Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be...

OT Moderation Style

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

Poll: I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be... (67 member(s) have cast votes)

I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be...

  1. Much more proactive (7 votes [10.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.45%

  2. Somewhat more proactive (29 votes [43.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.28%

  3. The same as it is now (30 votes [44.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.78%

  4. Somewhat less proactive (1 votes [1.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.49%

  5. Much less proactive (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 11:28 AM

I agree with you that the very nature of the kinds of topics that get discussed it lends itself to more divisiveness and heat.  However, and I'm not kidding, I honestly think that for the most part we do a better job of keeping it civil here in OT over issues like same sex marriage than some "debates" I've seen elsewhere over such earth shattering issues as the merits or relative lack thereof of Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica.  ;)
Posted Image

#22 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 02:41 PM

I'll tell you folks one thing, Historically, the moderation in this forum has been much more proactive than in any other part of Ex Isle, because this is where most of the trouble starts. The bans have come from here, and at least 90% of the forced edits have been here as well. Which is why I don't understand why so many people are voting for the moderation to be even more proactive. :wacko:

OT will never be the Beach, or General Media Discussion. So I don't know what else we can do without becoming censors.

Edited by Kevin Street, 19 April 2004 - 02:42 PM.


#23 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 02:57 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 17 2004, 10:48 PM, said:

Kevin Street, on Apr 17 2004, 08:07 PM, said:

Are you looking for an increased presence from the moderators, with more editing and more suspensions, or do you want be us to pay more attention to the tone of the threads, warning people to settle down more often when arguments break out?
If I may....

Both. And neither.

Arguments will break out over politics. But what I think merits consideration is the way the arguments (not necessarily in terms of verbal politics, but in terms of rhetoric and reasoning) are composed.

. . .

And I'm not sure it answers anything, because I'm sure I'll get asked to explain further--- and I simply can't be any more clear.

:cool:
Well can you clear this up then: Are you suggesting the moderators consider action against someone who uses poor reasoning?  :Oo:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:01 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 19 2004, 02:39 PM, said:

I'll tell you folks one thing, Historically, the moderation in this forum has been much more proactive than in any other part of Ex Isle, because this is where most of the trouble starts. The bans have come from here, and at least 90% of the forced edits have been here as well. Which is why I don't understand why so many people are voting for the moderation to be even more proactive. :wacko:
At the risk of starting up a QSF-level debate, perhaps people want more proactive moderating so that there will be even fewer bans and moderator-edits of posts.

It ain't easy. But then, we haven't really had major problems either. What we've got is good, but don't assume that there is no possible way to improve.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:17 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 19 2004, 07:39 PM, said:

I'll tell you folks one thing, Historically, the moderation in this forum has been much more proactive than in any other part of Ex Isle, because this is where most of the trouble starts. The bans have come from here, and at least 90% of the forced edits have been here as well. Which is why I don't understand why so many people are voting for the moderation to be even more proactive. :wacko:

OT will never be the Beach, or General Media Discussion. So I don't know what else we can do without becoming censors.
A suggestion. When acting as a Moderator do not appear to be taking sides as you did in the thread about JFK.  Otherwise I have no problem with the moderating in OT or any other section of this site. I was the first person banned and I accepted it being done.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:21 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 19 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

Historically, the moderation in this forum has been much more proactive than in any other part of Ex Isle, because this is where most of the trouble starts. The bans have come from here, and at least 90% of the forced edits have been here as well. Which is why I don't understand why so many people are voting for the moderation to be even more proactive.
No, the term you're using is "reactive". Which is my point.

The trouble starts here, thus, the clampdown.

To be honest, what I want to see is a focus instead on trouble *before* it starts. Maybe a caveat post before the thread gets completely out of hand, reminding people about respect and to keep it about the topic. Or even directing the topic so that conversation drifts away from the typical barricade dichotomies (Republican/Democrat, French/everyone-else, etc), and making perfectly clear in no uncertain terms that respect must carry the day, else we all lose.

Banning people, editing posts, that sort of thing--- that's all reactive.

