RE: UKHA Overmoderated?

["Kenneth Watt" <kwatt@xxxxxxx>]

> I rarely post but often read, but I share the disquiet of some who
clearly
> feel that this group has become somewhat overmoderated recently.

What with, IIRC, three or four threads closed in what, two months?

> There seems to be a large group of moderators who close threads willy
> nilly,
> usually for fairly arbitrary or political reasons, in fact this is the
> most
> moderated un-moderated group I've ever come across. It's one thing to
> steer
> threads back on track when they drift slightly but to close threads
which
> people are interested in and continue to contribute to because they
aren't
> 100% on track or content rich seems somewhat dictatorial to me. There
> seems
> to me a definate atmosphere about this group which is unlike most
other
> groups I belong to where things seem more relaxed and enjoyable.

Well large group physically, for sure ;) but there are only seven, six if
Graham has resigned.

Yup, Graham has tried to steer threads back on course, I've tried a bit as
well but in any of the cases of late it's been getting to or past the
personal attack stage and that means that self-moderation has failed.

I have said before publicly and privately that *I* am a great believer in
self-moderation and I truly believe that 99% of the time, if not more, that
on UKHA_D it works well. You are all generally nice intelligent people and
that means that opposing viewpoints will always arise on the list which is
a
good thing. It becomes a bad thing where it gets heated then you either let
people publicly berate one another or you close the thread as when it gets
to that stage steering doesn't work.

I have also said that I, and several other mods as well as Mark McCall have
been ignored in the past when we have asked people to cool it, so give us
another option. I mean this is your group essentially, you guys control the
way the threads go, we only step in when it starts to get silly and the
complaints roll in and they may well *NOT* be on the list!

> I have no axe to grind here I'm rarely involved in any of the
contentious
> threads though often they may be among the most interesting on here.
> Killing
> them because of bandwidth would seem slightly disingenuous when the
rest
> of
> the time the group is often filled with threads just as peripherally
> related
> to HA and just as full of nonsense or in-jokes about Star Trek
characters
> but because they are deemed to be acceptable to the inner core are
allowed
> to continue or even encouraged. It does seems to me as neutral lurker
that
> there are definate double standards being applied.

Not at all, almost all threads are left alone to run their course with
very,
very few exceptions and, personally, I like it that way but I cannot speak
for anyone else.

There are no secrets really, ask what you want to know and if I, or anyone
else can answer we will. There is no agenda, other then perhaps a
discussion
on whether a thread should be closed or not. There is very little true
moderation other than new members and that's only as a SPAM safeguard

> The most recent thread (which shall not be named) is a perfect
example.
> Even
> if all the names were removed it should serve as a salutary example
about
> the risks of taking action because of an email or the assurance of
someone
> you really don't know. Equally the risks of not preparing for the
> consequences as they have transpired. Personally I am curious to hear
both
> sides of the story and not just those of the inner cabal and their
> 'official' line. To me this thread has more potential value than any
> number
> of Xbox or Tivo threads, though I welcome those as much as any others.
> Judicious use of email filtering and the delete key enables me to
whittle
> down UKHA to just those elements that interest me, and I would
encourage
> the
> moderators to take a more hands off approach and encourage readers to
just
> ignore or delete threads they aren't interested in. I don't read 90%
of
> what's on here but now and then a really useful nugget comes along and
I
> would consider a number of the ever growing list of killed threads
among
> them.

You have no idea the number of complaints there was about the x-box thing
and the calls to set up another spin-off group for it both the ones on AND
off-list. It was discussed both on AND off-list with the general consensus
being to let it run.

It just goes to show though that the mods are on a cleft stick and we
simply
cannot please all the people all the time, try as we might.

> Just my opinion of course, reply if you like, don't if you don't want
to.
> I
> don't really mind either way.

Yes Philip and everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's the way *I*
see the group as being, say what you like so long as it doesn't get
personal
with anyone that's the only point I draw the line on.

K.