Dominating conversations should cost some money.
Stephen Coles
Posts: 1,007
It’s become clear that far too many TypeDrawers discussions descend into a ping-pong between the same few people, usually folks who didn’t post the original message. To encourage a diversity of voices, and reduce the spread of conversation domination, I’m suggesting a new set of rules:
- You may post up to 3 times a day to a discussion in which you are not the OP.
- You may post up to 10 times a day on TypeDrawers (site-wide).
- You may break these limits at the cost of $25 per post. Funds raised will be donated to a scholarship for underrepresented students in type design.
9
Comments
-
This is unnecessary and kinda sounds a tad too iron fisted. Some people may have the time to be actively present to engage in discussion like it was instant chat but to penalize them for it is I think absurd. Just my $0.02.1
-
I agree with Stephen. Regarding point 2, I even think the number of daily posts allowed should be lower.I also suggest limiting the number of characters a person can write per post. I would say no more than 750, including spaces.1
-
Academia Rule—the more narrow the interest, the more vehement the debate. It seems rather small-mined to pre-censor, don't you think?
5 -
I also suggest limiting the number of characters a person can write per post. I would say no more than 750, including spaces.There goes @Adam Twardoch
(I don't think this is good idea.)10 -
Limiting discourse in a place meant for discourse has to be done very carefully...
The thresholds can be debated, but here are a couple of suggested tweaks:
— The amount should be calculated based on the person's country of residence.
— Give the money not to people based on how they happened to be born, but whom they're helping with their work. A minority member assimilated into enriching the dominant culture is not something to encourage.1 -
I don't think that asking for conciseness can be considered 'censorship'.
0 -
Enforcing a limit is not the same as asking.5
-
I'm starting to think starting a thread asking for random normal forum functions to cost money should cost money.
4 -
@Christian Thalmann Haha! I know my suggestion (a little wink to a more absurd one) seems a bit out there, but my sincere goal is to encourage more people to participate, not fewer.1
-
It isn't, but sometimes conciseness is not desirable; explaining aspects of font technology comes to mind. So if you want character limits, apply them only to certain categories and leave the rest alone.Ramiro Espinoza said:I don't think that asking for conciseness can be considered 'censorship'.
1 -
I’m less inclined to limit post length than I am to enact a post limit. What I’m thinking is there should be some metric that, when achieved, allows the post limit to take effect.1
-
sensible suggestions, Stephen.Stephen Coles said:It’s become clear that far too many TypeDrawers discussions descend into a ping-pong between the same few people, usually folks who didn’t post the original message. To encourage a diversity of voices, and reduce the spread of conversation domination, I’m suggesting a new set of rules:- You may post up to 3 times a day to a discussion in which you are not the OP.
- You may post up to 10 times a day on TypeDrawers (site-wide).
- You may break these limits at the cost of $25 per post. Funds raised will be donated to a scholarship for underrepresented students in type design.
- agree.
- you may post up to 5 times a day …
- this may be difficult to administer, or even unrealistic to happen.
- a character limit per posting: very wise!
0 -
Must we resort to this? If you don't like a post or poster, ignore them. We don't need to be treated like middle school children.I have a very fond memory of some of the long but VERY helpful posts by John Hudson and his in depth explanations.10
-
I would trust moderators with the power to throttle specific overenthusiastic commenters, if they're willing to take on that responsibility. Blanket limits seem unsatisfying to me, because from some contributors I'd happily read 20 comments a day, and from some others, even 5 is already 4 or 5 too many.5
-
Ramiro's suggestion on post lengths is really a separate idea and I don't think it's a necessary one.
My intention is to limit only the most egregious overposting, especially those who draw the conversation away from those who post the first message in a discussion. Many OPs are new to the forum and I believe they are more apt to participate if they see more than the same voices over and over again.0 -
@Stephen Coles Of course they are even less apt to participate if they see no voices over and over again... Asymmetry of participation is the nature of the beast, and I think good moderation (as we've generally had here, although currently we do seem to have a shortage of moderators) is much more effective than panicking and adding trappings of control that might do more harm than good.
What can certainly be improved though is diversity, especially concerning Whom It's For more than Who It's By: those who design for minority cultures.
Also, please don't allow people who leave to delete their posts. It's part of the public record, and nothing is more discouraging (including to newbies) to witness a scorched earth. The four-hour editing time-limit is it.0 -
TD is in no danger of silent threads, and a very generous limit will not change that. The very real problem is lack of new and diverse participation.3
-
I agree that dominating conversations needs to be curtailed. TypeDrawers exists in part because two people were dominating most threads on Typophile, often with off topic replies, which led to an exodus of other users. Those users were banned from the beginning of TypeDrawers, and discussions here tended to stay on topic. Reinstating the bans would probably solve this problem in about thirty seconds.Fining problem users and donating to a scholarship fund is a good idea. But collecting the money, accounting for it, and donating it might be more trouble than the current owners want to deal with.I do like the option of limiting how many times users can post per day. Especially if the number could be lower for habitual offenders than for people who behave. Several people asked me to do this when I started TypeDrawers. I didn’t do it for technical reasons involving hosting Vanilla with custom plugins, but that might be easier to deal with today.5
-
@James Puckett Moderation and flagging have been doing a pretty good job keeping things mostly on-topic; there was no moderation on Typophile, which among other things let in droves of pirates and plagiarists – and I was one of the very few confronting them, except I was told I was scaring off newbies... To me expecting a draconian 100% adherence is inhuman. And what one less person won't do (like it didn't on Typo-L) is bring back 50% of the population... If you don't believe that, tell them JM left (with all his posts) and cross your fingers.0
-
Yes, it would be very comforting to feel as if our little forum was welcoming and open to to anyone from any group, gender, place of origin, language, partnership preference, or whatever. We have not yet earned this distinction. We are all humans with failings and it is up to us as individuals to control our own failings. Setting up action items to achieve this is not the answer. Just saying "we want diversity" loudly will not make it happen. We can take steps to assure that no person is prevented from joining but we cannot will them to join. We can leave the door open but we cannot drag in unwilling recruits. We each have to be the kind of person who others might feel comfortable with and avoid being "Grumpy Old Men" but, being human, we fail at this. Leave the door open, a light on, and a welcome mat in front. That is all we can do.
