lock Should Forum Moderators Close Polls Arbitrarily?

×

Poll: Should Forum Moderators Close Polls Arbitrarily?

Total number of voters: 0
Only registered users can participate to this poll
12 Jan 2012 12:21 #20698 by Ohlmann

Xaddam wrote: For better or worse. 'Stifled' can be interpreted as 'on-topic'.


Keyword here is "can".

In a general context, lighter moderation can also make a forum more interesting on the subject it talk of.

In the case of VEKN, I don't think that harder moderation is needed ; if efforts are to be made it may more be toward newcomers.
The topic has been locked.
More
12 Jan 2012 12:41 - 12 Jan 2012 12:41 #20700 by bakija

Xaddam wrote: For better or worse. 'Stifled' can be interpreted as 'on-topic'.


Conversely, it also can be interpreted as totally reasonable discussion being shut down in the name of stopping people from having heated arguments before they are having heated arguments and discussion being derailed and shut down 'cause the moderators think people have discussed said topic enough.

Yes. Some internet communities are a nightmare and need significant moderation (see: any discussion on the AV Club) as the most mundane discussion just instantly devolves into mysogynisitc creepiness at all times. This, however, isn't one of those communities. And even the most arguably derailed discussion is still reasonably sane and about VTES.
Last edit: 12 Jan 2012 12:41 by bakija.
The topic has been locked.
More
12 Jan 2012 14:03 #20703 by Väinämöinen
Parity Shift threads and polls could benefit from 'stifling'. Same two people prolonging same arguments over uncountable number of similar threads. It is not banned or changed because majority of people doesn't want it banned or changed.
The topic has been locked.
More
12 Jan 2012 14:32 #20706 by bakija

Väinämöinen wrote: Parity Shift threads and polls could benefit from 'stifling'. Same two people prolonging same arguments over uncountable number of similar threads. It is not banned or changed because majority of people doesn't want it banned or changed.


Which always goes back to: If you aren't interested in the discussion, don't read it. Or respond to it. And then it has no impact at all on your life. These threads don't throw themselves into your line of sight. If you know you aren't interested in the subject, don't open them.

I am endlessly, constantly baffled by people who open up a thread, read a thread, and then get irritated that said thread exists and complains about it being there. If you don't want to read them, just don't read them. There are tons and tons of threads and discussions that, for example, I find needless and boring. Which is fine. As I just don't read them. How is that difficult?
The topic has been locked.
More
12 Jan 2012 16:00 #20719 by Izaak
Anyone thinking this forum needs more moderation, clearly has never read any sort of active forum.

What moderation is for, is to keep the place reasonably clean and on-topic. Since this place is exactly that, I'd say we don't need any more moderation. I don't think it needs moderation at all, actually.

What moderation is NOT for is to arbitrarily delete posts and warn users because you don't agree with what they say, you don't like their tone or you just think the guy is an asshat.

Thankfully this forum has none of that and I'd very much prefer to keep it that way.

The moderation still needs to be good though. www.elitistjerks.com is an excellent example of hard moderation working great


Because clearly comparing a forum that has millions of teenagers talking about an online game as their target public with one that is targeted at a handful of grown-ups playing an ancient cardgame makes sense, right?
The following user(s) said Thank You: bakija
The topic has been locked.
More
12 Jan 2012 16:33 #20723 by henrik

bakija wrote:

Xaddam wrote: For better or worse. 'Stifled' can be interpreted as 'on-topic'.

Conversely, it also can be interpreted as totally reasonable discussion being shut down in the name of stopping people from having heated arguments before they are having heated arguments and discussion being derailed and shut down 'cause the moderators think people have discussed said topic enough.


Shutting down "totally reasonable discussion" isn't what I mean when I say that harder moderation would be good. I'm don't even think you believe that's what me or Xaddam wants.
And while we might not be able to agree about what constitutes "good moderation", I'm pretty sure we all can agree that locking threads on such loose grounds as you speak of would be "bad moderation". And that could, to be fair, happen just as easily in a lightly moderated forum. All it takes is a moderator in a bad mood.

There are also other ways of moderating than just locking threads. It's possible to delete single posts. If the topic is good and the discussion is going forward, posts containing nothing but repetition of already posted arguments would be good candidates for deletion.

bakija wrote: I am endlessly, constantly baffled by people who open up a thread, read a thread, and then get irritated that said thread exists and complains about it being there. If you don't want to read them, just don't read them. There are tons and tons of threads and discussions that, for example, I find needless and boring. Which is fine. As I just don't read them. How is that difficult?

I agree with this. Not liking the subject is not something I consider enough to warrant locking or deleting threads. However, I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion of heavy vs light moderation. It's more a good vs bad moderators kind of thing.
I do find it irritating to see new threads with the same subject as another, currently used thread. This is where hard moderation would be good. There's no real point in 2+ threads discussing the same thing, there's rather a good point in only having one thread for each discussion since then arguments won't be as easily missed.

Izaak wrote:

The moderation still needs to be good though. www.elitistjerks.com is an excellent example of hard moderation working great

Because clearly comparing a forum that has millions of teenagers talking about an online game as their target public with one that is targeted at a handful of grown-ups playing an ancient cardgame makes sense, right?

Then again, I didn't post that link to compare the forums in the way you seem to think (I even wrote a disclaimer about the difference in targeted user group, but that part seems to have gotten lost in your quote). I posted an example of a heavily (but good) moderated forum with excellent and thriving discussions, to oppose the statement from Peter Bakija that "Heavy handed moderation leads to incredibly stifled discussion" . And in that context it made sense.

Regarding the "we're all grown ups" argument I think this current thread and the earlier poll says enough.

In the end I guess it depends on what type of forum one wants to have. If it's supposed to be for serious discussions or more for hanging out. Both can surely work, but they end up in different places and while I can see merits in both those place, ultimately I only see myself trying to discuss VtES in one of them.
The topic has been locked.
More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.126 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum