Moderating serious threads

[TaffyGuy]

We've had a good deal of serious general discussion threads recently, and we all know why. Unfortunately most of them end up troubling me to all end, again for obvious reasons.

What I would like is for moderators -- and I see them all the time so it seems that they're certainly active enough to keep up -- to quickly delete stupid, or even arrogant and/or aggravating posts from serious threads, or possibly change them to a size 4 font or move them out of the thread into a general "crap here" thread and put a link to them, so that the sanctity of the original topic and actual meaning behind it can be upheld.

Does this sound like censorship, or too much censorship to you guys? I know what you're thinking, I've posted a lot of pointless garbage myself, but I _generally_ keep it to threads where the topic is pointless garbage in the first place. Now of late when I make the decision by pressing my mouse to read a serious topic, after a couple minutes i'm OVERLY COMPELLED to add into the consuming chaos and tell off the f**ko who thought themselves so important that they should completely crap out any thought or meaning that could have occured from some members sharing and kinship. This is of course what starts the downward spiral, and there are others who don't so easily keep their will and stay their hand in response.

another option would be for you (**********) to realize you're mistake and delete the post yourself, especially after it gains attention and starts drawing the thread off topic and creating anger among head-fiers. I wouldn't mind having some stupid crap I posted deleted, and I wouldn't mind editing it out on my own, after realizing my mistake. well you made a mistake.

Another option would be to send the offending poster a personal message asking them if they would consider deleting their post, something i just thought of, which would possibly save the thread from spinning out of control.

Any thoughts?

 

[neil]

I think it always works itself out in the end. Pure out asinine flame-bait posts to get a rise out of people do suck, I agree; however, most mature people here (which is most of us) don't throw more algar in the petree dish, if you know what I mean.

And in a bigger scope, the general population here pretty much know who posts what, and if their stuff is pretty much crap (much like my posts), responses just don't happen -- and it gets pushed down the thread list, and ignored.

<edit> Ahh, but you're saying in serious threads -- i.e. in the middle of the thread, I just yell out that you're all boneheads. I get it -- well, yes, I think that the moderators should take liberty of removing stuff that just degrades the value of the forum/thread discussion, or change the context of the post alltogether to make the person look more like a llamasheep.

 

[mbriant]

We moderators, as a group, try to keep our editing of posts at a bare minimum in an attempt to keep this forum as open and free-flowing as possible. Unless there's been a serious breach of the rules, we prefer to let the members straighten things out through discussion.

Believe me when I say that we do follow all threads, issue warnings to wayward posters, and in rare cases have outright banned flagrant violators.

But for the sake of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we prefer not to become thought police.

If anyone has any concerns about a given member's posts/actions, do not hesitate to notify any and all moderators through a PM.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

I mod over on the IGN forums (gaming site). It's an extremely busy forum with a much younger average user-base. We have tonnes of teenage, rabid fanboys who bait and flame a lot. Xbox fanboys go to the GameCube forums just to raise hell and vice versa.

Just crack some heads and lay down the law with the users and they will have to be civil if they want to post.

Edit, warn, ban, repeat.

 

[Duncan]

I agree with mbriant here...

If something is completely off-topic, and offensive / against the rules, then it is removed, and the offending poster is informed why etc (and this, as mods... is all documented behind the scenes)...

Although, if people do find a post that is unnaceptable that slips through the net, there is always the 'report this post to a moderator' link on every post... by all means, click away... thats what its there for

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by TaffyGuy Another option would be to send the offending poster a personal message asking them if they would consider deleting their post

Do this. Then it targets a specific post and poster. And they can discuss what the problem is at the same time.

But if a post simply speaks cold hard 'truth' or 'facts', then it should not be deleted, regardless of how it might offend certain people.

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

taffyguy, who is to decide what is "stupid" "arrogant" or "aggravating"? you?