I don't know what I want, Kevin--- all I know is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to come into this forum and read a thread with more than ten replies, because usually by the eighth or ninth, I've read some crap that just makes me twitch with retributive impulses. Can't help it-- maybe it's just the nature of political discussion--- but it's starting to make me think twice about the continued value of my participation in this forum, period. And frankly? That's a problem. Whether it's mine with respect to my ability to tolerate differing opinions or mine with respect to the way those opinions are handled, I don't know. But the hour is late when I feel compelled to try to address the topic openly.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#27 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:27 PM

Another suggestion.

We could have a political discussion forum. But I see Hawk;s point. It is the nature of the beast. We have our own opinions on topics and when some speaks against it we react or we read the post and then react.

Basically what has been done has worked maybe a little closer exam of actions taken or not taken would better than rushing headlong into this.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#28 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:43 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 19 2004, 01:19 PM, said:

No, the term you're using is "reactive". Which is my point.

The trouble starts here, thus, the clampdown.

To be honest, what I want to see is a focus instead on trouble *before* it starts.
I think that's a nice goal but aside from the logistics of mods not being around all the time the human factor comes in.  I mean what may look like lively banter to someone might actually be someone getting ready to fly off the handle and vice versa. Further, it seems to me that on some topics, they're going to go where they're going to go and that's a function of the topic and of the personalities of those involved in the discussion.  

Quote

Maybe a caveat post before the thread gets completely out of hand, reminding people about respect and to keep it about the topic. Or even directing the topic so that conversation drifts away from the typical barricade dichotomies (Republican/Democrat, French/everyone-else, etc), and making perfectly clear in no uncertain terms that respect must carry the day, else we all lose.

Caveats are one thing.  Demanding that people simply avoid dichotomies or generalizations defeats the purpose of a discussion forum.  Rules don't solve anything in this kind of situation.  Also, respect by whose definition? Just as a hypothetical.  I'm sure that many people think it's disrespectful to refer to Bush as Dubbaya or accuse him of misleading the country.  Well okay, I'm sure that those feelings are genuine.  And yet guess what, I feel that it's disrespectful to expect that people can't criticize their president or downright ridicule him if they think it's warranted because I believe so strongly in loyal opposition.  And honestly, I don't care what name this place has, it really IS a hot topics forum and the idea that a certain level of heat isn't part and parcel of that is just not very realistic.

Quote

Banning people, editing posts, that sort of thing--- that's all reactive.

On this I totally agree.
Posted Image

#29 Peridot

Peridot

    Elf Lynx

  • Islander
  • 2,916 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 08:23 PM

StarDust, on Apr 19 2004, 03:29 PM, said:

Peridot, on Apr 18 2004, 10:23 PM, said:

StarDust, on Apr 18 2004, 05:26 PM, said:


The very nature of the forum is going to create heat. If people can't handle it they should just stay out of the particular thread, or the forum all together. It shouldn't be ruined for everyone else and made toothless (and thus obsolete). It's a place where people discuss politics, beliefs, and opinons of these things.
The concept that wanting to see a bit more courtesy at times in a thread (or in the forum) is equivalent to not being able to "handle it" when things get heated is an equation that just doesn't balance.  :Oo:
I don't believe I equated them, I believe you just did.



Well, no.  

But it certainly seemed to me that you were implying that those who would like more moderation somehow couldn't "handle"  the way things are now.

You made a number of good points in your response to my comment; points that I would agree with.  Sometimes people's opinions are truly so different that it is hard to avoid hurt feelings, or hard feelings.

I simply fail to see why you introduced your initial comment the way you did.  Saying that people can't handle something, especially something like a discussion, is often going to be perceived as a derogatory comment, and with some reason.  

So I'm just kind of puzzled at this point.  Care to clarify?

Peridot

#30 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 06:54 AM

I'd like moderation in this forum to be... invisible, until such time as someone steps out of line, at which point I want that person punished mercilessly.

Better yet, install sensors to detect when someone is about to step out of line.  Then, proceed with punishment.




Seriously though, I think that the level of moderation in this forum appears to be fine.  :)

#31 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 02:37 PM

Peridot, on Apr 19 2004, 09:21 PM, said:

I simply fail to see why you introduced your initial comment the way you did.  Saying that people can't handle something, especially something like a discussion, is often going to be perceived as a derogatory comment, and with some reason.  

So I'm just kind of puzzled at this point.  Care to clarify?

Peridot
I think it's self evident, but I will try.

We have seen on many occasions where there is a thread about whatever.  This happened often on the topic of Andromeda, especially at that other place. Choosing that as a far off enough example no one should get offended.  

Anyways, people are happily (or happily unhappy :) ) going along with their debate or discussion.  Then a person that doesn't feel the same way (when everyone in the thread is agreeing) or doesn't like the debate (when there is a debate) will jump in.  Instead of debating the points brought up, they will then start saying everyone is being mean for having the opinions.  If they don't like the opinions, and don't have actual comments debating the opinions, they should stay out of it.  They shouldn't try to prevent everyone else from having the discussion because the mere existance of it offends their sensibilities.  They have no business being there unless they have something to say, other than telling everyone else off and trying to prevent everyone else from having the discussing.  If you don't like the subject, don't participate.  If you want to refute something, go ahead, but don't start whining that the discussion is happening or that people have the views they have.

It often seems that some individuals trying to make a point of someone's supposed uncivility often end up way more uncivil by the Nth degree.  Wicked hypocritical.

Just because someone doesn't like a discussion doesn't mean they have the right to stop or censure other people from having the discussion.  

And in a forum like this, it's bound to happen.  Everyone here is free to express their opinions, but once you do, everyone else is free to have an opinion about your opinion.  No one has a right to tell someone else to mind their own business because they aren't "X".  And no one has the right to say some subject or opinon isn't allowed.  People shouldn't go about calling each other names like slut or brainless or bastard or whatever.  But questioning the logic expressed in a stated view is more than fair, since that is kind of the point in a debate.

And some people just can't handle a debate.  They pop in to express displeasure with a view, but just can't handle the result.  Some people are just that way.  If so, stay out of it, or even express your view and then leave.  Don't hang around and then get all insulted cause everyone doesn't agree with you.

IE.  Don't get insulted because there is a thread discussing the wonderfull attributes and social contributions of porn.  If you are insulted by such things stay out of the thread.  Or jump in and make your case. Don't whine the thread shouldn't exist, or complain when other people have the audacity to not agree with you.

#32 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 02:53 PM

Quote

Don't get insulted because there is a thread discussing the wonderfull attributes and social contributions of porn. If you are insulted by such things stay out of the thread. Or jump in and make your case. Don't whine the thread shouldn't exist, or complain when other people have the audacity to not agree with you.

I have no objection to someone suggesting a course of conduct as a response to a particular question.  However, you're going beyond that and telling people how they should feel in response to a particular situation.  Not only will it *never* work (on account of the fact that people feel how they feel and that's the way they feel) but it's the kind of thing that's likely to be upsetting.

Just sayin...
Posted Image

#33 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 02:56 PM

I'm not telling anyone how they should feel.  

I'm stating they shouldn't do so either.  

You can feel anyway you want, it's what you do about it, or expect others to do (or not do) about it that's the point.

We are all beyond the 4 year old "mommy he looked at me funny" level, I would hope anyways.

We are all responsible for ourselves.  We are responsible for how we feel and act and what we choose to participate in and the consequences.

#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:05 PM

StarDust, on Apr 20 2004, 12:54 PM, said:

I'm not telling anyone how they should feel.  

I'm stating they shouldn't do so either.  

You can feel anyway you want, it's what you do about it, or expect others to do (or not do) about it that's the point.

We are all beyond the 4 year old "mommy he looked at me funny" level, I would hope anyways.

We are all responsible for ourselves.  We are responsible for how we feel and act and what we choose to participate in and the consequences.

Quote

Don't get insulted because there is a thread discussing the wonderfull attributes and social contributions of porn.

Telling a person whether to be insulted about something is telling them how to feel.  Period.  If that's not what you intended to say that's another thing but it *is* what you in fact said.
Posted Image

#35 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:14 PM

No, I stated person A had no business telling other people they couldn't discuss what they wanted because person A was insulted.

Don't twist it around.  

They have every right to feel what they want, they don't have every right to do what ever they want about how they feel or to make others responsible.

#36 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:23 PM

As an example, my personal feeling is that some of the creative forums have dubious value, if any.  

I have never said that before and do so here only as an example.

I don't not go to those forums and enter those threads telling people they are being stupid or could find better uses for their time.  

What they do or what they discuss or how they want to spend their time or how they communicate with each other is no skin of my nose, and given my opinion, none of my business.

Why would I just try to make things difficult for them?

