Gray on 6/9/2005 at 07:09
I'm sure this isn't a novel idea, but I've been pondering it a bit over the last couple of weeks. It has probably been discussed here before, and probably been implemented in other forums.
Many threads, especially in CommChat, tend to diverge rather heavily from the topic in, oh, about two posts. If lucky, one page. That's not usually a problem, as it tends to make for interesting discussions.
However, there are times when I as a thread starter would like to have more control over the thread I start, much like a moderator, only with the insight or what the thread was originally aimed for. I wish to steer the discussion, at least vaguely, into the field meant to discuss, and avoid tangents about the current weather in Wales, how nice red lacy underwear looks on a particular Hollywood starlet or whether or not to outlaw the colour pink. Clearly, this is a form of censorship, but it could possibly serve to make "serious" discussion threads more, um, "serious".
For instance, a thread starter could have a click-box when starting a thread:
[ ] Thread starter can moderate
[x] Crazy-go-nutz-thread (clearly, the default)
Now, of course I realise this could be a Bad Thing. But, I also think there are times where it might actually be useful.
So, in short, is it inherently a moronic idea to even suggest thread starters should have any moderation control over their threads, or is that just fascist?
(Note that no considerations are taken to wheter or not it CAN be done technically, only if it's a good idea or not.)
Thoughts? Comments? Orwellian dystopias? Should we outlaw the colour pink?
tungsten on 6/9/2005 at 07:14
Do you suggest a sane island in the nuthouse?
mmmm, difficult. But I think it usually depends on the language of the starting post and of course on the topic. If you mention Bush or other such sensitive spots, it's likely to go wrong (I remember my book thread and my whisky thread: clearly the books were a pure success and the whisky was dangerously on the borderline, but nevertheless on topic)..
I don't think starters should have the right to any form of cencorship. It is usually possible to keep a thread relatively clean (given the topic is not too skronky).
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 07:16
But what if Skronk posts a serious philosophical thread, and he wants to keep the lame jokes ("nine") out?
DinkyDogg on 6/9/2005 at 07:21
He has the lame jokes coming. I vote that the thread-starters get no cencorship control.
David on 6/9/2005 at 07:22
Not a hope in hell.
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 07:23
Ok, just for comparison, say it's Dave, then, and not Skronk.
[Edit]
O_O Uncanny
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 07:28
Once you're up, Dave, please do comment more eloquently. Tell me why it's a bad idea.
tungsten on 6/9/2005 at 07:37
Quote Posted by Gray
But what if Skronk posts a serious philosophical thread, and he wants to keep the lame jokes ("nine") out?
Sorry, but then he should find another forum with younger people. As I (twice) and RBJ and others suggested, it's just a pain to read his stuff, if you have a minimal philosophical "education"/knowledge from books or whatever. Most of what he asks has been discussed athousand times by those philosophers in Europe. So he should really read some of the stuff. Trying to get philosophical answers out of the nuthouse is just too lazy. I agree that it's simply fun and interesting to discuss many of the points, but his look at things is just "too young"/uninformed (sorry, I don't know the proper word).
And: his topics clearly belong in the "danger" range (like whisky or politics).
Most TTLGers actually follow if you (as thread starter) remind them kindly to stay on topic.
Overall, TTLG is a wonderful forum. I don't
really know any other forum, simply because oll of them really sucked. (Be it with athousand animated gifs, that you all have to adblock first, picture signatures, or simply moderators that suck in a way that only some of the members here do in their bad moods.) But all other forums I've seen had much more troubles to stay on an GenDisc-topic that is offtopic with respect to the site (meaning non LG-related, or whatever the site is about).
My clear vote goes to NO, no technological modding for starters. You can always moderate "your" thread by posting a kind message to get back to topic, it does work.
No tungsten you do NOT post this, stay on topic please[last edited by Gray :p ]
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 07:42
Hey, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it's an idea :erg:
I'm actually more interested in the discussion than in the actual option of doing so. Agreed, at times it would be tempting, but it seems slightly on the orwellian side.
Perhaps what I was thinking about was of a more separated forum. The more I think of it, it seems like a bad idea. Then again, I've never been known for thinking fast.
mopgoblin on 6/9/2005 at 07:49
Quote Posted by Gray
Now, of course I realise this could be a Bad Thing. But, I also think there are times where it might actually be useful.
True, but for the most part it sounds like a bad idea - why should one person be able to control the discussion? Simply starting the thread usually isn't a good enough reason. Discussion often drifts to other subjects, making the first post irrelevant, so there's no reason for the thread starter to keep any special status. A person starting a thread on a political topic could interfere with arguments that they don't like. Remember when thread starters could delete the thread? That was sometimes abused when they didn't like losing an argument or being mocked for saying/doing stupid things.
I imagine it could be somewhat useful in a few cases (FAQ threads and the like), but that'd work better if the admins set it up on a case-by-case basis, and not necessarily for the thread starter. I certainly don't think it'd be particularly useful in CommChat - if moderation was needed that often, they'd probably be better off finding an extra admin.
