Them good ol' moderation blues...
Tue, 5 Apr 2011, 02:07 pmBass Guy26 posts in thread
Them good ol' moderation blues...
Tue, 5 Apr 2011, 02:07 pmThis 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
Target practise
Thu, 21 Apr 2011, 11:09 amNev said:
>I have always posted under my real name, and have posted both great and bad reviews of shows in the past. I believe not being anonymous encouraged me to consider my criticisms carefully and to provide moderated and intelligent feedback to those in the shows I reviewed.
It has also made me a target on multiple occasions, both on this site and in the real world, and I am fairly certain has caused me to lose out on work as well.
I no longer am willing to review for this reason.
Don't be discouraged, Nev. If you post with intelligence and consideration, (as I have observed you always do) you will be respected.
Although I rarely make time to post here like I used to, I'm sure people are still aware of how I approach giving feedback. I've not hesitated to give my opinion of a show, a process, or simply the validity (or stupidity) of a comment. Quite often I've done it simply for the fun of stirring up an argument, and encouraged others to treat me as a target, only to draw them out so I could shoot them down in return. I'll challenge anything that I deem worth challenging in an intelligent fashion, even if it's only for my own and perhaps other's amusement.
And the interesting thing is: it has NEVER caused me to lose out on work in the real world. If anything, it has created work! People on this site, who I have publicly criticised, have later turned out to offer me acting roles, have asked me to tutor workshops, booked me to host the Finleys, given me position as a director, or have worked alongside me happily in some other way. In one famous instance I was cast in a play and paid to portray a version of myself giving such criticism!
Of course there must be those who I have offended and who may have privately decided to boycott me entirely. But, you know, I'm pretty sure for those isolated incidences the feeling would have been mutual so they are doing me a favour.
In all other cases, (and sometimes surprisingly to me) it has increased my level of respect and opportunity.
I highly encourage everyone to have strong informed opinions and to argue them intelligently in the pursuit of improved quality.
Poor quality comments don't actually need moderating. They moderate themselves by comparison.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------