussed in a thread if it is not even tangentially related to the original topic, but I have seen a fair number of civil, tangential discussions killed by moderator intervention.

The topic of facts/opinions isn't really tangential to discussion of moderation, but I won't be surprised if this thread and Azuremen's new thread are left inactive now.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this.

Yes converstaions do naturaly evolve and when that evolution keeps to the same basic premise of the core thread topic the staff leave it well enough alone. However if a thread changes topic totally then leaving it alone helps very few people; for one thing the now 'wrong' thread title now means that only those originally involved in the discussion know about it (simply viewing the thread title will now no longer let people know what it is actually about) which will actually kill new participation.

If one topic becomes two completely different discusions then they should exist as two seperate discussions and should live or die as threads on that basis.

I participate on forums in which threads are allowed to 'evolve' in any way they like and to be quite honest they end up a mess. You can be involved in a perfectly reasoned discussion, come back the next day and the thread in question can now be on its second or third seperate topic and you have no idea about what is going on.

I look at it this way, if you have a room full of people talking about a single subject then over time some of those people will want to talk about something else (which may or may not be releated to the original discusion. Whould you suggest in a situation like this that everyone starts trying to talk over each other? Of course not, it would simple end up with people trying to shout over one and other.

Just as conversations evolve, so the people in these new converstions split off from the main group and have seperate discussions.

Its for this exact reason why we ask (and I was asked and suggested this) that if a thread goes off topic that a new thread is created to allow these people to have the discussion without suffocating the original one.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Wolfe]

Sorry but I have to disagree with this.

Really? I don't think you do.

Of course, a topic has no business being discussed in a thread if it is not even tangentially related to the original topic...

However if a thread changes topic totally then leaving it alone helps very few people...

...If one topic becomes two completely different discusions then they should exist as two seperate discussions and should live or die as threads on that basis.

Now, if you disagree with the observation that moderators here are slightly...

I think, if anywhere, GTP is overmoderated in keeping threads to their original topic.

...too eager to keep threads to their exact original topic, then there is actually a disagreement between us. But only a small one that I don't care to argue, because my contribution was just a thought, not a complaint.

 

[Gil]

As far as I am concerned the moderators do a fantastic job of keeping this forum steady. They keep the idiots out and keep it all running smoothly.

I can't find the words to say it better.

 

[Scaff]

Now, if you disagree with the observation that moderators here are slightly...

...too eager to keep threads to their exact original topic, then there is actually a disagreement between us. But only a small one that I don't care to argue, because my contribution was just a thought, not a complaint.

I do disagree with you on this specific point, as in my personal experience the staff are not too eager to keep threads to an exact single topic.

In most cases all a mod will do is ask people to try and keep on topic; its very rare for a thread to get locked because it wanders off-topic and even rarer for a member to get a warning or infraction regarding it.

I have the advantage of being able to check and review the moderation logs and have been involved in some discussions regarding this kind of situation and would have to say that mod intervention is rare to start with and in terms of overall mod activity taking action is even rarer.

I'm not trying to claim that we get it right every single time, mistakes do get made, but being honest I can't think of a single time that its been because a thread has been shut or member warned/infraction given for a thread wandering off topic.

I do agree that its a minor subject, but one that I can't agree with.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Azuremen]

All right guys, give me some feed back on where I should move this to. Rumble Strip or elsewhere? Curious to see how the non-premos vote.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the rumble strip would be the only place at which a fairly "round" number of users would be able to see it, comment on it, etc.

 

[Azuremen]

Okay guys, play nice in here. Figured I'd get the rest of the boards thoughts now.

 

[Spock]

Although I am not on here a lot, I really don't see any over moderation, everything seams to be kept pretty clean here to begin with anyways; I think some people are just reading too deep into things.

 

[MCubed]

Yes... ANARCHY FTW!

 

[nobuffalo]

In an attempt to keep this thread on topic, I have gone multi-quote happy and created a separate thread in which this discussion may continue.

Now, back on the topic of moderation.

Dang, I feel there is a pretty heated debate going on in there and I can't see it. Sometimes I get bored debating with myself and so to pass time I like to read others doing so, yeah yeah yeah, TMI Casey TMI.

 

[Sureboss]

This doesn't need a poll. People vote by clicking on a favourite or typing into the address bar. If over moderation was strife, then the site would be dead. We had it on another forum (big, not as big as this) where one member was singled out by a couple of members of staff and the rest of the staff showed no spine and the core members went. Now, 2 years later, the site is only posted in by immature kids.

GTP is galloping at a tremendous rate, the moderation isn't harsh or people would be leaving in drones, nor do I ever think "That was harsh" or "He got that wrong". Considering the size of this forum and the diversity of the posters, you've got about as good a staff team as you'll get.

 

[Azuremen]

This doesn't need a poll. People vote by clicking on a favourite or typing into the address bar. If over moderation was strife, then the site would be dead. We had it on another forum (big, not as big as this) where one member was singled out by a couple of members of staff and the rest of the staff showed no spine and the core members went. Now, 2 years later, the site is only posted in by immature kids.

GTP is galloping at a tremendous rate, the moderation isn't harsh or people would be leaving in drones, nor do I ever think "That was harsh" or "He got that wrong". Considering the size of this forum and the diversity of the posters, you've got about as good a staff team as you'll get.

Well, thank you for explaining that. However, apparently, other people disagree with you.

Over moderation and harsh are different things as well. A lot of core members have left over time, due to irritations with moderation. Not major over steps, but small subtle things that have developed over the years.

I am not trying to contrast Nazi moderation with anarchy, though it seems you think that.

 

[boiltheocean]

I really don't feel that we are over-moderated. Sometimes a few will be abit quick on a response but overall they are doing a good job.
Mods tend to stick to a basic protocol when dealing with disruptive members and won't let their personal opinion interfere with that(often).
In a proper discussion they aren't afraid to let their views be heard and they won't abuse their power to stop others from being heard just because it doesn't conform with the masses.