Prevent guests and newcomers from seeing The Sandbox (subforum, not forum)

[hotcrystal0]

I think that the forums should encourage more academic discussion, and this could help.

With this proposal, any logged-out user would be unable to see The Sandbox. New users should be given a role called “New” that acts the same as Sandless except it is removed if the user’s account becomes 15 days old AND the user has at least 2 posts.

[hotdogPi]

Oppose. All CA information should be available even to non-members, and stuff like amling's thought processes and JP21's dumps are useful.

[hotcrystal0]

Oppose. All CA information should be available even to non-members, and stuff like amling's thought processes and JP21's dumps are useful.

Maybe all user sandbox threads and certain other threads (like Unusual Catalyses) should be moved to a new subforum that’s not The Sandbox (the subforum, not the forum) under The Sandbox.

[LuveelVoom]

Oppose. All CA information should be available even to non-members, and stuff like amling's thought processes and JP21's dumps are useful.

Maybe all user sandbox threads and certain other threads (like Unusual Catalyses) should be moved to a new subforum that’s not The Sandbox (the subforum, not the forum) under The Sandbox.

Oppose. Large scale moves are likely to cause tons of confusion, and this might also break links.

[confocaloid]

[...] Maybe all user sandbox threads and certain other threads (like Unusual Catalyses) should be moved to a new subforum that’s not The Sandbox (the subforum, not the forum) under The Sandbox.

[...] Oppose. Large scale moves are likely to cause tons of confusion, and this might also break links.

The main problem isn't that it would be a large scale move. (Different, reasonably well-planned, large scale moves can be helpful. In general, a reasonable agreed large-scale change can improve things and make them less confusing.)

I believe the problem here is that trying to implement this particular suggestion would cause tons of confusion (and will accomplish nothing in long term). Instead of "the Sandbox" (as a single place), there would be two subtly different sandboxes, and the subtle distinction(s) between them are likely to remain unexplained and unwritten. In the end, nobody will understand the distinctions. There would be "the Sandbox #1", and "the Sandbox #2", and probably that would be the only remaining understood difference between them. That feels like an undesirable outcome; "a sandbox that's not The Sandbox" seems a bad idea.

Oppose. All CA information should be available even to non-members, and stuff like amling's thought processes and JP21's dumps are useful.

Agreed. There are many interesting topics, including in the Sandbox (even though often flooded by "chitchat"). People need to be able to read the threads as a guest (without being logged in, or even without having an account).

[...]
There are interesting threads in the Sandbox. They might be in the Sandbox due to being only tangentially related to Life/CA, but still high-effort and thought-provoking. Or they might be in the Sandbox merely due to the author being unsure whether the topic is of interest to the community.
It's just that such threads are few (compared to the many low-effort "gaming" or "chatting" threads) and quickly disappear from the first page.

I don't want to hide the Sandbox entirely, but I believe the many gaming/chatting threads are objectively problematic.

[b-engine]

...
Instead of "the Sandbox" (as a single place), there would be two subtly different sandboxes, and the subtle distinction(s) between them are likely to remain unexplained and unwritten. In the end, nobody will understand the distinctions. There would be "the Sandbox #1", and "the Sandbox #2", and probably that would be the only remaining understood difference between them. That feels like an undesirable outcome; "a sandbox that's not The Sandbox" seems a bad idea.

I think the subforum that hosts the games and chitchats (the old sandbox after the large scale moves) would be renamed to "Anarchy" or something similar to that, and the "newer sandbox" should says that

Finding some stuffs using a search program, and you're unsure where to post them at? Post them here.

[confocaloid]

If some activity describes itself "One can do anything they like" (or any other phrasing to the same effect), then that activity should happen elsewhere, outside this website.

[...] I think the subforum that hosts the games and chitchats (the old sandbox after the large scale moves) would be renamed to "Anarchy" or something similar to that, [...]

• This is an English-language academic forum:
  1. Minor usage of other languages is acceptable; entire posts in other languages are not.
  2. Foul language/profanity is not acceptable here.
• [...]
• This is an academic forum, not a chat or microblogging platform. [...]

[dvgrn]

If some activity describes itself "One can do anything they like" (or any other phrasing to the same effect), then that activity should happen elsewhere, outside this website.

