Re: UKHA Overmoderated?

["Philip Coombes" <philip.coombes@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Kenneth,

Having reread my post I can see it might be taken as being over-critical of
the moderators and of the idea of moderation per se. This was not my
intention, it is more the practice of moderation I think that seems to
stand
out, namely the closing of entire threads. To me the principle (and
definition) of moderation is to reduce the extent of extremes, this counts
for opinions as well as suspensions or voltages. On other groups I've been
on over the years (and there's been a few) it tends to be expressed as
ultimately sanctions on individuals who stray over commonly accepted bounds
of behaviour. So perhaps after a couple of warnings someone might have
their
posts moderated as was threatened earlier, then persistent offenders
excluded. This I have no problem with. It's when something suddely can not
be discussed at all, even by the most level headed and rational members of
the group that I think things are not as they should be.

It's one thing to close a thread because it's diverted into trivial
discussions between a handful of individuals about something entirely
unrelated to the subject matter of the group. And in this case a gentle
nudge is usually enough for the participants to accept that it is time to
move on. However a thread that has some vitality and is potentially of
great
importance or interest to many members of the group, even 5 or 10% is still
a substantial number, should be allowed to run it's course, with the
_contributions_ of the _participants_ being moderated occasionally if it
gets personal, and not the existence of the whole thread as such.

I also think you may have misunderstood my Xbox comment. I was not
complaining about the existence of those threads here. They do not remotely
interest me now because I neither have nor intend to own one, but I defend
the right of people to start up HA related Xbox threads here and I will
just
ignore them if I don't want to read them, as others will ignore mine. Of
course if tomorrow I buy one then I'll be right in there with everyone
else.
I suspect some of the problem is that if you asked the subscribers to this
group what they understand by HA you'll get a 1000 different answers. It
might as well be called 'UK anything to do with houses that has electricity
in it, or relates to home, or work, or anything else'.

So, I'm not pushing for abolition of moderation just a slightly more
targetted application.

Regards,

Phil,


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Watt" <kwatt@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:53 PM
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] UKHA Overmoderated?


> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> ** UKHA2003 BE THERE! Details here:
http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/article.php3?story_id=1110
**
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>