# C-o-n-t-e-x-t



## Nunty

Yes, I know we have discussed this here over and over again. But it is apparently... not... enough.

In the last thread I read in EO the original poster waited until the last post, after several people had given his question their best thought to tell us the source of his text.

In the next-to-last thread I read in EO, the original poster never did give the context. A responder posted the link and said "is this your context" and the original poster said yes.

An organization I belong to has a saying: If you are working harder than the one you are trying to help, you are working too hard.

If you go to the doctor do you make her guess what is hurting you? If you go to a lawyer do you withhold information about the purpose of the contract you want him to vet for you? 

There is so much good help here. How about helping us help?

*****

Thanks. I feel better now.


----------



## Loob

Hear, hear, Nun-T!


----------



## papillon

I wish there were a magical button which would allow the moderators to "conditionally" block such a thread. Then, when someone tries to answer, a sign would appear:

********************************************************
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN PLACED ON HOLD FOR LACK OF CONTEXT.
********************************************************

Only the original poster would be able to unblock the thread by posting additional info.


----------



## TrentinaNE

The problem is that we have too many enablers.  When there is no context, posters *should not respond to the thread at all.* Click on report-a-post and let a moderator deal with it. Or if you're not sure whether any moderators are on-line, post a simple link to the context announcement. Guessing is futile.

Elisabetta


----------



## Loob

I don't think this issue is so much one of "no context": that's easy to deal with.  More frustrating are the cases where some context is given, but the questioner omits what turns out, with hindsight, to have been a key piece of information.  I don't know how you solve those.  Perhaps we ought to ask not just for context and background, but for links to be given to sources wherever possible?


----------



## ewie

_Hear Hear 2_ (Martin Scorsese, 1993.)
Whilst I _do_ enjoy a guessing-game from time to time (sorry, mods, but it _can_ be fun; and I don't mind when the whole lot gets deleted), it can get pretty tedious if it happens too often.
(On a _slightly_ different subject, but while we're having a good old whinge, and this _kind_ _of_ ties in with Papillon's suggestion which I like: I get fairly hacked-off when a member opens a thread, and the question either is or isn't answered_, but us lot make numerous requests for further information, or context, or verification, or something else,_* and we never hear from the original questioner again*. If, after a period of say 24 hours, the questioner has not come back, perhaps some kind of automatic 'warning' could be sent to them for 'simple lack of courtesy and cooperation' ~ it honestly puzzles me sometimes why folk bother even _asking_ questions ...)
I think a cold shower is in order now.


----------



## danielfranco

I think that chronic no-contexters should be banned.

And also banning-mongers...
D


----------



## timpeac

TrentinaNE said:


> The problem is that we have too many enablers.  When there is no context, posters *should not respond to the thread at all.* Click on report-a-post and let a moderator deal with it. Or if you're not sure whether any moderators are on-line, post a simple link to the context announcement. Guessing is futile.
> 
> Elisabetta


Yes, this is the crux of the matter. The moderators spend a lot of time requesting context and removing contextless threads and indeed, as a last resort, banning members who consistently give none after many formal warnings (much of this behind the scenes). We need everyone to help us in this by clicking on the red report a post.

There is a magic button! Here it is
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

TrentinaNE said:


> The problem is that we have too many enablers.  When there is no context, posters *should not respond to the thread at all.* Click on report-a-post and let a moderator deal with it. Or if you're not sure whether any moderators are on-line, post a simple link to the context announcement. Guessing is futile.
> 
> Elisabetta


This is the core of the problem: foreros who, in good faith, reply to threads without context help neither the poster nor those who contribute to and consult the thread.


----------



## danielfranco

[I just wanted to provide some context for Timpeac's title:

"Neither, I'm a mocker"

Now, name the movie. You have ten seconds...]

I'm guilty of having persisted on a thread, hoping that I was being cleverer than anybody else by wildly guessing. I suppose that, as long as there are foreros who insist on having us guess, a few of us will actually give it a whack (even if we know better than to try).

However, I have also been using the "red triangle of thread doom" more often lately, so I think there's hope for both camps: for the chronic contextless members, and for the chronic guessing-game fans, like me. Hopefully it's a situation that will slowly fade away. Soon.

D


----------



## Nunty

On the other hand, some people are absolutley sterling with giving source, context and all relevant information. They should get a prize!


----------



## Outsider

Well said, *Nun-Translator*. And a good suggestion from *TrentinaNE*! I had never thought of reporting threads for lack of context. I think I'll start doing that. What I sometimes do is pre-emptively reply to a thread to ask for more context, before anyone else tries to answer it. But no doubt this would carry more weight if it were done by a moderator.


----------



## TimLA

Perhaps a different perspective:
One person's "need context" is another's "that's a no-brainer".

Many moons ago on EO, there was a thread about "received pronunciation" and I posted a "first reponse" asking for more context (I had never heard of it before).
Within minutes, a raft of BE foreros chimed in with full descriptions, relevance, etc. It's happened to me many times since.

The opposite also happens, where someone will ask for context, and in my opinion there really isn't any needed.

I'm much more sympathetic to "incomplete" context - it depends on one's perspective.


----------



## Outsider

I agree that sometimes people ask for context when it's not necessary. One thing I've noticed several times is native speakers asking for more context or a clarification, and then a non-native answers the question without it, because he understands the doubt of the first poster more easily than the natives.

In my opinion, though, the cases where context is lacking far outweight those where the opposite occurs.


