Just to clarify, I don't really want to open a new thread about grammar but I wonder if a fresh start would really make things different, in this or in any other case.
I can see the option of closing threads being useful in some occasions but I'd rather see threads die a natural death Outside rather than being closed.
Actually CJ, you were ok. Your comments were constructive and did not get personal to others.
Freedom of debate is one thing. Turning a thread into i said this, you said that, i didn't mean that, this is what you meant is in my opinion totally silly then on top of that... little digs and unnecessary comments get chucked in.
I agree with closing a thread. It gives people a chance to calm down.
Freedom is still there. As Franck already said, there is nothing to stop you opening up the thread again and starting afresh ie: actually getting back to the point of the thread in the first place or maybe starting a new one that covers something else that came up.
Moderation is censorship, that's 95% of what we do.
The job is to keep as much free speech as possible, whilst remaining within the rules and also promoting a friendly and welcoming atmosphere.
So the questions are:
- How much censorship / moderation do we as a forum want?
- What are the most effective tools for the job?
The whole problem with moderating is its a thankless task
no matter what you do someone will think you have done wrong or done something just to appease a friend
Personally i think that the level of moderation is about right ok i disagree with certain rules i think i have made myself plain enough on that but in general the moderation is balanced.
I mean you get lory on one side calm thoughtful etc and then you get djb with his button
I have to buck the trend. I think that closing the thread was a bad idea, and I only posted on the old thread to point out that Azande's a bloke (as I know how annoying getting the sex wrong can be ) .
It's true that posts get more heated once they're outside, but it serves the purpose of clearing the air and keeps the discussion in one place where you can easily avoid it, if you so wish. IMO, closing the thread instead will lead to frustration and I suspect the argument will continue elsewhere where it can be less easily avoided. Besides, all outside posts die a natural death, anyway. Why change something that works so well? I've always thought "outside" was such an enlightened idea - why should this forum move backwards to use methods suited to less sophisticated fora? (nice word, Franck!)
Well, eh, closure will be a more effective mechanism, because, eh, no one can post at all*. I can't help but think the thread title has clouded judgement here .
From what I've seen, closing threads on other fora seems to occur where the potential for legal infringement occurs (certainly not the case here), or the fora in question is huge (not really the case here, comparitively speaking) and so moderation tends to be on the brutal side (increasingly tending to be the case here, sadly). WRT the specific thread in question, it would have been more sensible to let it die a natural death. I'd stopped actively participating in it a while back - as had several others, I suspect. Eventually everyone would, or it would have Gone Outside if necessary.
Unnecessarily aggressive moderation, if you ask me. It's getting a little tiresome IMO.
*without going to the hassle of raising an entirely new thread.
I am slightly surprised by this action (although I did not post on that thread).
I think one thing that has been mentioned in the past is the importance of face to face contact to help smooth out communication.
To that end, I propose we have a budget for moderators to become roving peacemakers, which would involve driving to see forumites, have a chat and a cup of tea and a piece of cake, then possibly driving with other forumites to meet up and resolve the issues face to face over another cup of tea and some more cake. If necessary, this could be done internationally to the Antipodes as well for example.
The other possibility is to take David Bailey to the European Court for infringing the Human Rights of forumites.
lets face it, the thread was getting a tiny weeny bit Boring
Not that I have experience of your side of the fence, but if 95% of what you do is censorship, I suggest you're doing it wrong. (Active spam deletion potentially excepted, if a lot more of that happens than I'm aware of).
To use a 'bouncer' analogy, yeah, bouncers can get physical. But a good bouncer tries to stop it ever getting that far.
On this forum, I know there are times when I could have done with a mod giving a gentle nudge saying "You're going a bit far - wanna tone it down?". But this never seems to happen, instead the mods wait for things to blow up and then start deleting and infracting.
In the thread under discussion, I would have preferred a "Cool it guys, or we'll have to close the thread" warning before it was closed (although I was personally pretty much done with it anyhow).
Just my $0.02c.
I'm including things like thread splitting, thread merging, and general "tidying up" activities as "censorship" - in a sense, they are, in that they affect the course of free speech.
Hopefully they affect it beneficially, but it's still "censorship". Or, moderation, depending on your point of view.
Good suggestion - sounds like a good idea; if we repeat this exercise, we should probably follow such a process.
I can't argue with your observation. Well, maybe the tiny weeny bit... However, are we going to close all threads that are going nowhere or have become boring?!?
Well, if U hadn't closed a specific thread we wouldn't have had a specific thread to dscuss, now, would we? However, U did close a specific thread for specific reasons: I am asking U for examples of those reasons because I, possibly singularly, fail to see where those reasons existed.
Why should "I" have special treatment? Why must it be "I" and not "Eye" yet it is "you" we use and not "U"? Surely, "U" and "I" are equals??
David, U know very well that not everyone on this forum is "nice, fluffy, warm or welcoming". If someone isn't sticking to the rules by being so, we (U) infract, etc... In order to protect our fluffiness, are we to vet incomers and noobs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks