|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2013 20:11:14 GMT -5
So I've agreed to help ZD with the no-attack-thread concept -- please know that Peter hasn't volunteered for that work for now.
My vision for regulating these types of threads involves a parallel thread in the Unmoderated section where complaints might be aired and sorted out. As this is an experiment in providing moderation beyond what's expected on the forum as a whole, on a limited basis, I'd suggest that anyone requesting moderation in a no-attack thread refrain from using the "report abuse" link and instead post to the Unmoderated complaint thread (yet to be started), or open the issue by PM'ing me.
I thought it might be helpful to post a set of guidelines and a definition for what we mean, and what's generally expected in a no-attack thread -- I know that there was a brief discussion about this at the start of the first one, and I hope that we can follow-through on that here.
My take on an attack is that it is the individual that's under attack, not the individuals ideas, but my take isn't the important one. Please let me know what your thoughts on this are so that I can discern what is consensus and what is controversial so that I can strike some sort of balance over everyone's expectations.
What are the characteristics of an attack?
Should such threads be free of protracted argument? Expression of a disagreement, even if it's respectful, can sometimes result in a debate. As someone who enjoys a good debate I'm naturally inclined to look the other way, but I'm interested in determining if there might be a majority preference to guide debates away from these threads, possibly by diverting them off to a moderator-created branch-thread.
Please feel free to offer other questions as subjects of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 7, 2013 20:16:15 GMT -5
That's a great idea - one you've already sort of started with your other similar threads.
You'll get these locals in shape in no time, Barney.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 7, 2013 20:27:27 GMT -5
'open the issue by PM'ing me' sounds good. Much better than waving red flags.
Why ppl dont take their-issues off the board an pm each-other (to their hearts desire), beats me. Sharing telephone numbers are great also; an is having a chat over a Beer. Wife swapping should only be undertaken if the Men cant get it together.lol (ducks from the women posters)
Would a discussion on Fundamentalism be advantagious?
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 7, 2013 20:31:56 GMT -5
off now, will return to see how Barney shuffles his paperwork! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 7, 2013 20:35:24 GMT -5
Alright you got my attention sir So to be clear will all the threads be mod for no attack except the unmod thread? Or just the thread labeled no attack? Happy to see this happen Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2013 20:40:35 GMT -5
'open the issue by PM'ing me' sounds good. Yeah the good thing about the 'report abuse' button is that the person requesting moderation doesn't have to confront the person or people that they find abusive -- my offer to respond via PM is to provide a similar outlet in the context of the informal and experimental no-attack-threads. Would a discussion on Fundamentalism be advantagious? Well sure, as always, feel free to discuss anything! ... do you see fundamentalism as related to the idea of what constitutes an attack? How, if at all, do you see it fitting into content that should be moderated in no-attack threads?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2013 20:42:23 GMT -5
Alright you got my attention sir So to be clear will all the threads be mod for no attack except the unmod thread? Or just the thread labeled no attack? Happy to see this happen Nowhereman This discussion is specific to the no-attack threads ... we wouldn't want Barney to go off and shoot someone by accident tryin' ta' draw ...
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 7, 2013 20:51:42 GMT -5
Alright you got my attention sir So to be clear will all the threads be mod for no attack except the unmod thread? Or just the thread labeled no attack? Happy to see this happen Nowhereman This discussion is specific to the no-attack threads ... we wouldn't want Barney to go off and shoot someone by accident tryin' ta' draw ... lol well if my memory serves me Barney was allowed to carry only 1 bullet in his shirt pocket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 22:22:26 GMT -5
I recomend that anyone that starts a new thread should be able to designate it as a no attack thread in the title as Reef's did previously
Also, lively debate about the topic of the thread and whatever topics that emerge from the body of the thread should not be discouraged as long as its not taking an overtly hostile tone, however, anything personal should be moderated, and, in my opinion, attacking an idea or thought of another should not be allowed unless it is part of a genuine conversation, and not just saying something equivent to:
Well that idea is just stupid....or absurb, or ridiculous etc....
