GateWorld's Vision Statement .Suggestions welcome

[GateGipsy]

I was a bit unclear before when referring to "threads" exclusively instead of just "posts". The thing is that GW is apparently supposed to usher in a new era where "negative" posts will need more "moderation" than positive ones and where one can say "Best episode evar!" without problems but if one just says "Worst episode evar!", it'd kinda be against the rules unless one elaborated a bit.

No not just you. After talking to Tame I realised I was being rather unclear too, unintentionally! See the quote from Darren in my signature. He's not going to ban people from saying that was the worst episode ever, although I don't really know why I didn't like it. He is rather against the sorts of 'that was the worst episode ever and if the writers don't realise how rubbish they are then they need to get new brains' sorts of posts, as frankly, those ones just don't promote discussion at all.

But I don't love everything there is about it. Therefore, I will often point out the flaws of the show in discussion. Many members on this forum view this as somehow unacceptable and will give me grief for it every chance they get, as if my way of analyzing the show is bad.

well that is something that I hope Darren's vision statement will move us away from. Personally, I deplore it when a discussion is directed towards a person's right to post an opinion and not towards that opinion itself. I don't think that, as long as you post your negative criticisms without making personal negative remarks yourself (such as name calling, or making suggestions about their parentage etc) you're going to have any problems with the new policies.

And that goes with this thread too. Don't just come in here and tell Darren why he's doing this wrong - put your suggestions in on how we could achieve a forum where balanced discussions, both for and against, are welcome in all and every thread.

[FallenAngelII]

There may be a lean towards a more positive spirit and a general overall desire to make the Community as whole more positive. But to continue to hammer that GW is banning things or must somehow be fair or balanced is not accurate. What we are is a Fan Forum that is also a Community of Fans that should be here to enjoy something not tear something down.

I read the vision statement. It's wholly fuzzy and unclear and very open to interpretation.

But this new positive side will come at the cost of more censoring of negative opinions, which is my point.

In the eyes of the mods, negative posts will require more moderation and justification than positive posts, even if they, in spirits, contain the same thing. Darren specifically said so himself in response to whoever. "I hated this episode!" would be seen worse than "I loved this episode!". The first would require justification and elaboration, the 2nd not.

[Laura Dove]

I will once again suggest that folks read the *Vision Statement* as well as Darren's other posts and the other Moderator posts though out this thread from the beginning and get a clearer picture of what we are asking folks to ponder on and then comment on and then discuss. It seems that the focus is truly getting very skewered here and somewhat narrow because folks are reading just the last few posts and not reading the things in in *Whole picture* entirety.

I read the entirety of the thread, including the Vision Statement itself, and two things are clear: Negative opinions will be challenged by default, while non-argumented praise is always welcome, AND most of you mods are unwilling to admit it once and for all (you personally being somewhat of an exception).

There may be a lean towards a more positive spirit and a general overall desire to make the Community as whole more positive. But to continue to hammer that GW is banning things or must somehow be fair or balanced is not accurate.

Putting an extra hassle on negative opinions, and negative opinions only, IS akin to banning them, just in a much more hypocrite way.

[Madeleine]

But just be honest. Don't call it a discussion forum if only like-minded comments are encouraged, while disagreeing ones are constantly attacked and in need to be justified.

I think you've misread the mission statement. No one's proposing that criticism will be 'constantly attacked'.

Can you not see a difference between the sort of criticism that comes in with the praise, from people who are pleased with some elements of a shos and not with others, from the sort of cynical criticism that basically boils down to wanting the show to tank, day in day out?

Can I give you an example? Go to the Doctor Who subforum. See how much criticism there is there (plenty) and see if it's 'constantly attacked' (it's disagreed with, sure, at times, but 'attacked'? no.) But see how people AREN'T perpetually talking as if it's a matter of fact that DW is made by morons and that there's no hope of ever a good DW episode again.

We'd like the Stargate portions of the forum to be like they used to be: a place where people can say that this was a sub-par episode, or that that was a limp ending, or that it was whizz-bang brilliant or whatever... but where if people are posting at all, it's because they like the show.

That's: *Like* the show.

Not necessarily 'love everything that comes out of the collective PTB pens'; nor 'can only talk about the bits you like, and please keep shtum about the bits you don't like.'

If people no longer like anything about Atlantis and don't intend to either, it's a bit of a downer for the rest when they post.

And if people are set against SGU from the start, what exactly would they want to be doing with the SGU forum anyway? Sure, there's a place to discuss the politics of the commissioning of the show etc, but that's another matter.

Laura, if you see SGU and don't like bits of it, we'll be happy for you to post which bits you disliked, and if you want to elaborate on why, fine. We hope you'll be up to discuss the eps with us. What we are not prepared to do at present is host endless non-discussion threads about how the SGU that no one has seen yet is bound to be cr--. What we are not prepared for is for the people who rain on the parade without contributing anything positive.

So if you've made your mind up that SGU is not for you, or that it'll be rubbish, I don't think GW's SGU forum will be for you either. But if you've an open mind and are planning to watch, hoping to enjoy etc...

... see you in the ep threads

[GateGipsy]

Well you want a definite answer... I don't know what Darren will decide yet. The original mission statement at the start of this thread isn't going to be the final say on the matter. Darren wants input, and he wants to hear from you all.

Personally, I would not mod someone for simply posting I don't like X, nor will I mod someone for posting I do like X. Both drive me nuts because neither promotes discussion. But I'm also driven nuts by the 'I agree' posts too, and I don't see them as moddable either. That's my input into the mission statement and I hope that Darren takes that on board. I am confident that is pretty much how he sees it too, given what he has said.

[TameFarrar]

I read the vision statement. It's wholly fuzzy and unclear and very open to interpretation.

But this new positive side will come at the cost of more censoring of negative opinions, which is my point.

In the eyes of the mods, negative posts will require more moderation and justification than positive posts, even if they, in spirits, contain the same thing. Darren specifically said so himself in response to whoever. "I hated this episode!" would be seen worse than "I loved this episode!". The first would require justification and elaboration, the 2nd not.

the first we are now telling you we would like to have it justified and clarified for discussion reasons...the second we are asking you as members to ask for justification and clarification as well.


Darren made a really good point for this and I am truly re-inventing the wheel here and just repeating him and others.....

so instead I am going to repost Darren's post on this as well

As the mods have started talking about how we might go about actually enforcing this change once it's fully in place, one thing I've suggested is that they link back to the vision statement as sort of the standard for all our conversations. If someone is trolling, or baiting, or two people are fighting and just won't let it drop, point them to the vision statement and ask them, "Is what you are doing right now consistent with what we want our forum to be?"

Day by day, post by post, I think it's much more gray than black and white -- "you broke the rules, you get modded." Now it's "You've had your say, it's time to move on." Post and interact with others in a way that is consistent with our vision for the community.

To your point, then: Posting a positive comment without any explanation or constructive contribution ("What exactly did you like about it?") isn't out of step with the community vision. In this case it's not a matter of the mods needing to step in and say, "You've broken a rule, bad turtle" -- but for the other folks in that thread to say, "OK, glad you liked it -- tell us what you liked so we can talk about it."

More gray, less black and white. More of the community shaping its own character and tone, less of the mods trying to keep people in line.

[Skydiver]

Like Tame said, re-read the vision statement. Don't simply accept the interpretations of others.

This really isn't all that different from our existing rules. It may feel that way, some may see it that way, but all we're doing is emphasizing 'find what you like about the show and enjoy it, don't lose sleep over what you don't'.

You can still say 'wow, identity was the most boring episode ever. It had no suspense at all. You know, if they had......' and elaborate on something that would have changed.

what you can't say is 'what a steaming pile of donkey doo'

For those that read and write fanfic, there is concrit...stuff like 'i liked the story, i just thought it ended too soon' and there's flames 'you can't write, stop you hack'

The former is fine. The latter...accomplishes nothing.

and all we're doing is saying, for those that just post the latter, try to take some time to go more into the constructive than just the negative.

Find what you like and immerse yourself in it. If you don't like something, then just don't worry about it and don't immerse yourself in it.

and again, guys, i know this sounds doom and gloom and horrible, but it really won't be. I think, once we get into it, you'll be surprised at just how little it will effect the majority of our posters.

And, also again, this is a process under discussion. That's why Darren posted the 'heads up' now instead of just smacking you upside the head with it one day. So that you'll see where we're going and you can start to work on things on your own.

[Reefgirl]

(2) GateWorld should provide a platform for people to voice their opinions, so we should censor those voices absolutely as little as possible.

As long as they've got something positive to say

I am also personally uncomfortable with the implication that the "overly negative" people on Gateworld are the only "thugs and bullies" in this community. There are bullies everywhere and just because some of them support the show doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable. Not in my book, anyway. If you're going to crack down on the excessive negativity are you also going to crack down on those who belittle and goad any form of criticism, even when it's "respectful and constructive?"

