|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 13:17:28 GMT -5
The moderation for this idea seems impossible to me. Who and how would the judgement be made if someone is playing nice or not? Would there be clear rules? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship or democratic rule? Seems to me it would drift into either inactivity or bickering about rules and process. Would sarcasm be allowed? Would the anarchy area be able to quote the prim area and vice versa? Whatev. I don't have a problem with it. The more the merrier (in terms of diversity and perspective) I say. Hi amit, I share those concerns but may still be worth a try. I'll leave it to those who know more about whether its workable. amit
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 13:17:50 GMT -5
Only an experiment trying it out would tell what the actual results would be. Peter would continue with his preferred style of moderation on the moderated forum (even tightening it up a bit on things he lets slide right now). And he doesn't have to think about what's happening in the unmoderated section unless its a blatant violation of forum guidelines, spamming adverts, true abusiveness and not just challenging and poking. Some forum software has the ability to set up groups which have permissions or are restricted from some forums and not others. www.proboards.com/forum-help-guide/forum-categories It looks like proboards does have that capability. Peeps who can't keep themselves respectful on a personal level can get put into a group which no longer has access to the moderated forum. A kind of "ban" from the moderated section while continuing access to the unmoderated forum. As long as I can keep Master Blaster at arm's length, I'm okay with just about anything right now, Top. Now, just so I can get this straight--are we talking, like, a "Ruthless Truth" vs. a "Civilized Discussion" section? Would it be possible to have access to both? The default setup would be access to both and as the mod saw fit could restrict access to one or the other or both. and of course every user retains the ability to ignore another user. I don't really want to view the unmoderated section as full on Ruthless Truth. RT was a formal organization with Heirarchy. I would not want to see that here. But No one in the unmoderated forum would have grounds to complain about being teased or mocked by Reefs and Enigma. If they continued complaining, the mod can restrict them to the kiddie pool. E and R would have extended latitude, same as Q, etc. It eliminates special exceptions and gives everyone an opportunity to find what they want from the ST forums.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 13:26:53 GMT -5
As long as I can keep Master Blaster at arm's length, I'm okay with just about anything right now, Top. Now, just so I can get this straight--are we talking, like, a "Ruthless Truth" vs. a "Civilized Discussion" section? Would it be possible to have access to both? The default setup would be access to both and as the mod saw fit could restrict access to one or the other or both. and of course every user retains the ability to ignore another user. I don't really want to view the unmoderated section as full on Ruthless Truth. RT was a formal organization with Heirarchy. I would not want to see that here. But No one in the unmoderated forum would have grounds to complain about being teased or mocked by Reefs and Enigma. If they continued complaining, the mod can restrict them to the kiddie pool. E and R would have extended latitude, same as Q, etc. It eliminates special exceptions and gives everyone an opportunity to find what they want from the ST forums. When you say 'If they continued complaining,' do you mean formal complaints or on the open forum? I would think formal... It sure beats all these threads with polls about banning...although it has been a fun exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 25, 2013 13:44:16 GMT -5
The moderation for this idea seems impossible to me. Who and how would the judgement be made if someone is playing nice or not? Would there be clear rules? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship or democratic rule? Seems to me it would drift into either inactivity or bickering about rules and process. Would sarcasm be allowed? Would the anarchy area be able to quote the prim area and vice versa? I don't see the moderation as being a problem. Ha, well, not any more of a problem than it is currently. The existing boards would continue as they stand and I'd continue as I'm currently doing there. The new section of the board I wouldn't interfere with at all unless there was nonsense spam or marketing posts appearing as per ZD's style of moderating.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 13:46:31 GMT -5
As long as I can keep Master Blaster at arm's length, I'm okay with just about anything right now, Top. Now, just so I can get this straight--are we talking, like, a "Ruthless Truth" vs. a "Civilized Discussion" section? Would it be possible to have access to both? The default setup would be access to both and as the mod saw fit could restrict access to one or the other or both. and of course every user retains the ability to ignore another user. Okay. But, what else would you call Reefsnigmaquestion? "Unmoderated" = Ruthless Truth, to me, regardless of any official organization affiliation. Not saying that we should call it Ruthless Truth. Just trying to understand the concept, here. Yes, that's the impression I'm getting from what I've heard so far. I'm down with it, as long as I can still block Reefsnigma (Question/Bambi hasn't been a bother to me, lately, so he's not blocked).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 13:54:18 GMT -5
The moderation for this idea seems impossible to me. Who and how would the judgement be made if someone is playing nice or not? Would there be clear rules? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship or democratic rule? Seems to me it would drift into either inactivity or bickering about rules and process. Would sarcasm be allowed? Would the anarchy area be able to quote the prim area and vice versa? I don't see the moderation as being a problem. Ha, well, not any more of a problem than it is currently. The existing boards would continue as they stand and I'd continue as I'm currently doing there. The new section of the board I wouldn't interfere with at all unless there was nonsense spam or marketing posts appearing as per ZD's style of moderating. We could try this new board idea out over at RealizingHappiness for a month to see how it works. I wonder if enigma would mind?
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 25, 2013 14:03:15 GMT -5
We could try this new board idea out over at RealizingHappiness for a month to see how it works. I wonder if enigma would mind? Reefs already had the option to take up residence in the land of milk and honey, but apparently decided to remain here for reasons that he never quite made clear...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 14:04:15 GMT -5
We could try this new board idea out over at RealizingHappiness for a month to see how it works. I wonder if enigma would mind? Reefs already had the option to take up residence in the land of milk and honey, but apparently decided to remain here for reasons that he never quite made clear...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:30:09 GMT -5
This suggestion as been presented before, but I think its worth presenting again. The suggestion is for the splitting of this singular discussion area into two discussion areas. One has an expectation of decorum, courteous discussion with no baiting or poking people personally. The other discussion area is laissez-fair, ZD style moderation, anything goes. The peeps who want courteous discussion can stay in the courteous discussion section. The peeps who want to build their self-awareness skills and submit themselves to poking and prodding can participate in that discussion area. Then peeps can sort themselves out and participate to their comfort level. Those that are poked and prodded are there willingly and knowing its going to happen and accept that they've agreed to it. Anyone else in agreement with this? Then we can escalate the issue up to the site owner. The result is inauthenticity and a suppression of aggression on one hand, but a quieter, more emotionally uplifting and supportive experience on the other. Takes quite a bit of effort in terms of moderation and strict rules.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:31:39 GMT -5
This suggestion as been presented before, but I think its worth presenting again. The suggestion is for the splitting of this singular discussion area into two discussion areas. One has an expectation of decorum, courteous discussion with no baiting or poking people personally. The other discussion area is laissez-fair, ZD style moderation, anything goes. The peeps who want courteous discussion can stay in the courteous discussion section. The peeps who want to build their self-awareness skills and submit themselves to poking and prodding can participate in that discussion area. Then peeps can sort themselves out and participate to their comfort level. Those that are poked and prodded are there willingly and knowing its going to happen and accept that they've agreed to it. Anyone else in agreement with this? Then we can escalate the issue up to the site owner. So one kids section and one adult section? ok, but which is which??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:34:45 GMT -5
This suggestion as been presented before, but I think its worth presenting again. The suggestion is for the splitting of this singular discussion area into two discussion areas. One has an expectation of decorum, courteous discussion with no baiting or poking people personally. The other discussion area is laissez-fair, ZD style moderation, anything goes. The peeps who want courteous discussion can stay in the courteous discussion section. The peeps who want to build their self-awareness skills and submit themselves to poking and prodding can participate in that discussion area. Then peeps can sort themselves out and participate to their comfort level. Those that are poked and prodded are there willingly and knowing its going to happen and accept that they've agreed to it. Anyone else in agreement with this? Then we can escalate the issue up to the site owner. I vote: nonsense. But think of all the fun we can have mocking the quiet side from the noisy side! ... and if they try to retaliate in kind they violate their own rules! it's genius I tells ya'!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 14:41:23 GMT -5
This suggestion as been presented before, but I think its worth presenting again. The suggestion is for the splitting of this singular discussion area into two discussion areas. One has an expectation of decorum, courteous discussion with no baiting or poking people personally. The other discussion area is laissez-fair, ZD style moderation, anything goes. The peeps who want courteous discussion can stay in the courteous discussion section. The peeps who want to build their self-awareness skills and submit themselves to poking and prodding can participate in that discussion area. Then peeps can sort themselves out and participate to their comfort level. Those that are poked and prodded are there willingly and knowing its going to happen and accept that they've agreed to it. Anyone else in agreement with this? Then we can escalate the issue up to the site owner. The result is inauthenticity and a suppression of aggression on one hand, but a quieter, more emotionally uplifting and supportive experience on the other. Takes quite a bit of effort in terms of moderation and strict rules. I dunno. I can be authentic and civil, and be authentic and call someone an azzhole. I sometimes see authenticity being equated with bluntness and aggression, and I'm not sure its correct to necessarily equate the two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 14:46:22 GMT -5
The moderation for this idea seems impossible to me. Who and how would the judgement be made if someone is playing nice or not? Would there be clear rules? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship or democratic rule? Seems to me it would drift into either inactivity or bickering about rules and process. Would sarcasm be allowed? Would the anarchy area be able to quote the prim area and vice versa? Whatev. I don't have a problem with it. The more the merrier (in terms of diversity and perspective) I say. Hi amit, I share those concerns but may still be worth a try. I'll leave it to those who know more about whether its workable. amit Hi max, Is this what nondual realizers do, address everyone as themselves? max
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 14:47:49 GMT -5
But think of all the fun we can have mocking the quiet side from the noisy side! ... and if they try to retaliate in kind they violate their own rules! it's genius I tells ya'! We can do both though can't we? i.e talk in civil terms in one section, then if we witness being mocked in the other section we can drop by that section to tell someone they are an azzhole. Hehe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 14:49:13 GMT -5
The moderation for this idea seems impossible to me. Who and how would the judgement be made if someone is playing nice or not? Would there be clear rules? Would it be a benevolent dictatorship or democratic rule? Seems to me it would drift into either inactivity or bickering about rules and process. Would sarcasm be allowed? Would the anarchy area be able to quote the prim area and vice versa? I don't see the moderation as being a problem. Ha, well, not any more of a problem than it is currently. The existing boards would continue as they stand and I'd continue as I'm currently doing there. Hats off to you sir. Heynowwaitasecondthere. I thought the new section would be the prim section. Anyways, sounds good, goferit.
|
|