The leader of any group discussion must constantly monitor
the process to keep the discussion on track.
And he or she must use some means to close off irrelevant material.
This is not always easy to do in a face-to-face discussion,
because the person who is ruled out of order might be offended.
And the others present might not initially agree
that the out-spoken advocate should have been shut-up.
But after listening to the whole comment,
all the other people might agree that it was not relevant after all.

     On rare occasions in a face-to-face meeting or discussion,
someone will be drunk or under the influence of other drugs.
This is certain to be a difficult situation for all present.
Sometimes the disrupter may have to be removed from the meeting.

     Mercifully, this is much easier to do on the Internet.
Off-the-wall comments can be returned to the sender,
who may repent of having sent them
when he or she sobers up anyway.
And everyone else in the discussion never hears about the disruption.

     Flame-catchers must have thick skins,
because flame-throwers do not like to have their flames intercepted.
Being the object of abuse—no matter how ill informed—
is never a pleasant experience.
This is one reason that it is advisable to have other people
do the flame-catching when we have submitted a contribution.
Especially if we are sensitive people,
we could carry around a hurt for a whole day
—even when the objection was based on a misunderstanding
in the first place.

     Some authors might request that the flames be retained
but collected in one batch,
so they could be read thru when the author is in the mood
to see what even the most abusive critics have to say.
Separating the flames from the responsible and intelligent responses
will enable the author to deal with the real issues,
separated from the irrational responses.
And if there is a large volume of responses,
the flames can simply be deleted and disregarded.

     This is probably the way mail is handled in congressional offices:
Some of the letters are so useless
that they are never seen by the congressperson.
Flame-catchers for Internet communications
serves the same function as the secretarial staff
who must decide what mail to discard
and what mail to forward to the appropriate persons.

     Flame-catchers have this distinct advantage over a discussion leader.
They can read all the way to the end of a comment
before deciding what to do with it.
This is usually not possible in a face-to-face discussion.
A discussion leader is listening to the beginning of the comment
'in real time', right along with the rest of the people present.
A discussion leader does not know where the comment is going
or how much time it will take.
But flame-catchers have the luxury of taking all the time needed
to read thru an entire message
before deciding to delete it, return it,
or pass a summary on to the author of the original contribution.
Even a message that starts out with foolish abuse
might eventually get around to some valid points worth considering.
Thus, some flame-catchers are empowered to edit messages
or to select the best parts to share
either with the original author or with all subscribers on the list.

    One problem frequently encountered in face-to-face discussion groups
is the domination of the discussion by one or two people.
It is the responsibility of the discussion leader
to facilitate a balanced discussion
with as much participation from everyone present as possible.
As we would not allow one or two people
to do most of the talking in a discussion group,
an Internet discussion should not be dominated
by a small percentage of the people involved.
Flame-catchers know how much has been contributed by each person.
And they may ask some contributors to shorten their comments
or to hold back so that others can have a fair opportunity.

     A good discussion leader is able to help less articulate people
to put their ideas into a form that others can understand more readily.
This can be done quickly by re-stating the point of the responder.
A good discussion leader also helps shy people to venture their thoughts.
Whether something similar could be done by flame-catchers
remains to be seen.
It would certainly take more time to help flame-throwers
to reformulate their comments to be more constructive.
But such a talent might be developed in some settings.
In this case, flame-catchers would become editors for the responders.
Such editors could suggest revisions in the responses
before they are passed on either to the author or the general readership.

     And in those situations in which responses
are kept in the archives with the original contribution,
such editorial help could make the responses more readable
for people who will consult them in later years.
As the original author has the power to revise his or her contribution,
the responders should be given the same right
to revise their comments in light of responses from other readers
and any changes made by the original author.