Fantasy Aficionados discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Achive
>
Moderator Thread
no, you're supposed to keeel the gnomes! Diversions!
I find nothing wrong with having passion and take pride in it myself.-my 2 cents.
pretty soon I'll have enough cents saved up to buy another fantasy book. ; )
Well I have enormous calves, skinny ankles and size 12 and 1/2 feet. I figure an ankle tracker would be there to stay ;)
I'm eyeballing you, Maggie!
...eyeballs Mags!
I'm eyeballing you, Maggie!
...eyeballs Mags!
Nothing wrong with your definition of elitism, Grant, so long as it isn't used to exclude people from an environment that shouldn't be closed to them. We don't want that around here.
You're a weird Texan, Danielle :)
Given that I'm here and haven't fled long, long ago, I think it's safe to say this place is nothing like Texas.
So, now that we're all agreed......somebody fix me a plate! I'm starving *stupid diet*
☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "You're a weird Texan, Danielle :)"Texas is a huge state. You'd be surprised how many weirdos there are here. There's a whole city full of them...Austin, which is two towns away from where I live. :)
<Denae, you are not as goofy as you think you are! :)
<<
and yeah, TX is a big place!
Woot! Gumbo!*sits in the corner to eat*
sorry-in looking back that wasn't the right word...I meant to say you fit in a lot better than you give yourself crdit for is all....lol
Ahh, I feel better now. Thank you!
MrsJoseph wrote: "Woot! Gumbo!anduille and chicken, even!
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Nothing wrong with your definition of elitism, Grant, so long as it isn't used to exclude people from an environment that shouldn't be closed to them. We don't want that around here."Couldn't agree more. Well said.
*keeps mouth shut as instructed by multiple good friends and walks the fuck out of the thread :)*
well mostly shut
well mostly shut
Eileen wrote: "Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Nothing wrong with your definition of elitism, Grant, so long as it isn't used to exclude people from an environment that shouldn't be closed to them. We ..."Lady Danielle and I created this group with an open, friendly, and welcoming atmosphere in mind to all people who love fantasy of any sub genre and want to discuss it. We all have our passions, but this is not a reason to ostracize other members.
So yes indeed, Lady Danielle. Well said!
Hey-were you guys gonna do a poll this month? no pressure, but its hard to buy books at the last second...
Because of recent situations, Lady D and I were discussing bringing in new rules to the group. They would be fairly simple rules. No more discussing religion, politics, and science. The reason for this is these topics tend to lead towards arguments and some members have been offended and quit the group. What do you guys think?
Although I'm not a moderator, I would be quite sad to have topics limited, as I think it would lead to less interesting discussions. The nature of the internet means imperfect communication, and most of us do the best we can. It also means that some people who seems "stable" may not be, so there is always the risk of remarks from left field or according to some agenda that we may never know. Also, people will come and go to a group depending on needs, and for some, those needs may change--but the arguments may have been the final straw and the easier reason to give for an out.I would gently and respectfully suggest rather than restrict topics--all of which are needful in the discussion of books-- the moderators take a more active role in moderating those areas where topics have the potential to become heated. I've seen a number of people try and help re-direct, or turn it into a joke, but that only goes so far--and leads the others to cry "but you aren't a moderator."
I don't know if those rules will work. I don't know what will.
I do know that things just aren't the same lately. It's gotten to the point where I will no longer initiate or maybe even participate with discussions anymore.
There are assholes everywhere, even in this group, and they tend to be given free reign to let their assholish behavior run wild and unchecked. And that bothers me. What bothers me more is the fact that, of late, I've been considered by some to be one of them due to stepping in where I shouldn't or being as anti-spam as I am.
Sadly, and I'm chagrin to admit it, there's some truth to that.
Maybe if the mods were more pro-active in these instances, things wouldn't be as they are. Or maybe the mods would simply be the ones deemed to be assholes. I don't know.
I really don't know what I'm saying, except I miss the fun.
Let me know when it's back...
I do know that things just aren't the same lately. It's gotten to the point where I will no longer initiate or maybe even participate with discussions anymore.
There are assholes everywhere, even in this group, and they tend to be given free reign to let their assholish behavior run wild and unchecked. And that bothers me. What bothers me more is the fact that, of late, I've been considered by some to be one of them due to stepping in where I shouldn't or being as anti-spam as I am.
Sadly, and I'm chagrin to admit it, there's some truth to that.
Maybe if the mods were more pro-active in these instances, things wouldn't be as they are. Or maybe the mods would simply be the ones deemed to be assholes. I don't know.
