Encouraging beefier/tofuier content

Tools    





Now see THIS is what I was talking about:

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=70562

As I said, I really wanted to bring the thread to moderator attention after I'd read the opening comments.

I was just completely shocked by it.

I mean, it's PERFECT.

It should be pinned to the top of the forum as the way to introduce a topic.

Who knew FilmBiff had it in him?

If we could all be a little more like FB, think of what might happen!

This could be greatest site in the long history of the interwebs!!!!



I understand what you are saying conceptually, and I understand the desire that a place you spend time with have more "worthy" content. It's the frustration of flipping through a magazine and realizing there's only one good article and the rest is total fluff.

But I'm questioning the logistics and reality of what you're talking about. How is more content in opening remarks being suggested, and by whom?

And if a sub-forum is created where the expectation is that discussion is deeper, then I think that does require moderation or at the very least creates a situation where people are being policed regarding the quality/quantity of what they are writing.

Norms, conventions, and expectations are created by a community. On a forum like this, you then also have the other layer of moderators who enforce official policies. But how people use a site like this varies widely by what they want to get out of it. A fundamental problem you're running into is that group norms can only exist when goals are aligned, and the goals of people using this site are not totally aligned in terms of what they want out of posting here. Some people might just want to have a place where they can learn about movies they haven't heard of, create a log of what they've seen, get some basic social interaction, etc.

So, again, the best way to shape the behavior of other people and the overall nature of a place is to support the behaviors you appreciate and ignore the ones you don't. And, more broadly, accept that some people may not use a space in a way that you like. I post on a semi-private journal thing, and there's one guy who uses it to give extremely detailed accounts of his fights in Smash Bros tournaments and I kind of hate it, but whatever. Who am I to say how he uses his page?
While I continue to be surprised by your strong opposition to the basic best netiquette I'm suggesting either be suggested or enshrined in a sub-forum, I also continue to appreciate your ongoing engagement with the topic.

Can I ask if you have a sense of why you so strongly oppose what I'm proposing? I don't ask in an effort to mount some greater defense or to make fun, but just out of my ongoing surprise. Do you work in preservation, and thus strongly object to alteration? I'm being serious and not making light btw.

I appreciate your magazine analogy (do those still exist?), but feel the atmosphere of a social media site is more immersive, and that shallow distraction is always happy to overwhelm all else. A magazine can be more easily ignored as one of many, but not an environment of discussion which may fall prey to superficiality and distraction.

Logistics and reality are not complicated or dire. I'm suggesting a suggestion or a sub-forum from which topics could be moved (at worst) into genpop if the basic proposed netiquette is not observed.

No proposal of content quality has been presented, nor any policing thereof. I truly have no idea where these concerns are coming from.

I'm just asking about basic best netiquette being suggested or enshrined subforumally.

As in "I read this book about Orson Welles. It says he wasn't that great, and that Manky was the real genius behind Kane, and Jedediah (aka Manky) the only truly compelling character. Manky was my uncle, but even I disagree that he was a genius, though of course I am. Here's a link. What do you think?"

That took me about a minute to write, and lays out the topic, provides a link, and also gives a number of options in reply. ("Tell us more about Uncle Manky!" "Did he end up like Jedediah?" "I agree that Kane is not that great, and here's why.")

It's astonishingly uncomplicated, and I don't see a downside to suggesting or enshrining a few sentences to lay out the what and why. I only see an upside.

As far as "best ways of shaping the behavior of other people" goes, I'm not about that, and don't know where such a social engineering perspective comes from or why it's being erroneously applied to my very simple suggestions.

I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting, no more and no less.

I look forward to better understanding your resistance, and hope I've clarified what I'm suggesting, how it might work, and allayed your concerns about policing quality and "shaping the behavior of others."



While I continue to be surprised by your strong opposition to the basic best netiquette I'm suggesting either be suggested or enshrined in a sub-forum, I also continue to appreciate your ongoing engagement with the topic.
I go back to: suggested by who, and how?

