Whats the point (or I am a SKEPTIC)

[WAKWIB]

Packsaddle asks: I ask: do you think these forums need moderators? It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer question.

Then, regardless of the answer, what is your reasoning to support the answer?

 

My answer is yes.

First there is a need to safeguard the forums from malicious trolls, the posting of links to unsavory sites, and to keep things "clean." Scouts come here. It should be a safe place for them to visit.

 

Second, we all have seen those discussions that dissolve into flame-throwing. It happens and even the best and brightest of us can fall into that. Again, my reason to rein that in is because young Scouts and new leaders come to this forum all the time. We should be on good behavior and set an example of how to argue and disagree without a bunch of name-calling.

 

Others have mentioned that we have fairly light-touch mods at the controls, and I agree with that assessment and that is how it should be among those who represent Scouting. The moderators here are quite lenient and over-all do a good job.

 

And now for just a little critique of my own:

I honestly wouldn't cry myself to sleep if one day the forum owner decided to pull the plug on Issues and Politics. Much of the time the discussions there become a liberal vs. conservative rant-n-rave, and often about issues that really are not that relevant to the Scouting program. Oh, you can conjure up some way in which it might connect, but most of the time I don't buy it. A recent example was a thread called something like "Are Tea-Partiers Racist." What in the world does that have to do with Scouting program, policy, or...anything. That was a set-up for nothing but a load of political crap flinging. If I was a mod, I would have pitched that right out the window at first sight. That's just one example of many. But it appears that it's almost becoming a bit of a game to see who can throw the most gasoline on the fire. There are a thousand other forums for stuff like that.

I often wonder if some new-comers see that kind of thing and it discredits the rest of the scouter dot com community.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. If any of the rest of you would like to offer your thoughts, as Ross Perot said, "I'm all ears!"

OK, I guess 'eyes' would be more accurate in this case but you get the idea.

[OldGreyEagle]

I would object to taking out the Issues and Politics section because it would be caving into a "zero tolerance" attitude that neither Ed or I are fans of, and when we agree on something, its to be considered.

 

The Issues and Politics section gives us great glimpses into the mindset of other posters and if things get too nasty thats what the moderators are for. It also allows sides that we may not consider to be explored. People who come on and say things like

well all you (insert political view/label here) should be shot because you are (insert expletive here) tells us more about that person and their ability to articulate a position than it does the actual position

[sherminator505]

I agree with the notion that moderators are necessary. I can also understand why some would be upset when a thread is closed, but you've gotta realize that the moderators have to exercise some judgment, otherwise they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

 

I could write much more on this, but my mind seems to have been hijacked by chocolate cream pie...

[NJCubScouter]

I think the forum needs moderators, basically for the reasons stated by WAKWIB. Or to be more precise, the forum needs to be moderated. That could be done by the site owner or by one or more designees. Since Terry evidently (and understandably) does not wish to handle it all by himself, he has appointed moderators to do the job.

 

As for "who decides where to draw the line and how", we can start with the fact that Terry - intentionally - did not want to prescribe a long list of firm rules, but rather to deal with situations as they arise. When you have the same situation come up repeatedly, it is reasonable to come up with a rule to cover it, and that is how I see the "eponymous threads" issue. As I said early in this thread, I think the drawing of that line is well within the discretion that Terry has given to the moderators. If someone disagrees with that, they can try to persuade the moderators to change their minds, and as part of that it is reasonable to bring it up here to see what "the people" think -- not because we have a "vote", but because if enough people think the "rule" is wrong and their arguments are good enough, the moderators might be persuaded differently. That has not happened with this particular issue; to the contrary, it is my impression that there is no majority against this "rule" and probably a majority who believe that the moderators are correct (or at least, not incorrect) on the issue. And of course, as OGE suggested, if someone is ultimately not happy with the decision of the moderators, they have the option of taking it to Terry. There is at least one other potential "check" on Terry, and by extension on the moderators, and that is the option of the forum participants to "vote with their feet." If people generally became unhappy enough with the way the forum was being "managed" they could decide that it was no longer a good place to discuss Scouting, and go elsewhere. Since there are ads on this site (in fact there is a Google ad on the right side of the screen as I type this, showing a young woman wearing (well, mostly wearing) a t-shirt, which I am pretty sure Terry did not select to appear on the site), I assume that a drastic reduction in participation would eventually cost Terry money, causing him to either make a change in the way the forum is run, or shut it down. But that is just hypothetical; obviously that has NOT happened, nor do I see it happening, since most people seem satisfied with the way the moderators are running things. (I do think that at least one of the many "former posters" on this forum did leave at least in part because he did not feel the moderators were running things "his way" -- but that is one person, and somehow the forum seems to have survived his departure.)

 

So I guess that is a long way of saying that I think that the line-drawing is being done pretty well right now, so I think the moderators can pretty much keep doing what they are doing (and not doing.) I do think there is one situation in this forum that has been going on for years where the moderators would be justified in stepping in more than they have. I will not mention the names publicly, and actually even that situation seems to have quieted down recently, to just the occasional sniping.

