Safe Zone vs. Hard Hat Area?

[PhoenixInferno]

You'll note that in the example that Shoggoth is putting forward, I gave a fairly civil initial response - but the poster decided to escalate by claiming superior intellect.  The quotes in the example are only selective snippets - I use both facts, reasoned arguments AND clever insults to deliver the smackdown.

The real trouble in my opinion is that there are (were?) too many posters here who don't know how to have civil discourse.  They can't (couldn't?) control their monkey-spoor throwing tendencies.  Although, many of these people seem to have disappeared, so perhaps we don't need a safe zone anymore?

[veekie]

So the current thought is 3 lands? A safe land, a middle ground (possibly with the author of the post marking it as either) and a "hard hat" land?

While I agree this is a problem and needs a solution, I don't know that board splits are going to work as well as you'd like them to. Some people are so used to going to certain areas that if they're moved into a safe zone, issues will almost certainly arise quickly. I vote for putting up a bulletin for at least a few days, before any actual changes are made, so everyone has the possibility of noticing before it happens.

I'd also vote for Prime's suggestion of being able to mark (if possible) each thread, as the author makes it, as either safe or not. The thing is, some boards don't always fit one way or the other, but when they swing to one side, they basically topple over there... *shrug*

Safe Zone:
Everything Board Business and Show Stuff - This makes sense here. It's the important stuff and everyone should feel safe reading/posting/inquiring here.
Plugs - Not too many discussions arise here, since this is more of a bulletin board.
Inspiration Strikes - This is the epitomy of a 'help others' subforum. The whole idea is to generate discussion about how to improve games.
Playing with everything - Similar in goal to Inspiration Strikes, this is also a safe zone, as far as I can tell.
D&D Deliberations - Needs clarification, but should go here. There needs to be a clear cut guideline of what type of talk goes here (I see rule/optimization questions pop up every now and then)
Playground - The entire playtime area should go here, imo. It's meant for everyone to have fun here.

Maybe Zone:
Off Topic Fun - While not a warzone, some heated debates can start here about different things. It could safely be moved into the safe zone, but there will likely to be the occasional problem that rises up.
The Kitchen Sink - While generally safe, this board serves as inquiry/debates about non-D&D games, so I could see it getting argumentative at some time. It could fit in the Safe Zone, but then that one time when someone wanted a heated debate, they'd have nowhere to go.
House Rules and Creations - This has the occasional safe thing, but currently harbors the Re-balancing 3.5 project, among other heavy debates. This is where the past few board issues have started, actually (save one or two). It's a haven for debate and those who thrive on arguing. It's a tough call, actually. Those that post new classes/fixed classes (myself included) probably would like a safe environment for idea creation, but those that want to discuss other ideas through heavy debate want something else... This is one of those boards that would likely have to be split in half to work under this new system.
Min/Max It - (Note: I'm assuming what I say about this & the other D&D boards works for 4E as well, but I don't read those boards, so I dunno.) I personally would HATE having this be a hard hat zone. That's the worst idea that I have ever heard. The Handbook subforum is all about helpfulness. It's purely safe intended. Same goes for 50% of the Min/Max board. It's people asking questions for clarification. It's people looking for ideas and asking for help. Getting bitched at/treated like ass/brought into a warzone because of a question or clarification sucks. The only way to safely do this (and it would ruin the whole Min/Max subforum) is to split it. Otherwise you get stuck with something where some people want to peaceful and have ideas thrown around, and other people want to yell and bitch and be "howlers." It seems to be a lose-lose situation, honestly. And that makes me sad.

Hard Hat Zone:
You Break It, You Buy It - This is TO. It's pure math and hardcore debate. If something's posted here it's because time has been spent on it and the poster wants his logic/math critiqued.
Mature Audiences & Bitch Like you have to - Those clearly go here.

If it's to be done at all, I think this rig works best, with the maybe area having threads flagged for no holds barred discussion(I'd say PEACH counts as such over in house rules and creations ).

I personally favor going without this, but people have been known to get carried away with smiting each other(when it becomes a multiquote rebuttal, or restating the same things over and over in 1d100 different ways, I personally stop reading and start skimming for the end of the warfare) and the thread's original purpose goes down in flames as everyone else gets out of the way. Can't see another solution...so...

[TheChrisWaits]

My issue is that most sections of the boards are not really clear where they should go. And a lot of times the show itself is in hard-hat territory, meaning discussion of it should be as well.

I think this is a good idea, but the execution might not work. It won't hurt anything if it doesn't end up working, though, so you might as well give it a shot.

[X-Codes]

The real trouble in my opinion is that there are (were?) too many posters here who don't know how to have civil discourse.  They can't (couldn't?) control their monkey-spoor throwing tendencies.  Although, many of these people seem to have disappeared, so perhaps we don't need a safe zone anymore?

Indeed, I feel that the end result of allowing flaming has resulted in a burning of the trolls for the most part.  I can think of a couple that are still lurking around, but once their G-Fu gets low enough people will probably take them less seriously.

[Josh]

I see this decision to try to segment the board into a safe zone and an unsafe zone as a deliberate decision to break from previous precedent.  You're making a marketing decision to attempt to include people who are scared off from the current board structure by creating zones where deliberate debate is actively discouraged.  The idea of designating zones where a completely wrong idea cannot be challenged because the poster is afraid to post because he/she doesn't want to be criticized is appalling to me.

