About moderation - Feedback

Started Jun 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 28,119
Like?
Re: Clarity
In reply to Kendall Helmstetter Gelner, Jun 29, 2013

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote:

Bobn2 wrote:

<...>

The argument that you put forward is the argument that censors put forward everywhere - that censorship is necessary to protect the great unwashed from being exposed to content they might find objectionable.

Moderation is not about hiding things. It is about letting good things become visible that are otherwise obscured behind muck.

You continue to use the arguments censors always use. You take it on yourself to decide what are 'good things' and what is 'muck'. Why do you think that you are in a better position to do that than the rest of us? And why do you think the 'muck' obscures anything - it does not remove the valuable posts, whilst your action frequently does.

If a forum is full of fighting and nagativity (a word I made up) why would most users take the time to wade through the garbage to get to a few good bits of information? They would not. Again you are showing a lack of concern for the vast majority of people actually reading any given forum.

You are talking it on yourself to decide what is garbage, and in the meantime much 'good information' is routinely excised by you and your ilk simply to appease those who would prefer false information because it better suits their world view.

Good moderation helps pen in the fighting so some people can enjoy the spectacle and effort, but also makes sure that it does not overwhelm the purpose for the forum existing to begin with - which is here to provide helpful information to users of specific camera systems. It is way to easy to forget that people come to a forum in the first place because they have a camera and simply want to know more about how to use it well.

It's interesting to apply your arguments to more general society. It would mean that we would have state censors, deciding which publications were 'muck' and which were 'good information'. The ones they consider 'muck' would be prevented from publishing, removed from the newsstands and the authors denied the right to publish. We have all heard of states that operate that way. I wonder if you are hones enough to say that you support the media policies of the world's authoritarian regimes, or whether you prefer the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
trueNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow