General discussion of moderation procedures

I was highly disappointed to see the closing of a thread before it even began. Although it was on a controversial topic which at this point in time is so taboo (esp to Americans) that it would generate a lot of emotions, I saw no real reason given for its closure.The idea that it is any further away from EvC content than harm in homosexuality or the Iraq War or pining for the recent death of a comic book artist, is extremely insulting to the intellect.It also suggests a somewhat spineless approach to topics. It would seem then that if this were the 50's we couldn't be discussing communism or homosexuality. If it were the 1850's we couldn't be discussing slavery. If it were the 1660's we couldn't be discussing witchcraft, and around that same time and earlier I suppose we shouldn't even be discussing EvC!The fact is that I look at EvC as a place where topics can be addressed, including controversial ones. The point being to try and shed some light on subjects through discussion and appealing to logic and evidence. Shaz did not open up with an emotional broadside, but rather tried to keep it strict and clinical. As long as it stayed that way what would have been the problem.It was said that it must be decided if this discussion will be allowed. I do wonder at who is to be doing the deciding.If you decide that it will somehow cast a shadow over the site, or attract attention to it that is unwanted (people coming here for that debate rather than EvC) then so be it. Just let's not insult people by trying to white wash what is really going on. That topic is going to be censored unlike any other topic, simply because society is so disturbed about that issue that it cannot be allowed to be discussed openly.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-13-2005 09:15 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Perhaps there is a way, but am not aware of it. I would like to suggest some easy way of reporting abusive behavior by another poster.I know in the past I've felt forced into the position of "yelling for help" within a thread, and once writing to Percy. But the first only makes the situation worse, or look worse anyway, and the second is an unknown (am I writing to the mod responsible and what will happen?).Maybe there could be a simple "complaint" or "abuse notification" system, where if a person is having a serious problem they can click on something that will send the complaint to the correct person, have it non public so people don't have to see the dispute (which leaves a bad taste for everyone), and the person detail what issue they are having with the other poster. Obvious flippant use of this should get censured.I think that will relieve some tension for actual targets of problem behavior, and allow mods to take care of issues behind the scenes.Just a suggestion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There have been cases, though I think that was a while back, of a poster "stalking" another poster, and essentially following the other across forums to do nothing but heckle them.More common, are people that continually break guidelines (most esp. #4), and so make posting a waste of time as well as thoroughly unenjoyable. I think we could raise the bar a bit and expect that posters do not just come on to preach and preach and preach, or assert and assert and assert, to the annoyance of those that raise legitimate points and want some answers. Even an "I don't know", or "I give up", or "I don't care anymore", is better than allowing the person to claim they have answered a point when they haven't.Along with this are the posters that accuse another of doing something, for example being accused of not answering questions when it can be shown they have only to have the false accusation repeated. I don't think posters should have to suffer that kind of behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I do agree that if a system were to be in place it should be made clear that the notification should be for real cases, and not simply "tattling" to get someone in trouble.The idea would be if a poster is genuinely not contributing to discussions and making life generally unpleasant by breaking certain forum guidelines, a person can get a message to an admin on what the violations are (more than once, because everyone can slip up once in a while) and which posts they can be seen in.The other person who replied to your post had an interesting suggestion of limiting posters to a couple uses, and if they are seen to be frivolous, then losing the privilege. I was thinking they themselves could be suspended, but losing the privilege of notification could be equally effective, without going through the trouble of altering their posting status. The "Boy who Cried Wolf" penalty.Disagreement should not be considered a problem, and make it clear that it must be factual (evident) breach of the forum guidelines. I am not suggesting this turn into a giant game of getting people suspended, or introducing a measure of paranoia to keep people in line.As far as people not following the rules, then I think they ought to be limited to the nonserious areas, until they can show improvement. I think there is a point a poster can reach where they are simply detracting from conversations, and that becomes their modus operandi.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)