 

As for the Issues and Politics forum, I think it serves a needed function of keeping the pressure off the other sub-forums when there is a contentious Scouting-related issue that people want to discuss. And it does sometimes branch out into non-Scouting-related topics, but that's ok too. There is a big sign on the Issues and Politics sub-forum that says, basically, these threads have been confined to this little walled-in area to keep them apart from the more "day-to-day" Scouting topics, so you don't have to pick through the contentious subjects to get to the discussions of neckerchiefs and merit badges and dealing with Scouts and parents, and so on. (Although there can never be a perfect division, for example some of the "Patrol Method" discussions get a little more heated than they really need to.) In other words, you have the option to read these threads or not read them, and if you don't read them there is the other 95 percent of the site to contribute to and benefit from.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[acco40]

Some thing to keep in mind is that the moderators are just like everyone else. We were forum posters and for some reason, Terry made a judgment call and asked some of us to moderate. I think a mistake some folks make is that the moderators somehow get together and critique postings. That is very rare. I've seen posts delete, threads closed and other moderator actions taken that I don't necessarily agree with. Usually, I fully understand why they were closed but would not have taken that action myself.

 

As moderators, we usually don't "undo" each others efforts but will send an occasional personal note if we think another moderator may have overstepped their bounds.

[Stosh]

As one who has a lot of experience moderating forums over the years, I can assure everyone that it's a pretty thankless job. If posters get going in a heated discussion on a topic and the moderator cuts it off, then the anger the two had towards each other is now directed to the moderator. If one doesn't cut off the thread, then everyone else is mad at the moderators. A person just can't win.

 

There will always be certain individuals that find it worth their time to push the buttons of others on a forum. They are easily identifiable and are monitored a bit more than others. It is not an exact science, some people are watched more carefully than others and not everyone gets treated equally. So be it, everyone is human and this is how people act. Adjust.

 

This forum remains one of the more civil ones I have come across. Try moderating an American Civil War forum some time. The War ain't over and there's no fat lady gonna sing any time soon.

 

I have noticed only once or twice where the moderators have even stepped in on any thing so if it wasn't for the little * by their name, most people wouldn't even know. I'm thinking that everyone on this forum needs to count their blessings and be thankful there really hasn't been much need to step in and moderate.

 

Other forums expect the moderators to not be involved in the discussions except to moderate. Being as civil as it has been, it's nice to have the moderators involved with the discussions.

 

I'm thinking the moderators are doing pretty well.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

Well said Stosh.

 

I can just imagine what goes on on a Civil War forum. Or was that the War of Northern Aggression?

[sherminator505]

Actually, it was the saber-rattling back east.

[Stosh]

LOL! Sorry I brought it up, you can see how fast it goes down hill!

 

The North 1

The South 0

 

Half-time!

 

Stosh

[acco40]

War between the states (used by southerners after the war)

War of Rebellion (used by Yankees)

War of Northern Aggression (used by non-genteel southerners)

War for Southern Independence (used by genteel southerners)

Freedom War (Used by Slaves & some freed slaves)

War of Succession (used by southerners during the war and afterwards)

Second American Revolution (used by a minority of southerners who still have issues)

Civil War (used by almost nobody during the war and the most prominent term used by historians after the war)

 

My grandmother on vary rare occasions, when she was really, really mad at my grandfather would call him the most repulsive name she could think of - a Yankee.

 

 

 

[perdidochas]

Internet forums are a tricky thing. Moderators are needed, and the better forums have sometimes heavy-handed (but fair) moderators. Otherwise the noise to signal soon gets to a point that a forum is unreadable. I agree with the mods about eponymous threads. They just aren't a good policy to allow, and tend to quickly produce hurt feelings (and major breaking of the Scout Law). That said, making up a rule on the spur of the moment isn't a good policy either. The mods need to announce when new policies like that are enforced.

[OldGreyEagle]

Perd, consider

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=269569

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=269602

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=269376

 

Take a look at the date and comment on the second to last post, the whole eponymous thing was posted almost 9 months ago, that was the point of bringing the posts forward. I was asked where was it written and so I provided the reference. I was asked not to follow a zero tolerance policy and at the time that request was made, another eponymous post was open and remains open

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=297467

 

 

There is another "rule" that I follow, its an adaptation of Godwin's Law. As soon as a poster accuses another of being Hitler, Gestapo, SS, or Nazi's or related I close the thread and declare the side that posted such a comparison the loser. If the best you can do is call the other side a Nazi, then you don't much in the tank argumentwise

[evmori]

If the best you can do is call the other side a Nazi, then you don't much in the tank argumentwise

 

What about when posters call other posters stupid?

[OldGreyEagle]

It may just be me, but I have never placed the Holocaust and being called stupid as equal