|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 17:35:56 GMT -5
Currently, the policy for moving posts from the GSD to UM is completely subjective and in the hands of the moderator. That's because there's never been any interest in expressing one.
This poll and thread are about that interest.
I'm committed to implementing the will of the community. I'm not even gonna' vote.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2014 17:39:20 GMT -5
If its not moved, would the offending message then be deleted? (That's fine with me if it is).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 17:43:49 GMT -5
If its not moved, would the offending message then be deleted? (That's fine with me if it is). The poll question is about the movement of posts. The poll question is not about the deletion of posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 17:46:05 GMT -5
I adapt to what's there laughter.
I wanted to have interesting discussions and share contemplations or the moments that are lived as they are lived. But the movement of threads and character creation here, means that kind of thread doesn't flow on ST. But that's ok, I've adapted and will use the forum for what it offers in this moment.
If it changes, I will adapt to that change, and use the forum for what the changes offer.
What is on offer here will influence what the forum is used for. I don't mind. Make it what you want it to be.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2014 17:47:34 GMT -5
If its not moved, would the offending message then be deleted? (That's fine with me if it is). The poll question is about the movement of posts. The poll question is not about the deletion of posts. Then I don't understand the question. What are you suggesting should happen to an attacking message if it is not moved? Just let it stay there?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 24, 2014 18:30:49 GMT -5
The poll question is about the movement of posts. The poll question is not about the deletion of posts. Then I don't understand the question. What are you suggesting should happen to an attacking message if it is not moved? Just let it stay there? I have the same question. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but I thought Peter said you guys don't have 'delete' power. If not, how the heck would you moderate without moving? Maybe PM the 'offender' and ask them to remove it? I don't know. This can get absurd pretty fast.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 24, 2014 20:53:29 GMT -5
Then I don't understand the question. What are you suggesting should happen to an attacking message if it is not moved? Just let it stay there? I have the same question. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but I thought Peter said you guys don't have 'delete' power. If not, how the heck would you moderate without moving? Maybe PM the 'offender' and ask them to remove it? I don't know. This can get absurd pretty fast. Laughter, I take no response (and your response to Andrew)to mean deleting posts is not an option. If that's true, than the poll question is really Should posts be moved out of moderated threads? or Should there be no moderated threads?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 20:59:55 GMT -5
Then I don't understand the question. What are you suggesting should happen to an attacking message if it is not moved? Just let it stay there? I have the same question. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but I thought Peter said you guys don't have 'delete' power. If not, how the heck would you moderate without moving? Maybe PM the 'offender' and ask them to remove it? I don't know. This can get absurd pretty fast. O.k. keep in mind that at this point there are no rules, right? First, we have to assume that there are some rules in place -- that's what the NAT concept was about. I never announced that I was re-implementing the old rules that Peter abandoned. Second, let's assume that there's a post that breaks a rule. At this point, hypothetically, we've got some content, and that content is subject to moderation. I can move it or I can delete it. Since there's this Unmoderated section, why would I ever delete anything unless it was essentially something illegal or hate speech or otherwise violated the Terms of Service? The question in the poll is about whether or not there should be a policy about what content outside the Unmoderated section is subject to moderation -- ie: the question could be stated, "do you want any rules or do you want to leave those rules up to me?".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 21:41:50 GMT -5
I have the same question. Not sure if I'm remembering right, but I thought Peter said you guys don't have 'delete' power. If not, how the heck would you moderate without moving? Maybe PM the 'offender' and ask them to remove it? I don't know. This can get absurd pretty fast. Laughter, I take no response (and your response to Andrew)to mean deleting posts is not an option. If that's true, than the poll question is really Should posts be moved out of moderated threads? or Should there be no moderated threads? The moderator can delete posts. My take on this is, if I have an Unmoderated section, why should I ever delete anything? You can take the poll question as "Should posts be moved out of the moderated threads?", but in my estimation my version removes the ambiguity of whether or not there should be rules for when they're moved. If we can come up with rules then we leave the NAT's behind, but I'm willing also to support thread-specific rules if there is any interest in that idea. If enough people say "no" on the poll then I'd go back to square one at the day of the appointment when I did nothing except offer the NAT's. If there's not enough interest in the poll then I'll just keep on keepin' on, and I have heard the opinions that the hand should be lighter, and I've taken that on board, although with me you're likely to find that the style will change over time to fit the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 21:44:08 GMT -5
o.k. I admit it. the whole thread is just a way to torture Quin with a double-negative.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 24, 2014 21:55:42 GMT -5
Greetings..
I prefer rules of civility enforced without special exception, including the rule that if someone criticizes another, they are bound to the same expectations they have of the other..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2014 23:32:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. I prefer rules of civility enforced without special exception, including the rule that if someone criticizes another, they are bound to the same expectations they have of the other.. Be well.. Rules of civility sound like a good idea, but the peril is a suppression of what people really have on their minds. To state the obvious, the forum split could allow for the best of both worlds: rules could be enforced on the GSD side and content that violated them moved from there to here. The trick, the nuance -- and it's something that my guess is that noone will ever be able to get just right -- is how to structure the rules such that they don't either kill the soul of the discussion before it gets started on one hand, or allow it to spin into absurdity by way of a lack of control on the other. Eventually, the civility has to emerge from the equanimity of the community itself, as there is no legislating kindness and respect.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 25, 2014 0:52:48 GMT -5
OHMYGAWDMODERATORSAREMOVINGMYPOSTSINTODIFFERENTTHREADS!?!?!?!?!??!
(Seriously, peeps, is this what this forum has come to?)
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jan 25, 2014 1:43:55 GMT -5
Laughter, I take no response (and your response to Andrew)to mean deleting posts is not an option. If that's true, than the poll question is really Should posts be moved out of moderated threads? or Should there be no moderated threads? The moderator can delete posts. My take on this is, if I have an Unmoderated section, why should I ever delete anything? You can take the poll question as "Should posts be moved out of the moderated threads?", but in my estimation my version removes the ambiguity of whether or not there should be rules for when they're moved. If we can come up with rules then we leave the NAT's behind, but I'm willing also to support thread-specific rules if there is any interest in that idea. If enough people say "no" on the poll then I'd go back to square one at the day of the appointment when I did nothing except offer the NAT's. If there's not enough interest in the poll then I'll just keep on keepin' on, and I have heard the opinions that the hand should be lighter, and I've taken that on board, although with me you're likely to find that the style will change over time to fit the circumstances. Have you considered allowing the OP set the rules for their particular thread, to say whom is banned from posting in it. That would become unwieldy in short order, but Might be fun to watch it play out for a bit....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 3:27:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. I prefer rules of civility enforced without special exception, including the rule that if someone criticizes another, they are bound to the same expectations they have of the other.. Be well.. Rules of civility sound like a good idea, but the peril is a suppression of what people really have on their minds. To state the obvious, the forum split could allow for the best of both worlds: rules could be enforced on the GSD side and content that violated them moved from there to here. The trick, the nuance -- and it's something that my guess is that noone will ever be able to get just right -- is how to structure the rules such that they don't either kill the soul of the discussion before it gets started on one hand, or allow it to spin into absurdity by way of a lack of control on the other. Eventually, the civility has to emerge from the equanimity of the community itself, as there is no legislating kindness and respect. Rules of civility are vague and would simply leave it up to your personal interpretation, and that has been proven not to work time and again on internet forums. Rules are something that a moderator should be able to enforce without personal interpretation. I suggest two simple rules: No mind reading and no name calling. Mind-reading is telling another person that they think, feel or mean 'this'. It is not difficult to say "in my interpretation..." or "in my opinion..." or "from my perspective/view...". Moreover, that approach encourages self-honesty. The second rule "no name calling" seems self-explanatory, but here may have to include the use of pictures connected to name calling. The problem with your poll here laffy, as Quinn pointed out, is that it doesn't set out the rules of moderation... without that being stated, then the moderated choice is ambiguous.
|
|