also, the little passing jabs that amount to that kind of commentary should not be allowed in the no attack thread also, as these kind of passing jabs are never meant to be a sharing of ideas, experiences, and conversations, but are rather a stab at the views of others in a way that precludes open dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Oct 8, 2013 2:41:14 GMT -5
So I've agreed to help ZD with the no-attack-thread concept -- please know that Peter hasn't volunteered for that work for now. I'd like to publicly welcome Laughter to the Moderating Team, and thank him for helping out especially because it's become more obvious recently that I don't have the time or energy to give to the board that it might benefit from. Please don't anyone get the opinion that I think "attacking" is good thing. It's just that I've had a significant amount of time trying to deal with it and - turning up to a food fight in the UK morning after a US all-nighter - it's impossible to see who threw the first bun. "That was a thinly veiled attack!", "It was no such thing, it wasn't even directed at so and so", "You just can't see clearly", "Giraffe", "Frog", and then there's blood and guts everywhere and the question of who actually started it comes down to the interpretation of some slightly nuanced remark that is in no way a banning offence. There's the Ban Everyone Involved option, but I never wanted to launch that nuke. Actually, in writing this I can see that it's the whole blame / punishment mode which causes (or rather, doesn't help) the problem and that a different approach might work better. Unfortunately the "Report Post" button isn't set up to support that. Well, maybe a fresh pair of eyes and some new-on-the-job enthusiasm will succeed where I've failed. P
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 8, 2013 5:41:46 GMT -5
So I've agreed to help ZD with the no-attack-thread concept -- please know that Peter hasn't volunteered for that work for now. I'd like to publicly welcome Laughter to the Moderating Team, and thank him for helping out especially because it's become more obvious recently that I don't have the time or energy to give to the board that it might benefit from. Please don't anyone get the opinion that I think "attacking" is good thing. It's just that I've had a significant amount of time trying to deal with it and - turning up to a food fight in the UK morning after a US all-nighter - it's impossible to see who threw the first bun. "That was a thinly veiled attack!", "It was no such thing, it wasn't even directed at so and so", "You just can't see clearly", "Giraffe", "Frog", and then there's blood and guts everywhere and the question of who actually started it comes down to the interpretation of some slightly nuanced remark that is in no way a banning offence. There's the Ban Everyone Involved option, but I never wanted to launch that nuke. Actually, in writing this I can see that it's the whole blame / punishment mode which causes (or rather, doesn't help) the problem and that a different approach might work better. Unfortunately the "Report Post" button isn't set up to support that. Well, maybe a fresh pair of eyes and some new-on-the-job enthusiasm will succeed where I've failed. P Well, I don't buy into the story that you've failed. There's an energy and openness to this forum that's successful. I don't know why people keep expecting you (or anyone else) to moderate personalities. What, someone's supposed to keep coming on here and saying, "Now, be polite."? It's up to the members of the forum to tell each other that if they feel something's lacking. The no-fight threads are a good idea, but they have to be moderated by the OP, not the moderator. Either we have a rigidly controlled platform or an open one. The first option is easier, but distasteful to me. The second means we have to take some responsibility and moderate ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2013 6:17:01 GMT -5
So I've agreed to help ZD with the no-attack-thread concept -- please know that Peter hasn't volunteered for that work for now. I'd like to publicly welcome Laughter to the Moderating Team, and thank him for helping out especially because it's become more obvious recently that I don't have the time or energy to give to the board that it might benefit from. Please don't anyone get the opinion that I think "attacking" is good thing. It's just that I've had a significant amount of time trying to deal with it and - turning up to a food fight in the UK morning after a US all-nighter - it's impossible to see who threw the first bun. "That was a thinly veiled attack!", "It was no such thing, it wasn't even directed at so and so", "You just can't see clearly", "Giraffe", "Frog", and then there's blood and guts everywhere and the question of who actually started it comes down to the interpretation of some slightly nuanced remark that is in no way a banning offence. There's the Ban Everyone Involved option, but I never wanted to launch that nuke. Actually, in writing this I can see that it's the whole blame / punishment mode which causes (or rather, doesn't help) the problem and that a different approach might work better. Unfortunately the "Report Post" button isn't set up to support that. Well, maybe a fresh pair of eyes and some new-on-the-job enthusiasm will succeed where I've failed. P Thanks for the welcome and the endorsement Pete. I gotta echo Quinn here in that there's no metric by which you've failed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2013 6:18:21 GMT -5
I'd like to publicly welcome Laughter to the Moderating Team, and thank him for helping out especially because it's become more obvious recently that I don't have the time or energy to give to the board that it might benefit from. Please don't anyone get the opinion that I think "attacking" is good thing. It's just that I've had a significant amount of time trying to deal with it and - turning up to a food fight in the UK morning after a US all-nighter - it's impossible to see who threw the first bun. "That was a thinly veiled attack!", "It was no such thing, it wasn't even directed at so and so", "You just can't see clearly", "Giraffe", "Frog", and then there's blood and guts everywhere and the question of who actually started it comes down to the interpretation of some slightly nuanced remark that is in no way a banning offence. There's the Ban Everyone Involved option, but I never wanted to launch that nuke. Actually, in writing this I can see that it's the whole blame / punishment mode which causes (or rather, doesn't help) the problem and that a different approach might work better. Unfortunately the "Report Post" button isn't set up to support that. Well, maybe a fresh pair of eyes and some new-on-the-job enthusiasm will succeed where I've failed. P Well, I don't buy into the story that you've failed. There's an energy and openness to this forum that's successful. I don't know why people keep expecting you (or anyone else) to moderate personalities. What, someone's supposed to keep coming on here and saying, "Now, be polite."? It's up to the members of the forum to tell each other that if they feel something's lacking. The no-fight threads are a good idea, but they have to be moderated by the OP, not the moderator. Either we have a rigidly controlled platform or an open one. The first option is easier, but distasteful to me. The second means we have to take some responsibility and moderate ourselves. Yes, I agree with you on the aversion to rigid control, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2013 6:55:28 GMT -5
I recomend that anyone that starts a new thread should be able to designate it as a no attack thread in the title as Reef's did previously Also, lively debate about the topic of the thread and whatever topics that emerge from the body of the thread should not be discouraged as long as its not taking an overtly hostile tone, however, anything personal should be moderated, and, in my opinion, attacking an idea or thought of another should not be allowed unless it is part of a genuine conversation, and not just saying something equivent to: Well that idea is just stupid....or absurb, or ridiculous etc.... Yes, of course, there are no controls on the content of thread titles so anyone can designate a new thread as they like. You raise an interesting point with this notion of attacking anothers' idea -- when is an attack on an idea a thinly veiled attack on the individual who expressed it? There is a pattern that emerges in these expressions: "that idea is stupid" "what you said is absurd" "that is a ridiculous thought" The pattern is that the expressions are both negative, and, in the abstract, unsupported. They are stark naked examples of negative opinions about someone else's thoughts. This pattern might emerge from our subjective reading of it, but how often is it actually encountered out in the open, clearly disentangled from some other bit of information that someone might agree with or find of some other value? Now on one hand, this may seem a simple matter of civility that might be dispatched with a common-sense guideline for the no-attack threads, something along the lines of "please be extra polite in no-attack threads" ... but the point of using words like absurd and ridiculous is to direct attention, sort of like snapping fingers in one's face. On one hand if we lose that then we lose something that seems to me to be part of the soul of this place, but on the other, a bit of extra polity would obviously have the effect of softening the conversation overall, and if the requirement is limited to specially marked threads, then is there really anything lost? So, does being impolite constitute an attack? also, the little passing jabs that amount to that kind of commentary should not be allowed in the no attack thread also, as these kind of passing jabs are never meant to be a sharing of ideas, experiences, and conversations, but are rather a stab at the views of others in a way that precludes open dialogue. Succinct and pointed can often sting, but who or what is it that feels the sting?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2013 9:03:37 GMT -5
But if the word poke bothers you in some way I am happy to stop using it. The word doesn't bother me. I just have difficulty getting into the mindset of seeing things that way. Similar to when people say they're being attacked by words. Admirable sentiment Si -- seriously. The thread I took this from is classic ST and not the kind you're likely to find in most places: an honest critical conversation about the conversation ... heh heh ... one of the old WOD's was "Conversationsation". I guess the only way to relate to feeling attacked by words is that if someone has some measure of identification with what the words are directed at, right? Perhaps we can view the no-attack threads as venues for folks to explore such identification with a minimum of stimulation along those lines ... but yet, on the other hand, clarity, as you've demonstrated there, illuminates. ==== I'm more than happy to support the no-attack threads on a purely subjective and ad-hoc basis. On the other hand, as stating that a thread is no-attack expresses an expectation, getting clear on what that expectation is up front would likely minimize the dashing of it. Here are some prospective components of what might be considered an attack ... I'll float the idea that some of these descriptors might be combined in the thread title along with "no-attack" in order to be a bit more specific in the expectation expressed. Disagreement -- a "no disagreement" thread would seem to me to be the most restrictive of expectations But does disagreement necessarily have to involve negativity? Disparagement -- this would seem less restrictive in that disagreement would be allowed, and while disagreement itself is inherently a negative, it would be required to be free of personalization and to be supported with an offer of an alternative view. Debate -- a "no debate" thread could involve disagreement but limit it in terms of a back-and forth. Another option would be to invite "polite debate" which would involve the subjective determination of when the line between debate and bickering had been crossed.
|
|