# A lighter touch for moderation?



## woodelf (Jun 1, 2005)

_context: This started out when Psion commented with surprise that a rather heated thread had actually managed to lead to productive discussion, with people finally starting to see each others' points. I responded with a snippy, backhanded-complement sort of comment to the effect that this [the thread in question] was a perfect example of why a lighter touch when moderating was a good thing--because many flamey threads are also productive threads. I was going to post this followup in the same thread, but it got further and further off-topic as i wrote it. And i've been meaning to start this discussion for some time now, ever since this thread  got closed. So, i'll just start this discussion here. Maybe it's just me, and i'll have to live with it because it's what everyone else wants. But i figure i'll put forth my argument, and see if anybody is persuaded._



			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> 1. Insulting the moderators' style of enforcement is one of the three best ways to win negative brownie points.




Might well be. Had to get it off my chest--and i did acknowledge that it was just a rant. It's just frustrating, doubly-so when, as in many such threads, there're a bunch of us conducting a perfectly civil conversation, ignoring the flamefest, and it gets locked. Me, i'd rather put up with having to ignore a bunch of posts in a thread i'm interested in, than not have the conversation. And i can't very well start a new thread in those situations--even if it's not explicitly forbidden around here (i'd have to re-read the rules), it's really poor form to circumvent moderation by simply restarting the discussion in a new thread. I respect the moderation and the moderators around here, i just don't agree with it.



			
				Driddle said:
			
		

> 2. I have yet to see a so-called "interesting discussion" -- specifically, a fiery exchange that requires page upon page of explanation to clarify one's own position and pick apart another person's posts sentence by sentence -- ever reach the mythical "productive, fertile ground" of which you speak.




Um, given that Psion just identified this thread as being one of them, which is what prompted my remark, i don't think i have much to prove. Of course, due to my little rant, it'll probably become heated again, with my luck. I guess, if you want to continue this argument, we should "take it outside" (i.e., start a new thread)?

But, around here, in general? Not so much--but then, if you close superheated threads, it's gonna be a little hard for a superheated thread to survive long enough to fix itself, no? So, not a lot of data to go on. Last one i was following got shut down just as it seemed like the hotheads were maybe gonna start communicating (instead of shouting past each other)--and, like many such threads, had some people communicating all along, underneath the noise. Do i know that such threads would eventually straighten themselves out, if left alone? Nope. Would a lot of them continue to be pointless flamewars? Yep. Is there any reason to shut down pointless flamewars? Nope--the participants obviously want them, and those who don't want them aren't required to read them. I understand moderating out blatantly offensive stuff (even if i don't always agree on what qualifies). I don't understand moderating out pointless non-productive flamefests.

But, on RPGNet, r.g.f.misc, and r.g.f.advocacy, i've seen many a very heated thread eventually turn around--and, sometimes, those produce the most interesting discussions. And it's not coincidence, there's a definite link: threads that involve people of radically different viewpoints often lead to nasty flamefests, as they simply fail to communicate initially, and it is precisely that same difference of viewpoint that can lead to real eye-opening, once everybody figures out where the communication breakdown is. You have to have the persistence to keep trying, and the patience to keep working at it--it can take dozens of messages, possibly across a couple of weeks, to break through. But, ultimately, i think it's more rewarding--i often come away (as i have from this thread) with a new understanding, rather than just talking to people that already mostly think like me.

_that concludes the original post. Now on to further issues that are much more likely to be inflammatory._

A further issue is that it smacks of paternalism. This is probably just my issue, but it always feels a bit insulting when a thread is closed [for heatedness], because it feels like the moderators are saying "you're not mature enough or intelligent enough to resolve this disagreement on your own, or to have the good sense to walk away from it if you can't resolve it." And, IME, if you assume people have the maturity to police themselves, they will. If you assume they don't, they won't.

And i honestly think that it contributes to a climate of incestuous thought, because people eventually stick to discussing safe topics. Even if what they want to talk about won't get shut down, they don't know that, and there's the feeling that there's no point in trying. Specifically, it means that any ideas that are radically opposed to the majority opinion are likely to attract flames, so, while certainly not the intent of the moderators, it can too-easily lead to squelching radical ideas--and some radical ideas are good ideas that just happen to push someone's buttons. I also look at the output of RPGNet and r.g.f.advocacy for examples of this: i think that both tend to, over the long haul, produce more eye-opening threads--the sort that really open my eyes or shift my POV--_as well as_ having a lot more flamewars along the way. And, in a fair number of cases, those were the same threads.

