In Reply to: Administrivia: OK, OK, some of the moderators will be more proactive here posted by Ted Smith on December 15, 2007 at 08:46:00:
I hope the stricter moderation will not destroy the identity and entertainment value of this place, but at the same time I suspect that's not possible.
Being a technical guy, I was annoyed at first that a forum whose nominal purpose is "Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics" would be basically hijacked and become instead a place for discussing the so-called "Great Debate". I also perceived at the time a bias in the moderation whose end effect was to encourage this hijacking.
But over time, I simply accepted that the de facto purpose of the forum is "The Great Debate". During this time, the moderation became more lax, which caused me to perceive it to be more even-handed than it had been in the past. Strangely enough, these two occurrences, combined with some pretty lively discussion turned this forum into a great source of entertainment for me. I get more laughs out of it than all the other forums combined.
Sure, there is the risk that the whole thing could get completely out of hand. I've seen this place compared to the newsgroup rec.audio.opinion for example. But if you were to read that newsgroup without knowing what its nominal topic was, it would be difficult to even figure out that it was about audio at all. By contrast, despite all the personal bickering that goes back and forth here, the topics really are about "The Great Debate". So I don't think the comparison with rec.audio.opinion is valid in the present state of this forum.
What worries me about stricter moderation is that people will start using the "alert moderator" button as a tool in an attempt to silence people with opposing views. Another thing that happens in environments of strict moderation of contentious subjects is that some people get into this game of seeing how creative they can be at insulting people while still having the moderator leave their posts intact. I'd hate to see it get to that level of pettiness. I'm tempted to insert a sexist comment here, but I suspect you could guess what it would have been had I written it :-).
I don't think there's any ideal solution, but I do think that having a forum in which the discussion is nearly uncensored provides an outlet for people and helps the discussions in other forums to be more restrained.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Another point of view - andy_c 10:25:47 12/15/07 (12)
- RE: a suggestion - mls-stl 12:59:36 12/15/07 (5)
- RE: a suggestion - kerr 10:58:19 12/17/07 (2)
- RE: a suggestion - mls-stl 11:53:03 12/17/07 (1)
- Now then... - kerr 11:57:52 12/17/07 (0)
- Or, perhaps - E-Stat 14:43:09 12/15/07 (1)
- I always thought it should be called "Thunderdome"... - mkuller 11:55:55 12/16/07 (0)
- I'm not in disagreement, - Ted Smith 12:33:49 12/15/07 (2)
- RE: I'm not in disagreement, - rdf 13:12:24 12/15/07 (0)
- You really need give all this some more thought. - bjh 12:48:02 12/15/07 (0)
- Addendum: I think most of us know already which posters to avoid, the ones who seem to be here... - clarkjohnsen 10:33:58 12/15/07 (2)
- They let YOU post here ? - Richard BassNut Greene 07:26:55 12/17/07 (0)
- Exactly my point, thanks [nt] - Ted Smith 12:25:07 12/15/07 (0)