Agreed! The Sandbox isn't intended for anyone to post random things completely unrelated to CA. Occasionally people get away with doing that, because the Sandbox is only reluctantly moderated (even more so than the rest of the forums). But large numbers of off-topic posts aren't likely to work for anyone in the long run.

If a second sub-Sandbox ever came to exist that had an even lower total signal-to-noise ratio than the current Sandbox, then the moderator team would probably be very happy about that -- could say, "Yes, you've got it! This is exactly all of the nonsense that y'all should take somewhere else" and simply shut down that sub-Sandbox.

--------------------------

All of that said, the Sandbox certainly does have its good side. Playing around with CA-related ideas, without having to worry too much about notability, is a pretty darn good way for newcomers to get some practice with CA concepts and some familiarity with the community.

Newcomers will inevitably make mistakes sometimes. The first recourse is supposed to be for everyone to welcome newcomers to the community and point out the rules and generally explain how things are supposed to work -- not to do anything too unfriendly right away.

As a general rule, it shouldn't be necessary to get moderators involved in looking at newcomers' posts, until several non-moderators have made a good attempt to communicate directly. It works much better if we can save the post reporting system for cases where someone really won't listen to community feedback.

That means that there will be a few extra newcomer-created threads and posts created in the Sandbox that don't really need to be there. As long as these are just occasional contributions from the latest newcomers, they won't do any particular damage.

[Haycat2009]

I think the subforum that hosts the games and chitchats (the old sandbox after the large scale moves) would be renamed to "Anarchy"

The problem is that some may view a forum named this as "100% ruleless - time to unleash my greatest rants against [CENSORED] and [DATA EXPUNGED]". There are still rules in the Sandbox, just that they are less moderated (save for no anti-user rules)

With this proposal, any logged-out user would be unable to see The Sandbox. New users should be given a role called “New” that acts the same as Sandless except it is removed if the user’s account becomes 15 days old AND the user has at least 2 posts.

And I oppose this idea. The sandbox contains many places for newcomers like useless discoveries, unsure discoveries and a chance to create a sandbox thread to hone skills. Simply put, if we do not allow them to muck around in the Sandbox, they WILL muck in the threads meant for serious and notable discoveries - which will not help moderation.

Furthermore, any user can leave any group anytime they want - so the "New" users can easily leave the group to post in Sandbox.

[b-engine]

The problem is that some may view a forum named this as "100% ruleless - time to unleash my greatest rants against [CENSORED] and [DATA EXPUNGED]". There are still rules in the Sandbox, just that they are less moderated (save for no anti-user rules)

Then I propose the name of derived sub-sandbox (which stuff dumps threads will live) as "Less serious stuffs" or something like that or search dumps. The older one (that hosts games, and "private" sandbox threads) retains the name of Sandbox.

[unname4798]

The problem is that some may view a forum named this as "100% ruleless - time to unleash my greatest rants against [CENSORED] and [DATA EXPUNGED]". There are still rules in the Sandbox, just that they are less moderated (save for no anti-user rules)

Then I propose the name of derived sub-sandbox (which stuff dumps threads will live) as "Less serious stuffs" or something like that or search dumps. The older one (that hosts games, and "private" sandbox threads) retains the name of Sandbox.

And make the latter one hidden from all users with join date earlier than 1 September 2020.

[b-engine]

And make the latter one hidden from all users with join date earlier than 1 September 2020.

Probably not, instead the old Sandbox should be hidden to users with less than 10 posts.

[hotdogPi]

The problem is that some may view a forum named this as "100% ruleless - time to unleash my greatest rants against [CENSORED] and [DATA EXPUNGED]". There are still rules in the Sandbox, just that they are less moderated (save for no anti-user rules)

Then I propose the name of derived sub-sandbox (which stuff dumps threads will live) as "Less serious stuffs" or something like that or search dumps. The older one (that hosts games, and "private" sandbox threads) retains the name of Sandbox.

And make the latter one hidden from all users with join date earlier than 1 September 2020.

Are you explicitly trying to exclude me? I joined in August 2020. hotcrystal0 also created an account before the cutoff date.

A forum that's only visible to newer members makes no sense at all.

[pifricted]

I just think if we have it, some newcomers will make "Random Post" thread in it.

[unname4798]

And make the latter one hidden from all users with join date earlier than 1 September 2020.