To be clear: i am not accusing moderators, past or present, of doing anything wrong, or of being unfair, or anything of the sort. Nor am i suggesting that they are idiots or sheep. I'm simply putting forth the idea that the well-considered moderation standards at EnWorld might, nonetheless, have unintended negative results, and a slight moderation (no pun intended) might improve discussion, at minimal cost.

Also, to elaborate on the consequences of letting flamefests either continue or burn themselves out: if a thread is being closed just for being a non-productive flamefest, what's the harm in leaving it open? Yes, flamewars are often pointless. That is, they have no value--positive _or negative_. And it's pretty easy for viewers to avoid them or stop reading them. Or they can try to turn them back into a civil discussion. Is it really better not to let anyone have the discussion, than to let them have a knock-down drag-out verbal fight? AT least with the flamewar they (1) might get it out of their system and (2) might at some point notice the other person's points. Moreover, someone who's not emotionally invested in the flamewar might be able to (1) learn something, (2) have a meaningful side discussion with one or more of the participants, or even (3) be the neutral party that bridges the gap (if it's a flamewar over something that can be bridged, which many of them are).

So, questions? counter-arguments?


----------



## Henry (Jun 1, 2005)

A couple of random thoughts, based on your points:


Every internet message board has its own feel, style, and populace, much like every bar in one given city has its own clientele. What works for one may not work for another, because its makeup is different, and so what works for NTL, RPGnet, Dragonsfoot, etc. may not work for here. Chances are, different styles of moderation have been tried in the past just because different people have moderated; we may in fact be more lax now than in previous times, or more strict on topics.
Sometimes a "metacurrent" is going on in all forums that is hard for the casual reader/poster to get wind of; sometimes there's an argument being carried on by multiple people that's been carried from another thread or even another board, and no amount of "talking it out" will stop the sniping. This can result in a seeming policing of a topic or a group of posters without good reason, even though there probably is.
One thing we aim for (may not always hit) is actually more "hands off" moderation than hands on. Our goals are - if one person is thread-flaming, we edit and contact them; if a bunch are, its more time-effective to just shut the topic and let the posters cool off than to police every instance of someone slamming someone else. Sometimes, we're about to go offline for the evening, and don't want to take the chance that the relieving mods will have the same amount of info on a volatile thread. Believe me, we edit a LOT of threads instead of closing them.
For every flame war that turned productive, there's TEN that not only went nowhere, but caused a lot of hurt feelings and hostilities in the process. Personally, I don't want to wade through ten pages of "you're an ass!" "so are you!" to get to an actual POINT. Wouldn't it be easier for ALL involved if people knew to just skip the insults, and get to their point in the first place, instead of wasting bandwidth with put-downs? It's not something we care to do, and not something most people who come here care to do, either.
In the end, it comes down to forum style. Sometimes I DO want to kick back and discuss things that are not kosher here -- politics, religion, the guy who cut me off on the by-pass -- but then I have other venues to discuss these things, and leave ENWorld for the "straight-to-the-chase" RPG talk, and for my dose of work-safe funny. I don't begrudge ENWorld for what it isn't, I work within it for what it is.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 1, 2005)

one of the great features here at ENWorld is the ignore list.

it helps to reduce flames too.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 1, 2005)

What did diaglo just say?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 1, 2005)

As a reader, I don't see the point of allowing a flamefest to continue.  Even if it does eventually calm down and lead to productive discussion, I don't want to wade through pages of garbage posts to find it.  

Also, a heated flame thread will just keep jumping to the top of page one. If there are several of them happening at the same time, they will start to crowd out other threads.

Last, one of the main reasons I visit EN World on a regular basis is because I don't have to put up with that kind of stuff in thread after thread.  You start allowing it in one case, people will understand that it is OK and not feel the need to restrain themselves in other threads.  The reason for the general civility on this site is because people understand that those are the rules and act accordingly.  Some of the same people here who are posting on Nothingland have a very different tone to many of their posts over there.  Why?  Because it is allowed.


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 1, 2005)

Basically, I agree.  I think some discussions can get heated, but I've felt that, on more than one occasion, a good resolution could have been bourne out of some heated debates, but because moderators got trigger-happy, the discussion ceased.

I can understand Henry's point, but I do think there is a tendency, especially in certain topics, where the mods tend to be a bit jumpy. Perhaps they are gun-shy with regards to certain topics.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Um, given that Psion just identified this thread as being one of them, which is what prompted my remark, i don't think i have much to prove.




