Has anyone ever changed their opinion or admitted to being wrong in this forum?

[Wyzcrak]

Yes, topics trump moderation, but our tenets must trump topics. "Superior" or not, the immaturity and disrespect, which we've (sadly) proven are inevitable side effects of "a lower level of moderation", are not acceptable. This behavior is not exception enough to warrant ignoring administratively. In fact, it is common enough to warrant administrative reform.

I don't come to Tactical Gamer for "tough topics". I come to respect and be respected, by and with and as mature adults. All else, including debate, is available with mind-blowing redundancy elsewhere online, where our tenets too often aren't.

Yes, moderation (again, the middle ground I initially referenced) is preferable to a discontinuance. But I'm content to accept whatever's necessary to stop the embarrassing behavior.

[ThePenguineer]

Hehehe...

Who would have thought that discussions about debating in the Sandbox would turn into... well, another debate in the Sandbox.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Yes, topics trump moderation, but our tenets must trump topics. "Superior" or not, the immaturity and disrespect, which we've (sadly) proven are inevitable side effects of "a lower level of moderation", are not acceptable. This behavior is not exception enough to warrant ignoring administratively. In fact, it is common enough to warrant administrative reform.

Immaturity and disrespect are an aspect of human nature. To filter it out filters out a much of what makes us human. Makes it sterile.

I would not object to this except that the very nature of TG is to experience the base aspects of human nature in a safe environment. Most of the games involve destroying a representation of another human. Very base.

Sandbox often represents this in a less constricted manner.

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I don't come to Tactical Gamer for "tough topics". I come to respect and be respected, by and with and as mature adults. All else, including debate, is available with mind-blowing redundancy elsewhere online, where our tenets too often aren't.

And I think respect is often shown by being able to voice opinions freely with the knowledge others will challenge those opinions. That combined with able to get on with those you disagree with for daily duties (and in the case of TG the games we play together.)

Respect is not necessary based upon manners. Manners are often a substitute for respect, actually.

And as far as debate being available elsewhere, where? I have not found it. Even on the forums for software development I occasion. It is either cordial agreement of how something is wonderful or it is completely sucky beyond belief.

Portions of the sandbox do devolve into those simplistic interchanges. But it is encouraging how often people call out that behavior. It isn't enough, but could be worse.

[Wyzcrak]

I'm all for us "experiencing the base aspects of human nature", but not if it means abandoning our tenets. Sniping is best left in the scopes, not the posts.

To risk stating the obvious, I'm all for opinions. Differentiating between an opinion and selfish drivel is quite easy.

[Hambergler]

The level of maturity here far surpasses any other forum I have been on. I think it's one of a kind. I would hate to see people not speaking their minds because they felt intimidated.

[NorCalRoach]

Wait...you mean to tell me we have a sandbox?!!...Just kidding. Although I seldom participate in the discussions. I do find most of them entertaining if not enlightening. And yes, there have been discussions that made me think different.

[Panz]

I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken

Most of the people here are mature adults, by our current stages in life, although we all love a good debate, we are mature aenough to admit when someone has a valid point and often change our original opinions.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I think it's clear that a more middle ground isn't going to happen.

Please proceed with your idea. And please remove this public forum. If not that, make it Supporting Members only so that I don't have to be embarrassed by it when I introduce new people to these forums.

Here's to better views and less puerility.

hmmmm not sure i agree here... surprise surprise right, but are you advocating better views with less puerility or narrow views with less plurality. i would be suspicious of any invitation only forum, why? because who selects, does it become about who contibutes alot, or who contributes along similar ideological lines. see 50 conservatives and 50 liberals can debate to their herts content and sort all the worlds problems, by themselves, but together is where the actual debate takes place.

i do have a suggestion on the sandbox dilema on the other hand, as i understand that certain posts can be a little off putting for new members, make it a read on request forum, it does not even show up in the list until you have applied through the User CP to be allowed to see it, it isnt a selection only forum, (which if you feel would be nice Apo, go ahead great but dont get rid of the sandbox inthe process, that would be a shame), its just invisable until you have been in the community long enough or searched the forums long enough to know that it actually exists.

supporting members access to the sandbox IMO is not a great idea, it just over seperates the SM from the non supporting member, you have to pay to enter into political and satirical discussion. doesnt sit well with me, and before you say its because you dont support, look left.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Apophis

Good comments. I've thought and thought about the Sandbox and what should be done with it. It CAN be an embarrasment, but at the same time it can also be a great asset. Seriously strict moderation could help, but I think that would just be more of a pain in the arse.

bump... look here.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Our community thrives on the pain of the select few who reliably enforce our expectations, ideally with zero drama. This forum needn't be any different.