Probably not, instead the old Sandbox should be hidden to users with less than 10 posts.

The gaming threads would be seen by moderators.

[hotcrystal0]

I think we should split The Sandbox into the more serious stuff (like users’ sandbox threads) and the less serious stuff (like games) at the very least. Maybe even an “off topic” section for discussion not related to CA at all.

[b-engine]

Maybe even an “off topic” section for discussion not related to CA at all.

If there's a reason the section should exist, it would only be visible to the moderators, or moderators should move off-topic posts that doesn't belong anywhere else into here.

[unname4798]

Maybe even an “off topic” section for discussion not related to CA at all.

If there's a reason the section should exist, it would only be visible to the moderators, or moderators should move off-topic posts that doesn't belong anywhere else into here.

Hide the off-topic section from moderators.

[dvgrn]

I've gone ahead and deleted the mysterious suggestion about blocking some users based on their initials. It seems extremely clear that that isn't going to happen. I've sent a quote of all the posts to the OP in a private message, so if someone really wants to see them they can be retrieved.

Who Is Going To Bell The Cat?
While I'm here posting on this thread again, I'll just mention that any suggestions that y'all come up with for managing the Sandbox, should probably come along with some very specific suggestions for who exactly is going to be doing the managing.

Based on current strong evidence of a settled policy of "reluctant moderation", especially where the Sandbox is concerned ... the current moderator team is not eager to spend a lot of time shuffling posts and threads around between sub-categories in the Sandbox. That means that phrases like "moderators should move off-topic posts..." raise something of a warning flag when I read them.

Speaking for myself, at least, I'd say that the Sandbox was created so that people can post CA-related stuff without having to worry too much about the "academic forum" and "notability" rules. I usually only look at the Sandbox if someone reports a post -- and I strongly discourage people from reporting Sandbox posts, except in very rare cases of rule-1 or rule-2 violations that really need moderator attention.

If people can't learn to post things in the Sandbox in the locations where they collectively want them to be, then very likely some posts are just going to end up sitting in the wrong places. Responses to those posts will hopefully serve as reminders for people to do things differently next time. Or ... there's a surprising amount that people can do cooperatively, via each person editing their own post (to say, e.g., "removed") and re-posting the content elsewhere, with no need to get moderators involved.

Sandbox-Only Moderators?
If someone wants to come up with a proposal involving -- let's say -- a team of additional moderators who only move things around in the Sandbox ... I'm thinking Nathanial might at least seriously consider the proposal.

Fair warning, Nathaniel might actually accept and implement such a proposal -- or he might not. Sandbox use is mostly tolerated rather than encouraged, so any change that seems likely to greatly expand the amount of traffic in the Sandbox ... might not seem like a good idea. It would be nice, for example, if the Recent Posts list continued to occasionally list recent posts from the main forums, instead of constantly being flooded out by unnecessary-looking posts in noisy Sandbox threads.

[Haycat2009]

Maybe even an “off topic” section for discussion not related to CA at all.

If there's a reason the section should exist, it would only be visible to the moderators, or moderators should move off-topic posts that doesn't belong anywhere else into here.

Hide the off-topic section from moderators.

That is going to bring problems like "Hey! No moderators! Time to troll [DATA EXPUNGED]!" - aka reported posts not allowed to be viewed.

Also, sometimes moderators just want to have playtime. Sure, they are moderators, but this does not mean that they live in the ivory tower far from the Sandbox - if they want too, they can take part in the mucking around and be treated as equals at best and chaperones at least.

[unname4798]

If there's a reason the section should exist, it would only be visible to the moderators, or moderators should move off-topic posts that doesn't belong anywhere else into here.

Hide the off-topic section from moderators.

That is going to bring problems like "Hey! No moderators! Time to troll [DATA EXPUNGED]!" - aka reported posts not allowed to be viewed.

Also, sometimes moderators just want to have playtime. Sure, they are moderators, but this does not mean that they live in the ivory tower far from the Sandbox - if they want too, they can take part in the mucking around and be treated as equals at best and chaperones at least.

Show the off-topic section only to users in the usergroup. I will either accept or reject the join requests. I will reject moderators and some other users.

[confocaloid]

[...] The sandbox contains many places for newcomers like useless discoveries, unsure discoveries [...]