I think you still have a great deal to prove.

Psion is a wise person.  But not only is he not infallible, but his opinion of one isolated incident does not a case for overall policy change make.  What you need is not one incident, but evidence that, _in general_, allowing continued heated discussion will produce more positive results than negative.  Given that it takes only a few bad apples to ruin the whole barrel, you'd need to find a whole passle of such threads, and then you'd have a case.

You note that there's not a lot of data to go on, and that is true.  However, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that, out in the wide world, allowing heated discussion to continue is constructive.  So, the next logical step would be to find evidence that EN Worlders, by nature, are better behaved than the general populace, such that we can continue without moderation beyond the point where the general populace could go and still be constructive.  In analogy with the above, not only do we have to be better, a great many of us have to be a great deal better.

Now also remember that these policies were not drawn out of thin air.  They were designed in response to observed behavior.  So, you have to show that the observed behavior no longer exists.  Good luck. 




> Is there any reason to shut down pointless flamewars? Nope--the participants obviously want them, and those who don't want them aren't required to read them.




I think you mistake oversimplified theory for actual practical social dynamics.  In theory, it is a simple people who want can have them, people who don't want, don't have them.  But in reality, flamewars tend to bleed throughout the site.  Animosity lingers.  The whole place becomes more confrontational and less cooperative.  

The following may sound paternal, but it is also true - what people want or don't want may not be the same thing as what is best for the overall atmosphere of the place.  This is why this is not a democracy.  If we really could behave ourselves, we wouldn't have moderators,because the moderation arose as a response to the observed behavior of the people here and elsewhere.


----------



## HellHound (Jun 2, 2005)

Umbran, I've got your back. And now I just need your eloquence.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 2, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> What did diaglo just say?





He said something?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 2, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Basically, I agree.  I think some discussions can get heated, but I've felt that, on more than one occasion, a good resolution could have been bourne out of some heated debates, but because moderators got trigger-happy, the discussion ceased.
> 
> I can understand Henry's point, but I do think there is a tendency, especially in certain topics, where the mods tend to be a bit jumpy. Perhaps they are gun-shy with regards to certain topics.




I've not seen as many heated "discussions" than I have on a certain board.

I like the more laid-back moderation style here. The moderators can kick back and actually post for fun rather than to shut down/edit threads and/or posts. And I'm sure they'd much rather JOIN a discussion than have to CLOSE it and send out warnings/bans. I've only seen one person banned while I've been here... And certain topics require them being more "jumpy" than usual as they can lead to flame wars (the most recent being the "discussion" about the new Pope...'nuff said on that topic!) and hurt feelings.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 2, 2005)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Umbran, I've got your back. And now I just need your eloquence.



and i've got yours, HellHound.

now i just need a cape to cover it James Brown style.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 2, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> What did diaglo just say?



Probably something about OD&D being the only true game or some other such nonsense.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 2, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> II've only seen one person banned while I've been here...




::_The anti-spam bot burps - having killed it's 24th victim three days ago_::


----------



## Henry (Jun 2, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> ::_The anti-spam bot burps - having killed it's 24th victim three days ago_::




[PRAISE]
K'Trava should've said, "people who actually count."  Unlike those worthless spam-mongers that your awesome 'bot scoops from our midst like scum from the swimming pool.  
[/PRAISE]


----------



## diaglo (Jun 2, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> [PRAISE]
> K'Trava should've said, "people who actually count."  Unlike those worthless spam-mongers that your awesome 'bot scoops from our midst like scum from the swimming pool.
> [/PRAISE]




don't B dissin' Spamalot.

that thang is a phenom.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 2, 2005)

Self-moderation does not happen enough so forum moderation is needed, you can't predict what will be said but you can see a trend of a thread.  We trust the mods to make the call (demand it, I could say) and 99% of the time it is the right call, they do a great job.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 2, 2005)

As I've said before, I think the best metaphor for a messageboard is that of a hosted party at someone's house.  It's an open party:  anyone can drop by.  The host isn't really responsible for the behavior of his guests.

But in a way he is, because if enough guests behave badly, the other guests are likely to stop having fun.  If a single guest gets too belligerent, she can ruin the fun for a whole lot of people.  And the host, more than anyone else, is responsible for calming down (or kicking out!) the belligerent guest.

