Possible change in the organisation of the Ludus Magna Forum

[therother]

In the current setup of the Ludus Magna forum, only Staff can start new topics, and they do so at the request of members wishing to conduct/post research. Replies to threads are free from restriction.

There has been a proposal to augment this setup with a moderation queue system for new threads, and new threads only - replies to threads would remain unaffected. Basically, any member would be able to post a new thread, only it would need to be accepted by one of the staff to become visible to other users.

The main motivation behind such a change is that a moderation queue allows members to start threads in their own words, and get their research immediately into the system (even if it's not instantly visible), rather than having to wait for one of the staff to open up a thread, and then having to post within the new thread. In this sense, it is perhaps more responsive and user-friendlier.

The old system would also still be in place. This new option would not replace it. Members could still PM the forum staff to discuss new threads, and if necessary start them on their behalf. I envisage this as only adding another method of posting research.

Please post any comments you have on this proposal in this thread.

I am posting this thread in the Ludus Magna forum for a couple of days or so. After that, it will be moved to the Watchtower.

Thanks for reading.



Edit: I guess, based on a few of the comments below, it would be helpful if I clarified how I envisage this new system working:

If a thread is perfect for the LM, it will be accepted as is.
If the topic of the thread is okay, but the post itself isn't quite right, then the thread will probably be accepted and a PM will be sent to the author asking them edit the first post.
If the subject is unsuitable for some reason (e.g. too vague or too broad in scope) and/or the starting post has significant deficiencies, then acceptance will be delayed until those shortcomings are corrected.
If the topic is deemed unsuitable for the LM, but would be fine in another forum, then it will be moved there.
If the thread is frivolous and has no place in any of the forums, it will be rejected.

In all cases, except probably the first, a PM will be sent to the author, with a full copy of the post, and with comments about making it suitable for the LM. The LM staff are always happy to help those intending to post research, and would continue to be. As I say, this new system is an add-on to the existing setup, one that I think will be of particular use to LM regulars.

[Pode]

I never thought I'd be opposed to liberalizing restrictions on speech, but in this particular case I'm kind of partial to the current setup. I know when I come to the LM that threads will be serious topics of importance in understanding game mechanics. I think this serves to dissuade those who are not interested in such and do not understand testing methods from visiting. It's nice to have one place among all the three major forums where you can ask for a hypothesis to be tested and not have to explain 13 times what you want tested, why you want to know, how to do the test, and why it has to be done that way. Gods I sound like an elitist *edited*, but it's true. The LM operates at a more analytical level on average, and I think that's in no small part due to the restrictions currently in place on what can be discussed. MHO.

[therother]

I never thought I'd be opposed to liberalizing restrictions on speech, but in this particular case I'm kind of partial to the current setup. I know when I come to the LM that threads will be serious topics of importance in understanding game mechanics.Topics will still be filtered before becoming visible, so there should be no drop in the level of "quality" in the LM. This is intended as a useful tool for researchers, rather than a liberalising of the setup per se.

[Epistolary Richard]

I see that the primary difference such a change would make would be to the moderators of this forum. In a way, it would make your life easier in that you'd just have to click a button to approve a post rather than post a new thread.

In another way, it _may_ (and I emphasise may) make your life more difficult. Under the current system you have the opportunity to guide and advise the poster as to whether the topic is an appropriate one and how best to frame their research. Under the new system you would be presented with a fait accompli. Now if it's something that's very wrong then it's easy enough to say "Not the right place" and if it's great you can just click approve, if it's somewhere in the middle, so relevant to the forum but perhaps not in the right style then you're in the situation of having to go back to the poster and saying exactly what needs changing.

To put it simply, it's a change of emphasis: under the current system, the burden of proof is on the poster to establish that what they're going to say is going to be what you want; under the new system, the burden of proof will be on the moderator to establish that what has already been said is not what you want and exactly why it is not what you want in this forum.

One thing's for sure, you will get more inane threads posted by people who haven't read the purpose of the forum and just see the the 'Post thread' button. Maybe just one or two, maybe a bucketload, I don't know. If you're willing to deal with them, and meanwhile it's made your life easier to post valid threads then I say go for it.