I found, in my research into bullying on GW, (Oh and thanks for ignoring me completely during that time Darren) that it wasn't the "Overly Negative" people that were causing the problem. There are/were a certain group of, let me call them overly enthusiastic fans, that saw every negative comment, from "XYZ sucks" to ABC could have been better", as an attack on their favourite episode/character/ship/actor/writer/showrunner and would browbeat, belittle and intimidate people until they either left the thread or left the forum completely as they felt they were either being blamed for "Bringing it on yourself", ignored by the mods or being seen as a troublemaker. And what about the negative rep system, that is just another way to browbeat and intimidate people who don't share your opinions.

You say you've been receiving a lot of complaints about all the negativity and how it's driving people away, but I know of people who've left Gateworld because they were sick of dealing with the proponents of the show hammering away at any post that was perceived as less than wholly positive. I know that's one of the reasons I've curbed my involvement in the SG-relevant sections of the forum. Guess I'll be curbing myself even more in the future. Maybe it'll be my New Year's Resolution. Doing my part to make the world (or this part of it) a better place.

Doctor Horrible would be so disgusted with me- helping to maintain the status quo?? I'd be out of the ELE for sure...

Well said

Please read the full Mission statement

It in no way says that any member is restricted from posting a negative opinion about anything. All we ask is that it be done *respectively and constructively* and then we ask that you move on into more discussion and not harp on it.

Does that apply to the Overly Positive members of the forum who harp on too?

Many already do this daily in the Episode discussion threads, as an example, and many other areas of the forum. So there is no restriction on a negative opinion, only a thread dedicated to negativity. Something we no longer wish to promote here

So you want us to be Shiney Happy People anyone who doesn't want to be should go and sit in a thread in a dark corner somewhere and not come out?

I'm with what ShadowMaat said. Proponents of the show (a select few in particular) seem to have more slack than those of us who used to enjoy SGA but no longer do or those of us with a "air of negativity" about us.

We're here to enjoy the show, but I think we should have a voice when something the producers do hamper our enjoyment.

What she said

Let me just say something about me and my fellows in the 'Anti/Complaints' threads? We're not negative all the time. We have fun in there. We remember when Atlantis was good. I've met some great people through there. And no, we don't all think alike, contrary to popular belief. We do discuss in there.

Again, what she said

ETA: back and forth discussion will not be hindered in any way if it is respectful. That will never change. Once it delves into personal goading and belittling...it is no longer respectful and so it would no longer be productive or constructive to the discussion so would have no place there.

I will hold the mods to this

So, a good way of expressing a criticism might be: "I disliked everything about that episode, and here's why ..."

A bad way of a expressing a criticism would be: "That episode was sh#te, but then I shouldn't expect any more from these writers."

We all recognize that this is a bit intangible, and it will be a learning process for everyone. And some people are already trying to make the forum a happier place, and might not need to do anything different. (Warning: If you think this thread doesn't apply to you, it probably does. )

As to Shadow's point -- yes, this applies to "Pros" as well as "Antis." We'd like to shape a community characterized by tolerance and respect on both sides, and both sides certainly have their instigators.

I'll remind you of this when the nect round of intolerance breaks out

I was a bit unclear before when referring to "threads" exclusively instead of just "posts". The thing is that GW is apparently supposed to usher in a new era where "negative" posts will need more "moderation" than positive ones and where one can say "Best episode evar!" without problems but if one just says "Worst episode evar!", it'd kinda be against the rules unless one elaborated a bit.

That's unfair. If one extreme is not allowed, the other extreme should not be allowed either.

The defense of "Best episode evar!"-posts was that "sometimes that's all you have to say". Well, sometimes, "Worst episode evar!" is all you have to say, as well. The whole spirit behind this new Vision Statement seems to be that Negativity is bad, bad, bad and that you need more justification for you negative criticisms than your positive posts.

If someone can say "Best episode evar!" without even explaining why they thought the episode was the best episode evar, than someone else should be equally justified in saying "Worst episode evar!"


Why is it not allowed to say you hate the show/an episode/something without elaboration, yet you can say you love it without elaborating? That is unfairly punishing people who dislike certain elements of the show.

If someone can say "I loved this episode!" and leave it at that, why not the opposite? Why must one defend one's negative impressions of an episode more than those with a positive impression?

It feels like trying to create a La La Land where everything is supposed to be positive or at least where negativity is punished and requires more justification than abject positivity about every little thing.

I've never expressed abject hatred for the shows. I'm still watching Atlantis after 5 seasons and countless seemingly random changes in direction. I still enjoy the show.

But I don't love everything there is about it. Therefore, I will often point out the flaws of the show in discussion. Many members on this forum view this as somehow unacceptable and will give me grief for it every chance they get, as if my way of analyzing the show is bad.