The host is also the one putting the most time into the party.  Since he's the one creating it, it's really his choice what sort of atmosphere he wants.  Some hosts like a rowdy atmosphere in which there's wrasslin on the front lawn; others like a calmer, quieter atmosphere.  The guests may suggest a different atmosphere, but in the end, the host gets to decide what sort of party he's throwing.

Sure, flame wars can be allowed to continue.  But that's not the atmosphere of this party.  There's plenty of places online where flamewars may be carried out.  The hosts here have decided against them.

Consider also that moderating isn't much fun:  it means that you get to read the snarkiest, bitterest, meanest posts on the board, and you have to decide whether they're snarky, bitter, and/or mean enough to warrant action.  The rest of you are free to ignore threads that have descended into ickiness.  Not so the mods:  they gotta wallow in it.

So although that ickiness doesn't bother you, keep in mind that it bothers the mods; and if we occasionally stop a conversation mid-ick when you think it could've continued successfully, it may be because (in addition to all Henry's excellent points) we don't particularly want to have to wade through another couple pages of ick before things resolve; and we don't want people getting lax about flaming, thinking that it's acceptable behavior.  The more people that think it's okay to be snarky, insulting, etc., the more ick we've got to wade through.

Daniel


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 3, 2005)

Wow, I put ENworld down to one of the friendliest message boards I've ever been on...  and one of the less moderated that's not on the verge of chaos.

Disagreeing with a moderator has its place…  I’ve never jumped down someone throat when they took the time to PM me or email me about the issue but having issues and being shaky about comments in public.  It’s just bad form and makes you look like the ass as, luckily, most realize we do this out of kindness and cause we care about the forum.


----------



## HellHound (Jun 3, 2005)

Honestly, I prefer a heavy hand in moderating. That's why I narc on the trouble threads regularly.

I'm a regular no-good stool-pidgeon snitch of the lowest order!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm not sure it'd be possible for there to be a 'light touch' to moderating here on ENWorld without getting rid of the moderators all together...



Spoiler



Which is, of course, one step closer to my true plan of ultimate ENWorld Domination...


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it'd be possible for there to be a 'light touch' to moderating here on ENWorld without getting rid of the moderators all together...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL ....DangGGGGGG!!! !


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2005)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Honestly, I prefer a heavy hand in moderating. That's why I narc on the trouble threads regularly.
> 
> I'm a regular no-good stool-pidgeon snitch of the lowest order!




ditto.

diaglo "HellHound's flunkie" Ooi


----------



## woodelf (Jun 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> A couple of random thoughts, based on your points:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 Well, the forbidden topics is a different issue entirely. I understand why non-RPG stuff is off-topic, and it only barely intersects this particular issue (such as when someone aviods discussing a game-relevant  political idea because of fears of getting in trouble.


On your other points: 3 is news to me. And that's not meant derisively--i really hadn't realized it. I may just be attracted to the heated topics. [I hope i'm not seen as one of the instigators--when i'm involved in heated threads, i'm trying to cut through the noise to get to the discussion, and, don't want to be one of the flamers. I'm also human, and sometimes overreact. Man, i miss UseNet readers--my standard procedure, whenever there was a question, was to write my response, then sit on it for a day before i decide whether or not to post it. Much harder to do with a webbrowser.]


1&2 are good points that i'd never thought of.


On 4, let my propose something: the *only* time i've ended up with hurt feelings in any discussion forum [it's happened both here and other places] is when i've felt like i was denied my fair say. Such as when a thread was shut down before i could respond to someone else's accusation or point--to counter, or clarify, or explain/justify. If you're motivated by protecting the participants, please consider that element, too. 



 [frex, in the 2nd thread referenced in my original post in this thread, the last post before it was closed was someone accusing me of playing devil's advocate and implying i was advocating positions/behaviors that i didn't believe in and would never practice, just to get others in trouble. When they are, in fact, positions i sincerely believe, have researched extensively, and _am_ putting my money where my mouth is with regards to. I wasn't upset when it was posted--i was upset when i discovered i couldn't respond. Generally, i don't care what someone says about me, or how someone disagrees with me, so long as i get a chance to respond/clarify. And i know one of my hot buttons is people dismissing my POV--disagreeing with it? not a problem. Kicking the legs out from under my argument, making me look the fool? Well, i don't like it, but it happens. Not even acknowledging that my point is worth acknowledging, much less countering? That drives me batty.]


