BadenOctober 14, 2017 at 11:039675 views286 comments
In response to recent criticism concerning moderation, have your say.
Comments (286)
Pierre-NormandOctober 14, 2017 at 11:10#1147610 likes
I think it may occasionally be a tad too strict, even though, to my knowledge, I haven't myself been moderated before. Maybe there ought to be a thread where "deleted" posts are relegated, unless they are grossly and intentionally offensive (or constitute spam)?
In response to recent criticism concerning moderation, have your say.
I am not sure my two cents fits in one of the three options but I miss the productive kind of moderation that administrators showed in thread, rather than getting into the fray of personas. Examples being Postmodern Beatnik and Incision. It isn't so much about what they were moderating but the tone and tenor in which they approached moderation was respectful.
~shrugs~
szardosszemagadOctober 14, 2017 at 15:22#1148440 likes
The restrictions are not too strict. But the level of consciousness is way down. Participation is up, though. Which means fewer and fewer smart people join. But perhaps critical mass is still to be reached. My personal interest was never tickled by this site. But I keep posting anyway... there is no harm in trying... but there is harm in trolling: controlling, patrolling and get rolling.
@Postmodern Beatnik helped us out for a while and was great. I didn't get to know Incision that well. I'll take your word for it though.
unenlightenedOctober 14, 2017 at 17:38#1148840 likes
By and large, it is unsurprising that the people who post on the site on average like the way it is run. It's a bit like asking meat eaters if they like meat. 'More meat or less meat, or just the right amount?'
A more interesting question would be, 'what are you trying to do on the site?'
I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding. Accordingly, my moderation priorities are directed towards filtering sense from nonsense, and kindness from unkindness, more so than spelling from mis-spelling, philosophy from non-philosophy, educated from ignorant.
If one was setting out to produce an archive of interesting dialogues, say, one's moderating priorities might be different. And that initial aim is where differences between too strict and not strict enough start to bite: strict enough for what purpose and in what direction?
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 14, 2017 at 19:33#1149060 likes
And that initial aim is where differences between too strict and not strict enough start to bite: strict enough for what purpose and in what direction?
Sounds like you have been hanging out with a friend of mine. 8-)
Michael OssipoffOctober 14, 2017 at 19:37#1149080 likes
I want to emphasize that the moderation at this forum-website is the best that I've encountered anywhere.
I've been to a lot of forum-websites, most of which have moderation. At all the moderated forums I've been to, other than this one, there are moderators who use their authority to win arguments that they start... using their authority in violation of the forum's stated rules and policies. When that happens, the administrators at those websites always support the moderator. Needless to say, I didn't stay at those forums.
In an extreme instance, my life was threatened by a "moderator" at a spiritual forum.
I was once at a forum that didn't have any moderation, and the behavior was abominable. Partly because of no moderation, but of course partly because of the people there.
I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding. Accordingly, my moderation priorities are directed towards filtering sense from nonsense, and kindness from unkindness, more so than spelling from mis-spelling, philosophy from non-philosophy, educated from ignorant.
Okay, so in practice, what would you actually do differently than now? Don't get me wrong these are all nice words and all, but it's at a very general level. What are your actual proposals?
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 14, 2017 at 19:44#1149110 likes
If you have watched unenlightened for any amount of time you would know HE is the proposal. Though he would never in a million years agree with me or dare admit it to himself.
If you have watched unenlightened for any amount of time you would know HE is the proposal. Though he would never in a million years agree with me or dare admit it to himself.
>:O - well I actually do know that, that's precisely why I've asked him the question >:) .
I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding.
How's that going for you?
TheWillowOfDarknessOctober 14, 2017 at 23:13#1149600 likes
I'm not sure what to say. In some instances, I think it has been too strict, in others, not strict enough (or at least things were allowed to spiral out of hand).
So I'll think I'll just say "strict" or "too strict" is too reductive to give a proper answer to.
It is not the moderation that is the problem. It is the moderators code of conduct. In a great site like this one where you attract a lot of people with a lot of ideas and different ways of expressing those ideas, I would expect moderators to conduct themselves with a degree of decorum. I would expect that the way they interact with members is respectful. In the recent case of the deletion of my post it was neither of these things.
To begin with, when you delete someones work, you are erasing their effort and thought. If their submission attempt was genuine you can expect pushback- there is a seed of an idea or question in there and perhaps they didn't get it out. When you conduct such a deletion without even informing the poster that you have done it or the reasons why you have done it that is arrogant,volunteer or not.
It takes a minute or two to send a message saying something along the lines of, I couldn't quite follow the thread, people may find it confusing, please tidy up the idea and repost. Happy hunting! That would be constructive and give direction. To say the volunteers don't have time is a mistruth. They had time to read the OP and to delete it and to comment on other OPs as participants.
Instead of receiving such a message, I had to take it to the common gallery where you had Michael come in declaring it bizarre armchair science that was making wild speculative claims, demanding I be an expert in the field, then supported by Sapientia demanding I have a PhD to post anything and that my knowledge on the subject was not even adequate - who then followed me into another OP and continued the attack.
And yet, when I touched it up only a small bit and reposted it turned out that what I had said was in line with what standard cosmology agrees upon. I then went on to have a deep and meaningful discussion on the issue, that I challenge the moderators to read.
Then, the next day, when someone posts a thread singling out another member by name and attacking him, rather than telling that person to beat it or at least to tone it down, the moderators agree with him, grumble about the discussion they had with me - actually redirect him to that discussion in hope of winning an ally, then within about 2 minutes of that discussion run off and create this poll.
I feel this is very poor conduct. Which is a pity for such a great site.
...supported by Sapientia demanding I have a PhD to post anything and that my knowledge on the subject was not even adequate - who then followed me into another OP and continued the attack.
And that's your impartial assessment of how the situation unfolded, is it? Quite preposterous.
Accordingly, my moderation priorities are directed towards filtering sense from nonsense, and kindness from unkindness, more so than spelling from mis-spelling, philosophy from non-philosophy, educated from ignorant.
I think the site is doing well to find this balance you mention above and no doubt sometimes mistakes are made in ascertaining the correct application of this filter, but I believe each of you are willing to listen and that is the first and most important aspect to moderation and shows a sense of being humble that I respect. This thread is an example of that.
In saying that, each of you have a level of expertise that differentiate and I think that it is important to close those existing gaps by pulling more focus on this expertise. The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.
Reply to MikeL It is not poor conduct. If you think you are a wonderful musician but you sound like a damaged trumpet, having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need.
With regards to the suggestion that we ought to send a message [i]before[/I] deletion, I raised it in the moderator forum, and, after consideration of the pros and cons, we took a vote and unanimously voted against it [i]as a general rule of thumb[/I].
The main problems were that it would be less responsive - are we supposed to wait and see? - and pose a risk of causing a greater problem further down the line, due to inaction - the problem can multiply in correspondence with the number of respondents if they're all at risk of having their replies deleted along with the discussion as a whole.
With regards to sending a message [i]after[/I] deletion, most of us - myself included - were in agreement that it's not always necessary or warranted, but it's preferable, and is something we ought to do in most cases, and actually do do in many cases. Only one member of staff disagreed, with the reason being that members have recourse to the feedback forum, or can contact us directly, for any such queries or complaints.
The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.
This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.
Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.
If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 15, 2017 at 00:38#1149920 likes
And that's your impartial assessment of how the situation unfolded, is it? Quite preposterous.
The question you pose is delivered in a passive aggressive way, isn't it?
The "Quite preposterous" is not something that I would expect to read from a member who is a moderator. A moderator could rise above that kind of 'noise' or as I have said before stop putting out "tainted meat".
The question you pose is delivered in a passive aggressive way, isn't it?
It's a criticism made in the form of a rhetorical question. Does that make it passive-aggressive? I could have been more direct by simply stating my criticism, as I did subsequently. Does that make it aggressive-aggressive? The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance.
The "Quite preposterous" is not something that I would expect to read from a member who is a moderator. A moderator could rise above that kind of 'noise' or as I have said before stop putting out "tainted meat".
Why would I refrain - or feel that I ought to refrain - from honestly expressing myself in such an inoffensive way? I'll rise above your expectation that I conform with your personal standard where it conflicts with my own. Your standard seems to largely consist in favouritism, and I've clearly fallen out of your favour as of late. I'm sorry that I'm not as saintly as unenlightened or Apathy Kills, but at least I'm true to myself.
VagabondSpectreOctober 15, 2017 at 01:00#1149990 likes
I think it's a bit on the lenient side, which is probably for the best. Perhaps there have been cases of over-censorship, I'm not aware of any.
Thank you very much to all the moderators who take the time to keep this place as spam and troll free as it is!
Pierre-NormandOctober 15, 2017 at 02:03#1150110 likes
By and large, it is unsurprising that the people who post on the site on average like the way it is run. It's a bit like asking meat eaters if they like meat. 'More meat or less meat, or just the right amount?'
A more interesting question would be, 'what are you trying to do on the site?'
This is indeed an apt analogy. Another question that it suggests would be: "Which fellow participant should we eat next?"
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 15, 2017 at 02:15#1150130 likes
Why would I refrain - or feel that I ought to refrain - from honestly expressing myself in such an inoffensive way? I'll rise above your expectation that I conform with your personal standard where it conflicts with my own. Your standard seems to largely consist in favouritism, and I've clearly fallen out of your favour as of late. I'm sorry that I'm not as saintly as unenlightened or Apathy Kills, but at least I'm true to myself.
Sapientia, rest easy that I have no "expectations" of you. The title of the thread is Moderation Standards, meaning it is about how others view the degree of moderation, not one moderator specifically.
I didn't agree with @SophistiCat and then "run off" and make a poll, but, of course, I didn't tell him to "beat" it either. He's entitled to complain and you're entitled to disagree. Other mods are also free to agree or disagree with either side. It's disappointing that you feel unfairly treated but there is no evidence you were in my view.
