Pre-screening content would:

a) Remove the real-time "conversation" feel that most online discussion forums have, and
b) Put a HUGE workload onto the Moderators who, as far as I know, are volunteers.

Pre-screening content is good for blog comments, but does not work for a discussion forum.

- Lex

Joe, has it every occurred to you that the real problem is that you’re just a stupid asshole?

James - don't say that. Joe just wants to have an internet forum site that works exactly how he wants it to without doing any work to set it up, administer it, or pay for it. Is that too much to ask?

- Lex

Come on, I am not a huge fan of Joe, but I do feel that his remarks are valid for the users. And so I have added some peeves of mine…

Thanks for preparing the road, Joe.

Absolutely. Joe might be pretty unverblümt, but most of the time, he’s right.

Back to the topic: I have no objections to the proposed terminology.

I don't think Joe usually goes about things the right way, but this concerted effort he's making is useful, and should be appreciated on face value. In fact I agree with some (maybe more than half) of the things he's proposing.

What I fear however is that if/when few of his suggestions actually get implemented, he will throw an epic hissy-fit, effectively undoing much of this positive energy. But this won't happen if he simply realizes that Typophile is quite useful as it stands, and if it never becomes a "perfect" web presence that's OK. Typophile is about type, not demo-ing web standards.

hhp

While Typophile certainly does have admins, moderators are sometimes required to step in and *cautiously* arbitrate when things get out of hand. It doesn't happen often on Typophile (perhaps thanks in part to our admittedly easy to circumvent swears filter ;). Folks here are largely good people, but when this many passionate people get into it, sometimes things can get rough. If the moderation that happens is so light and behind the scenes that people don't notice it happening, I count that as a success.

i was "moderated", once, lightly, behind the scenes,
and i thought it was applied unfairly, so i brought it
to the forefront.

the trouble with moderation "behind the scenes"
is that you can never know if it's being done fairly.

-bowerbird

Who is it to say that moderation has to be done before things are posted? Moderation can also involve removal of immoderate postings afterwords.

Hrant, Lex, and James, go fornicate yourselves. Hrant, do so maybe more than half the time.

Moderation and administration are distinct concepts in the domain few of you are familiar with. Typophile does not have “moderators.”

Joe, what you want Typophile to be, it will
never be - and that's a good thing. Adapt.

hhp

Joe's Corner . . . well there you have it.

It looks like at least *some* progress has been made. :)

"Hrant, Lex, and James, go fornicate yourselves."

Hmm...Joe also said this:

"Well, Zara, do you understand and agree with the numerous personal attacks in this thread and others? You’re just going to let those sit there, aren’t you?"

I'm confused. Joe wants Zara to delete all of Joe's posts?

Go grow your own garden, then you can piss all over the flowers.
(It would allow you to get out, off the damn internet.)

> Come on, I am not a huge fan of Joe, but I do feel that his remarks are valid for the users.

True, when he is talking about technical issues. But this thread is basically drivel. I mean, seriously? Prescreening a real-time discussion board? Funny stuff. I have been a regular on many forums, and the best ones are those where the moderators refrain from moderating as much as possible, and only jump in when it is really necessary. And moderating is, in fact, not necessary very often.