Chat needs better moderation

Feedback
65

Since I’ve been quoted in the impromptu poll of chat denizens, I might as well add my two cents here as well. I don’t think any enforced separation of normal chatter (off-topic) and go discussion will end up increasing the volume or quality of the go discussion. Most in-depth go conversations that start in English chat are actually continued in a demo board or in reference to a specific game or review, so that variations can be shared more easily. In that way, the English chat only really serves as a nexus, where you can find 3-4 people at any time willing to talk about Go. The actual technical Go discussion doesn’t necessarily happen in the chat, but the connections are made.

Most conversations about Go fall that do happen mainly in chat fall into a few specific categories: asking for general study advice, talking about Go as a hobby, venting or pontificating about how hard/easy and great/terrible the game is, and complaints about the ranking system or another player. Often, English chat just serves as a FAQ for OGS in general, directing new members to contact the mods or to more permanent sources of information (Sensei’s, or posts on the forum, youtube videos, etc). It’s one of the only places you can be sure to find a human willing to help.

2 Likes
66

Part of the problem is it is that English is the sole default channel so people who want to find a human willing to help go there first and if they see some of the nonsense that occasionally happens in chat they may get turned off and not seek help. You might say that most Go questions asked are responded to willingly but what about unasked ones?

My proposal was to make some kind of notification upon joining chat that links to some Go focused groups - or just copy the Beginners room from KGS.

Someone brought up rules and people falsely reporting some chatter. That can also be addressed by a simple notification. I remember most IRC rooms having a join message sent to you with rules, FAQ, etc.

67

I actually agree that there should be more noticeable FAQs, rules, and help for new players. It’s a role that chat fulfills because, evidently, other resources are not reaching their intended audience.

I don’t agree that chat is so off-putting in its average content. It’s more respectful and self-moderated than most online chatrooms. It’s tone can be a bit sarcastic, but that’s pretty common for casual conversation among friends. I think that natural tone is what keeps it active. Too much moderation and on-topic policing can make a community sterile.

1 Like
68

This isn’t what people are saying. Asking for more moderation is to prune out the outlier content. I guess I get that you were introduced to this topic by Eugene asking an extreme question as a poll. I don’t really agree with his approach :face_with_raised_eyebrow:. That discussion has been hashed out a few times and asking chat regulars was obviously going to get the replies it did: “We like it as is, don’t change it.”

69

Well, the moderation of any of the channels is limited by moderator resources and by a willingness/ability to report violators. I’m not opposed to any effort to increase either of those two variables or to make rules more clear.

70

I remember that we had some “no religion, no politics, no sex” policy in the english chat for very long time, but i admit that lately we have slipped out of it more often than before. And i can see why the chat often is bit awkward, unpleasant, or looks straight our toxic place for someone. I know i’m at partly responsible of it, so i will try to behave bit better and keep it more clean in the future.

1 Like
71

I love the fact that “should we ban politics, among other things” almost immediately devolves into a discussion of politics.

I’m of the opinion that the English chat (which I’ve never used) should remain as open as possible, with more restrictive chats being alternate options (e.g “Go Discussion”). The more active the landing page is (even if it’s off topic) the healthier and more welcoming OGS will appear for new members. If people want to use it for chat games and politics they should be able to do so. Banning NSFW content/hate speech/etc is fine, but I wouldn’t want to go beyond that.

3 Likes
72

If I may observe: I see that the conclusion is that the topic of #English should stay the same.

What I heard amongst moderators is reaching that conclusion in parallel as well, based on the good arguments put forward here.

This effectively answers the proposal of the OP, which was to moderate the topic to “On Go Only”: this proposal is not going to fly.

As an aside, the topic of tone came up. Everything I’ve read here and in chat tells me

  • The tone is not that bad these days
  • It would be OK to moderate the tone if it veered back to “street talk” too much in a way that would be offputting for newcomers.

Thoughts?

(Note, I don’t get to “make the decision”, and this is not stating a decision, I am just summarising where the concensus seems to be at the moment).

2 Likes
73

what do you mean by “street talk”?

74

Hmmm.

Before answering that, note that the more you pin it down, the more that a lawyer type will come along and argue the definition and which side of the line they were on.

I am not inclined to fall into that trap, but I do see that a definition that people understand would be important.

It works better if moderation has reasonable guidelines and discretion to apply them.

What would you like the guideline or definition of “the kind of talk that lowers the tone” to be?

75

some more insights into chat opinion, kind of a long read, but it’s topical;

[21:41]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: mmmmh

[21:41]loredude Ω: yeah, which is why we gotta resist, i dont actually know if that many people want chat changed

[21:41]smog山人: generally when someone gets banned…

[21:41]smog山人: a week passes

[21:41]smog山人: then a month…

[21:41]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: i think it was well-deserved critisism

[21:41]loredude Ω: its a confusing mess

[21:41]Rocco: really?

[21:41]smog山人: then someone asks; hey, where’s lora

[21:41]Rocco: how so koba?

[21:42]smog山人: and someone else answers; who?

[21:42]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: in the past 2 years, chat has often been little bit weird

[21:42]smog山人: they say; some dude that was here about a month ago

[21:42]smog山人: answer; oh, I’m new, so idk

[21:42]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: by ‘often’ i mean like on daily basis >___>

[21:42]smog山人: then; oh, hmm, oh well

[21:42]seequ: wdym weird

[21:43]smog山人: well, personally, I stand by what I said on the forum

[21:43]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: either weird or ankward, or then just attacking or violent in nature

[21:43]smog山人: I think it’s crucial, if you moderate, to moderate consistently

[21:43]Rocco: dont get that

[21:44]Rocco: how do you mean awkward

[21:44]smog山人: for me, the only uncomfortable times is when there’s inflammatory talk involving politics or religion

[21:44]Rocco: its an internet chat room, you can’t hope for perfection

[21:44]smog山人: the boring times are when people are talking about programming or economics

[21:44]Rocco: well, politics is well relegated to off topic

[21:45]smog山人: no, rocs, last time I suggested politics talk were taken elsewhere I was told to go elsewhere myself

[21:45]smog山人: and, since there is no rule to constitute either party being right, there was naught to do than just accept

[21:45]loredude Ω: yeah i also dont like politics here

[21:46]smog山人: technically it would be me in the wrong, since I would be the one disrupting the flow of chat

[21:46]smog山人: by stating the topics were best not discussed in a go chatroom

[21:46]Rocco: how was ogs chat pre-two years ago

[21:47]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: less toxic

[21:47]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: but i guess, it was smaller back then

[21:47]smog山人: that’s a very general statement though

[21:47]smog山人: and it’s hard to figure out specifically what you mean by toxicity

[21:47]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: like umm

[21:48]littlewizard: Let us ask Britney.

[21:48]loredude Ω: most of the time ogs chat is pretty nontoxic

[21:49]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: you know how subject like “immigration” means totally different things depending in what country you are living at, and what kinda background you have

[21:49]smog山人: ah

[21:49]smog山人: then I see what you mean and I agree

[21:49]littlewizard: Almost anything goes in OGS chat, and it stays relatively civil. And when it gets dicey, mob rule seems to self-regulate and suggest moving it to off-topic.

[21:49]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: its a subject that is bound to cause different opinions in international chatroom

[21:50]smog山人: indeed

[21:50]nadoss: speaking of which, what was the name of that super toxic dude who hung out in here and talked shit all day long and only ever played people and bots 5 ranks lower than him

[21:50]smog山人: that could be anyone

[21:50]nadoss: I forget his name I just remember butting heads with him on multiple occasions, what ever happened to that guy, did he quit go like he said he would 40 times?

[21:50]Tichy: the real toxic people are those who constantly whine about things being toxic

[21:50]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: and if you just stumble into a discussion about immigration, you really dont wanna step in and ask something about joseki or something

[21:50]linawu631: lol

[21:51]smog山人: yeah, agree

[21:51]nadoss: that’s why I was confused about people assuming that “the flow of chat” was doing just that KoBa

[21:51]nadoss: yesterday people were implying that “don’t disrupt the flow of chat” meant that if two people were having a conversation, don’t start another topic, but that’s just nuts

[21:52]littlewizard: yes i have noticed people say “may i ask about Go” occasionally. i feel bad that they feel the need to ask

[21:52]smog山人: well, that was me, naddy

[21:52]Rocco: but you said daily koba

[21:52]smog山人: and I still think that’s a valid interpretation of the rule

[21:52]Rocco: its not like immigration chat is daily

[21:52]nadoss: you had a more detailed and complex point

[21:52]nadoss: some people really oversimplified your notion

[21:52]littlewizard: Do not talk about what you want to talk about. This is the Internet.

[21:52]smog山人: oh

[21:52]nadoss: unless I’m mistaken

[21:52]smog山人: I think though, it’s a mistake in the rule

[21:53]smog山人: or a correctness

[21:53]Rocco: flow of chat just means activity

[21:53]littlewizard: rules?

[21:53]Rocco: not on topic discussion

[21:53]smog山人: when a rule is so vague, it can be enforced whenever or however chosen at the time

[21:53]Tichy: nobody dares to have an open chat about immigration openly in this open chat so

[21:53]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: rocs, that was just an example

[21:53]nadoss: I still consider breaking the flow of chat to mean someone spamming something disruptive 10+ times so that people have to scroll and search to follow their own conversation

[21:53]Tichy: ofc it isn’t daily

[21:53]Goodie Tushu: Whats up chat

[21:53]smog山人: hi tush

[21:53]nadoss: or loudly insulting someone. What’s up dude

[21:53]Goodie Tushu: o/

[21:54]nadoss: I remember there was a guy who used to make a new account every day just to insanely curse out one of the mods

[21:54]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: there has been many many more subjects here which were ‘controversioal’ at least

[21:54]smog山人: well, naddy, just yesterday the flow of chat rule was used to warn about rp in chat

[21:54]:sparkling_heart: KoBa :sparkling_heart:: nado, i miss voug too ^^

[21:54]smog山人: and that was manually typed sentences which moved relativiely slowly

[21:54]Rocco: true I guess - but I still think the community self-regulates as littlewizard said

[21:54]smog山人: but adding to the other chat, it made it appear rather fast

[21:55]loredude Ω: yeah this is kinda the s p e e d c h a t

[21:55]smog山人: and yeh I remember him too, nads

[21:56]smog山人: I reported him several times, often before he got to spamming inflammatory stuf

[21:56]nadoss: I think doing some strange rp in chat is disruptive, but I can see how that would be considered a distinctly gray area

[21:56]smog山人: since he always had usernames with encoded racism

[21:56]smog山人: he was easy to root out though

[21:56]nadoss: oh absolutely

[21:57]smog山人: always a mod im’ed me and sayd; “whatchu mean?” I tried to subtly explain what the code meant and they ; “oooh, banned him thanks”

[21:58]loredude Ω: i just want to run a foolish text adventure game in chat

[21:58]smog山人: but, on the topic of politics and religion, I do admit there’s some trouble when writing rules about it

[21:59]smog山人: like someone mentioned, the philosophic arguments about general political theory or religion are rather enjoyable to watch

[21:59]nadoss: I remembered the name of that guy that was super toxic before so I looked at his recent games and it seems like he’s grown up and become a pretty nice dude. I assume it was just weird, misplaced teenage angst

[21:59]Goodie Tushu: happens for every1

[21:59]smog山人: well, if one feels the group dynamic is turning against oneself it can happen that one becomes defensive and lashes out

[21:59]nadoss: now that is verifiably false, but you’re right, it happens for a lot of people

[21:59]Tichy: everyone gets old not everyone gets nice

[22:00]nadoss: ^Tichy

[22:00]Tichy: just look at joe biden

[22:00]nadoss: haha

[22:00]nadoss: he’s a pleasant individual

[22:00]loredude Ω: what about me?

[22:00]Tichy: let’s see what countries he decides to bomb over the next four years

[22:01]smog山人: you said it doesn’t happen daily, rocs?

[22:01]Goodie Tushu: Is Biden a terrorist?

[22:02]nadoss: speaking of self-regulating

[22:02]Tichy: yes

[22:02]Goodie Tushu: Why so?

[22:02]Goodie Tushu: Just want to learn your ideas about him

[22:03]Tichy: well, inciting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of a country? but sure, he’s not throwing bombs

[22:03]Tichy: not himself anyway

[22:03]Tichy: too weak

[22:03]smog山人: I can only state the normal

[22:04]smog山人: fb is a more proper forum for such discussions, ticks

[22:04]nadoss: *Parler

[22:04]Tichy: nah facebook bans you for straying too far off course

[22:04]Tichy: this is more off the “book” than face"book"

[22:05]Tichy: but I’m not gonna divulge further

76

What do you see as the takeway from this?

It is largely in line with the concensus I observed above, or does it bring differing elements that need to be considered?

1 Like
77

this was a while ago, sorry, but i was reading through it again and i realized something. we are all here for some sort of good time, and thats ok.

1 Like
78

sorry this is also a reply to a thing quite a bit ago, but i feel like people are misunderstanding the whole rp thing. its not some weird kinky thing or anything, and most of the people involved did move to a group for it. other then that there was the lork game but thats a whole other matter.

1 Like
79

For my part, I’m mostly happy being able to close chat whenever I’m not in the mood for it, and I mostly divert my attention whenever the subject I mentioned in the chat log as ‘boring’ are discussed, but kobs has a point that some discussions can be perceived differently depending on the cultural perspective of the reader, and I tend to try to dissuade discussions that I interpret as potentially being perceived as inflammable, or just simply off-putting.

I have to repeat, though, it’s much preferable with a hands-off approach than a too invasive approach, that might lead to an inactive chat. What scares me sometimes though, is that when moderation is applied, people tend to be banned rather suddenly, without explanation to the general community as to why or how it happened, leaving the others to guess, and the user who was banned unable to explain to others themselves. Another danger might be where someone might be antagonised by chat, and ousted to the point of feeling unwelcome, and thus left only with the options of either abandoning the community, or lashing out at it. If the latter is chosen, then reports would most likely follow, and the mods would be left to deal with the drama.

It makes me wonder if a more clear rule-set, though, as mentioned in the chat log, would be somewhat difficult to write out clearly, could have the potential of taking some of the responsibility off the mods’ hands to decide case by case how much is too much, etc. Though, I am very hesitant in supporting a more restrictive ruleset, since as the quote goes; “it is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few.”

2 Likes
80

I think it’ll be good to restrict some larger themes that lend themselves to toxicity and unfruitful discussion, namely as Koba said, religion (not philosophical musings though, we do enjoy those from time to time), politics, and sex. Personally not in favour of a ban on curse words.

Also, keep banning spammers, deliberate antagonising, and/or any form of hate crime.

Apart from that let it stay as is.

2 Likes
81

It’s an interesting point. We do run “a closed courtroom” of moderation for the most part.

It feels right (or has felt right) to me, but with a spotlight on it I can’t immediately say why.

This might be a good topic for a separate thread.

In the context of #English, if you applied this it would be on the basis that you have assumed that the idea of a “right” applied to a chat room in OGS.

It does not. You, as a user of OGS, have no rights whatsoever. It’s a blunt truth. You are using a service provided by “OGS” under the terms that this entity specifies. These terms can be whatever OGS deems appropriate for the best interests of OGS.

What you do have is the support of the people running OGS to build together a server that takes into account the best interests of everyone.

That’s the whole reason why we’re having this conversation: to thrash out what will be best for OGS and us all together. But please don’t bring “rights” into it, it’s a red-herring.

1 Like
82

reply to ckersch

it only sorta did, and that was more just because zone man doesn’t really know what free speech means and kept talking about it. actually, not super political.

1 Like
83

^^^ that’s exactly what I meant in my previous post too. When I said the broad statement “the concept of rights doesn’t apply” I was specifically referring to the “freedom of speech” rights that people are inclined to invoke. I’m not 100% sure if my broad statement would be completely true across the board actually :blush: But the point does remain.

Let’s focus on figuring out what will work best, without getting into “rights”.

2 Likes
84

I’m sorry for the philosophical pedantry that ensues;

in this context a ‘right’ would imply options, or, anything within the boundaries of possibility that isn’t limited by a ‘charter’, or rule-set. I.e. I have the ‘right’ to play whatever opening I chose, but not to intentionally grief the game by refusing scoring. It was probably a confusing setting to use the quote in, but that is in essence what it implies, as far as I understand it. As in, any rule-set applied would by default limit the user’s options.

I apologise if I’m interpreting it wrong, and hopefully it did not come across in a hostile manner.

1 Like