Posted by tealady on January 13, 2004, at 18:38:21
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - What is your goal? » SLS, posted by NikkiT2 on January 13, 2004, at 12:37:46
Nikki,
>So, do you think these people that don't feel safe here would prefer it to go back to free for all attacks?That is the whole point most here seem to be missing. It is not an either/or question. I have never and would never suggest an unmoderated forum..although I think my suggestion was taken that way by some.
There are many other methods of moderating forums.
This is the only forum I have come across which uses these blocks..and the one has made me feel the most "unsafe" too actually.
I personally prefer the usual method of moderating....edit language where minor..delete posts where major offensive or abusive language used...warn posters if they step out of line ..delete whole threads were the posters "lose it"..after calling into line.
Allow other posters to "self-moderate" the forums to a certain extent..as Larry (and I too sometimes) have tried to do here...as the job is too big for just one person. Posters should contact the(a) moderator where they feel things are getting out of hand..and intervention should be relatively prompt.
Some forums have moderators in various parts of the world to allow this..but its not always perfect as noone can spend all their time on the net...(did I say that?)
Some forums have different levels of posters where long serving respected valuable posters get some kinda status ..which gives newbies an idea of who they can "believe"..as well as allowing those posters to conduct some kinda unofficial self-moderation..as people listen to them and respect them. Sometimes this is done officially (like with levels displayed)..in other forums it has evolved completely unofficially. ..like a forum I post on sometimes has a group called "mavens"...apparently not a derogatory term in the US <g>.
I am not suggesting this be done..just putting forward other ways forums cope with moderation.
Allowing criticism or questioning may mean others may feel put down occassionally as they face criticism.(hopefully made as tactful as possible)..but they can defend themselves. It also , IMO, is NOT anywhere near as big a putdwon as a "block".
Most of the problems I have seen happen is when sometimes a moderator him/herself is having problems with medication reactions/ stress/ overload etc..but this seems to be obvious to most forums members and most jump in and help the moderator as well....too much tryosine is one example I can think of.I know not everyone can express themselves in writing equally..not one of my strengths either unfortunately...
There has to be guidelines which all posters must try to keep within...anyone stepping way out of line gets blocked (short block) and their post deleted..and if persistently out of line..or ,if major offense..blocked for a long period, or even just banned outright.
This system seems to work well on most forums...
This is NOT the same as unmoderated at all.Forums hosted in the US are fortunate in that the forum owner (I think?) can't be blamed legally for any posts made...I think this is the case as I was involved in one forum (not medical) in Oz where the owner was jailed for 3 months officially due to an incorrect post ..not even his (although there is much more to the story than that). That site moved to a US hosted forum to be safer for all involved.
There are also cases of posters being sued in Oz hosted forums for statements or comments they make,sometimes ..again not medical forums...
I'm only stating this as perhaps some of my questions earlier and concerns may make more sense given this background.
In summary I am just trying to point out that no blocks does not mean no moderation.
Jan
poster:tealady
thread:300134
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/300361.html