Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 09:56:39 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 00:21:33, Mark Young wrote: >On June 30, 2000 at 16:39:31, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>It has been very interesting to read all these posts going around in never >>ending circles about what is and what is not on-topic or off-topic. >> >>IMHO the concept of on-or-off-topic is highly subjective, and is often used by >>one group to bully another. >> >>Truth is you don't really know what is and what is not. >> >>This is a discussion board. >> >>It is composed of members. >> >>Members are all different. >> >>Some read some posts and some read others. >> >>If members read posts, and carry on reading posts in a thread, they must be >>interested, no? >> >>If a thread gets long, and nobody reads it, then you can assume members are >>voting with their feet, and expressing disinterest. >> >>Long threads which nobody wants to read, appear to 'piss people off', >>terminology I am getting used to reading. >> >>Why don't you just fix the board software to count reads and display them in the >>title field? Just as if they were beans. >> >>Then the evidence to declare on or off-topic would have objectivity. >> >>I'm sure the moderators then have enough non-Artificial Intelligence to >>interpret the bean counts before jumping into contentious actions. >> >>Chris Whittington > >I could not agree more with what you have said. Thinking about the moderation complaint procedure where member(s) send complaint email(s) about a poster or a post or a thread to the moderators, this seems to be a very _negative_ mechanism. One can assume it only happens when a member is dissatisfied enough to complain. Member relationship to the moderators is based on this complaint process. This must be difficult for the moderators, always having to deal with negativity. Readcount is a positive process. In fact a high readcount would be a _positive_ reinforcement to posts and a positive signal to the moderators. A high readcount can be set positively against negative complaints. With the current system, positive approval of posts just doesn't get through to the moderators, only negative criticism. Think for example about a situation where 25% of members are reacting negatively against a thread or a poster. For the moderators this must seem like a deluge of complaints, and they must feel pressure to act. If they had some mechanism to read the feelings of the other members, feelings that are not expressed openly, then they might, in some circumstances, discover some sizeable proportion of the members actually felt positive about the same thing. Right now it could be difficult for them to read this. >The problem with moderators is >they always feel the need to moderate something even when it is not needed. Not necessarily, but I see what you mean. They are simply under negative pressure which can push them into action, when possibly the best action was to do nothing, or even to push in the opposite direction. I don't think they have all the possible tools they could have in order to read the difficult situations better. Readcount does appear to solve at least part of the problem. Especially if interpreted sensibly by intelligent people. Positivity is always better than negativity. Chris Whittington >When >you elect a bunch of clowns you always end up with a circus.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.