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

#41 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,612 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 04:49 PM

Lil, I think that SD is agreeing with what you said about having an informed opinion and be willing to accept the consequences if that opinion, well argued, remains a minority opinion.  If Stardust happens to have a lot of familiarity with, say, role playing, and after long experience decided that role playing was silly, evidence of psychological problems, turned people into liars (I'm just making these up), then she certainly does have a right to make that case reasonably and civilly in the RP forum.  She is saying that if she however has no interest in roleplaying and doesn't know anything about it, from which to argue an anti-RP case, she should stay out of the debate.

As corollaries, people who do like role-playing should not whine that anti-RP views are mean and hurtful to the self-esteem of role-players and shouldn't be allowed in the forum. but they should come in with reasoned counter-arguments to Stardust's points.  

Going back to the Andromeda example, it used to get me highly steamed that when "Bashers" were being attacked for posting negative things about Andromeda, many of the complainers never came back with arguments about the qualities of Andromeda that they still believed worthwhile.  They would simply say that they liked it and it ruined their fun to have an atmosphere of "negativity" around.  There can't be discussion or debates without a pro and a con side, but there are people who act like anyone who takes a con side on an issue upon which that person holds a pro position is a demon out to cause personal harm to the pro poster.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#42 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 04:57 PM

Cardie, on Apr 20 2004, 02:47 PM, said:

Going back to the Andromeda example, it used to get me highly steamed that when "Bashers" were being attacked for posting negative things about Andromeda, many of the complainers never came back with arguments about the qualities of Andromeda that they still believed worthwhile.  They would simply say that they liked it and it ruined their fun to have an atmosphere of "negativity" around.
Well I think it goes without saying that you and I are in complete agreement about this...

:whistle:
Posted Image

#43 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 05:32 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 20 2004, 04:35 PM, said:

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?
Well, Mary Rose, Kevin Street and Cardie all pretty much got it.

It's not that someone can't disagree with an opinion.  It's that they can't complain that someone has an opinion.  They shouldn't bash people or go whining to the admins because someone said something about  Andromeda or Angel, for example, that they didn't like.  It very much supports the idea that if you don't like Angel you can say so. Someone else can't then try to censure you for saying bad things about Angel or just pooing it in general.

A lot of people are offended by slash.  If someone started to complain about it's existance in one of the creative forums, you would probably be one of the first people to tell them they don't have to go read if they don't like it.  Same exact thing.

The problem with censure, and that's very muchwhat we are discussing, is that it's a slippery slope and it's very much my rose is someone else's mud.  

This whole thing was pretty much should someone be prevented from saying something because it offends someone else's sensibilities one way or another.  I don't believe they should.

#44 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 05:47 PM

Okay then.  Gotcha.:)
Posted Image

#45 Peridot

Peridot

    Elf Lynx

  • Islander
  • 2,916 posts

Posted 20 April 2004 - 07:13 PM

StarDust, on Apr 20 2004, 07:35 PM, said:

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.

No; I think perhaps it wasn't clear what I was asking.  

I think you make your points about the way events sometimes occur in discussion pretty clearly.  What I was curious about was whether you didn't perceive the possibility that your comment could be seen as derogatory towards other board members, or whether you thought that was the best way to put it, or whether you simply didn't care how others might perceive it.

But not to worry....your last comment explains it very well.

Quote

This whole thing was pretty much should someone be prevented from saying something because it offends someone else's sensibilities one way or another. I don't believe they should.

I still think, BTW, that you are interpreting the concept of mods being more proactive in a much narrower sense than I would interpret it, but really, I don't see that as a problem.  It's just interesting.

Peridot



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