Throttle High Volume Posters to Improve Post Quality?

[Kaczynskisatva]

I have a third alternative for you: just stop reading them all

I have previously exercised this alternative, of both not reading and not posting on NSG, for years at a time. This has lead to a reduction in average post quality for the forum.

There are inevitably more cases like this one, this is just the one I know of, because it is my own case.

This demonstrates the value that would be added by improving the post quality through a throttle - it would encourage low quality posters to abandon the forum, and high quality posters to be retained. Over time, the population of self-replicating information forms which survive in this environment would adapt to the new environment. Artificial selection is the only way to save the majority population from obsolescence in the information-industrial stage of society, and we can begin here.

[Kaczynskisatva]

These tests don't determine anything about the hypothesis, do they? You are not determining whether you've extracted all the contents of NSG posters' heads, and there is no attempt to determine an optimal volume of posts. I think you will have a better hypothesis if you change it to "throttling the number of posts will increase overall post quality" and focus on determining whether that is true or not, and then later determining the optimal throttle. Cheers!

I determined that this is true through by applying generally known concepts to the issue - the principle of diminishing returns on repeated actions, which applies to all known actions, and resource depletion as a result of extraction, which applies to all resource extraction, as the application of the first principle constrained to the range of material resources.

[Vassenor]

These tests don't determine anything about the hypothesis, do they? You are not determining whether you've extracted all the contents of NSG posters' heads, and there is no attempt to determine an optimal volume of posts. I think you will have a better hypothesis if you change it to "throttling the number of posts will increase overall post quality" and focus on determining whether that is true or not, and then later determining the optimal throttle. Cheers!

I determined that this is true through by applying generally known concepts to the issue - the principle of diminishing returns on repeated actions, which applies to all known actions, and resource depletion as a result of extraction, which applies to all resource extraction, as the application of the first principle constrained to the range of material resources.

Or you could just accept that people aren’t going to write Pulitzer grade prose on an Internet forum.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Waging flame wars and screaming a a brick wall is not contributing to NS. NSG-blr will finally be good when it doesn't exist.

I don't even know what NSG-blr is, but since my lack of knowledge here doesn't change the utility of your statement as a proof of the thread proposal, my post here is itself a low quality post.

[Vassenor]

Waging flame wars and screaming a a brick wall is not contributing to NS. NSG-blr will finally be good when it doesn't exist.

I don't even know what NSG-blr is, but since my lack of knowledge here doesn't change the utility of your statement as a proof of the thread proposal, this is a low quality post.

OK, serious question: who actually gave you the authority to determine what is and is not a worthy quality post?

[Stellar Colonies]

The articulated proposal as laid out in the opening post of this forum thread is not a fairly ideal outline for reformulating the posting standards upon the NationStates forum boards, colloquially referred to as 'Forumside'.

For example:

Some of the participants within the forum boards of this website have extensive histories as noted within this thread before this time by prior participants of frequently uploading posts with extensively detailed informative essays liberally peppered with links to evidence to verify their statements, with the aforementioned proposal as described within the opening post of 'throttling' high volume posters unduly wounding their ability to feasibly continue with their elegantly crafted contributions which would in fact harmfully affect the development of discourse and discussion within this forum and likely discourage many participants from engaging in this...vibrant...'community'.

Additionally, it would very well shrivel the frequent production of smaller-scale humorous banter, often referred to as 'shitposting' by the majority of participants here, which appears to be a not-insignificant part in allowing contributors to invest effort into deriving enjoyment from spending their valuable hours upon this website, otherwise referred to as 'having fun'.

Of course, there could be various other dilemmas regarding this proposition, although many have very likely been broached prior in this thread.

To conclude this regrettably brief and linguistically inefficient summary, installing a 'throttle' upon posting is likely not an ideal plan for modifying the format of posting considering the repercussions, with any improvements which would be necessary for improving quality of discourse upon this board likely not coming in the form of limiting posts within a set period of time, of course excepting the spam filter.

[Esalia]

It is quite ironic that the main advocate for throttling people's posts to improve quality is one of the most prolific posters in the thread (even to the point of double and triple posting) and has made multiple low-quality posts that didn't contribute much to the thread (such as a return snipe at Vassenor, and declaring posts meaningless/ad hominems for calling out the hypocrisy and then moving on).

If even its main advocate is completely unwilling to stick to an idea they advocated for, I don't see why anyone else should be expected to stick to it.

