its a fine line. Some conflit can be good if its channeled. It keeps people coming back, keeps them posting.

Too much though and people will leave.

I have a forum where politics is discussed frequently. I post articles about local issues, and encourage comments on these issues. But very often it turns political, and quickly gets wild.

I work hard to set the tone of the discussions, which means I have to be a fairly active moderator. Here's what I do;

1. I post articles that model appropriate behavior- my forum policy centers on a byline of "passionate but civil" I specify that means no name calling, no abusive language, and no personal attacks. I post articles that serve to direct the conversation, and show how to be passionate about an issue, but leave room for other opinions.

2. I reply to others modeling appropriate behavior- I reply to others first by thanking them for their post, and then responding without personal attacks, and always strictly to the issue. I never allow myself to 'return fire' or hit back point by point. This quickly puts out the flames in most cases.

3. I publicly correct people who break the rules. If someone breaks the rules, I correct them publicly, as a reply to their post. I repeat the 'passionate but civil' and quote the offensive post, followed by a suggestion to improve their conversation effectiveness. (Stick to the issue, no personal attacks, show respect for others viewpoints) In every case so far, this has met with the offender bugging off, and the rest of the participants thanking me for keeping things civil.

4. I let people know their options for personal control The software I use is Beehive Forum. It allows individual users to block anybody they dont' want to hear from. So, when people join I send them an email that tells them how to use this feature, and suggests that they PM me if they have a problem with a particular user.

So far I've gotten exactly the response I want. I get local discussion of issues, and people join because they know they won't be blasted by a few flamers. Several have joined specifically because of that. It helps to attract the crowd you want, and repel the ones you dont.

But it does take alot of moderater work. When the forum grows, I'll have to streamline my reponses, and train moderators.

Long winded because I can type really fast. Sorry.

Wayne from White Salmon

I post on a particulary author's site sometimes. There are definitely two opposing sides and a long history of why that is which I will spare you from now. Suffice to say that the 'haters' really have some valid points and reasons for feeling the way they do and the 'true fans' seem to have one track minds and believe the author is a god and can do no wrong. The author insults and rants at the fans via her blog on a regular basis, writes the way she does to be 'contrary' and never visits the message board. the mods on the board are all personal friends of the author so there is no unbiased moderation.

Finally after a particularly heated debate (where the moderator called all those who didnt like the book 'self loathing masochists' and then the instant banning of a few longtime key members (for not adhering to a rule that didn't exist at the time of banning but was added about an hour after the bannings) the site was closed down 'temporarily' to look for new MB software and allow everyone to calm down - including the moderator, who then said the bannings were a 'software glitch'. Too little too late I think.

So perhaps it's a fine line on how much conflict is good for a board and how much is too much?

hmm i run a forum where there is always conflict/beef. I think as long as there are people tere to make sure it doest get out of hand then its fine