----------



## woodelf (Jun 18, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Last, one of the main reasons I visit EN World on a regular basis is because I don't have to put up with that kind of stuff in thread after thread. You start allowing it in one case, people will understand that it is OK and not feel the need to restrain themselves in other threads. The reason for the general civility on this site is because people understand that those are the rules and act accordingly. Some of the same people here who are posting on Nothingland have a very different tone to many of their posts over there. Why? Because it is allowed.




That's a good point, that i hadn't thought of in that direction. I agree: behavior in a particular thread spills over, and affects the general tone. My basic premise is that if the expected behavior is self-moderation and behaving oneself, that is the overall result. And that the feel i get from the boards right now is of being baby-sat. Which, IMHO, leads to people pushing the limits _more_, not less, because rather than moderating themselves, they keep pushing until they're shut down. But maybe it's just my perception. Or i'm wrong. Maybe the effect you're talking about is simply more powerful than the one i'm talking about.

Never been on Nutkinland/Nothingland. My counter-observation is the people i know from here and RPGNet who seem to be much better-behaved on RPGNet than here. Or, more often, behave the same in either place--i.e., obviously setting their own standards.


----------



## woodelf (Jun 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think you still have a great deal to prove.




Well, in the context of the original thread, i was countering the claim that it never occurred. It only takes one counter-case to disprove an absolute statement. I wasn't claiming proof that moderation is bad, only that it is possible for a heated thread to turn around and become productive.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Psion is a wise person. But not only is he not infallible, but his opinion of one isolated incident does not a case for overall policy change make. What you need is not one incident, but evidence that, in general, allowing continued heated discussion will produce more positive results than negative. Given that it takes only a few bad apples to ruin the whole barrel, you'd need to find a whole passle of such threads, and then you'd have a case.
> 
> You note that there's not a lot of data to go on, and that is true. However, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that, out in the wide world, allowing heated discussion to continue is constructive. So, the next logical step would be to find evidence that EN Worlders, by nature, are better behaved than the general populace, such that we can continue without moderation beyond the point where the general populace could go and still be constructive. In analogy with the above, not only do we have to be better, a great many of us have to be a great deal better.




Well, i don't want to turn this into a board-wars thread, but i think that i *can* point to a whole passle of such threads--they're all over RPGNet and r.g.f.advocacy. The former of which seems to have a "as long as you're not making death threats or a non-game-related neo-Nazi political screed, it's ok", and the latter of which doesn't have moderation, AFAIK. I find RPGNet to be a much more hospitable and friendly atmosphere, and the most-obvious difference is the tone of discussion and moderation. But i also have the skin of a rhino, so very little bugs me--so there might be a lot of flameage that just slides off my back and i don't even notice it. [Or i'm just oblivious, if you prefer to characterize it that way.  ]

Now, obviously, you can just respond "well, you like it better there, go over there and leave us alone." And perhaps that *is* the solution. But some topics simply generate more-interesting discussions here than anywhere else i'm aware of. 

And you might be right. Both the generally-positive reputation of EnWorld, and the responses in this thread seem to point to the idea that i'm simply in the minority (at least around here), and i should just deal. The world can't bend to my wishes, and what i needed was to raise the point and have the discussion, not necessarily "win".

But i'll counter your challenge with one of my own: can you show that the denizens of EnWorld are any _less_ well-behaved than the general populace? Because i can point to plenty of examples of places that accept much-more-heated discussions, with only self-moderation, and haven't blown up yet. IME, it doesn't take the exceptional individuals you describe to manage it.



> Now also remember that these policies were not drawn out of thin air. They were designed in response to observed behavior. So, you have to show that the observed behavior no longer exists. Good luck.




I haven't been around long enough to witness poor behavior here--did it used to be rowdier? IOW, i wasn't aware that the "observed behavior" was ever actually observed here.



> I think you mistake oversimplified theory for actual practical social dynamics. In theory, it is a simple people who want can have them, people who don't want, don't have them. But in reality, flamewars tend to bleed throughout the site. Animosity lingers. The whole place becomes more confrontational and less cooperative.
> 
> The following may sound paternal, but it is also true - what people want or don't want may not be the same thing as what is best for the overall atmosphere of the place. This is why this is not a democracy. If we really could behave ourselves, we wouldn't have moderators,because the moderation arose as a response to the observed behavior of the people here and elsewhere.