[X-Codes]

I've been in, IMO, two thread "wars" outside of a given DoW thread, defining a thread war as an altercation that gets so bad that it actually requires a Mod to beat heads in to get the people calmed down again.  The first war was roughly like this:

Me: Position A
Him: LOLFAILFAIL
Me: Position A
Him: LOLFAILFAIL
Me: WTF is your problem?
Him: LOLFAILFAIL
3rd-party: You messed up that word.
Me: ... (War begins)

...and the second...

Me: Position A
Him: Position B
Me: Position A
Him: Position B
Troll: FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKUSUCKDUMBMONKEYFUCK
Me: WTF is your problem?  Back your shit up.
Him: Position B
Troll: FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
Me: Dude, make an argument or shut the fuck up already!
Him: Position B
Troll: DUMBFUCKITYFUCKFUCKFUCKERFUCKHOLE
Me & Him: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

...so yeah, thread wars that I've been in don't spawn from argument, they spawn from an utter lack of argument, so a so-called Bill of Argument really won't help there...

P.S. Someone is going to call me on being biased.  I am biased, but that's still a pretty honest representation of what happened.  I see stupid people... A LOT.

[Kai]

It often seems to me that there two different communities on these boards. There is one that is centered around the Podcast, and one that is centered around the charop boards from WotC (there's some overlap there, just generalizing).

I don't know if this is possible or not, but what about having two different sets of boards? Each with their own purpose. There could be lots of crossover, similar topics on each board, etc., the main difference being the tone.

Brilliant Gameologists Forum
-This is what the main site would link to and in the context of the thread would be the "safe zone."
-It would have its own Meta Board/Help area, the section related to the show, perhaps a shared off topic/play time areas, its own Play Like You Have To!/MinMax/Think Tank areas.
-The tone would be lighter, but still focus on discussion. Enough moderation to keep the desired tone.

Brutal Honesty Forum (?)
-These boards would be linked to from...I don't know, maybe from within the other forum, and in the context of the thread would be the "Hard Hat Area."
-It would have its own Meta Board/Help area, its own Play Like You Have To!/MinMax/Think Tank areas, and then the shared off topic/play time areas.
-The tone would be basically what it is now. Little moderation.

[AfterCrescent]

Min-Max-It:  This should probably be Hard-Hat Zone.  Even if it's not TO, there is a lot of very, very heated and blunt discussion that goes on in here.

True, but not all of it. That's my point. It would likely need to be split (I see Innabinder agrees) into two boards, a safe one and hard-hat one. Personally, I think that would destroy that forum.

The same sentiment goes to Kai's suggestion. Sure, some people would enjoy going to multiple forums, but not all. And those that only have time to skim 1 forum, might choose the Hard-hat one and lose out on the podcast. That's a losing situation.

[Tshern]

Min/Max it definitely should not be split under any circumstances. Findings threads from two places would cause too much pain. Just set a standard and allow explicit exceptions.

[Kai]

Sure, some people would enjoy going to multiple forums, but not all. And those that only have time to skim 1 forum, might choose the Hard-hat one and lose out on the podcast. That's a losing situation.

I don't see how only frequenting the Hard Hat boards would preclude anyone from the podcast.

[AfterCrescent]

Sure, some people would enjoy going to multiple forums, but not all. And those that only have time to skim 1 forum, might choose the Hard-hat one and lose out on the podcast. That's a losing situation.

I don't see how only frequenting the Hard Hat boards would preclude anyone from the podcast.

Unless I misunderstood your suggestion, they'd be two separate forums, no? If people only visit 1 forum, and that forum doesn't let them know there's a new podcast, they might not listen to it, since they don't know it's updated.

[Tshern]

No, certain areas of this forum would be marked, no two separate entities needed.

[Kai]

No you understood it fine, but just because the specific boards to discuss the podcast are not located on the Hard Hat forum doesn't mean they would miss out. Aside from being proactive and going to see if the podcast had been updated, there could be an announcement posted on that forum to make sure listeners knew there was an update.

Just to clarify...I would honestly expect that under the scenario that I put up there would be plenty of people who would stick to one forum or the other.

[AfterCrescent]

Fair enough. They'd still lose out on the podcast discussion. That whole two forum thing, time for one problem. Granted it's likely a minority of people, but it's still a loss.

And Tshern: I understand your suggestion, which is different from Kai's. The problem is that it doesn't really fix the problem. If you mark certain areas (Min/Max It) to allow 'wars' you still scare people off, especially in places where the intent (as far as I understand the intent of CO) is to be helpful.

[Kai]

They only lose out on the podcast discussion if they choose to.

[Tshern]

Explicit exceptions as in each thread would have to specify if it allows wars. If that is going to scare people off, then having hard hat areas will.

[AfterCrescent]

By that logic, they only lose out on the board right now if the *choose* to. Some people are scared off by the 'wars' others will claim not to have enough time for two forums, and if they have a primary attachment to D&D and a secondary to the other games & podcast... *shrug*

Tshern: How do you know ahead of time what thread will allow a war? That goes back to Josh's point that a war always starts in RESPONSE. Hard to mark as a warzone when making a thread. No one really wants the kind of war-zone-shit-flinging that has happened in their thread when they start it. At least I doubt they do, some might.

[Tshern]

The person creating the thread specifies whether fighting there is allowed, but if someone feels like bashing he can take it to another thread the same way DoWs work.

[InnaBinder]

the same way DoWs work

'Work' is a somewhat subjective term there....  What happens if someone bashes when it's 'not allowed' by the OP?

[Tshern]

What sort of a question is that? The situation will naturally be taken care of the same way normal rule violations. You know, exactly the same people will be dealt with if they start messing around in one of the non-hardcore boards.