766
General Discussion / Re: Regarding the state of the forums.
« on: January 05, 2011, 09:48:51 am »
Forum: Add my opinion that this forum is pretty darn good.
Ruleset: I think it has a lot to do with the community (of course), which is guided by social pressure rather than rules. I have to admit, I've never read the rules. It's like reading a EULA, why would anyone bother? I think I've read 2 EULA's in my life, and then I just trust that I'm not being screwed over by the rest of them (someone reads them, right?).
Self-moderation: The problem isn't the official rule set, but rather that we have a pretty large active userbase, and not everyone feels the same way. Very few people are malicious, and those that aren't can often be guided toward a better way of thinking with a good response. The problem here is a lack of a cultural leadership. One person saying "you're stupid " might actually have a point, but isn't being constructive or useful. Moderators, unless they are actively guiding and correcting people all the time, can't fix this. Banning this person isn't going to fix it. What fixes it is a reply asking why it's stupid, or asking them not to hurt another's feelings when it is completley justified, and so forth.
- Moderators could help by guiding people, but that would require an absurd amount of moderators. They could silence people, but that simply ignores the feelings of the one-word answerer, and doesn't teach them squat. It doesn't punish them, nor stop them, because they had no evil intention anyways. The same goes with the power of banning. It's supposed to be used like the death sentence of forum threads, not as a reprimand.
More Moderators: Now, we could always use another moderator or two for those times when someone really is being malicious and ignoring the ethics of the rest of the forums. I'd be worried that they might change the culture somehow, but if Toady likes someone who has proven themselves reasonable, I'm all for it. Just don't get them by something like votes or even standard interviews - In my experience they always result in people who are more liked rather than better for the job.
On transparency: I agree here, it's almost always a good thing to know why a thread has been closed. I would hope it's because it really is beyond repair, or perhaps too bloated (some of those threads are impossible to catch up on).
Ruleset: I think it has a lot to do with the community (of course), which is guided by social pressure rather than rules. I have to admit, I've never read the rules. It's like reading a EULA, why would anyone bother? I think I've read 2 EULA's in my life, and then I just trust that I'm not being screwed over by the rest of them (someone reads them, right?).
Self-moderation: The problem isn't the official rule set, but rather that we have a pretty large active userbase, and not everyone feels the same way. Very few people are malicious, and those that aren't can often be guided toward a better way of thinking with a good response. The problem here is a lack of a cultural leadership. One person saying "you're stupid " might actually have a point, but isn't being constructive or useful. Moderators, unless they are actively guiding and correcting people all the time, can't fix this. Banning this person isn't going to fix it. What fixes it is a reply asking why it's stupid, or asking them not to hurt another's feelings when it is completley justified, and so forth.
- Moderators could help by guiding people, but that would require an absurd amount of moderators. They could silence people, but that simply ignores the feelings of the one-word answerer, and doesn't teach them squat. It doesn't punish them, nor stop them, because they had no evil intention anyways. The same goes with the power of banning. It's supposed to be used like the death sentence of forum threads, not as a reprimand.
More Moderators: Now, we could always use another moderator or two for those times when someone really is being malicious and ignoring the ethics of the rest of the forums. I'd be worried that they might change the culture somehow, but if Toady likes someone who has proven themselves reasonable, I'm all for it. Just don't get them by something like votes or even standard interviews - In my experience they always result in people who are more liked rather than better for the job.
On transparency: I agree here, it's almost always a good thing to know why a thread has been closed. I would hope it's because it really is beyond repair, or perhaps too bloated (some of those threads are impossible to catch up on).
