in reply to Method for Containing ForestFires

IMHO, the scope and frequency of the problem doesn't seem big enough to merit the extra effort you're requesting in order to give it "special treatment" -- which includes having to make case-by-case decisions about where the line gets crossed between a substantive debate (which might include some "inappropriate remarks") and a pointless exchange of insults or baseless/inflammatory assertions.

We have the default (and user-adjustable) depth limit on viewing threads, which serves well not only in runaway flame wars but also in the "conscientious but too detailed" pursuit of perl questions. And it remains easy to drill down whenever you want to.

As for isolating bad behavior in its own section of the Monastery, I'd rather see it remain (or be reaped, when possible) in context, and I'd rather not see a section devoted to holding bad behavior, for fear that some might see it as encouragement to continue in that vein, given that there's a "safe" place reserved for it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Method for Containing ForestFires
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 06, 2011 at 22:20 UTC
    some might see it as encouragement to continue

    ++ Additionally (for luis.roca): this sort of social-meta-management is Troll Chow®.

[reply]

      There are too many ways to keep score.

      Troll A says: Right on! My post made it to the fire pit in 3 minutes and 7 seconds!

      Troll B says: My post started a sub-thread where 7 posts got thrown in the fire pit!

      ad infinitum...


      TGI says moo

[reply]
Re^2: Method for Containing ForestFires
by luis.roca (Deacon) on Nov 06, 2011 at 23:49 UTC

    I'm not suggesting one large sandbox for all the flame wars to reside and/or a new section on the site labeled as such. I'm also not suggesting replacing the existing consideration system for individual offending nodes. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. Each flame war that spans across multiple threads would be collected in it's own thread.

    We have a mechanism for enacting this through consideration. Earlier I mistakenly responded to this thread's parent (me) when I meant to respond to CountZero. I requested an edit to fold the node under his reply. This would not be that different. I also don't think it would involve that much more effort by the community once it's been integrated. If it's not that frequent a problem as you suggest *(Personally, I disagree.) then it should be even less work. If it is more frequent then, I believe, it would be worth exploring.

    Please have a look at the article I posted earlier on dealing with flame wars through soft security. It's very thorough with what I believe are some good ideas:
    http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForestFire

    * I'm not simply referring to the last few months or individuals. We have members on our site who seem to, more than occasionally, let there emotions get the better of them, carrying their back and forth across different threads. I wouldn't suggest this just for a random trouble maker that stops by once in a while.


    UPDATE
    Sunday, 06.Sunday.Nov.2011 :: 7:03 PM :: Added note on personal view of frequency of disruptive threads.


    "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion