|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:52:46 GMT -5
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. In drawing that equation and implying that the moderation will factor out aggression you compliment my argument about the suppression of it. Would you expect the moderated section to be free of bluntness? If you see absolutely no value in what someone is saying, it's not possible to do that without the risk of generating content that might be turned into a negative emotion by the reader. Refraining from expressing your perception of the lack of value in that instance when the vector is there is one extreme example of inauthenticity but it isn't the only one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:53:53 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 yes it has the potential to get very interesting and entertaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 14:57:10 GMT -5
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 yes it has the potential to get very interesting and entertaining. I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 25, 2013 14:59:49 GMT -5
yes it has the potential to get very interesting and entertaining. I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. It'll be unchanged from how it's running now. So yes. Edit: Additionally, I've got a "Cut thread here" facility that would allow me to stop a thread should it turn nasty and move the latter half into the unmoderated section.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 15:00:12 GMT -5
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 yes it has the potential to get very interesting and entertaining. Yeah, the first thing I'm going to do in the unmoderated section is a round of tea-bagging for everyone. I'm assuming that the R E T A R D style spam is not approved, but I do have a question with respect to Q's pseudo porn pics... Just an idle curiousity, a What Would ZD Do? (WWZDD)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:07:02 GMT -5
I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. It'll be unchanged from how it's running now. So yes. Ah, I see, that's why the 'new' section will be the ne'rdowells. If someone trips the wires in the Nice section will they just lose permission to post there but will still be able to post in the curmudgeonly area? I'm thinking Escape from New York. How will a convict in New York be able to appeal to get posting rights again (assuming Kurt Russel doesn't hangglide in for a rescue)?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:07:19 GMT -5
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. In drawing that equation and implying that the moderation will factor out aggression you compliment my argument about the suppression of it. Would you expect the moderated section to be free of bluntness? If you see absolutely no value in what someone is saying, it's not possible to do that without the risk of generating content that might be turned into a negative emotion by the reader. Refraining from expressing your perception of the lack of value in that instance when the vector is there is one extreme example of inauthenticity but it isn't the only one. I would expect that section to be much more free from mockery and condescension, and much less 'making things personal' (which is ironic really given that its more those that talk of 'the impersonal' that seem to me to 'make it personal'). Spiritual forums.com gets the balance right IMO and there is plenty of authentic expression there. I don't see managing a movement of aggression that arises to be necessarily more inauthentic than allowing a free flow of aggression. I think one of the problems with the forum currently is that the free flow of aggression often goes unchecked and is justified as 'clarity' or 'impersonal' or some thing like that. Having said that, I am happy to go on the other section too.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:07:52 GMT -5
yes it has the potential to get very interesting and entertaining. I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. Oh right. That would render it pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:08:49 GMT -5
I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. It'll be unchanged from how it's running now. So yes. Edit: Additionally, I've got a "Cut thread here" facility that would allow me to stop a thread should it turn nasty and move the latter half into the unmoderated section. Cool, a surgical strike. A line item veto.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 15:14:54 GMT -5
I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. Oh right. That would render it pointless. No, not really. Blunt isn't nasty, necessarily, most times not at all, to my way of thinkin'. (I think the majority of us 'know' where the line is.)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 15:16:43 GMT -5
I'm thinking the Nice section will be an exercise in getting as mean as you can get without tripping the wires. It'll be unchanged from how it's running now.So yes. Edit: Additionally, I've got a "Cut thread here" facility that would allow me to stop a thread should it turn nasty and move the latter half into the unmoderated section. Ahhhh .... ok, not what I got from Top's vision. Speculation on inauthenticity withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 15:19:36 GMT -5
In drawing that equation and implying that the moderation will factor out aggression you compliment my argument about the suppression of it. Would you expect the moderated section to be free of bluntness? If you see absolutely no value in what someone is saying, it's not possible to do that without the risk of generating content that might be turned into a negative emotion by the reader. Refraining from expressing your perception of the lack of value in that instance when the vector is there is one extreme example of inauthenticity but it isn't the only one. I would expect that section to be much more free from mockery and condescension, and much less 'making things personal' (which is ironic really given that its more those that talk of 'the impersonal' that seem to me to 'make it personal'). Spiritual forums.com gets the balance right IMO and there is plenty of authentic expression there. I don't see managing a movement of aggression that arises to be necessarily more inauthentic than allowing a free flow of aggression. I think one of the problems with the forum currently is that the free flow of aggression often goes unchecked and is justified as 'clarity' or 'impersonal' or some thing like that. Having said that, I am happy to go on the other section too. Aggression is only one component that's impacted by heavy moderation. Another example is confronting someone who might be suspected of being dishonest with themselves or others.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 25, 2013 15:20:14 GMT -5
It'll be unchanged from how it's running now. So yes. Ah, I see, that's why the 'new' section will be the ne'rdowells. If someone trips the wires in the Nice section will they just lose permission to post there but will still be able to post in the curmudgeonly area? I'm thinking Escape from New York. How will a convict in New York be able to appeal to get posting rights again (assuming Kurt Russel doesn't hangglide in for a rescue)? Hmm, interesting question. I don't currently have any "group access controls" and I'm not at all sure that even if Shawn could activate such functionality that it could be set up to work in a hassle free way ie access to A, B and C by default and then withdraw access to one particular forum..... Also that doesn't seem like much of an incentive to persuade anyone to keep it civil. So I think I'd like to keep the existing Warning, Temp Ban, Perm Ban process for the moderated sections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:22:09 GMT -5
ohh to be a fly on the wall in Shawn's still mind when he gets this bit of news ... ;-)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:25:17 GMT -5
Oh right. That would render it pointless. No, not really. Blunt isn't nasty, necessarily, most times not at all, to my way of thinkin'. (I think the majority of us 'know' where the line is.) 'Blunt' isn't a problem necessarily, but if people are just using it to play a game of seeing what they can get away with, then it would all be a bit...insincere.
|
|