Re: Should we bring back RADWM?

Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote in news:PbWtO.268198
$4Vg4.180376@fx16.ams4:

On 8/10/2024 20:33, Truth Holder wrote:

That's an exaggeration.  Just look at the moderated web-based
discussion groups.  Sure, many of Agamamnon's posts which contain
blatant homophobia and other bigotry wouldn't make it through, but
there's plenty of negative criticism of the show that's not censored,
including how the diversity angle is being handled by the writers and
directors.
 
Unfortunately, a lot of those groups have probems with cliques and
bullies who harass people they disagree with about interpretations of
stories.  On Gallifrey Base, the moderators not only tolerated this
(especially from patrons), but the forum owners would also join in on
picking fights with those who had unpopular opinions about the show.
Doctor Who Online has the same problem with a moderator named Chela.

>
And using a newsreader with the ability to build a killfile makes the
position of moderator redundant.  The, for lack of a better term,
offending poster is still posting, but anyone who has them in their
killfile has no worries....since they will never see those posts (with
the possible exception of seeing parts quoted from another poster's
reply).  You are your own moderator...no need to elect someone else to
do it; don't like someone's behavior...PLONK...into the killfile they
go, and you don't hear a peep from them until such time as you decide
to grant them parole.

The problem with that is not every poster neatly fits into the binary
choice of filtering out everything they post or letting it all through. 
Agamemnon has a valid point of view, when he's not sprinkling in
comments that are intentionally obnoxious and trolling.  Even Yadallee
posts worthwhile stuff sometimes, when he's not drifting off-topic just
for the sake of it.  A moderated server would also force him to trim his
replies, because it could automatically refuse to accept posts which
have too high a ratio of quoted text.

Your references to other moderated sites really don't support a
position in favor of a moderated site, as you have stated that there
are many groups where the moderator(s) are either: 1. unable to
maintain decorum in the discussion (which is their job), or 2. are
active participants in the very behavior that they are supposed to
reduce or eliminate...which means they are abusing their position as
moderator in addition to not doing the job assigned to them.

I already addressed this in the following paragraph that you deflected
from:
 

IIRC, RADWM didn't have this problem, because the moderators had to be
elected by the entire group, and there were procedures in place make
grievances about and even remove a rogue or abusive mod.  It wasn't
perfect, but it works better than what we have now.

 
And as I have stated previously, if RADWM worked that well, then the
group would still be active.

As others pointed out, the server admin disappeared and stopped replying
to emails a few years ago.  The other reason is because many migrated to
the web-based forums because it was trendy and appeared easier to access
(for non-techies), but they weren't able to transfer the democratic
values that RADWM had.  When posts were rejected, people had a chance to
appeal it or ask for clarification, and if they didn't get a response or
thought the response was unreasonable there was a meta forum where they
could being it up to discuss with other members and moderators.  Today's
web-based forums don't have anything like this at all, much less
accountability for their moderators like RADWM had.

I bet we could lure back some of the posters from those hellscapes if
had that kind of system again.

Plus, some of the moderators were hot AF, like Nyctolops.  No one can
dispute that!

 
I have never met Nyctolops, so I can neither dispute, nor confirm that.
I'll just have to take your word for it. :)

Good call.