| |
|
haus, I'm sorry that I accused you of moving the thread, but you must admit that it was a reasonable assumption - you had been vehemently propounding moving the thread to the conversation, posting several times on the "debating" thread within the space of a few hours, and then lo and behold the thread was moved to the conversation... I should have PM-ed you first, but was angry as I felt you'd gone against what we'd discussed in our PMs by moving the thread. Misunderstandings all round, but I hope you'll accept my apology.
Anyhow, that all being water under the bridge, we can talk about the mechanics of moderation if you like.
So far the questions you have raised about the moderation of these threads have been hypothetical disaster situations that may or may not occur, such as multiple spin-off threads or meandering topics.
I would classify these into two objections to the NDT format:
1) Obstruction to the functioning of the rest of the head shop
2) Inability to define the purpose of the thread with respect to a topic of discussion
Point 1) is, I think easily dealt with - if the threads become a problem, close them down. One might very easily say that posters should never start threads about "the morality of gay sex" (or indeed any other topic) because the resultant shit-storm might prevent other more interesting and fresher topics from being discussed. However, to date, none of the apocalyptic scenarios have materialised, so I don't see this as a very strong objection. Obviously neither I nor anyone else could object to the removal of NDT threads if they become a problem. However working on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, I'd say we should leave them be until they do become a problem.
Point 2) arises from your attempting to analyse and critique these threads as if they were debates.
In a normal thread we constrain the topic of conversation and allow the mode of conversation to vary.
In a non-debate thread we constrain the mode of conversation and allow the topic of conversation to vary.
In a normal thread a moderator attempts to maintain consistency of topic.
In a non-debate thread a moderator attempts to maintain consistency of mode (if required).
That is the case for the NDT I started. Persephone's NDT has more of a central topic, so a moderator might attempt to keep the thread roughly on topic, but I might suggest that this could be better accomplished by the moderator making a constructive on-topic post to steer the conversation back in the right direction, rather than by stomping in with jackboots and telling posters to read the abstract.
The argument has been made that it is somehow fascistic to constrain people's mode of discussion. I find this odd as the arguments for constraining the mode of discussion are perfectly symmetrical with those for constraining the topic of discussion. In both cases, posters unhappy with either the topic or mode of discussion are free to go off and start other threads more to their liking.
My final word with respect to the topics of NDT threads is that tangents are the very purpose of these things, at least in the way I see them. Tangents are interesting, tangents tell you new stuff. Objecting to tangents on the basis that they dilute the topic of conversation is founded on the presupposition that constrained topic discussions are more worthwhile. This is a value judgement that we are unlikely to come to an agreement on as it is a personal belief based on each individual posters' hopes and expectations of the board. As we have never been in the business of enforcing the tyranny of the majority on this board, I can't see why these two sets of values, and two types of discussion can't peacefully coexist, just like Frankie hoped they would... |
|
|
