Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before posting this I re-read the TOS and I think this is a fair question and falls inline with the agreement. The argument does not attack anyone personally just questions whether closing down forums is ever a good thing nothing more nothing less. Hopefully this is not seen as anything more than what I just stated.
I know this is going to illicit a number of jaw dropping responses, but I’m not here to attack any of the moderators let me make that known first and foremost. However, I’m here to challenge the idea or perception that closing down forums is a positive thing to do for the city-data community. Note I’m not attacking moderators who close down forums as that is a responsibility and function of being a moderator. However, I would like to make the argument as to why forums should remain open and moderators should be more willing to penalize offenders of the TOS with infractions rather than close down forums to quickly.
Under the current structure moderators wield a considerable amount of power over the city data community. This power is derived in the ability to close forums and penalize violators of the TOS agreement. While closing forums may seem like a legitimate and positive thing to do in the short run, the long term effects are devastating to a community that prides itself on free-thought and challenging ideas. I understand, there’s a thin line to walk in asserting challenging new ideas and free-thought, that may be construed as hate speech, and degrading to other community members. However, in my opinion closing down forums leads to;
Fear in thinking outside the box
Users or members are less likely to assert and post an idea that may be considered offensive or challenging to old ideas and thoughts
Users may choose not to post issues and new ideas that may be relevant in expanding discussion
Stymies the growth of new thought
Stymies the growth of new challenging ideas
Makes debates generic and boring
While these are the negative effects of closing down forums, there are positive effects in closing down "out of control" forums, where hate speech is encountered and a large number of personal attacks are being waged. However, it becomes up to the discretion of the moderator. While many members may view the forum as fair and balanced a moderator has the ability to impose their own perceptions on the whole community. I’m not advocating for change in the current moderators power structure, but I am pushing for penalizing the bad apples (posters) rather than the whole bunch (of posters).
I think it is much better to only close extremely out of control forums. All other lightly, out of control forums should be handled with large levies of infractions to offending posters of the TOS. I have not noticed too many forums even the rowdy ones with large numbers of users being out of control, but there seems to be a fair amount of repeat offenders. Having been penalized before, the use of infraction in my opinion, is a much more effective deterrent in stopping personal attacks and enforcing the TOS, while letting the rest of the rational and calm group continue the debate and proliferation of ideas. If some people have to get penalized to the point they loose their privileges for an extended amount of time, so be it, but moderators should avoid penalizing the entire community for the actions of a few by shutting down entire forums.
Anyway just want to throw this idea out there and hear what moderators and members think?
Is there a way to draw a line in the sand between shutting down an entire thread and penalizing violators?
I’m definitely all for levying more infractions on users in threads that are being disruptive, rude, and offensive to other members, rather than closing down an entire thread due to a small group of rowdy posters.
In your opinion do infractions work? (Mods and Community Users respond)
or Is shutting down a thread more beneficial eg due to few moderators and large numbers of potentially unruly posters? (Mods and Community respond)
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-07-2008 at 06:40 AM..
I have to agree. I am a relative newcomer to this forum, and it's one I enjoy very much. That being said, I've already noticed some heavy-handedness in how the threads are monitored. It's interesting how threads are being edited, or contributions being deleted outright, simply because it is not immediately germane to the thread at hand (However, most good conversations expand and go into unexpected directions). I even had a pretty funny entry deleted outright with no explanation, even though it had no profanity, no insults, and was a well-received satire of some Northerners' perception of Southerners.
So, yeah. I think getting the yahoos off the board is a good idea. But penalizing those who are contributing and giving this board interest, character, and life isn't the best way to moderate.
The job of moderating the forums is a most difficult one. I call it a job, even though those who perform this job are volunteers and do it for free! In most cases, when moderators do their jobs, no one notices. They keep the forums free from spam, inappropriate advertising, nasty messages, arguments etc., so that we are able to hold conversations without those disruptions.
Occassionally, a moderator is noticed when a member disagrees with something he or she has done in the performance of that job. I do agree that, on rare occassion, a moderator might make a heavy-handed decision. But I also recognize that the moderator has a much wider view of particular circumstances than I might have, so whether I agree or not, I will yield to the view of the moderator.
