Soapbox - Open it up and moderate it?

[Chuffy]

One problem with moderation is that things are never quite what they seem. I remember someone PMing me about a ding dong with redders. I think he had suggested that I be hung with my own capitalist entrails from the rafters of the Lodge. I had to explain that redders and I actually get on very well on a personal level and the abuse is not to be taken seriously.

Which is a tricky line to tread for any Mod. I like Redders and I know that he and I can have a fairly robust debate but with no hard feelings afterwards (I hope!) The same couldn't be said of certain other posters. But to an outside observer, that would be an impossible distinction to draw.

 

[wafflycat]

Do as you will. My personal preference is that whether it's opt-in/opt-out/open.. there's a place for soapbox. If it wasn't there, I feel that cafe would get filled with soapbox-type posts which would detract from the forum overall.

 

[MarkF]

There is obviously another place named 'soapbox' that i havn't been to yet.

It sounds pretty good, has anyone got a link?

I'd vote for no moderation in Soapbox and I can't really say that I have noticed anything untoward going on in there

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Which is a tricky line to tread for any Mod. I like Redders and I know that he and I can have a fairly robust debate but with no hard feelings afterwards (I hope!) The same couldn't be said of certain other posters. But to an outside observer, that would be an impossible distinction to draw.

Yes, I can discern the genuine animosity that certain people feel for each other. Equally, I never feel (and this isn't because I've got a skin like a rhino) any genuine animosity towards me. Sometimes are irritated with me, but it's usually with good reason because I've been winding them up. But I think that even Canrider has come round to the view that I'm not actually a member of Combat 18.

 

[theclaud]

I think that even Canrider has come round to the view that I'm not actually a member of Combat 18.

What happened? Did they expel you for being too right-wing?

 

[Chuffy]

What happened? Did they expel you for being too right-wing?

No, he just used words with too many syllables.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

Yes, I can discern the genuine animosity that certain people feel for each other. Equally, I never feel (and this isn't because I've got a skin like a rhino) any genuine animosity towards me. Sometimes are irritated with me, but it's usually with good reason because I've been winding them up. But I think that even Canrider has come round to the view that I'm not actually a member of Combat 18.

certainly, that is the trick. there's a world of difference between someone posting with no intent other than to insult someone, and a ding dong exchange of insults that both protagonists are happy to indulge in.

eg. post that says "that patrick bloke's a ****" needs intervention

but "patrick you're a ****" "alecstilleyedye you're a ****'s ****" is ok, as long as neither party takes offence.

it takes time getting to know the difference. most of the mods have high post counts, and can tell one scenario from another because they have sat on their arses trawling the forum given their free time to help out for a while now.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

What happened? Did they expel you for being too right-wing?

I was absolutely appalled at their behaviour.

























Dirty uniforms on parade, forgetting to bring pickaxe handles, no matches to light petrol bombs. They were a disgrace.

 

[PBancroft]

If someone is willing to put the time and effort into moderating it (and will be open enough to accept some maybe unpalatable views) then fair dos.

Otherwise just open it up and leave it unmoderated would be my personal view... but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me too much, most options seem reasonable enough.

 

[Rapples]

I vote I don't know

I am a relative newcomer here and haven't posted much elsewhere either, I'm more of a voyeur.

Personally I think leave it unmoderated but be much quicker to dump the pointless abusive threads into Bunfights. (That's moderation isn't it???)

I certainly wouldn't feel inclined to look in bunfights, and would opt out if it was an option.

FWIW I've opted into Soapbox, only because I don't object to swear words and a thread I was following got moved there beacause of that.

 

[bonj2]

There's no HARM in making it "opt-in", as has been done,if that's what (some) people want, but personally I don't see the point. All it means is an extra click, one-time, to opt into it. Before you do that, you still see it, it's just got the word 'private' next to it. You presumably would still see its threads in 'new posts'.

If some people want moderation, and some don't, then why not set up two soapboxes, one moderated and one not?
Or ones with different degrees of moderation, and when I say 'different degrees' I don't even necessarily mean that on linear scale - i.e. one could have moeration to the point that only 'intelligent debate' is allowed (I'd be the obvious choice of moderator for that one ), one where no swearing is allowed but anything else goes, one where personal insults are banned but swearing is encouraged, etc etc.....

 

[jonesy]

If someone is willing to put the time and effort into moderating it (and will be open enough to accept some maybe unpalatable views) then fair dos.

Otherwise just open it up and leave it unmoderated would be my personal view... but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me too much, most options seem reasonable enough.

Let's not forget that it is not truly unmoderated even now, nor could it be. Personal squabbles get moved into Bunfights. A couple of weeks ago someone posted something defamatory about another member; appropriate action was taken with commendable speed. There has to be a line drawn somewhere and it ought to be possible to draw that line in place that works for most members most of the time.

But it is the informal moderation from other members that is most effective in policing this sort of thing, that you only achieve by encouraging enough well behaved people to join in. It is a bit like putting up barriers to keep motorbikes off a cycle path: you discourage legitimate users, whose presence and eyes and ears contribute to the overall security of the path, leaving the troublemakers to do as they wish.

 

[Danny]

One problem with moderation is that things are never quite what they seem. I remember someone PMing me about a ding dong with redders. I think he had suggested that I be hung with my own capitalist entrails from the rafters of the Lodge.

A sound suggestion in my view. I can't see why anyone would find this offensive

 

[Noodley]

When does the poll end?

 

[redcogs]

What i know is that there are plenty good folk in soapbox, and as others have said, 'newbies' probably don't realise the shared histories that we have, so what can appear as a ding dong to someone casually dropping in (and probably is a ding dong at the time), will often dissipate pretty quickly.

i'm guilty of overstepping the mark sometimes, but one interesting thing is that when i have, its usually been political opponents that i've sought advice from - Patrick being one such.

i feel a strong bond to people in soapbox, even the rightwing shytes, and i hope and believe that the feeling is mutual.

Things are not always what they appear to be.