|
Post by andrew on Jan 25, 2014 5:16:17 GMT -5
This poll is basically unanswerable then.
I think many would agree that the forum is a mess, and even aside from my opinions of the conflict of interest, I would say all the post moving creates a lack of fluidity and over complexity.
I think there should be the option for an NAT, so again, rather than move posts from there to another thread when there is an attack, just delete anything that is decided to be an attack. You could always leave a message on the thread saying 'message deleted because of perceived attack' and the person can always re-write the message without the attack. The tricky bit is deciding what constitutes an attack, but a couple of exceptions aside, I think you have been deciding that pretty well. That section of the forum seems to be doing okay.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 25, 2014 6:23:12 GMT -5
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? You would delete it because whoever posted it disregarded the rule. In the wider forum, disregarding the Terms of Service gets your post deleted. It wouldn't be any different in a NAT. The current way of moving the post waters down the whole concept of a NAT, which is to allow someone to post without having to deal with attack. Whether or not the attack is in the thread one started or in some other thread doesn't matter. Huh? I'm so confused. I don't even know where this comes into play or how the first part of that sentence relates to the second. In general, I agree with Silver that anyone's going to have some bias. It's inevitable. I think you try to be fair for the most part, but your frustration with Andrew and Figgy makes you quick on the trigger there. Maybe Tzu too. But, tell you the truth, I never know which section I'm in - so I probably don't have a clear picture on that subject.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 25, 2014 6:24:55 GMT -5
o.k. I admit it. the whole thread is just a way to torture Quin with a double-negative. It's working.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 25, 2014 6:25:19 GMT -5
This poll is basically unanswerable then. I think many would agree that the forum is a mess, and even aside from my opinions of the conflict of interest, I would say all the post moving creates a lack of fluidity and over complexity. I think there should be the option for an NAT, so again, rather than move posts from there to another thread when there is an attack, just delete anything that is decided to be an attack. You could always leave a message on the thread saying 'message deleted because of perceived attack' and the person can always re-write the message without the attack. The tricky bit is deciding what constitutes an attack, but a couple of exceptions aside, I think you have been deciding that pretty well. That section of the forum seems to be doing okay. I agree with all of that.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 25, 2014 6:44:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. It seems that what people really have on their minds in the unmoderated section is provocation, intimidation, and uncivil conflicts of opinion.. why else have such a section? do you fear moderating conflict because your group of aligned comrades rely on that form of influencing the awareness of others, as opposed civil discussion? did you create the unmoderated section to allow for a certain group to use certain aggressive tactics to advance the forum's sanctioned agenda? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 25, 2014 7:33:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. It seems that what people really have on their minds in the unmoderated section is provocation, intimidation, and uncivil conflicts of opinion.. why else have such a section? To challenge ingrained beliefs. To bring unconscious beliefs to the surface. Part of this journey is an exploration of our own mindscapes and looking at what's blocking the ability to see clearly. 99 percent of the time, that's hidden from out own view but it's sometimes obvious to others. It often gets messy because there's a package: the unconscious belief and the structure that supports and defends it (also unconscious). It doesn't feel nice to have that disrupted. And then there's also the possibility the 'challenger' is wrong. Yeah, it can get messy. I support having an area free of that challenge for those that don't want it. There are other, gentler ways to do the same thing. But for those that do, and know what they're getting into, it's a rare and valuable thing. My opinion only. See, right there. You're doing it. You're challenging Laughter's beliefs and you're doing it neither gently nor kindly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:19:11 GMT -5
OHMYGAWDMODERATORSAREMOVINGMYPOSTSINTODIFFERENTTHREADS!?!?!?!?!??!(Seriously, peeps, is this what this forum has come to?) ... Pleh-THOR-a!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:22:26 GMT -5
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.... Yeah, ... essentially this is customized moderation, and sure, as long as I'm here I'm willing to do it as long as the requested rules aren't in and of themselves some sort of potential abuse, like, say, "no nondual idiots who disagree with me can post here...".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:29:37 GMT -5
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. First things first 'leaf. If there are no interest in rules sourcing from the community, then why spend time concocting them? The poll is an economy of thought in that it includes two dynamics in an entanglement: 1) It is an advertisement of the type of service that I'm very willing to offer -- move content out of one section into another. The question of deleting content is a whole other discussion. If someone wants me to use that kind of violence then there would likely be quite a bit of per-instance litigation. The only harm to moving content is confusion on the part of those prone to it. 2) It's a fishing expedition to see if anyone's interested in rules. If noone votes here soon I'll start another poll that will crystallize the question.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:33:32 GMT -5