----------



## coppergirl

HI guys

Whooooaaaahhhh there everyone. I know this is a problem, but I would like to say something on behalf of those poor newbies out there. We just had one in I-E and she was at work and probably didn't have time to read every single rule before asking her work-related question. I sort of gently suggested that more context might be helpful and just as she was thinking about giving some . . WHAM . . . a mod threatened the thread with closure.

Now, I'm on board here like everyone else, but I think maybe if someone has been asked to give a little more context by a forero, it might be nice to hear their response (and, if they are at work, give them a little time to think about it and check back) before automatically closing threads. It seems kind of .. . severe and a tad autocratic otherwise, doesn't it? 

Also, in my experience, most people DO put in context where they can, especially as the thread develops. 

All the same, if we are talking about ways to fix the problem, I quite liked the idea of moderators putting threads on "hold" rather than closing them.  

As for foreros querying context and trying to help the poster realize that it is needed, I think this is better and a more polite way to deal with the situation than just having a mod say "This thread is closed due to no context". 

I mean, if I were posting for the first time and had not had time to read the rules (because, say, I was at work) and it were my first post and suddenly some mod came along and said "No context, closed", I would probably be a bit taken aback by how quickly someone slammed my thread closed  and then think "nice forum, huh?"  

People use the forum for information and to learn the answers to their questions, but if it appears that it is full of people who are hell-bent on enforcing the rules, particularly the rules that don't actually HURT anyone, and in cases where people are new especially, then a lot of helpful, eager, enthusiastic new people might be scared off and think that maybe this forum was not moderated, so much as strictly and constantly controlled. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## TimLA

coppergirl said:


> I mean, if I were posting for the first time and had not had time to read the rules (because, say, I was at work) and it were my first post and suddenly some mod came along and said "No context, closed", I would probably be a bit taken aback by how quickly someone slammed my thread closed  and then think "nice forum, huh?"


 

Welcome to the forum! You're fired!!!

Where's Donald Trump when you need him?!


----------



## coppergirl

Hahahhahahahaa . . . yeah, exactly Tim! 

Sort of like Anne Robinson here .. . "You are the weakest link. Goodbye"

You got the point.


----------



## TrentinaNE

coppergirl said:


> HI guys
> 
> Whooooaaaahhhh there everyone. I know this is a problem, but I would like to say something on behalf of those poor newbies out there. We just had one in I-E and she was at work and probably didn't have time to read every single rule before asking her work-related question. I sort of gently suggested that more context might be helpful and just as she was thinking about giving some . . WHAM . . . a mod threatened the thread with closure.


Correction: The moderator merely posted a link to the announcement at the top of the freakin' page. I have little sympathy for someone who can't be bothered to do even the most cursory review of a forum's protocols before posting. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Nunty

The problem is not the newbies. In my experience people are quite gentle with them - even me. I have never seen a mod close a newbie's thread for lack of context. It much more irritating when you see someone with a few hundred posts to their name who still don't give context, and there I have seen threads closed.

This isn't a question of being "hell-bent on enforcing the rules". How on earth am I supposed to answer a question without enough information? I also fall into the guessing game trap: "Oh I'm so clever, I can figure this out!" Sometimes I do; other times I don't. That is not the point. The point is posting a question in a way that is likely to get the correct answer.

Is this a formal text? Informal speech? Is it modern or historical? Is it from a written source or something that was heard?  Surely that is not too much to ask. 

If someone is using the forum at work, then surely it would be in their best interests to present all the information up front. That's the way to get the fastest answer.


----------



## coppergirl

Nun-Translator said:


> If someone is using the forum at work, then surely it would be in their best interests to present all the information up front. That's the way to get the fastest answer.


 
I agree with this---I mean, of course it is sensible to give context because otherwise it is more difficult and people waste time giving inappropriate answers. 

I also agree that they should read the rules. But we are dealing with people, and no one is perfect. Particularly the enthusiastic new members who might be pressed for time and so if hit with a list of rules (and it is a list), they might not think through them all before posting. 

I'm not saying "Wow! This is great! I wish everyone did this!"

I'm saying, since there are people who do this, is there any harm in dealing leniently with them, particularly if they are new and you can see they only have posted one question?

Also, there is never any harm in a mod saying "Welcome to the forum. I see you are new, so we have a few rules and one of them is that we need you to give a bit of context as it says here . . . (link)"

I am not suggesting mods do this for EVERY context thread (not when people have 500 posts under their belt and should know better), but certainly when it is someone's first post, I think "Welcome to the forum " sounds better than "Read the rules or this thread will be closed "

Again, I'm not looking for universal support for this position. I'm merely stating it, precisely because there may be others who feel this but who are disinclined to state their feelings.


----------



## Nunty

That is already being done coppergirl. I started this thread in frustration with the people who _still_, after hundreds of posts, don't seem to know what context is.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Let me make one point really clear:
In my humble opinion there's enough context to answer a question when *most of the foreros* who read a specific thread (and *most of the guests* who consult it through the WRF dictionaries) can understand what the question is about as well as the answers (unless we're talking about astrophysics or very specific topics of course..)
When the only two people who can grasp what the thread is about are the poster and the only dude who was able to reply, it means the context doesn't suffice and the thread is doomed to sink into oblivion.


----------



## coppergirl

Paulfromitaly said:


> Let me make one point really clear:
> In my humble opinion there's enough context to answer a question when *most of the foreros* who read a specific thread (and *most of the guests* who consult it through the WRF dictionaries) can understand what the question is about as well as the answers (unless we're talking about astrophysics or very specific topics of course..)
> When the only two people who can grasp what the thread is about are the poster and the only dude who was able to reply, it means the context doesn't suffice and the thread is doomed to sink into oblivion.


