Over moderation is not the cause of flame wars. people's general personilities are. Take Buffalo and me. Neither one of reacts well to hard critcism directed more to at us than at the argument. He also had a knack weather intentional or not of hitting me in places I reacted really badly to( the reading comprehension comments for example( I have been reading at an adult level since like the fifth grade. and scored in the 97% or higher on reading comp on tests)). Rather than blame the mods I would suggest you look inward find out the places you react badly are and learn to deal with them.
Without wading into your feud with Buffalo; I hope this has helped you realize that nothing, NOTHING, will ever be won by getting into a pissing match. Sure, at the moment it feels good, but at the end of the day, he still will have a come-back. Then you will. Then he will. Then you will. . . and on and on. And I appreciate your remarks. ~String
Guys... the two of you are anklebiting. That's never a good thing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So, is it always anklebiting when the statements aren't in agreement with yours? Are you finally going to come back and support your assertion that Mods are causing the fighting in the WE&P fora, or is this an issue you're going to slink away from? ~String
Nay, anklebiting is when you attempt to nip at someone you disagree with without fully joining the conversation, due to lacking the required skills to fully assert yourself and voice your beliefs. As the term implies, such people are of lower altitude and therefore easily dismissed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Seriously? Will, you're disappointing me. How hard is it for you to support an assertion that Mods cause the flame wars. Show me ONE, just ONE flame war that was cause by OVER-moderation within the WE & P fora. ~String
its has. It took me a while to overcome the behavior patterns I relied on for years but I have. I'm more willing to think before I leap.
You've based your entire "argument?" on logical fallacy. When I can prove it fallacious, I've proven my point. Do I need to have an opinion to disprove yours? I mentioned the issue before this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=96225 Since I'm in agreement with establishment...I'm in automatic disagreement with those who are in disagreement with establishment. In other words, I'm the antidisestablishmentarianist in this case.
You were jut fishing to use that word. Also, I have zero tolerance for your agreement with the mods. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~String
I'm afraid that isn't true, cheki. There were two separate reasons for the opposition to the policy. You took it upon yourself to link them with the word "so" -- something that I never did. And "I never support A because I think D is ineffective as compared to E" is not, itself, illogical in any way whatsoever -- not when E is all but equal to A. It just means that you do not support something in the face of a better alternative. For that reason, your claim of fallacy is fallacious. That is okay though. I expect nothing more than that.. when it's coming from anklebiters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I entertained for a second that you were right and I had made a mistake. I didn't, "Obviously" in that case was phrased as the conjunctive. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've reviewed your posting patterns and found that you're the kind of poster who will post 40 times in a single thread, so after this response don't expect another.
In other words, "I screwed up... In trying to sound logical, I've expressed illogic. Let me see what other words I can re-interpret in a way as to appear that I didn't screw up." Buh bye. See you on the flipside, anklebiter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What are some other forums where this has been done but does not work? Isnt it already a popularity contest, as the whose posters you dislike or have a problem with might be judged more rashly than those whose posts you favor. I am simply asking that the power be distributed evenly throught. I guess however that people in postitions of power rarely if ever like to share their throne. :shrug:
I used to be a mod of a general discussion forum (which no longer exists) and was a member of a Dune forum ("Dreamer's of Dune"; yeah, as in Frank Herbert's Dune) where public votes were used in some way to determine authority. In the former, it was a mixture of ratings based upon content, mod ratings and democratic voting come election time. I hated it. People worked the system. In the latter, it was flat out voting for "mods" (though supermods and admins were promoted by the website). I still hated that system. I also moderated and still contribute to another forum called "Worm's SciFi Haven" that does not use the voting system (and is a fairly low traffic site). Again, that's my experience. In this website, my hunch is that it will become little more than a popularity contest. The thing is, sometimes it takes very unpopular things to get the necessary things done. Aside from the anomalous mistake, no. Where is such favoritism occurring, if at all? Also wrong, IMHO. The mods, themselves, have nominated and promoted pretty much every mod you see promoted. I, myself, nominated and voted for numerous current mods (and a few that didn't make it), like: Madanthony, Hypewaders and Enmos. If I didn't want to "share" my thorne, then I would have never asked for additional mods in the WE&P fora (especially with, say, Hype, who is politically as different from me as you get). ~String
Heh putting you and buffalo together is like putting potassium into water and hoping you dont blow the crap out of the rest of us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you favor a more authoritarian approach as opposed to a democratic system? I am not suggesting that authority be determined by a posts approval or disapproval, only that the posters reputation be affected by it. You could even set a rating system to pertain to only individual threads so that if you get enough poor ratings you will be locked out of a thread. You dont think that a happy median could be found through that kind of system? I just thought that people would become more cautious about the quality and tone of thier posts if they knew that both sides of the discussion would have equal say about the quality of thier posts. I can see however how that could be a complete disaster, as some people might abandon objectivity to spam another poster with neagative votes just on the merit that they disagree. I just dont trust a single person to remain objective in matters of politics or religion. I realize that other mods have voted for new mods, but doesnt that just create an elitist club and turn us non mods into a lower class of posters? If the only people in a community who had any say about how the community is run are the leaders of that community, how can you ever hope to meet the needs of the larger community as a whole?
