|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 6:02:31 GMT -5
I'm been conscious of it, but attack comes in many forms and some of those forms that do escape under the moderator's radar are much more insidious and malevolent than telling someone straight that they are talking nuts or that they are being an not a very nice person. In my family, extended family and friends, communication by and large is extremely open, honest and direct and that's partly because we are willing to tell someone when they are being an not a very nice person. I applaud you taking the suggestions of the profanity filter onboard there Andy. Hahaha. The filter got me. That should have read sh/t (nuts) and as.shole (not a very nice person)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 6:03:21 GMT -5
Right, what changed was the stated intention to moderate, which explains E&R's reports. I'm rather surprised at the surprise. I wasn't surprised at the reports, more so the particular ones that were reported. As an example, Enigma reported me for 'foul language' for saying to Silence 'I don't give a sh/t where you are at'. I had to laugh at ''foul language''. It still does make me chuckle. My guess is that the objection is that the profanity was directed personally as opposed to making a general point ... such as "wow! #### yeah! I love that stuff!" ... profanity need not always be entirely negative ... in fact, I find it the most effective when the positive and negative impacts of it form a tangled hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 6:06:06 GMT -5
I wasn't surprised at the reports, more so the particular ones that were reported. As an example, Enigma reported me for 'foul language' for saying to Silence 'I don't give a sh/t where you are at'. I had to laugh at ''foul language''. It still does make me chuckle. My guess is that the objection is that the profanity was directed personally as opposed to making a general point ... such as "wow! #### yeah! I love that stuff!" ... profanity need not always be entirely negative ... in fact, I find it the most effective when the positive and negative impacts of it form a tangled hierarchy. I really didn't see it as directed personally though, it was just 'I don't give a sh/t'. It wasn't 'you sh/thead'. Anyways it doesn't matter, it just made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 6:11:51 GMT -5
It seemed to me to be the same old same old. I didn't say it was better, just not worse. Andrew was more direct than usual, but Verbed, Silver and Tzu were doing the same thing they've always done. The only thing that was radically different was you and Enigma reporting every little infraction. Listen, I shake my head when people say, "You should be kinder - here, let me be nasty to you to show you that." I really don't get it. So if this is the way you want to highlight the absurdity of that, fine. I'm just saying be honest. It didn't get worse when the forum split. That spin just supports your portrayal of Top. Well, you forgot to take the abuse in the unmoderated section into account. Just look at the facts and don't follow your emotional story. It really got worse. Not much worse, yes, but still worse. And it wasn't just 'every little infraction'. I could have reported the mocking as well but then Peter would have had at least 30 posts to deal with. And I was actually only reporting Andrews posts since I have Silver and Hetero blocked and only sometimes see their posts when someone quotes them. The point, from my perspective, was to show that the anti-bullies are bullying as well and very consistently which is the actual source of nastiness here since they only point the finger at others and also are the only ones who actually do name calling. But they know how to manipulate with emotions so the impression can be very different. Peter finally seems to get that point. And Peter isn't that innocent as well. If you look into his replies you will see an awful lot of mocking. So, it really got worse. Take a look at the facts first and then report back. As you say above, there is bullying and mocking on both sides. So I don't know how you can decide that one side is the "source" of nastiness here. Do you deny that you push on people with masses of posts? That would be one definition of bullying. So here's another spin...calling others' bullying the 'source' of nastiness, but not yours. As I've said multiple times, I have no issue with the main point. I'm talking about your spin doctoring. And I don't have an emotional story in this. The only emotional element on my end is when I read the nasty posts, I recoil a bit. But that's not personal. It's anyone's nastiness.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 6:13:26 GMT -5
There was always a stated intention to moderate. Peter has always responded to reported posts. What then, was the point of splitting the board? To have an unmoderated section.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 6:25:45 GMT -5
What then, was the point of splitting the board? To have an unmoderated section. The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 6:38:39 GMT -5
Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. Yeah, its for that reason that I think the whole forum would be best just unmoderated these days (moderated in line with proboards rules). Then lets just get the hell on with it. I mean, I even got interrogated and somewhat mocked for suggesting to take that other conversation over here hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 6:44:35 GMT -5
To have an unmoderated section. The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. The vote results 7 yes 5 no There are 1260 members here. I didn't vote on this one because it was clear to me it was just another power grab by the 'few.' I watched the debates.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 6:45:24 GMT -5
Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. Yeah, its for that reason that I think the whole forum would be best just unmoderated these days (moderated in line with proboards rules). Then lets just get the hell on with it. Can you tell me what posts you consider to have been mocking and interrogating you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 6:48:40 GMT -5
The current state of affairs, which was the previous state of affairs of very light moderation, didn't require a split ... this conclusion of yours -- that the point of splitting the board was to add a section of even less inhibition -- seems to me to have not fulfilled the intention of those that were calling for additional moderation, and it was they who were the impetus of the split. What was your opinion on the split at the time? ... mine was that it was unnecessary, precisely because I was not in favor of additional moderation. At this point, the split is the fact. Interesting to see what will happen. Optimally, the users would self-organize to move disputes over to this section, but defying such a request is likely to be used as yet one more method to antagonize. The vote results 7 yes 5 no There are 1260 members here. I didn't vote on this one because it was clear to me it was just another power grab by a 'few.' Well, one option would be to ask Shawn to get rid of the new section. Do you want to go over the pros and cons of that?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 6:51:08 GMT -5
Yeah, its for that reason that I think the whole forum would be best just unmoderated these days (moderated in line with proboards rules). Then lets just get the hell on with it. I mean, I even got interrogated and somewhat mocked for suggesting to take that other conversation over here hehe. Can you tell me what posts you consider to have been mocking and interrogating you? Ugh, no, I'm not going back to have a look, because I don't care enough to even try and find the relevant pages. But they were along the lines of 'oh look he's about to have a tantrum' and 'why do you think you feel that way Andrew?' Hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 6:57:45 GMT -5
The vote results 7 yes 5 no There are 1260 members here. I didn't vote on this one because it was clear to me it was just another power grab by a 'few.' Well, one option would be to ask Shawn to get rid of the new section. Do you want to go over the pros and cons of that? I'm all for less moderation. Splitting the board was clearly an exercise in divide and conquer. Having said that, I agree with the post where you pointed at less moderation across the board. If we really look at the results in the unmoderated section, it has actually been pretty relaxed. The intensity has been in the moderated section.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 7:11:42 GMT -5
Well, one option would be to ask Shawn to get rid of the new section. Do you want to go over the pros and cons of that? I'm all for less moderation. Splitting the board was clearly an exercise in divide and conquer. Having said that, I agree with the post where you pointed at less moderation across the board. If we really look at the results in the unmoderated section, it has actually been pretty relaxed. The intensity has been in the moderated section. So ... you were not in favor of the split at the time it was under consideration?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 7:26:18 GMT -5
I'm all for less moderation. Splitting the board was clearly an exercise in divide and conquer. Having said that, I agree with the post where you pointed at less moderation across the board. If we really look at the results in the unmoderated section, it has actually been pretty relaxed. The intensity has been in the moderated section. So ... you were not in favor of the split at the time it was under consideration? I don't recall taking one side or the other during the debate. As I said, after following the debates it was clearly a power grab. When it was in place, I got a few things off my chest. Did it feel good? Hell yes. It's a place where one can have a little fun, too. The moderated section is where the 'few' push the user guidelines to the limit. I read enigma's very delayed response to Peter this morning about his reporting of posts. What a crock.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 12, 2013 7:34:26 GMT -5
Only to a degree did it get convoluted as a direct result of Top's input - there were too many cooks and they spoiled the gravy. You exaggerate stuff and stir in a whole bunch of sarcasm to sound tough. It's not helping anything. Yeah, I think I can agree here. But, the simple act of following a concept isn't what makes things end in 'disaster'. It's not accounting for politics and people who are against x, y or z will contribute to how things end up - like all the stupid poll threads so-and-so for mod, is about as idiotic as it gets. We need that shyte like we need a hole in our heads. Just childish fluff - the usual - mocking an idea, in the hopes of bringing it all down. Jerks. But, there's no need to think that it can't be remedied - but as I just said, some don't want a 'remedy' - they want things to be static because they're comfy with it, for whatever reason, and it gives them the opportunity to be smart-alecs. Weeeeeee. If you're wanting a meaningful conversation with him or anybody else, you have to factor in your own part to its success or - failure. And the irony of all that, is that you're moderating their conversation.She's trying to moderate me off the board too. . She doesn't like me because I perpetually defend E and R to her.
|
|