Belly, "OTB every post is moderated before it lives and why not."

You misunderstood me. My comment related to posts in reply, such as in this existing thread.

I was not referring to new threads, where this facility is used,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/new-thread.asp

@Poirot,

<<those who think there're amusing and clever - but who aren't>>

Still and all, such persons (whoever they might be) are in a mite better position than those who are funny but don't know it ...'cause their psyc hasn't told them the bad news yet.

Dear SPQR,

That's precisely why Poirot introduces humour into her
posts. To make some people realise that what they are
saying is absurd. Of course it doesn't always work.

OTB,

To achieve the content management objectives does not necessarily impose additional cost. All that is required is changed rules for acceptance and moderation. Not more moderation but different criteria. In fact, once any changes in criteria are established it could reduce moderation resources because clear criteria, not rules, become part of the acceptance contract we must all meet.

Some suggestions:

The volume of social/humanitarian/eco/political issues needs to be brought into balance. One could be forgiven for thinking that OLO has become and extension of ABC/SBS content. All their favorite topics get a disproportionate coverage. If this is because writers and posters table these topics the most, or there are fewer other topics raised. Then this is evidence of the criticism I leveled at GY, populism.

There need to be some clear guidelines as to what is acceptable as “comment”. Increasingly we see links being posted not as support for a reasoned case, but as a substitute. It goes “Here is my opinion, here is where I got it and I agree with it and have adopted it”.

If the link does not substantiate a case you have already built and articulated it should be invalidated.

Likewise some of us try to close debate rather than open it. Mile after mile of closed "thought-terminating clichés” are trotted out as responses. Words are the tools we use to think with. These "clichés” constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words". This is not debate, it is a technique for closing down a debate and should be invalidated.

Shooting the messenger; When evidence against an opinion is presented, the response is often to question the motivation of the presenter. This is a closed argument technique, adds nothing to the debate, discourages posters from tabling substantive opinion for their case an causes truncation of threads and should be invalidated.

Absolutism and Totalism should immediately be invalidated. If it seeks to close the debate, generates conflict and results in name calling, it’s juvenile and should be the basis for invalidation.

Dear spindoc,

Thank You for a very fair and well reasoned assessment.
You've given us plenty of suggestions for how we can all
learn through the discourse of debate and how we can try
to maintain a high standard of intellectual discussion.

Ideas should be challenged, however the poster should
never be personally attacked. Attacking a person's
fundamental traits and character and provoking flaming
as you rightly point out should garner a trolling
infraction. It is understood that discussions may be
heated at times due to certain topics but good debaters
challenge ideas not attack the poster. Using sarcasm,
humour, wit, is perfectly acceptable - as long as it
doesn't cross that line. We should all remember to attack
a person's arguments rather than the person.

Using insulting words or expressessions shouldn't be
allowed and a language filter would enable to censor
common expletives such as "idiot" "moron" - and others,
which arrack a person's fundamental traits and character.

Again, Thank You - you've put it very well. When we have
such a wide range of posters differing in - age, religions,
political outlooks, education, et cetera, we certainly should
be able to learn through from each other
through the discourse of discussion.
At least we can give it a try and attempt to do better than
what's been happening to date. Graham is giving us a chance
to do precisely that with his new OLO.

lexies..important ponts.<Ideas should be challenged,>>

yet..some resist..any challange..as a matter of pride
[ignoring..pride goeth..before the fall

<<..however the poster should
never be personally attacked.>>

foxy..my dear..if all..they..[opok we]..'got'..is name calling
they..[we]..clearly lack..proof of concept..[ie are lost,..have lost..'it'..thus deserve..our sympathy..[condolences]..not censure]

<<Attacking..a person's
fundamental/traits..and character..>>..age
or sex..or belief..or political-status..or sacred cows..

reveals.more about the..respondent..than..the target

<<and provoking/flaming..[edit]..should garner a trolling
infraction.>>

there is..the flaw..lets say..the sexual-innuendo
[as a hypothetical]..was there..a pre suggesitve..[its so delicate an area..misogynists could easybe set up..[trolled for/yet replying a sublimial troll..[say][i recall..the 4 inch penis..from...holiio's threat]

thing is..a certain-type could use this..as an excuise to/do a julia
no doubt others arise relative to..atheist/theist..][labor/liberals/greenflies..etc

<<..It is understood..that discussions may be
heated at times..due to certain topics.but good debaters
challenge ideas>>

thats..the point..labor/liberal..
and never the twain..shall meet/or accept/defeat
we know where we stand..we arnt going to change minds..so why keep..pushing..[is it trolling?]..is it flame..knowing its going to.upset belly.or a shadelow miner

<<..not attack the poster. Using sarcasm,
humour, wit, is perfectly acceptable - as long as it
doesn't cross that line.>>

if all..we got..is you..name called me..
thats not a rebuttal..but a concession./.[you..know what im saying]

<<..We should all remember.,.to attack>>

i thought it would read.;.different..without
the rider clause..of

attack..<<..a person's arguments..rather than the person.>>

bu..foxy lady..if we cant refute..the argument
we reveal..we got none..[oits clear..the second..we see the nameutterd..

but..how else can we..pass the time of day?
if we got..nuthin..all we got left..is run away..or hide..or

name call..we need a sdimple pictorial..giff
for when that occurs..but when..it occurs..we know we won..

but..one..wot?