|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:15:53 GMT -5
And what I said was that if the intent is only to ban mockery, that it's hard to do without removing content other than mockery. Here you revise and extend your remarks: So you evidently do have a point beyond that, stated thusly: That's what this is all about, right there, is the direction of aggression towards that "particular group of people". That's cool. I got no beef with that. Nice to put some light on it though. I see this as somewhat out of the norm for you. There is no aggression here right now, and that can be seen in my unwillingness to have put a vote against 'sick and evil people'. Its not like that. I think the forum is in a pretty poor situation right now and I think a change might help. If not, it can always revert back. I don't think I brought the issue of 'authenticity' into it initially, but my experience is that authenticity isn't necessarily a given, either with or without moderation, so I have no concern about authenticity. I offer you points of gentle and respectful disagreement on the highlighted.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:20:52 GMT -5
The last polling threads where the vote mattered required senior members to sign their votes in order to count, rendering the anonymous polls uninformative. This is an idea that would likely meet a lot of resistance, so the first impulse on a poll would be no. It's something that would require discussion and sitting with before being able to give a considered vote.
But perhaps I should have made it a poll so that Reefs need to mock me fixated on a pattern of creating polls and less on the proposal of making a change to the forum structure.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 7:21:16 GMT -5
I see this as somewhat out of the norm for you. There is no aggression here right now, and that can be seen in my unwillingness to have put a vote against 'sick and evil people'. Its not like that. I think the forum is in a pretty poor situation right now and I think a change might help. If not, it can always revert back. I don't think I brought the issue of 'authenticity' into it initially, but my experience is that authenticity isn't necessarily a given, either with or without moderation, so I have no concern about authenticity. I offer you points of gentle and respectful disagreement on the highlighted. Sounds like we have slightly differing definitions of 'aggression'.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:22:27 GMT -5
Laughter, Just want to point out that the forum format change I've proposed doesn't ban mockery, it just moves it over to the side. Reefs complains about a lack of focus on content. This proposal is an experiment to see if the drama and content are separable. Yes, I see that. My dogma is that trying to excise mockery from the moderated section is likely to excise more than just mockery. Perhaps, but does the baby get thrown from the forum or just moved into another room along with the bath water?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:25:57 GMT -5
Yes, I see that. My dogma is that trying to excise mockery from the moderated section is likely to excise more than just mockery. Perhaps, but does the baby get thrown from the forum or just moved into another room along with the bath water? Seems like more of an un-Solomon like split to me!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:27:14 GMT -5
I offer you points of gentle and respectful disagreement on the highlighted. Sounds like we have slightly differing definitions of 'aggression'. Or perhaps, and I'm not trying to be offensive here, you're not being honest with yourself on all of your feelings in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 7:33:24 GMT -5
Sounds like we have slightly differing definitions of 'aggression'. Or perhaps, and I'm not trying to be offensive here, you're not being honest with yourself on all of your feelings in this matter. Could be, but I think I'm being straight. Maybe you see enacting change in a system that isn't being perceived to work well as requiring aggression. I would say that it requires a level of 'dynamism', but not necessarily 'aggression'. I am not feeling aggressive on this subject but I am prepared to state a case. I also think its possible that you are projecting aggression onto me right now i.e. could be your aggression.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:46:10 GMT -5
Or perhaps, and I'm not trying to be offensive here, you're not being honest with yourself on all of your feelings in this matter. Could be, but I think I'm being straight. Maybe you see enacting change in a system that isn't being perceived to work well as requiring aggression. I would say that it requires a level of 'dynamism', but not necessarily 'aggression'. I am not feeling aggressive on this subject but I am prepared to state a case. I also think its possible that you are projecting aggression onto me right now i.e. could be your aggression.That is possible. FWIW, I bear no ill wind toward you, topo' or anyone else in favor of the split. To reiterate, the basis for my claim of aggression on your part is this , particularly your declaration of an "issue" with a "particular group of people".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:47:21 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 the moderated section will be exactly the same as what we have now. That includes mocking, in all it's forms as long as it doesn't trip the moderation wires. The unmoderated area will be whatever happens as long as it is within the proboards guidelines. Peter are you enforcing that last part? That's like real bullying, and stalking and ad-blocking and such. I haven't heard anything from Peter about the moderated area excluding certain members from the start, for example Reefs and Enigma. In fact, neither of them have ever actually fully tripped the moderating wires, so they'll be fine in the moderated area, probably. This begs some questions. It seems like folks who want a moderated area because they think R&E et al are superbaddies are really wanting tighter moderation on mocking. Otherwise what we're getting is just a new loosely moderated area where there is no-holds-barred (within Proboards guidelines). I can see this area becoming a place for folks to speak their mind, complete with epithets, about those they percieve as treating them unfairly elsewhere. More like a venting zone. It's possible the superbaddies will be the object of such venting to a great degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:50:46 GMT -5
How is what Top is suggesting significantly different from the idea of using ignore buttons? Do we really have to change the entire forum structure just because Top refuses to grow up? Making use of the ignore buttons is much simpler and more effective. Top's approach will only create more chaos. It will result in over-regulation. So many questions that have to be considered first: How far can one go in the kids section? When does the adult stuff start? Is someone banned in the kids section still allowed to post in the adult section? There has to be a long list of dos and donts put into place in the kids section. Looks like a lot of work for one mod. As I understand it, from Peter, the only change here is a new area that is less moderated. A venting zone. Could be ugly. Actually I doubt it will be used much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:51:17 GMT -5
Hi max, Is this what nondual realizers do, address everyone as themselves? max Hi max, Sorry. My eyes are improving as a result of an amazing recent operation. Need the same thing on my brain:) amit Your brain is fine!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:54:03 GMT -5
How is what Top is suggesting significantly different from the idea of using ignore buttons? Do we really have to change the entire forum structure just because Top refuses to grow up? Making use of the ignore buttons is much simpler and more effective. Top's approach will only create more chaos. It will result in over-regulation. So many questions that have to be considered first: How far can one go in the kids section? When does the adult stuff start? Is someone banned in the kids section still allowed to post in the adult section? There has to be a long list of dos and donts put into place in the kids section. Looks like a lot of work for one mod. As I understand it, from Peter, the only change here is a new area that is less moderated. A venting zone. Could be ugly. Actually I doubt it will be used much. Hmmmm ... I don't think that this is what topo' and Peter have in mind to be honest with you, otherwise, why make the change? The first time Enireefs goes all third-person snarky on someone is where you will see the change.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:56:56 GMT -5
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 the moderated section will be exactly the same as what we have now. That includes mocking, in all it's forms as long as it doesn't trip the moderation wires. The unmoderated area will be whatever happens as long as it is within the proboards guidelines. Peter are you enforcing that last part? That's like real bullying, and stalking and ad-blocking and such. I haven't heard anything from Peter about the moderated area excluding certain members from the start, for example Reefs and Enigma. In fact, neither of them have ever actually fully tripped the moderating wires, so they'll be fine in the moderated area, probably. This begs some questions. It seems like folks who want a moderated area because they think R&E et al are superbaddies are really wanting tighter moderation on mocking. Otherwise what we're getting is just a new loosely moderated area where there is no-holds-barred (within Proboards guidelines). I can see this area becoming a place for folks to speak their mind, complete with epithets, about those they percieve as treating them unfairly elsewhere. More like a venting zone. It's possible the superbaddies will be the object of such venting to a great degree. I doubt the moderation will be exactly the same. With the ability to say "Take it to the parkinglot, boys" and have that actually mean something and be enforceable without having to ban anyone from the forum, it might get exercised.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 7:58:45 GMT -5
Could be, but I think I'm being straight. Maybe you see enacting change in a system that isn't being perceived to work well as requiring aggression. I would say that it requires a level of 'dynamism', but not necessarily 'aggression'. I am not feeling aggressive on this subject but I am prepared to state a case. I also think its possible that you are projecting aggression onto me right now i.e. could be your aggression.That is possible. FWIW, I bear no ill wind toward you, topo' or anyone else in favor of the split. To reiterate, the basis for my claim of aggression on your part is this , particularly your declaration of an "issue" with a "particular group of people". I do feel that the current rules have facilitated a particular issue which seems to me to be bugging the forum, but I am not experiencing any aggression towards the people involved though. At least I haven't today!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 8:03:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. So the moderated section will be exactly the same as what we have now. That includes mocking, in all it's forms as long as it doesn't trip the moderation wires. The unmoderated area will be whatever happens as long as it is within the proboards guidelines. Peter are you enforcing that last part? That's like real bullying, and stalking and ad-blocking and such. I haven't heard anything from Peter about the moderated area excluding certain members from the start, for example Reefs and Enigma. In fact, neither of them have ever actually fully tripped the moderating wires, so they'll be fine in the moderated area, probably. This begs some questions. It seems like folks who want a moderated area because they think R&E et al are superbaddies are really wanting tighter moderation on mocking. Otherwise what we're getting is just a new loosely moderated area where there is no-holds-barred (within Proboards guidelines). I can see this area becoming a place for folks to speak their mind, complete with epithets, about those they percieve as treating them unfairly elsewhere. More like a venting zone. It's possible the superbaddies will be the object of such venting to a great degree. I doubt the moderation will be exactly the same. With the ability to say " Take it to the parkinglot, boys" and have that actually mean something and be enforceable without having to ban anyone from the forum, it might get exercised. In that case, why not create a 'pit' where the two people in disagreement fight it out, no holds barred, no interventions.. the peanut gallery can post their observation in another thread.. let's see the disagreements explored without distractions and interventions.. Be well..
|
|