Viper1 said:
Most moderating is subjective anyway. That's why you need moderators that are keenly aware of the dynamics of dialog. What is intended to be factual and add to the dialog and what is posted solely for personal amusement. With regards to your situation, I can't speak on it because I didn't see it. If you are known for having a tone that lacks tact, it's easy to see why many would quickly pounce on your for the negative statement rather than debate you on the merits of the statement itself. I always tell people that it is OK to be contrarian so long as you do so with tact. Otherwise you will not engage in the dialog you are actually seeking. It's the fault of both parties (I hope you don't find it offense that I say as such) but that's the unfrotunate nature of dialog...especially in a fourm. With my own anecdotal experience, I run a forum of 30,000 members and I haven't had to ban an active member in almost 2 years. This is because I and the mod team have worked hard to get our members to understand how to engage in debate with each other with civility and respect. I oversaw the merger of our original Nintendo based forum with a large Sony based forum. It's one thing to start off with a multiplatform forum but it's another to merge 2 platforms together. It took a while but eventually they learned to enjoy good debate more than the ugly negativity that usually accompanies dialog between fans of different platforms. As for a complete freedom of speech, that doesn't work either. You eventually run off the minority and the site becomes dominant in one fan base and then gets infested with trolls as they find an open target with no rules to prevent them from running amok. |
Slighty off topic but what is your ruling on fallacious arguments? It sounds petty but I can't see the point in allowing arguments that are inherently wrong to be kept going, yet this is something no forum I have come across actually deals with.