- #1
enorbet
- 481
- 85
Greetings
I subscribe to several forums some of which are rigidly controlled and others that are more open. While I recognize the need for rules and especially the moving of threads to appropriate areas (and this is not a plea for anarchy) by far the most vital forums I visit are more open.
Example - There is a long running poll thread in the general non-linux section in the LinuxQuestions forums entitled "The Religion MegaThread Poll" ostensibly to determine the relative number of various religion devotees and agnostics/atheists etc. This should maybe be a virtual powder keg but it is not largely because the members are thinking adults who seem quite capable of behaving in a civilized manner. It is just text on a page after all and it seems the worst that can happen is usually a stalemate.
It is one thing to move a thread but quite another to close one. It becomes even more arbitrary when many have the power to close a thread (I currently don't know how many here have that power). This can become conflict of interest when those with that power can and do also contribute to a thread. I have seen threads in many forums where one or a few moderators will be contributors, apparently finding nothing inappropriate, and then one new moderator in some offended "hissy fit" will close or even delete the thread. I find this sometimes inconsistent, silly, dangerous, disturbing or actually unconscionable and generally an insult to all members.
Is it at least possible that moderators can be a little more open and concerned for healthy, adult discussion, a little more trusting of it's members, and a little less concerned about imposing law and order? or subject moderators to moderator peer review? Too much "order" is stifling and sterile, IMHO, and often corrupts the powerful, ruining Forums, ultimately driving away all but those powerful few.
I'm really not complaining as much as promoting a bit more respect and trust in the interest of maintaining a lively, healthy atmosphere.
I subscribe to several forums some of which are rigidly controlled and others that are more open. While I recognize the need for rules and especially the moving of threads to appropriate areas (and this is not a plea for anarchy) by far the most vital forums I visit are more open.
Example - There is a long running poll thread in the general non-linux section in the LinuxQuestions forums entitled "The Religion MegaThread Poll" ostensibly to determine the relative number of various religion devotees and agnostics/atheists etc. This should maybe be a virtual powder keg but it is not largely because the members are thinking adults who seem quite capable of behaving in a civilized manner. It is just text on a page after all and it seems the worst that can happen is usually a stalemate.
It is one thing to move a thread but quite another to close one. It becomes even more arbitrary when many have the power to close a thread (I currently don't know how many here have that power). This can become conflict of interest when those with that power can and do also contribute to a thread. I have seen threads in many forums where one or a few moderators will be contributors, apparently finding nothing inappropriate, and then one new moderator in some offended "hissy fit" will close or even delete the thread. I find this sometimes inconsistent, silly, dangerous, disturbing or actually unconscionable and generally an insult to all members.
Is it at least possible that moderators can be a little more open and concerned for healthy, adult discussion, a little more trusting of it's members, and a little less concerned about imposing law and order? or subject moderators to moderator peer review? Too much "order" is stifling and sterile, IMHO, and often corrupts the powerful, ruining Forums, ultimately driving away all but those powerful few.
I'm really not complaining as much as promoting a bit more respect and trust in the interest of maintaining a lively, healthy atmosphere.
