14 Aug 2006 16:11:28
arch
Moderation, smoderation

All the talk of 'forum moderation' needs to be put into perspective.

The reality is that today's flamers have learned over time to despise,
or not trust, the people they flame. Newer players simply don't
understand the issues well enough to flame anyone, but experienced
players do. In other words - and in my opinion - forum flamers don't
flame just for the sport of it, in all likelihood they have unresolved
issues.

So if you can understand that concept, then you may understand why 'some
people' and 'some groups' think they need to have *MORE* message control
in a moderated forum. Logging in is one thing but needing your name is
purely for purposes of intimidation and retribution. Type A stuff.

The vast majority could easily get along just fine without any
moderation whatsoever.

Now, extend that kind of thinking to current events and maybe you can
see a disturbing trend. They not only want to control what people say in
public but they want to control what news you get too. If it weren't for
an interested and on-the-ball Edmonton sports reporter who broke the
story, we might still be in the dark about you-know-who. The
intelligentsia actually thinks we didn't need to know about it. My
question is: How do we turn these parental controls OFF?

Moderation is needed to attract sponsors. !?!? Really? Obviously, this
is the used car salesman approach. Fresh paint over rust. It has to look
good until a sucker comes along and buys it. Sigh!

Well, this is the kind of thinking you're getting for your membership
dollars. It's money well wasted in my opinion. And you wonder why clubs
are closing. Double sigh!

But I hope you all enjoy your gated communities anyway, cause that's
kind of guy I am.

arch


15 Aug 2006 16:18:03
Re: Moderation, smoderation

arch wrote:
> All the talk of 'forum moderation' needs to be put into perspective.

<snip >

> forum flamers don't
> flame just for the sport of it, in all likelihood they have unresolved
> issues.

<snip >
>
> The vast majority could easily get along just fine without any
> moderation whatsoever.
>
> Now, extend that kind of thinking to current events and maybe you can
> see a disturbing trend. They not only want to control what people say in
> public but they want to control what news you get too.

<snip >

> I hope you all enjoy your gated communities anyway

Forum moderation is a fantastic invention for those who consider the
implications, and desire the trade off they are making.

I am not closely folllowing events in Middle East, nor the <cough >
"blog-o-sphere" in general, but in my mind, the following link
crystalizes the point I think you are onto, with the independent, 'many
become one' approach to debunking the coverage of the Qana photos, with
spinning of the Qana story by MSM (lookie lookie - I learned a new
acronym today! 'Main Stream Media') like Reuters and AP:

http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/

(Drop to phrase "The Corruption of the Media"



18 Aug 2006 16:27:29
xxyzz
Re: Moderation, smoderation

that is comforting ! Not sure that would be the best parallel that could be
found but a good read for sure. Meet and Play is now a hardware outlet,
too, by the way for those who haven't noticed. They have a very nice online
store similiar to RacquetWorld or RacquetballWarehouse.



<self1@metacrawler.com > wrote in message
news:1155683883.610640.300290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> arch wrote:
>> All the talk of 'forum moderation' needs to be put into perspective.
>
> <snip>
>
>> forum flamers don't
>> flame just for the sport of it, in all likelihood they have unresolved
>> issues.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> The vast majority could easily get along just fine without any
>> moderation whatsoever.
>>
>> Now, extend that kind of thinking to current events and maybe you can
>> see a disturbing trend. They not only want to control what people say in
>> public but they want to control what news you get too.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I hope you all enjoy your gated communities anyway
>
> Forum moderation is a fantastic invention for those who consider the
> implications, and desire the trade off they are making.
>
> I am not closely folllowing events in Middle East, nor the <cough>
> "blog-o-sphere" in general, but in my mind, the following link
> crystalizes the point I think you are onto, with the independent, 'many
> become one' approach to debunking the coverage of the Qana photos, with
> spinning of the Qana story by MSM (lookie lookie - I learned a new
> acronym today! 'Main Stream Media') like Reuters and AP:
>
> http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
>
> (Drop to phrase "The Corruption of the Media"
>
>