| |
|
It's kind of a dark place, but it might just be our last, best hope for peace.
I see faint signs for optimism, the Invisibles thread in the Temple for example. Starts off badly, everyone takes the piss, original poster apologises, explains, and then the people who were taking the piss do start helping and questioning the revised intent.
But otherwise we're conflicted as ever. For every two or three moderators that support one point of view, there's probably an equal number directly opposed. I'm not sure the locking of threads for a temporary time would work because quite often it's the moderators who would have to agree the lock who would be arguing in the thread. I've noticed that Warren Ellis's Die Puny Humans board's moderators have the ability to put people under some temporary ban where they can't post for a certain period of time but, were we to bring that in here, the problem is the moderators that would be agreeing to a mod request for this would be exactly the people arguing with that person in the first place.
I suppose my concern is that the theory/analytical fora, Head Shop, Lab, Switchboard, Art and Design and sometimes Books are almost always quiet and never have more than two or three active threads a day or even maybe a week. I don't think we need a drive for more moderators, though there's nothing stopping those who want to take part from PMing Tom, but to get more people talking. We have an insane number of people who have user ids and who aren't talking. If we went through those 5594 members and chucked out the lurkers we'd have what, about 500 members? Maybe less?
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. But we need to find some way of making things go like that magic thread. I learnt a lot when I came here, and it helped me. Are we really to believe that nobody else is prepared to have their opinions challenged, or is it in how we respond to newbies, even if they commit the cardinal sin of not fitting in with the club from the first post? |
|
|