[Simetrical]

The only real downside I see would be if it would bother the mods. If you wouldn't mind having to manually approve all the threads, therother, I say go for it (and you can always change it back later).

If the system is approved, incidentally, it would probably be good for mods to rename topics for consistency's sake, so that everyone knows from the title what the thread's about. And perhaps posters should be asked to edit their initial posts to reflect new findings, to make the thread more useful as a reference material. But those apply whether or not this is implemented, really.

-Simetrical

[therother]

@Epistolary Richard: You raise some interesting points. If there is a large increase in the number of unsuitable threads, then it is indeed possible that this may result in more work for the Ludus Magna moderators. However, in the first few months of operation of the forum, there have been very few suggestions that were completely inappropriate for the Ludus Magna; by far the biggest reason for not immediately opening a thread is a lack of information provided in the PM request. So I think there reasons to believe that any increase in unsuitable threads will be temporary.


If the system is approved, incidentally, it would probably be good for mods to rename topics for consistency's sake, so that everyone knows from the title what the thread's about. And perhaps posters should be asked to edit their initial posts to reflect new findings, to make the thread more useful as a reference material.Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work now. People requesting threads are asked to 'shepherd' the research in each thread, with the intention of summarising the results at important junctures. This is one reason why we want to have the first post in the thread as a placeholder. Obviously this is difficult with 'legacy threads' transferred from the Colosseum, but eventually most (if not quite all) threads will have that structure.

[Morat]

I'm a bit of a lurker here, although I do pay close attention to the research forum, and I share the concerns of Pode. People in the TW community (Com and TWC at least) are beginning to see this forum as a good source of detailed info, and many are coming over to read and post. I wouldn't like to see it diluted. therother assures us that this will not happen, but I'm not so sure. What happens if someone spends a long time writing a new post, but it doesn't quite fit in the forum? Will you tell that person that their thread is not wanted, even if they've worked on it long and hard? That could lead to disagreements, and possibly to stop these you might let in a few threads that are lacking.


If the system is approved, incidentally, it would probably be good for mods to rename topics for consistency's sake, so that everyone knows from the title what the thread's about.I agree. Some of the current titles are not very reflective of their content. Also, people should be updating their individual posts if they find something that was said to be untrue. If they are no longer available to do it themselves, perhaps the mods should put a note into the post saying what was wrong with the idea? I know that will increase their workload a bit, but it would be a great help to readers.

[therother]

[...]What happens if someone spends a long time writing a new post, but it doesn't quite fit in the forum? Will you tell that person that their thread is not wanted, even if they've worked on it long and hard? That could lead to disagreements, and possibly to stop these you might let in a few threads that are lacking.This is an issue I have considered. As I see it, this is not a new problem -- it's possible that someone may send such a PM asking for a thread -- but it is one that may be exacerbated by a moderation queue. To my knowledge, no one has sent such a PM as yet, and I think the chances are small that someone would put such an effort into a post, but would fail to ensure that they were posting something within the guidelines of the forum.


I agree. Some of the current titles are not very reflective of their content. Also, people should be updating their individual posts if they find something that was said to be untrue. If they are no longer available to do it themselves, perhaps the mods should put a note into the post saying what was wrong with the idea? I know that will increase their workload a bit, but it would be a great help to readers.The editing of thread titles is something I'm looking into, as one part of a plan to make the LM more useful to the community. The second issue you raise (Moderators editing posts) is complicated in that the Staff is generally reluctant to do this, except in cases of breaches of the forum rules, as it can lead to uncertainties over who authored the text.

[therother]

Thinking about the possibility of people not knowing that the LM is now a partially moderated forum, it may be possible to do something to highlight this to the user, perhaps by change of skin or pop up box informing you that threads are to be moderated, and asking you to read the pinned post for more info if unsure.

[Morat]

Has this change been made? Just tried to start a thread in the LM but couldn't. Seems most people were positive about the idea....

[therother]

Hi Morat. The LM is going through a bit of a staff reshuffle at the moment, so I think this idea has been shelved for the time being.