In Defense of Gated Communities

[...] of TFP when I read this blog post and thought it might lead to an interesting discussion here… In Defense of Gated Communities [...]

Now….playing devil's adovcate…
Paying ten bucks ain't gonna scare the idiots away. I've found that idiots range from the homeless all the way up to the Presidency, so the payment won't do anything to filter them out. Nothing. What is negative content, anyway? Who determines that? Personally, I like sites that have moderators that HARDLY EVER edit or omit posts. If there isn't cursing, all posts are fair game. Negative posts are fair game and neccesary. Let people make fools of themselves. Who are you or anyone to determine that? You might be the idiot in my eyes, as a matter of fact. I also don't like to hear moderaters posting their opinions. Hate it. Moderaters are people that should never be seen or heard from unless there is something very wrong in Shakeytown; otherwise they should remain seemless, nameless and faceless. It's not about them, its about content, and content should be left alone so it can be seen as its true worth.
Gated communities limit your opinion to within the perimeter of the fence they connect. I want all opinions so that I can get a real pulse on what's really going on inside the gate and out. When you filter out the passion you filter out the fun witnessing whats real. People are not going to migrate more and more towards pay sites. Pay sites may indeed continue to grow and financially prosper but the growth rate will be less than the free sites. Business 101.
I'm kind of interested in your determination if my little opinion is something you think is negative or underwhelming? Oh, one other thing… Smart sports site owners should sign in anonymously onto their competitor's sites and bring up politics…works better than a virus! Have a great day, and I'm sure that Something Awful is a great site…if you like your opinions watered down and filtered, that is.

[...] In Defense of Gated Communities Quote: [...]

I love your attitude and I agree, in theory that all makes sense, but in reality it just doesn't work. That's not to say that there aren't places and times for unfiltered content, but it's not an ideal moderation format if you're looking to get the best reading experience possible.

Paying ten bucks ain't gonna scare the idiots away. I've found that idiots range from the homeless all the way up to the Presidency, so the payment won't do anything to filter them out. Nothing.

The funny thing is that in my personal experience, it really does. The payment could be one dollar and it would be just as effective. There's something psychological about paying for membership that weeds out a large percentage of would-be trolls. If the forum is moderated correctly, even those trolls who pay the initial ten dollars would need a good deal of money to keep purchasing accounts after being banned.

What is negative content, anyway? Who determines that? Personally, I like sites that have moderators that HARDLY EVER edit or omit posts. If there isn't cursing, all posts are fair game. Negative posts are fair game and neccesary. Let people make fools of themselves. Who are you or anyone to determine that? You might be the idiot in my eyes, as a matter of fact. I also don't like to hear moderaters posting their opinions. Hate it. Moderaters are people that should never be seen or heard from unless there is something very wrong in Shakeytown; otherwise they should remain seemless, nameless and faceless. It's not about them, its about content, and content should be left alone so it can be seen as its true worth.

I'll admit that this is a tough call in theory, but in practice it's not nearly as complicated. You're not banning people for posting opinions you disagree with. You're banning them for blatant trolling, and if you've ever spent a substantial amount of time on web sites or message boards, you know what that is.

Negative content is content that doesn't contribute to the dialogue. In some cases this is someone trolling (which is a judgement call), but in most cases these are clear cut decisions. “First post” posters don't add to a discussion. Someone who posts an entire post in all caps needs to understand that that's ridiculously annoying to read. Someone who doesn't follow rules that create more substantial discussion (for example, in the previously mentioned something awful forums, just posting a list is a probation offense except in one dedicated forum. You need to post a list with commentary to explain your choices, as an isolated list is a weak form of content).

I think it's completely reasonable for a community to aspire for a higher level of dialogue, and for that to happen you need to moderate. The community can't force it.

One thing I do agree with is that moderators should never edit something. Delete or leave it as is.

Gated communities limit your opinion to within the perimeter of the fence they connect. I want all opinions so that I can get a real pulse on what's really going on inside the gate and out. When you filter out the passion you filter out the fun witnessing whats real.

This is valid, but to less of an extent that I believe you're hinting at. You seem to be imagining this world as a “me too” society, it's far less focused than that. Every forum, whether pay or not, has issues with this, however. Name me a free community that this isn't an issue for.