The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.
Yeah, that's basically my concern. @Bitter Crank made light of the way I had put it elsewhere, but I don't think that my stance is ridiculous. If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem.
Sapientia, rest easy that I have no "expectations" of you. The title of the thread is Moderation Standards, meaning it is about how others view the degree of moderation, not one moderator specifically.
Well, you do by implication, as I am of course a moderator. Unless you've retracted your previous comment. You chose to single me out and make an example of me. All of which I have no problem with. I can handle criticism, and the whole purpose of this discussion is to give feedback about moderation.
This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.
Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.
If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat.
This is just golden. :D I quite literally could not stop laughing. I love you, man.
If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem
Did you give them a reason to stay with the quality of your posts, or is it so much easier to look for a scapegoat and avoid looking at your own shortcomings?
edit: I have been a member less than 3 weeks. What about you and your Friends?
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2017 at 10:16#1151260 likes
Okay, so in practice, what would you actually do differently than now? Don't get me wrong these are all nice words and all, but it's at a very general level. What are your actual proposals?
My moderating practice has been on display for long enough. I'm really more interested in what other people think they are doing.
The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.
?MikeL It is not poor conduct. If you think you are a wonderful musician but you sound like a damaged trumpet, having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need.
I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control.
I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control.
I would prefer a very good diagnosis, and not mere prejudice.
The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance.
Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.
Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.
I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2017 at 10:19#1151290 likes
As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.
Amen, brother. Sometimes even we saints find ourselves in a situation where frankness is incompatible with moderation. Bite tongue, deep breath, count to ten, or possibly more.
My moderating practice has been on display for long enough. I'm really more interested in what other people think they are doing.
Well I'm actually not very sure what your moderating practice is. To say it's been on display for long enough is an obfuscation because I clearly am not aware which moderating decisions were yours and which weren't yours, but rather belonged to what other moderators wanted to see.
Any oversight is too much for me. I'm here because a part of me demands it of me, I don't get to keep everything to myself and remain in peace unfortunately. I'm compelled.
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2017 at 10:42#1151360 likes
I would prefer a very good diagnosis, and not mere prejudice.
My diagnosis is that you are spouting nonsense. One cannot argue with nonsense or present evidence against it. I am totally sympathetic to your desire for engagement, but I am not going to indulge you. But my prejudice is not 'mere'; it is considered, authoritative, and no doubt painful to receive.
Why don't you come out of your safe anonymity as a moderator and criticize my empirical objections with your authoritative arguments?
I will concede to you that you do not make a single chance of convincing me if you stick to the same strategy of simply exposing the accepted theory of light.
But I am certainly willing to take arguments seriously which can show that the pictures I take and the interpretations I give are undefendable. Even for me, stubbornness can only get you so far.
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2017 at 10:53#1151430 likes
Reply to Agustino I was the most active admin for a few years on the old site, and have been fairly free with my opinions on this one. I'm happy for you to remain unsure to whatever extent you are; I'm not going to make this about me. Speak for yourself.
.
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2017 at 10:56#1151440 likes
I'm not going to make this about me. Speak for yourself[.
Well if that was your intention it would have been very easy not to make this about yourself simply by answering the original question. You didn't, so this kept (and still keeps) being about you.
My feelings are of two kinds, the sensory, bodily, and the linguistic. I feel pretty good physically, think I might do some exercising soon, haven't decided if I want to be sore tomorrow or not yet though. The linguistic is extremely difficult to pin down, as it is like a flowing river of turbulence depending on the stream of consciousness, and how things are being framed.
I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control.
My first ever essay in politics a long time ago was a D- covered in red ink aggressively scribbled by my lecturer. I got A's and B's ever since. If you think it is emotionally distressing for someone to be told that their post lacks quality then you have clearly led a sheltered virtual life. There perhaps needs to be strategies enforced to ensure moderation processes without loopholes, such as sending a PM each time a post is deleted to avoid any follow-up posts questioning why, or in the case of the Phil. Sci a discussion amongst yourselves whether the content is worth it and coming to a majority agreement, but in the end it is your obligation and expertise to remind those unable to articulate themselves that they should work a little harder. Sometimes a slap across the face does the trick.
Not to be inflammatory, but the relationship between posters and moderation isn't one that is analogous to teachers and students. That's a fairly obnoxious framing. We aren't attending moderation university, aspiring to moderation status, and none of them have a PHD in moderation.
Reply to Wosret There are standards or guidelines that need to be followed, as both a poster and a moderator. It is what keeps people like you from constantly posting anime.
Reply to Michael Alright, maybe you're cool for admitting such a catastrophic truth, but it is surely awkward that you have made a connection with Hachem.
My first ever essay in politics a long time ago was a D- covered in red ink aggressively scribbled by my lecturer. I got A's and B's ever since.
My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative.
The old site had automated notifications that identified the mod, the action, and a generic reason. It would be a real pain to have to do that by hand every time one deleted an inappropriate comment on the off chance that someone wants to argue the case. One of many benefits of Paul's software.
The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance. — Sapientia
Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.
Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.
I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.
I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.
What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.
I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.
Amen, brother. Sometimes even we saints find ourselves in a situation where frankness is incompatible with moderation. Bite tongue, deep breath, count to ten, or possibly more.
Fine, next time I will count to ten [I]and then[/I] be provocative, impolite, and unnecessary.
But, in all seriousness, I'm listening and taking on board. (Otherwise what hope will I have of reaching sainthood?).
I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.
What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.
I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.
You're doing it wrong. Just pick a few replies at random, then tell them that you're listening to what they have to say and promise to take it on board.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 15, 2017 at 17:47#1152600 likes
To date, 16% say too strict and 16% say not strict enough. If these numbers cancel each other out that means moderation is 100% just about right.
Not so. People who think it is too strict tend to get banned, and people who think it is too lax tend to get bored. Natural selection ensures that most people are happy whatever the regime. In the old place we had an unmoderated section, where people who were happiest with no moderation could be happy. I'm thinking of setting up a special forum where everyone is banned, for the really exclusive among us.
My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative.
I put "too strict" but I would have put "inconsistent" if that were an option. Emptyheady was banned on bogus charges. TGW was banned on far too trivial charges. I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted, and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm. I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
I put "too strict" but I would have put "inconsistent" if that were an option. Emptyheady was banned on bogus charges. TGW was banned on far too trivial charges. I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted, and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm. I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
This I agree with. The Mods most certainly have biases and act based upon them. It's inevitable.
I'm not around TPF much, but based upon my limited experience here I'd say the moderators have done an outstanding job overall.
I specifically haven't noticed (pace Thorongil) the biases of those in charge of this forum having much of an impact on their moderating decisions, whether it be deleting posts and/or banning members. Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own.
On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent.
But again, Thorongil frequents this place much more than I do, and I respect his judgement, so I'll assume I've missed some relevant happenings on this front. I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable.
I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable.
This time I think he was banned because he changed his writing style--neglecting capitals at the beginning of sentences and so on--and point blank refused to change it back. It wouldn't have been fair to make an exception just because he was an exceptionally good contributor.
Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own.
Ironically, Thanatos was banned after a complaint about him by a member who afterwards left in protest at our moderation. Go figure. TGW was banned for refusing moderation (see above). He is a loss, but the fact that accepting to abide by the site guidelines is a prerequisite for being a member here should be a no-brainer. Also, some of our most vociferous complainants are among our least-moderated members. There may be legitimate grievances, of course, but sometimes there is a lack of nuance in complaints that makes them difficult to address.
I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.
What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.
I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.
I was hoping to quietly ignore that one. In all seriousness though, it's a fair and honest opinion. I don't agree as I appreciated the option of feedback when I was a member at old PF even though I understand that feedback discussions can often be counter-productive.
Ah I didn't realize that about TGW. Totally understandable that he got banned if he refused to follow simple forum guidelines. Strange that he would be so obstinate concerning such a seemingly trivial matter.
Anyhow more respect earned for your integrity in not making exceptions to the rules, even for high quality contributors like TGW. I've become a stickler in my old(er) age when it comes to the importance of promulgating rules and expectations and then abiding by them impartially.
Thanatos Sand was insufferable, and that's one of the instances where the mods were entirely inconsistent and biased. If anyone with right-wing views was like Thanatos, he wouldn't have lasted even 2 days. And yet Thanatos was going for weeks, strawmanning, interrupting discussions, insulting, jettisoning threads etc. - nothing was done about him. I alone reported his behaviour to different mods several times.
I banned him just a couple of days after being alerted to his behaviour and giving him a warning, so I don't think that's a fair assessment.
I've alerted some of the mods many times before. And I'm sure many others flagged his posts... I don't remember if I ever contacted you personally about him.
I'll admit it, I developed a soft spot for Sand after initially loathing the guy. I think we developed a camaraderie of sorts in the 'Post Truth' thread that clearly biased the way I perceived him.
Along with his many flaws, I think he had a couple very good character traits that I found admirable and rare.
I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted...
Speaking for myself, I rarely delete sarcasm. As well as that, posters themselves may delete their own posts. So, you need to give a more specific example/examples.
I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
What's "offensive dreck" does depend on perspective to a degree, I agree.
I think you did. I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes. As I said, I banned him within a few days of being alerted to his behaviour. And not everyone (as you can see from Erik's post) would even agree that he should be banned. And his political views were irrelevant. What got him banned was the complaints plus the fact that he didn't heed the warning he was given.
I'll admit it, I developed a soft spot for Sand after initially loathing the guy. I think we developed a camaraderie of sorts in the 'Post Truth' thread that clearly biased the way I perceived him.
Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him.
I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes.
No, I didn't want you to ban him, I wanted you to do what was necessary to get him to behave like a civilized human being, and for many weeks I noticed that nothing was changing in his behaviour.
I've checked and I can't find any message from you about him actually. Also, I've just told you I warned him. He was also moderated in other ways. Failing to heed the warnings, he was banned. But I don't know what you want from us. Now we were too strict on him for banning him? How do you suggest we force people to be civilized without the possibility of a ban?
