Actually, Lager and I have been in communication, and we are cool with each other.

No need to shout, CS.

He told me that he intends to make a statement later today, if possible.
Be patient. We aren't professional staff, and have other things to do.

Just want to re-state that I agree with Lager's earlier statement in regards to this whole thing that LESS MODERATING is the BEST MODERATING. I am sure that there have been over the top posts as some people (myself included) have strong feelings about certain topics. Just as in the case of Baltimore where people urged for restraint, so should it be here. 

I almost left the last EXCHANGE because of the constand pissing contests. Easiest way to not have one is say your thing and move on. 

BTW, and this is just MY personal bug, I totally disagree with person x EVER changing person's Y post no matter for what reason (good or bad). I wish the Exchange did not even allow for that. 




 

Goose wrote:

I think that we all agree on those points, Tennyson.
But there is an inherent problem.
You mention the old exchange. That site was really unmoderated.
And we saw the problems involved when people did not say their piece and move on. We saw the problem when people did not exercise restraint.

I think that self disciline is the first rule in maintaining decorum on an internet board.
However, in my opinion, you have to have a moderator willing to step in when people don't act appropriately. Sometimes a gentle reminder is called for by a moderator. Sometimes a thread should be closed when all else fails, and even content removed.

Imagine how mmuch better the old exchange had been if Darkstar's racist or sexually crude comments had been removed, or he banned.

So, I guess I come down on the side of more active moderation than most. Let's work together and figure this thing out.
"I'm listening"

I more tend to agree with Lager's initial statement that the best moderation is where there is the least moderation. 


 

Common Sense wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Goose wrote:

I think that we all agree on those points, Tennyson.
But there is an inherent problem.
You mention the old exchange. That site was really unmoderated.
And we saw the problems involved when people did not say their piece and move on. We saw the problem when people did not exercise restraint.

I think that self disciline is the first rule in maintaining decorum on an internet board.
However, in my opinion, you have to have a moderator willing to step in when people don't act appropriately. Sometimes a gentle reminder is called for by a moderator. Sometimes a thread should be closed when all else fails, and even content removed.

Imagine how mmuch better the old exchange had been if Darkstar's racist or sexually crude comments had been removed, or he banned.

So, I guess I come down on the side of more active moderation than most. Let's work together and figure this thing out.
"I'm listening"

I more tend to agree with Lager's initial statement that the best moderation is where there is the least moderation. 


 

I agree with you tennyson!  Less is better!!

To me it has to be pretty aggegrious before warranting deletion. 

What seemed to happen in the past (the old Exchange was the best example) is that even when the posts were totally over the top, instead of ignoring it or just giving your reply , it wound up in a back and forth pissing contest that was even worse. At that point it was a battle of personalities which is useless and childish at its core.