Posted by Cam W. on March 14, 2002, at 0:53:49
In reply to Re: Man, this is getting Krazy..., posted by johnX2 on March 13, 2002, at 3:24:11
I'll bet that you could sell this idea to Fox. - Cam
;^)
>
> I saw an interesting experiment in an investing newsgroup where people are unruly (those emotions are pretty manic-depressive when you are making and losing money by the second).
>
> They had 2 newgroups for a stock. One used a
> moderated system. The other was not moderated.
>
> The moderated thread used a voting system to kick someone off for a while. However, that would not work here for many reasons (like people logging in
> multiple times). At that web site you had to pay money to post (but not read) the news group, so no multiple votes. It worked out nice because people who were rell reputed could blow off some steam every now, as we are all human and will do, and then and not get booted (as the avid readers would never kick them off). If someone was admonished, generally the person took it well, as he/she new it was a group opinion and not one persons subjective viewpoint.
>
> On the unmoderated thread, it was say what you want, no banning, etc.
>
> It worked out nice and I actually read both threads...heavily favoring the moderated one. The unmoderated thread was usually really annoying with people throwing slings, but you knew who the good posters were, so you just jump over the other retards.
>
> Too bad something like that can't work here for
> many reasons Dr. Bob explained to me.
>
> I don't know what more Dr. Bob can do, except
> maybe get his own panel of judges to smooth out
> the cencorship. Certainly his judgement will be
> subjective, but that is just the way it is! It's
> his web site.
>
> I don't read the other psychiatry news groups, they are appauling for the most part.
>
> When i found this one I was shocked.
>
> Latetly, my "mouth" has been becoming a bit robotic as I make a post. But i have the skills to
> do that, so it doesn't bother me.
>
> Also, I feel one may carefully bypass the civility rules and pass off steam in ugly, passive aggressive ways, without getting banned.
>
> Sorry, I think Dr. Bob get's too much flack.
>
> "This is my opinion, for what it is worth. I am not a doctor."
>
> -John
>
>
> > It seems one of two things is happening here:
> >
> > 1. Dr. Bob is getting out of hand with his censorships.
> >
> > 2. Posters are more belligerent than they used to be.
> >
> > Maybe it's both. Seems like a huge waste of Dr. Bob's time to have to defend every block he makes. But it also seems like there are inconsistencies with the blocking.
> >
> > I suggest the civility rules be overhauled. A statement such as "post anything that others could take as accusatory" is just too general.
> >
> > Is there a way to list very specific criteria and leave it at that? Then when folks are blocked, that # could be referenced and that would, hopefully, be the end of it.
> >
> > The reason folks get angry is there is too much ambiguity and, as I stated, inconsistencies.
> >
> > The tone of the board has changed - it's too bad.
> >
> > - KK
poster:Cam W.
thread:3455
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/3475.html