(Wallace Stevens, by way of Denis Johnson)

If the problem is that we're a big, non-revenue generating pain in the ass to WaPo, how do we fix it?

Other article related forums in other magazines don't really generate much in the way of "community" -- at best, people get to know each others' opinions a little, but none of them (Salon, HuffPo, the real papers/magazines) post much in the way of original essays on a variety of topics (which to me, is what makes this place great).

The fray-centric fights in here get huge, intractable and well, disproportionate to the issues. Those of us who can see, know that there are a percentage of loons (not my term) who are dragging the rest of the place down, and will gleefully continue to do so until there is nothing left to drag. We also know that it's too, too easy for relatively good posters to be dragged into them (or to jump head first and fists flailing).

Sure, we can give up and move on.

Otherwise, one or some of us could take the keys and play hall monitor for free. It could either be Death to Piggy, or it could be a new beginning, after much initial ugliness. Not sure it's worth it, not sure it would work, not sure they want to bother.

The only quarrel I have is that whenever someone says "you know who you are" about the worst offenders here, I get the feeling that no, they don't. The few who do, have endless excuses about why it's not really them.

Wapo doesn't care why we waste their time.

is a pretty reasonable approximation. There seem to be fights there too, but a bit less vitriolic. The posts aren't as meaty either though -- the point there seems more like aphoristic commentary than genuine interaction or a "free writer's forum"

Since WaPo isn't making any money anyway, they might as well serve us. Just as a stalking horse, anyway. Cause the newspaper business ain't exactly thriving. (HEy, maybe we could get rupert murdoch to buy us!)

The problem is that anybody who cares enough to do the job for free is already pretty heavily invested--read that as "unable to be impartial." It'd also have to be someone who pretty much has to give up their interaction and posting. Who'd want to do that?

Geoff and Ender.

It'd have to be someone who didn't admit they were the one doing it, because even if they quit posting here, it would always be seen as a personal weapon, even if it weren't.

Let's just say, I know who I'd ban every time they showed up, and I know how they'd react.

I'll check out Gawker, can't hurt. Thanks.

As for Rupe, he's already paying out the nose to keep that shitrag Post in play.

Maybe Ralph Wiggum would do it.

is to ignore and not respond to them. They crave attention, of course, so the ignoring is deserved punishment, but beyond that is that if they can't get attention here they'll likely move on. No editor needed.

And that's part of how I grew up a little, here, myself.

What about volunteers on a rotating basis?

Let's just say, I know who I'd ban every time they showed up, and I know how they'd react.

And that would put us right back where we started, with some Slate editor having CD up his wazoo.

What, we gonna' take shifts? The problem is, when you need a moderator, you need them pretty quick [Arch's pseudo-ID is a great example - how long did that take to disappear again?]. Inadequate/inconsistent/ineffe­ctive moderation is probably worse for the place, really, than none. Oh, and if it's a small, anonymous "in-group" doing it invisibly under a single nic? Can you imagine the conspiracy/Clicque posts? The escalations? The compulsive "report abuse" button-pushing? The latency to reach the top of the WaPo administrative email chain?

IForum moderation, I have it on very good report, is a time-consuming and onerous endeavor. On the other hand, any internet-savvy, bubble-gum chewing high school dropout could do it minimally well. I suggest a job announcement on the World of Warcraft forums - where people have outrageous experience with online interactions/forums, and a few might be desperately casting about for some way to salvage what little self-respect/life they have left and get the hell out of there [I know people who'd be interested, and who'd do the job for about $15/hour, particularly if benefits were included].

The rational argument goes - a pittance salary, stacked against the possibility of a lawsuit, stacked against whatever revenue and "stickiness" the place has to offer Slate/WaPo. [Oh, optimally, bring back Arnovitz or Moira for training. No offense Geoff, but there's an aspect of this you don't seem to ever have quite grasped.]

But, you know, it's not really fair to expect rationality from other people - most often, they'll just disappoint you anyway. I was just fantasizing for a moment - carry on.

Uh, no - not unless, perhaps, the volunteers were acting behind a single nic, and sworn to absolute secrecy [like that's going to happen - hah!].

If every poster you think is a bloody pain in the arse and is despoiling and poisoning TBOF (spammers goes without saying) were to be banned or left of their own volition and .. if only posters of the caliber you approve of were left but ... the place truly became the echo chamber it often is now .. would you have the integrity to then post a mea culpa if .. you were a force changing the face of the Fray?

In my opinion it is .. the casual, back and forth banter and exchanges that make TBOF different from other reader's comments websites, even the best of all worlds, the reader's comments sections in the WaPo, provides for on-topic exchanges between commentators I see.
There are endless professional journals and websites to write for also.

I wonder if whom you might to dissaprove of here and surely, I don't know the answer to that, is exactly what makes this place so unique and interesting?

which I have so often in the past ...

My problem with it, is its hypocrisy.

It's certainly true if I left, you wouldn't have that charge to contend with anymore, but would it guarantee that 'fairness' in all things BOF would prevail?

I would not want to do it because I wouldn't want to put up with the obvious shit I would get from the far left loons who think I could not be impartial. I think I could be, but I also would not want to stop posting in order to moderate.

In order to moderate fairly, there would have to be a hard and fast set of rules and they would have to be enforced uniformly and without personal consideration. Ie: You could not ban CD just because he's an asshole, but you could if he continues to spam the board (more than two posts on top page, at the same time....callouts, and all caps...stuff like that).

Deciding how much personal commentary has to go along with a C&P would be a judgement call. At KFS there is a tremendous amount of top posting links to stories with no comment at all. How should that be handled? I think the managers pretty much leave that board alone because no one expects much from them.

Were I the moderator I would have to avoid the temptation to ban everyne I consider a fruitcake (the list is quite impressive) and be fair. Most of the shitheads here, whom I really dislike, do not violate any rules....they are just wrong, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm really not keen on doing something and not getting paid for it. After all, I am a capitalist pig.

Jack