 
I agree with this in principle.  On the other hand, it is always nice to give people a little time to respond.  And I still think that "Welcome" always sounds better to new people than "Threads without context will be deleted", although, again, my point mainly only applies to first-time posters.  

As to those who post millions of times and still have not worked out that they need context . . . well, if it really is millions of times then, naturally, this is another issue.  I'm more concerned with the way the forums might be perceived by new posters who are probably very nice people with something to contribute if given a bit of a welcome and a chance to explain what they mean.

I just think it is a bit heavy-handed for the first-timers to hit them with "Your thread will be terminated" instead of "Hi . . . welcome. . . what do you mean exactly?" and "Please do read the rules about context (link)".


----------



## Nunty

Coppergirl, can you point to even ONE thread where a mod threatened a newbie with "Your thread will be terminated"? You seem to have been around here long enough to have realized by now that this is an exceptionally polite and welcoming forum. Your stalwart position at the side of the downtrodden is admirable, but a little over the top, don't you think?

No one is talking about first timers here.


----------



## coppergirl

Well, actually . . . "terminated" was just my word for "deleted". I'm definitely not suggesting a mod used that actual wording, but to me (at least) "Threads without context will be closed" ---the link---just that link---looks unfriendly by itself, with no "Welcome" or "You must be new. . . ".

Of course, I'm really glad to know it's such a friendly place after all. I mean, now I don't have to worry, right? 

Thanks for clearing that up, nun! I'll leave this discussion to everyone else since my only point has been resolved now. 

Have a nice evening everyone!


----------



## LouisaB

Nun-Translator said:


> That is already being done coppergirl. I started this thread in frustration with the people who _still_, after hundreds of posts, don't seem to know what context is.


 
I totally agree with this.



coppergirl said:


> Well, actually . . . "terminated" was just my word for "deleted". I'm definitely not suggesting a mod used that actual wording, but to me (at least) "Threads without context will be closed" ---the link---just that link---looks unfriendly by itself, with no "Welcome" or "You must be new. . . ".


 
But I also agree with this.

Perhaps we ought to think about the different kinds of offenders and _why_ they do it. It is very dangerous to assume the reason is always 'oh, they haven't read the rules'. Those of us who ask questions as well as answer them know it is easy for even an experienced forero to fall foul of the rules without intending to.

One of the most obvious reasons is simply *humility*. In a language of which you have hardly any knowledge, you tend to assume that something baffling you is unbelievably easy to natives. You think what you're asking is as easy as 'what is a cat?' so you don't list the detailed context of your sentence 'The cat sat on the mat'. Yes, you've read the rules, but you think this applies to the kind of sophisticated question the experienced foreros you can see around you are posting. You're embarrassed to expose yourself to ridicule by apparently thinking your question is difficult. Similarly, humility makes you reluctant to write too long a post - you don't want to waste people's time.

Another reason is *ignorance.* If your knowledge of the language is very limited you may not know exactly what context is required. I made a stupid mistake a few days ago dragging up my appallingly rusty Latin to ask a question in the Latin forum - and completely forgot to mention the gender of the people I was talking about . I was very lucky, and when this emerged in the thread no-one lambasted me for failing to give proper context in the first place - but they very easily might have done. It is quite true that often a key piece of information only emerges late on in a thread, but shouldn't we try to remember that the forero 'may not know enough to know what he doesn't know' - ie he doesn't have our expertise in determining what's necessary to answer the question. It is perfectly possible to obey the rules to the letter, including a detailed history of the source - and STILL not give the vital information (eg 'this is a satire').

None of this is to disagree with Nun-Translator. Persistent offenders ought to be ignored or reported to Mods. But we could sometimes show a little more kindness to the inexperienced or genuinely well-intentioned.

In other words: Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. 
But also: To err is human, to forgive divine....

Louisa


----------



## timpeac

In all this please bear in mind that reporting a post is simply to bring it to moderator attention, not necessarily to "denounce" a grievous sin. When there is a new member who is posting in some way not in accordance to the rules then they are contacted with tact and civility and given help in following the rules. This all happens by PM of course. The best way to deal with a post with insufficient context is to report it and then move to the next.


----------



## Loob

It seems to me that there is, in this thread, a dichotomy between those who are concerned about context/no context and those who are concerned about sufficient context/insufficent context.

It seems to me that posts with "no context" are easy to deal with: you ask for context, or you report the question. Personally, in the forum I spend most time in, I prefer the former, although I have no objection to the latter.

Much more difficult are the posts with insufficient context. As I suggested earlier, perhaps we should always ask people to provide a link, where possible?

Do we need another rule change?


----------



## coppergirl

Loob said:


> Do we need another rule change?


 
Hi all, again

Well, the other question is, if there IS another rule change about context, are the people who didn't manage to read the first context rule likely to read the new rule?

Isn't the problem too many rules to read through, rather than too few?  I mean, if there are MORE rules, then there is also more chance to fall foul of them, and more chance they won't get read.  Those of us who mean well will always be hitting our "alert a mod" buttons to alert mods to even more people who are, inadvertently in most cases, breaking even more rules.


----------



## LouisaB

timpeac said:


> In all this please bear in mind that reporting a post is simply to bring it to moderator attention, not necessarily to "denounce" a grievous sin. When there is a new member who is posting in some way not in accordance to the rules then they are contacted with tact and civility and given help in following the rules. This all happens by PM of course. The best way to deal with a post with insufficient context is to report it and then move to the next.


