Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly supporting moderation
Oh so now Gail proposes to modify a post a person makes to make it more acceptable. Then this is really all about control in this forum isn;'t it. A post should be placed as made by original poster or deleted inits entirety or replied to separately. So now mods are also gonna start to edit and change them. Yea right, ..I think yuu all have been taking lessons 0n forum manipulation from Koiphen memebers. If editiing a persons posts was made in a nonmoderated group it would be called forgeries.........That alone should make Carol feel right at home..... On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:03:32 GMT, "Gail Futoran" wrote: "Köi-Lö" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... [snip] I personally would like to see anyone free to post on the moderated group. Content is the best basis for moderation. That doesn't always happen in the real world. What happens if posts are on-topic but the moderator disagrees (look at the fish food issue) with the poster's stand? To my great sorrow I listened to a poster here, switched to an outrageously expensive koi food and now have hundreds of undersized koi I will be stuck with in the spring. The new spring fry will need the space these undersized fish will be taking. I sorely regret switching foods but they wont want anyone to know that! I have no idea now what I'm going to do with these undersized koi come spring - that is if they survive the winter. :-( Am I not supposed to voice my opinion and share my experience? How to handle differences of opinion should be addressed in the RFD. I.e., how will moderators handle submissions they might personally disagree with? How that is handled should be discussed when the RFD is posted. I think, as ponders, we can both agree that some assertions should be viewed with the great deal of suspicion. Suppose someone posts that it's ok to use water straight from the tap to fill a pond without any dechlor or dechloramine? Do the moderators reject that "advice" (fish are likely to die!), or let it go through and hope someone else posts an alternate view of water preparation? Or should the moderators themselves post a cautionary note? Perhaps with links to useful websites? If you have good ideas about how to deal with these critical issues, it would be helpful if you would post them, especially once the RFD is posted. We all need to contribute to the discussion. I see a problem, however, with that. It is volume. The moderators would have a lot of reviewing to do. It seems to me that some basic filtering/moderating rules would be good...like crossposted messages, certain words and, yes, suspending or banning members who persist in conflict rather than pond messages. This is a good part of the answer. Just stopping the mindless cross-posting, personal attacks and sniping at others will about cure the problem here. I agree with that. However, we have to be careful to allow reasonable disagreements. I.e., I can disagree with something you said, but at the same time I should avoid attacking you personally. Re cross-posting: I only read a few other "fish hobby" newsgroups. I would guess that some relevant cross-posting would be permitted. That's another point that should be discussed when the RFD is posted. Pond groups simply are not intended to be places of personal non-pond conflict. They are not intended to be one of 10 groups where a personal hostility is being launched. Effective moderation would help members prone to conflictual messages to exercise self-control. And get rid of 100% of the cross-posted trash and assorted trolls, on a "mission" or not. :-) And no one has to hide for awhile then try and sneak back with another persona in hopes the trolls wont recognize them - a poor idea from the start. As I understand it, the intention is to assess submitted posts only on content, whether it's on topic or reasonable off topic, whether language is reasonable or abusive, and not on *who* writes the post. Although it's more work for the moderators, I don't agree with "banning" anyone based on past history or, for that matter, based on their submissions to rec.ponds.moderated (RPM). I'm aware that some forums do that, but those are a different breed than USENET. We began enjoying rec.ponds in 2002. It helped us with our pond. It built a wonderful friendship network for us. We would love to see conflict go away and the group one again about ponds. That does not seem likely in the forseeable future if conflict is not somehow abated. Moderating seems to be the best bet. It's the ONLY bet at this point. For what they are worth, those are our thoughts. They are launched in a spirit of friendship and intended to be without rancor. Jim I also expressed my thoughts in the spirit of friendship,without rancor and a 10 year history here. -- KL.... Frugal ponding since 1995. My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://tinyurl.com/9do58 ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({* Gail rec.ponder since April 2003 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Supporting Peas ? | United Kingdom | |||
Supporting stake trees | Gardening | |||
Supporting a 1metre drop between lawn and patio with gabion baskets | Gardening | |||
Supporting Climbers | United Kingdom | |||
supporting new fruit trees | United Kingdom |