Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:27:34 GMT -5
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. So if you're trying to play Nice in the Nice area, but then your nondual Turettes Syndrome takes over and you cross the line, you'll get warned, then banned (temp or otherwise). This means that a violator of the Nice rules in the Nice area, who gets banned, loses all rights to post at ST, including NY, whereas this would not happen in the New York thread. Interesting. Folks who sense that their own behavior is perhaps consistently mispercieved as mocking may want to consider not posting in the Nice area, lest they get banned for good.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 15:27:42 GMT -5
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. I honestly can't think of any time when I thought someone being just blunt was 'insincere' or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:33:07 GMT -5
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. Yes, 'confrontation' of that kind would be best in the other section, but again, spiritual forums is a good model (or was), in that there was a level of 'confrontation' but very little nastiness. Very few people join this forum and then stick around to post. I would say that many are put off by the antics here.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 15:33:54 GMT -5
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. I can't tell from the page whether or not you can add new-registrants to groups at time of registration or if they get put into a default group "General board member" www.proboards.com/admin-guide/groups-ranks/creating-groupsOnce you have the ability to add people to groups, you should be able to set permissions per group on what categories of boards they can see. www.proboards.com/forum-help-guide/forum-categoriesIf a specific dual-group at registration is not possible, the next thing to check would be if you could put someone into a group that took away their access to a specific category. But if all that's too much work or not possible, a simple moderated and un-moderated section would work fine, just to see what happens. I think it would relieve some tension to be able to say "take it to the unmoderated board" or "Can't handle the heat, go back to the moderated board, why'd you come over here anyway?"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 15:34:38 GMT -5
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. Yes, 'confrontation' of that kind would be best in the other section, but again, spiritual forums is a good model (or was), in that there was a level of 'confrontation' but very little nastiness. Very few people join this forum and then stick around to post. I would say that many are put off by the antics here. My theory is that they're just disappointed that there's not a subforum on "Woodland Faeries".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:34:50 GMT -5
'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. I honestly can't think of any time when I thought someone being just blunt was 'insincere' or something like that. 'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:37:37 GMT -5
Yes, 'confrontation' of that kind would be best in the other section, but again, spiritual forums is a good model (or was), in that there was a level of 'confrontation' but very little nastiness. Very few people join this forum and then stick around to post. I would say that many are put off by the antics here. My theory is that they're just disappointed that there's not a subforum on "Woodland Faeries".[/quote I reckon there are some that want that kind of thing and then don't post, but I reckon there are a whole lot of others that do have an interest in the kind of stuff 'meant' to be talked about, but don't join in.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 15:38:32 GMT -5
Greetings..
Swell.. now there will be another tool in the bag of those that want to judge others.. you belong in the 'kiddy section', no you belong in the 'thugs section'.. and off it goes, again..
Let the non-persons debate their non person-ness with whatever decorum they like at 'Realizing Happiness', E wants people to 'grow the ef up', let him shepherd the 'last man standing' group over there..
Things work okay here, E and crew have a place of their own, why should they bully this forum into 'their' place? if it's not working at RH, figure-out 'why'..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 15:40:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. Swell.. now there will be another tool in the bag of those that want to judge others.. you belong in the 'kiddy section', no you belong in the 'thugs section'.. and off it goes, again.. Let the non-persons debate their non person-ness with whatever decorum they like at 'Realizing Happiness', E wants people to 'grow the ef up', let him shepherd the 'last man standing' group over there.. Things work okay here, E and crew have a place of their own, why should they bully this forum into 'their' place? if it's not working at RH, figure-out 'why'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 15:41:26 GMT -5
I honestly can't think of any time when I thought someone being just blunt was 'insincere' or something like that. 'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling. Right, gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 15:41:47 GMT -5
I honestly can't think of any time when I thought someone being just blunt was 'insincere' or something like that. 'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling. yes. It would make the distinction between trolling and confrontation a lot clearer in the moderated section to have a section dedicated to confrontational interaction. Move it to the confrontational section or else be seen as a troll and get banned.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 25, 2013 15:43:15 GMT -5
I honestly can't think of any time when I thought someone being just blunt was 'insincere' or something like that. 'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling. I'm hoping that the existence of the un-moderated section would give me some extra ammunition like: "Why are you being provocative here? Please take it to the un-moderated section" and if they don't then I've got more justification for taking action. The "I was helping them see their attachment to their delusions" argument won't carry as much weight. Plus I can pull out any suspect posts, move them to the other section and then the person being apparently provoked can decide if they want to walk down that path or not. Actually this has come up so many times before....I think I'd like to give it a try this time. It can always sit unused if the idea is not popular. Or it'll take over completely and that's fine too. If no one has any compelling argument for NOT giving this a try, then can I suggest the new section be labelled: Un-moderated DiscussionChallenging of beliefs, perceptions and sacred cows attachments welcome....or suggest otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:44:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Swell.. now there will be another tool in the bag of those that want to judge others.. you belong in the 'kiddy section', no you belong in the 'thugs section'.. and off it goes, again.. Let the non-persons debate their non person-ness with whatever decorum they like at 'Realizing Happiness', E wants people to 'grow the ef up', let him shepherd the 'last man standing' group over there.. Things work okay here, E and crew have a place of their own, why should they bully this forum into 'their' place? if it's not working at RH, figure-out 'why'.. Be well.. Not a bad point. There could be a movement to be extra bullyish in the not-Nice area. But think of it this way, you could have an all out fight with the Borg in one area and have Open Honest discussion in the other. (As long as Honest includes staying within the guidelines.)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 15:45:39 GMT -5
'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling. I'm hoping that the existence of the un-moderated section would give me some extra ammunition like: "Why are you being provocative here? Please take it to the un-moderated section" and if they don't then I've got more justification for taking action. The "I was helping them see their attachment to their delusions" argument won't carry as much weight. Plus I can pull out any suspect posts, move them to the other section and then the person being apparently provoked can decide if they want to walk down that path or not. Actually this has come up so many times before....I think I'd like to give it a try this time. It can always sit unused if the idea is not popular. Or it'll take over completely and that's fine too. If no one has any compelling argument for NOT giving this a try, then can I suggest the new section be labelled: Un-moderated DiscussionChallenging of beliefs, perceptions and sacred cows welcome....or suggest otherwise. It's got my support. Worth seeing what happens.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:47:57 GMT -5
'Bluntness' isn't what I am talking about. I am saying that if people are just in the moderated section with the sole intention of pushing the line, then they are in that section for the wrong reason. It would really be tantamount to trolling. I'm hoping that the existence of the un-moderated section would give me some extra ammunition like: "Why are you being provocative here? Please take it to the un-moderated section" and if they don't then I've got more justification for taking action. The "I was helping them see their attachment to their delusions" argument won't carry as much weight. Plus I can pull out any suspect posts, move them to the other section and then the person being apparently provoked can decide if they want to walk down that path or not. Actually this has come up so many times before....I think I'd like to give it a try this time. It can always sit unused if the idea is not popular. Or it'll take over completely and that's fine too. If no one has any compelling argument for NOT giving this a try, then can I suggest the new section be labelled: Un-moderated DiscussionChallenging of beliefs, perceptions and sacred cows welcome....or suggest otherwise. Sounds good to me. Right, who wants a row? hehe
|
|