I really don't know what I'm saying, except I miss the fun.
Let me know when it's back...
Personally, I think divisive topics like religion and politics should be discouraged. I'm not saying that we can't discuss them in terms of the books we read. I mean, what is the point in arguing about subjects that are in no way related to the books we are reading? All it does is make people angry. I don't agree with having arguments on the group either, but I know that a free speech environment has been encouraged here. I am more of a tendency to crack down on those loud, ugly discussions, because that way leads to doom for a group, in my experience.I don't think either Jason or myself, or I would say Mrs J want to censor anyone, but in some instances, I think it is a good idea to ask, how is this discussion relevant to the topic at hand?
My opinion. If people want to debate with free rein, then join a debate group. If you want to talk fantasy, have fun here.
I still find it fun here! There's lots of great discussions going on in this group right now. :)
But Jason, what I am saying, and perhaps Ala is saying that because of people breaking the few rules there are, he has felt the need to step in, and I have as well. And we've both been castigated by it. Yes, there are fun discussions, and some playing around, but a lot of them aren't. There was someone that seemed like they might be an author promoting his own work, so that thread turned nasty, then there was a smart remark or six on the gun thread, then there's Kevin's obsession with whatever the thing with Dawn was about--maybe if those were squished faster by mods, there would be less hard feelings? Then non mods like Grant and Ala wouldn't want have run the spammers off, and I wouldn't have to mention the thread is off track again.I'm not saying this is a bad place to be--far from it. There's a great sense of humor here and a lot of really thoughtful discussions on books and things related to books. Just saying if you want to start changing rules, first you have to enforce some.
Personally, I'm torn.On one hand, I don't come here to debate and I tend to avoid the religion/politics/etc threads - mostly because I realize that most people have their opinions and no amount of discussion or debate is really going to change anyone's mind, so why bother getting all hot and bothered about it?
On the other hand, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of banning them entirely because that might lead people to feel uncomfortable bringing such issues up even in book threads where they are relevant to the book and, thus, fair game.
On the other other hand, while I agree that we're hear to talk about fantasy book, we do have an off topic folder and we talk about a whole lot of shit that's not related to books. Also, if we ban certain topics so as to keep an amiable atmosphere there will be people, I'm sure, who get angry with that decision and who, then, feel less than amiable towards the group and perhaps leave anyway.
I guess I agree with the idea of letting them happen, but having the moderators more in charge of keeping the peace, I guess. But that opens it's own slippery slope - because you don't want to have threads shut down every time someone has a hissy, 'cause that creates bad feelings, too.
*sighs*
I suppose my most salient point is the whole "if you don't want to participate, then don't". For instance, the recent gun thread. I'm not interested in discussing guns and I'm even less interesting in debating gun control laws, so I've pretty much just avoided the thread. Thus, those who want to debate can until they're blue in the face, and those who don't can just ignore it. (In a way, I'm glad it has it's own topic instead of hijacking another thread - 'cause that I do get irritated with.)
Anyway - I guess the reason I say I'm torn is because I wouldn't, personally, be upset if such threads went to way of the dodo... but I'm also not comfortable with not allowing them.
I mean, if we didn't have an off-topic folder and we were, in general, more of the "stay on topic and talk about the books" kind of atmosphere, I would say sure, go for it, except when it's in relation to a book.
But since this group seems to have a free-for-all kind of vibe, I'm not sure what it would do to the dynamic to start laying the law down now.
Very good points, everyone. Colleen, I have to say I am like you. I don't want to get into these crazy religious/gun/inflammatory off topic discussions so I don't go on the threads. As a mod, I suppose I should. I know now that those are the areas to watch particularly as moderators.
As for running members off, we don't want that. If people leave because this isn't for them, we can't stop that, but we don't want members running for the hills.
My advice is to PM a mod if you feel that a discussion has gotten out of hand. We'll deal with it. That's a promise.
Maybe you need a debates moderator. :> (Totally not volunteering.)
I see everyone's point. Here's my take: I have noticed that when I have tried to divert a topic that was getting heated I was basically told to go take a hike and stop interfering. If we (as moderators) get more involved with squashing issues, will others feel like they are being interfered with and get mad?
Possibly, MrsJ. As I see it, it's a no-win situation. Whatever you do, or don't do - someone will probably get pissed off.
If a hands-off policy is instituted, but only suggestion would be to create off-shot topics if something which is essentially a hijack gets heated (i.e. the religious/HDM debate in a suggestions thread.) Instead of trying to shut down the heated issue, it could just be moved to its own thread where those not interested in participating or seeing it can more easily avoid it.