This poll is basically unanswerable then. I think many would agree that the forum is a mess, and even aside from my opinions of the conflict of interest, I would say all the post moving creates a lack of fluidity and over complexity. I think there should be the option for an NAT, so again, rather than move posts from there to another thread when there is an attack, just delete anything that is decided to be an attack. You could always leave a message on the thread saying 'message deleted because of perceived attack' and the person can always re-write the message without the attack. The tricky bit is deciding what constitutes an attack, but a couple of exceptions aside, I think you have been deciding that pretty well. That section of the forum seems to be doing okay. Noone has reported a post other than as a joke in quite a long time.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:40:25 GMT -5
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? You would delete it because whoever posted it disregarded the rule. In the wider forum, disregarding the Terms of Service gets your post deleted. It wouldn't be any different in a NAT. The current way of moving the post waters down the whole concept of a NAT, which is to allow someone to post without having to deal with attack. Whether or not the attack is in the thread one started or in some other thread doesn't matter. A policy of deletion creates a dispute with the one who generated the content that is a much different dispute than a post moved. Can you imagine if you spend 10 minutes writing two or three paragraphs, and then come back and it's simply vanished? Huh? I'm so confused. I don't even know where this comes into play or how the first part of that sentence relates to the second. In general, I agree with Silver that anyone's going to have some bias. It's inevitable. I think you try to be fair for the most part, but your frustration with Andrew and Figgy makes you quick on the trigger there. Maybe Tzu too. But, tell you the truth, I never know which section I'm in - so I probably don't have a clear picture on that subject. Two things in reply here: 1) You're right, there is probably too much nuance in the approach of this poll. Doesn't look as though there's any interest in voting. Now I think this tells me something, but in order to be certain, I'll start a simple poll "do you want rules applied to the GSD? yes or no ...". 2) I've moved far more of Reefs and Enigma's content since I started than figgy or Andy's. Just try to imagine moderating Tzu's content. Just think about it for a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 25, 2014 9:42:24 GMT -5
OHMYGAWDMODERATORSAREMOVINGMYPOSTSINTODIFFERENTTHREADS!?!?!?!?!??!(Seriously, peeps, is this what this forum has come to?) ... Pleh-THOR-a! Ga-ZEE-bo!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 25, 2014 9:43:15 GMT -5
o.k. I admit it. the whole thread is just a way to torture Quin with a double-negative. It's working. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 25, 2014 9:46:27 GMT -5
This poll is basically unanswerable then. I think many would agree that the forum is a mess, and even aside from my opinions of the conflict of interest, I would say all the post moving creates a lack of fluidity and over complexity. I think there should be the option for an NAT, so again, rather than move posts from there to another thread when there is an attack, just delete anything that is decided to be an attack. You could always leave a message on the thread saying 'message deleted because of perceived attack' and the person can always re-write the message without the attack. The tricky bit is deciding what constitutes an attack, but a couple of exceptions aside, I think you have been deciding that pretty well. That section of the forum seems to be doing okay. Noone has reported a post other than as a joke in quite a long time. I wasn't talking about reported posts, I was talking about the posts that you have decided to move i.e. the ones that aren't suitable for NAT's.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 25, 2014 9:50:46 GMT -5
You would delete it because whoever posted it disregarded the rule. In the wider forum, disregarding the Terms of Service gets your post deleted. It wouldn't be any different in a NAT. The current way of moving the post waters down the whole concept of a NAT, which is to allow someone to post without having to deal with attack. Whether or not the attack is in the thread one started or in some other thread doesn't matter. A policy of deletion creates a dispute with the one who generated the content that is a much different dispute than a post moved. Can you imagine if you spend 10 minutes writing two or three paragraphs, and then come back and it's simply vanished? Huh? I'm so confused. I don't even know where this comes into play or how the first part of that sentence relates to the second. In general, I agree with Silver that anyone's going to have some bias. It's inevitable. I think you try to be fair for the most part, but your frustration with Andrew and Figgy makes you quick on the trigger there. Maybe Tzu too. But, tell you the truth, I never know which section I'm in - so I probably don't have a clear picture on that subject. Two things in reply here: 1) You're right, there is probably too much nuance in the approach of this poll. Doesn't look as though there's any interest in voting. Now I think this tells me something, but in order to be certain, I'll start a simple poll "do you want rules applied to the GSD? yes or no ...". 2) I've moved far more of Reefs and Enigma's content since I started than figgy or Andy's. Just try to imagine moderating Tzu's content. Just think about it for a few minutes. If you are going to start a poll, the question is, should I move inappropriate posts and start a new thread, or should I delete them (and maybe leave a polite message)? There may also be a third or fourth option that I can't see. I've had posts deleted on other forums, it can be vaguely annoying when it happens, but then again, it was breaking the rules. If someone is concerned they can always copy and paste the message they write, and then write it again without offence. Apparently quite a few here copy and paste their messages anyway because of forum glitches.
|
|