As for removing the passion, I'm really not sure why you believe that would be a result. Removing the lowest tier of posting focuses MORE on content that is passionate and well thought out.

People are not going to migrate more and more towards pay sites. Pay sites may indeed continue to grow and financially prosper but the growth rate will be less than the free sites. Business 101.

Of course free sites will have quicker growth rates, they have a lower barrier of entry. But what's the incentive for people to stick around, to be active? Your argument is similar to arguing for 500,000 disinterested followers vs. 100,000 interested on Twitter. If 5,000 people sign up a day and 4,995 post once and never come back, that's not a victory to me.

People want quality. That's why (although it pains me to say it because I'm the anti-Apple fan-boy) Apple is killing Microsoft right now. Business 101.

I'm kind of interested in your determination if my little opinion is something you think is negative or underwhelming? Oh, one other thing… Smart sports site owners should sign in anonymously onto their competitor's sites and bring up politics…works better than a virus! Have a great day, and I'm sure that Something Awful is a great site…if you like your opinions watered down and filtered, that is.

I'd be interested to hear if you've ever experience a community similar to what I'm discussing, because you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that from experience I find to be untrue. I love that you posted though, and in the communities I speak of your post would be perfectly fine

In conclusion:

Just because something is admirable in theory doesn't mean it works in practice. I don't mean to say that content posted without moderation doesn't have a place, and that it's not important, but simply that for many people it will prove to be a less desirable alternative than a moderated community.

I wish I could spend some more time expounding on this but here's my quick take on your post, would love to hear your response!

Very nice retort. I respect what you've written. Ever hear of the joke where someone says, “Yer driving a bus. Ya pick up three people and ya drop off two. How many left?” The answer is two, of course not one because You are driving the bus and you are a person. What do I mean by this….I started my post with “Now…playing Devil's advocate..
I am in alignment with much of what you originally posted however, I wanted you to elaborate so I posted what I did. I'm glad I did. I needed to hear more. I always wanna hear the “other side” of a situation that mirrors a position I've found myself in. I've posted on many forums and mostly with no problems at all other than intellectual debate, which I find stimulating and satisfying. However, when I used to race mountain bikes I belonged to a certain unnamed site and I found that the moderators were omitting content that wasn't to their liking and giving their own opinions more than the members were. It was annoying.
Also, kinda off topic, I belonged to another forum of a very prominent mountain biking magazine. I used to buy their magazine every single month for years. Then one day I was reading the inside back cover and I read a piece the Editor wrote. He took a strong political stance and signed it with the Magazine's name. I thought that was stupid of him so I joined their forum so that I could tell them why. The reason being, of course is that when you take a political stance on one side or the other and you own a business, you alienate about half of your customers. I liked their magazine and I was trying to help them by telling them. I thought that they already knew that politics kills. Instead of a “thank you” I got just the opposite. They told me that they owned the magazine and that they were going to use its popularity to spread their opinon, which was basically, “All wars are unjustified”.
With that, Maurice Tierney and I went back and forth a bit and then I stopped replying to him, choosing rather, to just start a politics thread on the forum. I knew what the result would be. Set it and forget it. The members ate each other alive, where previously they were very happy to talk about derailleurs, titanium frames and knobby tires.
In regards to trollers. They need to be booted. Cursing, booted. People constantly not staying on pertainent topic: warned. Moderators cross the line when they act based on disagreement, or act in any way other than to remove users that are malicious.
I know you probably wanted me to take you to task with this post but I'm going to disappoint you because as I said, I was playing Devil's advocate and I really wanted to hear more about what you had to say. I think you are a good writer and bring up valid points and your reasoning is good too. I look foward to more articles by you. You are of the caliber that Vaynermedia demands in an associate. Honestly, the only two things that you've written that I'd maaaaaybe debate are that paying money filters out a lot of the idiots and that only posting in one forum kinda gives you a biopsy of opinions not the whole tumor. Again,not to disappoint you, but there won't be a heated debate. You seem to know your shit. I just wanted to hear more reasons for your opinions and now I have them.
I honestly think you bring up great points in this post that weren't brought up in the original post. Thanks, and good luck with your endeavors. I look foward to hearing more from you. God Bless………………Wazu aka @TheGreatWazu

there's my next job opportunity…gatekeeper for a sports blog. thanks Marcus