In general, I agree that threads should not be closed. However, I am also aware that the conversation in some threads becomes so heated that eventually it will break down into pure argument between members or groups of members. That's unhealthy for the thread and the forum in general. In cases like that, seeing the wayward thread closed down is not such a bad thing. If there was merit in that particular topic, a new thread will eventually open and hopefully, appropriate conversation will occur.
The job of moderating the forums is a most difficult one. I call it a job, even though those who perform this job are volunteers and do it for free! In most cases, when moderators do their jobs, no one notices. They keep the forums free from spam, inappropriate advertising, nasty messages, arguments etc., so that we are able to hold conversations without those disruptions.
Occassionally, a moderator is noticed when a member disagrees with something he or she has done in the performance of that job. I do agree that, on rare occassion, a moderator might make a heavy-handed decision. But I also recognize that the moderator has a much wider view of particular circumstances than I might have, so whether I agree or not, I will yield to the view of the moderator.
In general, I agree that threads should not be closed. However, I am also aware that the conversation in some threads becomes so heated that eventually it will break down into pure argument between members or groups of members. That's unhealthy for the thread and the forum in general. In cases like that, seeing the wayward thread closed down is not such a bad thing. If there was merit in that particular topic, a new thread will eventually open and hopefully, appropriate conversation will occur.
Just my opinion.
Charley
I've noticed that different mods handle controversial threads differently. I have reported some posts as personal attacks; some mods will delete the post, some will close the thread. It does not seem that many get docked rep points, or suspended.
You're right, Katiana, I see that too. Different moderators DO handle these types of situation differently.
One, let's differentiate between the "closing" of a thread and "deleting" a thread. I'm not sure what truthhurts is referring to. Closing a thread is when a thread is locked and members are no longer permitted to post to that thread. The thread and its contents still are visible. The deletion of a thread is where the whole thread is no longer visible to the general membership.
I'm assuming that truthhurts is referring to "locking" a thread when referring to "shutting a thread down." Yes, moderators will lock a thread for many reasons. When a thread becomes too off topic from the opening post and is filled with flaming posts, for instance, it could be locked.
One thing I always tell members is that a locked thread is always "temporary" as it can always be reopened. Sometimes it just needs to be left alone for awhile until people can cool down. I've many times locked a thread and then reopened it several days later.
Here's the thing with human nature, it mimics the natural world: Winter, Spring, Autumn and Summer.
We are all different, and each subject will be viewed by us differently, and within a season, we will view an issue differently than we would in another season.
Right now it is snowing again here, and my mood is darker than usual, so if a thread came up now that was ugly, and filled with infractionable, anti-ToS worthy posts, I wonder what I would do?
So, closing a thread is definitely handled differently by moderators, and each forum is handled differently by moderators, and members alike.
Some threads are just not going anywhere but down: closed.
Some threads have so many inflammatory posts it would take Solomon to intervene and make appropriate deletions: closed.
Some threads, like 'scirocco22 says, need a breather: closed temporarily.
Some threads get wily, and a moderator from another forum might lock it until it can be viewed by its primary moderator: closed temporarily.
Should threads be closed? I say, yes! I believe we are all adults, but I also know we don't always act accordingly, and as a volunteer, I'd rather lock (close a thread) and even delete one than allow the unnecessary to fester.
Should it be the decision of the members whether a thread is closed or deleted? Occasionally, but rarely. Moderators, in their individual ways, and with their individual temperaments, and their nature () are on the board to follow the Administration's ToS (terms of service). It is therefore their call if and when a thread is to be deleted, closed or edited.
Ill tell ya what I think because I quit posting on almost all these threads in this controversy and political threads forum, main reason for it wasnt just because of the censorship issue, but the posters drove me out of my mind with their boredom and pouncing know it all comebacks, that Abortion thread should be closed now for that very reason, it has been hacked into so long its insane the things that are being said about it, also, more Democratic party members may tend to float to the Republican party if it wasnt for this twisted stick in the mud attitude so many Reps have about this ONE issue alone...
that said, threads should end when they reach the high 3 or 4 digit posted comments figure and things are going beyond the beyond in terms of common sense... members who think they want to correct folks and challenge OPINIONS are the most irritating, for that reason, I withdrew out of a few places, it just got under my skin so bad I reached my breaking point, I think alot of people dont say what theyre really thinking anyway, they just tend to stick with the accepted group flow, and bow to it, then when someone challenges them, they freak right out....
since the mods are all voluntary, I had one tell me we can report any post we want that seems offense by clicking on a certain block, that was a great relief for me, for had I known that before, I would have used it on quite a few other things I had read that seriously turned me off....
either way, I dont think closing threads is a bad motion, in fact, I feel it most definitely is valid and should be practiced more often if the mods can find time.....
Here's the thing with human nature, it mimics the natural world: Winter, Spring, Autumn and Summer.
We are all different, and each subject will be viewed by us differently, and within a season, we will view an issue differently than we would in another season.
Right now it is snowing again here, and my mood is darker than usual, so if a thread came up now that was ugly, and filled with infractionable, anti-ToS worthy posts, I wonder what I would do?
So, closing a thread is definitely handled differently by moderators, and each forum is handled differently by moderators, and members alike.
Some threads are just not going anywhere but down: closed.
Some threads have so many inflammatory posts it would take Solomon to intervene and make appropriate deletions: closed.
Some threads, like 'scirocco22 says, need a breather: closed temporarily.
Some threads get wily, and a moderator from another forum might lock it until it can be viewed by its primary moderator: closed temporarily.
Should threads be closed? I say, yes! I believe we are all adults, but I also know we don't always act accordingly, and as a volunteer, I'd rather lock (close a thread) and even delete one than allow the unnecessary to fester.
Should it be the decision of the members whether a thread is closed or deleted? Occasionally, but rarely. Moderators, in their individual ways, and with their individual temperaments, and their nature () are on the board to follow the Administration's ToS (terms of service). It is therefore their call if and when a thread is to be deleted, closed or edited.
On the road thanks for responding good to hear what a mod thinks and feels about the issue. Now, in reference to the last paragraph in your statment I now view mods as sort of the judicial branch of this site. However, we have no checks and balances on mods, which could lead to a great argument between increasing the power of posters to offset the powers of moderators.
You guys are basically interpretors, for better or worse, the TOS. I'm not sure, a system of voting on closing forums wouldn't be such a bad idea. However, that is another topic for another day, and I do not want to stray to far away from why i wrote this thread. It is to say, that I disagree with the closing of forums in general, because of the reasons i listed above. I'll stress i'm more for heavy penalties levied via the infraction rules.
Anyway, again thanks for the comments. Similiar to the judicial branch, I think an argument could be made that certain powers should be reserved to the state or in this case posters in terms of voting on closing forums, but they have to win by a 3/4 majority rule hehe. This would lead to checks and balances and allow moderators to specialize on moderating, spam, offensive language, leving infractions and etc.
It i just find it ironic, that msot of the threads discuss the lose of individual rights and some of the mods discuss the loss of individual rights in "theory," but when it comes to practice, they are "authoritarian" in nature. I mean i'm not sure how automated a discussion site could get in terms of allowing free votes, but I guess the managers, moderators, and users all have to draw the line somewhere.....
There is in fact a checks and balances on mods. There is a visible presence of an administrative team here on these forums; namely the senior moderators and the Administrator. Moderator's actions are ultimately scrutinized and are accountable to these administrators. However, this being a privately run message board, the rules and terms of use also are exclusively set by these administrators. Member's "individual rights" are solely governed and regulated by the T.O.S. set forth by the administrative team. If we don't like the rules, we are free to not participate and leave.
Last edited by scirocco22; 02-07-2008 at 03:30 PM..
There is in fact a checks and balances on mods. There is a visible presence of an administrative team here on these forums; namely Markablue, Yac, and the Administrator. Moderator's actions are ultimately scrutinized and are accountable to these administrators.
Not to mention dozens of discussions between mods themselves. You'd be surprised how many times a moderator asks for second opinions before taking any action.
And one more thing, it's been said a few times already but it may be worth repeating again: You don't see any posts we delete, except your own. In many cases a thread is locked after a moderator had to delete spam or personal attacks over and over again. These you can't see but we still do.
We're all trying our best here to be fair and objective and a lot of us put many hours of work here. If a mod is forced to come back to one thread every half an hour and delete yet another insulting comment, I can't blame them for locking such a thread. Whatever you may imagine, none of these decisions are taken lightly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) are on the board to follow the Administration's ToS (terms of service). It is therefore their call if and when a thread is to be deleted, closed or edited.