Why would I try to impede their freedom of expression?

Why would I try to hinder something that they enjoy just because I don't see the validity of it?

Why would I take every opportunity to try and destroy or water down what they enjoy?

No, I have no interest, so therefore I don't get involved.

If I were to get involved I understand that certain things are required.


If you are going to get involved in free debates about all kinds of social issues, changes are at best you will disagree with several people, at worst you will get your feelings hurt.  You may get attacked for your opinions, and you need to decide ahead of time whether you can handle it.  How you feel is not someone elses responsiblity.  Everyone should be as polite as possible, but people shouldn't be restricted from discussing something because someone else doesn't like it.

Of course, if you don't believe in free expression of beliefs and ideas, I suppose that's a whole other ball of wax.  There are certainly those that never wanted this forum opened to begin with.

#37 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:37 PM

Help me understand here because it seems to me like you are saying things that seem at odds with eachother.

Quote

people shouldn't be restricted from discussing something because someone else doesn't like it.


Here you are supporting the idea that someone who likes something shouldn't be restricted from talking about something simply because someone doesn't agree with it.  And I agree.


Quote

What they do or what they discuss or how they want to spend their time or how they communicate with each other is no skin of my nose, and given my opinion, none of my business.

Why would I just try to make things difficult for them?

Why would I try to impede their freedom of expression?

Why would I try to hinder something that they enjoy just because I don't see the validity of it?

And here you appear to be supporting the idea that someone who *doesn't* like something SHOULDN'T discuss it with someone they disagree with.

Let's use...Angel as an example.  Following what you seem to be saying here (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting), if I LIKE the show then I'm perfectly free to say so as much as I like regardless of who disagrees with me.  But if I do not like the show I shouldn't "interfere" with people who do like it.  This seems like a double standard to me.

Why *shouldn't* I express my dislike of something?  People who like the show like the show right?
Posted Image

#38 Mary Rose

Mary Rose

    Charlie's Asthmatic Angel

  • Moderator
  • 22,331 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:47 PM

Well, I *think* what he's trying to say(I don't know if SD is male or female) but I think it's that if someone comes along in, say, an Andromeda thread where people are of the  opinion that the show sucks now and just comes in there to say that they still like it and we're all mean and horrible to be bitter and angry over it and we don't know what is good TV anyway, that would be wrong.  

We are all free to feel how we feel but so are others and trying to get people to change their feelings by insulting them is wrong and won't work anyway.
Mary Rose, Official Missionary for the Church of Beka angst.  Please join us for worship at the EI fanfic board.  Jill-- on what my name badge should say.
Proud Andromeda and Forever Knight fanfic writer
    Posted Image           Posted Image           Posted Image
Proud parent of thriving Beka and Tracy muses
Posted Image

#39 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 03:59 PM

hmmmmm.  Well I hope SD clarifies.  Anyways for me the line is pretty much whether I still watch the show.  I mean I don't watch Enterprise so my criticism of it pretty much stops at the last episode I saw which was I  believe the first or second ep of this season.  With Andromeda I'll bash it forevah right up to the Tyr two parter but otherwise I've only watched one ep and a couple of teasers.  It's not a matter of raining on anyone's parade but a matter of whether or not I have an informed opinion.  For that reason I seldom even look at (let alone post) in Smallville, Alias, and Enterprise threads...
Posted Image

#40 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 04:47 PM

Mary Rose, on Apr 20 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

Well, I *think* what he's trying to say(I don't know if SD is male or female) but I think it's that if someone comes along in, say, an Andromeda thread where people are of the  opinion that the show sucks now and just comes in there to say that they still like it and we're all mean and horrible to be bitter and angry over it and we don't know what is good TV anyway, that would be wrong.
But if they write a post saying that Andromeda is a good show, and supply examples supporting their argument, that would just be adding to the debate, and would be fine.

I think I get what StarDust is saying. It makes sense, but it's a hard rule to follow sometimes because we all have hot buttons that get pushed from time to time, and when that happens our first intinct is to "fire back." As a mod in this forum, I have to read all the threads, and sometimes the urge to pop in on some threads and say "that's not so" is nearly overwhelming. Occasionally I give in (like with the Kennedy thread), but usually it's best to stay out of threads where one has nothing to add to the debate.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: OT, Moderation Style

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users