|
Aswad -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/7/2013 5:08:56 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
This is kind of what I meant. Not that anyone was particularly doing anything wrong. But in the past I know that I, myself, have gotten upset seeing threads knocked out or posts removed because two or three people were having a heated debate. I enjoyed it, and then the thread was gone or the posts were gone. I used to get upset because I had thought they should have stayed.
I used to get upset. Now, I just try not to make any substantial posts.
This is a policy others (plural) have indicated they pursue, as well, for the same reason.
Here's my take on it:
Why do we have moderation of threads beyond strict legalities? Because enjoyment is impaired when the conversation is lost in a major shouting match, and people get hostile across threads with each other when there's a bunch of personal attacks flying around the place all the time.
How do the current policies fit these goals? They don't. When thread enjoyment is reduced, even for a few posters, the whole thing gets nuked from orbit. The response varies between amputating an infected limb and euthanizing the patient, when the response could be to try antibiotics first. A simple "Behave, children!" from XI was usually sufficient. When not, people got put on moderation, which amounts to vaccination in the previous analogy, ensuring the cost was paid by the source(s) of the problem(s), rather than everyone else.
In that environment, I don't want to be the one carefully debriding tissue when Jason and Leatherface descend on the limb with machete and chainsaw, respectively. Hell, I don't want to be near anything they might decide to lop off, cuz that just ain't gonna end well. When a thread starts to get interesting, it's like the orchestra starts humming ominously in the background and the foley guys start working the engines and the faux metal on scabbard things in the distance... you know what's coming. All because of a few posts.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
Edited for bolding.
|
|
|
|