 
I do bear it in mind, tim. I have no problems with 'report-a-post' or messages by PM, and I doubt anyone else does either. If context-less posts were _really_ all dealt with this in this way, I doubt this thread would exist.

But dealing with reality for a moment, what worries me is the _tone_ of the _public messages_ given to these offenders. Coppergirl has cited one, but we have all seen others, many of them to new or inoffensive foreros. Examples include: 'You will find your answer *here'* with a link to the rules and no other remark - which we old hands find very funny and witty, but the poor newbie never posts again and I can't blame them. Yes, I know we're all jolly clever, but are we really so sad we need to prove it by bullying in this way?

I have enormous sympathy for the mods' job here. Nun-Translator is one of our nicest and most tolerant members, and if even she feels this aggressive about contextless requests, I can hardly blame an overworked and desperately frustrated mod from posting a response that seems a little sour. They too are human! All I can say to that is that I will not, and have never, criticised a mod's actions in public, but I am quite happy to praise one. Panjandrum in the EO forum has dealt with literally hundreds of these posts with courtesy, humour, and sympathy. It can be done. All I'm saying is - why don't we all do it?

Is that so very bad?

Louisa


----------



## coppergirl

LouisaB said:


> But dealing with reality for a moment, what worries me is the _tone_ of the _public messages_ given to these offenders. Coppergirl has cited one, but we have all seen others, many of them to new or inoffensive foreros. Examples include: 'You will find your answer *here'* with a link to the rules and no other remark - which we old hands find very funny and witty, but the poor newbie never posts again and I can't blame them. Yes, I know we're all jolly clever, but are we really so sad we need to prove it by bullying in this way?


 
Well, this is what worries me too. It's the tone. And the fact that, if you have a good look at the rules, even just in the I-E forum, (here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=61257), you will see that there are actually several posts with 22 "basic" rules, and links to the comprehensive rules, and about 3 posts about source citing rules. 

Now . . . if I were a new person, with an actual question to which I wanted a quick answer, and I was in a hurry or at work or something, chances are I would have signed up and looked at all those rules, skimmed them and posted my question without ever having realized that I was offending anyone by not having read them fully. 

Then, when I am still trying to get my bearings and my answer, I get hit with a post link saying "Threads without context will be closed", it just looks unwelcoming. 

Similarly, as a forera, if I unwittingly try to help someone by saying "please can you give us some more context to work with?" then I don't really fancy my chances if mods are already complaining (without my having been aware of it) that foreros are exacerbating this by not immediately hitting the red alert button. 

Ok . . . I admit it. As a forera, I feel uncomfortable using my red alert button. See? I got that off my chest. I never told tales in school, despite the many times I could have done, and I don't like using my red alert button because I see that as an "emergency only" button. In other words, if someone is being scathing to everyone, swearing at people in a thread, sending people spam or doing something really seriously bad, I will think "Where is my red alert button?" 

If someone has posted without context, I think "Ah . . . this person is new . . let me just remind them gently that we need some context". I don't think "Oh, this is something a mod needs to handle". 

This forum does need some rules about context, but it is not only the tone of the posts I am concerned about, but the tone of the forum in general. It can either be a fun, relaxed place to learn or it can turn into the glorified dictionary version of a police state. 

If we greet each other in a fun, relaxed, cheerful and helpful way, it will be the former. If every time someone breaks one of the many rules somewhere and we have to keep pressing our red alert buttons, well, it will soon feel a lot more like the latter.

Good point, Louisa . . . tone! You hit the nail on the head there---it's all about tone.


----------



## Trisia

coppergirl said:


> If someone has posted without context, I think "Ah . . . this person is new . . let me just remind them gently that we need some context". I don't think "Oh, this is something a mod needs to handle".



Did you notice that most WR forums have their own way of handling this?

The first reprimand I ever got from a mod was when I gave a newbie a link to the rules. I don't remember much of it (almost a year ago...), but I don't think I was being particularly disrespectful (that'd be so unlike sweet lil' ol' me). I understood that, as a normal member, it was perfectly all right for me to ask gently for more context, but _not to give a link to the rules_ -- because the mods in that forum preferred doing it themselves. This way, they could make sure that newbies don't feel offended when they just posted and another member hits them in the head with a set of rules, no matter how nicely delivered.

In my favourite forum, it seems that it's usually OK not really a crime  for members to mention the sticky with the guidelines, if the newbie obviously hasn't read them. Just as long as you're kind and polite.

And sometimes you might find that the new member will be upset if you tell him more context is needed, precisely because you're just a member so you should shut up and leave them be (I've seen it happen). So the "call-a-mod" button is there to help protect both the poster and you. It doesn't turn you into a tattletale, but into a responsible member who cares for the community.

Mods are human. The ones I know are absolutely fantastic, and unbelievably patient. But some days there are so many people who break the rules, especially when it comes to context, that they just can't be expected to smile and throw in a giant bunch of niceties along with the rules, every single time. It's nasty when you're on the receiving end, but _it happens_. You swallow your pride and go on.


_... isn't this off-topic, anyway? Nun-Translator mentioned this thread is about those who *persist *in posting without context. Round 'em up and turn the hose on 'em I say!_ (now that's my normal sweet self)


----------



## coppergirl

Trisia said:


> .
> 
> 
> _... isn't this off-topic, anyway? Nun-Translator mentioned this thread is about those who *persist *in posting without context. Round 'em up and turn the hose on 'em I say!_ (now that's my normal sweet self)


 
There wasn't enough context at the beginning to let me know how I was allowed to post in it. 