Can I ask if you have a sense of why you so strongly oppose what I'm proposing?
Because I think it would be logistically weird and ultimately wouldn't actually accomplish the goal of having people write more complex introductions to their topics.

I'm suggesting a suggestion or a sub-forum from which topics could be moved (at worst) into genpop if the basic proposed netiquette is not observed.
Right, so this requires action from the moderators or users correcting other users. I just don't see it as being a good thing.

As far as "best ways of shaping the behavior of other people" goes, I'm not about that, and don't know where such a social engineering perspective comes from or why it's being erroneously applied to my very simple suggestions.
You are literally describing taking steps to alter current behavior that you don't like, via "suggestion", creating a "this is serious talk" sub-forum (with implied or explicit rules for participation), and moderation to relocate posts that don't fit certain standards. The whole point of this thread is you asking how we can make people change their behavior to post better introductions to their topics.

And to be very clear, shaping the behavior of other people is not a bad thing necessarily. Do you know how many internet spaces had (or have) a convention of greeting any new female poster with sexual harassment that was either a "joke" or in earnest? That's a cultural element of a community, and the way that other posters/moderators respond to that kind of thing sets a tone. I don't think that someone who in the past has openly asked for "titty pics" from other users would do so here, that's an example of a community/culture shaping behavior, and for me personally I find that a good thing.

Likewise, when you express appreciation for the hard work that someone has put into a thread or a review, you are giving them positive reinforcement for that behavior, which increases the likelihood of them continuing to do that. Really, to some degree, any response at all to another person---and that includes ignoring them---is giving them a little nudge. Human interaction is inherently behavior shaping.

I'm not objecting to your desired outcome (more in-depth conversations, more engaging opening posts to threads)---they sound great! I just don't think that your suggested tactics would be effective, encouraging, kind, or well-received, and they would add more work to the moderators' plate.



I go back to: suggested by who, and how?

It seems pretty straightforward, but what do you think might be best?

Because I think it would be logistically weird and ultimately wouldn't actually accomplish the goal of having people write more complex introductions to their topics.

More complex introductions, or just follow basic netiquette, if only in a sub-forum?

Why do you object to a sub-forum?


Right, so this requires action from the moderators or users correcting other users. I just don't see it as being a good thing.

Possibly having to move a thread or two is a huge burden?

You are literally describing taking steps to alter current behavior that you don't like, via "suggestion", creating a "this is serious talk" sub-forum (with implied or explicit rules for participation), and moderation to relocate posts that don't fit certain standards. The whole point of this thread is you asking how we can make people change their behavior to post better introductions to their topics.

The intensity of your opposition to this astonishes me, and appears unshakable. Ah well.

And to be very clear, shaping the behavior of other people is not a bad thing necessarily. Do you know how many internet spaces had (or have) a convention of greeting any new female poster with sexual harassment that was either a "joke" or in earnest? That's a cultural element of a community, and the way that other posters/moderators respond to that kind of thing sets a tone. I don't think that someone who in the past has openly asked for "titty pics" from other users would do so here, that's an example of a community/culture shaping behavior, and for me personally I find that a good thing.

Wow.

Likewise, when you express appreciation for the hard work that someone has put into a thread or a review, you are giving them positive reinforcement for that behavior, which increases the likelihood of them continuing to do that. Really, to some degree, any response at all to another person---and that includes ignoring them---is giving them a little nudge. Human interaction is inherently behavior shaping.

I'm not objecting to your desired outcome (more in-depth conversations, more engaging opening posts to threads)---they sound great! I just don't think that your suggested tactics would be effective, encouraging, kind, or well-received, and they would add more work to the moderators' plate.[/quote]

Do you have an alternative suggestion or suggestions?



Not everyone has the same posting style when it comes to being on forums, and forcing those who arent as in depth in their posting because you're not a fan of threads without substance isn't fair to them. I have come across threads on here with well thought out opinions but they got little to no interaction, so it's all on what draws their interest.