3 -
Naw, I think we can do more. Multiple years of a pretty monolithic membership is good evidence that the current mode is not working. We can do better, and I welcome other specific ideas in another discussion, but this thread is specifically about my rule change suggestion. Are you really concerned you wouldn't be able to meet the new limits?5
-
Maybe a “waffling” reaction, similar to off topic haJames Hultquist-Todd said:I’m less inclined to limit post length than I am to enact a post limit. What I’m thinking is there should be some metric that, when achieved, allows the post limit to take effect.0 -
@Stephen Coles my only hesitation is that when a discussion is happening it’s easy to make numerous posts, but I’m not here often enough to have a real horse in this race, and have no hard evidence that limits would stifle conversation. Regarding diversity, is there a way to talk to people who are choosing to not stay here (or join at all) and see if any common themes come up as reasons? If the bulk of current members are from a monolithic group then it’s highly likely we will not see the gaps and red flags others see.2
-
Are you really concerned you wouldn't be able to meet the new limits?No, I would have no problem making the limits. I could care less about it. I just hate being treated like a child.Naw, I think we can do moreYou tried doing more before and it was a catastrophe. Post your ideas to do better instead of just tossing off a "Naw"with an air of superiority. The truth is, what do we have to offer that is worth putting up with whatever we are? Don't you think it is just a bit arrogant to assume that we are just that valuable to be with? Time to come down to earth. We are just some guys who talk about type, this is not the UN. Do you think anyone who you intend to join in would read this thread and the other one James started, would be enticed to join us or would it be a total turn off? Just be honest and not try to impress someone. If we had built it, they would have come.
1 -
I have no problem with the suggestion of bringing back the "off topic" reaction. This suggestion I find problematic. But my question would be: does this site have a problem with a lack of moderatiion, in the sense of too many inappropriate posts? (A recent announcement did say it is short of moderators, but that is a different matter.)We did have an incident where a user was banned - and all past posts by that user were removed, which damaged an existing discussion including many legitimate and serious posts. But that is a single incident.Perhaps there is a general problem, and I'm just not aware of it, because unlike the type design professionals here, I may not be as sensitive to borderline off-topic posting being a waste of time. So I am not going to try to tell the type design professionals here - for whom this site exists first and foremost - what kind of a site they should have.If there is a general problem, and the recent incident only reflected it, that's one thing. But if there was only the recent incident, and no other symptoms of a general problem, I think I can reasonably say that making fundamental changes to how the site is moderated as a result is not necessary or useful, and so I would like to commend this general principle to the thinking of those better qualified than I to say if there are problems.0
-
James Montalbano was not banned. He asked for his account to be removed. Unfortunately, all his content went with it. That has little to do with what I’m addressing, which is a severe lack of diversity on the site. Take a look around and you’ll quickly see what’s missing.2
-
We can scarcely get more than a couple moderators to do what already needs doing. We aren’t going to get someone to police every thread. My suggestion is the opposite of policing: it is an unambiguous and objective limit that can be enforced programmatically.Craig Eliason said:I would trust moderators with the power to throttle specific overenthusiastic commenters, if they're willing to take on that responsibility.2 -
-5
-
Stephen Coles said:He asked for his account to be removed. Unfortunately, all his content went with it. That has little to do with what I’m addressing, which is a severe lack of diversity on the site. Take a look around and you’ll quickly see what’s missing.I see now from another thread that apparently he asked for his account to be removed because he felt that he might say something intemperate that he would regret... as a result of finding Hrant Papazian so annoying.I know that Hrant's posts may be a little opinionated at times, but I haven't noticed what he has been doing that would provoke such a reaction. If anything, I've found his perspectives refreshing and challenging; when I don't agree with them, they're still food for thought.It is true there used to be several women active here, and now it appears there are not. I had assumed it was just coincidence, not that this forum had somehow become toxic. But then, how would I know? It could well be that after Hrant, I'm the second-worst troublemaker around here. Or not.Rather than jumping to the conclusion that there are some terribly oversensitive people around here, though, I will admit there are a lot of threads I don't even look at, and also I may not understand the history that will lead people to take things in a certain way.I hope that women in type design will find out there a safe space to discuss type design, or have the opportunity to create one. That, at least, would not require us here to get into a fight about what we may, or may not, be doing wrong.2
-
I support Stephen’s proposed post limits.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 798 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 617 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 541 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 483 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 498 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports