Re: Moderation


"Serena Blanchflower" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2akpyeruxiej$.ai9xxpipaxsc.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:21:28 GMT, Peter V Rawlings wrote:
>
>> If this is a 'straw poll' - or possibly a <strawman's> poll :-/) I
>> consistently vote 'no'.
>
> Fair enough.
>
...........
>
> I don't have a problem with the idea of moderated groups, largely
> because it is optional for any of us whether we choose to post in them
> or not. I certainly wouldn't be happy, and would be very unlikely to
> remain in, any group where the moderation policy appeared to be based
> on personalities rather than actual posts.
>

....Ah! "Look into my crystal ball!...." :-)


>> A <parallel moderated group would be a fine trial for those that want to
>> run
>> it. However, 'UKPD' should remain as a forum for those with
>> communication
>> 'difficulties' as much as it is for the erudite and civil ones!
>
> I don't think there's any doubt that UKPD would remain as it is. Any
> new group would probably be called UKPD-moderated.
>

I think that would have to be so.

>> Having said that - there are now four 'names' that want to become
>> moderators
>> and grafters of overhead, it seems. Serena - I understand the
>> frustration,
>> but do not believe that moderation is the way forward.
>
> Not so Peter. It had occurred to me that I should perhaps have said,
> in my earlier post, that I would support the group but *not* to the
> extent of volunteering to be a moderator! I have no idea whether any
> of the other people who would support the group would be willing to
> volunteer.

The snag there is that the ones that <might> step forward <might> well be
the ones with there own agendae on what shall pass! :-/ It's a disciplined
collective obligation to be consistent and even-handed. Some of the
promoters might not pass the acid test - for very long! I'm happy that
they should try, but would rather they didn't trash this place before
proudly marching off - to quagmires on a different plain! :-O! Frying pans
and fires? (a small speculative gloat!)

>
> Although I would support a moderated group, it isn't something that
> I'm desperately worried about. It isn't a huge overhead to kill of
> those threads which degenerate into a squabble. I think that the
> atmosphere here almost certainly puts people off posting though and
> they might be more willing to ask for help in a moderated group.

I think that's the rub. New folks have had to be quite savvy/thick-skinned
to arrive and to endure. A bit like another real-life environment? :-)


>
> In fact, if I remember correctly, my first post here was in response
> to a post claiming that there was no evidence that there were any
> lurkers who were discouraged from posting by the arguments. A few of
> us put our heads over the parapets to say that we were!

"Ouch!" :-O

Yes, but you did stay! - despite the trash hereabouts! Why does this
<have> to be a 'nice' place? Some pretty nasty things have happened to
folks to bring them here. However, I'll agree that we don't need to carry
everyone's burden when it turns to personal abuse! Block such senders.

>
> I don't agree with your statement, in reply to Derek, that anyone who
> supports such a group must necessarily be willing (or fit) to take on
> the role of moderator. What we don't have is the right to whinge if
> no one else is willing to set up such a group or moderate it!
>

Fair comment. Derek has often triggered rather black-white responses to his
equally totalitarian/obscure views over the years :-/ But although not
everyone should need to be involved, they should be prepared to dilute the
totalitarian state of moderation, when it becomes oppressive! ('when' not
'if'!)

The main trouble is that not enough folks are willing to air povs and
kick-off starters that are wholly on-topic <and looking for real input> to
solve problems. There is virtually no networking here! I've started a
'real' thread that addresses DPs' involvement in local government planning
(and hopefully <budgeting>?!) No tags yet! :-/

Cheers,

Pete.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Moderation
    ... >>I still have the document so could get it out of mothballs and see ... consistently vote 'no'. ... moderation upsets my residual senses - more than a bit. ... A <parallel moderated group would be a fine trial for those that want to run ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: Moderation of uk.business.telework
    ... > Quite why other newsgroups are not swamped with spam I ... :-) My point exactly Simon - so the purpose of moderation is? ... level of traffic I will support it. ...
    (uk.business.telework)
  • Re: soc.senior.mod ???
    ... articles, robot software for soc.senior.mod would reject that article. ... that only human moderation can stop, and I am not referring to someone ... another moderated group should exist that dont allow any politics. ... What I find particularly funny, and chuckle at to myself, is the fact that the very things that YOU engage in, I support protecting your right to do so. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: [socmen] How about if *we* propose our own moderated group?
    ... >>>I was going to stay out of this, but look, folks, this is a really ... >> Moderation is one step away from censorship and soc.men has ... Blacklisting is a whole 'nother area. ... > it allow replies to such two group cross postings to also be ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Call for vote on s.m.m
    ... Please give evidence to support this statement. ... I wrote a post "My posting history in regard to moderation ... You responded with evidence that I had once planned proposing a new group ... I released all the AUKers from my kill-file when I asked Tim to do so ...
    (soc.men)
Loading