Moderation Poll
- Thread starter Milkfloat
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
newfhouse
pleb
Who would volunteer for such a thankless task? There should be a means to remove obvious spam and the like, but beyond that I’m not sure there would be much agreement. A balanced team is a big ask.
mudsticks
Squire
I'm not sure, I do.think we need to moderate ourselves along the lines of the old NACA.
Of course public moderation , of ourselves and others could lead to a tremendous amount of argy bargy, in itself.
But the exploratory back and forth is what many of us here for to a certain extent, yes?.
Surely were all grown up enough to know and see obvious attempts to offend or to be inflammatory, for its own sake.
We maybe need a thread on freedom of speech, and the necessary limitations placed upon that, if there is to be civilised, and meaningful discourse ??
Pale Rider
Veteran
Given that we are all CC members, illegal content shouldn't be a problem.
If, say, Pale Rider posted something really dodgy, were I Shaun I would obliterate both of his accounts.
So unless someone wants to go out in a blaze of 'glory', the chances of such stuff being posted are low.
For the same reason no moderation, or rather self moderation could work.
I think most of would be reluctant to post anything too far outside existing CC guidelines, just in case Shaun took a global view of our participation with his forums.
If, say, Pale Rider posted something really dodgy, were I Shaun I would obliterate both of his accounts.
So unless someone wants to go out in a blaze of 'glory', the chances of such stuff being posted are low.
For the same reason no moderation, or rather self moderation could work.
I think most of would be reluctant to post anything too far outside existing CC guidelines, just in case Shaun took a global view of our participation with his forums.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Lets see how it goes.
Another forum I use makes clear that its General Discussion forum is for grown ups who can support their arguments and cope with feedback, criticism and even hysterical laughter. Grown ups can deal with comment and criticism without running to 'teacher'.
If, as was done on NACA, you post something that's word for word Powell's Rivers of Blood then you might get called a racist daffodil; you cannot expect to get the thread closed or edited for that.
If it transpires that we need moderators then there should be a team using a single moderators' 'magic wand'. Moderation of threads or punishment bans should be by concensus so that more assertive/opinionated mods don't get to rule the roost.
Another forum I use makes clear that its General Discussion forum is for grown ups who can support their arguments and cope with feedback, criticism and even hysterical laughter. Grown ups can deal with comment and criticism without running to 'teacher'.
If, as was done on NACA, you post something that's word for word Powell's Rivers of Blood then you might get called a racist daffodil; you cannot expect to get the thread closed or edited for that.
If it transpires that we need moderators then there should be a team using a single moderators' 'magic wand'. Moderation of threads or punishment bans should be by concensus so that more assertive/opinionated mods don't get to rule the roost.
mudsticks
Squire
There is also the point of who decides what is racist, sexist, homophobic etc .?
There's been stuff on CC in the past, that could easily be called those things, but it goes unremarked.
I'm personally not in favour of closing threads, or outside moderation on the whole.
I think if we can't self moderate, then we're pretty much stuffed anyhow.
If I feel someone is being deliberately provocative, rather than just challenging a view, then I'd probs just put them on ignore, rather than argue the toss.
classic33
Über Member
The problem some have, is that reverting to insults is their way of shutting things down. Others don't want to get involved, leaving the threads because of it.
If there's no mods at the start, can we call for them later because "grown ups" can't cope?
OP
OP
Milkfloat
Active Member
I agree, an obvious troll or someone with no cohesive argument could easily destroy a thread. As much as I would hope we could be grown up enough to deal with that NACA proved we cannot always. I expect that the people here are those that really want to be here because they are very unlikely to stumble across this place by accident and get a login, so hopefully everyone is willing and robust enough to be able to defend their arguments, or change their position. If we need mods then I hope we can find some kind of 24/7 coverage so that if things go out of control then locks/bans/deletions happen quickly before there is pages of cleanup required.
Regarding mods, it is impossible to find people impartial, never mind people who are contributors to the threads. I think we need a consensus of people to decide if we needs mods or not, democracy in action. Those mods should ideally be politically somewhere in the middle, although one persons middle is anothers far left or right. The worst case would be two mods disagreeing and fighting it out via mod powers on the forum. This is why I think mods should be used for the worst cases only plus perhaps obvious trolling and consistent name calling.
swansonj
Regular
This site - any site - needs, as a minimum, a mechanism for protecting people. If someone posts e.g. a blatant personal attack, explicitly racist material, or engages in stalking or bullying, there must be as a backstop a way of stopping that, or this site will not be a safe place.
newfhouse
pleb
A ‘like’ doesn’t always signify agreement. Sometimes I will use it to acknowledge a point well made, and I have always assumed that others use it in similar ways. I’m not sure that ‘dislike’ could be used with the same nuance.
Fab Foodie
Guru
Perhaps we need a 'Like', 'Agree', 'Dislike', 'Disagree', 'Trolling' buttons....agree with the ambiguity of 'like' alone.