 

[hongda]

The problem is that sometimes asinine comments are meant sarcastically or are an attempt to lighten the mood of a serious thread, sort of an attempt to tell people to step back and take a different view.

 

[ArChaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant We moderators, as a group, try to keep our editing of posts at a bare minimum in an attempt to keep this forum as open and free-flowing as possible. Unless there's been a serious breach of the rules, we prefer to let the members straighten things out through discussion....................But for the sake of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we prefer not to become thought police.

I agree 100%. Most of the members of this forum are mature enough - mentally speaking - to disagree in a civilized manner. The forum rules are similar to the Laws in the real life word - unless broken there is no valid reason to take action and censor member's posts. The moderators, with all due respect, should have their mandate on this aspect only as mbriant so wisely acknowledged. WHO is the ONE entitled to decide what are "stupid, or even arrogant and/or aggravating posts"? I personally am prepared to swallow a very, very, very large quantity of such posts (from my point of view,of course) in order to preserve the right of speech of the opposing party...
As Winston Churchill once said " I would fight to my last drop of blood for your right to disagree with me..."

 

[TaffyGuy]

Duncan/mbriant you are very wise and correct, of course, and i think i shall take it to pm level, as i realized while writting the first post. the only thing is that i am not generally inclined to follow whats best for everone, and i personally want to raise hell for these creeps becuase they deserve it. so lesson learned is i don't deserve moderating privlaiges

beagle: funny you should say!! .....ygpm

haha just kidding... or am i. (see: i'm glad there's a head-fi)

fyrfytrhoges: in a word, yes. and don't give me that. i'm talking obvious, or flagrant. (see: i'm glad there's a head-fi)

hongda: yes i have a tendency to do this, it is in my nature. i've been attempting to curb this behavior somewhat, but still find it appropriate (not always correctly...) and apply it occationally. but when i say "serious" i don't mean "heated" i mean serious as in emotionally involved... with emotions other than hatred and contempt for other head-fi members. (they do exist)

example: it seems inapropriate to insert war cries into a thread devoted to mourning, but yet again that could just be me. also, see: i'm glad there's a head-fi ...

edit: i am not fighting oposition of opinion, but by clearly starting a discussion of ONE VIEW or a product of that view, in an emotionally involved manner... i cannot accept that as free speach. free speach is starting a new thread discussing the issue openly, not invading on someone's thread that is already based on their beliefs. i'm getting too figurative now. i think you get the point.

 

[DanG]

I have on rare occasions made two threads from one when one has been over-run by an off-topic sub-thread. I think this is the best way to do it and still I think this should be done sparingly.

Most of the time I think it all gets resolved in the end; if the thread is compelling enough for someone to respond to, when there's crap in the middle people still keep responding. If the crap takes over it's usually a good indication taht the thread has died.

If this happens but you want to continue to discuss the original topic of the thread, just create a new thread entitled "[Original topic] Part 2." This is done sometimes and it's a good solution because anyone can do it, and it does not require editing or deleting someone's posts.

 

[Magicthyse]

I just thought I'd say hello.

 

[fredpb]

Said thread had at least TWENTY participants.
Over EIGHTY posts.
Over ONE THOUSAND views.


Hmmmmmmmm............


Somebody was interested.

 

[fredpb]

Please go back to "the thread" and read my last message.

I think all will find it interesting.

Fred

 

[Snufkin]

People just need to remember that messageboards don't usually convey the same emotion as real life conversations

I've had plenty of 'arguments' online with people and come to the opinion that they're an idiot, only to meet them in real life and find out that I get along with them very well.

Instead of more moderating, just consider that not everyone can convey exactly what they mean through a text medium - I know I have trouble somtimes thinking of words to use when in real life I'd use hand gestures etc (and I don't just mean flipping the bird

) so you might not be fully understanding what someone means due to the fact that they can't really fully put into words what they mean

Unfortunately due to the fact that I'm in the most remote city on the planet, I don't get to meet many head-fiers in real life