OP moderated threads?

Post Reply New Topic

Edit:

I don't know how to end the poll before the date I originally set, but there's no longer a point in voting, there is a decision.

End edit

I would like to ask opinions on either a new forum or a new type of thread, in which the original poster can delete (but not edit) any contribution to the thread. The intention is to avoid the situation, most common in PPR, where the OP asks for contributions from people with a particular perspective, and some apparently see that as a challenge to derail the thread. Giving the OP the ability to delete these posts would prevent that.

If an OP moderated forum or OP moderated threads were clearly identified, contributors would know they risk having posts deleted at the possibly arbitrary whim of the OP. If they knowingly take that risk, they have no reasonable complaint if they do get stuff deleted. Anyone who overuses the deletion privilege will soon stop getting any replies in threads where they claim the deletion privilege. Anyone who keeps trolling either a particular person or a particular opinion will soon give up trying this in the OP moderated threads.

I rarely start threads, so I have had little opportunity to have my own derailed, and I didn't have a big problem with the few I did start. But I have been annoyed too often when an interesting discussion got totally off the original topic. I also admit that I am not without sin. At least once a dispute I had with another contributor hijacked a thread for some time. I did try to move the new topic to a new thread or pm, but failed to persuade my opponent, so I eventually just dropped it, much later than I should have. If the OP could have just deleted our dispute, we probably would have been forced to shut up or move much earlier.

I don't know how difficult the technicalities are. If it is easy to do, would this option be welcome? I want it to be clear that I don't suggest that the OP should always be able to delete posts. I only ask whether it would be useful to make that option available either before starting a thread if the thread is then clearly marked as OP moderated, or in a dedicated forum.

Last edited by Gromit on 26 Dec 2008, 6:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

The idea is utterly daft, as the BLOGS we're provided already serve this purpose.

I like this idea. Perhaps we could create a new class of member, a "topic starter", to be granted to members who show a respect for the rules and Wrong Planet's mission, who would have moderator powers in any topic they started. I don't think that it should be limited to one forum though, but should cover all of the fourms.

We all know that the moderators are overworked and under appreciated. Who better then the OP to keep a specific topic under control?

I think this could be a decent idea. For example, take this thread started by ephemerella: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt86496.html

Instead of discussing the topic, many of the responders have jumped on her because of their interpretation of some of the wording in the OP. The thread is now 7 pages long and much of it has nothing to do with the topic. Part of the topic is similar to this thread - how do you filter users from a thread so that you only get input from those "qualified" or "experienced" enough to answer thoughtfully? Topics quite often get hijacked here - people post witty comments that have nothing to do with the OP and then members respond to the wit rather than the OP. Then the entire thread gets derailed. It seems like these threads would benefit from having the OP be able to police them enough the keep them on topic.

I think you'd have to add another feature to the system to make this work well - the ability to ban users from your thread once you've removed their post. That way they post the same drivel over and over or hijack the thread by asking "where'd my post go" or damning the "thought nazis" or whatever else people do when their thought-turds get deleted.

A less drastic alternative would be to allow the OP to mark posts as OT and give users the option to ignore OT posts. A notice could attached to the thread so that readers would know that OT posts exist and provide a link to read the unedited thread. The site rules would have to be modified so that posting "why is my post OT" would be a violation.

I like NobelCynic's proposal.

I can see some role for limited OP moderation, in certain circumstances. I've started two threads fairly recently that have been completely derailed, one by a semantics debate with Awesomelyglorious and one because the nature of the thread (religion) made it inevitable that it would fall from its purpose before the first page was done. I believe that one has also devolved into an Awesomelyglorious flamewar by now.

I also am confused by the fact that there are now four written posts in support of OP moderation and only one vote in its favor. Why is this?

I am wholly in support of this idea. It would be especially useful for informational threads, enabling the poster to compile information in the OP and then delete posts to keep down the clutter.

I am not sure about that. It would introduce the problem of selecting those who get that right. Selecting them would both be extra work, and would lead to allegations of bias from some of those who don't get those powers but are sure they deserve them.



It was reading those threads on the same day gave me the idea for OP moderation.


Great idea. That would work a lot better than the OP deleting posts. Readers could decide whether they want to see everything, or want to avoid what the OP thinks is off topic. It would need a toggle at the top of each thread page, letting the reader switch between "all posts" and "on topic posts". Technically probably more difficult, but both democratic and helpful.

This could be combined with your other idea, where instead of the OP having the right to ban someone from a thread, the OP can mark all future posts from an individual as automatically off topic. This should only be useful if there are people who try to sabotage the off topic classification by overwhelming the OP with lots of separate short off topic posts, to waste the OP's time. If people don't do that, the ability to tag someone as a persistent distraction to a thread won't be necessary.

Would those who object be willing to give a reason? There are more votes against than for the idea, but apart from Fnord, the only arguments so far are in favour. It would be useful to know the reasons for objecting.


I don't understand. The purpose of my suggestion is to give someone who starts a thread the option of keeping that thread on topic. How do blogs do that?

This probably would require some poster use of Greasemonkey on Firefox.


I suspect that several people voted against it by mistake; I was the first vote in favor of the idea and yet three prior posters stated their support for it openly.

From a development standpoint this should be trivial and browser independant. It requires these changes:
1) A single bit field in the database table for posts to indicate whether or not it's been marked OT. This could be a new field or if there is already an integer used for "flag-type" stuff in the database, the next bit would be used for OT.
2) When the script runs to print out the thread, it needs to skip the OT posts if the user hasn't opted to view all of them.
3) When the original author of the thread reads it, buttons need to be available to toggle whether the post is OT or not, and a script needs to be written to toggle the flag in the database.

That's it. If you wanted to go ahead with the "automatically OT further comments by user X" then you'd need a second bit in the database and modify the post script to set it if relevant.

Also - I hadn't voted before so that could have skewed the count as well.

EDIT: typo

this feature is not going to be implemented

OK. Thanks for the quick response.

OH, ThankYouThankYouThankYouThankYouThankYou!! !! !

You've already provided us with blogspace, in which we can delete any followup comments, and for that I'm very grateful.

In other words, you allow me to boot people out of my own little padded cell, so why should I be allowed to run any other part of the asylum?

Thanx again, Alex!

thanks for not giving us something we want, and on christmas too

WrongPlanet Is Alex' site. It's not a public institution we fund with our taxes, where we have a right to demand a say in how it's run. It's like being invited to a party. If we don't like the music or the rules our host makes to prevent the party changing in a way he doesn't like, we can leave and have another party. If we decide to stay, we can make polite proposals, but we have to accept the decisions of our host.

And if WP were a public institution, the decision would still be the same, because the public vote also went against the proposal.

Free crap is still crap.

It won't be implemented because it can't be implemented. I don't think the forum's settings will allow it.