Welcome to the CCP Moderation Discussion Thread. This is the place to post comments or questions about the moderation of the Casino & Cardroom Poker Forum. If you have any issues on moderations, put them here, and not in the particular thread that the issue arose in.

Everyone is welcome to share their thoughts on topics here. As with all the threads throughout LCP, personal insults and demeaning or disparaging comments in either direction will not be permitted. Keep your posts focused on the issue to be considered/resolved, and not on any personal slights or attacks.

We want the CCP Moderation Thread to be a valuable conduit to raise issues, discuss pros and cons, and when appropriate modify policy. The goal is to continue to improve our forum, to make it as welcoming and enjoyable a place as we can. We encourage anyone with ideas to make the forum better to bring them up.

The forum guidelines are here: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-16-a-1532627/.

I'm going to take it that a "+1" or "I agree" post is no longer a no content post. If I see a "+1" from posters like Angus, Suit or YTF, that adds value to me because of their history of posting and being correct.

Let's open that up for comments.

I see two sides to it. On a routine type rules question like "is this a raise?" referring to the oversized chip rule, and a couple of posters correctly describe that rule and how it works, I don't see much added value in having a bunch of "+1s" that all basically just say that yes, the first poster gave the right answer. Usually on questions like that, if I see that it has already been answered correctly, I don't post at all if I have nothing additional to add in ways of further explanation. If a respected poster in fact disagreed with the answer given, they would post a content filled post explaining why.

I don't think we need to have a lot of individual +1 posts taking the place of a poll and turning what could be a 5 post thread into a 25 post thread or serving as a like button. Think of those comment threads in many sites where dozens of people hit a "like" button. If each one of those likes turned into a separate post, it would be unwieldy.

Perhaps if the topic was something more opinion based, like ethics questions, there may be some value in seeing who agrees or disagrees, as I also like to see what some of the more experienced posters feel about a situation. But in most cases, those types of topics are nuanced, and most experienced posters also share their thoughts on the subject. Since they have something to add, (which is also what tends to make people valued posters) that eliminates the +1 need. If it's simply a question like "is this action unethical or not" the OP could put a poll, and then users who want to elaborate on their answer could do so in the thread, rather than having a thread filled with people quoting the yes or no position and then posting +1 under it.

So what does everyone think? When, if ever do you feel the need to post a +1 to a discussion? Is it a matter of you wanting to go on record just saying that you agree with the post above you? Does a +1 in that case simply serve as a like button? If we do that, do we seek to limit it, or do we end up with lots of people posting +1 rather than say putting the question to a public poll? Or, does seeing a list of people who agree with a particular post add value and weight to the original post?

Thanks for the question, Venice. Please post your thoughts here and we'll see how the discussion goes.

Thanks.

I think it's a tragedy when one person posts a reasonable opinion that most people agree with, and it gets drowned out by the noise of 20 idiots.

A single +1 post never bothers me. But I would hate to see posts cluttered up by a lot of +1 type posts.

That's an aspect of several items that I've been thinking about when working on the rules. I agree how a single +1 doesn't seem bad, but then how do you limit them? I've noticed the same thing when people make a quick one liner joke or derail. One doesn't seem bad, and it's a little funny. But then if 5 or 6 other people feed off of that one post, you can end up with a long line of posts that have nothing to do with the question asked, and that lowers the signal to noise ratio we talk about a lot.

So right now, it seems like we sort of get in a position of having to say none in order to prevent the many. It's hard to make a rule for the middle ground. Like the old joke where the boss goes into his office and tells his secretary to "hold some of my calls".

If by idiots you mean trolls, we will work hard to get rid of them. But if you are referring to people who disagree with the opinion, or maybe lack the experience to determine the best answer, we won't be calling them idiots in LCP. That's not nice.

-1

I'm telling!!!

Look at what he did!