No, obviously if he didn't heed the warnings you had no other choice. My point was that I think it was inconsistent because if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner.
For example, this was one of the last messages I sent before he got banned:
Agustino:You're the only Moderator online, would it be possible to ask John Harris to respect the topic of my thread (The Guidelines one) as I set it out and clarified it more than 6 times for him? Please ask him to start his own thread if he wants to discuss something else. At the moment he's derailing the thread purposefully. Thank you.
And guess what? His posts were still there after that :s
if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner.
So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned and you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint appears to be? Let me repeat, there were a couple of complaints, then he got a warning and was banned all within a few days. To accuse us of being biased in his favour is unsupportable.
It's possible the moderator was online but not actually at his computer at the time or that he disagreed with you. That we don't always do things exactly as you want does not make us biased against you, and certainly not biased against you on the basis that you are a right-winger. I would appreciate it if you and others would realize that.
So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned but you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint is?
I complained about the leniency that was shown to him, and that it shows bias because his views were in agreement with the moderators, who wouldn't have treated someone with opposing views in the same way. Really, this wouldn't be such a problem if the moderator team wasn't heavily leaning towards the left and atheism by default.
Once upon a time, I was warned for simply posting a comment like "naval gazing" in an OP, which caused the poster to remove the thread. There was a big firestorm over that. And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted?
I complained about the leniency that was shown to him
You didn't want him banned yet we banned him. But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning. OK, let's leave it at that. Your complaint is duly noted.
And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted?
Just to note, I can't answer to this specific issue because I wasn't the moderator involved.
Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him.
Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic. IMO this isn't always an easy thing to do, and those hard feelings can linger on and make us extremely uncharitable towards these perceived personal adversaries after some initial hostility has commenced. I'll include myself in this petty and vindictive group.
I also noticed a related generosity of soul in Sand on occasion in his dealings with others, along with a certain sincerity that came out every so often. I may not be articulating this well, and as mentioned he did have many flaws (e.g. his annoying tendency to cut people off from further debate and to engage in petty insults), but I do believe he was a decent guy whose intent was more playful than malicious. Just my impression, of course, and I may have been entirely wrong about him.
He was actually quite reasonable in our interaction by PM, but he was given a warning and repeated the same behaviour again, so that, added to the litany of complaints, made the banning warranted in my view.
Once upon a time, I was warned for simply posting a comment like "naval gazing" in an OP, which caused the poster to remove the thread. There was a big firestorm over that. And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted?
I don't know anything about your post that was deleted, but I remember Thanatos' and I didn't think it warranted that they should be deleted. You said something in your OP (about Mongrel or TimeLine?) that Thanatos felt was deserving of comment. You can't demand that he not address it, as you did.
There really is no left-wing conspiracy against right-winger posters, Agustino. Someone's political views have no bearing on our moderating decisions.
But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning.
No, you were too lenient in the sense that you let him misbehave as he wanted to for far too long. Not letting him misbehave = deleting his posts, warning him, etc. If you did do that, then there were certainly no visible effects. Of course, in the end, you had to ban him, as what he was doing was utterly ridiculous. The fact that you ultimately banned him doesn't mean you weren't biased though - you seem to think that because you banned him, that clearly shows you weren't biased. When things are that extreme, you're given little alternative, whether you like the poster and his/her views or not.
Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic
>:O >:O >:O - that's the exact contrary of my experience with him.
I don't know anything about your post that was deleted, but I remember Thanatos' and I didn't think it warranted that they should be deleted. You said something in your OP (about Mongrel or TimeLine?) that Thanatos felt was deserving of commenting. You can't demand that he not address it, as you did.
I remember being told when I was warned that I must follow the requirements of the OP - especially if the OP clarifies. I clearly did that in my own OP, and yet Thanatos did not relent.
Things were "extreme" in your view. Not in others', for example, Erik's.
When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree.
When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree.
Your disagreement is with Erik. I didn't comment on my view. I did ban him though. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
I remember being told when I was warned that I must follow the requirements of the OP - especially if the OP clarifies. I clearly did that in my own OP, and yet Thanatos did not relent.
As I said, I don't know anything about your case, but in the case of Thanatos I didn't think it deserving of deletion. It had nothing to do with him being left-wing (was he?).
It never ceases to amaze me why you people persist in these futile exhibitions on subjects that have no end. Everybody will have a different opinion; political, all too political I say.
On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent.
Like this?
Agustino:Pretty much THE common experience, considering the number of moronic women that exist out there... Smart women are a rare find bruv ... many women I can't tolerate for two seconds, much less for more >:O The brain the size of an almond ... :s But it's not just lack of intelligence... It's lack of intelligence combined with arrogance, pettiness, and pride that is the real problem. I've met some quite dumb women who were nevertheless enjoyable to be around simply because they were interesting people, who at least had some decency and humility.
There is content that is abhorrent and there are people who do not agree with what you write or have a different attitude to a particular subject. I have never complained and I too have admitted to making errors even against Agustino, but I do agree with him that there is a leftist swing to this forum.
I WANT some right-wing action so that I can use my superior rhetoric skills that has since lied dormant being here, like that character on the old forum who started that racism thread and I went wild for about a month with 180proof trying to destroy that man' argument. You lot are a bunch of wimps.
I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
According to your perspective, but of course, you are infallible?
:-} You should provide a context for that comment. But yes, most women and men for that matter aren't very intelligent, so you cannot discuss much about philosophy, science, religion, etc. with them. But the fact that they're dumb isn't the problem, it's being dumb mixed with arrogance, pettiness and pride that makes it problematic, since such people are usually highly opinionated, and frequently resort to violence of some kind or another, or otherwise attempts to manipulate others when things don't go their way. I've had friends (both men and women) who weren't very smart, but they didn't pretend to be either - like when the conversation would get to religion, philosophy and the like they'd just humbly say I don't know what to say, since they haven't thought much about those things. There's nothing wrong with that, that attitude is actually quite admirable. That's why I like spending time on a philosophy forum, since men and women here are more intelligent than the average - even though unfortunately they're not usually also humbler.
That's why I always tend to be very loyal and very close to my friends, who have good characters (most importantly) and are usually smarter than the average (by smarter I don't mean higher IQ necessarily, but rather they think about their life, etc. more than the average).
People change. They can progress, begin to doubt their opinions, maybe - as I myself have proven - felt ashamed or guilt for being rude. I sometimes feel terrible when I am writing jokes in the shoutbox because I hold myself to such a high standard in real life. It is called being human, making mistakes, thinking without thinking and just having fun.
If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? I think moderation is about managing content, not people, unless they are really extreme (do you remember that weird dude in the old forum who hung out in the banned section posting some of the most random stuff)? We all have different opinions and sometimes it can be really frustrating having to deal with them, but that is what makes discussions interesting.
I believe that if there is tension somewhere, there is a strategy not being used, where there is no compassion neither is there a humbleness where one remembers that they themselves can be just as bad as the next person.
Who knows, you could have possibly become friends with Thanatos.
For the record, I see now the JohnHarris stuff did go on more than a few days and I and others received a few PMs about him. I had forgotten some of the details. Doesn't change what I said though.
That's a laugh. The purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered responses by the mod team toward anyone who supported the right to own firearms in the recent gun control thread alone puts the lie to this suggestion.
If an innocuous joke like that is a case in point of the "bitter sarcasm" you object to then we're not going to change anything because the problem is in your interpretation not in the comment itself. (Mod or non-mod, a comment like that is acceptable.)
Reply to Baden The problem is that you've deleted posts, including my own posts, that have been similarly innocuous and yet patronizing little snipes like Michael's post above are paid no mind. Naturally, you agree with the sentiment, so why moderate them? But if an Emptyheady engages in sarcasm of a similar nature, you gullibly take the bait, interpret him literally, and permaban him. Ergo, inconsistency, as I said.
The problem is that you've deleted posts, including my own posts, that have been similarly innocuous and yet patronizing little snipes like Michael's post above are paid no mind. Naturally, you agree with the sentiment, so why moderate them?
No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted.
But if an Emptyheady engages in sarcasm of a similar nature, you gullibly take the bait, interpret him literally, and permaban him.
As much as I enjoy being reminded of ridding the site of a Nazi sympathizer, I'm not going to debate the banning of Spaceyskull again. We have completely different interpretations of events, so it's pointless.
No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted.
This is about the mods in general. You're welcome to peruse my history, but I don't keep a running list of deletions, so I can't point you to anything, although I did make a thread calling out jamal, I believe, for deleting something I wrote about postmodernism. And I've made numerous comments in the past directed to mods asking why certain posts were deleted. I think Sapientia might recall some of those interactions.
I'm right leaning, and to be honest, am likely less tolerant than other mods, meaning some behavior allowed now would not be allowed if I were king. The point being, if you're prone to misbehavior, which includes rabble rousing, you would want as few conservatives on your jury as possible.
I do realize the importance, however, in having a jury with diverse worldviews, but you are sadly mistaken if you think I'll be more prone to protect you if we both happen to have voted for the same idiot for president.
If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible?
Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility?
It just seems you're defining this board's purpose as aiming to provide psychological growth, which I can acknowledge might be a a tertiary byproduct, but not what I'd consider a primary goal. Regardless, interesting perspective.
Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility?
Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense). My position is that a moderator should only concern him/herself with content without any bias (including political or religious) so that we, as a community on a forum, can learn how to communicate without relying on our ego or getting offended by those who disagree or are different to us. Indeed, I believe that it can promote psychological growth because forums and philosophy or the argumentative process therewith enables others to learn how to articulate themselves better. Without people who have different opinions, how can anyone improve?
It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. - Ghost in a Shell (the actual anime, not that rubbish hollywood crap)
My job, as true king, is to shake confidence and prejudice to spur revaluation, and further deliberation. Certainty always returns, but displacing it, even briefly inspires some growth.
Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense).
And that's the problem with idealism: in practice, it just wouldn't work.
I've seen those other forums with less stringent standards. They're awful.
And I've made numerous comments in the past directed to mods asking why certain posts were deleted. I think Sapientia might recall some of those interactions.
Vaguely. In Feedback and The Shoutbox.
SophistiCatOctober 17, 2017 at 08:10#1158500 likes
I didn't vote. The options of "too strict" and "not strict enough" are too broad to be meaningful. Besides, since posts are deleted and edited stealthily, it is difficult to see how much moderation is actually taking place. I've seen some examples of questionable and petty moderation decisions, but for all I know those may have been exceptions.
Anyway, I've made my more specific complaint elsewhere.
That's a laugh. The purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered responses by the mod team toward anyone who supported the right to own firearms in the recent gun control thread alone puts the lie to this suggestion.
I wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. The mod team did not act as one in that discussion, and we don't all share the same views or manners. For instance I don't share the views espoused in the posts you refer to, although I can be a little ill-tempered at times.
Reply to jamalrob But is it not a fact that all moderators (with the exception of Hanover) are left-leaning (or leftists) and all moderators (including Hanover) are atheists? There seems to me to be some valid ways to lump all moderators together. In certain ways, you share a lot of similarities with each other in terms of worldview.
Reply to Agustino Maybe, although I seem to disagree with them as much as agree when it comes to politics. On many issues I'm often much more inclined to agree with, say, Hanover or Thorongil than with, say, Sapientia or Street. So if you class me as being on the Left along with them, you're obscuring some deep differences.
In any case, the Left is over-represented there probably because it's over-represented among those who are into philosophy (a point made many times before in discussions like this). I'd like to see more diversity in the mod team. Conservatives are welcome. Ranting alt-right maniacs, maybe less so.
Reply to Agustino The thing about the gun-control discussion is that I don't even see it as a left vs right issue at all. Conservatives in the UK seem to be as much in favour of gun control as Labour and the Liberal Democrats are.
Reply to Michael I think you're right that it's not left vs right. Some on the far Left are as supportive of the right to bear arms as American conservatives and libertarians, and not only in America.
Maybe, although I seem to disagree with them as much as agree when it comes to politics. On many issues I'm often much more inclined to agree with, say, Hanover or Thorongil than with, say, Sapientia or Street. So if you class me as being on the Left along with them, you're obscuring some deep differences.
There are differences of course, but your views all bear a certain family resemblance to each other on many issues (for example religion).
There are differences of course, but your views all bear a certain family resemblance to each other on many issues (for example religion).
I think our views on religion are probably quite diverse, although you could be right that we're all atheists. I'd be happy to have believers on the mod team, but they are few and far between.
I wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. The mod team did not act as one in that discussion, and we don't all share the same views or manners. For instance I don't share the views espoused in the posts you refer to, although I can be a little ill-tempered at times.
Sure. Fair enough. A generalized statement still admits of exceptions, and you are one of them, for you never commented in that thread, so please accept my apologies if you felt unjustly slighted by my comment. Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe.
I think you're right that it's not left vs right. Some on the far Left are as supportive of the right to bear arms as American conservatives and libertarians, and not only in America.
This is correct. I have known two college professors who are left wing in their politics but who enthusiastically collect guns. That being said, it is generally the left that wants to severely restrict them and/or ban them in the US.
Sure. Fair enough. A generalized statement still admits of exceptions, and you are one of them, for you never commented in that thread, so please accept my apologies if you felt unjustly slighted by my comment. Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe.
I've just gone through all my posts in that discussion. I can't find any of mine that are "purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered".
Also, Hanover didn't reply at all, and andrewk posted once in response to me, and it was a very congenial comment. So at best your generalization covers less than half the mod-team.
Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe.
The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts. The fact also is that members of the mod team have distinct personalities and post in accordance with them just like regular members. There's no special uniformity among the mod team that differs significantly from the community as a whole.
Reply to Michael Those three adjectives don't have to apply to every mod. "Ill-tempered" suits your "contributions" well enough. "But I wasn't ill-tempered," you will say. Well, I can't enter into your subjectivity to determine that, so I'm only giving you my impression. You seemed quite frustrated and agitated that people like me were, in your mind, standing athwart the perfectly diaphanous position to take on the issue, which is to severely restrict and/or ban all guns. One of the most common expressions for frustration and agitation is sarcasm, which you did clearly display in your terse, biting little comments.
The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" grade-school response. Well, at least you admit the former. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but this thread is about the mods, not Thorongil.
Those three adjectives don't have to apply to every mod. "Ill-tempered" suits your "contributions" well enough. "But I wasn't ill-tempered," you will say. Well, I can't enter into your subjectivity to determine that, so I'm only giving you my impression. You seemed quite frustrated and agitated that people like me were, in your mind, standing athwart the perfectly diaphanous position to take on the issue, which is to severely restrict and/or ban all guns. One of the most common expressions for frustration and agitation is sarcasm, which you did clearly display in your terse, biting little comments.
As far as I can see, I made two "terse, biting little comments":
Yes, because common sense. [In response to the OP]
I hate this term "leftist" that keeps getting thrown around. I much prefer the term "decent human being".
Note, incidentally, that neither were actually in response to someone arguing against gun control.
Is this really all that is required to irk you and inspire such criticism?
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" grade-school response
in response to me neutrally stating a fact?
That's just a very odd assessment in my view. And I realize the discussion is about mods but your case becomes much weaker when you continue to engage in the type of posting behaviour you criticize us for.
Reply to Michael I believe there were more such comments, but regardless, I see that you have now conceded the accusation I leveled against you and are now performing a rear guard maneuver to soften its impact. It's too late, though, for I've already completed my victory lap.
I see that you have now conceded the accusation I leveled against you and are now performing a rear guard maneuver to soften its impact. It's too late, though, for I've already completed my victory lap.
>:O >:O Your reddit username isn't about lemons for nothing no?
So Michael's joke about lemons was bitter sarcasm but this isn't?
So you acknowledge the initiating party. That's the crucial admission, in my mind, for as I said in that thread:
By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions in this thread have always been accompanied by an implicit wink and a nudge. You know that I know that you know that you don't really think I'm crazy. The idea is to make me respond in kind so as to entertain you. I've tried to stick to my position and the argument at hand, however, and not fall for the bait. This is why I say with complete sincerity that you haven't refuted anything I've said. I know what it looks like when someone knows they have me dead to rights. This thread is mostly shitposting and moral preening on the part of you and your mod buddies.
Perhaps I didn't fully succeed. I'm happy to admit that I was quite agitated myself that I was being deluged with such infantile nonsense.
They weren't bitter sarcasm. They were facetious. Much like my joke about bitter lemons.
Some of those adjectives were meant to apply to SLX's ornate contributions, which should have been obvious.
I would hazard a guess as to assume all of them were. Which, again, undermines your generalization about the mod-team (as already mentioned, given that at best it covers 3 of the 7).
Spot on. This is exactly how it felt interacting in the gun-control discussion which I can handle. What I cannot handle or will choose not to handle, is moderators who chose to interact in the discussion, addressing fellow members but non moderators in a condescending manner.
They weren't bitter sarcasm. They were facetious. Much like my joke about bitter lemons.
I didn't take it that way. Your remark was to call me a lame and crappy person, much as one would describe a car with the aforementioned word. If you had something more innocuous in mind, then you failed to understand the double entendre of your remark.
I would hazard a guess as to assume all of them were. Which, again, undermines your generalization about the mod-team (as already mentioned, given that at best it covers 3 of the 7).
You were all ill-tempered and bitter. In my view. In addition to that, some were also prone to hyperbole. Others still were trying very hard to artfully craft their disdain.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 17, 2017 at 14:30#1159490 likes
The fact also is that members of the mod team have distinct personalities and post in accordance with them just like regular members. There's no special uniformity among the mod team that differs significantly from the community as a whole.
I think this is what Benkei was trying to address in his post. There should be a higher standard for a moderator and an even higher standard for an administrator.
We should all just hug it out. We shouldn't be too lip biting, about views, evaluations, or even witticisms that personally amuse us. The thing is not a single comment by a single person, but the sense in which the, apparently entire staff gets together in a big high-fiving mocking spectacle at someone else's expense. Not so much any individual comment, one then feels outnumbered, and also being that they are the ones with all of the substantial powas, things feel totally imbalanced.
Not much anyone can do about you guys all agreeing, and expressing it, ideally there would be more diversity is the only answer, but lets not just pretend it isn't so by not expressing it as much, and keeping thoughts and feelings to ourselves.
Not so much any individual comment, one then feels outnumbered, and also being that they are the ones with all of the substantial powas, things feel totally imbalanced.
Yes, but when you're outnumbered you have to fight the demons all alone - don't you have practice handling all of us in the Shout Box? :P
The thing is not a single comment by a single person, but the sense in which the, apparently entire staff gets together in a big high-fiving mocking spectacle at someone else's expense. Not so much any individual comment, one then feels outnumbered, and also being that they are the ones with all of the substantial powas, things feel totally imbalanced.
Not much anyone can do about you guys all agreeing, and expressing it, ideally there would be more diversity is the only answer, but lets not just pretend it isn't so by not expressing it as much, and feeling thoughts and feelings to ourselves.
The thing is not a single comment by a single person, but the sense in which the, apparently entire staff gets together in a big high-fiving mocking spectacle at someone else's expense.
Apart from your "entire staff", I think this is a fair point, and I don't like to see it either.
Your remark was to call me a lame and crappy person, much as one would describe a car with the aforementioned word. If you had something more innocuous in mind, then you failed to understand the double entendre of your remark.
I understood the double entendre. That's why I said it. It was a joke, said in response to your claim that the moderators in that discussion were purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered.