I just assumed it was for anyone with something to offer as regards how members and mods alike deal with the issue of "no context" posts. 

In any case, I would have thought that since new posters are the ones who often fall foul of the no context issue, the issue of new posters was worth mentioning. All the same, I agree that the habitual no context people should probably be treated differently. 

The question is . . . what does everyone else think about how they should be treated? Are there any other ideas? Other than the "put them on hold" or "ban them after a certain number of posts" or something?

I think it is an interesting topic and so look forward, for my part anyhow, to reading what other people think.


----------



## timpeac

coppergirl said:


> If we greet each other in a fun, relaxed, cheerful and helpful way, it will be the former. If every time someone breaks one of the many rules somewhere and we have to keep pressing our red alert buttons, well, it will soon feel a lot more like the latter.


Nevertheless, that's what we'd like you to do. Pseudo-modding causes the moderators a lot of extra work. A simple request for further context is unlikely to cause a lot of problems and moderators are unlikely to get particularly het up about it. However, there is often a lot of modding going on behind the scenes with new members who do not post any/sufficient context and we have had new members leave because of (perhaps well-intentioned) advice posted in threads posted by members unaware of discussions already taken place within the modding team and PMs already sent.

This thread is not about whether the red triangle is popular or not. It is the way the administrator wishes members to notify issues. If as a forum member you notice something procedural you think should be done differently you should use it to alert moderators to take appropriate action. If you think that moderators aren't taking appropriate action then, please, you are more than free to contact another moderator or the administrator with your concern.

To be even more blunt - saying "we need more context to answer this question" is just about ok (although if you haven't clicked on the red triangle I would ask why). Non-moderators saying "please read through the rules here" is actually _un_welcome and off-topic. Please don't do it.


----------



## coppergirl

timpeac said:


> To be even more blunt - saying "we need more context to answer this question" is just about ok (although if you haven't clicked on the red triangle I would ask why). Non-moderators saying "please read through the rules here" is actually _un_welcome and off-topic. Please don't do it.


 
Fair enough, Tim. Usually I'm a fan of the "Please could you give us more context" approach myself.  Believe me, I NEVER tell people to read through the rules because that is not only not very helpful to anyone, but if they are in any sort of a hurry with their query, it would also be fairly time consuming. 

I would throw out the idea for consideration that simplifying the rules might not be such a bad idea for anyone who is in a hurry and really just wants to post one question and then read the rest of the rules later when they have more time, and if they decide to continue using the forum regularly.  

If the rules list can be shortened to the basic 5 or 6 that are needed for posting a thread in a hurry, including context, there might be more chance of people reading them through and posting in accordance with the context rule.

Just a thought.


----------



## ireney

But if we do that and they break one of the rules not mentioned on those 5-6 rules they will have every right to complain. And if we leave their posts be, we will be unfair to all the others who found a few moments to read through the whole list of rules.
I frankly don't believe that a member who has time to find the forum (if he/she has found it before he/she had time to read the rules) register to the forums and post a question doesn't have the time to read the rules. Since his/her answer will not be answered instantly (or at least he/she has no right to expect his/her question answered instantly) then it can't be a matter so urgent that it can't wait for a few more minutes.
Anyway, it is common courtesy to do so, even if we disregard the 
"Forum Rules
In order to proceed, you must agree with the following rules: 
[...]
I have read, and agree to abide by the WordReference Forums rules." 


That's how I see it anyway


----------



## Jana337

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to have a look at what junior members see when they click on New Thread. Is the list not short enough?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Thank you for that reminder, Jana.


----------



## coppergirl

Those posting new thread guidelines look much more readable, Jana, than what is at the top of the forum pages. 

It is also fair to say that people should read the guidelines. All the same, then, what should be done to those who repeatedly do not? 

To get more perspective on the issue . . . in the different forums, are there any figures as to how many no-context posts a day mods have to deal with? How big a problem is this? 

Also, if it is a really big issue for mods alone, then what is up for discussion, exactly? I mean, if we members are not really meant to be intercepting these people, and if all that is required of us is to press the little red button to alert a mod every time a new no-context poster enters the forum . . . then what is left to discuss exactly? Isn't this an issue that the mods will decide alone without seeking popular opinion? 

I'm not really clear on why a thread was started if it's generally felt that this is a mod issue solely. Sorry if I'm sounding vague, but if most of the people in this thread are also mods, and if we members are not really meant to do anything about these no-context people if we see them other than to alert a mod, then what is the purpose of this thread exactly?

I mean, if it's a mods-mostly or mods-only issue . . . then surely the mods can discuss this better without asking member opinion, can't they?


----------



## timpeac

coppergirl said:


> I mean, if it's a mods-mostly or mods-only issue . . . then surely the mods can discuss this better without asking member opinion, can't they?


But nuntranslator started the thread. A sister, not a mod.


----------



## lizzeymac

timpeac said:


> Nevertheless, that's what we'd like you to do. Pseudo-modding causes the moderators a lot of extra work. A simple request for further context is unlikely to cause a lot of problems and moderators are unlikely to get particularly het up about it. However, there is often a lot of modding going on behind the scenes with new members who do not post any/sufficient context and we have had new members leave because of (perhaps well-intentioned) advice posted in threads posted by members unaware of discussions already taken place within the modding team and PMs already sent.
> 
> This thread is not about whether the red triangle is popular or not. It is the way the administrator wishes members to notify issues. If as a forum member you notice something procedural you think should be done differently you should use it to alert moderators to take appropriate action. If you think that moderators aren't taking appropriate action then, please, you are more than free to contact another moderator or the administrator with your concern.
> 
> To be even more blunt - saying "we need more context to answer this question" is just about ok (although if you haven't clicked on the red triangle I would ask why). Non-moderators saying "please read through the rules here" is actually _un_welcome and off-topic. Please don't do it.