::mashes report button 127 times::



~~~~~~

Meanwhile, I note that the new "rules" contain no mention of the type of supposedly prohibited "objectionable content" other than an allusion to the site's "terms and conditions" (which should be linked, not merely mentioned in passing). None of the sticky threads in ATF (as if any new user would ever think of reading ATF or even know that the acronym means the "About This Site" forum) are titled "terms and conditions". I think it's unrealistic to expect any user (especially a newer one) to go on a witch hunt looking for the "terms and conditions".

this not a directive. but if i was the sole mod of a forum i would not be concerned about +1 posts unless those posts just suddenly seemed like they were too ubiquitous.

and what's "too" is my judgment. in that case, i would delete some of them and make a post in that thread saying, something like: "say something original, penis. this +1 nonsense is giving people anal fissures."

I think what you will generally see is that there will be 2 maybe 3 tops of + 1 before the discussion gets back to raising points of more substance. If the thread has any more than 3 + 1 in a row before a point of substance is brought up then I would start deleting the + 1 posts. Also, btw this does not include where points of substance have been raised in between + 1 as + 1 should be allowed to keep going in those circumstances.

Fair points.

I have added the link to the site's T&C. Additionally, in the Avoid These Types of Posts section of the LCP forum guidelines I have added a category titled Disturbing Images and Videos and it covers what to do about potentially disturbing images.

I think that "+1" and such are the written analog to the verbal, "me, too!" As such, they add little value to an individual thread and nothing at all to the overall level of discourse.

New rules look really good. Just a couple of quick points.
1) Please mention in the first para that this forum is for everything about playing in live card rooms except the strategy part which should be in LLSNL or MHFR, or the appropriate tournament or "other poker" sub-forum. That will save you a lot of confusion and thread moving from new folks who think that if the hand was played live it must belong here.
2) Objectionable content should probably include other types of NSFW posts as well, such as sexually explicit, images that contain profanity that the filter won't notice since it's not text, etc.

Thanks Garick. I made the additions you suggested. I appreciate your input.

Fine.

People who maybe lack the experience to determine the best answer gonna lack the experience to determine the best answer, and answers from people who maybe have the experience to determine better answers should get more attention than one post.

So why not a simple thumbs up or thumbs down button on each post that keeps a count?
Like on youtube...

Because the forum software here doesn't support it (yet).

This. It's been suggested a few times in ATF. It's not a LCP issue.

Oh please no, not the "add to this user's reputation" button. That just inflates a silver skin of credibility on people who have enough spare time to vote on the 4rum all day.

The thumbs up/down system is worse because the idle mob can hide unpopular views.

Again, that's not something we have control of and a discussion that belongs in ATF.

We'll let the +1 topic go on for a few days before making a decision, as I know we introduced it on a weekend, and most people don't have the time to sit in front of the computer and post on the internet all day until they go back to work on Monday.

But one aspect I haven't seen anyone make the case for yet is why they want the ability to post a +1 themselves. Some have alluded that seeing someone else who is a respected poster give a post a +1 endorsement adds credibility to the post. But that's saying you want someone else to post +1s for your benefit.

Does anyone feel like they really need/want the ability to add+1 to a post? Do you feel that not being able to do so limits in anyway your participation in or enjoyment of the forum? I'd like to hear from those who feel like they are limited by not being able to post +1s themselves.

Thanks

although I am not a habitual "+1" poster, for online forums as a whole, this is generally accepted when someone is in agreement with someone else (not that 2p2 needs to follow along).

I am a member of other forums (not poker related) where it is also used and if someone is unaware that they are not allowed to do it here, it wouldn't really be fair for them to inquire an infraction for it. just my two cents.

IMO the +1 paranoia is ridiculous. So instead of posting '+1', I quote the opinion I'm agreeing with and post something like this.

---o0o---

Yes, I think that respected poster has it right, can't see how this would be deemed anything other than a raise in this situation.

---o0o---

I've added nothing more to the discussion than posting a +1, but this post is never going to be deleted or infracted - I'm being rewarded for verbosity (or punished for brevity, whatever).

I agree. Our focus in modding is to assume that the vast majority of posters who make small violations like that do so out of lack of awareness of the rules rather than ill intent. So a new user would just get the +1 deleted and a quick note explaining why, so they will know not to do it again. We arent using infractions in LCP. If a poster continues to willfully violate rules on a repeated basis they will be warned, and then banned if they ignore the warning.