I understood the double entendre. That's why I said it. It was a joke, said in response to your claim that the moderators in that discussion were purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered.
Right, so you did intend to call me a crappy person. Notice that you have attacked the man, and I have merely attempted to characterize certain posts.
Right, so you did intend to call me a crappy person.
I didn't intend to call you a crappy person. I intended to make a pun. You're taking it far too personally. I would have said the same thing even if you had never posted in that discussion at all.
I point it out when people start with that kind of stuff because it is kind of a big shrug. Not because I feel attacked, but because it isn't addressing the points or topic, so it is something of a conversation stopper. I can either just start playing the same sort of game, or bow-out. I do both things, depending on how I feel.
Oh, you didn't? Alright, Michael, I'll take your word for it. I can also apologize to you if any of my posts seemed to attack you as a person, as opposed to the posts you wrote.
But your admission only reinforces the point I made earlier in this thread:
I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
I agreed with the perspective point earlier in this discussion. I also think you tend to take things too personally or read too much into them at least some of the time, but I also acknowledge Wos made a fair point about that discussion.
I do think that Thoro is right though, and it totally is anti-intellectual to boot someone for their views, even if they are a Nazi. As long as they aren't being super constantly abusive, flooding the place with spam or something, I think that there should be free thought. I don't rule the place though, just around, but that is my view.
I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.
So can the mods now acknowledge this please?
Yes, it happens. If you find a post that you believe to be highly offensive dreck, whether by a mod or by a non-mod, then flag it. If another moderator agrees then they will delete it, if not then they won't. If you disagree with the decision then PM a mod or post a comment in the feedback.
I wonder if part of the problem here is that calling someone a "lemon" has different connotations in Britain than it does elsewhere. Here in the UK, it's more of an affectionate insult (like "cunt" is in Australia, I guess).
Really? I would have that thought that depends on how it's said. You can call someone a "bollocks" affectionately quite easily in Ireland, for example, but it depends on context. Calling someone a "lemon" would be like calling someone an "egg", pretty much neutral.
Reply to Baden Dunno, not Australian. Just heard it used in a friendly manner.
Perhaps "numpty" is a better example. It might mean "a stupid or ineffectual person", but I don't know anyone that would take offence to it. My mum would often call me a numpty when I did something silly as a kid.
Cabbage FarmerOctober 17, 2017 at 16:06#1160110 likes
Reply to Baden
I'd say the moderation is about right. It's hard to assess, since I'm unaware of most of the cases of censorship. Perhaps the moderators could maintain a record somewhere on the site, or collect exemplary borderline cases in an annual anthology.
I recall this site's predecessor had rules that gestured at the relevance of contemporary academic philosophy and the Western philosophical tradition for our community standards. If we have any rules like that here, I haven't seem them. The site guidelines are not very explicit. Nevertheless, I find conversation among us today more reasonable overall than conversation in that prior forum. I've often wondered if that's due in part to a shift in policies of moderation.
In philosophical conversation I aim to thoughtfully and carefully approach good sense and mutual understanding in a spirit of goodwill. To pursue that aim, I must limit my action far more narrowly than the raw principle of "free speech" would allow.
I expect the action of like-minded interlocutors is guided by a similar principle, no less than the action of moderators in a community of such interlocutors.
Perhaps it's easier to agree on the sort of behavior that belongs in a community like ours, than it is to agree on the sort of subject matter, or the sort of point of view, that belongs in a community like ours?
There is a record of all changes in fact although due to the software posters are not automatically notified, so it's understandably difficult to track what's happening re moderation for those who don't have access to that. Your post in any case is well expressed and certainly food for thought.
Perhaps it's easier to agree on the sort of behavior that belongs in a community like ours, than it is to agree on the sort of subject matter, or the sort of point of view, that belongs in a community like ours?
I agree that balancing how much free speech to allow while maintaining the character and integrity of the site is probably the biggest challenge here and one that posters on either side of the issue tend to get more animated about than general behavioural moderation.
Not sure where to post this, but I wanted to express my disapproval at TL becoming a mod, for whatever it's worth (which is likely nothing, I'm aware). I'm frankly shocked and would like an explanation, though I doubt the one I receive will consist of anything other than patronizing hand-wringing over my lodging this complaint.
She doesn't deserve being a mod, as she possesses even less fair-mindedness, civility, moral consistency, and knowledge of and willingness to engagement with actual philosophical topics than the present mod team. I discovered that in my recent interactions with her. She has great intolerance of those she disagrees with on social and political issues and mostly spends her time flirting with Hanover while haunting the Shoutbox. Why those attributes made someone think, "she'd make a great mod," is beyond me.
Why those attributes made someone think, "she'd make a great mod," is beyond me.
You forget an important one: she dislikes Agustino. First Hanover is made a mod, and now TimeLine. It's evident, if you want to become the next mod, you must express your hatred of Agustino publicly and vehemently >:O
And I agree with the rest of the post.
unenlightenedDecember 03, 2017 at 20:49#1296640 likes
They're just trying to replace the loss of yours truly. Inevitably this needs at least two of your normal assholes.
Well yeah, I have to say, I certainly felt safer with you there, at least you could be reasoned with. Though you do have a peculiar tendency to stop replying or not carry discussions through when you disagree.
unenlightenedDecember 03, 2017 at 20:57#1296690 likes
No, it's an explanation of why I do it. Discussions have to end, and most people like to have the last word. So rather than continue with endless nonsense, I stop. Except when I am very bored, and feel like indulging your desperate attention-seeking. Like now.
Discussions have to end, and most people like to have the last word. So rather than continue with endless nonsense, I stop. Except when I am very bored, and feel like indulging your desperate attention-seeking. Like now.
Yah, but it's kinda boring if they end, don't you think? >:)
unenlightenedDecember 03, 2017 at 21:16#1296780 likes
Comments (286)
You're a moderator, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, otherwise the polls will be skewed.
There are only a few moderators and we don't all share the same view.
No worries. If someone posts something controversial, I'll delete it.
X-)
8-)
Edited by Hanover.
You're confusing use and mention.
Same thing.
Is that controversial?
Heretic!
It's good though.
I am not sure my two cents fits in one of the three options but I miss the productive kind of moderation that administrators showed in thread, rather than getting into the fray of personas. Examples being Postmodern Beatnik and Incision. It isn't so much about what they were moderating but the tone and tenor in which they approached moderation was respectful.
~shrugs~
@Postmodern Beatnik helped us out for a while and was great. I didn't get to know Incision that well. I'll take your word for it though.
A more interesting question would be, 'what are you trying to do on the site?'
What are you trying to do on this site?
I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding. Accordingly, my moderation priorities are directed towards filtering sense from nonsense, and kindness from unkindness, more so than spelling from mis-spelling, philosophy from non-philosophy, educated from ignorant.
If one was setting out to produce an archive of interesting dialogues, say, one's moderating priorities might be different. And that initial aim is where differences between too strict and not strict enough start to bite: strict enough for what purpose and in what direction?
Sounds like you have been hanging out with a friend of mine. 8-)
I want to emphasize that the moderation at this forum-website is the best that I've encountered anywhere.
I've been to a lot of forum-websites, most of which have moderation. At all the moderated forums I've been to, other than this one, there are moderators who use their authority to win arguments that they start... using their authority in violation of the forum's stated rules and policies. When that happens, the administrators at those websites always support the moderator. Needless to say, I didn't stay at those forums.
In an extreme instance, my life was threatened by a "moderator" at a spiritual forum.
I was once at a forum that didn't have any moderation, and the behavior was abominable. Partly because of no moderation, but of course partly because of the people there.
Michael Ossipoff
Okay, so in practice, what would you actually do differently than now? Don't get me wrong these are all nice words and all, but it's at a very general level. What are your actual proposals?
If you have watched unenlightened for any amount of time you would know HE is the proposal. Though he would never in a million years agree with me or dare admit it to himself.
>:O - well I actually do know that, that's precisely why I've asked him the question >:) .
How's that going for you?
So I'll think I'll just say "strict" or "too strict" is too reductive to give a proper answer to.
It is not the moderation that is the problem. It is the moderators code of conduct. In a great site like this one where you attract a lot of people with a lot of ideas and different ways of expressing those ideas, I would expect moderators to conduct themselves with a degree of decorum. I would expect that the way they interact with members is respectful. In the recent case of the deletion of my post it was neither of these things.
To begin with, when you delete someones work, you are erasing their effort and thought. If their submission attempt was genuine you can expect pushback- there is a seed of an idea or question in there and perhaps they didn't get it out. When you conduct such a deletion without even informing the poster that you have done it or the reasons why you have done it that is arrogant,volunteer or not.
It takes a minute or two to send a message saying something along the lines of, I couldn't quite follow the thread, people may find it confusing, please tidy up the idea and repost. Happy hunting! That would be constructive and give direction. To say the volunteers don't have time is a mistruth. They had time to read the OP and to delete it and to comment on other OPs as participants.
Instead of receiving such a message, I had to take it to the common gallery where you had Michael come in declaring it bizarre armchair science that was making wild speculative claims, demanding I be an expert in the field, then supported by Sapientia demanding I have a PhD to post anything and that my knowledge on the subject was not even adequate - who then followed me into another OP and continued the attack.
And yet, when I touched it up only a small bit and reposted it turned out that what I had said was in line with what standard cosmology agrees upon. I then went on to have a deep and meaningful discussion on the issue, that I challenge the moderators to read.
Then, the next day, when someone posts a thread singling out another member by name and attacking him, rather than telling that person to beat it or at least to tone it down, the moderators agree with him, grumble about the discussion they had with me - actually redirect him to that discussion in hope of winning an ally, then within about 2 minutes of that discussion run off and create this poll.
I feel this is very poor conduct. Which is a pity for such a great site.
And that's your impartial assessment of how the situation unfolded, is it? Quite preposterous.
What? I should not have called attention to the one-sided and misleading nature of your account of the events?