Thank you, timpeac - this is exactly the sort of blessedly blunt and clear explanation of what Moderators want me, as a member, to do.  

Maybe my experience here is unusual but it seem to me that worries about guilt and "tattling" when using the button aren't necessary.  I posted something to a the wrong forum on one of my first visits and the Mod who contacted me couldn't have been nicer.
I worry more about the occasional seemingly-brusque response posted by  members.  The Mods are decent, civil, human beings and aren't going to abuse the newbie whose post you've reported.  Maybe the word "report" is what engenders such heightened reactions?  "Reporting" someone does have negative connotations.  I prefer to think of it as "alerting a Mod' rather than "reporting" a forer@.

I just don't think it's that hard to read the rules, and the rule on context is one of the simpler rules.  This site makes a few reasonable demands on forer@s in exchange for all that it offers.


----------



## coppergirl

timpeac said:


> But nuntranslator started the thread. A sister, not a mod.


 
Is that the same  nun who was arguing against democracy earlier in the other thread?   She's like no other nun I've ever met! 

All the same . . . was the intention to see about banning these no-contexters?  Or just to see what everyone else feels about them or whether they perceive there to be a real problem with them or what?

Also. .. . what kind of stats are there on the problem?  I mean, since you are a mod, Tim . . . how many of these no-contexters are out there every day and how big a problem is it really for the mods and for everyone?  I mean, is it one per day per forum or more like 40 per day per forum?  

This sort of information would be really helpful when discussing it, I think.


----------



## Jana337

The tone of the first post suggests that the intention was simply to let off some steam. 

When I was still a moderator in the Italian forum, the problem was really big. 40 is a much closer estimate than 1 for sure. It improved a lot once we put up the sticky, that we copied from English Only, and started posting links to it. In particular, notorious context scrooges shaped up quite a bit after having a few threads closed and I think that even some newbies noticed the announcement before posting. We were quite happy about it.


----------



## timpeac

coppergirl said:


> Is that the same  nun who was arguing against democracy earlier in the other thread?   She's like no other nun I've ever met!
> 
> All the same . . . was the intention to see about banning these no-contexters?  Or just to see what everyone else feels about them or whether they perceive there to be a real problem with them or what?


You'll have to ask her that I can say that any members who consistently break any rules that are clearly set out and have been clearly and tactfully highlighted to them (often behind the scenes) on many occasions will be banned. And have been.


coppergirl said:


> Also. .. . what kind of stats are there on the problem?  I mean, since you are a mod, Tim . . . how many of these no-contexters are out there every day and how big a problem is it really for the mods and for everyone?  I mean, is it one per day per forum or more like 40 per day per forum?
> 
> This sort of information would be really helpful when discussing it, I think.


In the forums as a whole, I would guess that posts without sufficient context for a clear answer per day must be around the higher end of that scale, but we have no way of monitoring those statistics. It's one of the least serious (since it's not usually deliberate, and most people learn quickly what's needed), but most common, infringements.


----------



## Outsider

lizzeymac said:


> Maybe the word "report" is what engenders such heightened reactions?  "Reporting" someone does have negative connotations.  I prefer to think of it as "alerting a Mod' rather than "reporting" a forer@.


But it shouldn't have such a connotation. I report posts. I've never reported a poster.


----------



## timpeac

I take away from this discussion that we need to let people know better how we view report a posts. It didn't occur to me people might not view it as a purely positive and helpful thing to do, both for the moderators and for the poster of the post reported (since they can be guided and helped in terms of where they're having problems complying with the rules).


----------



## Nunty

coppergirl said:


> Is that the same  nun who was arguing against democracy earlier in the other thread?   She's like no other nun I've ever met!


Arguing against democracy? Would you care to source that? 

No, I suppose not, since it is not true. It is one more of the silly red herrings you seem to enjoy scattering in your posts.



coppergirl said:


> All the same . . . was the intention to see about banning these no-contexters?  Or just to see what everyone else feels about them or whether they perceive there to be a real problem with them or what?


Please read the opening post. I think you'll find "the intention" is quite clear, but if you have trouble understanding parts of it, by all means ask for clarification. After all, WordReference is a language forum.



coppergirl said:


> Also. .. . what kind of stats are there on the problem?  I mean, since you are a mod, Tim . . . how many of these no-contexters are out there every day and how big a problem is it really for the mods and for everyone?  I mean, is it one per day per forum or more like 40 per day per forum?
> 
> This sort of information would be really helpful when discussing it, I think.


What is even more interesting is why you seem to be bound, set and determined to distort the orginal question, cast aspersions, draw unfounded conclusions and bring in unrelated issues. If you want to discuss any of the issues you have mentioned here, you are free to start a thread. I am sure you will receive the same attentive replies and considered argument that anyone else does.


----------



## Nunty

Jana337 said:


> The tone of the first post suggests that the intention was simply to let off some steam.


Yeppers. Jana gets it in one.


----------



## Outsider

I'm one of those stodgy folks who often report several posts or threads a day. Most of the time, it's to warn the moderators that a thread is in the wrong forum, and should be moved elsewhere (e.g. question about French in the Spanish-English forum, or vocabulary question in the grammar forum), or that a new post to an old thread, made by a newbie, is completely off-topic, in which case I normally suggest the moderators move it to a new thread. Very rarely, I've also reported obvious spam.