With as much honesty as I observe that removing friends and community veterans from the conversation is difficult can I say that identifying which of them deserve it is not so. There's respect, and there's faking it, and if the latter pollutes your former, due either to maliciousness or an inability to control yourself, then you're not mature, and you're not premiere, and I'd be quite content to see you post elsewhere, regardless of how much I otherwise like you.

well sorry but if only, i wont drag anything up but this is seldom the case, i wish this were the case always.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Hambergler

The level of maturity here far surpasses any other forum I have been on. I think it's one of a kind. I would hate to see people not speaking their minds because they felt intimidated.

amen, if you think this place is disrespectful man i would hate to see the consequences of visiting any other forums...

and i have also been in forums which say no posting on religious political and ones over moderated, and the sandbox in comparison is not an embarresment, when you over moderate it becomes hard to tell disrespect from different opinion, as it has already been said people get offended over different things, and one thing i dont want to see is a bunch of moderators moderating ideological debate. because ideals will be challenged and the only way to have that debate is with some heat. people here show their maturity and respect by having that discussion, working themselves up and then carrying on with the community.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Panz

I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken

Most of the people here are mature adults, by our current stages in life, although we all love a good debate, we are mature aenough to admit when someone has a valid point and often change our original opinions.

i love you panz... lmao.

wait a minute... i was wrong also...

nah just kidding, we all love panz...

edit..... wow... noone else was posting i usually get away with those catch-ups because someone else posts. oh well enjoy the DudeMan for the next 5 posts....

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Well of course everything is subjective. But, again, we thrive throughout this community on defining who, exactly, will subject *us* to *their* interpretation of "the rules", and then we have that party create a standard around which expectations can be set. That is done by consistent enforcement.

One angle is to say that the consistent "enforcement" in this forum has created quite the low standard.

Another angle is to say that, simply, this forum is our one exception to our norm around here: that is, there's no (or neglible) enforcement. We could (and I won't) debate whether or not "maturity" and "respect" are unconditionally required for us to claim to be "premiere", but surely we can all agree that an unacceptable amount of immaturity and disrespect is consistently tolerated here administratively.

I disagree. And this is where it gets tricky. It's evident to me that you consider the use of sarcasm to be extremely disrespectful. I do not. I find sarcasm to be a wonderfully expressive form of communicating in certain situations. Phyllis and I are the only mods for this forum. I've asked others to help me moderate and they've declined. Without another active moderator, you're stuck with my biases when it comes to moderation of this forum. And I'm much more likely to let the community police itself than to edit, delete, or lock posts based on my personal views. I'll always err on the side of caution in that regard. You seem to feel the opposite, that it's better to lock/edit/delete threads before there's even a chance of them getting out of hand. Perhaps we need a happy medium, but I'm not seeing any major problems with the way things are going now. I look at this community and this forum like I look at a family. Brothers and sisters fight. They scrap. Then they get over it and stand next to each other. Brotherhood and respect is much more than just watching what you say to each other...

What a rambling paragraph that was...

Bottom line is that I don't see the disrespect that you keep mentioning. I actually see exactly the opposite. I'm constantly amazed at the level of discussion that we have in here. Quit concentrating on the little spats between brothers and look at the big picture.

[Wolfie]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I disagree. And this is where it gets tricky. It's evident to me that you consider the use of sarcasm to be extremely disrespectful. I do not. I find sarcasm to be a wonderfully expressive form of communicating in certain situations. Phyllis and I are the only mods for this forum. I've asked others to help me moderate and they've declined. Without another active moderator, you're stuck with my biases when it comes to moderation of this forum. And I'm much more likely to let the community police itself than to edit, delete, or lock posts based on my personal views. I'll always err on the side of caution in that regard. You seem to feel the opposite, that it's better to lock/edit/delete threads before there's even a chance of them getting out of hand. Perhaps we need a happy medium, but I'm not seeing any major problems with the way things are going now. I look at this community and this forum like I look at a family. Brothers and sisters fight. They scrap. Then they get over it and stand next to each other. Brotherhood and respect is much more than just watching what you say to each other...

