I've got an idea that I think could significantly improve the quality of ET: self moderation. The concept is simple: whoever originates the thread is given moderation rights for the thread they started. I think the advantages would far outweight the drawbacks. For example: 1) No more flames. If someone interrupted your thread to insult or belittle you, instead of wasting time and energy responding, you could simply delete their contribution. The number of flames would be drastically reduced since everyone who is anti-troll would gladly delete pointless flame posts. 2) Fewer rabbit trails. It's the unfortunate truth that some posts are lower quality than others and many have little to do with the topic at hand. If the thread originator could clear his own thread of off topic or low quality posts, the threads would be that much more on topic and relevant with less noise and clutter. 3) More willingness to participate. I'm sure that if people were given more control over the thread conversations they started, they would be more interested in posting and pursuing relevant discussions with other posters who have useful input. The quality of discussion would raise for the benefit of all. 4) More incentive to be polite. If you wanted to make a point and you knew that the thread originator could delete your thread at will, there would be less incentive to be a jerk and more incentive to be fair / reasonable. Drawbacks: The obvious drawback to letting thread originators delete posts from their threads is the potential for abuse. You could hold a diatribe and not let anyone answer you, or you could delete the posts of anyone who disagrees with you. I don't think this is a major problem though, because people who started threads to rant and / or deleted any posts that disagreed with them would quickly be found out and labeled. If someone started a hateful thread or a spam campaign etc, they could be reported to a higher level moderator who would delete that thread entirely and put the poster on warning. If someone was in the regular habit of deleting dissenting posts, they would quickly develop a reputation as a blowhard or a crank and their reputation would be their undoing - they would eventually become completely ignored. Think of it Baron: you could have thousands of moderators policing their own threads and raising the quality of conversation across the board. I don't think this would qualify as censorship at all; it would be more along the lines of controlled conversations with public access. If someone didn't like the way a conversation (thread) was being controlled, they could go start their own, so no one could claim censorship. Ending flames and keeping threads on topic by letting thread originators moderate in their best interest would be a HUGE improvement for ET in my opinion. Thoughts?
thumbs up on the self-moderation power. other sites have this, and this place should have it, too. yet another thread is being flushed down the toilet by the repititious self-indulgent ramblings of the usual suspect. if a poster can't even get to a rutting goat level of manners, thread starters should have the power to kick them out.
One must consider, however, what the outcome would have been had TraderBrad been allowed to moderate his own thread . . .
Is he a scammer that got outed? Assuming so, another thread (or multiple threads) would have been started discrediting TraderBrad, authorities would have been notified, and the result would be the same...
Since you don't know to whom I'm referring, it's more likely that members would be like you and not be aware of every thread, perhaps finding his and missing the detractors.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think it's important to put yourself in the shoes of the one being moderated instead of just looking at it from the perspective of a thread starter. How would you like it if you participated in a thread and found out a few days later that your post had been edited in such a way that it said something you never intended it to say? Or what if you participated in a thread and later found that your posts were being deleted because the thread starter didn't agree with them, or thought they were too abrasive, or whatever? From a site owner standpoint, I really don't want to be dealing with complaints or questions from members about why their posts were edited, deleted, etc... I already have to deal with this sort of stuff on a daily basis with only 15 moderators. I can't imagine what it would be like if there were 1000 different thread starters all enforcing their own standards on people's posts. I'd need a call center to handle all the complaints and inquiries from members. Again, I think its an interesting idea, and I'm not trying to sound negative. I'm really just thinking out loud...
I think it would have to be the ability to delete, but not the ability to edit. Either taking the post as is or removing it, no putting words in people's mouths. I don't think you would be flooded with calls if you made it clear that this was the policy for everyone, that we are all equal in the ability to police our own threads, and that someone who didn't like having their post deleted would need to go start their own thread instead of complaining. I realize there are drawbacks and complications. But think of it- no more putting up with pointless flaming! Threads that stay relevant and on topic for long periods of time! And no one could legitimately cry foul because everyone would have the same equal priveleges on their own threads. I say it's worth an experiment, at least in a single section to see how people like it....