Colleen of the Crawling Chaos wrote: "Personally, I'm torn.On one hand, I don't come here to debate and I tend to avoid the religion/politics/etc threads - mostly because I realize that most people have their opinions and no amount o..."
I agree with the majority of your points here.
I also feel like I missed something, but that could be in part because I've been avoiding some threads just because I didn't want to get upset about the directions they were going.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I see everyone's point. Here's my take: I have noticed that when I have tried to divert a topic that was getting heated I was basically told to go take a hike and stop interfering. If we (as mo..."
This has happened to me more than once, too!
My advice would just be to watch forums that are "hot"--you know, the ones with ten topics posted in an hour or with such obviously loaded topics like "for the gun people." (pun intended). It's either a very fun discussion or a heated one, and guaranteed to be interesting. :D
There's a difference between censorship and active moderation. I don't think the balance is good in this group at this point for members or mods.
Look, I'm cool with putting the smack-down on people.So, from now on if I piss one of you off re: modding... :-)
then we will shower you with abject apologies and much subservient groveling... ;)
I think the mods are going to annoy members no matter what. My vote is with MrsJ, nip the ugly in the bud, and if members don't want to cooperate, then they can be warned to play nice or be removed from the group.Honestly, when we started this group, it wasn't a problem. There was no need to be so hands on, but clearly that's changed. It happens on groups and we just need to change our game plan.
Very well said MrsJ and Lady D! I'm om board with that.
My suggestion would be, when a discussion starts to be about hot-button current events with no relation to books, to allow each person one post on the subject. The moderator could even announce when the rule takes effect in a discussion. It's when people start arguing back and forth that discussions become heated and people start repeating themselves and getting rude. Everyone gets their say, once, and then they should be directed back to talking about books. One person - one post. Fair to everyone.Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. I don't want to talk gun control anyway, and would prefer not being lured into such a discussion...
Donna
I personally find it very annoying that every time a discussion starts getting heated the topic gets closed. As long as no one is being personally offended or bullyied there is no reason to close a topic. Just send a private messeage to the persons involved and let them know they are going out of line.
I'm sure that will happen more often in the future--why punish the many for the behavior of the few-- but it's kind of up to the mods to mod how they wish. As MrsJ said, there will probably be flack either way. While I've been here, I've only seen two threads closed, so I really wouldn't call it "every time." Believe me, there have been a lot of controversial discussions, but usually people don't get too snarky or mean. :)
I hope you are right Carol, i think it's very irritating that the topics are being closed. It has only happened recently i can't remember any topics being closed in the past.
i tend to drop in and out of most groups, including FA. i think the only group i try to keep up with post-by-post is a private group, with a small number of folks. it just seems impossible to keep up with everything everyone is saying all the time - where would i find the time? although i am actually trying to do that with Sci Fi Aficionados (just attempting to be an at least semi-responsive moderator, hopefully its working). as far as closing off topics like politics & religion & the like...well theoretically, i hate the idea and am totally against it. but speaking from what i've actually experienced, i have to agree that sometimes those talks are just so frustrating to read. rarely does it seem as if there is any actual dialogue going on, just folks holding their ground and eventually getting their feelings hurt. still, i suppose overall i am uncomfortable with anything that sounds like censorship.
what i do actively hate and what i think needs to be shut down immediately are personal attacks and comments that denigrate different communities. there's often a lot of liberal-bashing over in HA (a group i love, btw) which sorta gives me the creeps. there was at least one personal attack in SFA (sigh). and then there's been mild anti-gay comments in this group, which also makes me uncomfortable.
ah well, people will be people, warts and all. tolerance is a virtue. now where's my gun.
a joke, that last comment's a joke, i swear!
I've seen mods continue to reference matters that they and other mods have said should be closed, sometimes in very passive-aggressive ways. That and mods who are inconsistent about what is and is not OK or make jokes about the things they are supposed to be enforcing are, at the least, not really doing their job.
I think what you're seeing, is us trying to figure out how to handle these difficult situations. Initially, there was a lot more laid back atmosphere in which free speech was put above everything else, and it wasn't an issue. The tone of this group changed significantly, and the game plan has to change with it. That doesn't mean we are going to turn into censors, but there will be some action taken on blatant abuse and offensive behavior on this group. I respect that many may not be happy about how things have been handled, but measures are being taking to address all those issues. With all due respect, it's very easy to say what was done wrong in hindsight.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
You know I live you Grant...the gnomes at my house are for shooting practice!