If you want other people to follow your rule, being one of the worst offenders of it and completely failing to prove its utility is not the way to go.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Webforums face considerable challenges from social media and easy-to-set-up alternatives such as discord. This idea may have had more merit back in the days where there was a wider base of regular posters. The best way to improve post quality would be more proactive moderation to actively seek out and remove the posters who regularly toxify threads and prevent good discussion. Instead we have this very dysfunctional transactional arrangement where incidents only "accumulate" on someone's record if they are actively reported and an individual post is found to have crossed "the line" (which is often heavily tilted by how sympathetic the moderator is towards the reported user's general beliefs and viewpoint). While I understand that constraints of time often make it difficult to look proactively, this disinclination has become essentialised in how the rules have been framed. Complaints about constant low-level poor behaviour, even when well-sourced and when moderators themselves as posters know very well that the user is indeed a problem, are simply swept under the carpet and not investigated because it is inconvenient to address them within a framework of rules that initially arose out of restrictions on capacity. The purpose of moderation has becomes "the rules" themselves rather than trying to fulfil the purpose of the forum - constructive discussion and debate - and remove those who are well known for posting almost solely in ways that prevent this. We are trapped in a bizarre logic of "we cannot do everything, so we will tie our hands and institutionally prevent ourselves from doing anything about even the problems we can see".

Through such a strategy low-quality bait posting is abetted, and even aided when the bait poster after ruining a thread goes off to moderation and gets someone who is understandably frustrated at what they've done a warning or a ban for calling them a mean name. However we have been screaming into the void on this one for years.

[Kaczynskisatva]

*TURTLESHROOM you are dancing incredibly close to the line of trolling and baiting, I would suggest you back off. This is particularly true considering you lost your nation due to trolling before.*

As it is I am considering locking this thread due to the OP itself being flaming but will leave it for now.

The fact that moderation has made this decision places in evidence the values underlying moderation - it prefers not to see hostile posts, but also prefers to see rational posts. Hostile, irrational posts are removed as flaming, whereas hostile, rational posts are, in this case and generally, allowed to persist, because rational hostility is simply criticism, and so it may be useful, and true.

This demonstrates a positive value of moderation, probably because it is a positive value in people who debate generally - rationality.

Since moderation has already limited the freedom of the forum to reduce hostility, because it considers this to reduce the quality of the forum, then it would be similarly justified to further limit the freedom of the forum to increase rationality, which it demonstrably considers to increase the quality of the forum.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Horrible and nonsensical idea, would alienate pretty much everyone here.

It would also un-alienate people who are not here, but who have tried to use the forum, and then stopped using it, because of alienation. Since I already made this point, this comment, from me, is a low quality post. It is redundant.

[Vassenor]

Horrible and nonsensical idea, would alienate pretty much everyone here.

It would also un-alienate people who are not here, but who have tried to use the forum, and then stopped using it, because of alienation. Since I already made this point, this comment, from me, is a low quality post. It is redundant.

Ironic considering how much of the content in your posts is either redundant or rambling.

[Kaczynskisatva]

While poor quality posts are a thing, throttling posters here is a bad idea. This is a debate forum, not a college essay.

These two sentences do not fit together in the way which you seem to expect them to, by putting them together. Debate, in the classical format, is throttled for volume by moderation.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I dunno, this just seems like a thinly veiled jab at regular posters to me. Particularly the last bit about life management

As far as I can tell, all constructive criticism emerges as a vocal behavior which responds to the same underlying impulse which would cause someone with a different toolset, or tool use preference, to explode in a litany of hostile profanity.

We can do good things with criticism, but not for good reasons. It still emerges from a hostile impulse, but it is tolerated socially within a range because it is necessary and useful. The last bit about life management is clearly hostile, but it has the potential to be a true statement, and so socially acceptable hostility.

[Vassenor]

I dunno, this just seems like a thinly veiled jab at regular posters to me. Particularly the last bit about life management

As far as I can tell, all constructive criticism emerges as a vocal behavior which responds to the same underlying impulse which would cause someone with a different toolset, or tool use preference, to explode in a litany of hostile profanity.

We can do good things with criticism, but not for good reasons. It still emerges from a hostile impulse, but it is tolerated socially within a range because it is necessary and useful. The last bit about life management is clearly hostile, but it has the potential to be a true statement, and so socially acceptable hostility.

But pointing out that your content is unnecessarily padded and rambling is not socially acceptable, it seems.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I dunno, this just seems like a thinly veiled jab at regular posters to me. Particularly the last bit about life management

Joke's on you, OP, I don't have a life to manage.

This is a high quality post on the basis of artistic merit.

[Kaczynskisatva]

If the idea is to restrict people from posting a lot in a short timespan (ie fifty posts in five minutes) than sure, but that's not what you're suggesting. What you're suggesting is to basically kill off discourse that takes more than two or three posts. That seems like a bad idea.

I am absolutely confident about the problem, but not completely confident about the solution. Your proposed solution on "how to throttle" is a high quality post. I do not know what would be the best way to throttle, this decision should be made on the basis of data and I have not examined the data.

[Vassenor]

If the idea is to restrict people from posting a lot in a short timespan (ie fifty posts in five minutes) than sure, but that's not what you're suggesting. What you're suggesting is to basically kill off discourse that takes more than two or three posts. That seems like a bad idea.

I am absolutely confident about the problem, but not completely confident about the solution. Your proposed solution on "how to throttle" is a high quality post. I do not know what would be the best way to throttle, this decision should be made on the basis of data and I have not examined the data.

If you’ve not examined the data how do you know there’s a problem?

[Kaczynskisatva]

This would be an infringement on my right to free speech.

This is a meaningless post.

Firstly, there is no evidence that you have the right to free speech. In the material sense, people only have those rights which they secure for themselves through the exercise of force. Since you lack the capacity to exercise force in this context, it is not demonstrated that you have this right.

Otherwise, I would be forced to ask - why do you think that you have this right?

It is moot, in any case, because it is already established by precedent that a user of this forum does not have the right to free speech, and must abide by the dictates of moderation, which we must hope will be benevolent. You make no argument for why this forum, which has no free speech, should have one. Evidence would have to be applied to demonstrate the outcome of total free speech in an internet environment - this is known, and the result is 4chan.

[Kaczynskisatva]

What if we had an AI that could read your posts and give you a time out if you make a bunch of posts saying the same thing over and over again in a short period of time?

That would help reduce stunlocks and infinite loops in the American Politics thread.

If we had an algorithm which could correctly analyze and compile the logical propositions in natural speech and perform operations according to such a model, we would have the model of general intelligence. This is currently impossible - naturally occurring logic (verbal logic) exceeds compiled logic in its utility and complexity to the same degree by which naturally occurring lifeforms exceed the resilience, complexity and adaptive self-replication of known and known-possible machines.

This proposition is about as practical as asking a biologist to make a new life form. This is definitely something which they should be instructed to do, as punishment for their hubris in denying the functional limits of their discipline, and programmers should also be instructed to do this instead of working on advertising. However, this is not likely to deliver a result in time to solve the issues of this thread, and possibly never.

[Kaczynskisatva]

But as far as I'm aware the forums already have systems in place to stop people from posting that many times in quick succession anyway, as I've accidentally triggered it on occasion.

Yes - these systems should be more stringent. I am already posting many times in quick succession in this thread. It's not clear if this is proving or disproving my hypothesis, since all of my posts are brilliant, but it is definitely testing the hypothesis, which is the scientifically appropriate thing to do. It is possible that I should be posting less here - I could definitely consolidate these posts by organizing them according to the type of response, instead of making one new post as a reply to each post in chronological order, and this would improve the quality of my posts.

[Kaczynskisatva]

What if it becomes self aware and starts allowing people to do repeat posts calling for it to be given control of the nuclear arsenal though

That would be definitely have the potential to reduce the number of problems in global politics.



This reply is a very low quality post, a derail with poor artistic merit, and a good case example for throttling. If throttled, I would not have made this post.

Finally, I observe that this filter: "Images must be linked from an approved image host, such as: imgur.com, imgbb.com, postimg.cc." is not effective. I can just reupload any image to imgur before posting it in NSG. This filters for basic competence, which is fine, but adds repeated work, which is tedious.

[Kaczynskisatva]

If your not on this forum to bang your head against a wall then that’s your own fault.

This is probably true. Maybe, we should consider improving the quality of this forum, and then forming a reddit community for people who like to bang their heads and redirecting people to that space, if they do not like the new, improved level of discourse.

[-Astoria-]

If your not on this forum to bang your head against a wall then that’s your own fault.

This is probably true. Maybe, we should consider improving the quality of this forum, and then forming a reddit community for people who like to bang their heads and redirecting people to that space, if they do not like the new, improved level of discourse.

Why specifically Reddit, though?

[Kaczynskisatva]

And as other posters pointed out this would limit the ability of posters to discuss live events in real-time, whether being a sporting event, election, or unfolding tragedy

Well, here's a democratic proposal:

Allow OP to check a box for "live thread" when they make a thread. If they designate it as a live thread, that means that they consider the topic it addresses to be evolving in real time, and it should behave as all threads currently behave on NSG.

Or, conversely, create a box for "throttle" which an OP can select, to make whatever throttling mechanism is determined by data to optimize post quality, apply to their thread.

Or, split NSG into two subforums, one in which threads are throttled by the yet-to-be-determined optimal method, and the other, a continuation of the present NSG.

I think this is a great idea, because it would allow the new proposal to be A/B tested, generating feedback both in terms of what users prefer to use, and in terms of what quality of posting goes into each forum.

What you are reading here is a tier-4 quality post, containing a new, creative solution to the thread problem. Unfortunately, it is buried in spam. I will edit the OP to contain this input.

[USS Monitor]

Finally, I observe that this filter: "Images must be linked from an approved image host, such as: imgur.com, imgbb.com, postimg.cc." is not effective. I can just reupload any image to imgur before posting it in NSG. This filters for basic competence, which is fine, but adds repeated work, which is tedious.

The purpose of the filter is to prevent people from exposing users to malware or harvesting IPs or something like that. If you upload your image to imgur, they control all the back-end stuff, and that makes it harder to abuse vs. hotlinking from a site you own.