|
I admit, I'm still a small fry, merely a rookie, but I would strongly oppose more moderation or restricted membership. The latter more than the former, because the politics board is where I got my start. I like the variety, don't get me wrong, but I'm mostly interested in politics.
I oppose moderation because I've been privy to quite a few good, substantive discussions. Sure, there was the chaff here and there, but if the standard is set early and set strongly, most of the comments will follow. I trust the moderators, but I oppose moderation not because I think they'll unecessarily censor posts, but because if we, the posters, set the tone early then we don't need to burden them with additional duties. The responsibility should be on us, the posters, and not on the administrators, to be civil.
The posts that are simply flamewars are usually apparent early on, and for those of us that enjoy a good, rollicking discussion, we can just ignore them and let them flame out, pun not intended. While I have no evidence, I have a feeling that threads sort themselves out early between flamewars and serious discussions.
There's a difference between flaming and criticism, however, and while I can I'd like to take the opportunity to thank those that have responded to my posts, whether in agreement or disagreement. I come here to winnow out my fallacious arguments and hone my reasoning to a finer point, and I appreciate the time and effort that other posters put in to point out deficiencies or offer supporting evidence. It's been a pleasure, and here's to hoping it stays that way.
-- Alvin
|