If a post with just a youtube link gets more interaction than say, the Hawk Tuah girl thread that you posted, what's the big deal?
__________________
Last Movie Watched: Terrifier 2 (2022).
Last TV Show Watched: Jurassic World: Chaos Theory (S2:E10).



Not everyone has the same posting style when it comes to being on forums, and forcing those who arent as in depth in their posting because you're not a fan of threads without substance isn't fair to them. I have come across threads on here with well thought out opinions but they got little to no interaction, so it's all on what draws their interest.

If a post with just a youtube link gets more interaction than say, the Hawk Tuah girl thread that you posted, what's the big deal?
Sounds like a sub-forum might work then. Thank you for your input.



It seems pretty straightforward, but what do you think might be best?
Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.

The intensity of your opposition to this astonishes me, and appears unshakable. Ah well.
I wouldn't describe my own personal reaction to your idea as intense. However I am confident in my stance that your proposed solutions would not solve what you see as a problem.

I appreciate that you are frustrated by what you see as an abundance of shallow or underdeveloped threads, that it might feel overwhelming having to sort through those threads to find the heftier discussion, and that you'd like to see that change.

Do you have an alternative suggestion or suggestions?
Yes, and they are laid out in my previous posts. Boost (via rep, supportive responses, or modeling in your own writing) what you like, don't boost (ie ignore) what you don't. I don't think that anything more formal is needed or would be particularly effective.



The Bib-iest of Nickels
Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.

I wouldn't describe my own personal reaction to your idea as intense. However I am confident in my stance that your proposed solutions would not solve what you see as a problem.

I appreciate that you are frustrated by what you see as an abundance of shallow or underdeveloped threads, that it might feel overwhelming having to sort through those threads to find the heftier discussion, and that you'd like to see that change.

Yes, and they are laid out in my previous posts. Boost (via rep, supportive responses, or modeling in your own writing) what you like, don't boost (ie ignore) what you don't. I don't think that anything more formal is needed or would be particularly effective.
I don't have a whole lot to add to this conversation, but I wanted to mention that I agree with everything Takoma has said on this.



Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.
You're wasting your time. MoFoUs clearly has no actual desire to engage in proper discussion and has demonstrated this by repeatedly dodging questions and simply saying the same thing over and over like some kind of broken record. They also go on in here about 'netiquette' yet in another thread referred to someone (albeit not a MoFo, but an internet personality) as a "ratchet skank."

They just like to read their own words.



You're wasting your time. MoFoUs clearly has no actual desire to engage in proper discussion and has demonstrated this by repeatedly dodging questions and simply saying the same thing over and over like some kind of broken record. They also go on in here about 'netiquette' yet in another thread referred to someone (albeit not a MoFo, but an internet personality) as a "ratchet skank."

They just like to read their own words.
The person who started this thread has had a beef of his own with me ever since we had a disagreement in the Harvey Weinstein thread. In that thread, he also simply dodged my line of reasoning and kept saying the same thing over and over and over, just like you say, "like a broken record" (it should not be a surprise that that thread is now locked).

At some point you have to wonder why someone who's barely been registered over a month here is so intent (and obsessed) with trying to "get even" with anyone he doesn't like personally.



Sounds like a sub-forum might work then. Thank you for your input.
A sub-forum for what, content you dont want to see? You dont have to click it if you dont want to, you know. People's threads shouldnt be buried because they arent up to your standards.



I find it difficult to believe this can/will continue without getting worse, in terms of personalization. At minimum things appear to be at an impasse so I'm going to close the thread.

I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said, and I don't wanna take a parting shot as I close a thread (something I reserve only for people who really, inarguably deserve one), but I will note that this entire idea hinges on what you see as the cost ("distraction"), and as we can see from the responses most people think of that cost, the cost of scrolling past some stuff, to be trivial. That probably explains most of the divide.