I fear that this is a step towards banning such a way of discussion. We begin small, with just disallowing people from simply saying they disliked something without enough justification. Then it might escalate, next up, people who cannot defend why they view something negatively adequately enough (and what constitutes "adequate" will be up to the mods to arbitrarily judge) will be censored.

And one day, GW might be bastion of positivity where you have to either stay positive or get out.

Well said, I fear that day is not too far away

[FallenAngelII]

Can I give you an example? Go to the Doctor Who subforum. See how much criticism there is there (plenty) and see if it's 'constantly attacked' (it's disagreed with, sure, at times, but 'attacked'? no.) But see how people AREN'T perpetually talking as if it's a matter of fact that DW is made by morons and that there's no hope of ever a good DW episode again.

But DW is written by different writers. Maybe those writers aren't, overall, "bad" in the eyes of many of their fans. I happen to think the writers of SGA did a pretty bad job at writing the later seasons of SGA. It's my opinion. I should be able to criticize their writing. Without this somehow compromising the forums or peoples enjoyment of the show.

If people no longer like anything about Atlantis and don't intend to either, it's a bit of a downer for the rest when they post.

This is not what is in question.

The question is: Why place an overall greater importance on moderating negative posts while similar post on the opposite end of the spectrum are A-OK? Darren himself said that "Best episode evar!" = No problems, while "Worst episode evar!" would require justification and elaboration.

Ummm... why? In the name of fairness, both types of posts should require justification and elaboration.

And if people are set against SGU from the start, what exactly would they want to be doing with the SGU forum anyway? Sure, there's a place to discuss the politics of the commissioning of the show etc, but that's another matter.

Maybe they aren't against SGU from the start. Maybe they even like SGU. Maybe I'll love SGU but I'll want to be able to just say "I hated this episode." once in a whole without getting infractions or the mods demanding I flesh it out more while people can say "I loved this episode!" and just leave it at that as much as they want to.

I generally stay out of the main episode threads because the majority of the posts in there are of the "I loved this episode!" with a smaller part (not 50/50) of them being "I hated it!". Both types are bad, in my opinion, since they don't open for discussion or even tell us anything about why their posters hold those opinions, but I tolerate them and see no problems with them existing.

I just don't like seeing too many of them since a thread cluttered with too many posts of those kinds will be a spammy thread and I dislike spammy threads.

However, if you're going to place more moderation on one of them, IMO, in the name of fairness, you have to do it for both.

If not, then you are placing unfair pressure and moderation on the "negative" side.

[Madeleine]

No, you're not. "OMFG this is awesome" is not discussion.

True. But who does it hurt? How does it damage GW?

I don't know what it is, if not implicit condemnation of negative views.

It's hard to explain, the difference between 'negativity' (which we want to minimise) and 'negative views' (which we have all held about certain aspects of the show, however minor and however seldom).

Pick a show you loathe. Any show. Now, if you were to deliberately hang about its forum to post how rubbish it was, that's negativity. Is that any clearer?

And what about the fact that some are asked to be more respectful than others?

I don't understand. Which people are not being askled to be sufficiently respectful?

I guess the parts I bolded in your message reach the bottom line: GateWorld forum is not for those who prefer discussing their favourite show (which includes recognising its flaws) over celebrating.

You're wrong, but you've hit an important nail nonetheless

There'll be a place for both. There'll also be a place for people to discuss the show that isn't their favourite but that they still like. What it will not be is a place for people to discuss their bete-noire show, their most reviled show, the show they despise.

As I said above, it's your money (well, Darren's) and your time. But at least display yourselves the respect you're claiming you want for the forum.

Can I make a suggestion to you regarding 'respect'?

When someone appears to be saying contradictory things, there are two starting points that should be taken:

- am I understanding it wrong?
- are they explaining it poorly?

They're always better points to start from than accusing the speaker of dishonesty.

That's the sort of thing we could do with, if we're to be a nicer place: giving people the benefit of the doubt

[Skydiver]

Here's an example.

Someone posted a thread listing all the classifications of a show, character ranks, etc. Something that took a lot of time. It may not have made a lot of sense because the poster didn't explain what it was, but it took a lot of time.

what were the replies?

wtf
what is this crap
get out more

No one said 'ok, umm, what is this?' in a nice way. they were rude and biting and mean.

So they get deleted.

That's what a lot of the goal is, to curtail dismissive nastiness and snarking.

[Pharaoh Atem]

Here's an example.

Someone posted a thread listing all the classifications of a show, character ranks, etc. Something that took a lot of time. It may not have made a lot of sense because the poster didn't explain what it was, but it took a lot of time.

what were the replies?

wtf
what is this crap
get out more

No one said 'ok, umm, what is this?' in a nice way. they were rude and biting and mean.