You may well be right. No, let me rephrase that: i think you _are_ right. The mood in individual threads spills over and forms the general tone of the boards. For good and ill. The good, in this case? Civility. The ill? In addition to topics i know i can't discuss (real-world religion), i fear saying things that are a lot less offensive, because i figure they'll get shot down/shut down. Maybe i'm wrong. And i'm sure part of it is personal preference: i'd rather be in an environment that is rowdy and impolite, than one that has the oppresive feel of censorship. Others (presumably yourself) consider what i characterize as 'censorship' to be 'civil standards.' And i understand that there is no absolute standard, so we can both be equally 'right' or 'wrong'.

Anyway, i've had my say. Like i said when i started the thread--i wanted to raise the topic for discussion. I've made my points; if they don't persuade, i'm simply outvoted. Such is life.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 18, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I haven't been around long enough to witness poor behavior here--did it used to be rowdier? IOW, i wasn't aware that the "observed behavior" was ever actually observed here.




Things were different back in 1999 and 2000, and while there were some bad behavior I remeber for the most part people behaved well.  Eric, who was in charge at the time, set a great example and people from what I recall did not cause as much problems.  And that has become even less over the years.


----------



## Henry (Jun 18, 2005)

We originally didn't really have a "no politics or religion" rule in ye early days -- it was all Eric closing threads that people were fighting in. (Good God those proto-forums were nasty-looking software, but they were free! ) His original rule? "Guys and gals, play fair, and keep it clean - I like to keep it such that my grandmother could read these boards and I wouldn't feel embarrassed."

The more formal yet still loose rules grew from Eric observing what got pointless flames and what got meaningful discussion. The watchword was "His house, his rules" - meaning it's like coming into Eric's house like you would for a get-together. Just like one would ask the host if it's OK to smoke, or watch for cues on whether to drink, curse, etc. We watched Eric and his mods for cues on what's OK and what's not. When Eric made a deal with Morrus to take over the site and forums, he liked Eric's rules and moderation style, and kept it. What it did foster was an atmosphere in which a lot of people feel comfortable in - just one more venue and one more option to experience on the net, alongside the RPGnets, the NTLs, the WOtC's, etc. If the moderation style changed drastically, it wouldn't feel like the same place for a lot of people. As I said, I enjoy it for what it is, and it's why I spend as much effort as I do to be here and help out.


----------



## HellHound (Jun 21, 2005)

woodelf said:
			
		

> But i'll counter your challenge with one of my own: can you show that the denizens of EnWorld are any _less_ well-behaved than the general populace? Because i can point to plenty of examples of places that accept much-more-heated discussions, with only self-moderation, and haven't blown up yet.




They haven't blown up, certainly. But I won't post to them anymore. There are a lot of boards that 'allow' more heated discussions, and it DOES flow bakc into the general attitudes of the users, to the point where I just won't post to said boards in general anymore.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> We originally didn't really have a "no politics or religion" rule in ye early days -- .




I just noticed the irony in someone using Henry VIII as his username moderating political and religious threads!


----------



## diaglo (Jun 21, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I just noticed the irony in someone using Henry VIII as his username moderating political and religious threads!





irony is his middle name or something like that if you play with the letters....

HIrony Link.


----------



## Henry (Jun 21, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I just noticed the irony in someone using Henry VIII as his username moderating political and religious threads!




*bows and smiles*


----------



## philreed (Jun 21, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Probably something about OD&D being the only true game or some other such nonsense.




Operatic Dungeons & Dragons?


----------



## Doc_Souark (Jun 29, 2005)

You wimps ! I remember in the bad old days of ENWorld and the Mods then, thier chief weapon was
         suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....  thier  two
         weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....  Our
         *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an
         almost fanatical devotion to the Morrus....  Our *four*...no...
         *Amongst* our weapons....  Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as
         fear, surprise....


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 30, 2005)

One thing that I'm not sure a lot of people realize is that when a thread is closed, if someone asks nicely, the moderators are usually more than willing to discuss the specifics of why it was closed.  Case in point, this thread.   

Because of that, there's a misconception that the mods are trigger-happy, and I don't particularly feel that's a fair assessment.  I know the mods have a Super-Secret Mod Forum (tm) in which they do discuss things.  While they aren't willing to make everyone privy to the conversations (and naughty pictures) that go on there, I get the feeling that they often discuss moderation, and usually don't mind saying why a decision was made to moderate in a particular way.  This holds especially true if you PM/e-mail one of them in a calm and rational matter.  After all, one of the biggest reasons that ENWorld's moderation works is because it's not an intangible thing; there are reasons for decisions that are only private knowledge until somebody asks.  From that people can get a feel for what is over the line and what isn't, and that allows self-moderation to work for the most part.

Also, because PCat is sexy.  Er...


----------

