ESSAY:
Moderated Forums -
Balancing Pros | Cons
by Derrick
Discussion forums are often places where people meet, fellowship and discuss topics of interest and concern to them. Any fruitful efforts to socialize and exchange ideas, opinions and thoughts amongst humans throughout civilization's history has required basic etiquette. Successful communication that produces positive results is a process of earning trust and exchanging information in a mature, intelligent and non-threatening manner.
Like some of those "open fire" news shows where both persons on each side of the discussion talk at the same time, leaving the audience frustrated because it's difficult to hear two people yelling at each other simultaneously, some individuals in online discussion forums believe that anything should go. In response to the analogy that moderators of discussion forums are like traffic cops on the beat, these same individuals will often counter that civilization should not have law enforcement of any kind. They even argue that any form of government itself is a violation of their human rights to do anything they want, whenever they please.
Moderating Disruptive Behavior
The very mention of the word "civilization" is anathema to some individuals, because it implies a condition of order and peace amongst humanity. Those who oppose the very concept of order and law are against anything that symbolizes civilization, and a well moderated forum is the most civilized game in town.
Individuals involved in disruptive behavior are in good company historically:
"Everything sacred is and must be perverted by perverters of the law; therefore our present time has multitudes of perverters in all spheres." (Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own)
Some who insist that such open perversity in expression and action is their inalienable right, have unwittingly revealed an agenda that is often born from desire in their innermost hearts for worldly success and riches. This should not surprise anyone. Such desires often are masked by putting on pretenses to believe in lofty "ideals" and often end in failure to fulfill these desires. Many disenfranchised individuals who start out as anarchists often transform over the course of their failures in life into woefully bitter have-nots. They end up resent other successful people they once aspired to become. Ideals such as this are often excuses for these types of individuals:
"We do not want the death of men but the abolition of positions and things." (Mikhail Bakunin, The Lullers)
The anarchist's worldview has been tested on Internet forums of various sorts including this one. Extreme profanity and vulgarity wearing the masks of many "freedoms" has been paraded in the name of personal liberties.
Some posts are so vile that one has to wonder if the authors would equally take pride relieving themselves in public, unaware that this biological process creates a public spectacle that exfoliates any vestiges of human dignity from them?
Sabotaging Discussions Intended to Affect Reform
Many feel they are entitled to get something out of an effort such as religious organizational reform, even if it's simply the adulation of others, as if to imply that the benefits to countless thousands isn't a reward in and of itself.
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." (Emma Goldman)
Feeling deep resentment that the so-called "revolution" did not go down in the manner they personally would have preferred, or give them center stage in the human drama that unfolded, they decide it's a waste of time. However, they are driven to sabotage the efforts of those who are still attempting to affect change on a grass roots level, in hopes their efforts will fail. This failure can then be publicized, used as a "see I told you so," and in the end draw attention to the anarchists who claim their way would have worked better.
Of course all assume it is too late to do it the anarchist's way, but the anarchist has nonetheless entered the center stage of attention which is something these individuals crave.
Balancing Pros | Cons of Moderated Forums
Choosing moderators who will perform unbiased actions as regards the upholding of rules in a given forum is a difficult task for any forum leader. Most of the time those who lead forums simply got there because nobody else wanted the responsibility. They were forced to learn how to manage a collaborative discussion forum through the school of trial and error.
Many nations outlaw web sites that allow profanity or the unmoderated and unrestricted discussions of gross immorality, as well as copyright infringement and the soliciting of illegal activities. Those in permissive nations who host forums must consider that those from nations with different laws might frequent their forum, and get penalized legally if the forum is in violation of that nation's laws.
Many would agree with the statement that censoring profanity, and moderators deciding when someone crosses the line on a case by case basis, is morally justified. However, if one wants to measure this kind of activity in the context of a civilized world as opposed to a world where anarchism has run amok, then the conclusion is inescapable. Constructive censorship through the moderating of a discussion forum is a necessary tool to achieve the worthy goal of allowing peaceful and mature adults the FREEDOM -- in the truest sense of the word freedom -- to communicate amongst one another without any tethers or hinderances.
Regulating the Abuse of Moderator Powers
I have not seen a moderated forum on the Internet to-date that has abused its regulation of electronic communication amongst people to squelch the expression of unpopular expression that is otherwise legitimate and legal. Such censorship constitutes the abuse of moderator powers and is reprehensible.
Obviously such abuses are possible. The question one should ask is whether the speech is "off topic" and better suited for another forum, or within the topic range but censored due to its lack of popularity? If indeed the latter is the case, then it is one's duty to speak out and show specifically why a post is within the acceptable range of discussion for a given forum. This is what is known as "self regulation" and works quite effectively to keep moderator abuses well in check.
Control
Moderating is all about control.
There are positive and negative controls. Positive control is similar to a traffic cop issuing a citation for exceeding the safe speed limit. This is good, and necessary to keep civilization from disintegrating into anarchy. Negative control is, well, yanking people around by their chains to satisfy the ego of the one who is in control. This is bad, to state the obvious.
Control is a tool in a successfully moderated forum, used judiciously to help the forum reach the positive goal for which it was established. Over-use of control, however, is similiar to drowning a plant by over-watering or over-fertilizing it.
Depending on the nature of the forum and its purpose, control must be expertly administered -- often through painful trial and error over the years -- in order to benefit those who visit the forum because of its specific purpose and topics of discussion.
Summary
In most cases moderating is a necessary component of a successful discussion forum that consists of mature, scholarly and intelligent discussions. Moderating can be performed "invisibly" or "out in the open" depending on what the forum's director believes works. You might liken such enforcement to the difference between "plain cloths" police officers who dress in civilian cloths, and openly uniformed and armed officers of the law whose presence is necessary due to situations of anarchy or other distress.
Like it or not, the moderated forum -- whether its enforcement is hidden, open or somewhere inbetween -- is here to stay. The "anything goes" mentality will one day become the dinosaur bones of debate and wonder, as people curiously muse "how did unmoderated forums ever exist?" Whether a moderated forum succeeds or not is an academic question similar to asking whether a nation will succeed based on its government?
Good moderating should help liberate freedoms to expose the truth no matter how harsh, painful and unpalatable, while preventing others from hindering anyone from revealing these truths.
* * *