How to handle the off-topic forum?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I need long-time user opinions on this, I don't actually use the off-topic forum. I saw some comments mentioning an influx of new users who may not share the core beliefs of the existing community. Is this a problem that is bothering some of you? We need to attract new users but also find a way to integrate them into the existing culture.

So consider this a sounding board for things you're concerned about and things you see that could be improved. The site is going to continue growing so this will not be a temporary problem. I'd like to enact measures to protect certain aspects of the current community where possible.

[Rob]

I honestly do appreciate the time and effort that you have put into reinvigorating this site. It's a lot more modern now. And for the most part, I've liked seeing the community grow.

Problem is, modern sites attract modern users. And a lot of the modern sports crowd on the internet is the type of guy who loves sites like Barstool Sports. Absent you flying the pride flag all over the site so the right-wing trolls are worried they'll catch a case of the gay simply by browsing, I'm not sure what a solution would be. Never open up the off-topic forum to new users? Or make it invite only?

I certainly don't begrudge you your attempt to grow the site. But if it ends up a site full of trolls, you're going to lose the existing posters who are sick and tired of dealing with them. That's not gonna help your growth. I'd welcome just about any idea you thought might offer some relief.

[Tim]

I never really had good answers for that other than some guiding principles:

• long-time users got a longer leash than newbies (more warnings, private conversations, etc)
• I'd attempt to use a softer touch when possible and remind people to attack arguments instead of others
• certain lines cannot be crossed (insta-bans)

But I don't know if I was any good or very consistent at leading with those ideas. And I have no idea if that's even the right approach to begin with.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pretty simple, IMO:

[Tim]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Sofa said:

Pretty simple, IMO:

Yeah - case in point that I didn't do a very good job with this. 🙂

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

I certainly don't begrudge you your attempt to grow the site. But if it ends up a site full of trolls, you're going to lose the existing posters who are sick and tired of dealing with them. That's not gonna help your growth. I'd welcome just about any idea you thought might offer some relief.

You don't have to worry about this. We've been navigating this problem on Twins Daily for years now. If push comes to shove, community integrity trumps page views. We've taken various stands at TD over the years - the most recent being Covid and George Floyd - and seen temporary drops in traffic as a result. We're fine with that. We welcome all creeds and colors but draw the line at misinformation and/or extreme troublemaking, particularly if it's intolerant of entire classes of people. The only thing to be intolerant of is intolerance, you probably know the spiel.

But because I don't really follow the off-topic forum, I'm going to miss stuff. If anyone has input of any kind, I cannot stress enough that they should PM me anytime.

One of the tasks I hope to accomplish in 2024 is that as the community grows, we start to build out a little more robust moderating staff to handle the inevitable influx of bad actors that will register and try to cause trouble.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Something I think about every now and then is when I got banned from a White Sox message board.  Ahead of a crosstown series I had made some posts that were not hostile, but probably ended up antagonistic given my pro-Cubs disposition.  I don't think the folks at WSI are community builders to emulate, but it did teach me something that I think is true.  You ultimately build a place *for* the community, and on the margins it's the experience of the community that matters more than others antagonizing the community even if they do so in ways that aren't objectively against the rules.  

That said, that doesn't mean the community is always right, and every long standing member doesn't speak for the group.  For example, the initial reaction to Brandon's article was absurd, and unnecessarily raised the temperature of the conversation and made it more likely that folks who might have different opinions would be upset or inspired to respond.  Personally, I have not seen a huge influx of people being combative in those off topic spaces.  There's been a couple people who have gotten in arguments, but nothing that we haven't seen before and that didn't mostly self-regulate, since folks who find it a fun pastime to argue with a group of people who think opposite of themselves all the time typically aren't great rule followers themselves.

 

[UMFan83]

It’s a tough balance between maintaining the culture of the board which you’ve repeatedly said you are trying to do, and be a welcoming place for new visitors with all different types of beliefs. I don’t know what the right answer is.  There are a lot us old timers that considered the Social forum as important than the other forums during the leaner days of site traffic and changing the dynamic of that forum would not be received well. 
 