I think the site is doing well to find this balance you mention above and no doubt sometimes mistakes are made in ascertaining the correct application of this filter, but I believe each of you are willing to listen and that is the first and most important aspect to moderation and shows a sense of being humble that I respect. This thread is an example of that.
In saying that, each of you have a level of expertise that differentiate and I think that it is important to close those existing gaps by pulling more focus on this expertise. The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it.
It is not poor conduct. If you think you are a wonderful musician but you sound like a damaged trumpet, having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need.
The main problems were that it would be less responsive - are we supposed to wait and see? - and pose a risk of causing a greater problem further down the line, due to inaction - the problem can multiply in correspondence with the number of respondents if they're all at risk of having their replies deleted along with the discussion as a whole.
With regards to sending a message [i]after[/I] deletion, most of us - myself included - were in agreement that it's not always necessary or warranted, but it's preferable, and is something we ought to do in most cases, and actually do do in many cases. Only one member of staff disagreed, with the reason being that members have recourse to the feedback forum, or can contact us directly, for any such queries or complaints.
Read the OP
This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.
Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.
If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat.
The question you pose is delivered in a passive aggressive way, isn't it?
The "Quite preposterous" is not something that I would expect to read from a member who is a moderator. A moderator could rise above that kind of 'noise' or as I have said before stop putting out "tainted meat".
It's a criticism made in the form of a rhetorical question. Does that make it passive-aggressive? I could have been more direct by simply stating my criticism, as I did subsequently. Does that make it aggressive-aggressive? The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Why would I refrain - or feel that I ought to refrain - from honestly expressing myself in such an inoffensive way? I'll rise above your expectation that I conform with your personal standard where it conflicts with my own. Your standard seems to largely consist in favouritism, and I've clearly fallen out of your favour as of late. I'm sorry that I'm not as saintly as unenlightened or Apathy Kills, but at least I'm true to myself.
Thank you very much to all the moderators who take the time to keep this place as spam and troll free as it is!
This is indeed an apt analogy. Another question that it suggests would be: "Which fellow participant should we eat next?"
Sapientia, rest easy that I have no "expectations" of you. The title of the thread is Moderation Standards, meaning it is about how others view the degree of moderation, not one moderator specifically.
I didn't agree with @SophistiCat and then "run off" and make a poll, but, of course, I didn't tell him to "beat" it either. He's entitled to complain and you're entitled to disagree. Other mods are also free to agree or disagree with either side. It's disappointing that you feel unfairly treated but there is no evidence you were in my view.
Let the TPF Hunger Games begin!
Thank you, Michael.
To communicate with people like yourself, on subjects more-or-less philosophical.
Quoting unenlightened
Yikes! I take back my words :P
Yeah, that's basically my concern. @Bitter Crank made light of the way I had put it elsewhere, but I don't think that my stance is ridiculous. If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem.
Well, you do by implication, as I am of course a moderator. Unless you've retracted your previous comment. You chose to single me out and make an example of me. All of which I have no problem with. I can handle criticism, and the whole purpose of this discussion is to give feedback about moderation.
This is just golden. :D I quite literally could not stop laughing. I love you, man.
It was provocative, impolite, and unnecessary.
I am glad I made your day. Your reply is another sample of your worth.
Did you give them a reason to stay with the quality of your posts, or is it so much easier to look for a scapegoat and avoid looking at your own shortcomings?
edit: I have been a member less than 3 weeks. What about you and your Friends?
Quoting Agustino
My moderating practice has been on display for long enough. I'm really more interested in what other people think they are doing.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control.
Quoting Hanover
You still here? Not very well I'm afraid. :p
I would prefer a very good diagnosis, and not mere prejudice.
Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.
Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.
I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.
Always happy to facilitate a little learning.
Amen, brother. Sometimes even we saints find ourselves in a situation where frankness is incompatible with moderation. Bite tongue, deep breath, count to ten, or possibly more.
Well I'm actually not very sure what your moderating practice is. To say it's been on display for long enough is an obfuscation because I clearly am not aware which moderating decisions were yours and which weren't yours, but rather belonged to what other moderators wanted to see.
My diagnosis is that you are spouting nonsense. One cannot argue with nonsense or present evidence against it. I am totally sympathetic to your desire for engagement, but I am not going to indulge you. But my prejudice is not 'mere'; it is considered, authoritative, and no doubt painful to receive.
It's best to just use your senses and figure it out for yourself. It is thusly.
Yes, and you are full of it.
Fair criticism and solid advice.
Why don't you come out of your safe anonymity as a moderator and criticize my empirical objections with your authoritative arguments?
I will concede to you that you do not make a single chance of convincing me if you stick to the same strategy of simply exposing the accepted theory of light.
But I am certainly willing to take arguments seriously which can show that the pictures I take and the interpretations I give are undefendable. Even for me, stubbornness can only get you so far.
So, dear @unenlightened, put up or shut up.
.
1. I am not a moderator.
2. I have no arguments, it is my prejudice that is authoritative.
3. I'll shut up now, thanks.
My bad.
It does not make me respect you more though.
Well if that was your intention it would have been very easy not to make this about yourself simply by answering the original question. You didn't, so this kept (and still keeps) being about you.
Tell us something about yourself.
About me, eh? There is the coffee table that my laptop is on, and my phone, also the cat. There's a hoodie over there.
And how do you feel about all that?
edit: I meant, about what you said, Not the polemic. unclear humor I'm afraid.
My feelings are of two kinds, the sensory, bodily, and the linguistic. I feel pretty good physically, think I might do some exercising soon, haven't decided if I want to be sore tomorrow or not yet though. The linguistic is extremely difficult to pin down, as it is like a flowing river of turbulence depending on the stream of consciousness, and how things are being framed.
Thank you for sharing, Wosret.
Anybody else?
Sharing is caring.
sure is.
My first ever essay in politics a long time ago was a D- covered in red ink aggressively scribbled by my lecturer. I got A's and B's ever since. If you think it is emotionally distressing for someone to be told that their post lacks quality then you have clearly led a sheltered virtual life. There perhaps needs to be strategies enforced to ensure moderation processes without loopholes, such as sending a PM each time a post is deleted to avoid any follow-up posts questioning why, or in the case of the Phil. Sci a discussion amongst yourselves whether the content is worth it and coming to a majority agreement, but in the end it is your obligation and expertise to remind those unable to articulate themselves that they should work a little harder. Sometimes a slap across the face does the trick.
Quoting Hachem
There there, no need to be so upset. (L)
[hide="Reveal"]
beautiful baby. Is that your kid?
I understand now why you are so worried about the state of science and the way it is treated in this forum.
I think now would be a good time to close this thread.
It's not even that (@jamalrob excepted). We're just volunteer security guards.
Maybe. Although I was hoping "Love Story" would be showing next.
As long as it's not teachers, I'm good with it.
Well, at least I can be confident that you guys are unarmed.
I don't know Teachers. Care to elaborate?
Aha. Proof that Hachem ain't had no education.
Exile? Give me death!
I shamefully admit I did not finish my Phd in Philosophy.
Is that an instruction? :)
It's a demand, but I'm wiry.
I didn't begin mine, but I'm more like a rogue scholar. :D
You remind me of the "rogue demon hunter" in Angel, or was it Buffy? You know, the English guy.
I don't know, and I take pride in not knowing.
Wesley Wyndam-Pryce. He was in both, although it wasn't until Angel that he called himself a rogue demon hunter.
He became quite the bad-ass.
Right! That's the guy!
Yeah, love them both too.
You think we could open a thread about the question whether vampires can exist?
Actually, they all are. It's just a great show.
Yeah, fo-sho, she can magic your skin right off.
I'm not aware of that one, but sounds like it's something I'd like.
Preposterous!
My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative.
The old site had automated notifications that identified the mod, the action, and a generic reason. It would be a real pain to have to do that by hand every time one deleted an inappropriate comment on the off chance that someone wants to argue the case. One of many benefits of Paul's software.
You're right, I left that out....provocative, impolite, unnecessary, and preposterous.
Amen.
What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.
I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.
Fine, next time I will count to ten [I]and then[/I] be provocative, impolite, and unnecessary.
But, in all seriousness, I'm listening and taking on board. (Otherwise what hope will I have of reaching sainthood?).
You're doing it wrong. Just pick a few replies at random, then tell them that you're listening to what they have to say and promise to take it on board.
Thank you for listening.
You're welcome.
(See, @Hanover? Works like a charm. ;) )
That is correct. But it did come with some disadvantages, Paul's software that is (think here mainly of security).
Never mind. Probably best left unexplained. My motherboard would be appalled.
Not so. People who think it is too strict tend to get banned, and people who think it is too lax tend to get bored. Natural selection ensures that most people are happy whatever the regime. In the old place we had an unmoderated section, where people who were happiest with no moderation could be happy. I'm thinking of setting up a special forum where everyone is banned, for the really exclusive among us.
This is genius :B
The Socrates & Plato Show wasn't a soap opera?
I like the drawing.
This I agree with. The Mods most certainly have biases and act based upon them. It's inevitable.
I specifically haven't noticed (pace Thorongil) the biases of those in charge of this forum having much of an impact on their moderating decisions, whether it be deleting posts and/or banning members. Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own.
On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent.
But again, Thorongil frequents this place much more than I do, and I respect his judgement, so I'll assume I've missed some relevant happenings on this front. I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable.
This time I think he was banned because he changed his writing style--neglecting capitals at the beginning of sentences and so on--and point blank refused to change it back. It wouldn't have been fair to make an exception just because he was an exceptionally good contributor.
Ironically, Thanatos was banned after a complaint about him by a member who afterwards left in protest at our moderation. Go figure. TGW was banned for refusing moderation (see above). He is a loss, but the fact that accepting to abide by the site guidelines is a prerequisite for being a member here should be a no-brainer. Also, some of our most vociferous complainants are among our least-moderated members. There may be legitimate grievances, of course, but sometimes there is a lack of nuance in complaints that makes them difficult to address.
