What should be moderated in a discussion forum?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by (Q), Mar 1, 2014.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    From the FAQ:

    "Dealing with Troublesome Users

    What if I see something offensive?

    You will find 'Report' links in many places throughout the board. These links allow you to alert the board staff to anything which you find to be offensive, objectionable or illegal."

    I would interested to know what folks view as to how forums should be moderated considering that what one member/moderator views as "offensive or objectionable" is laughed at by others.

    Personally, I think we are all adults here and should have a thick skin, hence we should be able to speak our minds without retribution. I could care less what someone says to me, I'll just laugh it off. Words are just words. Do your worst.

    For example, hate speech is only combated with more speech. Censorship and bans obviously don't work, they just make things worse. And, if you don't want to see someone's post, use the ignore button, that's why it's there.

    While I understand the admins of Sciforums can do whatever they want, this thread is more about what you think any given forum should be moderated, it is not meant to change anything here, but just to get peoples opinions.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    The forum i had for almost 3 years was free speech/no-ban an i loved it... ZERO time was spent on moderation or arguein about moderation :yay: an i also posted in an unmoderated atheist forum an a unmoderated Christian forum... an if you wanted to call sombody a azz-hole you went for it... but ironically... the speech in those forums wasnt much stronger than the speech here... an it felt good to speek as an adult... responsible for you'r own actions.!!!

    Ther was also bigotry an hate speech... but it was good for people to see those fools for what they were... an laff our azzes off at ther stoopidity :blbl:
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    That sounds great, too bad most forums don't treat people like adults, they often cater to the lowest common denominator, the very same fools who hit the report buttons because they acted like a fool and got called on it.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I disagree. I think cvil discourses is far more intelligent than abuse, and a bit of moderation to assist in achieving that is amply justified. It is exhausting and dispiriting to read comments by people being unpleasant without making a reasoned argument for their point of view.

    But then I have not been raised on a diet of Fox TV.
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    I would agree if not for the fact that moderation isn't achieving that goal, quite the contrary.

    The point as well is that civil, intelligent discourse can occur without moderation, however as pointed out by cluelusshusbund, you will get bigotry and hate speech, just like we do in these forums, but his point is similar to mine in that combating bigotry and hate speech requires more speech, not censorship or moderation. Expose them for what they are, that is how we move forward.

    We live in a society where religious bigotry and hate speech are protected by freedom of religion. How crazy is that?
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    I don't think the solution to bad moderating is to remove any limits on discussion. The solution is to get better moderators, and hold them to higher standards.

    To the question of the OP, I don't think it matters if one member does or doesn't find something objectionable. You agree to follow certain rules when you join, and if you can't abide those rules you should find a different forum to patronize. Or argue for change. But going hands-off on the basis that not everyone has the same sensibilities? That doesn't fly for me.
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    The Sword of Damocles comes to mind.

    The moral isn't just about the Peril and Anxiety that exists for those in any hierarchal position but also the Peril and Anxiety of those that question it. (After all to constantly gripe does not make a happy man and tends to make misery of others.)
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Q's aspect about the forum not changing anything is salient. Polarizing political (or other) advocacy does creep in and damage discussion. But one wants it to, and hence the conflict, internal and external. Maybe it would help to make such a position overt at sign-up, or in the rules.
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Oh, and secondly: the issue about non-moderation only works if both parties are subject to its controls or lack thereof. If one side can write what it likes, and one side not for fear or infraction, then the debate really is over.
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    I suppose this begs the question, where else other than a discussion forum are there rules and regulations with infractions and bans when people debate?
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member


    A pub?

    You know, maybe you'll be banished from the pub.

    Or maybe the other bellies at the bar will just take you into the alley to issue an infraction.

    To the other, infractions and bans would be an interesting twist for televised political debates.
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Oh, I see now, you believe debating in public is all about getting drunk and brawling as to whose neck is redder or mullet is better looking?
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    You should start a discussion like this from a higher level:
    1. What is the purpose of the forum?
    2. How do you measure success?

    The answers to those questions have direct bearing on the most effective moderating style.

Share This Page