So they get deleted.

That's what a lot of the goal is, to curtail dismissive nastiness and snarking.

so posts will just be deleted or will infractions come into play over time.

[FallenAngelII]

the first we are now telling you we would like to have it justified and clarified for discussion reasons...the second we are asking you as members to ask for justification and clarification as well.

Darren made a really good point for this and I am truly re-inventing the wheel here and just repeating him and others.....

so instead I am going to repost Darren's post on this as well

That is saying that it's perfectly fine to not elaborate with "positive" posts (what if no one asks you to elaborate? You then have absolutely no obligation to elaborate), yet if it's a "negative" post, then elaboration is required and that the mods will step in and ask you to elaborate.

Sometimes, people don't feel like elaborating. If they're expressing their "negative opinion" respectfully, why must they elaborate when the people on the opposite end of the spectrum do not?

Why should "I hated this episode a lot" (which is only saying that the poster personally disliked the episode) require elaboration and moderation when "I loved everything there was about the episode!" does not? Why not leave the cries for elaboration in the hands of the users in both cases instead of saying "Hey, if you're posting a negative impression like that, maybe the mods will step in and interpret it as against the rules".

what you can't say is 'what a steaming pile of donkey doo'

But what if I word it respectfully?

"In my opinion, this episode was one of the worst this season."

But leaving it at that would apparently be against the rules or close to being against the rules (once the new rules kick in) for some reason, while saying "In my opinion, this episode was one of the best this season." and leaving it at that would not.

The question here is "Why". Why is one extreme allowed while the other is not?

Note to the mods: This is the only point of the new Vision Statement I'm currently questioning. I'm not questioning anything else. Do not bring in people posting stuff that is disrespectful or flaming into this discussion (against me). I am not defending such posts.

I'm questioning why one extreme will be moderated heavily while the other will be allowed to slide without any moderation. If I present my negative impression respectfully, why can't I leave it at that without elaboration while someone can present a positive impression without elaboration just fine?

Keep in mind that I almost always elaborate. I just want the option to not have to should I choose not to.

[Madeleine]

.

That's unfair. If one extreme is not allowed, the other extreme should not be allowed either.

But the other extreme IS allowed: it's allowed on the I_Hate_Stargate.com site that we have agreed is not GW.

Why should GW be fair on anything but people? It's never been fair to shows: Stargate gets more threads than Star Trek. It's never been fair to views either: "I like marmite" was allowed a thread but "free nike trainers" was not.

We're fair to people, we hope, but there's no reason we should be fair to anything else.

If you want fair, set your own forum up, and good luck finding a definition of fair that suits all of your posters.

someone else should be equally justified in saying "Worst episode evar!"

It'd be hard to resist the urge to mod the spelling.

But perhaps I'd have little problem with "worst ep ever" if it was only posted a limited number of times per poster. It implies that other eps were good, or at least better, y'see

The more problematical is like where people simply diss the show again and again and have nothing but dissing.

[GateGipsy]

Blimey possibly longest post ever!

As long as they've got something positive to say

As long as they're not going to just bash, make negative personal comments, or simply attack other posters, I would hope.

There are/were a certain group of, let me call them overly enthusiastic fans, that saw every negative comment, from "XYZ sucks" to ABC could have been better", as an attack on their favourite episode/character/ship/actor/writer/showrunner and would browbeat, belittle and intimidate people

Yes, this is an issue, and is one of the reasons behind the whole Vision statement thing. Personally I feel this is something that needs to be talked about as well.

And what about the negative rep system, that is just another way to browbeat and intimidate people who don't share your opinions.

welll what about it? This is a discussion thread on the way we'd like GW to go in the future. Personally I say we get rid of the reds. What do you think?

Does that apply to the Overly Positive members of the forum who harp on too?

I think that the negativity has been a noticeable problem that simply has to be addressed. But that doesn't mean that belittling and personal attacks by anyone is being ignored. We need to build a forum where it doesn't matter what kind of fan you are, your viewpoint is respected even if it isn't agreed with. What do you think? What would you suggest to promote that?

So you want us to be Shiney Happy People anyone who doesn't want to be should go and sit in a thread in a dark corner somewhere and not come out?

That is up to you - it is up to you to be the sort of poster you want other posters to be (ie respectful of other points of view, willing to tolerate opinions that you disagree with - that is, disagreeing with opinions, but not in an 'that opinion shouldn't exist' kind of way).

I'll remind you of this when the nect round of intolerance breaks out

Well that's what this is all about. We don't want intolerance anymore! We want a way of combating intolerance! This thread is your chance to help us do that.