Re: Should we bring back RADWM?

In article <v994ct$148o1$1@dont-email.me>,
Truth Holder  <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

"Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote in news:xn0opehoz17151r004
@post.eweka.nl:
>

Hornplayer9599 wrote:

>

Moderaters are humans, and have their own ideas and biases
as to what would be considered appropriate to post...
so I wouldn't be so ready to say that "everyone" is
treated fairly and respectfully as opinions on both sides are
in play.

>
Imagine how things would be in today's politically correct world
on a moderated Doctor Who newsgroup... you'd be able to say
nothing about the latest episodes without it being moderated.
Agamemnon wouldn't get anything posted!!!

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

 She is still around IIRC.