Maybe consider a post limit required to access the Social forum?  Maybe 100 posts is enough for a user to get established in the community and “hooked” on the Cubs related discussions and they won’t necessarily be turned off if they access Social forum and realize that 95% of the posters share similar views that are different than their own. At that point they can choose to stick with the Cubs discussions they already enjoy or enter the fray and attempt to be a contrarian viewpoint. 
 

And then from our perspective, after 100 posts you start to recognize the newbie as a regular poster and we aren’t so quick to jump on that person for saying something disagreeable because you’ve valued their contributions to Cubs discussions. 

Just a thought. All that said if you go into that thread and start spouting Fox News talking points they are always going to be ripped apart. There are respectful disagreements from time to time and while it might feel like an echo chamber sometimes, there are different viewpoints expressed and defended, just not extreme ones. 
 

Also I agree with TT that the initial response to the article in question was a bit extreme. Like I said in the thread I didn’t agree with the premise of the article, I don’t really think many people are questioning whether Chicago is undesirable for MLB FAs, but I didn’t think the article was controversial at all.   But because it did veer in that direction you made the right call moving it to Social

Edited December 29, 2023 by UMFan83

[Brock Beauchamp]

41 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Something I think about every now and then is when I got banned from a White Sox message board.  Ahead of a crosstown series I had made some posts that were not hostile, but probably ended up antagonistic given my pro-Cubs disposition.  I don't think the folks at WSI are community builders to emulate, but it did teach me something that I think is true.  You ultimately build a place *for* the community, and on the margins it's the experience of the community that matters more than others antagonizing the community even if they do so in ways that aren't objectively against the rules.  

WSI is definitely not the vibe we’re striving toward, that’s for sure.

But your point at large is valid in the sense that if a person’s general demeanor is contrarian to the community, that person may not be a good fit. We’ve had to ban a few people over the years not because they were breaking rules but because they kept banging drums negatively against the community and in favor of another organization.

It will shock absolutely no one here that one prominent example was a Cardinals fan, though you might be surprised to learn they were banned from Twins Daily, of all places. They were banned under the newly-placed rule I created just for them, the “dude, just shut the **** up already” clause. 

[Tim]

34 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

They were banned under the newly-placed rule I created just for them, the “dude, just shut the **** up already” clause. 

This would have been such a good rule.

 

 

There would have been many fewer people here, though!

[Tim]

Wait...who can access this thread?!?

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Wait...who can access this thread?!?

Anyone. 

[Rob]

10 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Anyone. 

How am I supposed to complain about people who know I'm complaining about them?

/s?

[UMFan83]

17 minutes ago, Rob said:

How am I supposed to complain about people who know I'm complaining about them?

/s?

Just use the Insider’s Forum

*checks the Insider list*

Disregard

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I’ve said this before, but I grew up in a deep red small town in rural Iowa. I was registered as a proud member of the GOP for many years after turning 18. I think 2020 was the first election where I voted a straight Dem ticket, and I’ll do that again and again going forward.

A couple of the reasons that happened were the GOP has just completely lost me. But one of the biggest reasons was, while not participating in the politics thread here for years, I read it from time to time. There have been so many discussions over the years that opened my eyes to a perspective I never really intended to investigate on my own.

I still get my fair share of GOP talking points from every direction in life, and all it does is drive me even further away. I am not a registered Democrat, but I am anti-GOP. I don’t know if there’s a “solution”, but sometimes just sitting back and listening (or reading) is the best thing you can do. Maybe you’ll learn a little from some of the smart people.

If this message helps just one of the yutes out there, I have done my good deed for the year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, Ding Dong Johnson said:

If this message helps just one of the yutes out there, I have done my good deed for the year.

Way to get in under the wire.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Way to get in under the wire.

it’s 23 until it ain’t 

[Proven Veteran]

There are a lot of smart people that post in the social forum. It's actually what kept me here as the board got smaller, I just don't want to see that ruined.

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the time being, I've again enabled the Old-Timey Member promotion group. You have to be in the Old-Timey group to see the social forum. Anyone who registers is able to see that forum after six months.

[Derwood]

I wouldn’t call 3 or 4 republicans “an influx”

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, Derwood said:

I wouldn’t call 3 or 4 republicans “an influx”