----------



## Porteño

I find it extremely frustrating, having asked for more context, when somebody jumps in and answers the original question and sometimes, as it turns out, erroneously. This is particularly so in the ES forum when the context is often vital to getting the *correct* translation. However, I recall when somebody answered my post requesting context, by saying that there was no rule about context. I can not remember now who it was, but obviously it couldn't have been a Moderator.

As I understand from all the foregoing, we as ordinary folks are not supposed to ask for more context, but rather alert the mods to do that - do I get that right? I would like to point out that whenever I ask for context, I think I always do so in a kind and polite manner, although I do recall one particularly annoying case where I rather bluntly said they should read the rules. I hereby apologise for that indiscretion - but sometimes people do get under one's skin.


----------



## lizzeymac

Outsider said:


> But it shouldn't have such a connotation. I report posts. I've never reported a poster.



Yes, that's how I think of it as well, though I did reread the rules and several threads on the issue the first time I considered using The Button.  

Some of the posts in this thread seem to indicate that "reporting" can be perceived as tattling and that some forer@s feel that they would be "reporting" a person rather than calling attention to a post - "guilt" was mentioned. The connotations attached to the word "report"  might explain some of the reactions to this issue.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Porteño said:


> As I understand from all the foregoing, we as ordinary folks are not supposed to ask for more context, but rather alert the mods to do that - do I get that right?



There's nothing wrong if you kindly point out that it's impossible to provide a comprehensive and reliable answer to a contextless question.


----------



## Jana337

Also, some questions are not really contextless. But people sometimes do not evaluate correctly what helpful context is. There's nothing wrong about inquiring further in my view. That's very different from threads where the first half-dozen of posts is groping in the dark.


----------



## Nunty

Maybe because it's after midnight... If people worry about "reporting" a post and feel like they are denouncing their comrades to the Other Side, how about this: Change the red triangle with an exclamation point in the middle to a friendly, inclusive purple circle (or some other inclusive color, of course, maybe rainbow) with a graphic of two hands grasped in friendship in the middle and call it the Friends Don't Let Friends Post Without Context button.

Or not.


----------



## danielfranco

I use the "Red Triangle of Thread Doom" quite often. Especially in context-less, or context-poor threads.

You all might say, "well, yeah, of course: you are danielfranco, so of course you enjoy being cheeky and tattle-telling on others, we hate you", but that's not the reason why I do it.

Okay.

It's not the ONLY reason I do it.

But I've tried being all nice and friendly and asking for more context pretty please with sugar on top, and I've also tried being rude and insulting the poster, and I've further tried other things in between, and NOTHING

—let me say it again—

NOTHING!, works better than the Red Triangle of Thread Doom. It's like the "Easy" button from the commercial. Or like a can of Raid.
D





—EDIT—
Ah, and one more thing: I believe Coppergirl is entitled to her opinions. And Nun-Translator is entitled to defend her position.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nun-Translator said:


> Maybe because it's after midnight... If people worry about "reporting" a post and feel like they are denouncing their comrades to the Other Side, how about this: Change the red triangle with an exclamation point in the middle to a friendly, inclusive purple circle (or some other inclusive color, of course, maybe rainbow) with a graphic of two hands grasped in friendship in the middle and call it the Friends Don't Let Friends Post Without Context button.
> 
> Or not.



Foreros should use the "report a post" button not only when they want to bring to the mods' attention a contextless thread, but also for many other reasons:


> Report posts that use inappropriate language, or belong in another forum by clicking on the report-a-post icon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in the top right corner of each post. This will help to run the forum smoothly.


That's also the best way to report spam of course.
Could you imagine reporting a spammer using the "Friends Don't Let Friends Post Without Context" button?


----------



## Nunty

Non e problema (that was me trying to speak Italian...)
We simply put up a whole GALLERY of buttons to  cater to all the delicate shades of sensitivity. We could have a skull-and-crossbones for porn-and-rolex-watches spam, the rainbow hand grasp for context, a traffic "detour" sign for posting in the wrong forum, a ha-ha-sucker-gotcha for trolls, a cherub from classic art for a newbie needing guidance...perhaps a nun being dragged away by her cord for the truly insane ones...

First day without fever all week. I expect I'll be better by evening. 

(Oh yeah. I think the mods are valuable, precious people doing a difficult job for few (any?) perks and lots of revilement. We need a World Cup-shaped button for commending them.)

OK, ok, I'll go along quietly... just put that jacket with the very long sleeves away.


----------



## coppergirl

Nun quotes = black font . . .* coppergirl comments in bold . . . . Hope everyone can follow this one in . . . um . . two tone font! *



Nun-Translator said:


