keithcun wrote:Again, I agree with yourself and JWP.
You and myself have disagreed numerous times in the past, but at least when we have we have both given the reasons why we disagree. If you say why you think X is crap, you explain why and I might explain why I think he's not.
Lately, we are getting posters who offer no debate whatsoever. They are limited to one line where they say player x is good/bad but don't say why.
This forum has lost debate.
And I know, someone wil come on here and say it's up to us to get it back to where it was, but to be perfectly honest, I can't be bothered trawling through the diatribe to find someone who actually wants to debate with me and I'm presuming that goes for others.
Now I'm not wanting to step on anyones toes, and just like a ref, it's a job I wouldn't want to do on here, but I think the mods have to have a tighter rein on things. I'm a mod on another forum and I understand it's hard knowing where to draw the line, but I think if we could at least get rid of the incessant trolls and spamming with stupid threads, that would be a start.
Other forums have the ability to stop this with "No New topics", where you can ban any particular poster from starting a thread, so if we have the likes of Casual Des or one of his cohorts etc, stick that against their name and they can't start a new topic unless this is removed. Let them earn the right to start new threads. This would stop the incessant spamming of stupid new topics by the same old people. Just things like that would be a step. I know it may have things to do with the software used on the forum, but it needs to improve before I consider making the effort again.
All fair points Keithcun.
My only issue is that of tighter, draconian, moderation. I know they do a difficult job and I often complain (if only to play up my liberal anarchist alter-ego thing I have going) when I believe I see subjective decision making. There is a valid argument against any moderation process (usually expressed as "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (who watches the watchers). I would be much more content if the moderators were appointed democratically by the the forum members on merit rather than "act of god" appointments as we see now. This would create a positive environment which both builds trust and faith in the moderation process and applies a subtle back pressure to moderators that in essence there are answerable to the membership in general.
Having said that I believe that the "new invite only" specialist forum may be the only answer to create the environment of quality, reasoned debate.
