I've not been here from the beginning -- those halcyon days of yore I've heard about -- when the place resembled an online corner cafe. I remember a place very much like that, though, so I know how it must have felt. No, I came soon after along with several others of a rowdy bunch and, after barging in with the rest of the gang, I liked what I saw -- a haven from the biting wind; a place to catch my breath -- and made it my home.
Seen a lot since then, one of the biggest and most important being over the matter of moderation and censorship. Because of those issues, people have left the forum to set up their own boards. The people who took issue with Simon back then did not make their case well since, IMO, they had no case.
I will be clear: I'm far from convinced that it's humanly possible for any forum to be successful for very long without some level of moderation. Based on what I know of human nature and have seen in action, moderation on some level is essential to the health of the board (or any collection of people anywhere). But what kind of moderation? What should be its purpose?
What I've seen happening over the past several weeks here has been more than a little distasteful and a departure from what I've long thought was the board's initial goal. Yes the board needs moderation, but it's becoming increasingly clear that the mods are overstepping what should be their true roles and going beyond what's needed on the forum.
Before anyone objects, I pose these questions: Is it possible that those with the power to edit posts and lock threads have gone too far in their duties? Have they been consistent in their policing of the board, or is needless and counterproductive favoritism shown? Are they beyond the point of self-examination or admission that they could have done things differently... and better? After realizing their mistakes, is it beyond them not to repeat the same?
Over the past week, several longtime posters have dropped hints -- mostly ignored -- of the problem I'm speaking of. Plum, a longtime poster, recently implied that being at the Kingdom Hall was better than being here. Did she go overboard in that assessment? Was she overreacting to some imagined slight? Whatever her "reasoning," if you care about her as a person you'd stop to think about why she said what she did -- not just dismiss it simply as the rantings of a delusional schizophrenic. You will wonder why StinkyPantz would start a thread about leaving here. If you care, that is.
Say what you will about her, but Waiting has been here since the beginning and it's not simply because of seniority that she has EARNED the right to be listened to. She wears well a beautiful crown of humorous sarcasm. More important than that, she always speaks the truth... often in true Southern style: simply. It was a welcome relief when someone of her stature gave her opinion of what Amazing did recently -- locking one thread and starting another that centered on the exact same topic. It wasn't the first time a mod took that sort of action. I'm glad she spoke up about it.
Maybe what I'm saying here would be "truer" if someone else said it -- more acceptable if someone else brought this matter up. Due to the opinion some have of me, the fact that it's me who's saying this will surely give it less weight in the minds of some. So be it. That, too, is a characteristic of groups. To most people, it matters where their truth comes from.
The fact is, this board is subtly changing in ways that aren't for the better. Moderation is necessary but is the kind that is being enforced here the right kind? I don't think so. It's perhaps a fact of Internet life that all boards will inevitably follow the same course -- as if being pulled along by some invisible hand -- and there's nothing anyone can do to alter a it's fate.
It's just as well. I should have known that there is no place online of off where I would be totally comfortable forever. That British Parliament dude has been proven true yet again when he said:
... even when we are members of an organization, our attitude to it should be one of partial
detachment. We must be above it even when we are members of it. We should join it in the
knowledge that there we may have no abiding place. We should be weekly tenants, not long-
leaseholders. We should accept no such commitments as would prevent our leaving it when
circumstances make this necessary. We should reckon on being in almost perpetual rebellion within
it. Above all, we should regard all loyalties to organization as tentative and provisional. The whole
concept of "my party, right or wrong," "my union, right or wrong," "my church, right or wrong" should
be utterly alien to our thinking. We must be Servants of the Spirit, not Prisoners of the Organization.
The Rise and Fall of JW.com
by teejay 18 Replies latest forum suggestions
-
teejay
-
rocketman
Plum, a longtime poster, recently implied that being at the Kingdom Hall was better than being here.
Ouch.
-
obiwan
Plum, a longtime poster, recently implied that being at the Kingdom Hall was better than being here.
Daannnggg
-
Reborn2002
Say what you will about her, but Waiting has been here since the beginning and it's not simply because of seniority that she has EARNED the right to be listened to. She wears well a beautiful crown of humorous sarcasm. More important than that, she always speaks the truth... often in true Southern style: simply. It was a welcome relief when someone of her stature gave her opinion of what Amazing did recently -- locking one thread and starting another that centered on the exact same topic. It wasn't the first time a mod took that sort of action. I'm glad she spoke up about it.
I agree. As much as I value the comments made by Amazing I felt this action to be terribly hypocritical and inappropriate. Lock one person's thread discussing a topic, yet start a thread of your own on the very same topic with a disclaimer at the top of your post to other mods instructing them to allow it to continue.
Hypocritical in my book. Period. Moderator or not, that was wrong.
-
minimus
Teejay, please tell me how you would want this board moderated. I'm quite interested in what you will say.
-
minimus
Francois, I don't think Simon hates all Americans. He just sees things from his own vantage point. It's a Brit thing. You know.
-
Englishman
It's a tricky old role at times and mods will make mistakes as much as anyone else. That's way we often communicate our intent to the other mods to see how they feel.
Personally, I don't like locking threads. It must be infuriating for the original topic poster if his/her thread gets hijacked by someone set on causing mayhem, if this happens it is often a simple matter to delete the individual flame post rather than the whole shebang. The problem arises when it isn't picked up for several hours and then the damage is done.
Some threads are obviously going cause bad feelings as opposed to lively debate, generally the topic starter is aware of this and isn't too surprised if his/her topic is not allowed to run.
Sometimes the deciding factor on locking isn't immediately obvious to every mod, words and turns of phrase can often be interpreted differently, this is particularly applicable when US / UK posters can sometimes completely misunderstand each other.
Englishman.
-
teejay
Keep your focus, Minimus. This thread ain't about Simon or any other particular mod. It's about how the board is coming to be moderated.
-
minimus
Teejay, I am focused, bro. Please answer my question if you are able to.
-
Englishman
You have hit the nail on the head. That example of pure 100%, distilled, Kingdom Hall Brand hypocrisy you cited in your full text is enough to make people like me, and you, and many many others here who left the JWs BECAUSE OF their hypocrisy, leave this place because of IT'S hypocrisy.
That's flaming IMHO, Francois. The old KH knee-jerk insult, comparing JWD to KH's is old, old hat.
Um, and there's no excuse for letting a thread go on and on and on to over 650 repetitive posts about how bad the US is just because the board owner is something of a narrow-minded fanatic in his hatred of the US - which means he hates ME, and you, and Stinky, and on and on and on.
Simon complains about the UK in just the same way. I argue with him all the time about it because I don't agree with his views. However I am not so narrow minded as to think that he hates me because he detests the UK PM, the UK Queen, the UK health system, the UK parliament, the UK tax system, in fact the UK everything.
Like I said to you once before, if he does give you the welly boot because he chooses to no longer host your insults, will you be moaning about him on, say, JWOL?
Englishman.