Clarification:

• "Thread For Your Useless Discoveries" is in Patterns.
• "Thread for your unsure discoveries" is in Patterns.
• "Absolutely Useless Patterns Not Worthy Of Patterns Thread" is in Sadbox.
• "Absolutely Useless Patterns Not Worthy Of OCA Thread" is in Sandbox.
• There are also several basic questions / practice / help threads in various places, many of them outside Sandbox.

[...] Simply put, if we do not allow them to muck around in the Sandbox, they WILL muck in the threads meant for serious and notable discoveries - which will not help moderation. [...]

I think in practice it's often the other way round. If you allow problematic activity in the Sandbox, then it will more easily naturally propagate to places outside the Sadbox. Further, everything goes to the same logs of recent posts etc., reducing the S/N ratio.

[...] Furthermore, any user can leave any group anytime they want - so the "New" users can easily leave the group to post in Sandbox. [...]

If and when a forum member already knows how to "easily leave the group", it seems to me that they aren't a newcomer anymore.

[...] policy of "reluctant moderation", especially where the Sandbox is concerned ... [...]

[...] Hide the off-topic section from moderators.

That is going to bring problems like "Hey! No moderators! [...]

In practice "reluctant moderation" already brings many problems of the same sort, by itself. Reluctance becomes similar to absence (and therefore similarly problematic).

[dvgrn]

In practice "reluctant moderation" already brings many problems of the same sort, by itself. Reluctance becomes similar to absence (and therefore similarly problematic).

Heh, it does indeed! As a representative of the current reluctant moderator team, I acknowledge that this can sometimes be a problem, just as much as overly activist moderation can sometimes be a problem.

Reluctant moderation is also a simple fact about the conwaylife forums, that the community generally needs to understand and adapt to. Just because of time constraints on the part of the current moderator team, we're going to mostly err on the side of doing too little moderation rather than too much -- leaving more responsibility in the hands of the community.

This means, mostly, everyone being extra careful to follow Rule 1a about being kind, honest, and respectful. De-escalate conflicts at every opportunity, and when mistakes are inevitably made, find ways to take responsibility and help correct them without relying on a lot of moderator time and energy. Think of the reporting system as an absolute last resort only, since each post report places demands on moderators; if there's a likely non-post-report way to solve a problem, definitely choose that way instead.

Question
What problem, specifically, is supposed to be solved or improved by the recent proposals to "split the Sandbox"?

When I look at the various options, I can't seem to see anything that would make the Sandbox any more useful than it is already. And some of the proposals would take quite a lot of configuration work and/or ongoing moderation work, over and above what is already being done.

It's definitely possible that some change might get made, if it looks like it will significantly reduce the overall amount of noise and clutter and reported posts and general sand-kicking pointless arguments that occasionally happen in the Sandbox.

But ... why would it help in any way to put in additional rules about which Sandbox stuff should go where? Adding more rules just creates a risk that more enforcement will be needed, when people accidentally put things in the wrong place -- or, maybe more likely, when people inevitably disagree about which category a given post or thread belongs in.

The Sandbox is a "post CA stuff and don't worry" place. Wouldn't splitting the Sandbox mean that people would have to worry after all?

[Haycat2009]

Hide the off-topic section from moderators.

That is going to bring problems like "Hey! No moderators! Time to troll [DATA EXPUNGED]!" - aka reported posts not allowed to be viewed.

Also, sometimes moderators just want to have playtime. Sure, they are moderators, but this does not mean that they live in the ivory tower far from the Sandbox - if they want too, they can take part in the mucking around and be treated as equals at best and chaperones at least.

Show the off-topic section only to users in the usergroup. I will either accept or reject the join requests. I will reject moderators and some other users.

That does not solve either problem - moderators still want to have fun (Their faces are not made of stone, you know?) and anyone can break any rule (Let me DESTROY [CENSORED] with their [DATA EXPUNGED])

Also, why are you the supreme authority of the “sadbox” and who coined that term anyway?

[unname4798]

There is no Sadbox, there is Happybox. Also, it's actually Confocaloid that actually used a typo of "Sandbox".
Anyways, I would also exclude users if they swear, troll and post inappropriate content, but not If they post content not related to CA.
Moderators will never have fun, anyway.