Them good ol' moderation blues...

Tue, 5 Apr 2011, 02:07 pm

Bass Guy26 posts in thread

This is an old chestnut of mine, but... I've noticed in the reviews section a couple of instances where unfawning comments have been moderated down- simply because they didn't follow the rapturous praise of other postings on the same thread. This happened with "Zastrozzi" a week or two ago, and has just happened on Gordon's "Company" review thread today. Neither of these posts could be construed as trolling, slanderous or even mean-spritied; it's just they had the nerve NOT to say "This is the best (fill in the blank) I've ever seen...". Some of the critisisms offered were pointed, certainly- but well reasoned, and certainly nothing that amounted to hate-mail. In the case of the Zastrozzi one, it DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY from the site. I went back to read it again and it had simply vanished, and I've been unable to locate it again. And considering one of the chief admin folk here was in that particular show, one is tempted to smell a rat or two.... And this is one of the problems I have with moderation (as I've bleated about from the get-go); sure you can "moderate things up", but should you have to? If someone is silly enough to post something hateful (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone on this site) leave it up and let people respond to it. Don't hide it because it disagrees with the general tenor of the conversation. I like reasoned debate- if I want irrational stupidity, I'll read (or post on) facebook. I would have thought this site could withstand more open discussion. What are everyone else's thoughts? Assuming this hasn't been moderated out of public view.... Eliot McCann

In defence of the WPs

Fri, 8 Apr 2011, 11:29 am

Labrug

I confess a desire for a more Utopian world where people respected each other in moderated measures, and I mean that sincerely. Truth is another matter. It is very hard to avoid bias in any form. It is a fact of life that we will all have often wildly different opinions which will influence what we say, do or write. Playing fairly is a subjective issue as the definition is very much dependant on one's point of view.

On the whole, the 'fair' players on this site do not play enough which leaves the site open to abuse by those whom fall into biased behaviour more often than not. If those that had a stronger sense of fairness, honour and equality participated more than they currently do, then the system would work just fine.

In defence of the honest WPs, I think it is an odd comment to make when you say "obviously anyone not willing to sign their name/on-line identity, but hide under a nom-de-Plinge, is not to be taken remotely seriously" when the number of 'anonymous' comments that remain viewable far out weight those that have become hidden. Being able to post anonymously is a Troll's playground delight, and certainly many more WP comments have faded than have registered user comments, yet there are still more constructuve WPs comments than not, including the hidden ones I am sure.

When you have been exposed to threats of violence and death, vicious slander and attempts to defame through association of unlawful practicies by impotent misguded Trolls, you develop a healthy respect for the democratic power of moderation. Sure, it can be abused. So can anything if it is not used effectively or correctly.

Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. A moderation system is a method of expressing that opinion as much as the ability to post your opinion in words. If more people were to use it more frequently, then there would be a more balanced impact upon the content of this site. Maybe that is expecting too much, it is however the truth.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Thread (26 posts)

Threaded Flat

Them good ol' moderation blues...— Bass Guy5 Apr 2011

This rat is clean— Labrug5 Apr 2011
I don't see anything— jeffhansen5 Apr 2011
Various points.— David Hardie8 Apr 2011
Assumptive consumptive.— Bass Guy8 Apr 2011
- In defence of the WPs— Labrug8 Apr 2011
Why be anonymous?— Bass Guy8 Apr 2011
- Anonymity— Labrug8 Apr 2011
  - Accord!— Bass Guy8 Apr 2011
Point of interest— Labrug8 Apr 2011
Personally, I'd like to see— jeffhansen8 Apr 2011
I've voted down all your— Daniel Kershaw16 Apr 2011
- The only comment I've voted— crgwllms16 Apr 2011
Everyone knows you are a— Walter Plinge16 Apr 2011
I like Craig's suggestion— Lisa Skryp16 Apr 2011
That's a great idea!— jessmess17 Apr 2011
That's a great idea!— jessmess17 Apr 2011
yay— Neville Talbot19 Apr 2011
- Thoughts— Labrug20 Apr 2011
- Target practise— crgwllms21 Apr 2011
  - I moderated that as Excellent. Nicely put.— Labrug21 Apr 2011
Wow, The debate rages on.— Walter Plinge28 Apr 2011
but we don't— Neville Talbot29 Apr 2011
They cant take it because— Walter Plinge30 Apr 2011
- Sure anony, it's a hobby.— jeffhansen30 Apr 2011
also...this isnt a bank and— Walter Plinge30 Apr 2011

← Back to Green Room Gossip