Fair and open is subjective. Fox calls itself "fair and balanced". It does not make it so. The only truly fair discussion is one where nobody has any power over the words of others. Sure it results in a fair bit of chaos, but there is also the guarantee that it is fair. You might have been a benevolent monarch, but such a system is only as good as it's leader... and people shouldn't have to trust in a leader... they should be able to trust in a system. As it is a system exists that does not rely on a single person's benevolence or fairness where in a sense nobody and everybody is in charge. Everybody has a fair shake at the discussion table including the "trolls" which is really a term for that which you personally find irrelevant, distracting, or otherwise offensive..
. Now, can you find any logical flaw in Psy's take?
I could spend quite a bit of time picking it apart, especially his gratuitis re-definition of the geneally accepted meaning of "forum troll" to suit his point, but generally the implication is 1) don't trust a leader, moderation is subjective and isn't 'fair' 2) trust a system instead, see the objective results!
This neglects the fact that the system can be manipulated, in absense of a leader ie: moderator
But that's precisely the beauty I see in it. Anybody can "manipulate" the system, influence the discussion, etc... Everybody has a fair shake in that and nobody has a upper hand. It's up to each individual reader to determine whether a person is a "troll", playing devils advocate, or talking to himself as you imply. I like to think people on this forum have gotten pretty good at detecting that based on writing style, post timings, and other clues. It doesn't exactly require a moderator and the mystery adds a certain intrigue to the discussion and attunes one's senses to bullshit.
by people who want the system to fail, thereby rendering the system a failure. Example a) this forum in its current state.
OK. So what is your definition of a forum as a success? By the mere act of defining that you're influencing the dialogue in a direction you choose... Instead of letting the people decide what is relevant and what is not you're implying they're not mature enough to do it for themselves. Benevolent monarch, maybe, but a monarch nonetheless.
This neglects that if a forum wants an open discussion, and 100 people with opinion A pile on every new person with opinion B, that no constructive OPEN conversation will occur.
But opinions have changed and the zeitgeist of the forum does shift. People with powerful opinions and arguments can influence others. Example: When I came to this forum nearly everybody viewed parents as intrinsically misguided and evil for sending their kids to program. Over time, that has changed significantly as posters have been exposed to information regarding exactly how parents are fooled, how thought reform works, etc. I'd like to think the forum as a whole learns, and I think that can only truly happen when nobody interferes with the "thought process"... even with the best of intentions. Sure, it can be harsh, but i you can wade through the BS, there are a lot of gems on this forum an a lot of real discussion.
I was thinking in the car today. I find it sad that so many people no longer seem able to absorb and process unfiltered information on their own... they want some moderator to filter it into an easily digestible piece of text. well... there is nothing about this industry that is easily digestible and I think filtering out the muck takes the authenticity out of the discussion. As it is, i feel this is a pure snapshot of the troubled teen industry with all the crazy and fallout preserved on both sides. Sure it's not for everybody, but i feel it's an important lesson to re-learn how to look at everything as a whole and meditate on it without having some sort of babysitter. Even the crazy, even the trolls, have meaning if you reflect on it. You might not see it and it might be
direct, but
those posts are in some way a result of this industry, and without that, the snapshot would be doctored and the warts airbrushed off.
Moderating forums is tricky and can result in even worse results than an unmoderated forum if the forum leader is not benevolent and unbaised in his/her moderation. In addition it is mostly less than thankless. you open yourself up to attacks continually deal with spam and idiots, and of course the pay is atrocious. The net is swamped with examples of bad forums. Forum moderation with rules that apply to everyone in my opinion yield the best results, especially when you want open conversation from all sides of a discussion. The forum now obviously isn't looking for that and shouts down contrary opinions. It seems like you guys want a anti-program party and not a discussion, and that is fine.
If that were the case, why not moderate the forum to delete any mention of anything remotely pro-program... and nobody would ever know? If the majority of posters here are anti-program that merely reflects the majority opinion. Sometimes the minority is "shouted down", yes, but there is nothing stopping a minority opinion from sticking it out and influencing the majority. It's happened before.
Just please if you have the time archive the forum at the point I left, and rename the new forum "I hate the seed and dare you to come in here". That would be more honest.
No, it it would not be honest since anybody can post anything here... positive or negative. The only reason the anti-seed posts are more prevalent at the moment seems to be because somebody new is here who is angry. That happens. If you feel so strongly about it, why not bump some old threads you really like and continue other discussion. Maybe the person currently posting hasn't read those and might find it cathartic or somehow healing. You get more with honey... Or to use a video game analogy: use way of the open palm rather than the closed fist.