Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: scagga on 25 Jul 2010, 18:55
-
At times I ask myself, 'what harm would be done by the material that has been moderated?' vs 'what harm is being done by moderating the material?'
I am not criticising those who conduct moderation - I believe they do a stellar job. I would like to draw your attention to the 'rules'. It is my impression that within the rules there are clauses of the sort that may be vastly improved by their demise.
Would the forum administration be willing to accept revision of the rules or forum structure in the nebulous public interest (defined by a high majority/unanimity of voters?). Quote something:
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
-
Would the forum administration be willing to accept revision of the rules or forum structure in the nebulous public interest (defined by a high majority/unanimity of voters?).
I don't see why not. Provided it wasn't something we (meaning me, Silver and whoever was on the moderation team at the time) would open Backstage up to the sort of non-constructive forum battles it was created to avoid, I don't think there'd be any reason not to adopt rule/policy changes that were requested and supported by a good majority of its users.
...it's not a police state, after all.
-
...it's not a police state, after all.
It's not? I've long had the impression it was.
Note: Police State is not necessarily a negative connotation.
-
That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to a bit of what I'll call "preemptive criticism" that Backstage received before the domain name was even purchased, from people (read: more than one person) who thought that the rules and guidelines being talked about on smoke-filled-room (thanks Scagga) were going to be overly 'oppressive' or were designed to muzzle specific people unduly.
I'm sure some individuals still feel that the rules are unnecessarily tight and I'm equally sure I'd understand their reasoning for holding that opinion, but I don't think anyone's been unduly 'muzzled' as yet at least. :)
*edited for more clarity
-
Every now and then I feel restricted because I can't go on a shit spitting rampage because some people are just so fucking thick :C
-
The next time you get the urge, ask a question instead. I know its tough knowing everything, but you might pick up a perspective or two.