[MUD-Dev] META: To flame or not to flame (was: Usability and ...)

Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no> Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>
Tue Sep 30 17:14:17 New Zealand Daylight Time 1997


clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
>>Within the open email system on an unmoderated list you can only hope
>>for some respect for your intentions with bringing up the topic.  
>
>I like to think that this list is neither entirely open, or
>unmoderated.  I do try and keep such coercive efforts hidden under
>private email, as I'm sure you're aware.

Yes, but as this is done in a retrospective manner, you are
essentially "moderating" future discussions, not current ones (unless
it is a true flamewar).

>>The
>>problem with no restrictions is that some topics become more or less
>>intractable, due to the massive flood of sterotypic viewpoints etc.
>>Interesting points drown in this mass of uninteresting details, 
>>discussions ends up in loops and summaries are hard to make.
>
>Nahh, This is a question of phrasing. not moderation,  Couch the
>discussion against an assumed or stereotypical backdrop thus making
>the topic of interest the only "odd" thing present.

Actually I don't agree, compare this to a face-to-face group meeting
with or without moderation.  Give one person the job of keeping the
group in focus, give him the right to stop undesirable offsprings and
you'll get something done on that particular topic, a lot sooner and
with some depth.  Of course, a moderator in a situation like that will
after stopping the discussion, restart it with a summary and hint at
interesting directions for the discussion, making the goal visible.
Kicking the discussion "back on track" so to speak.

I guess you could apply this to muds as well, most notably
guilds/clans/building projects.  The need for supporting leaders/group
structures.

Ola.



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list