Some people openly admit to totalitarianism :B
I was hoping to quietly ignore that one. In all seriousness though, it's a fair and honest opinion. I don't agree as I appreciated the option of feedback when I was a member at old PF even though I understand that feedback discussions can often be counter-productive.
Anyhow more respect earned for your integrity in not making exceptions to the rules, even for high quality contributors like TGW. I've become a stickler in my old(er) age when it comes to the importance of promulgating rules and expectations and then abiding by them impartially.
Thanatos Sand was insufferable, and that's one of the instances where the mods were entirely inconsistent and biased. If anyone with right-wing views was like Thanatos, he wouldn't have lasted even 2 days. And yet Thanatos was going for weeks, strawmanning, interrupting discussions, insulting, jettisoning threads etc. - nothing was done about him. I alone reported his behaviour to different mods several times.
I banned him just a couple of days after being alerted to his behaviour and giving him a warning, so I don't think that's a fair assessment.
I've alerted some of the mods many times before. And I'm sure many others flagged his posts... I don't remember if I ever contacted you personally about him.
Along with his many flaws, I think he had a couple very good character traits that I found admirable and rare.
Speaking for myself, I rarely delete sarcasm. As well as that, posters themselves may delete their own posts. So, you need to give a more specific example/examples.
Quoting Thorongil
The mods in general are anything but bitter. There is quite a bit of sarcasm though, mostly intended to be humorous as far as I can see.
Quoting Thorongil
What's "offensive dreck" does depend on perspective to a degree, I agree.
I think you did. I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes. As I said, I banned him within a few days of being alerted to his behaviour. And not everyone (as you can see from Erik's post) would even agree that he should be banned. And his political views were irrelevant. What got him banned was the complaints plus the fact that he didn't heed the warning he was given.
Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him.
Quoting Baden
No, I didn't want you to ban him, I wanted you to do what was necessary to get him to behave like a civilized human being, and for many weeks I noticed that nothing was changing in his behaviour.
I've checked and I can't find any message from you about him actually. Also, I've just told you I warned him. He was also moderated in other ways. Failing to heed the warnings, he was banned. But I don't know what you want from us. Now we were too strict on him for banning him? How do you suggest we force people to be civilized without the possibility of a ban?
No, obviously if he didn't heed the warnings you had no other choice. My point was that I think it was inconsistent because if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner.
And guess what? His posts were still there after that :s
Quoting Agustino
So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned and you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint appears to be? Let me repeat, there were a couple of complaints, then he got a warning and was banned all within a few days. To accuse us of being biased in his favour is unsupportable.
It's possible the moderator was online but not actually at his computer at the time or that he disagreed with you. That we don't always do things exactly as you want does not make us biased against you, and certainly not biased against you on the basis that you are a right-winger. I would appreciate it if you and others would realize that.
I complained about the leniency that was shown to him, and that it shows bias because his views were in agreement with the moderators, who wouldn't have treated someone with opposing views in the same way. Really, this wouldn't be such a problem if the moderator team wasn't heavily leaning towards the left and atheism by default.
Once upon a time, I was warned for simply posting a comment like "naval gazing" in an OP, which caused the poster to remove the thread. There was a big firestorm over that. And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted?
You didn't want him banned yet we banned him. But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning. OK, let's leave it at that. Your complaint is duly noted.
Just to note, I can't answer to this specific issue because I wasn't the moderator involved.
Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic. IMO this isn't always an easy thing to do, and those hard feelings can linger on and make us extremely uncharitable towards these perceived personal adversaries after some initial hostility has commenced. I'll include myself in this petty and vindictive group.
I also noticed a related generosity of soul in Sand on occasion in his dealings with others, along with a certain sincerity that came out every so often. I may not be articulating this well, and as mentioned he did have many flaws (e.g. his annoying tendency to cut people off from further debate and to engage in petty insults), but I do believe he was a decent guy whose intent was more playful than malicious. Just my impression, of course, and I may have been entirely wrong about him.
He was actually quite reasonable in our interaction by PM, but he was given a warning and repeated the same behaviour again, so that, added to the litany of complaints, made the banning warranted in my view.
I don't know anything about your post that was deleted, but I remember Thanatos' and I didn't think it warranted that they should be deleted. You said something in your OP (about Mongrel or TimeLine?) that Thanatos felt was deserving of comment. You can't demand that he not address it, as you did.
There really is no left-wing conspiracy against right-winger posters, Agustino. Someone's political views have no bearing on our moderating decisions.
No, you were too lenient in the sense that you let him misbehave as he wanted to for far too long. Not letting him misbehave = deleting his posts, warning him, etc. If you did do that, then there were certainly no visible effects. Of course, in the end, you had to ban him, as what he was doing was utterly ridiculous. The fact that you ultimately banned him doesn't mean you weren't biased though - you seem to think that because you banned him, that clearly shows you weren't biased. When things are that extreme, you're given little alternative, whether you like the poster and his/her views or not.
>:O >:O >:O - that's the exact contrary of my experience with him.
Quoting Erik
Yeah, that's probably true.
Things were "extreme" in your view. Not in others', for example, Erik's. Anyway, as I said, your complaint is duly noted.
I remember being told when I was warned that I must follow the requirements of the OP - especially if the OP clarifies. I clearly did that in my own OP, and yet Thanatos did not relent.
Quoting Baden
When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree.
Quoting Michael
Thanatos is John Harris :-} - you don't know that?
Your disagreement is with Erik. I didn't comment on my view. I did ban him though. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
As I said, I don't know anything about your case, but in the case of Thanatos I didn't think it deserving of deletion. It had nothing to do with him being left-wing (was he?).
Quoting Agustino
If I did I've since forgot.
Quoting Erik
Like this?
There is content that is abhorrent and there are people who do not agree with what you write or have a different attitude to a particular subject. I have never complained and I too have admitted to making errors even against Agustino, but I do agree with him that there is a leftist swing to this forum.
I WANT some right-wing action so that I can use my superior rhetoric skills that has since lied dormant being here, like that character on the old forum who started that racism thread and I went wild for about a month with 180proof trying to destroy that man' argument. You lot are a bunch of wimps.
Quoting Thorongil
According to your perspective, but of course, you are infallible?
:-} You should provide a context for that comment. But yes, most women and men for that matter aren't very intelligent, so you cannot discuss much about philosophy, science, religion, etc. with them. But the fact that they're dumb isn't the problem, it's being dumb mixed with arrogance, pettiness and pride that makes it problematic, since such people are usually highly opinionated, and frequently resort to violence of some kind or another, or otherwise attempts to manipulate others when things don't go their way. I've had friends (both men and women) who weren't very smart, but they didn't pretend to be either - like when the conversation would get to religion, philosophy and the like they'd just humbly say I don't know what to say, since they haven't thought much about those things. There's nothing wrong with that, that attitude is actually quite admirable. That's why I like spending time on a philosophy forum, since men and women here are more intelligent than the average - even though unfortunately they're not usually also humbler.
That's why I always tend to be very loyal and very close to my friends, who have good characters (most importantly) and are usually smarter than the average (by smarter I don't mean higher IQ necessarily, but rather they think about their life, etc. more than the average).
People change. They can progress, begin to doubt their opinions, maybe - as I myself have proven - felt ashamed or guilt for being rude. I sometimes feel terrible when I am writing jokes in the shoutbox because I hold myself to such a high standard in real life. It is called being human, making mistakes, thinking without thinking and just having fun.
If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? I think moderation is about managing content, not people, unless they are really extreme (do you remember that weird dude in the old forum who hung out in the banned section posting some of the most random stuff)? We all have different opinions and sometimes it can be really frustrating having to deal with them, but that is what makes discussions interesting.
I believe that if there is tension somewhere, there is a strategy not being used, where there is no compassion neither is there a humbleness where one remembers that they themselves can be just as bad as the next person.
Who knows, you could have possibly become friends with Thanatos.
No, and that's my point. No one is, including the mods.
That's a laugh. The purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered responses by the mod team toward anyone who supported the right to own firearms in the recent gun control thread alone puts the lie to this suggestion.
If an innocuous joke like that is a case in point of the "bitter sarcasm" you object to then we're not going to change anything because the problem is in your interpretation not in the comment itself. (Mod or non-mod, a comment like that is acceptable.)
No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted.
Quoting Thorongil
As much as I enjoy being reminded of ridding the site of a Nazi sympathizer, I'm not going to debate the banning of Spaceyskull again. We have completely different interpretations of events, so it's pointless.
This is about the mods in general. You're welcome to peruse my history, but I don't keep a running list of deletions, so I can't point you to anything, although I did make a thread calling out jamal, I believe, for deleting something I wrote about postmodernism. And I've made numerous comments in the past directed to mods asking why certain posts were deleted. I think Sapientia might recall some of those interactions.
Quoting Baden
Still gullible!
I do realize the importance, however, in having a jury with diverse worldviews, but you are sadly mistaken if you think I'll be more prone to protect you if we both happen to have voted for the same idiot for president.
Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility?
It just seems you're defining this board's purpose as aiming to provide psychological growth, which I can acknowledge might be a a tertiary byproduct, but not what I'd consider a primary goal. Regardless, interesting perspective.
Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense). My position is that a moderator should only concern him/herself with content without any bias (including political or religious) so that we, as a community on a forum, can learn how to communicate without relying on our ego or getting offended by those who disagree or are different to us. Indeed, I believe that it can promote psychological growth because forums and philosophy or the argumentative process therewith enables others to learn how to articulate themselves better. Without people who have different opinions, how can anyone improve?
And that's the problem with idealism: in practice, it just wouldn't work.
I've seen those other forums with less stringent standards. They're awful.
Vaguely. In Feedback and The Shoutbox.
Anyway, I've made my more specific complaint elsewhere.
I wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. The mod team did not act as one in that discussion, and we don't all share the same views or manners. For instance I don't share the views espoused in the posts you refer to, although I can be a little ill-tempered at times.
In any case, the Left is over-represented there probably because it's over-represented among those who are into philosophy (a point made many times before in discussions like this). I'd like to see more diversity in the mod team. Conservatives are welcome. Ranting alt-right maniacs, maybe less so.
To me, it's an American vs non-American issue.
There are differences of course, but your views all bear a certain family resemblance to each other on many issues (for example religion).
Quoting jamalrob
You could always get someone like Mariner, or Thorongil on the mod team then.
Quoting jamalrob
I haven't met any of those on this site yet.
I think our views on religion are probably quite diverse, although you could be right that we're all atheists. I'd be happy to have believers on the mod team, but they are few and far between.
Sure. Fair enough. A generalized statement still admits of exceptions, and you are one of them, for you never commented in that thread, so please accept my apologies if you felt unjustly slighted by my comment. Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe.
Quoting jamalrob
This is correct. I have known two college professors who are left wing in their politics but who enthusiastically collect guns. That being said, it is generally the left that wants to severely restrict them and/or ban them in the US.
I've just gone through all my posts in that discussion. I can't find any of mine that are "purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered".
Also, Hanover didn't reply at all, and andrewk posted once in response to me, and it was a very congenial comment. So at best your generalization covers less than half the mod-team.
The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts. The fact also is that members of the mod team have distinct personalities and post in accordance with them just like regular members. There's no special uniformity among the mod team that differs significantly from the community as a whole.
If Thorongil's standard for that accusation includes this:
Quoting Michael
as a case in point, as he has claimed, it could include almost any joke or negative comment aimed at him, so it may actually include some of yours.
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" grade-school response. Well, at least you admit the former. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but this thread is about the mods, not Thorongil.
That was a case in point about the bitter sarcasm.
As far as I can see, I made two "terse, biting little comments":
Note, incidentally, that neither were actually in response to someone arguing against gun control.
Is this really all that is required to irk you and inspire such criticism?
Some of my comments were quite biting, which is not unusual for me but they were mixed in tone. and in the end conciliatory.
Quoting Thorongil
So @Michael's joke about lemons was bitter sarcasm but this isn't?
Quoting Thorongil
in response to me neutrally stating a fact?
That's just a very odd assessment in my view. And I realize the discussion is about mods but your case becomes much weaker when you continue to engage in the type of posting behaviour you criticize us for.
I haven't. None of my comments were purple-prosed, hyperbolic, or ill-tempered. Neither was andrewk's. jamalrob and Hanover didn't post.
So, again, at best your generalization covers less than half the mod-team.
It seems to me that it is in fact your criticism that is purple-prosed, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered.
Quoting Thorongil
>:O >:O Your reddit username isn't about lemons for nothing no?
So you acknowledge the initiating party. That's the crucial admission, in my mind, for as I said in that thread:
Perhaps I didn't fully succeed. I'm happy to admit that I was quite agitated myself that I was being deluged with such infantile nonsense.
But they were bitterly sarcastic. Some of those adjectives were meant to apply to SLX's ornate contributions, which should have been obvious.
They weren't bitter sarcasm. They were facetious. Much like my joke about bitter lemons.
I would hazard a guess as to assume all of them were. Which, again, undermines your generalization about the mod-team (as already mentioned, given that at best it covers 3 of the 7).
@Michael's joke was a joke, and not intended to initiate anything in my view.
Spot on. This is exactly how it felt interacting in the gun-control discussion which I can handle. What I cannot handle or will choose not to handle, is moderators who chose to interact in the discussion, addressing fellow members but non moderators in a condescending manner.
I didn't take it that way. Your remark was to call me a lame and crappy person, much as one would describe a car with the aforementioned word. If you had something more innocuous in mind, then you failed to understand the double entendre of your remark.
Quoting Michael
You were all ill-tempered and bitter. In my view. In addition to that, some were also prone to hyperbole. Others still were trying very hard to artfully craft their disdain.
I think this is what Benkei was trying to address in his post. There should be a higher standard for a moderator and an even higher standard for an administrator.
Not according to this poll.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1403/poll-religious-adherence-on-this-forum/p1
19/52 (37%) religious, with 13 of those Christian.
Yes, Mitch sometimes tries to impersonate Bitter Crank, but sadly not very successfully.
Not much anyone can do about you guys all agreeing, and expressing it, ideally there would be more diversity is the only answer, but lets not just pretend it isn't so by not expressing it as much, and keeping thoughts and feelings to ourselves.
Yes, but when you're outnumbered you have to fight the demons all alone - don't you have practice handling all of us in the Shout Box? :P
It wasn't a conscious decision that there were several staff members in that discussion but I do take your point on that, Wos.
Oh, I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about how I think someone that doesn't always win feels.
Oh. I see now. X-)
Well Thank you for putting into words how I felt.
Can you handle many demons at once? X-) >:)
Apart from your "entire staff", I think this is a fair point, and I don't like to see it either.
He's got a trident, a snake, and a little man in his fro. I'd say he's up to the task.
Are you coming on to me?
I qualified with "apparently", I read your objections, but also Thoro's response to it.
Yes, but no lemons. Can't handle demons without lemons ;)
Quoting Wosret
No, no, I have no fascination with my rivals >:)
I understood the double entendre. That's why I said it. It was a joke, said in response to your claim that the moderators in that discussion were purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered.
Glad to be of service. :D
Right, so you did intend to call me a crappy person. Notice that you have attacked the man, and I have merely attempted to characterize certain posts.
I didn't intend to call you a crappy person. I intended to make a pun. You're taking it far too personally. I would have said the same thing even if you had never posted in that discussion at all.
That's why we love you.
Oh, you didn't? Alright, Michael, I'll take your word for it. I can also apologize to you if any of my posts seemed to attack you as a person, as opposed to the posts you wrote.
But your admission only reinforces the point I made earlier in this thread:
So can the mods now acknowledge this please?
Wos is getting a lot of affection today from all sides >:O
Don't be ashamed of your undying love for me. Sing it from the rooftops.
I'll do a duet with Agu as long as we don't have to hold hands. :P
I agreed with the perspective point earlier in this discussion. I also think you tend to take things too personally or read too much into them at least some of the time, but I also acknowledge Wos made a fair point about that discussion.
Yes, it happens. If you find a post that you believe to be highly offensive dreck, whether by a mod or by a non-mod, then flag it. If another moderator agrees then they will delete it, if not then they won't. If you disagree with the decision then PM a mod or post a comment in the feedback.
(Y)
It wasn't bitter. It was lighthearted. You're reading the former into it.
Really? I would have that thought that depends on how it's said. You can call someone a "bollocks" affectionately quite easily in Ireland, for example, but it depends on context. Calling someone a "lemon" would be like calling someone an "egg", pretty much neutral.
Perhaps "numpty" is a better example. It might mean "a stupid or ineffectual person", but I don't know anyone that would take offence to it. My mum would often call me a numpty when I did something silly as a kid.
Ah go on, ya bollocks, really?
I'm not talking bollocks, you numpty.
Oh, bollocks! :(
I'd say the moderation is about right. It's hard to assess, since I'm unaware of most of the cases of censorship. Perhaps the moderators could maintain a record somewhere on the site, or collect exemplary borderline cases in an annual anthology.
I recall this site's predecessor had rules that gestured at the relevance of contemporary academic philosophy and the Western philosophical tradition for our community standards. If we have any rules like that here, I haven't seem them. The site guidelines are not very explicit. Nevertheless, I find conversation among us today more reasonable overall than conversation in that prior forum. I've often wondered if that's due in part to a shift in policies of moderation.
In philosophical conversation I aim to thoughtfully and carefully approach good sense and mutual understanding in a spirit of goodwill. To pursue that aim, I must limit my action far more narrowly than the raw principle of "free speech" would allow.
I expect the action of like-minded interlocutors is guided by a similar principle, no less than the action of moderators in a community of such interlocutors.
Perhaps it's easier to agree on the sort of behavior that belongs in a community like ours, than it is to agree on the sort of subject matter, or the sort of point of view, that belongs in a community like ours?
You called me that once, I had to look it up.
I can only hope that I have added to your store of wisdom, good sir.
There is a record of all changes in fact although due to the software posters are not automatically notified, so it's understandably difficult to track what's happening re moderation for those who don't have access to that. Your post in any case is well expressed and certainly food for thought.
I felt like:
Lol.
I agree that balancing how much free speech to allow while maintaining the character and integrity of the site is probably the biggest challenge here and one that posters on either side of the issue tend to get more animated about than general behavioural moderation.
Well, I can't speak for Michael, but I always express my bitter sarcasm lightheartedly.
She doesn't deserve being a mod, as she possesses even less fair-mindedness, civility, moral consistency, and knowledge of and willingness to engagement with actual philosophical topics than the present mod team. I discovered that in my recent interactions with her. She has great intolerance of those she disagrees with on social and political issues and mostly spends her time flirting with Hanover while haunting the Shoutbox. Why those attributes made someone think, "she'd make a great mod," is beyond me.
You forget an important one: she dislikes Agustino. First Hanover is made a mod, and now TimeLine. It's evident, if you want to become the next mod, you must express your hatred of Agustino publicly and vehemently >:O
And I agree with the rest of the post.
They're just trying to replace the loss of yours truly. Inevitably this needs at least two of your normal assholes.
Well yeah, I have to say, I certainly felt safer with you there, at least you could be reasoned with. Though you do have a peculiar tendency to stop replying or not carry discussions through when you disagree.
Quoting unenlightened
Does that mean you disagree? >:O
No, it's an explanation of why I do it. Discussions have to end, and most people like to have the last word. So rather than continue with endless nonsense, I stop. Except when I am very bored, and feel like indulging your desperate attention-seeking. Like now.
Yah, but it's kinda boring if they end, don't you think? >:)