> Arguing against democracy? Would you care to source that?
> 
> *HI, nun. First of all, I think it's really important to state at this point that I said that with a smile BECAUSE I know it is not really true. It was based on your comment in the other "over-moderated" thread that the WRF is not a democracy. Of course, it can't be efficiently run as a democracy and I take that on board fully. Having said that, I've always felt a bit of a cold chill when I hear people saying something is not a democracy as though that were a GOOD thing. It may be a necessary thing, but that is not the same as a GOOd thing, is it? *
> 
> Please read the opening post. I think you'll find "the intention" is quite clear, but if you have trouble understanding parts of it, by all means ask for clarification. After all, WordReference is a language forum.
> 
> *Actually, a few people signalled later in this thread that your real intention may possibly have been to let off steam and gain emotional support for your feelings of anger against the no-context posters. *
> 
> *I admit, I missed this completely, since I I wandered into the thread in the middle, after having seen a newbie in I-E who didn't seem to have been received with the welcome I would have hoped for because she posted without context, so I joined this thread to try to say that I thought that the tone we convey, especially to new people, is really important. I then tried to make what I hoped were helpful suggestions as to how no-context posters might be dealt with. *
> 
> *I am generally a really rationally minded person, so the first thing I thought about was putting myself into their shoes and thinking WHO they are. New posters were naturally on my mind because of the I-E thread in particular. However, I think it is important that, when determining how to deal with a problem, we assess first WHO is causing the problem and WHY, and then think about how BIG a problem is it and consider the scope of it, and finish off with a few constructive ideas about how to handle it, with a sense of community and team spirit.*
> 
> *I also think it is REALLY important that the PERCEPTION of how it is handled appears to be fair and proportionate to ALL foreros, including those who wander in and out of the forums less frequently, and those who are not really assertive enough to make their opinions known for fear of rejection, or but who still have opinions and feelings of their own on these issues.*
> 
> What is even more interesting is why you seem to be bound, set and determined to distort the orginal question, cast aspersions, draw unfounded conclusions and bring in unrelated issues.
> 
> *If you look above, I've explained why I don't think these issues are at all unrelated, but rather core to the way no-context posters are dealt with. Different TYPES of no-context posters I think should be handled differently. Whether or not the red button gets used (as most mods seem to want) to alert mods to no-context posters at the outset, versus whether foreros approach them on their own politely and ask for context is also, to me at least, fairly central to the issue you raised in your original post.*
> 
> If you want to discuss any of the issues you have mentioned here, you are free to start a thread. I am sure you will receive the same attentive replies and considered argument that anyone else does.
> 
> *To be honest, I am a little perplexed at exactly why you feel I am not supporting your position. To me, once a question is raised for serious consideration, then of course people who want to help will offer suggestions and try to flesh out the real issues underlying it for discussion. Whether or not we use red buttons to alert posters to no-context threads is, to me, on target in a thread on "No context posters". *
> 
> *Again, I am pretty broadminded myself and tend to naturally interpret things in the broadest possible way. I also am inclined to "do unto others as you wish they would do unto you", which means, in my mind at least, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt as to why they might post with no context, and treating them differently, depending on whether they are a repeat offender or someone who just did this once.*
> 
> *I also try very hard to think about my own sense of perspective on the issue---is it one no-context poster or many? Is it every day or once a week? How many are out there?*
> 
> *These are all issues which, I think, are worth considering rationally before any decisions are made as to what to do about this problem. *
> 
> *I hope I have not offended anyone by stating that I think these people should be treated fairly leniently because, as crimes go, this is a pretty minor offense and not nearly as bad as sending out spam or porn or swearing at people in a thread or things that I consider to be really serious. *
> 
> *I am trying to actually support you in discussing this, in the only way I know how---rationally. I'm sorry I can't say "I think they should all be treated severely by the mods" because I just don't think that is the case. *
> 
> *I would also like to state that a lot of other foreros like me find it really very difficult emotionally to state our opinions in threads like this precisely because we often have the perception that opinions which appear initially dissenting are somehow erroneously perceived to be critical of either the mods or the way things are being run. *
> 
> *Because of this, us "live and let live" types usually don't post in these, because we find it to be an unpleasant experience to offer suggestions constructively in what we hope will be an appropriate tone, only to find that other, more aggressive foreros say things like "How can you think that?" and "Justify your position" which, again, to me don't sound very friendly statements. *
> 
> *I have tried to say what I felt honestly in this thread, but if I have offended anyone by stating what I think, then I am sorry for it and I apologise.*
> 
> *As for the red button issue . . . well . . . I DO see it as something I would never want to press unless something really illegal or dangerous were going on in a thread, precisely because I think that, maybe because of me, someone will be, perhaps curtly, informed of the rules and to read them again, and maybe not welcomed in a nice and friendly way. I am glad that mods send PMs to new people, but of course, the REST OF US DON'T KNOW THIS. *
> 
> *Once again, it may not be that mods act inappropriately, or that people are not being welcomed when they post with no-context (although to be honest, having read some of this thread, I am beginning to wonder just how welcoming some of us foreros might be to these people ) but that the REST OF THE LESS FREQUENT users may have the PERCEPTION that people might get into trouble in some way if they use that button.*
> 
> *I mean, someone in this thread admitted that people do get banned occasionally. Someone else mentioned (maybe in the other thread?) that I think they called up old threads and the rules had changed since then, leading to the banning of other people.*
> 
> *Again, I'm a lover, not a fighter. And I wouldn't want anyone banned or criticised or told off or in any way made to feel unwelcome by something that I did if I press my alert-a-mod button every time someone posts with no-context or fails to try to translate their sentence themself first. I'm in this to help people learn English in exchange for some Italian tips. Not to try to police things. If other people in the forums feel the same way I do, then it might be a perception issue which is the problem, rather than what the mods actually are or are not doing.*
> 
> *As for no-context posters, I'll try to ask for context politely if that is still allowable in the rules, and I will watch what is decided as regards repeat offenders.*
> 
> *Thanks very much for listening and reading.*
> 
> *coppergirl *


----------



## Mate

Moderator note:

Since this thread was started in the aim of venting, and we've all had a chance to do that now, it is now closed.


Mateamargo
moderator


----------

