Thread moderating

[Dudley]

Doesn't seem like such a bad idea now, does it?

[Mr D]

I must admit that several recent threads have made me go 'SHHHHH' over and over...

[paulvonscott]

I think where thread moderating would be useful is debates.  We all enjoy them in theory, but they often turn bad.  

The problem with the Strontium Dog thread is that from the start it was a statement, followed by an open letter which meant that debate was random and chaotic and had no focus or point.  I literally couldn't see through the mass of contradictary posts and it seemed for the most part silly gibberish.  A few people nailed down exactly what they were saying but even they were hampered by the amorphous rambling debate.

The Sinister Dexter one, could have been much better if the debate had actually centred around the question posted and not some various vague unconnected opinions.  Nobody has actually answered the question posted.

A moderator would be extremely useful for debate style threads, where discussions could be kept on topic, relevant, accurate, impersonal.  For instance there were probably enough questions in the SD one raised for ten seperate debates.

Where I don't think we need a moderator for is behaviour.  This message board is generally better behaved than most.  When things become extreme, like ***** the administrator dishes out suitable punishment.  It's only ever come to that once.

[Dudley]

But the whole point in this idea is not to have a single moderator - so in this case rc would have been the moderator of his own thread and kept it on-topic himself.

[Matt Timson]

Sorry Dud- but I think RC's own posting style is an excellent example of why he'd make a piss poor moderator of his own thread.

Eventually, he'd lose out.  I can't see very many people bothering to debate on any thread that he'd started.  Not if they knew that he had the power of veto over what was being said and could pull their posts at any time.

Be told, Dud!  It won't work!

[rc]

See that would be the difference, now wouldn't it?

You wouldn't catch me censoring or picking and choosing posts on my own thread - what on earth would be the point of that?

More accusations! I don't know...  :)

There seems a lot of paranoia going about and some fragile egos not liking my posts, but I really do not see the problem - if you cannot respond to a valid point [i.e. "hey, this is good!" or "hey, this is worrying!"] without feeling personally insulted when your viewpoint is challenged or mine is championed then mabye you should not be posting at all.

As for threads going off on tangents, I think I've said this elsewhere but is it not human nature to open new doors of discussion once a subject gets going and strong viewpoints emerge and ignite opposing opinions?

[Proudhuff]

NAIL SOME SENSE INTO EM!!!

[Oddboy]

rc does have a rather inflamatory style to his posts, but I really don't think it's to be spiteful, more to stir up a discussion about 2000AD (which is what we're all here for) I agree with some things rc says, and don't with others - same as I do with pretty much everyone.

The two main discussion threads about SD & SD (sheesh 2000AD get some new initials!) have been quite mired with personal attacks as well as miandering & unclear points, but there has also been some good discussion on them.

I think any moderation of the board should be done officially by Wake or other Rebellion staff.
However, I think that is something that will rarely be needed.

(On the off-chance that there is the poverbial sheep-in-wolf's-clothing sneaking back on the board; well that's fine as long as he can keep up the pretence & not give himself away - which, as he's pretty much proved he can't, isn't likely to happen.)

[rc]

Thanks, Oddboy.

Troll-ism obviously is running deep in here, but I'm not guilty.

It is rather difficult to remember exactly where I am on some of these threads when also dealing with flak, but I do try to stay on the subject.

Cheers,
Scoj-- er! I mean rc