What a rambling paragraph that was...

Bottom line is that I don't see the disrespect that you keep mentioning. I actually see exactly the opposite. I'm constantly amazed at the level of discussion that we have in here. Quit concentrating on the little spats between brothers and look at the big picture.

What? People fight in the sandbox? People get upset and argumentative? Wow, that must have been recent.

Oh wait, that has been going on since the creation of the sandbox forum.

Isn't it best to lock/delete/etc posts when they start to attack the poster rather than the argument itself?

Sorry, long time gamer been gone for awhile just voicing an opinion

Oh and to answer the original question. Yes, I have seen opinions change (myself included) after the truth was brought forth on issues. It doesn't happen on a regular basis but it has happened in the past.

[Diceman]

I agree very much with Wyzcrak.

I recall that, when I first arrived at TG, I was amazed at the general decency and intelligence to be found in the Sandbox. It far surpassed every other internet forum out there. The only trouble with using other internet forums as some kind of measure when it comes to mutual respect and decency, is that it's like using Medusa as a metric for beautiful things.

I've come to realize this over my time here - and it has turned TG from a place (and people) to which I felt a real loyalty into another website that I tend to check once in a while. To be honest, the main reason I renewed my membership last August was due to the more esoteric desire of there being a place to play team games with other folks who value simulation like play with the adherent necessary discipline. Since my time to play any games at all has dropped to zero over the past few months, this is an esoteric desire indeed - basically, I pay for the principle and nothing more. The Sandbox does make me question the wisdom of doing that.

The problems of the Sandbox stem from the fact that written communication is difficult - far more difficult than verbal communication. The tone and inflection, which almost always carries the true meaning of a sentence, simply don't translate. Authors must always realize that the tone of a post is not what they wish it to be, but what the audience sees it to be. I see post after post which can be clever with one tone, and demeaning with another. Other posts are conciliatory or sycophantic, again depending on tone.

There are myriad websites and how-tos on effective written communication and effective writing. I would implore everyone to seek these resources out. I also think there could be a real benefit to authoring a good TG home brew effective writing guide and stickying it in the Sandbox. Tips could include both stylistic notions (using "I" vs. "you") as well as explaining some notions of polite argumentation (like arguing against the position and not the person).

As things relate to moderation, I acknowledge the difficulties of Cing's position - he's in very much of a damned if you do, damned if you don't spot. But there must be solutions to this problem of finding the balance between effective moderation and tyrannical/absentee moderation.

My suggestion would be to have a team of 7 to 11 moderators, who would themselves have been nominated by the community. If any moderator has a concern with a thread, they would bring it for discussion to the other moderators. A series of votes could be used to determine the answer to any question.
Examples:

• A blantantly offensive or hateful thread could be closed by a mod acting alone.
• A simple majority of 5 votes (so 3 yeas and 2 nays would resolve a question) would be needed to close any thread which had received complaints from the community.
• A unanimous or "unanimous minus one" vote could be taken to suspend or remove a user from the Sandbox for a period of time or indefinitely.

so on and so forth...

The point of these examples is not the specific numbers suggested for the mods or to pass a motion, nor is it the kinds of motions that must be considered, but simply to illustrate that we can used a phased democratic approach to mediating conflict here.

There are other resources on the web which are designed to harmonize facts and opinion into a coherent whole, which is sensitive to the intelligence and understanding of its contributors. Wikipedia and Standpedia are both examples of this. I'd love to see these kinds of tools and techniques become more blended into the forum interface.

Another item that could be done is to reinstate the reputation system, but with more complexity than the simple +1/-1 format we had previously (and still have but is hidden). Maybe one post deserves +rep because it is funny, while another is insightful while another is eloquent. These differences should be articulable through the algorithm of the rep system. Another idea for rep is to divorce rep from the poster and display it as part of the posts instead. Let the feedback for a given post be seen by everyone. Also, the reduce the effects of payback repping (+ or -), once a member has repped another member, neither is able to rep the other for ten days.

In sum, the Sandbox ain't bad, as internet forums go. But we can really do so much better than that. My suggestions are above. What are yours?

And, lastly, a word of thanks to Cing and phyllis for doing a thankless job, and to everyone else for contributing (also a thankless job, except from which ever "side" you are on).