>Re : controlling the contents of the thread - one can do that?
wally,
I like your question, and I'm glad you brought up this point.
Let me clarify my position by saying that "control" was a word I used within the context of a thread being "out of control", or in a state of "anarchy" in the absence of the founder of the thread.
It obviously wouldn't be in anyone's best interest for a thread to be controlled in the sense of censorship, or anything along those lines. However, it also isn't in everyone's best interest for a thread to be "out of control", and in a "state of anarchy" and disruption either.
Having said that, perhaps a better term I could have used would have been "leader" instead of one in "control". Control implies coerciveness--and that's not a desirable attribute in forums such as these.
Most groups have formal leaders (the founder of a thread, in the case of this web site) and informal leaders, whose motives may or may not coincide with that of the formal leader.
I think what we saw in the recent case of "the big thread", or "main thread" on Iomega, was that the founder of the thread disappeard, and anarchy set in. Subsequently, one or more informal leaders took over. At least that was my impression. In any case, the end result was disruption to the point that an alternative thread was started to avoid the chaos.
I think all that could have been prevented had some response system been in place to somehow deal with trouble as it happens--not after reasonable people have unnecessarily been driven away. That's what this thread is all about--how to respond, and at what point is any particular response indicated.
Ice |
