On 2006-01-15 18:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The irony here is that one of the most frequent complaints that I have heard about HLA is that they try to monitor and control what is said about them. Anyone who tries to control the communication should not be trusted.
Is that still true?
Are there now times where it is appropriate to put limits on conversation?
"
You've apparently misunderstood. I have no desire to monitor/control what you say to or about others. I would prefer that you own it.
There is a clear distinction between moderating and censorship.
Kids at HLA are monitored and censored, followed by swift punishment.
The HLA forum is monitored and censored. All 'opinions' are not allowed.
No one will control or punish you here unless you consider pulling in the reins on someone running amok, punishment.
I have no desire to censor or 'control' any of your opinions. I actually appreciate the participation of HLA staff (you too Suzanne), provided you post under a user name and identify as such. If you are opposed to identifying as staff/teacher/administrator (name optional), you certainly have the option not to participate.
I?m not sure moderator 'is' the appropriate term for this position. It's what the owner/software chose and what stands. It does imply an impartial, objective (impossible), mediator of sorts. I?m not impartial and have stated as much. Nor do I care to mediate personal disputes. I stated what my 'moderating' goals would be in the first post so I won?t reiterate them here.
You have a user name. Why aren?t you using it? You obviously have some resentment toward DJ. Why hash it out on a public forum? Private message him. My guess is that he?d appreciate the opportunity to talk to you.
What I have noticed thus far in the discussion of moderation is that all those opposed have user names, but posted their dissent anonymously, and have some affiliation with HLA.
We?ll see how survivors and other participants weigh in on the issue. Tomorrow is a new day.
