Weather Banter - View Single Post - Should we think about creating uk.sci.weather.moderated?

Alan LeHun · August 17th 13, 12:41 PM posted to uk.sci.weather

In article ,
says...

This is an interesting thread and it would be worthwhile as many as possible contributing. Thanks for starting it Paul.

John has highlighted the difficulty.

What happens in such forums is that the complaints of a group (it turns into a gang), that don't like what an individual is saying, influence moderators.

Yes. The whole point of moderation is that individuals don't get to make
posts that the rest of the group don't want. That way, the group gets a
group that they are happy with.

Emails behind the scenes and comments on the forum, promulgate such
feelings and in the end, the moderators exercise the power of the
(usually small, most posters only have a passing interest) gang,
because they view the gang members as their friends and because they
share the same interests in cold weather as they do.

In my experience, most moderators resist such pressure on the grounds
that some would perceive it as an admission of poor judgement over
having allowed certain posts and/or also as a weakening or dilution of
their "power". Perfect moderators are hard to find I'm afraid.

However, it does bring us back to the point that moderated fora evolve.
Generally in the direction that the group consciousness wishes it to.

Usually, in weather forums, it's a desperate need to wish for cold
weather, especially in winter, that drives the bulk of posters and the
gang hates anyone who says that the cold weather is unlikely to arrive
and asks them to stop posting hopeful and frankly stupid posts about
it's unlikely arrival and instead concentrate on the facts.

Well this is certainly not a reflection on what has happened in this
group, or of your part in it Paul. The truth of the matter here is that
such posts annoy you, and us such you have embarked on a campaign to try
and stop them being made. One individual, trying to mold the group in
his image. I have no doubt that you would still be allowed to post such
"cold unlikely" posts to usw.moderated. I doubt however, that you would
be allowed to hound those posters who talked of cold weather when said
weather fails to materialize.

As a result, individuals who don't conform to that culture are
ostracised until the moderators are ready to give into the baying gang
members, who constantly whine that this person, or that person, should
be banned.

But again, that is not a reflection of what has happened in this group.
Others that do not "conform to that culture" have not been subjected to
the abuse that you have suffered.

I would not vote for any moderated group that would allow people to be
banned and I could not see usw.m being created with that power being
available to the moderators.

The owners of the sites are very understanding, but they have a vested
interest. They understand that interest and are open and honest. They
know where their bread's buttered. John and Brian at Netweather, and
TWO certainly recognise this (Metcheck's peadophile owner gets no
recognition there) I still post, very occasionally, at UKww . John and
Brian know (knew for John?? Dunno how involved he is these days)
people that the bulk of their posters like cold weather and want it to
happen. Thus, they have to support their moderators; they know what's
good for their business. At that point, it's not worth staying.
Believe me; There's no point.

So how would this affect usw.m which would have no owner? Of course, the
result would be almost the same as far as you are concerned. You would
not be allowed to hound the coldies with quite the same fervor as you
have done in the past. But. You would probably still be allowed to
reasonably dispute the likelihood of such weather. Whats more, you
yourself would not be hounded or insulted for doing so. All the
CC,GW,GC,AGW crap would probably go too.

What's left is anodyne (IMO, here).

As I say, these sites will welcome you with open arms, but they are a
very limited church. COL is too. If that's and good luck. what you
want; post there - but ask yourself why you don't post there already:
chances are you've already tried them and run into the wealth of
idiots they contain. Again, IMO, there are far less of them here.

There are far less of anybody here these days. Presumably because the
moderated fora are a more pleasant place in which to discuss. And I have
to say that those sites do not sound like "a very limited church" to me.
Indeed they sound a lot like usw before you arrived. (You are of course,
not the only problem here. There are others, myself included).

As for usw.m, it would be a gamble. It may produce a group that would be
pleasant enough for all and still allow reasoned debate from /all/ pov's
and could well prosper. There is a danger though in that if it sinks, it
may well take usw down with it.

And as for you Paul, I would not feel too threatened should such a group
be created. You would not be banned or blacklisted, you would still be
able to make your quarterly 10day forecasts, and you would probably
still get away with the occasional point scoring post too. You would
even be able to post of the ridiculously low odds of any impending cold
weather and I dare say you would be allowed one "I told you so" post per
non-event. For everything else, you would still have a.gw. I'm sure
larry would be all too happy to engage with you there.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.