Poll: Should we switch to Discourse?

This thread might’ve started from the question in the other one about whether auto-hiding a message after three flags is a good idea. I think that might indeed be good to test, as I said over there, but uprooting the whole forum to make it happen seems rather unwieldy. If there’s been a push to switch forum styles independent of the moderation policy thing, though, then never mind me.

For what it’s worth, I like this forum’s style and layout.

Ideally, I think we could switch to IP.Board. It’s sufficiently classical-looking, very polished, has a good post editor and moderation tools, but it’s not free.

The next tech thing that gets my vote is NodeBB. It’s lightyears ahead of phpBB: it’s 100% realtime, it has built-in 2-factor auth, push mobile notifications, emojis, awesome moderation tools. It would be my first choice bu-u-ut I took it on a test run and it’s not very stable with plugins (i.e. I crashed it hard using Custom Pages plugin).

In any way, I’d concentrate on building a safe space, where everyone would be welcome, whoever he is in other communities. Something where even the vilest of them all would have to be civil and kind. That’s a task for the mod team, not the tech.

We have some visually impaired users on the CoG forum who report that it works fine.

As far as I know, there’s no way to even allow multiple flags for one post in phpBB.

I’m just going to leave it as a general preference for as much basic-browser compatibility as possible. My habits are not set in stone.

On the general topic:

Right. I don’t think we should jump ships for the sake of variety. It would follow from the mods coming forward and say “here is the new plan, it includes use of the following Discourse features”.

Yeah, this is where I am as well – I don’t really care which platform we use, but I don’t want a switch of platforms to substitute for taking any action on 12+ pages of people pretty much agreeing action of some sort is needed.

Discourse is pretty swish and might encourage newcomers to the forum. A halfway house would be to prettify the existing forum. I know it took us years to even get a logo, but there must be people around here who can give the forum a nice banner, some more contemporary looking CSS. There’s some examples here.

I mean, right now I know for a fact that several people are actively warning people off from this forum, and it’s not about the software.

Removed message.

but is not the sort of thing that is going to get people, myself included, to feel that this is a place that’s safe or wise to advise people to take part in. the problem is categorically not the forum software, and giving people the ability to hide or block posts or posters is not going to solve the fundamental issue that led to the last thread being 12 pages and this one being 3.

i’m perfectly comfortable saying that without serious changes, and without the permanent removal of some current members, i have every intention of telling newcomers to steer far clear of this place. it won’t be aggressive, nor will i be waging any sort of war against the mods, but at present this place is a mess of broken stairs, and i am not going to watch people come in here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed only to get smacked, hard, the way i was when i first arrived. this forum is going to end up losing out on a lot of good, bright people, and the less white, male, cis, etc. they are, which is to say the less they look like the vast majority of the people here, the less likely they’re going to end up contributing to the better future of it.

I believe this is one of those rare occasions when we actually have consensus about something: changing the forum software will not itself have a meaningful impact on how the site is moderated.

Right, and I think a lot of us feel like changing forum software is a bit of a side show to the real issues at hand, tbh.

No, but better forum software will make it a lot easier to implement firmer moderation. Allowing multiple flags, hiding with multiple flags, if there could be a kind of user record to keep track of warnings and suspensions, a board set up where you can only see topics you started for talking to the mods (better than PMs) (this might already be possible in phpBB, I haven’t tried), these are things that would help.

Respectfully, I disagree. I don’t believe allowing multiple flags, hiding with flags, etc will help much if moderators refuse to take action. As an example: I flagged a post in the 12 page long thread that I found ominous and threatening. Less than an hour later, I received an automated email telling me that my flag was deleted, with no other response from the moderators. That post is still up. I still haven’t received an explanation about why multiple pages of posts were deleted, but not that one. I’m only talking about this in public because I don’t believe that a PM would be addressed, and frankly, it’s too late–a message or a post removal now would only be the barest of lip service to a desire for greater moderation (which, I think is obvious by now, I am not the only person to prefer). I don’t see how a move to Discourse changes overarching policy.

Just because a single flag did not result in a removed post does not mean that the mods are not committed to firmer, quicker, and more hands-on moderating.

But you have raised another feature which would be good to have: the ability for mods to give an explanation when a flag was declined. I’ve found this very useful as a flagger on Stack Exchange for example. Does anyone know in Discourse or any other forum systems support that?

I feel we might be talking at cross purposes here. I’m obviously not suggesting that every post someone flags must be removed, or else the mods aren’t doing their job; I’m simply giving an example of the lack of transparency, accountability, or explanation I feel is currently involved with the process, and that I personally would hope to see changed. You’re saying “it would be useful to have x tool that allows this”, and I don’t disagree, but it’s technically possible to do this currently by sending messages to people who flag posts. It just doesn’t seem like any of these things–transparency, accountability, or responsiveness–have been priorities. (I understand day jobs, of course, and admit I am not volunteering to mod this or any other space myself.) If Discourse has the built-in features that allow these changes to be made, I’m all for it; I don’t, however, feel that a cosmetic change will change the underlying problem that’s kept me, and others, from wanting to post more frequently.

Discourse helps with the “moderators aren’t responsive enough” problem by letting the community moderate itself to some degree – besides flagging, there are also various editing and categorization powers for high-karma users.

It doesn’t help with “moderators are inconsistent”, “faction of users disagrees with the moderators on how to moderate”, or “factions of users disagree with each other on how to moderate”.

Discourse lets you reply to flags on a PM thread.

User self-moderation is an idea I generally regard as well-intentioned by dubiously effective. it multiplies every negative Gresham’s dynamic that online spaces are subject to. But my experience with this is informed by reddit, a site that is effectively designed to reward bad users and generate bad content.

Self-moderation tools also have a negative impact in that they often encourage complacency or a “hands-off” approach on the part of moderators, which of course further amplifies that negative dynamic; if the community is expected to “self-moderate” and power is put into the hands of “high-karma” users, initial biases in the population will build on each other until they become effective policy… and often bad policy, particularly with regards to bigotry - again, bigotry creates a gresham’s dynamic; bad users drive out good. People don’t stick around to argue bigots, they leave, while the bigots (and particularly the subtle, “reasonable” bigots) stick around to reinforce and upvote each other.


I understand people not having the time/ability to mod this space, but I do think that people who are not involved in taking mod action should not be involved in making mod policy, either, as they seem to be.

But, importantly, I think that switching forums right now would sap resources that would be better directed towards fixing policy and enforcement. Otherwise it’s a new coat of paint on a sinking ship.

this is poorly phrased, imo. a better phrasing would be “large group of users disagrees strenuously and fundamentally with moderators on continued presence of historically abusive users with collective penchants for harassment, transphobia, white supremacy, and misogyny, dramatically and permanently affecting the safety of the community and community fabric, as well as trust in moderation.” but tomato, potato, i suppose

Am I alone in finding it depressing that this place now seems permanently occupied by two groups, both utterly certain of their entrenched position on the moral high ground, throwing insults at each other? Is there anyone left who believes in assuming good faith on the part of others, even if we don’t agree with them?