National news rework 3 - discussion

[Arthur Brown]

     I am loath to interject on these forums as I and the Squadron I belong to have decidedly taken a hiatus from playing and testing this game.  However, considering myself, William Roberts, and others in our company who have made gazettes, political cartoons, broadsides, proclamations, and general role-play sundry, and plan to do so in the future, I am compelled to speak against this course of action.

     I make not an argument for free speech; this is and ought to always be considered a private club whose members abide by club rules, whatever they may be.  The right to speak freely, in short, does not exist here.

     Albeit this course of action would seem to ameliorate the toxicity in National News, my concern is that this will lead to one of two paths: either a stifling of content or a proliferation of offenses and therefore more work for moderators.  First, allow me to define good and bad content.  Good content is that which follows the rules, is of some quality and effort, and in general is role-play.  Bad content consists of the needless flame and trolling threads. Now, the first path will stifle good content, for which I mean being restrained, arrested, and otherwise inhibited in an indirect manner.  Given that only accepted news-makers would be able to create threads, this path assumes that only they may post and reply to content. A news-maker, or content contributor thrives off of the reaction, replies, and general comment upon the work they do.  If I were to create a masterful piece of good content that stirs a deep resentment among the French and pleasurable reading for my allies, how would I know that my effort did not go unnoticed without the entire French nation posting on my thread?  If the only replies were a few other news-makers offering their congratulations, why would I continue with my work?  Yes, the multitude could leave 'likes', but those are empty compared to the riveting discussion which may follow.  News-makers, without the constant and immediate acclaim or chagrin of their readers, will not produce quality if they produce at all.

   The second path, given that only accepted new-makers may create threads, assumes the multitude will be able to post and reply to the content they make.  In an ideal setting this is a perfect solution. However, reality is a very different horse.  With the obvious, cathartic, and categorized flame/trolling threads removed, which are easy to identify and ignore, those members in need of touting their bravado will venture into these threads of good content.  Their need to type an emotional and perhaps toxic relief will overcome and they shall interlope among the genuine replies of acclaim and role-play in these news-makers' threads.  Yes, the "cathartic-ites" who post such toxic nonsense will do well to guise their meaning, but we need not worry as those intrepid forum warriors will report their shenanigans.  The burden of moderation for this national news will not decrease, but rather increase and become, perhaps, more difficult.  It may then become tempting to limit replies and posts to only news-makers and content contributors.  I then refer you to the paragraph directly preceding this one.

   I am not merely a cynic; I do offer a solution.  I view the National News as a place of excellent potential and infinite catharsis, which may be good and bad in equal measure. It is simply the price of doing business to wade through the "drivel" to come across a gem on any forum.  I propose that the National News should stay as open as it already is and be moderated less.  Use this section of the forums, with a decent disclaimer, as a tool of social control.  Give the members relative freedom in this section and take harsh punitive action should it spill into other sections of the forums.  Good content, should it ever be produced, will rise above the mediocre and the bad.

You may lead a horse to water, but you can't make him print a gazette...or something like that.

 

These are but my humble suppositions

and I remain &c.,

A. Brown