Re: Should we bring back RADWM?

In article <4Z9uO.158819$rto8.8115@fx05.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599  <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:

On 8/11/2024 14:20, Truth Holder wrote:

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.

>
Yes...it is what is known as a "judgement call", and it is more
efficient for the individual to employ their own judgement regarding the
appropriateness of the posting behaviors of others, and if they deserve
to be filtered out.  If one misses a valid point by a killfiled poster,
that is a risk one does take, but if the sound-to-noise ratio improves
dramatically for the reader from the decision to filter someone, then
has the individual really lost anything?
>

 That is why killfiles are useless.
 

>

>

>
-- >
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan